Open main menu

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/September 2014

< 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

September 30Edit


RD: Jerrie MockEdit

Article: Jerrie Mock (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Columbus Dispatch

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

Nominator's comments: She was the first woman to fly solo around the world, this seems to establish her as being at or near the top of her field (her field being female aviators). --Jinkinson talk to me 16:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment the "awards and honors" section has an orange unsourced tag. I've updated the tense in a couple of places in the article but I've run out of time to check if I got them all. Thryduulf (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose flying around the world is an arbitrary stunt. Anybody know without looking who was the first man to do so? μηδείς (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I think she meets DC2. I would disagree with calling it an "arbitrary stunt"; Amelia Earhart, Valentina Tereshkova, and Sally Ride were not performing "arbitrary stunts". There was a genuine belief at the time that women could not do those things. 331dot (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support but only if the article is improved with references. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Just wanted to add I agree with TRM that improvement in references is needed. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Definitely notable enough - but as stated, references need a lot of TLC. Challenger l (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Not impressed with aviation "round the world" record claims. Those aiming for it are not required to cross the equator nor even to travel a distance equal to the full circumference of the earth. Neither Mock's article nor the reference allegedly supporting her "round the world" achievement tell us where she actually went. She obviously achieved a lot, but this is a crappily defined achievement. Can we drop that claim and just describe her as a great aviator? HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I would completely agree if we were the ones making the claim, but that is what the sources in the article state, along with the aviation clubs mentioned in the article who accepted her accomplishments as a record. You have completely valid points- but they should be addressed to those who recognize this accomplishment as a record or achievement. As long as the relevant groups and sources recognize this as a record, we should state that they do. 331dot (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • You're advocating we post this on WP:ATTRIBUTE then, and that requires a blurp that calls her a great aviator according to Aviatrix Weekly or Airborne Heiresses. When we can't even objectively define what she did we can't claim she qualifies under any of the criteria. We are not forced by vague sources to ignore that any more than we are forced to list the first person to ride across the us on a lawnmower as a great lawnmowerist. μηδείς (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Not all record breakers or first-time doers are necessary leaders in the field, and I don't see that here beyond the "first woman to do so" (please note: not trying to trivialize the gender aspect, I'd argue the same about the death of the first man to circumnavigate, if that were offered). Or in terms of past ITN, her act at the time would have been the ITN point, but not her passing. --MASEM (t) 00:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Quite a list of world records and honours. Neljack (talk) 07:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • article not ready - more references needed. Almost none of the awards and achievements listed have citations and the Early life section is also completely unreferenced. If the claims are verifiable (and definable, per 331dot) then I'll probably offer my weak support, but not yet. Thryduulf (talk) 07:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. While gender-based records are notable for things like sporting events, gender is not particularly relevant to flying a plane (even if society supposedly deemed her unfit.) Wiley Post circumnavigated solo in 1933 (so circumnavigation was a pretty established thing when Mock did it in 1964), and Richarda Morrow-Tait did it in 1948-1949 with a navigator if we're going to look at gender. IRW0 (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
    • But the first is still the first? Surely, in the history of aviation as a whole, women have been hugely under-represented? We even still have a special gender-based word for them - aviatrix (which of course is now frowned upon). A bit late to nominate Morrow-Tait for RD, of course. I think we'd want to know how many women had ever circumnavigated the globe, or at least how many before 1964? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

September 29Edit


[Closed] US judge finds Argentina in contempt of courtEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Argentine debt restructuring (talk, history)
Blurb: ​US judge finds Argentina in contempt of court
News source(s): Bloomberg
 Count Iblis (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not convinced this is sufficiently significant, given that it is a decision of a first-instance judge in a case where Argentina denies the jurisdiction of the court and where the decision is likely to be largely symbolic because enforcement of the judgment will probably be precluded by the sovereign immunity that attaches to most property of the Argentine Government within the jurisdiction. Neljack (talk) 03:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment what is the significance of this finding? It's not clear from the nomination that this has any kind of impact anywhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Seeing very little news coverage of this. Also not clear on the impact or significance. This is not a case in an international body(which might have more significance) 331dot (talk) 10:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

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

September 28Edit


[Posted] Occupy Central with Love and PeaceEdit

Article: Occupy Central with Love and Peace (talk, history)
Blurb: Hong Kong police resorts to tear gas to disperse Occupy Central protesters occupying government headquarters, but thousands remain.
Alternative blurb: Benny Tai announces that Occupy Central is launched as Hong Kong's government headquarters is being occupied by thousands of protesters.
News source(s): (The Guardian), (Reuters UK)

Article updated

 --Neelix (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose and I'm guessing this will be a WP:SNOW close. Protests are rarely posted, and this one doesn't even reach the national level, just one protest in Hong Kong that has not spread to mainland China. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support and suggest alternative article and blurb: Police disperse pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong with tear gas. Now headline of CNN, Al Jazeera, Bloomberg and more. This isn't going to be a snow close anymore. The fact that it hasn't spread to Mainland China is due to active media suppression by China (one result of which was that Instagram has been banned in China since today). Deryck C. 21:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The alternative article and blurb you propose look good to me. Neelix (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Not sure whether that's true or not, but this is certain getting more media attention. Formerip (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
New York Times, The Globe and Mail, BBC, ABC, Wall Street Journal, CBC, Forbes, Fox, and plenty more. This thing is in the news in nearly all the main places except Wikipedia. Neelix (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The relevant article is now called 2014 Hong Kong protests. Neelix (talk) 02:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment This looks like it's moved beyond protests. 04:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Mild support this is now top news story on the BBC News homepage and is having an impact on HK's business operations. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think there may be a good story here, but I don't think either the main or the alternative blurb does a good job of communicating it. Right now, neither blurb mentions 1) how many protesters or 2) why they are protesting. They also don't do a good job including conflicts with police, which seems to be an important part of the news coverage. Dragons flight (talk) 08:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nothing really groundbreaking has happened so far. The "pro-democracy" camp are often protesting and they often use these kinds of disruptive tactics. --Tocino 08:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support story and Deryck Chan's blurb ("Police disperse pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong with tear gas."). The protests in Hong Kong are presently in the front page of the BBC website and account for 2 of the top 10 most read articles on that site. Regardless of how common such protests are, this one is getting vastly significantly more media coverage than others have and so it is unquestionably in the news. Thryduulf (talk) 09:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's valid to compare this to the climate change march. They haven't used tear gas there for the most part. Now, what was the last protest action that the cops used significant amount of tear gas to disperse the protesters? That's the valid comparison. Did ITN post that? –HTD 12:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Google suggests the three most recent examples prior to HK were in Liberia [1], Ferguson, Missouri [2] (both in August), and Sao Paulo [3] in June. As far as I can tell (and my search-fu is very weak today) the Liberian protest was not nominated and would unlikely have gained consensus because it relates to the ongoing ebola outbreak. I can't see that we posted anything to do with the Ferguson shooting (which surprises me) - it was nominated (and rejected) for ongoing twice in August, but I don't think a blurb was proposed. The Brazilian protests again don't seem to have been nominated. Protests in Thailand in December 2013 that involved tear gas were posted, but the gas was not mentioned in the blurb [4]. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I understand that the current situation may look like nothing extraordinary. But the 24-hour mark is approaching and crowds are still up and running as ever. And with international impact emerging like emergency rallies around the world planned or in progress (SCMP), there is good potential this expands to Main Page material in due time (say by the end of the week perhaps). PS It coincides National Day on Wednesday. Guess how that turns out. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 14:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Thryduulf. Saying Hong Kong is not at the national level ignores its history and economic status. μηδείς (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, ongoing, very significant event in the region, reported worldwide. I would change the blurb to something like: The longest series of political protests since the 1997 handover shake Hong Kong. [5] --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose, this type of protest (which includes both peaceful elements and perhaps-over-aggressive authorative response) is too common around the world to single out one. If it becomes overly violent (hopefully not) then that might be reason, but not at this stage. --MASEM (t) 16:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – This is a top news story, far more significant than any previous protests. I don't understand nonsense about "national level" and "mainland China". Hong Kong is functionally separate from the mainland, both culturally and politically. In fact, that is one of the reasons for these protests. This is a watershed moment in Hong Kong history, and perhaps in the history of the democracy movement in China itself. RGloucester 16:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – top news on all news outlets. Also important to highlight the Chinese ridiculous regime.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Newsworthy and article in good shape except the "Global responses" section (for now I guess). Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 20:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, has gotten a lot of international media attention; I think not in the least because no one imagines Hong Kong as a place where this kind of protest could happen and because this has a lot of bearing on the future of the most populous nation on the planet and its region. I also feel something of a connection, as I imagine those of us not from HK who attended Wikimania 2013, seeing places I walked or otherwise traveled through on the way to other things I went to see being the sites of all this civil unrest. Daniel Case (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
True. Being a Hongkonger, I have to say protests are extremely common in Hong Kong. But this is a serious case.--Good afternoon (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I know about the past protests. But the world is used to pro-democracy protests taking place in countries that are far less democratic than even the OCwLP people would describe Hong Kong as. And there's the implications for China as a whole. Daniel Case (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
HK is that place where "it's not democratic enough" but "people are somehow free to protest" that's ripe for "pro-democracy protests" (see also Venezuela, Malaysia). In places where there's supposedly "democracy" people don't have to do "pro-democracy protests" (they'd protest about something else), and there are places where protests are not even allowed at all. HK is the perfect candidate for such protests to happen, and they're doing it quite frequently. –HTD 15:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Hugely important event that could change the political landscape of Hong Kong forever. WinterWall (talk) 03:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Gained international media attention. Also, I have changed the caption to a clearer one. --Good afternoon (talk) 08:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. The media is already calling these events an "umbrella revolution", [6], [7], [8]. Nsk92 (talk) 10:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This protest seems to have enough legs both literally and figuratively to have an encyclopedic value. Rhodesisland (talk) 11:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Smurrayinchester 15:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Revise blurb - is "using tear gas" the best we could come up with for the blurb? I don't recall any protests in recent memory to be framed in such a way. Would it not be more informative to the reader to say what the protests are actually about? Such as "Protesters gather in Hong Kong to demonstrate against proposed electoral changes announced by the Chinese government." Also I would consider putting this story in "on-going" as it is still developing. Colipon+(Talk) 16:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
How about "Protests in Hong Kong against proposed electoral changes are countered by the police using tear gas." That way, we make the protests more generally, but still mention the police response (which is the main story in the West, it seems). Also, we don't need an "Ongoing" as long as there's an entry in ITN - Ongoing is for when stories are still in the news by the time they reach the bottom of the page. Smurrayinchester 20:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the tear gas is the western story. The story is the protest, with the context of Tiananmen Square etc. The tear gas is just a red herring, stupid over-reaction. I prefer the Colipon blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I second TRM's preference for the "Colipon" blurb. RGloucester 20:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment- I too support Colipon's blurb and believe it should be posted as there is consensus for it, but disagree with Ongoing. Ongoing was not made for every event that is not instantaneous, only for the most important events that consistently have new stories each day. Only Ebola and IS meet that criteria right now. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Revised. I posted the Colipon blurb, as annotated by Vejvančický. Dragons flight (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 Ryder CupEdit

Article: 2014 Ryder Cup (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In golf, Europe wins the Ryder Cup.
News source(s): New York Times

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.

 --Jinkinson talk to me 18:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment dare we get some prose in that article? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I could replace the content with IN THE HOLE!!! if you like. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Looks like the article now has prosein the sections describing the game. CaptRik (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The article is good. Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 20:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Marathon World RecordEdit

Article: Dennis Kimetto (talk, history)
Blurb: Dennis Kimetto sets a new marathon world record with a time of 2h 2m 57s at the Berlin Marathon
News source(s): http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/dennis-kimetto-sets-world-mark-berlin-marathon-25814155

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.

 --ShakyIsles (talk) 09:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment It could be OK if the marathon article contained text about the record, detailing how it was established. I wrote the blurb, feel free to change it. Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 10:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
There is also Marathon world record progression. Thanks for sorting blurb! Also the Dennis Kimetto page needs some work.ShakyIsles (talk) 10:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Some work is needed before posting but marathon world records are usually the ITN stuff. --Tone 10:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Notability doesn't really need to be established here since the Berlin marathon is ITNR. I can't see us covering the marathon and neglecting to mention the record. Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment target article (marathon) is a bit of a mess and covers this record in a single sentence (with redirect). Would prefer to see Kimetto's article being the target with a good update. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Cool, I've updated to reflect this. ShakyIsles (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - a new world record is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support A worthy sports record and the marathon is on ITN/R. It's only been a year since the last one, but I don't think that's a big deal, especially combined with the marathon (we're getting down to physical impossibility in the near future here...) IRW0 (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Posting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tone (talkcontribs)

September 27Edit


RD: James TraficantEdit

Article: James Traficant (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NBC News International Business Times Daily Mail

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: Important to US politics for the bad things he did; convicted of bribery, only the second person since the end of the Civil War to be expelled from Congress. Died somewhat unexpectedly. RD is empty at the moment. --331dot (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose Not top of field (being notable for crimes is not top of field) , and while the death was somewhat unusual, we are talking a 70-some old not recovering from a bad accident, so not really a surprise. --MASEM (t) 21:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Why is being notable for crimes not important to a field? Being important isn't just for good things. Richard Nixon isn't known for the good things he did. I knew this was a longshot, but I thought the discussion was worth it. 331dot (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose mediocre personality with no real shot at being "top his field", no awards, nothing. Death was unexpected, but doesn't elevate this individual to the heights of Lauren Bacall etc., regardless of the emptiness of RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Being expelled from Congress is essentially a negative award. 331dot (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Ok, I'll take your word for it. Doesn't change anything about the oppose at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • You can oppose for any reason- but it is wrong to say "no awards, nothing". There is clearly something; people are not expelled from Congress even once every 50 years. Only twice in 150 years. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, thank you. But this is not really relevant to anything. So what if was expelled? What relevance does that have to being top of his field? Top of his field for being crap in his field? Brilliant. When you say "wrong to say "no awards, nothing" - can you clarify what actual awards he won? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Being expelled is essentially an award; a great rarity in US politics(and I'd be willing to bet somewhat rare worldwide, at a national level) equivalent to an executive branch official being impeached and removed from office. (you can see Expulsion from the United States Congress for more information if you wish) It really doesn't bother me if you or anyone oppose this, I just felt it would be better than a blank line on the main page. I truly appreciate your consideration. 331dot (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yep, fair enough, I just wouldn't rank this individual along with Lauran Bacall etc. Enough from us. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose His expulsion from the US congress was a notable event, and had ITN existed back then it would've been featured. However that happened years ago. He doesn't get to "double dip" on the same notoriety twice. WinterWall (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support probably most well known US House member during the time of his service, except Gingrich, but not other speakers, on the news nightly, widely seen as prosecuted in order to be silenced. Adding him will not bump anyone else, and it is unquestionable he will be remembered 100 years from now by anyone interested in the politics of the era. μηδείς (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'd be more willing to post someone known for their enormous positive contributions to the country as a member of Congress, but being the only member expelled since the Civil War is more Congress trivia. Didn't really set a key precedent for expelling members of Congress and did not substantially change the way Congress is run (if at all). SpencerT♦C 04:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll assume you're not an American old enough to remember his term in office? He's what would be called a backbencher in the loyal opposition who spoke truth to power. He regularly brought to light issues the majority parties, both Democrat and Republican didn't want raised. The fact that you describe him as basically a criminal makes it clear you are unaware he was one of the least culpable members of congress. Look, for example,at the $100,000,000.00 worth of the senior senator from Nevada, who cannot account for any of it as private earnings. Look at what Trent Lott earned from Bernie Ebbers, and took home as legal spoils that would have landed Tony Soprano in jail. Trafficant was an inconvenient voice. We're not supposed to be here to puppet narratives.μηδείς (talk) 04:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
In that case, the current article (James_Traficant#U.S._House_of_Representatives) does not do a very good job explaining his Congressional contributions. For something that I would consider an equivalent standard, see Robert_Byrd#Congressional_service, describing Byrd (who was posted on ITN). If the article is better filled out and makes a better case for his importance, I will reconsider my position. SpencerT♦C 19:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, User:Spencer, but at this point it's a lost cause and I am basically coming here to recreate since I have real world deadlines. The big thing with TRafficant was he was on the news weekly for pointing out other's lies and hypocrises, a household name during his service, and while hated by the leaders of both parties, beloved of everyone else and continuously returned by his constituency. Byrd was just a corrupt ex-Klu-Klux-Klan member who graduated to the political boss of the landlocked state of West Virginia. μηδείς (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not significant enough of a career to be considered "top of his field". Rhodesisland (talk) 10:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. The expulsion should have been here if this existed in 2002, the death shouldn't. Busy Moose (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - per 331dot and Medeis. This RD nomination is exactly what the RD slot is for: a recent death of someone notable in the news. Trafficant's death, as befit his service in Congress and his personality, was unusual. I acknowledge the concerns of opposers but am unconvinced. This would a fine RD addition. The article appears to be in good shape and is an interesting read. Jusdafax 18:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose not only does the article have an orange-level tag, but in the grand scheme of things, he was a minor politician and not one whose career merits a RD posting. BencherliteTalk 11:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 Mount Ontake eruptionEdit

Article: 2014 Mount Ontake eruption (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Japan, Mount Ontake erupts, killing at least one person and seriously injuring more than 30.
Alternative blurb: ​In Japan, Mount Ontake erupts, and the bodies of at least 31 hikers are found.
News source(s): Reuters

Nominator's comments: Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has ordered the Japanese military to mount a rescue operation in response to this eruption: [9] --Jinkinson talk to me 16:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment It does not look like there are wider ramifications at this point (evacuations past the mountain itself, travel disruptions, etc.) 250 people near the volcano are staying put, and the "volcanic alert level" has only been raised from 1 to 3 (on a 5-point scale.) [10] There is a good bit of worldwide coverage, but perhaps wait to see if initial media interest quickly subsides or not; I think it's borderline at this point. IRW0 (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose not significant. If we rotated blurbs (like DYK wants to do) every eight hours, then yes, but this isn't Wikinews. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Like the Kiluaea eruption in Hawaii (currently threatening a small neighborhood and state highway) I don't think this is significant enough yet. If that changes, I would reassess. 331dot (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - BBC TV reporting that the eruption was not forecast, and 30+ deaths. Mjroots (talk) 06:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support pending suitable and clear update based on the breaking information that 30 hikers have been found, most likely dead but awaiting the official Japanese medical verdict. BBC. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
looks like The Rambling Man has changed his mind from the oppose he wrote above - so that might want striking out?EdwardLane (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Sure, why not directly message me or ping me? 18:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Change to Support; now starting to appear as a top story in CNN, more effects seem to be coming out. 331dot (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • was coming here to nominate it based on the 30 dead - pending update obviously EdwardLane (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Major volcanic eruptions are still relatively rare and the death toll from this seems to be > 30 (once officially confirmed). CaptRik (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Maybe a little expansion of the eruptions section with the current event would help. Newsworthy nonetheless. Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 10:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Ditto The Rambling Man; it needs an update! Rhodesisland (talk) 10:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Definitely for ITN per coverage.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I've suggested a more suitable alt-blurb, article is a little light but once the deaths of the hikers are confirmed, and the article is updated, it should be posted ASAP. According to the BBC, there are at least 45 people "missing. Highly significant natural disaster for Japan. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - pending article update. A big story in the international news right now, but the article needs fleshing out as it is too brief as of this posting. Jusdafax 19:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Article is light but I don't think that's a problem; information is sparse. BBC simply says "The hikers were not breathing and their hearts had stopped" about the apparent deaths. I assume they are dead, but an AP image shows a medical team transporting a frozen body "for urgent medical help". [11] (That article says Japanese officials can only announce deaths after a formal doctor's examination.) IRW0 (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
    31 confirmed dead: [12]. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
    That only says 4 confirmed dead at the moment. ("Four people were transported back down the mountain on Sunday and later confirmed dead") The other 25+ are still "not breathing with their hearts stopped." I can't find other sources confirming those deaths yet, but I assume it'll happen soon enough. For now, we could use a blurb like "In Japan, Mount Ontake erupts, and the bodies of at least 31 hikers are found." IRW0 (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
    I'd suggest that "not breathing with their hearts stopped", when covered by volcanic ash, at the top of a mountain, is not a good prospect for most people. In fact, I think it's rather likely to mean death. Especially if they are not the four transported down. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
    I'm not arguing they're not dead; I'm personally quite sure that they are in fact dead. But the RSes do not support calling them "dead" yet. All sources are very careful to frame it in "bodies found" or "apparently dead", etc. IRW0 (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - significant event, reported worldwide. The article as it stands now is acceptable for the main page. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 05:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Posting altblurb. Feel free to change it. --Tone 08:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

September 26Edit


[Closed] 2014 air traffic control facility fireEdit

Consensus against posting. BencherliteTalk 07:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2014_air_traffic_control_facility_fire (talk, history)
Blurb: ​*An act of arson at an air traffic control facility in Aurora, Illinois causes close to 2000 airline flights to be grounded.
News source(s): [1].
Nominator's comments: Caused close to 2000 airline flights to be grounded and pointed to potentially significant flaws in air traffic control security --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The only reported injury was the alleged arsonist, and no planes crashed. Just at ORD/MDW, a comparable number of flights were canceled after a fire at the Chicago TRACON about 4 months ago. [13] Inconvenient for some travelers, but not newsworthy. IRW0 (talk) 11:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Basically no similar at the end of a day to a bad weather front shutting down a number of regional airports and messing up traffic. --MASEM (t) 14:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose barely significant act of vandalism results in minor disruption to a minor portion travellers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagree; it was a very large act of vandalism. It disrupted quite a few travelers. You don't have to downplay the event to argue against its posting. Abductive (reasoning) 18:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. Worldwide we have around eight to ten million air travellers per day. This is a minuscule glitch. It has no real impact, it's not in the news, it's not ITN. Move on to something else. Thanks for your advice though, always welcome. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, no lasting impact. Abductive (reasoning) 18:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, unusual and worrying but, compared to the misery imposed regularly by French and Italian Air Traffic Control, not such a tumultuous event. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

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

[Closed] UNGA 69Edit

Clearly no consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: sixty-ninth session of the United Nations General Assembly (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 69th session of the UNGA opens with the General Debate.
 --Lihaas (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose routine meetings and their openings are not normally fodder for ITN. If and when something happens to be specifically newsworthy, we can post that. --Jayron32 16:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • It is in the news.. (im on a public comp so the formatting aint there sorry)Lihaas (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It is not, in fact, in the news. Proposed airstrikes on ISIS are getting more attention right now.--WaltCip (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - it is in the news. seems newsworthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If something notable happens, let's post that. Calidum Talk To Me 00:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Routine meeting. If this is in the news, it is buried in it. Not a story garnering a lot of interest. As others said, if something notable happens there, that's another matter. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment It definitely is in the news, buried or not: [14] It seems Mahmoud Abbas is very unhappy about Israel's negotiations with Palestine. Perhaps we could post that. Jinkinson talk to me 17:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose nothing to see here, more bureaucrats spending their various tax payers money to discuss various items, most of which are ignored by many members of the club. Not news. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Yawn. The UN was actually established to end all wars. Epic failure. Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 10:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Fairly routine. Agree with Calidum, something unusual I'd support. Busy Moose (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Cambodia Australia dealEdit

 SovanDara 02:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment: Article update could use a little more expansion to clarify what the actual deal is; article right now just says it would "allow refugees from Australia to resettle in Cambodia". SpencerT♦C 04:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I might be interested if the blurb or notes associated with the nomination actually tried to explain the story. Right now, it's a no. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support- Intriguing story, article needs to be sorted out before this can run though. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 04:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - noteworthy story.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

September 25Edit


[Ready] Shellshock software bug reveals several severe vulnerabilitiesEdit

Article: Shellshock (software bug) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Undiscovered for 22 years, the Shellshock bug reveals several remote exploit vulnerabilities in software widely used on web servers; severity considered by some to be similar to Heartbleed.
Alternative blurb: ​Undiscovered for 22 years, the Shellshock bug reveals several remote exploit vulnerabilities in software widely used on Internet servers.
News source(s): NIST National Vulnerability Database (first bug), New York Times, The Register, Arstechnica, iTnews, ZDNet, etc

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I thought this might be worthwhile news, due to the bug's severity (NIST rated it 10/10 and it can affect OpenSSH, CGI in Apache, DHCP, and possibly anything which uses Bash, such as Mac OSX, some routers, etc), possibility of unauthenticated remote code execution, the 22 years it went undiscovered (meaning old and new systems affected), further bugs discovered while trying to patch it, and reports of a botnet and malware actively exploiting this bug as of the day it went public. --Zeniff (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Support: the BBC quotes an expert as saying that Shellshock could be worse than the Heartbleed bug. It Is Me Here t / c 12:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Significant and newsworthy, given that it went unnoticed for 22 years and that the vulnerability is present in a wide variety of devices and machines. The blurb can be worked on, though, so that it flows better. 174.112.177.36 (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Weak Oppose I've seen the news of it, but while it technically might be equivalent to Heartbleed as how widely spread the affected software is, I'm also not seeing the same level of possible threat to all internet users that heartbleed could have done (eg massive password problems). --MASEM (t) 14:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    Actually this bug allows full access to the remote machine which allows full reading of the machines memory. It can do everything heartbleed can do as well as allow the system to be taken over. It is worse in every way. Chillum 16:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    I'm aware the effect is potentially more dangerous, but at the same time, the amount of effort to actual get the bug to work to get into that system seems much more difficult than the Heartbleed, hence that being much more a serious threat of its exploitability. --MASEM (t) 16:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    This is simply not so. Heartbleed required slow and extended memory reading, interpreting remote memory maps and all sorts of fuss. This allows you to simply run a command over many types of systems. This requires less effort to get more access. In particular the lack of need to interpret remote memory addresses makes this bug more automatable and creates a greater threat of a prolific worm. I have worked in computer security for over 15 years so I can be pretty confident in my assessment. Chillum 17:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Support: The Devil is in the details here, really the only similarity the two events have is that both can be executed remotely. In a nsut shell, heartbleed allowed a malicious attacker to leverage a software feature (heartbeat) to dump portions of memory, basically being able to 'see' things that shouldn't be allowed, and yes, potentially seeing passwords. But shellshock is an attack against the program that handles pretty much every function on the device, allowing an attacker to do quite literally anything. Forget poking around dumped memory for passwords, with shellshock you literally just make yourself a new admin account. [15][16][17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edprevost (talkcontribs) 15:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This is much more serious than heartbleed. This one allows for arbitrary command(and by extension code) execution which could allow for an incredibly effective worm. Heartbleed only allowed read access. Considering this has been here for 22 years it is on of the biggest stories in computer security in decades. Chillum 16:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment, I'm concerned that there is no event to the story. Abductive (reasoning) 18:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Also, people are doing their best, but the article is very messy and hard to understand at present. Abductive (reasoning) 18:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support due to severity and nature of the bug, but have concerns about article quality as well. I don't think we should compare it to Heartbleed in the blurb, though; it's significant enough to stand on its own. Bug also affects more than web servers; I suggested an altblurb to address both issues, though the bug affects more than servers so it should be improved further. (The "22 years" bit may still be too sensationalistic, as it potentially implies the bug was being actively exploited during that time, which would've been noticed.) IRW0 (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'd echo some of the above concerns (although any paraphrasing and erroneous assumptions are entirely of my own creation). This could be like the Millennium bug, a lot of bluster and fuss and all, without an actual derogatory outcome. In which case, the story, paraphrasing (once again) becomes "Security flaw in many OSs discovered, all fixed up now, no major trauma". Right now we have "Security flaw in many OSs discovered, something bad may happen...........". So although the numbers (in their billions) are scary and impressive, the genuine impact may be negligible. No actual story to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The derogatory outcome is that probably 100k+ machines (more?) have already been newly infected by botnets, starting within an hour of the embargo on the vulnerability being lifted. [18] (To the people running the botnets, this was a special, rare gift. This vulnerability affected far more "high value" targets than a typical vulnerability, e.g. Unix servers with lots of bandwidth or valuable data rather than primarily home computers, than all but a few recent things like Heartbleed.) I would agree there is not a great single story to post, but this wasn't a non-event like the Millennium bug. The article still isn't great either (I'd work on it, but I'm still busy with fallout from the actual bug, as are many people.) The article is improving. IRW0 (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with TRM's comment; if something bad actually happened, that would be worthy of posting, but I'm not convinced the possibility of something bad happening merits posting. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support WP is the first place I'd come for a clear, objective, informative discussion of this. My sole objection might be article quality, which I will leave to the qualified to judge. μηδείς (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Conditional support wortwhile item, but the article is currently meant only for experts. Less jargon pls? Also, there should be a section on what was/is the current impact, who or what got exploited. Nergaal (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The jargon has been cleaned up somewhat and reported impact been summarized better. The article is orange-tagged now, but that will hopefully be resolved soon enough. ITN is pretty dated right now, so even if the article takes a bit longer to be in a good shape, it should still be worth posting. IRW0 (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I'm not a connoisseur about this topic, but this is intriguing and seems very newsworthy in my opinion. Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 10:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose until impact is certain. Also, "The bug causes Bash to unintentionally execute commands when they are stored in environment variables in a non-standard form", but I thought that was a feature? I knew about that quirk years ago, and presumably many others did, too. So, "undiscovered" really means "undiscovered by IT agencies needing headlines."128.214.53.18 (talk) 04:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Having any service that executes a shell-level environment itself seems like waiting for trouble to happen, so there's a matter of bad programming by those that relied on bash for some aspects...--MASEM (t) 05:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The orange tag is gone, and the article is in decent shape for ITN. There's more of an impact section now, etc. Shellshock has turned into a series of bugs with patches that trickled out until just a couple days ago, so this item is still in the news despite the initial release being a week ago. (Apple just released an incomplete patch, for one. A Google News search shows tons of hits in the past 24 hours alone.) There is a good deal of botnet activity and large-scale scanning due to this bug. Given that ITN is pretty sparse, I don't think it'd hurt to post this one. IRW0 (talk) 04:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- "Revealing vulnerabilities" is not news. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 04:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Holder resignsEdit

Doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. Calidum Talk To Me 22:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Eric Holder (talk, history)
Blurb: Eric Holder (pictured) announced his resignation as the United States Attorney General.
News source(s): Bloomberg and ABC News
Nominator's comments: The subject is well-known to Americans, Canadians, and Europeans.[citation needed] People would expect who will be the next Attorney General. I welcome alternative blurbs because this is my first nomination. --George Ho (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose We've been through this before with cabinet-level individuals resigning. It happens often and does not represent any major shift in policy. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. (edit conflict) Thanks for the nomination, and welcome, but unless there is some unusual circumstance(such as being convicted of a crime/impeachment, corruption, etc.) I don't see a reason to post this, as cabinet officials carry out the policies of the President and serve at his pleasure, so there won't be a massive shift in policies here. I don't think any such official would be posted (such as the Home Secretary of the UK, Russian Foreign Minister, etc.). 331dot (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose agree with the above. Minor blip in US politics. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose that he would resign in the fall was announced earlier this year, he's not been asked or forced to resign for some scandal, we don't post such routine resignations for other countries. μηδείς (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Eh, he was planning to resign at the end of the year no matter what. This was not due to some scandal of some sort. –HTD 17:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

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

September 24Edit


[Posted] Mars Orbiter MissionEdit

Article: Mars Orbiter Mission (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The ISRO probe Mars Orbiter Mission enters orbit of Mars.
Alternative blurb: ​The NASA probe MAVEN and the ISRO probe Mars Orbiter Mission, India's first interplanetary craft, both enter orbit around Mars.
News source(s): spaceflightnow.com

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: Space probes reaching their destination are ITNR. MAVEN arrived a few days ago perhaps a combined blurb? I welcome advice on the blurb. Hektor (talk) 05:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Support combined blurb The Rambling Man (talk) 06:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Suggested a combined blurb. If it's too long, the "India's first interplanetary craft" part could be left out. Smurrayinchester 06:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support A combined blurb would be better, especially since this is huge for India and it's around the same time as the NASA probe. I do think it should be noted that this is India's first probe (since again, it is a momentous achievement for any nation), and I wouldn't support not having it in there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - per Kevin. Jusdafax 07:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment When the orange tag is gone, ready to post. --Tone 07:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:NOTROCKETSCIENCE Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Kevin Rutherford. CaptRik (talk) 08:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support separate blurp Since this is India's first attempt, and a first successful one in a first try. --Samuelled (talk) 09:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support combined blurb, now that the maintainence tags are gone.128.214.53.18 (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 12:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support separate blurp Note that these two are two separate missions. Unlike US Open or some tounament where you can combine two accomplisments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinderlander (talkcontribs) 12:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
    • The combined blurb is fine - yes, separate missions but to "waste" another line to say "another probe entered Mars orbit" is inefficient. This helps the reader who may have heard that a probe reached Mars realize that there were actually two of them and find the right now. --MASEM (t) 20:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

September 23Edit


US conducts air strikes against ISIL targets in SyriaEdit

Article: ISIL (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The US has started an air campaign against ISIL targets in Syria
News source(s): CNN

 Count Iblis (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Major world news, may escalate further.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment These airstrikes need their own article, no? Pikolas (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now Already ongoing, does not represent enough of a change in the situation to demand a blurb, yet. Willing to sit this one out, and see what develops, but this is already linked. --Jayron32 03:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - The USA is now bombing Syria. That's big news in my book, and for a lot of people worldwide as well. Jusdafax 03:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Major development. Escalation into a new country by USA, not seen since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Top of the news. Abductive (reasoning) 04:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose As Jayron has noted, this is already ongoing. Stated as 'Escalation into a new country' or 'The USA is now bombing Syria', this sounds like big news, but the border between Iraq and Syria does not currently exist for all practical purposes and in practice this is the USA bombing the ISIL caliphate, just as they have been for weeks now. GoldenRing (talk) 05:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - note that back in August, at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/August 2014#U.S. aerial support against ISIS, we never posted a blurb on the US's aerial bombing against ISIS, despite it being a major story in itself. It went straight to ongoing. Ongoing just tells me something is happening, but it doesn't tell me what exactly is going on. Perhaps now would be a good time for a blurb. starship.paint ~ regal 05:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose adequate coverage in Ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as covered by Ongoing.128.214.53.18 (talk) 08:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose; if this was the start of US action against ISIS, that might warrant a blurb, but the US has been bombing them for a little while, just not in Syria(and as GoldenRing said the border is pretty much worthless right now). 331dot (talk) 09:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per 331dot. It's not a news that the United States were already involved there; it just supplements the development of the whole story. The purpose of the sticky in the bottom of the box is to cover such news.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The sticky covers it. The BBC article on the same subject notes that the US aim is to ramp up and down the airstrikes based upon developments on the ground, so Ongoing is perfect for this. CaptRik (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Opppose This isn't a big enough development to swap out the ISIL "ongoing" for a blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose They have been conducting those for a while now. Anyway, as said by others, it seems better for Ongoing Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 21:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
    All these identical arguments are all weak as pisswater. Bombing a sovereign nation (Syria) without permission for the first time? Putting together a new coalition? Top of the news worldwide for days? Means nothing according to these users who think that because ISIS operates in Iraq and is getting bombed there, being bombed in Syria is not ITN-worthy. Abductive (reasoning) 01:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Except the "pisswatter" argument being made is that Syria is no longer effectively sovereign over that territory. It would be rather like violence in Israel spilling over into the West Bank; would you be here arguing for a new blurb because it's now in a new country? GoldenRing (talk) 04:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
If Iran and Saudi Arabia were on the same side as Israel, you don't think that would be ITN? Abductive (reasoning) 04:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Well yes, except it's already there, in ongoing... GoldenRing (talk) 04:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Also, turns out "Bombing a sovereign nation (Syria) without permission" is a pisswater erroneous statement. You don't get "permission" to bomb a country. What the US did do was inform Syria that this was going to take place. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
One certainly can get permission. The US is bombing Yemen and Iraq with permission. Abductive (reasoning) 17:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Quite so. And my apology for the error. However, it is true to say that the US told Syria, and Syria didn't say no. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – This is a major milestone in the US attacks against ISIL because it's now picking a whole new country to bomb; the event needs an article, though. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Yes, it's in ongoing, but this is a major development. The media are treating it as an attack on a new country, even if it's still within ISIS-controlled territory. IRW0 (talk) 13:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – major milestone.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - just another turn in the conflict, adequately covered by ongoing Legaleagle86 (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — This, along with the UN resolution, is the No. 1 story in the world today. Sca (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. Apparently it's fine to leave number one stories in "Ongoing" just because they are ongoing, without any further explanation of what exactly is in the news. Furthermore, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is not even the article of the event, but the article of the organization. Readers will be lost in the huge article. At least redirect to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#September 2014 the appropriate section. starship.paint ~ regal 00:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree. If we didn't have "Ongoing", we'd probably have had a couple informative blurbs over the past couple weeks regarding the Iraq/Syria situation. I'm not against "Ongoing" itself, but it shouldn't be used to suppress useful blurbs simply because a topic already has a vague link. IRW0 (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment But the US isn't alone, is it? --Երևանցի talk 22:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

2014 Jadavpur University protestsEdit

Article: 2014 Jadavpur University protests (talk, history)
Blurb: 2014 Jadavpur University protests is an ongoing series of protests by the students of Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India
News source(s): 1, 2, 3, 4

Nominator's comments: IPs are making some trouble. I have added few tags, inclduing the "citation needed" recently. We can fix those. --TitoDutta 00:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Question: What makes these protests unusual, newsworthy, interesting, or otherwise standout as something other than garden-variety university protests? Your proposed blurb basically says that the protests exists. It doesn't tell us why we should care. Why should we? Before I can decide to support or oppose this, help me understand why these protests stand out as particularly worthy of note?--Jayron32 00:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually a news article reports, many international universities are going to hold protests. --TitoDutta 01:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
What started as a garden variety student protest grew to a citi-wide, then state-wide proportion, with significant nation-wide interest. This university is one of the premiere universities in the country, and, like any other universities in the world, has had its share of student agitations in the past. However, direct administration of the police and commando forces by the state government, political ramifications in the state level, moral support from students of other universities/institutes, spontaneous support from the urban citizens of India have set it apart. Also, this is likely to be the first major student protest in India that is using social media at the level the world has witnessed in other countries (Egypt, for example) in recent years. --Dwaipayan (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I can pretty much vouch for Dwaipayan's last statement. As a student of Jadavpur University and being a part of the movement, I have seen for myself how far social media has taken this. There has been, in fact, 'unofficial' state response on social media. I hope to introduce the entire subsection with pictures on this point. The students' wing of the state government has held a counter-demonstration, all of which will be updated. The movement is also very likely to be the largest collective student movement independent India has seen in terms of sheer number. I apologize in advance for any stylistic errors I have made. I'm very new here and intended only to represent the protest wiki page impartially as far as possible. The introductory paragraphs I reworked with citations. If I may propose a Blurb: International solidarity with the 2014 Jadavpur University protests sees protest demonstration planned in New York.--Arkaprabha (talk) 08:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment the neutrality tag needs to be addressed before this nomination can be considered. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
If I can rework most or all of it today, can we nominate this again tomorrow? (I'm very new here. Don't know how this works)--Arkaprabha (talk) 08:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
It's fine, no need to renominate, but we are generally advised against posting anything with an orange or red maintenance tag, so that will need to be fixed, whenever you can. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment What specific event is being nominated here? The police attack on September 17, the scheduled global protests for September 27, or is this a nomination for "Ongoing" for the entire thing? Whether or not the police attack was notable, it's too old to post now. We don't generally post things like scheduled protests, and I see minimal coverage of these planned global protests in Indian media (and none in other worldwide media.) IRW0 (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose personally I support these protests, but if you look at the other ITN items this seems to be an insignificant one. If we compare this with the 2013 Shahbag protests which was successfully nominated for ITN, we would find that there is little wider ramification and almost no recognition outside India (apart from BBC and mailonline) for the Jadavpur protests. Legaleagle86 (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just not a significant protest. Rhodesisland (talk) 03:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

September 22Edit


September 21Edit


[Posted] MAVEN probeEdit

Article: MAVEN (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The NASA probe MAVEN enters orbit of Mars to study its atmospheric loss.
News source(s): NBC News ABC News (US) BBC The Guardian Sydney Morning Herald

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: Space probes reaching their destination are ITNR. An Indian Mars probe (the Mars Orbiter Mission) will arrive on Tuesday; perhaps a combined blurb? I welcome advice on the blurb. --331dot (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I suggest we post this now and expand the blurb tomorrow. --Tone 09:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I think it is newsworthy and a quality article. Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 09:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
@Mattaidepikiw:; just FYI if the event is on the ITNR list it has already been judged notable enough for posting; we are now just judging article quality and deciding on a blurb. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - INTR, and the article is in good shape. Happy to support as a solo, or combined blurb, but I have not looked at the other article yet. Tone's suggestion is good. Jusdafax 09:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Posting. Feel free to update the image. --Tone 09:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The Mars Orbiter Mission has also entered the orbit. The news needs to be updated.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The Mars Orbiter Mission article is also updated -Abhishikt (talk) 04:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

People's Climate MarchEdit

Article: People's Climate March (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Over 300,000 people take part in the People's Climate March in New York City.
News source(s): NY Times NBC News

 --Johnsemlak (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Sounds like OR to me. It's on the top of the news here, probably because it wasn't expected to do so well. Also, marches held in many cites across the world, not just NYC. Abductive (reasoning) 01:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • One note on the number--I would like to see an independent estimate on the crowd size in NY. The estimate of 300,000+ is by the organizers. The major media sources have quoted that figure but not made their own estimate..--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment As this appears to have been something that occurred in several worldwide locations, if we could get an accurate (within Medeis' concern above) count and a city number, a better blurb would be "Over x00,000 people in y cities participate in the People's Climate March". --MASEM (t) 01:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
    Protests happened in several cities but the main one was in NY which is aimed at a UN summit on climate change .--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
    Maybe that the march was in advance of the summit might help the blurb (to give more relevance in the ITN box) eg, staying with your current language "Over 300,000 people take part in the People's Climate March in advance of the UN Climate Summit in New York City." --MASEM (t) 02:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- We should post only the summit, not these meaningless preliminary protests. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Major event, worldwide coverage in the news. Article looks ok. Opposes fail to make the case that this is not a valid ITN blurb. Jusdafax 04:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support if the blurb is globalized as the event was not limited to New York. Starting to get coverage in MSM. Not sure where the crowd estimates are from but we should try to lock that down too. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Bzweebl. Protests, marches and demonstrations around the world take place every day, but we usually post only those who end up in civil disorder, political response and significant international reactions. Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with it and seems to be notable only for the record, although the number of participants in the march also seems to be heavily inflated. The article is in very good shape, though.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Simply not major news. I think this showed up once in my news feed this morning. Opposes fail to make the case that this is not a valid ITN blurb - please try to raise the level of debate above, Yes it is! Not it isn't!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenRing (talkcontribs) 00:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not a significant protest. Should we close it or just let it slide off? Rhodesisland (talk) 03:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

2014 FIVB Volleyball Men's World ChampionshipEdit

Article: 2014 FIVB Volleyball Men's World Championship (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 2014 FIVB Volleyball Men's World Championship concludes with Poland defeating Brazil in the final.

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.

 --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose- Orange tag, article has little prose. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Amazing work putting all those tables together, but all tables and no text makes Jack a dull boy. Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 09:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah AbdullahEdit

Articles: Ashraf Ghani (talk, history) and Abdullah Abdullah (talk, history)
Blurb: Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah agree to become president and chief executive officer of Afghanistan, respectively.
News source(s): Businessweek

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.

 --Jinkinson talk to me 15:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Support, a major development after months of deadlock. Nsk92 (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think this would be ITNR (the results of the election/change in head of state). 331dot (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article refers to Abdullah Abdullah as Prime Minister of Afghanistan. 174.112.177.36 (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support in principle; however, the update to the Ashraf Ghani article seems to be entirely unreferenced. GoldenRing (talk) 05:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Question The BBC reports 1 that Abdullah Abdullah will nominate the CEO, not be the CEO. Who is right? GoldenRing (talk) 05:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Needs Attention Just hoping to raise awareness of this one before it slips off! Rhodesisland (talk) 03:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

September 20Edit


[Posted] New Zealand general election, 2014Edit

Article: New Zealand general election, 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: Prime Minister John Key's National Party wins a majority in the New Zealand general election.
News source(s): 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.

 The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - A general elections in a country is always important.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    Just as a side note, this article does not need your support on importance, ITNR says we've already pre-approved it on importance. It needs your support on quality. --Jayron32 20:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    However, as per the "2014 Asian Games opening ceremony" discussion, you are absolutely entitled to discuss the importance of the ITNR, although this would not be the best venue for such a discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    A support goes hand in hand with all that you mentioned Jayron. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    That's not really clear from your comment, which is just about the merits of posting this(which, as Jayron said, has already been judged by being on the ITNR list). If you think the quality is adequate for an ITNR item, simply state that. 331dot (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    Obviously not for this specific items, but ITN/C item that is an ITNR item can still be judged if that instance shouldn't be posted, considering possible issues beyond article quality. A case I would consider would be where an incumbent is fully expected to win by a landslide and remain in power, and does win by a landslide and remains in power, and absolutely no one in the world is surprised by that. Yes, the election happened, but there's no real news story about that. It doesn't mean the overall ITNR entry on that list is bad, just that some cases it will be a non-newsworthy result. This type of situation would be very exceptional, of course, but the ITNR/ITNC process does account for this (note the language on the ITNR blurb in the template box above). --MASEM (t) 23:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Posting. That is one seriously updated article ... --Tone 22:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    Can we get someone to put up File:John Key 2014 (cropped).jpg? I know it's not going to be much of a change (slightly balding white guy in grey suit being exchanged for another slightly balding white guy in a grey suit), but at least it will be the slightly balding white guy in grey suit who was most recently elected. Maybe @David Levy: who's usually on the ball with all the picture stuff? --Jayron32 01:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    We also have the final Fijian election results due in 6 hours which might put a "brown" balding man on the main page, the decision is on wikipedia lol, the win for Key was a majority but a win for bainimarama would mean Fiji having a democratically elected government for the first time in 8 years...technically both the john key image and the swedish PM image were cropped by me so whatever works.. :P --Stemoc 02:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment - could someone please fix the horrible grammatical error which is currently on the front page on WP:ITN. It should say "wins" not "win", because "National Party" is singular. Adpete (talk) 04:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC) Never mind, fixed after raising it at the correct place: Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors Adpete (talk) 07:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

September 19Edit


[Posted] Alibaba IPOEdit

Article: Alibaba Group (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba Group raises US$25 billion on the NYSE, in the largest ever initial public offering.
News source(s): [19]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Very important financial event. --King of ♠ 02:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - A record, notable enough for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I find this a good story to post but I'd like to see some more support. --Tone 22:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support A notable record. Neljack (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Seems very newsworthy to me. Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 01:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, based on the "what does this mean for you?" type news articles I'm seeing. Abductive (reasoning) 02:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support- Not notable for an arbitrary record, but for the significance of a massive Chinese corporation making an IPO in the US. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment good level of support, article has a couple of "out of date" orange tags that could use a fix before posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Revise header to $25 billion after greenshoe option. Now makes it the largest IPO in world history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.105.153 (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Updated. The Rambling Man: Could this be posted ASAP? It's quickly getting stale... -- King of ♠ 04:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Also tweaked the blurb wording slightly - it sounded a bit stilted as it was, to my ear. GoldenRing (talk) 05:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

2014 Asian Games opening ceremonyEdit

Article: 2014 Asian Games opening ceremony (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 2014 Asian Games opens in Incheon, South Korea

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: Updates are a bit light, but for a new article, this could be acceptable. --–HTD 17:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment/question. Do we typically post the opening and closing ceremony of non-Olympic sporting events or just one of them? Thryduulf (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The ITNR list states that only the opening of this(and the other non-Olympic events) is posted; the closing would have to be nominated and judged on its merits. 331dot (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I can't even imagine the uproar if we had an American or European games, let alone an opening ceremony. μηδείς (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
    • European Games, Pan-American Games, All-Africa Games, Pacific Games. Thryduulf (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
      • To all of which I am opposed. Nothing regional/racist. All that should be posted is significant new world records if they occur in these games, otherwise we are saying nothing more than some calendar event like Christmas has come around. It's a total bastardization of the encyclopedic system. μηδείς (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
        • I can understand this reasoning, but then we'd have a problem on which "story" would be posted. For the Winter Olympics, would it be the much opposed (and supported) ice hockey final? There'd be a long discussion on this, the 12-hour veto won't have to be invoked if ever that was passed. –HTD 10:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • If you look at talk you'll see there's even more opposition to this carp, from User:HiLo48, nonetheless, the two of us being sworn emenies. μηδείς (talk) 03:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Listed on ITN/R means it should be posted. IMO this is not the place to discuss if Asian Games should be ITNR, that place is the ITNR talk page which is that-a-away ----> - NickGibson3900 Talk 08:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support- This is ITN/R so importance is not discussed on this page, only article quality. American or European Games are much smaller than this. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Consensus to Remove the consensus so far is to remove the opening ceremonies from ITNR. The fact that they habve until now been listed at ITNR is not itself a reason the item should be posted. A listing at ITNR is supposed to indicate repeated overwhelming consensus to post, and that most obviously does not exist. Again, any new world record at the games should be nominated and posted on its own merits. μηδείς (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Show me the consensus and I'll agree we should propose removal from ITNR and discuss. Right now I'm not seeing any consensus on anything related to this nomination, especially since you were the only one who opposed. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, stricken. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

[Removed] Remove from Ongoing: Ukraine ConflictEdit

In terms on new encyclopedic news, this is in a bit of a lull. The ceasefire seems to pretty much be sticking and although there are outbreaks of incidents, they haven't been of individually significant to be full news stories in themselves. Latest events are here War_in_Donbass#September_ceasefire. I'd like to start a place for people's opinions on when this would drop below the criteria for staying on as Ongoing. For reference, the Gaza conflict ceasefire took place on the 26th August, and we pulled it from ongoing on the 28th [20]. CaptRik (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Not to prejudice the question, but is there a template for ongoing? And if not, shouldn't there be? μηδείς (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Remove this has dropped off the bottom of most news outlets, we can always re-add should something kick off again. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Remove as this is not a top ongoing story; as TRM said it can always be put back. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Removed, as suggested. --Tone 22:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

September 18Edit


EbolaEdit

Article: No article specified
Blurb: ​The United Nations Security Council declares the recent outbreak of the Ebola virus a "threat to world security".
Alternative blurb: ​The United Nations Security Council declares the recent outbreak of Ebola virus a "threat to international peace and security" in its first-ever resolution regarding a public health crisis.
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Move from Ongoing to blurb considering the gravity of the situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  • The BBC page states that it was the UN Security Council, not the WHO. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    Wow, where did I get that from? Updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    Understandable; the WHO is mentioned in that article. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment If this is blurbed, this should not remove the ongoing, since this is only a critical midpoint and the ebola story will still be going strong. --MASEM (t) 20:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    Ok, no big deal. We could always place it back onto Ongoing once the blurb got stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Is there a link for some solid numbers? I have just recently read that this might go into six figures, but some bureaucratic body pontificating makes me want to ask how many divisions the pope has. μηδείς (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose there's already a sticky on the epidemic. The UN's $0.02 on the subject doesn't really change the facts of the epidemic. Didn't the UN warn us that the polar ice cap would be gone by now anyway. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The UN expressing an opinion does not create a material change in the situation. Resolute 23:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose It's a major story but I worry about it yo-yo'ing between full blurb and Ongoing if major announcements are made about it. As it stands, a full blurb would drop back off again in 7 days or so. There's absolutely no doubt that it should be on the main page, but as it stands I believe we've not even reached the peak of the outbreak. CaptRik (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support with added altblurb. Per the BBC ref: "Never before has the United Nations Security Council met to confront a public health crisis". From a Science article [21]: "the resolution had 130 co-sponsors, more than any previous one in the history of the Security Council." IRW0 (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Will the UN's statement have any lasting significance? No. -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Royal & Ancient allow womenEdit

No consensus to post. --Tone 13:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: The Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Members of The Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews vote to allow women members for the first time in its 260-year history.
News source(s): BBC CNN

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Very odd, but yet curiously notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. It seems notable that the 'home of golf' would change its longstanding membership policy. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The most prestigious club in the US did this in the 90's and the result, historically, was nix, nada, nichevo. It's almost as bad as 40 year old couple accept that their only child is gay. μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Point taken, but Augusta National wasn't nearly as old as this club, nor was it essentially where golf arose from. 331dot (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as the home of golf. The matter (allowing women to join a golf club) isn't notably any more. It was in the 90s. But the club in this case makes it worthy of ITN. We don't post ITNs when countries legislate for same-sex marriage any more, for example. But if Afghanistan did, we'd post that. --Tóraí (talk) 05:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, this really is an epoch-defining event, given the timescales and global significance involved. Rule changes made by distant foreign countries don't really factor into it; this is the real thing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Is this a legitimate support vote, or a parody of users supporting this nomination and others like it? Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Can't you see that it's so blatantly obvious that this event has "long lasting impact" and is "of worldwide significance"??? #haha –HTD 12:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, elicited little more than a yawn when it happened, and mostly forgotten already. Nsk92 (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Other than exposing some elitist retardedness, not very notable. Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 01:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Archbishop of Canterbury admits he has doubts about GodEdit

No consensus to post an individual's doubts about his employer. Stephen 03:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Archbishop of Canterbury (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Archbishop of Canterbury sometimes has doubts in his belief in God.
News source(s): BBC
 Count Iblis (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting the mere statement; if there are repercussions from it (such as attempts to remove him from his position) that might merit posting. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose if we didn't post the fact that the Pope suggested that there was a significant percentage of child sex abusers in the Catholic Church, why post this? I imagine most, if not all people of faith have occasional doubts. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless and until we get an official statement to confirm that God has doubts about the existence of the Archbishop of Canterbury. BencherliteTalk 21:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose not every utterance that may be construed as against the faith made by the leading priest of that faith is newsworthy enough all the comments by Pope Francis about gays and divorcees taking communion were never posted - now if he had declared himself an atheist and quit the post, that would be newsy, but apparently his doubts, however deep or fleeting they may have been, have been settled. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose It makes a good sound-bite, but not news. GoldenRing (talk) 01:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Hour recordEdit

Articles: Jens Voigt (talk, history) and Hour record (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In cycling, Jens Voigt sets a new hour record, riding more than 51 kilometres (31.7 mi) in an hour.
News source(s): Cycling News, The Guardian, USA Today

Nominator's comments: This is a very unusual record since last time it was beaten was in 2005. Nergaal (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose suggest you enhance the blurb a touch to allow non-experts to understand what this is about. Target article is in a poor state, badly referenced, lots of reliance on discussion forums and so on. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I have no idea why you say the article is badly referenced my friend. Only the doping section has bare URLs. Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 19:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I was talking about the original blurb target. The change is why I've struck my oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
        • OK. I'm in the process of getting more references in there (and info) Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 20:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Just about to come here to nominate this. Suggest the target article is Voigt with the blurb along the lines of "In cycling, Jens Voigt set a new hour record." Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Perhaps, if we allow ourselves to indulge in grammatically correct blurbs and blurbs which most people could get to grips with, we could go for something like "In cycling, Jens Voigt sets a new hour record, riding more than 51 kilometres (31.7 mi) in an hour." The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support It is THE record of cycling, and the only featured news about cycling is once a year, the Tour de France. Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 18:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    Just a point of information, we do have UCI Road World Championships on WP:ITNR as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment, I don't see this as an extraordinary record. It pales in comparison to this feat by Indurain: "The definitive answer came on the 65-kilometer time trial in Luxembourg after only a week of racing. Steamrolling the hilly course, he averaged over 49 kilometers an hour, effectively obliterating his competition. Leaving his nearest competitors four minutes behind he zapped all suspense and demonstrated why "Big Mig" would be the greatest Tour rider of his generation.". In the cycling news article, we can read what is really going on with these "hour records": "The hour record dates back to the early days of the bicycle, but it was made famous in recent history by the long-standing record of Eddy Merckx. Although Merckx's mark of 49.431km held only until Francesco Moser broke 50km in 1984, the UCI retroactively changed the rules in 2000, disallowing all records set that did not adhere to the traditional position and equipment set by Merckx in 1972. Therefore, the efforts of Tony Rominger, Miguel Indurain, Graeme Obree and Moser were all relegated to the "best human effort" category." Count Iblis (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    Your long text is interesting, but not relevant to the Hour record. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
This is similar to marathon times: unless you have some standardization, you can not exclude i.e wind from having enhanced Indurain's performance. This record is done under very well standardized conditions. Some people from the past might have beaten this distance with current equipment, but we are talking here about an officially sanctioned performance. Nergaal (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - interesting. itn material.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Cycling's equivalent to the 100m sprint world record. Something different for ITN. CaptRik (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose 2% is not a particularly significant margin in my view, nor is it a particularly long standing record at 9 years. There are thousands of world records out there, we can't possibly post every single one. If this does go up then at least modify the blurb - the emboldened link by itself should give some clue as to the context. The fact that an inherently generic term such as "hour record" in a free standing sense points to the relevant article (for context) is irrelevant - that speaks more of Wikipedia politics than of the legitimacy of a claim of primary sense. Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 03:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I would argue that 2% is a HUGE margin, as the record has sometimes been beaten by meters in the past, and he totally smashed it by 1.4 km. Most of the articles about it say he 'smashed it' Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 23:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Note this is a 5-1 vote. Nergaal (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This headline appears way at the bottom of the BBC Sport website right now and it's not getting huge coverage. This seems to mainly be of interest for cycling aficionados which is a niche group as it is. The comparison to major track and field records seems pretty weak to me-- those records generate a lot more interest.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Could you point to me the where it states it has to be high on the BBC website before it's included on WP's frontpage? I'm guessing if Bradley Wiggins had a pop at this, it'll be frontpage on the BBC and WP. The "cycling aficionados" comment adds more weight for it to be posted IMO. A non-American in a sport not that well covered getting some good quality article updates. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Article is in pretty good shape (not perfect, there's maybe 1-2 more cites needed), but really a solid article, and the information is certainly current. I see no harm in showing the world a good Wikipedia article. It's certainly better than 90% of the stuff we put up in ITN merely because something is happening now. It would be nice to post something which is meant to showcase quality work for a change. --Jayron32 14:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Jens Voigt just set a very important cycling record, eclipsing a long standing mark. See also Hour record. This is a big deal! He did it on a closed track. 7&6=thirteen () 22:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment A pic of the record has been added to the article, so I replaced it here too. We now have a pic of the record in progress. Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 23:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment Here's some sources from around the world. This is a very big deal.
I saw the source on the kw output, but I haven't found it again. 7&6=thirteen () 23:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Marked as ready as I've already offered an opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
What happens now? How long before it's posted? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Need an independent admin to pop by and post it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Sod it, posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Nice one, Rambles. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] 25 years of the Peaceful RevolutionEdit

MORE APPROPRIATE FOR "ON THIS DAY":
Try to get this on WP:OTD instead; it was made specifically for anniversaries of this type. --Jayron32 17:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Peaceful Revolution (talk, history) and Joachim Gauck (talk, history)
Blurb: ​German president Gauck welcomes state officials to Mecklenburg to celebrate 25 years of the Peaceful Revolution (pictured).
Alternative blurb: ​German president Gauck welcomes state officials to Mecklenburg to adress demographic change in Europe and commemorate 25 years of the Peaceful Revolution (pictured).
News source(s): [2]
Nominator's comments: For all I can see we didn't have an ITN piece on the anniversary of the most important event in late 20th century history. I think we should, especially in these times of more upcoming war and despair it's important to remember how things can be carried out peacefully. ---- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 09:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The demographic aspect is important and wasn't featured on ITN either, but the alternative blurb could be a bit long for the box, so we might stick with the shorter blurb. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 09:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
'speedy close' if anything this is for OTDLihaas (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This anniversary may well be suitable for OTD, but not ITN. As a general rule we don't post anniversaries - even of things as big as WW1. Modest Genius talk 11:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • What's OTD, if I may ask? -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Would've been a better fit for OTD. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We generally don't post anniversaries unless the actual commemoration events are somehow noteworthy themselves; I don't think the President meeting with state officials qualifies. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Scottish independence referendumEdit

Article: Scottish independence referendum, 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: Scotland votes against secession from the United Kingdom.
Alternative blurb: First Minister of Scotland Alex Salmond (pictured) resigns after Scotland votes against independence from the United Kingdom.

Nominator's comments: I know this will almost certainly be posted after the result but this maybe one of few votes where readers would want some background and will be interested in it as it happens. Bump nomination to 18th sept afterwards please. ---- Ashish-g55 23:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC) [relocated under correct date as per nominator's request - Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)]

  • I think this is only notable if the Yes vote passes, otherwise it's just another domestic vote. DHN (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support only if yes wins. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting the fact of the referendum, I don't see what point it would serve, ITN is not some kind of reminder service. It'd be an obvious support for the actual result (expected on the 19th) regardless of the outcome, given its huge constitutional significance, but that is not the nomination here. Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting before the results. Support only if it passes. Reach Out to the Truth 01:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Whilst I don't support posting this now (until we've got results), why exactly would it only be news if Scotland voted in favour of independence? It would be just as newsworthy if Scotland decided to stay in union, given the close nature of the race. RGloucester 01:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • What is there to report if they vote no? Scotland almost declares independence but doesn't? And anyway, from a statistical perspective, the outcome of the race has been close, but has never been in statistical doubt. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
This has been a slow burning issue for at least the last twenty years: whatever the outcome the matter is put to bed for a generation. It is not as if in the event of a no vote Salmond (or anyone else in the SNP) will be allowed to try again in five years - Britain has a general aversion to referenda compared to many other countries and you certainly can't simply re-poll until you get the "right" answer. Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Times are a -chanin...got an EU referendum due soon. And some precedence in Quecec for a nother vote within a generation (depends how its defined)Lihaas (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
In the context of ITN, this is one of the few referendums where the outcome doesn't really matter, imnsho. The vote itself is a historic and defining moment in the history of Scotland and Great Britain, much in the way the 1995 Quebec referendum was for the province and Canada as a whole. We should post the result either way. Resolute 19:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support once the result is known, whether yes or no. Cameron, Klegg, and what's'sname all just signed a pledge to give each Scott a diamond-studded golden tooth plate, a low rider wif subwoofahs, and 5,000 Swiss Francs if they vote no (I realize that's bad Cockney, please don't chime in). That pledge alone is hysterical enough to be noted in an encyclopedia. When's the last time a UN security council permanent member let half a province decide to take away its sole deep water naval base? μηδείς (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support once certified election results are known. Given the worldwide interest in this, and the closeness of the opinion polling, it should be posted no matter the result. Abductive (reasoning) 02:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support once results are in - whatever the result. The referendum has been getting lots of international media attention. If Scotland voting to become independent would have significant effects, then by the same token it voting against independence would be equally significant since it would prevent these effects from happening. Neljack (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support regardless of the results as this is a huge story with worldwide implications. Jusdafax 04:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Neljack. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support once results are in, whichever way they go. Given the general opposition to posting before results are available, I've updated the blurb and provided an altblurb for the two outcomes. GoldenRing (talk) 23:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
DAMN! took my nom ;( 'support regardless with result' to be declared in under 24 hours. Its got ramification and is certainly in the news.
ALBA GO BRAIG!!!! Let freedom reign!!!!!!Lihaas (talk) 08:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. We need to be careful over precise terminology, given that the question asked is simply "Should Scotland be an independent country?" We should not try to interpret the result in an over-specific way. Words like "secession", and even "United Kingdom", are not on the ballot paper and are best avoided - for example, we simply do not know if the remaining parts of the UK will still be called the "United Kingdom" or not. There is uncertainty and scope for interpretation over precisely what happens next. Hence, Altblurb2 - In a referendum, Scotland votes for/against becoming an independent country. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
yes to "Should Scotland be an independent country" by definition means secession.Lihaas (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Ye, should move the issues to a separate section as per the endorsementsLihaas (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Ghmyrtle's Altblurb2, whatever the result, once announced.  — An optimist on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 11:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support, but only once the result is known and the article has been updated. Results are expected to be announced between 6:30 and 7:30 (BST) on Friday morning, so we have plenty of time yet. Modest Genius talk 11:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • 'WHY is this not on the ITN template yet? Nergaal (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Because voting is still taking place and we won't know the results for at least another 13/14 hours, that's why. ITN posts results of votes, not "voting begins" stories. BencherliteTalk 16:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Um, Nergaal, have you suddenly become unaware of how ITN works? This is about the third or fourth time you've posted something that is most unusual. What's the deal? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Umh, not sure what u r taking about TRM. In this particular case the story itself seems unusually well covered even outside UK so I don't understand why can't this be posted before the results are out. Nergaal (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support once results are known. It Is Me Here t / c 16:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support when the tally is complete, regardless of the outcome. In a discussion on the main ITN talk page, I opposed posting this before the vote took place. Given all of the news coverage I've seen leading up to the vote in this past week, I'm certain this should be posted even if the "status quo" wins. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - It would be nice to get something up to say that votes are being counted (in a few hours time), and then update it to give the result at about 07:00 UTC. Franklin's ship can certainly be moved out of ITN. Jamesx12345 17:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Per Modest Genius. Miyagawa (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support posting the result, whatever way it goes. Historic event for UK and Scotland. Mjroots (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support posting the result. Defining moment in Scotland and the UK's history, no matter how it turns out. Resolute 19:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support when results are known to us. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - when results are becoming clear.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support posting result when article is updated. Posting the fact of the referendum today would have been reasonable, but it's a moot point now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The vote alone is major world news. Let's get this on the Main Page! ----Another Believer (Talk) 01:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The official results will be in soon enough. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news wire. Abductive (reasoning) 02:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support regardless of outcome. Seems obvious. Calidum Talk To Me 02:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support after outcome, regardless of outcome. It is news either way. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 02:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Post the altburb now. It's clear that the No-campaign has won, there is no point in waiting for the official result. Count Iblis (talk) 02:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Pending results, irregardless of outcome (and right now with less than 1% between y/n, we're waiting until it is officially declared, not based on ongoing ballet tallies) --MASEM (t) 03:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support posting now; BBC have officially projected for No. Sceptre (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support posting now, per Sceptre; I can hear the fat lady warming up. Only three local authorities have not yet declared results. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 05:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted The result just in pushes the question over the line. Scotland has voted No. --Tóraí (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
It's all over but the pouting. Sca (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
It's all over, bar the trouting. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Suggest Update (Proposed as altblurb) to reflect the fact that Salmond has resigned. We don't often mention second-level leaders, but it fits well into the blurb (i.e., his resignation is not the whole story) and the circumstances of his resignation are, well, somewhat exceptional. Smurrayinchester 15:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
    I"d oppose that--we don't need to include details of the SNP politics in the blurb. Support blurb as is.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

September 17Edit


[Posted] Fijian general election, 2014Edit

Article: Fijian general election, 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The FijiFirst Party (leader Frank Bainimarama pictured) wins a majority/plurality in the first Fijian general election since the 2006 Fijian coup d'état.
Alternative blurb: ​The FijiFirst Party, led by Frank Bainimarama (pictured), win a majority in the Fijian general election.
The FijiFirst Party, led by Frank Bainimarama (pictured), win a majority in the Fijian general election, the first Fijian election in eight years.


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: If the Swedish election gets ITN so should the Fijian one. Also it is on ITN/R. ~~ NickGibson3900 Talk 06:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

NO prose update. Also updated te blurb to combine the alt with theunifhnished one...and added the coup partLihaas (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose article needs to be updated, there's no excuse, plus the lead is pathetically short and contravenes WP:LEAD. Look forward to seeing the supporters get involved with improvements if they have time. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man and Lihaas: I understand your concerns. TRM; I have expanded the lead and the info box. Official results are currently been announced as I type (06:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)). I think it will be updated in the next 12-24 hours. Also - both your help would be appreciated if you have any spare time. -- NickGibson3900 Talk 06:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Counting is still ongoing and we should definitely get the final results (in relation to seats) in the next 5 hours even though some of the preliminary results may be out within the next hour..--Stemoc 09:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Obviously more significant (even) than "routine" general elections in most countries: official restoration of democracy after eight years of military rule. And it seems to me the article has been adequately updated. Aridd (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment should the result not be summarised in the lead of the article? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Done. NickGibson3900 Talk 08:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:ITN/R, but can you suggest an alternative blurb? Yogwi21talk 09:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
@Yogwi21: Suggested alt blurb -- NickGibson3900 Talk 09:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: This is ready to go - NickGibson3900 Talk 02:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

September 17Edit


[Posted] Fijian general election, 2014Edit

Article: Fijian general election, 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The FijiFirst Party (leader Frank Bainimarama pictured) wins a majority/plurality in the first Fijian general election since the 2006 Fijian coup d'état.
Alternative blurb: ​The FijiFirst Party, led by Frank Bainimarama (pictured), win a majority in the Fijian general election.
The FijiFirst Party, led by Frank Bainimarama (pictured), win a majority in the Fijian general election, the first Fijian election in eight years.


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: If the Swedish election gets ITN so should the Fijian one. Also it is on ITN/R. ~~ NickGibson3900 Talk 06:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

NO prose update. Also updated te blurb to combine the alt with theunifhnished one...and added the coup partLihaas (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose article needs to be updated, there's no excuse, plus the lead is pathetically short and contravenes WP:LEAD. Look forward to seeing the supporters get involved with improvements if they have time. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man and Lihaas: I understand your concerns. TRM; I have expanded the lead and the info box. Official results are currently been announced as I type (06:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)). I think it will be updated in the next 12-24 hours. Also - both your help would be appreciated if you have any spare time. -- NickGibson3900 Talk 06:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Counting is still ongoing and we should definitely get the final results (in relation to seats) in the next 5 hours even though some of the preliminary results may be out within the next hour..--Stemoc 09:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Obviously more significant (even) than "routine" general elections in most countries: official restoration of democracy after eight years of military rule. And it seems to me the article has been adequately updated. Aridd (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment should the result not be summarised in the lead of the article? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Done. NickGibson3900 Talk 08:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:ITN/R, but can you suggest an alternative blurb? Yogwi21talk 09:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
@Yogwi21: Suggested alt blurb -- NickGibson3900 Talk 09:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: This is ready to go - NickGibson3900 Talk 02:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

September 16Edit


Typhoon Kalmaegi (2014)Edit

Article: Typhoon Kalmaegi (2014) (talk, history)
Blurb: Typhoon Kalmaegi kills 10 people in the Philippines.
News source(s): Weather Channel

 --Jinkinson talk to me 14:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Suggestion - Is this considered part of the typhoon season that hit India and other parts of Asia roughly a week ago (where there was tons of reported flooding and missing persons?) I don't think that got posted, so perhaps pushing that point again that "a series of typhoons in the SE Asia region have killed X people" or something like that. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose a tragedy, to be sure, but frankly 10 storm- or accident- or disease- related deaths is of such frequent occurrence that the threshold really needs to be higher. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

September 15Edit


Libya migrant shipwreckEdit

Article: 2014 Libya migrant shipwreck (talk, history)
Blurb: ​More than 200 migrants are believed to have drowned in a sinking off the coast of Libya.
Alternative blurb: ​About 500 migrants drown in a shipwreck off Maltese coast and another 200 off Libyan coast.
News source(s): Daily Telegraph

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Once expanded, could be combined with news from 2014 Malta migrant shipwreckThe Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Conditional support alblurb Once the Libyan number is confirmed and both articles become fleshy. The total number (about 700) is dramatic. Brandmeistertalk 17:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Engvar these seem to have been one way illegal immigrants carried by human traffickers. Why would the blurb call them migrants if they are not seasonal/annual travellers with papers? Cannot we just call them Libyans who were drowned by human traffickers? μηδείς (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
See the BBC article linked in my post below - I think this is an engvar issue where anyone migrating legally or illegally are referred to as migrants. CaptRik (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
That the term is used in the British press, but not the American is precisely the issue. In the US there are legal migrant farm workers who work the season then go home. There are migrat birds that summer in one range and winter in another. We take huge pains to be Engvar neutral in sports results. I think it would make sense to say something likeX-hundred Africans/Libyans drown when human trafficker ram their vessel. μηδείς (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
'Migrant' means someone who is migrating from one place to another. It applies regardless of how long for, whether legally or illegally, how far apart those places are etc. This meaning appears in every AmE dictionary I checked [22]. I can't see how it presents ENGVAR problems. Modest Genius talk 12:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
There's a thing called proper usage. According you, my sister and her family were migrants when the drove across a few states to visit their cousin for his first birthday? These may be refugees or undocumented workers but they are not seasonal travellers. Likewise, they weren't euthanized by pleasure-boaters. μηδείς (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Did they go there in order to seek work? I doubt the infant was offering employment ;) Having said that, if there is a more neutral/inclusive way to put it, we should strive for mutual comprehension. Modest Genius talk 22:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
"Migrant" is the correct term and is uncoloured by politics at least in an encyclopedic sense. "Immigrant" or "emigrant" are matters of perspective best avoided but ultimately we have to assume that readers of the English language Wikipedia can at least speak English. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 04:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the new ~200 death sinking, but according to [23] the 500+ one was last week and so might be ineligible? (despite being a tragedy that's only really coming to light now). CaptRik (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
It seems as though the 500 death sinking occurred on the 10th [24] and so should be moved under that date, although as noted above it took some time for this to come to light. Jinkinson talk to me 22:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
óppose'' far too frequent...at this rate we shoul post the Iraq/Syria/Libya /Pakistan bombingsLihaas (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
If I understand your post, we do post Iraq etc in Ongoing when the going gets hot. Sinkings like this are nowhere near as common as bombings in the Middle East, as well you know. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • the article is a mere stub. CNN is reporting that the ship was deliberately rammed by the Palestinian smugglers and most aboard were Palestinians who used their rebuilding money to pay some official agency to be smuggled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.185.242.18 (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - significant number of deaths.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I would only support if the articles were expanded, but it's been a few days now and nothing has happened. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Microsoft acquires MojangEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 06:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Mojang (talk, history)
Blurb: Microsoft acquires Minecraft developer Mojang for $2.5 billion.
News source(s): BBC, WSJ

Article updated
Nominator's comments: While I fully recognize this is otherwise a small business deal in the scope of things, this is a rather huge thing in the world of video games, given the popularity and success of Minecraft. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose regrettably. I've been paying attention to this story rather closely, but this is a small category of business news. Company acquisitions of small publishers and developrs are rather frequent, especially in the gaming world.--WaltCip (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support while I accept it's not the largest business news in the world, it is of interest to a large portion of our readers. I think waiting for the massive business news items now means we are unlikely to post any. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WaltCip. Admittedly of a large interest to readers but it's too small and frequent of a story. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    • In terms of the video game industry, $2B is huge, and this is a rarity in that scale. Yes, in all of business, drop in the bucket, but not in this industry. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I believe that this is big news. While Mojang is a small company and may only have one big game (Minecraft), that game has sold "nearly 54 million copies across all platforms" and is a big gain for Microsoft Palmtree5551 (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Had that been Mojo, however. μηδείς (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Question: did we post Microsoft's acquisition of Nokia? Because that was a much bigger deal (both literally and figuratively). Modest Genius talk 21:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
It was discussed here - [25] and looks like it went stale without being posted. CaptRik (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, minor, minor deal. No impact on the players of minecraft. Abductive (reasoning) 23:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Says who? Do you have proof that this won't have any effect on Minecraft players? Palmtree5551 (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The deal may be huge in the particular industry that Mojang is involved in, but no doubt that could be said about plenty of business deals of this size. I don't see why the video games industry should get preferential treatment over other industries. Neljack (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Arguably, it is almost impossible for video game news to make ITN, because some see it as too far niche despite numerous coming on part with other entertainment mediums for specific works. No, I'm not saying that we need to flood ITN with video game coverage, but it is a major development in that specific field, and since we generally try to consider stories relative to the field they are in, this would be a reason to consider inclusion. --MASEM (t) 01:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I'd rather see those video game championships posted than business deals. Abductive (reasoning) 01:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

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

September 14Edit


[Closed] Matthew Todd MillerEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 04:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Matthew Todd Miller (talk, history)
Blurb: Matthew Todd Miller is sentenced to six years of hard labor by a North Korean court.
News source(s): BBC News
Nominator's comments: Miller was convicted on charges of espionage. This seems to be a significant story since Miller and 2 other Americans have appealed to the US government to send a "senior statesman" to Pyongyang. [26] --Jinkinson talk to me 00:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Given they appeared to have willingly gone into NK to be disruptive, I'm not seeing this as a significant story. And 6 years is really a slap on the wrist in comparison to other top level ITN stories. --MASEM (t) 01:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose seems that nothing will come of this, he got caught, fair enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM; also is not a top level news story(not even really in the US). 331dot (talk) 09:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's North Korea being North Korea. The U.S. Department of State even has a travel advisory saying that this sort of thing is typical.--WaltCip (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. He definitely got what he deserves and there is nothing pointing out that the North Korean court has violated any of its country's laws. We all know that the US media are familiar with misreporting the news relating to countries that are not in their favour, but we're simply not here to post stories about every single American "martyr".--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

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

[Posted] 2014 FIBA Basketball World Cup FinalEdit

Article: 2014 FIBA Basketball World Cup Final (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 2014 FIBA Basketball World Cup concludes with the United States defeating Serbia in the final
News source(s): ESPN, BBC

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Updated and in ITNR. Good to go. –HTD 00:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC) --–HTD 00:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - ITN/R , and the article is updating and in good shape. --MASEM (t) 01:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support ITN/R—Bagumba (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Mild support looks okay, but a heavy dependency on primary sources (FIBA) and an inconsistent approach to diacritics. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm a bit sceptical about this nomination as the quality of this tournament is far lower than the Olympic tournament. Many players from the European national teams usually prefer to play at the Olympics or the EuroBasket instead of the FIBA World Cup. For example, Tony Parker refused to play for France three times, while he regularly plays at the Olympics and the EuroBasket. The United States national team are also typically not represented by their top players. Evidently, even the media do not pay serious attention on it: its coverage here in Europe is definitely less than the EuroBasket, while in the United States it's not even on the level of the pre-seasonal NBA news. Another major issue is that even the FIBA officials are afraid about the popularity of this tournament and they decided to abandon organising it in the same year with the FIFA World Cup and thereby scheduled the next one to take place in 2019. I know that much of my concern will have to be addressed elsewhere and so I decided to leave this just as a comment.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Posting. Well, it only takes place every 4 years and it's ITNR, so I guess we should keep it. I understand the concerns, otherwise. --Tone 13:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Toronto International Film FestivalEdit

Article: 2014 Toronto International Film Festival (talk, history)
Blurb: The Imitation Game wins the People's Choice Award at the 2014 Toronto International Film Festival.
News source(s): USA Today, WSJ

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

 --JuneGloom Talk 17:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose one para of prose in the whole article, lots of unreferenced material (red links, sure, but that's no guarantee of anything), and out of date. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - I know the article format is the same as previous years but it feels a bit thin, I'd like to point out to other commentors if we should expect more or is otherwise fine. I don't think it needs more based on this but otherwise seems good to go. --MASEM (t) 20:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Swedish general election, 2014Edit

Article: Swedish general election, 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Swedish citizens votes in the Swedish general election, with Fredrik Reinfeldt and Stefan Löfven as leaders for the two main partys.
Alternative blurb: ​The Social Democrats, led by Stefan Löfven, win a plurality in the Swedish general election.
News source(s): [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]

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: Please feel free to change the blurb or add new ones, I think this election is noteworthy. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  • comment. I think we generally wait until the result to post unless this is more notable than a normal general election in Sweden for some reason? Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment agreed, these kind of items are WP:ITN/R so there's absolutely no point in nominating them until they're update suitably after the results have been ratified and announced. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Can someone expound on its " long-lasting impact in the world of politics"? Not just Swedish politics but I dunno, "world politics"? –HTD 20:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    • See WP:ITNR (which you are commensurate with, of course). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
      • The phrase "long-lasting impact" doesn't appear at WP:ITNR. Am I missing something? It does mention something about "importance", which most people won't ordinarily associate with "long-lasting impact". –HTD 20:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
        • You're commensurate with ITN/R, if you'd like to add/remove/modify the way items are added/removed there, this isn't the venue to do it. As you know. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Yeah I know that. I'm just wondering how "long-lasting impact" gets in to the mix if it isn't at WP:ITN and WP:ITNR. –HTD 20:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Now the results have come in, I've proposed an altblurb highlighting the Social Democrats winning the most seats - in line with our usual practice for elections. Neljack (talk) 01:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The results are in and unless anyone wants to wait until they're verified and counted again this is ready to go. Bluefist talk 02:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support supposing the article update is done. Also made a minor adjustment to the altblurb wording. GoldenRing (talk) 03:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the alt blurb, although it would be good to mention also the rise of the far-right Sweden Democrats as the biggest surprise of the election. Just my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 13:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Is it possible to replace the image of Oscar Pistorius by this image of Stefan Löfven (who is mentioned in the most recent blurb)? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Done. —David Levy 17:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

September 13Edit


[Closed] Floyd Mayweather vs. Marcos MaidanaEdit

Consensus against, and closing now to avoid further fisticuffs. BencherliteTalk 20:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Floyd Mayweather vs. Marcos Maidana II (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In boxing, Floyd Mayweather, Jr. defeats Marcos Maidana by unanimous decision to retain his welterweight and lightweight titles.
News source(s): USA Today Los Angeles Times ESPN Fox Sports The Guardian CBS Sports Wall Street Journal Sports Illustrated

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: I think boxing should be covered on ITN, especially one of the greats such as Floyd Mayweather, Jr. Andise1 (talk) 04:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Boxing should be covered in ITN. Just not this fight. Right now, the only prospective fight with any juju would be the putative Mayweather-Pacquiao fight; but barring that one I can't imagine this fight (or nearly any other excepting perhaps a major heavyweight title unification fight) having enough importance to the sporting world to merit inclusion in ITN given the deplorable state of boxing right now. Even respectable boxing press derided this fight as Mayweather beating up an inferior opponent; it's another tomato can for Mayweather to take on while he and Pacquiao avoid each other even more. "Less than engaging", for just one example... --Jayron32 05:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • For the love of god no Such an event should never be covered at ITN. It is not a sporting event of worldwide significance such as the Olympics or the Tennis Opens or the World Cup. Valiant Patriot (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Per above, "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." Andise1 (talk) 05:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Per my objection, Floyd Mayweather winning his boxing match isn't news anywhere. This story is not news. Not news, ok? I'm not seeing it on BBC.Com NYT.com or News.com.au. This story is not news. Not news at all. Please don't assume people are so stupid they haven't read the guidelines at the top of the page. Valiant Patriot (talk) 05:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The only sporting events we should cover at ITN are the olympics, Tennis Opens, World cups and so on. Items of actual significance only please. Valiant Patriot (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
BBC.com, New York Times, news.com.au. Seriously, if you're going to raise objections, you could at least do so from a place other than self-righteous "I'm so much better than all you people because I'm protecting the world from what I think are unimportant stories" bullshit. --Jayron32 05:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Jayron. I respect your oppose as you agree with me that Boxing should be covered on ITN. This match has been covered quite a bit, so to use the argument that it's not news is ridiculous. Andise1 (talk) 05:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I thought ITN was were we voiced our opinions on news articles, not where Jayron32 accused other people of spouting 'bullshit' and attacking those he disagrees with. How terribly 'self-righteous' of him. I was referring to the frontpages of those sites, clearly this 'bullshit' story is not warranting front page coverage anywhere in the world. Frankly, the fact that you so quickly jump to accusations, attacks and swear words demonstrates a severe lack of character. Thankyou and goodbye Valiant Patriot (talk) 06:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Jayron is obviously having a bad day, but, to quote him, "he does need to modify how he interacts with people". Pot, kettle etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Given the nature of boxing, where there's no regular season, matches, or championship structure that we can use as a metric, we have to be very selective of what matches should be included. A significant boxing match would be ITN which would have had significant coverage before it happened would make sense, but this match does not seem to have that. --MASEM (t) 06:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose A single boxing match is almost never going to have long-lasting notability. They are usually just a swap of belts, the odd unification bout. If someone was e.g. killed during a prominent fight, that might have long-term implications for the sport and be worthy of consideration here. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the reasons given; I think the heavyweight title might get the attention to be posted. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    • TBH, this fight had more press than the last 10 heavyweight bouts combined... or the Swedish election. –HTD 12:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
      Can you quantify its long-lasting impact in the world of boxing, or the world of sport, or ... the world? If you object to Swedish elections, please focus your gripe at WT:ITN/R, as you are abundantly aware. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I dunno if I can quantify its long-lasting impact in the world of boxing; has anyone quantified Oscar Pistorious' murder case's long-lasting impact in the world of murder trials? I don't think anyone has did that.
        Now, I dunno anyone would agree to me, but I could quantify which boxing matches are worth posting. The same way how we judge which "championship match" in other sports with "multiple champions" (Golf, tennis) are posted: if the purse's big enough. Now, I dunno if the purse was big on this one, though. –HTD 19:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Lots of don't know. This is really not newsworthy, has no long-term impact on the sport, unlike this match for instance. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
          • This Mayweather fight is actually linked here above the fold, while that match is below the fold already, probably because it happened yesterday, and because some Brit is in the ICU. The fight you had suggested isn't even at ESPN.com's home page, while the Mayweather fight is. A fight being reported prominently in the leading sports websites across the pond? Remarkable. Boxing is always given the afterthought nowadays, mainly because the heavyweights suck. –HTD 20:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
            • You missed the point entirely. The fight I linked to includes a boxer who may die. The fight you're talking about was a run-of-the-mill money-making exercise which changed nothing. Nothing at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

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

September 12Edit


[Posted] RD: Ian PaisleyEdit

Article: Ian Paisley (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
  • Support once improved but article needs a lot of work. BencherliteTalk 12:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support By far the most visible unionist politician in modern Northern Ireland, and for a while, the country's First Minister. I don't think the article's in very bad shape, although certainly some of the sections referring to contentious parts of the Troubles (such as the claim that he had direct control of a vigilante group in Ravenhill) need more references. Smurrayinchester 12:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Love him or loathe him (and most people went one way or the other) he was a hugely significant figure. Northern Ireland would be a very different place without him. The article does have quite a few {{cn}} tags in some areas, but it's mostly fine and overall probably good enough to post to RD. Modest Genius talk 12:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support A major player in a countries recent history. CaptRik (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - A major player in one of the major conflicts of the 20th century--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - A significant individual involved in Northern Irish politics. Miyagawa (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Without a shadow of a doubt he was one of the two biggest figures in Northern Ireland politics. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – hugely influential figure in Northern Ireland. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support any armed militant who stands up in the European parliament in 1988 holding a sign calling Karol Wojtilła (!) the antichrist deserves consideration, and his recurring role as Dr. Evil's sidekick, The Paisley Baron in Mike Myers' films makes him a shoe-in for RD. I am reminded of Christopher Hitchens, who when stopped by militants in the area was asked, "Catholic or Protestant?" On answering, "Atheist", he was asked, "Catholic Atheist or Protestant Atheist"? This is the end of an era. μηδείς (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD Clearly meeting the "top of field" as an important leader in events in Ireland. --MASEM (t) 20:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD From uncompromising Unionist firebrand to power-sharing First Minister, he certainly had a big role in the recent history of Northern Ireland. Neljack (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I see 12 citations needed, and as a Catholic sympathizer, I don't see myself qualified just to hide some, just so this gets posted. But the nom will go up if someone with better knowledge than I attends it. μηδείς (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I have fixed all of them. Jinkinson talk to me 22:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
There are 2 sentences for an update...meanwhile when you deem something not worthy despite consensus and a bigger update that is not fai r enough for ITN. Lord dictators of ITN...11:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Lihaas (talk)
Give it a rest. There was clear consensus in favour of it being posted, it was updated, albeit briefly, and had the many [citation needed] tags resolved by people who actually work to improve things around here. Get it? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Oscar Pistorius convictedEdit

Article: Trial of Oscar Pistorius (talk, history)
Blurb: ​South African athlete Oscar Pistorius is found guilty of culpable homicide of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.
Alternative blurb: ​South African athlete Oscar Pistorius is found not guilty of murder but guilty of culpable homicide of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.
News source(s): BBC Le Monde CNN Times of India News 24 (South Africa)
  • Thought I'd stump this one up for nomination as the verdict is (likely) to be today. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongest Possible Opposse There is absolutely nothing newsworthy about the murder trial of an olympic athlete in South Africa. While ITN does in part reflect the news media, there is no actual encyclopedic value to the story. Valiant Patriot (talk) 08:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
....which is why it is the top headline story around the world, appearing on the top of most news sites, in some cases in large print(including France, the UK, India)- because it isn't newsworthy. This is something people will be interested in learning about, which is what ITN is about. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support original blurbwhen the article has been updated altblurb is too long for itn and not necessary. HelenOnline 08:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This is the top story around the world at the moment. Very rarely does one see one story get such attention in a wide variety of countries. Now that he has been convicted we don't have the lack of a conviction as an argument against. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – I came here to nominate this but it already had been NickGibson3900 Talk 09:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Surely to be fair the blurb should also include his acquittal on the murder count - the most serious charge he faced. I've proposed an altblurb to this effect. We have to be scrupulously careful to be fair when it comes to a living person. Neljack (talk) 09:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Support alt blurb. I agree. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Two bold links to the same article? Nein danke. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Fair point - I have no problem with taking one of them out. Neljack (talk) 09:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I've amended it to incorporate them into one linked to the article. I don't think we really need to wikilink murder - unlike culpable homicide, it is a generally understood term. Neljack (talk) 09:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support original blurb The altblurb looks excessively moot to me, the wikilink to culpable homicide sorts this out. Brandmeistertalk 09:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I prefer the original blurb, but I don't object to the alt. Clearly the top story around the world at the moment. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral, but use original blurb if posted (as seems likely). The story here is the crime he has been found guilty of committing, not the ones he didn't do. I'm a little uncomfortable about posting a sensational story like this, but it is certainly in the news and our article is extensive so I won't oppose. Modest Genius talk 11:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support and my preference is for the original blurb as I don't feel we're being biased by not mentioning the not-guilty. Ultimately this verdict was one of the possible outcomes so it's not news that others weren't chosen. CaptRik (talk) 12:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted original blurb. It Is Me Here t / c 12:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Got a pic idea. I'm terrible at doing these right, but can we get a crop on File:Oscar Pistorius(1)- 2. Memoriał Kamili Skolimowskiej - Warszawa, 2011-09-20.jpg around his face, and then post that as our ITN pic link? @David Levy: don't you usually do these? --Jayron32 14:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I have uploaded a cropped version for someone more powerful than me to add to the main page. HelenOnline 14:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Picture updated, thanks HelenOnline. Thryduulf (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Why was this picture uploaded to the front page without any discussion or consensus? Valiant Patriot (talk) 02:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
        • The old picture was up for more than a week. Why wouldn't we replace it? And there was some discussion directly above, but that's a bonus; these picture swaps are usually uncontroversial enough to be done without prior discussion, as long as the updater knows what they are doing. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
          • I'll start a discussion about pictures generally at WT:ITN. Thryduulf (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Per the FAR more notably ICC/ICJ trials we post the senencing not the conviction.
Make up your mind ITN, for consistencyLihaas (talk) 11:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
What are you talking about? We judge consensus. There is no such entity as "ITN" which "makes up its mind". You aren't making any sense at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Nigeria church collapseEdit

Article: 2014 Synagogue Church building collapse (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
News source(s): [32]
Mossad did it no doubt..v.Lihaas (talk) 12:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment why are you nominating an article which you have just put up at WP:AFD? Are you being deliberately disruptive? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

September 11Edit


[Closed] RD: Richard KielEdit

fair chance given, obviously going nowhere. μηδείς (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Richard Kiel (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): http://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/movies/richard-kiel-actor-who-played-james-bond-villain-jaws-dies-n200621

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.
  • Oppose Not an actor at the top of the field (well known if you know Bond films, but outside of that...). Not unusual death. --MASEM (t) 02:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not a significant actor. He played a significant sidekick for a villain in a couple of films. Not enough.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose He was at the top of his field as a fictional metal-toothed assassin saved by the love of a girl with pigtails, so I'd support if that is the field we are talking about, but as an actor unfortunately not. Belle (talk) 07:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I must agree with the others; while notable for a couple roles(Bond films and Happy Gilmore) he is not very important to the field of acting. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support this closure was premature, nominated at bedtime and closed before dawn in the US. The figure was iconic, and reader interest high. No one said subtleness of roles was a requirement for RD, which has plenty of space.
    • We don't use "iconic" as an RD metric; it's "top of the field", and by all measures, Kiel was not close at all due to his limited role. Iconic but not important. --MASEM (t) 17:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • 346,000 Views Today Kiel was certainly top of his field in "monstrous" character acters (forgive me for not finding a more PC way to say that). Again, closing this, overnight, with four opposes in about 6 hours while America was asleep is not seemly, and although I will be happy to support a no vote if tha's consensus, I am not happy to do so under current circumstances. A look at his huge TV and Filmography shows a legitimate reason for leaving this open a full 24 hours--otherwise users not familiar with the process will think a closure is like an ArbCom decision. Are we seriously afraid someoneone besides Joan Rivers will make it to RD? μηδείς (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Played one iconic role, and a bit role in Happy Gilmore. Not at the top of his field, or otherwise making a significant impact. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose only discussed because he was in two Bond movies, otherwise not significant, nowhere near top of his field, no objective evidence to the contrary. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I would suggest his over 70 TV and film appearances each with blue links (see his TV & Filmography) easily place him in the realm of Peter Lorre and Vincent Price. His physical disability seems to be the only reason he's treated as below first tier here. μηδείς (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    • No, it's simply because none of those roles were considered top of the line for either film or movies. No nominations or awards to be listed. It has zero to do with his deformity, outside of the fact that he probably got type-casted for roles that called on it (turning that disadvantage into an advantage for himself). --MASEM (t) 02:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per pretty much all of the above. Regular actor who had a regular career. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Sir Donald SindenEdit

boldly close due to lack of interest from editors here (no template?) and very small readership compared to Kiel μηδείς (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Donald Sinden (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-29170107

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.

RD: Leading British actor of stage, screen and TV. Optimist on the run (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose I considered this but couldn't really find substantive evidence that he could be considered top of his field. Sure a lengthy career and a couple of awards but nothing that indicates he was one of the best at what he did. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Was he the best actor of his period? Probably not, but he was up there with the best of them and I think he qualifies as being at the top if not the very top. Thryduulf (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. A good actor, but not really a leader in his field, and with almost no profile outside the UK. On the other hand, the article looks OK. Formerip (talk) 10:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not seeing him as terribly significant or notable in his field. Challenger l (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

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

September 10Edit


[Posted] GermaneneEdit

Article: Germanene (talk, history)
Blurb: Germanene, a single atom thick nanomaterial similar to graphene but made of germanium, is synthesized.
Alternative blurb: ​Scientists report the first synthesis of Germanene, a single atom thick nanomaterial that is the germanium equivalent of graphene
News source(s): phys.org, natureworldnews.com

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The sources say this semiconducting nanomaterial will have an array of interesting properties and lead to many technological advancements. Graphene is now a $9 billion a year industry and led to Nobels for its discoverers. --Abductive (reasoning) 02:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose Technically the discovery of how to synth it right is fine, but that article target is a long way from being a target from the front page, more than just a few sourcing and other tweaks. --MASEM (t) 02:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Support Article is in better shape, though I would ask if it was possible just to distill a bit more what the uses of the material could be for at a slightly higher (read : broader audience) level. But that shouldn't stop posting of this at this point. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Perhaps the discovery of Graphene was notable, the discovery of another very similar compound is not notable. The blurb you propose evidently bases germanene's notability off the mere fact it is 'similar to graphene'. Valiant Patriot (talk) 06:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the weakness of my blurb. I am not basing my claim of notability on the similarity to graphene; that was just to describe germanene. As with most of my nominations to ITN/C, I just like to bring these stories to people's attention. Abductive (reasoning) 06:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I created the stub to expand upon. This ITN candidate discussion occurred before I could return to the article. The work was far from suitable for the front page. I have now expanded the prose a bit and added a number of new references. The finding of methods for creation of high-quality films is significant; and could follow the path of previous Nobel-quality discoveries. -Kyle(talk) 08:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting discovery with good encyclopaedic value. The related materials of graphene and silicene are of major importance in the electronics industry, despite only having been discovered a few years ago. Germanium is the second-most-important semiconductor in the world, so this can be expected to have an important impact. The article is uninspiring to look at, but seems a good summary to me and is well-referenced. Modest Genius talk 11:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I added an alternative blurb. This could do with a little more support before posting. Modest Genius talk 11:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - interesting discovery.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support marked ready since we have "a little more support" and the discovery of a new allotrope of any element is interesting indeed. μηδείς (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

StonehengeEdit

Article: Stonehenge (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A hidden complex of monuments, including 17 wooden or stone structures, is discovered near Stonehenge.
News source(s): Telegraph

Nominator's comments: According to the source above, the survey that produced these finds was the "largest geophysical survey ever undertaken". --Jinkinson talk to me 15:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Conditional Support as significant archaeological find, thought article doesn't appear updated to include this (also considered with lack of inline cites in some sections already). But of course we all know that Doctor Who found it first. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support but a suitable update is required in the target article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Over 1500 new bytes not enough for you? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • It's great but it's odd that it's all stacked into the lead, and then one sentence in the article. It's ass-about-visage. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
This seems to have been fixed; the lead now contains 1 sentence on the new research and there is a paragraph about it in the section "Archaeological research and restoration". Jinkinson talk to me 00:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. The target article, Stonehenge Hidden Landscapes Project, doesn't exist yet. Abductive (reasoning) 00:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    comment Stonehenge is a fine target. Creating a new article on this is fine too, but we've got a decent enough target... --Jayron32 00:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    I am afraid I must oppose on the grounds that the update provides little actual information, and more PR verbiage than I would care to see in an encyclopedia: "On 10 September 2014 the University of Birmingham released a video of current research being led by Vincent Gaffney that announced findings ... the four-year study is likely to provide digital information that will transform perceptions of use of the site dramatically, for both professionals and the public." Once that text is disregarded, what is left is a claim, unvetted by peer review, that there are 17 additional monuments, and that these are important somehow. Take a look at this GIS image of the new monuments. See all those other bumps, about 100 other monuments? Hmmm.... Abductive (reasoning) 01:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Opposse on grounds that such a discovery is hardly newsworthy. If you type 'stonehenge discovery' into google with any year of your choice post 2000 you'll find a multitude of similar 'discoveries' regarding Stonehenge. Stonehenge has been discovered to death and that circle of rocks doesn't need ITN coverage. Valiant Patriot (talk) 06:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a PR blurb promoting an ongoing archaeological investigation process rather than a newsworthy discovery. It's very interesting, but it's not really "news". Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • If we judge newsworthiness by what story appears on TV news the most, Ray Rice and Roger Goodell would already be on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • That's not the only metric, but it is a part of it. ITN reflects what is "in the news", on TV news or otherwise. 331dot (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - significant discovery.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

September 9Edit


[Closed] RD: Bob SuterEdit

Consensus against. BencherliteTalk 17:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Bob Suter (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Windorstar

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 known in the US and should be around the world for that "Miracle on Ice" game. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Doesn't appear to be top of field - yes, being a member of the Miracle on Ice team is a noteworthy facet, but that's just one person, and didn't seem to have much of a career afterward. --MASEM (t) 03:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. Meh professional career. SpencerT♦C 05:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose nowhere near top of his field: would set a dangerous precedent to start posting all Olympic gold medallists to RD when they die. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Doesn't seem to be "very important" to his field; he won the gold medal as part of a team, not individually, and his career doesn't seem particularly remarkable. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. He was one player on a notable team. Herb Brooks would get and RD perhaps. I don't think any of hte players on that team should though.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

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

[Closed] iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus and Apple WatchEdit

No consensus to post, and further discussion will only bring out the fanboys. Stephen 02:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: iPhone 6 (talk, history) and iPhone 6 Plus (talk, history)
Blurb: Apple Inc. introduces the iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus and Apple Watch at an event in Cupertino, California.
News source(s): CBS News
 --Jinkinson talk to me 23:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nothing groundbreaking here. (Well, I mean, as a tech person, I recognize the importance, but these are really just incremental improvements.) --MASEM (t) 23:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment By "these" do you mean all three or just the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus? Because the Apple Watch is a totally new product, not a new version of an old one. Jinkinson talk to me 00:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just another random product announcement. Resolute 23:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose rather than do a pointy counter nomination for the MotoX and Moto 360 announced two days ago. Now that Apple is down to 12% market share, can we please stop pretending that they matter? --166.205.55.41 (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Apple is insanely good at getting the Sheeple to upgrade. They are even better at quickly removing a product from the market when it goes below an obscene cost and releasing a "new and improved" $800 piece of plastic. - Floydian τ ¢ 00:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment I'm fine with oppose votes, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a sufficient reason for opposing a nomination. Jinkinson talk to me 00:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Is it IDONTLIKEIT or ITSAGIMMICK? Either way the point being that there is no significance to this (or any, really) product announcement - Floydian τ ¢ 01:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose and SNOW close. ITN is not a product announcement ticker. 331dot (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Franklin's lost expeditionEdit

Article: Franklin's lost expedition (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper announces that one of the boats from Franklin's lost expedition has been discovered.
Alternative blurb: ​One of the boats from Franklin's lost expedition, missing since 1845, is discovered off King William Island.
News source(s): BBC

 The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Conditional Support My concern as this would be considered a scientific discovery of the verification (I know the article says photographs). I'm assuming it wasn't Harper himself but it would be nice if we had some authority to whom the group/people that made the positive identification; like for any other scientific discovery we'd rather see a peer-review publication to affirm before at ITN. I don't know if we need exactly that here, but I'd rather see details of the verification process before posting. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. My understanding is that Harper has been searching for this expedition as a publicity stunt. This is concerning because politicians should never be given a free pass. Anywhere. Abductive (reasoning) 15:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    • This article points out that Canada as a gov't is interesting in finding these ships as it would assert sovereignty over the Northwest Passage (which due to ice cap reduction, is becoming a usable transport corridor). I can certainly sense a bit of self-importance in Haper's motives, but its hard not to argue that this would be of great interest to the overall of Canada to have control on that passage. But then, to me, this makes it more important that we have independent verification of the find. --MASEM (t) 16:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Honestly, placing your own POV on this story is a complete waste of time unless you're prepared to actually help with it. Alt blurb suggested. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Would we want to revise headline to say "The Canadian Government" - it's not Harper who found the boat but rather a government funded expedition. We don't need to follow Conservative Party of Canada communication guidelines / censorship policies -- Tawker (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Not sure where it says that Harper found it himself? Curious interpretation. In any case, please see alt blurb (which anyone can suggest by the way). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
      • The Conservative Party likes to refer to the current Ministry as being the "Harper Government", which causes some people to get rather sensitive about any mention of Harper at all - even when contextually appropriate as in this case - because of the supposed implication that Harper and the Canadian government are synonyms. That said, the ALT1 blurb is better whether you refer to Harper by name or the Government in general. Resolute 00:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support ALT1 no need to mention who found it but only that is was found. same as we do to the new plants and new animals discoveries. in other case, Canada discovered Terror near an IS-land, would be funny.
      – HonorTheKing (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support ALT Both the blurb and the alt is missing a "the" in "one of boats".WinterWall (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Alt1. Significant discovery, agree with comments about the blurb. Resolute 00:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 02:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] 2014 Pakistan - India floodsEdit

Duplicate nomination, see September 6. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2014 Pakistan - India floods (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 390 were died in India and Pakistan due to worst floods in half a century.
Alternative blurb: ​At least 390 were died due to floods in India and Pakistan.
News source(s): Hindustan Times New York Times
 --Prateek Malviya 05:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

September 8Edit


[Closed] 2014 US Open – Men's SinglesEdit

Duplicate nomination. Lihaas (talk) 06:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2014 US Open – Men's Singles (talk, history)
Blurb: Marin Čilić wins the 2014 US Open – Men's Singles.

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: History has een made...and the est ever Asian tenis player.. --Lihaas (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Been decided that this is grouped with the Women's Singles as done in the past (see below). --MASEM (t) 23:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

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

[Closed] RD: S. Truett CathyEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: S. Truett Cathy (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN

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: Seems to have been "a very important figure in his field" in the sense that Chick-Fil-A is (its field being fast food restauraunts in the United States). Or maybe I'm just biased, being from the South. --Jinkinson talk to me 12:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Chick-fil-A is not even in the top 5 US fast food chains, nor was Cathy one of the 10 richest people in the USA. I'm not sure in what sense that puts him at the top of his field. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Colonel Sanders maybe. Gamaliel (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree on above assessments of not really being the top of their field, Chic-fil-A does not have anywhere close to the market size as McDs . --MASEM (t) 14:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Barring recent appearances in the news due to the highly controversial remarks and opinions of the ownership, the company itself does not carry much lasting notability, and by extension, neither does the founder.--WaltCip (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Outside of Atlanta and South Florida, Chick-fil-A is a footnote to the rest of the US, as evidenced by this map of their locations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.224 (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD, not full blurb I must digress on this matter from the five opposition arguments. Just last year, CFA (Mr. Cathy) bested KFC (Mr. Sanders) in terms of sales in the United States. Business Week, CNN Money, The New York Times CFA is the No. 9 top fast food chain in the United States, where we are the undisputed founders, kings and champions of fast food, is a tremendous accomplishment. QSR Magazine To boot, it has done so with a greatly reduced number of units. This proves loyalty to the brand by beating KFC with just 37 percent of the restaurant locations that KFC has at its disposal. So, I take it by your comments above Mr. Sanders would not even be eligible for RD if you hold that same criteria to Mr. Cathy. For your information, I don't particularly like Mr. Cathy's politics, but his chicken sandwich restaurant is the little engine that could as compared to KFC.AdditionSubtraction (talk) 03:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    • The first criteria states "or had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region". CFA is the biggest chicken fast food restaurant in the United States in terms of sales, and it beats goliath KFC in just six days of operation instead of seven. So, significant impact on region of the Southern United States made.AdditionSubtraction (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
      • KFC does $23 billion in sales, CFA does only $4 billion. Abductive (reasoning) 07:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
        • You probably confused KFC's global sales number with its US sales numbers. Last year, CFA pulled in $5 billion while KFC only did $4.22 billion[37]. WinterWall (talk) 07:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
          • The U.S. sales numbers would be more significant compared to the global sales number if we were a U.S.-based encyclopedia. We are not. We are a global encyclopedia. 128.227.222.83 (talk) 12:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
            • "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." --Jayron32 14:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    • For purposes of "in their field", we're not going to be cutting the bounds of the field to force inclusion. The argument that he ran the largest chicken fast food restaurant (whether true or not) has no impact on whether he ran the larger fast food restaurant. Otherwise, I can see people start to nominate RDs for things like the CEO of the larger Chinese fast food, or Mexican fast food, etc. And don't get me into other industries where the possible bounds can be gamed even more. --MASEM (t) 13:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
      • You mean people like #RD: Gustavo Cerati? –HTD 13:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Not really. To get there you go : musician (broad category) --> Latin American musician. For this, you need business leader (broad category) --> fast food CEO --> chicken fast food CEO. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
          • FWIW, "Gustavo Cerati" isn't mentioned at "Latin American music". That said, there are very few names, such as Enrique Iglesias, mentioned in that article. So it's musician (broad category) --> Latin American musician --> Argentinian musician, where are pal Gustavo shows up. –HTD 15:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

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

September 7Edit


2014 US OpenEdit

Articles: 2014 US Open – Women's Singles (talk, history) and 2014 US Open – Men's Singles (talk, history)
Blurb: Serena Williams wins the 2014 US Open – Women's Singles for the third time in a row.
Alternative blurb: ​In tennis, Serena Williams wins the women's singles and Marin Čilić wins the men's singles at the US Open.
News source(s): Huffington Post

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

 --Jinkinson talk to me 00:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Should we not cover both men's and women's results in the same blurb? (Yes, that means we need to wait a day)? --MASEM (t) 00:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I believe that is what we usually do; this is also ITNR. 331dot (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
We usually post the Women's once it's known, then modify the blurb to add the Men's once that happens. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Muboshgu is correct. They are both ITN/R. If the women's singles is ready, that can be posted and the men's singles added later. Neljack (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, as TRM notes, we'll need the results more than just a table w/o sourcing before the women's can be posted. --MASEM (t) 22:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose until the article is more than just tables and a lead with no inline references at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, but the draw pages like 2014 US Open – Women's Singles are always just a lead and then tables (the general references or external links to the official results support the whole draw so inline references are not needed). We usually bold the main tournament article. The men are done. I have added a suggested altblurb like 2013. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
The men's singles was nominated separately but now refers to here. I have changed the section heading to not mention gender. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

September 6Edit


Monsoons and Flooding in AsiaEdit

Article: Climate of Asia (talk, history)
Blurb: ​More than 200 people are killed in monsoons in China, India, and Pakistan.
News source(s): CNN USA Today Fox News ABC UPI

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: This seems notable because of the large death toll. Andise1 (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Support subject to a suitable update. Affecting a huge number of people, and a large death toll. Neljack (talk) 07:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Conditional support Once the related article appears. Brandmeistertalk 07:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC) PS: As an alternative, I'd support the 2014 North Indian Ocean cyclone season or something like that if those rains were produced by this stuff. Brandmeistertalk 21:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Conditional support Story is ITN-worthy, no question. Not thrilled with the current article target and would rather see something like "2014 monsoon season" or something with a more narrow focus to highlight the specific damage of these storms. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Question for someone with a better understanding of tropical cyclones in Asia. Is this story a combination of the 2014 North Indian Ocean cyclone season and 2014 Pacific typhoon season among others, or do we just not have an article for monsoon seasons? Also, if we were to post a story like this, which I don't remember ever doing, shouldn't we wait for the end of the relevant cyclone season? Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 15:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless this is being attributed to one storm. μηδείς (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Semantic note: If this is used, "More than" would probably be better than "Over". Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Of course, as a contributor and an admin, you can make this trivial change yourself. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Question. I don't mean to sound insensitive, but are the present deaths unusual in some way? In 2013, flooding in India killed 5000+; in 2011, flooding in Asia killed 1800; in 2010, floods killed 1600 in Pakistan and 1000 in China; in 2008, flooding killed 2400 in India. Poor people living in underdeveloped countries are often vulnerable to flooding. Are we talking about an event that is unusual in some particular way, or is this just what often happens during the rainy season in Southeast Asia? If the latter, then ~250 deaths actually seems like a better than average year for that part of the world. Dragons flight (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Df, that's basically my point above. It's like saying the flu killed 2500 last winter in NA. It wasn't one outbreak of one strain over a one week period in Rochester. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
As far as i know there were no tropical cyclones affecting India, Pakistan or China over the last week or so. What i believe has happened is that two areas of low pressure have dumped a significant amount of rain on India over the last week during the monsoon season.Jason Rees (talk) 03:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Would you say it would be comparable to May 18–21, 2013 tornado outbreak then? In that while torandoes + damage in the midwest US is common during the spring/summer months, the 4 days of intense activity was extraordinary ? This is why I think a separate article to talk about this specific system would make sense for the target here. --MASEM (t) 03:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Support, the total amount of water that was dumped in the region is so enormous that this will cause problems for the next few weeks. It will slowly make its way to the more densely populated South where the rivers the water is in meet with the Indus river. This problem is probably going to be smaller but of comparable order to the 2010 Pakistan floods. Count Iblis (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Would support 2014 Kashmir floods once it's quality is at par for main page. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Conditional support worst floods the area has seen in half a century, [38] between this and huge death toll clearly significant enough for ITN. But the article needs a considerable amount of grammar work. Jinkinson talk to me 18:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I nominate another news related to this with another blurb and with related topic. Please also observe that.--Prateek Malviya 07:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Iran and USEdit

Discussion not for ITNC. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Iran–United States relations are really thawing if this is happening. Nergaal (talk)

Why do you choose to not use the template to make nominations like everyone else does? If you want a news story to be on the main page, please use the template when making nominations and fill it in with the relevant information. Andise1 (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • If you are not formally nominating something, but just want to discuss it, please use the talk page. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

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

September 5Edit


Ceasefire in War in DonbassEdit

Article: War in Donbass (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Ukrainian government and pro-Russian insurgents agree to a ceasefire in the current Ukrainian conflict
News source(s): BBC, NYTimes

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Clearly important point in the Ukrainian conflict. Note that this is from the official levels - everyone seems to be expected pockets of resistance to this. --MASEM (t) 16:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

obvious support to replace the ongoing, but wed need some concrete details as to the terms. Also just rebels would work (a la usage for Syria)Lihaas (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

*Article now up-to-date. I support this blurb. RGloucester 17:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Changed my mind. Clearly not much of a "ceasefire" at all. I now oppose inclusion, per TRM. RGloucester 21:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's better than when I nominated. I know details of these specifics are still not big yet, but that primes the article for those when more come in. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose not a single one of these cheesefires has been in good faith, it's just an incremental war, like Hitler's, from 32-39. Putin's will obviously be quicker in this case. But the article itself is not an objective self-contained encyclopedic event. The ongoing status is well merited and this development supports it but any blurb is premature. μηδείς (talk) 00:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Again, that type of thinking is crystal balling it. Yes, it might not hold, but the fact there was a formal cease fire agreement is the news and until it is officially broken, that's what we go with. --MASEM (t) 01:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Crystal balling it is declaring it is serious and significant ahead of time while it's ongoing and several past such promises have been worth hovno. We have already seen such promises fail. (THanks Eugen μηδείς (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)) There is already an "ongoing" section. Unless the ongoing section is being nominated for deletion (and I may have missed that) there's no need for a separate this week's pretense. μηδείς (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, removing that is part of this nom. --MASEM (t) 02:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, User:Masem. As it stands, I think the status quo is fine, and we can either update with "Russians remove troops from Ukraine" when it happens or leave this as ongoing until either actuallity changes.
What ceasefire? [39] - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 14:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
As noted in my nom, and by reports on the ceasefire, it was unlikely that all violence would immediately stop, due to the nature of command structure and the conflict here. The key is the ceasefire is still agreed to on paper. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment would be absurd of us to post "agrees to a ceasefire" which has already been "shaken" by shelling. Suggest this item is parked until we get further information. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Cheesefire As we now know, the fighting is still continuing. As in the Israel-Gaza conflict earlier where countless cheesefires were broken by either side, the same is happening here. ITN really should take these announcements with a few more grains of salt than it is currently. Valiant Patriot (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] 2014 Wales summitEdit

Not a place for a discussion, try a nomination instead. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How come nobody nominated this yet? Nergaal (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Because no one has. Are you doing so? 331dot (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
WP:SOFIXIT. So far they haven't actually done anything except pose for a lot of photo opportunities, so I'm not sure what the news story would be. I suppose there might be an announcement this evening when the summit ends. Modest Genius talk 15:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Generally notable international gatherings of leaders like this get at least a shot as posting; the news seems focused on the creation of the rapid response force and other initiatives dealing with Russia/Ukraine. 331dot (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support posting a blurb related to this. It's a pretty high level gathering of powerful heads of state and there's been a chorus of very harsh criticism of another large state, a kind that is unusual.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
oppose generic post. When something notably concrete comes out of thefinal ommunique then we an see. (if the focus is eukraine then teres a nother blurb abovev)Lihaas (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose cut and paste a template and fill in the relevant information. μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

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

September 4Edit


2014 Zenica mine disasterEdit

Article: 2014 Zenica mine disaster (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least five miners are trapped underground after a mine collapses in Bosnia.
News source(s): ABC News

Nominator's comments: It is still uncertain if the five unrescued miners are dead or not, so I decided not to put "believed to be dead" (or something like that) in the hook. --Jinkinson talk to me 19:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Neutral First, we need the article updated, the link above says 29 have been rescued but the article does not state that; I'm also worried if this can be expanded any further beyond what's given, making the article better as part of something like Mining accident (or some closely related page) Second, assuming the worst that 5 miners died, I'm not sure if on the scale of the larger world that's really significant. I know we've posted mining incidents in the past but usually when the rescue effort is prolonged (The Chilian one comes to mind). Hence I'm neutral on this, as we've overlooked larger earthquakes that end up with death tolls less than 10 in the past. --MASEM (t) 20:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: article now clearly says "five were killed". Mercifully low death toll, but in my view therefore not worthy of front page coverage unless unexpected developments occur or more notable details are revealed. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Barring new information, this doesn't seem significant enough at this time- I'm not even sure an article is warranted in the first place. 331dot (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless there's some indication of foul play or an other extenuating circumstance its a risk of the business. μηδείς (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose not a great article, not a massively significant news item. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Dreadnoughtus schraniEdit

Article: Dreadnoughtus (talk, history)
Blurb: ​One of the largest dinosaurs ever, and one of the most complete titanosaurian sauropod dinosaurs, Dreadnoughtus schrani, is discovered in southern Patagonia.
News source(s): Nature New York Times BBC Popular Mechanics CBS News The Guardian Sydney Morning Herald

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Seems notabe enough for ITN. Andise1 (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Support, new dinosaur species always make good ITN items. Especially as big as this one. I'd go with "Discovery of a dinosaur is announced"-type of wording. --Tone 08:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. It appears that article was started on August 22, suggesting this is stale. Abductive (reasoning) 17:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
    • It looks like the mainstream media is only picking up on the story now, the scientific press had this back in August. --MASEM (t) 17:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
      • According to the official report from nature.com, the discovery was published yesterday. Also, I believe the general article is "Dreadnoughtus" (which was around before this finding) and the new, specific name (which has just been discovered) is "Dreadnoughtus schrani". Andise1 (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, appears to be significant archeological find, backed by peer-review source (Nature) --MASEM (t) 17:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - significant discovery. sourced. definitely for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - per above supports. International interest, decent article, good news coverage. A refreshing item, and if a photo is available that would be a plus. Jusdafax 19:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, a good story to include. Prioryman (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support once it's cleaned up (the "Etymology" section, at least, is very nearly copied from the paper). This would also be a good opportunity to highlight the featured articles dreadnought and Rivadavia-class battleship, which the dinosaur was named after (p. 2). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support It's a no-brainer (they didn't find the skull). Andrew (talk) 11:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support once the duplicated section is sorted out. This is definitely a significant discovery. Challenger l (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support- "Biggest dinosaur ever"s don't get discovered every day. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • In principle, support, but for now oppose until the copyright tag has been dealt with. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Crisco. Supporting an item with a copyright tag is a no-brainer fail I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

RD: Gustavo CeratiEdit

Article: Gustavo Cerati (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: RD only (has been under medical care for a few years so more a matter of waiting); appears to be important musician in Latin American circles including winning at least one Latin Grammy award. --MASEM (t) 20:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Opposed I am not opposed as such but the article has been tagged for four years, and there is no section that points to any accolades that make a judgement possible. If the tags are removed and something more than one grammy can be demonstrated I may happily support. μηδείς (talk) 04:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the guy is widely known in Latin America, but as long as the article remains with trouble, it should not be posted. Diego Grez (talk) 05:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support widely recognized as a major influence in Spanish-language rock, mostly through his former band Soda Stereo, the most outstanding phenomenon of the (early) internationalisation of Hispanic Rock back in the 1980s (see: Rock en Español#Internationalization (1980s). His death made headlines in all major Latin American Newspapers (Chile, Colombia, Peru, Mexico, Venezuela, Uruguay, Ecuador Bolivia, Argentina and so on] + Two days of official mourning in Argentina (1). 190.190.185.246 (talk) 09:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose solely on article quality. Surely worthwhile to put on RD, however the article itself has major issues which we should NOT put on the main page. Referencing mostly; larges swaths of the text have no references at all. Fix the article, and you can consider this full support. But unless and until that is done, it should not appear on the main page. --Jayron32 09:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality. It really needs a lot of work. Otherwise he looks significant enough for RD. Challenger l (talk) 02:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose terrible article, a shame that some of those who support the nomination and who are prepared to seek out references aren't prepared to actually work on the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment In case you are referring to my former participation in this thread, providing useful links for those interested: I wish I'd had the time to work a revamp of the article, when needed. I did not. In any case, I don't feel ashamed for trying to collaborate with WP as much as possible. Maybe you were overreacting. Salut, 190.190.185.246 (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
    I didn't say you should be ashamed, I said it was a shame. Maybe you misread. Salut. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Joan RiversEdit

Article: Joan Rivers (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: RD only; died at old age at complications from a heart attack at 81 --MASEM (t) 19:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Meets DC as a leader in her field. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD only, obviously. Secret account 19:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD, given her varied and lengthy (continuously active) career. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support meets RD criteria, one of the top US female comediennes. Mjroots (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support definitely meets the criteria, article just about meets what is needed. Marked as ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Marked Ready (ec) well updated [40] and incontrovertibly notable. μηδείς (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted so sue me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Please may you explain this comment, The Rambling Man? WP:NLT applies. 86.158.181.1 (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
99% sure this was a Joan Rivers-ism (or at least a Rivers-like quote) that TRM is citing and in no way a legal threat or attempt a such. eg it is a humorous addition. --MASEM (t) 22:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it refers to the fact that he supported it and posted it anyway(which I have zero problem with). 331dot (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
It's normal policy that an obvious nomination with four immediate supports, no opposes, and that meets all other requirements, is subject to immediate posting by an independent admin. In this case someone might have made a complaint there was an appearance of irregularity, but on further analysis it would have been found the action was correct. μηδείς (talk) 03:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Possibly WP:SNOW is the link you are after. GoldenRing (talk) 05:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Support, She died of a medical mishap, not old age, and the media were intently following her travails before her death. Abductive (reasoning) 22:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
DEAR dear...someone had to have the last laught.v. In her own ords: "getting what they deserved". "you know what the Chinese say cookie? beware what you wish for"Lihaas (talk) 11:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Just toclarify for posterity, there is a 2 senetence update on her death from yest....and it apparently is reason enough for an ITN update. (per precedence now set)Lihaas (talk) 11:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I believe the update encompasses all of what's been happening these past few days, from the surgery to the medically induced coma to the death. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb. Rivers, even in her 80s, was still active in her field and died of a botched surgery -- not old age. She was a significant figure in her field as well. Calidum Talk To Me 11:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, keep RD. While she did not "die of old age", people in their 80s are at a higher risk of dying, due to medical procedures or otherwise. She had been in the hospital on life support for a week (I think) which means it wasn't entirely unexpected, either. I don't think she warrants a blurb on those grounds or due to her career(she was not the greatest comedian of all time). 331dot (talk) 11:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, keep RD She was old, her death wasn't expected, but nonetheless she was in critical condition for several days, and also the sheer degree of american and euro-centrism with regard to blurbs is audacious in my view; she is virtually unknown outside of the US and some European countries. JDiala (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: does a long life, and/or health issues, in some way mitigate or reduce the notability of an entire career? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • If you are referring to the opposition to a blurb on the grounds that she was old and/or ill, generally RD is for posting the deaths of notable people, while a blurb is for deaths where the death is newsworthy itself. While her death is getting a lot of attention, that is largely due to her celebrity status and not the suddenness/unexpectedness of it. Occasionally we also post a blurb when the deceased was essentially #1 in importance in their field, too(which I don't think Rivers was). 331dot (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • To compare this to another recent situation, I feel the Robin Williams death was a step above this in terms of ITN. Granted that's a subjective opinion. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
hmmm...pseud-subjective. is not doubt RW was miles above notability to this boadLihaas (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Brain to brain communication in humansEdit

No prizes for guessing what I'm thinking here about this nomination's prospects. BencherliteTalk 23:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Damn! at least a barnstar? ;)Lihaas (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: No article specified
Blurb: ​For the first time, neuroscientists transmit a message from a person's brain in India to three people's brains in France.
News source(s): EurekAlert Science Alert cnet Daily Mail
Nominator's comments: I wasn't sure what the correct article to link was so if anyone knows a suitable article feel free to add it to the blurb or suggest an altblurb. Andise1 (talk) 06:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If you look up the actual article in PLOS One (alarm bells ringing straight away there), rather than relying on the 'science' reporting of the Daily Mail (!) of all places, you'll see why I opposed. It has a three paragraph 'results' section, which contains very few actual results and is very light on any quantifiable data. Basically, a dressed up press statement, which may or may not be entirely composed of bovine excrement. (EDIT:Technically not even a nomination, since there is no article linked) Fgf10 (talk) 08:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
    • What precisely do you have against PLOS One? It's a perfectly legitimate peer reviewed journal. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Erm, no. By their own admission "publish first, judge later". Have you seen the kind of crap that's in there some times? Perfectly good stuff as well, but you wonder why it didn't go into a proper journal if it was good enough. Especially stuff like this does them no favours at all. But that's beyond what we should be discussing here. Fgf10 (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. What an excellent way to get people's attention on ITN. Daily Mail notwithstanding, an interesting experiment, employing Bacon's cipher. And using "thoughts" in the sending process. But, as far as I can see, does not count as "communication" in any meaningful sense. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I transmit thoughts from my brain to other people's brains every day. I'm doing it now (No! Not that thought! You can't do that with an eggwhisk, you'll be arrested!) The blurb is also implying that it's the first time they've done it from one person in India to three people in France, when I'm assuming it is the first time they've done it at all. The blurb would need reworking at the very least, but the story sounds dodgy anyway. Belle (talk) 08:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This doesn't appear to be the first time this has been done see here, for example, for a pretty much identical study from last year and the distance involved doesn't seem to mean all that much, since the system uses the Internet. Formerip (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose A coherent, complex image? maybe. A yes-no signal? no. μηδείς (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

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

September 3Edit


[Posted] DendrogrammaEdit

Article: Dendrogramma (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Two species of dendrogramma, found off the coast of Australia in 1986, are discovered to be unclassifiable in any existing phylum.
Alternative blurb: ​Newly described dendrogramma specimens may represent a previously unknown phylum of animal life.
News source(s): Guardian

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This discovery may lead to the creation of a new phylum, which would be a significant event for the science of biology. To see how rare and interesting of an occurrence this is, take a look at Dendrogramma#Reactions, which says it better than I ever could. --— Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  • OpposePost-posting Weak Support (eta due to updated blurb to indicate "may") I was looking at this last night to add to here (the event that a new phylum is a rare event, maybe 4 times per century), however, this story is basically saying that the only samples they've found of Dendrogramma appear to be a new phylum, but the samples, due to how they were stored, were ruined genetically to be able to make the assurance that this was a new phylum and that fresh samples, stored in a manner as to not ruin the DNA, would be needed. And that's not something that's going to happen overnight. (Even the peer-reviewed paper this is in ends on that effect; all microscopic signs point to a new phylum but they can't state that 100% without the DNA to test). --MASEM (t) 13:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Support. Well, actually, the DNA would not confirm this as a new phylum, but just allow its placement in the tree of life. It's certain this critter's body plan (body plans are where scientists like to erect phyla) is very unusual, and ITN posts taxonomically uninteresting new species so why not a new phylum? Abductive (reasoning) 17:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
My issue is that it is not confirmed yet. Yes, the chances that it is a new phylum based on its biological structure appears very strong, and it wouldn't have been published in a peer reviewed journal if that wasn't a very strong theory. But they can't put it into the books that it is one yet, they need samples uncontaiminated by formaldehyde or ethanol so they can do the generic profile and verify it is sufficiently different from the two other nearby phylums. And importantly, the authors of the paper themselves caution "we think this is new but we need more samples to test"; it's not a random skeptic throwing doubt at this. --MASEM (t) 17:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I will add in light of the comments below is that the only reason my oppose is that right now is of the doubt that the researchers themselves had. This is an ITN item if there was more surety to the claim, when we compare to other stories that we post (eg we don't post merges when they are announced but after they are completed) If other editors are fine with posting this now, then that's fine, as the story should be posted ITN at some point. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support regardless of lack of DNA, the physiological uniqueness alone justifies the erection of a new class or order, both of which would merit posting. μηδείς (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support while I understand Masems argument these are nonetheless highly interesting new species, which in my opinion is enough to post them already. Also current blurb doesn't actually suggest that they necessarily belong to a completely new phylum so there is no problem there either. SeraV (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Highly unusual new organism, whether or not it ultimately gets recorded as a new phylum. I've suggested an alternative blurb that I think works a little better. Dragons flight (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Alt Blurb with "specimens of the genus Dendrogramma" is supported. This really should go up now unless there's a complaint that we don't post new species. μηδείς (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
    Yep, the alt blurb looks better than the one I thought of. I won't mind at all if my suggestion isn't used. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support with the alt blurb. Prioryman (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Posting altblurb with a slight modification. I am not sure about the picture, all the small text is hard to see in 100px. --Tone 08:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2Edit


[Posted] Gorham's CaveEdit

Article: Gorham's Cave (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Archaeologists announce the discovery of possibly the world's oldest piece of abstract art (pictured), attributed to Neanderthals, in Gorham's Cave, Gibraltar.
News source(s): http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/02/neanderthal-abstract-art-found-gibraltar-cave

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Lots of news about this today (see [41]). I've persuaded one of the archaeologists who excavated the find to upload an image of it for us to use. The discovery is unique (thought to be the only known example of Neanderthal abstract art) and the story behind it is interesting, and certainly a change from the run of the mill in ITN recently. --Prioryman (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - A groundbreaking discovery in the field of human evolution by an international team of researchers led by Prof. Clive Finlayson of the Gibraltar Museum, a renowned palaeontologist and an authority on Neanderthals. --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me 20:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Looking at the sourcing, both the dating of the engraving and its status as "art" (as opposed to having a purely functional purpose) seem uncertain. So I'm reluctant to support this. I'm also reluctant to oppose a nomination from an editor who has secured a good, relevant CC image. So I'm just leaving this comment here for other editors to take into account. Formerip (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. A significant discovery, and thanks to the nominator(and the archaeologist) for the image. 331dot (talk) 02:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Encyclopedic subject matter, academic impact, internationally reported, and an image even!128.214.53.18 (talk) 04:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment, as usual, this sort of thing has been found before: Bacho Kiro engraved bone. (drawing here) Abductive (reasoning) 06:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • It's a good science/history story, oldest or not. We can also go with: "Archaeologists announce the discovery of engravings (pictured), attributed to Neanderthals, in Gorham's Cave, Gibraltar." --Tone 08:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - and post soon. academic impact.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Article in decent shape, news is from peer-reviewed paper source. Just waiting for someone to try to figure out how they could claim copyright on these images. :) (FWIW, while there is potential copyright of the 3D-nature of the work for the photographer, the uploader appears tied with the discovery and has licensed them freely, so no issues with including the image here). --MASEM (t) 15:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Ongoing: Islamic State of Iraq and the LevantEdit

Okay, so it's a huge and cumbersome article, but with the alleged second beheading today of another American, and with mass executions and accusations of ethnic cleansing we should have something on the ITN section. It's sub-optimal, but this article is vaguely up to date. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment support the general idea that we should mention ISIS under ongoing but do not support the article title (ISIS), would support an alternate neutral title like - Iraq conflict etc. Legaleagle86 (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Definitely - it's perfect for ongoing, each day seems to be a pretty major story. CaptRik (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support comparable in history to Beer Hall Putsch, Occupation of Rhineland. μηδείς (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - definitely.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I don't normally comment here, so please forgive the intrusion. I've noticed for a while now that this huge story has stayed off of the main page. This is an important current event and definitely belongs in the Ongoing section. If the IS article is insufficient, there are other articles that could be linked if necessary.-RHM22 (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — When article updated. Sca (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 00:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support -- definitely need something on this. It's been a glaring omission for a while. It seems to me that the target article could be substantially improved simply by forking the History and Timeline sections off into separate articles; the rest seems fairly reasonable. GoldenRing (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted - Consensus is clear. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] RD: Norman GordonEdit

Withdrawn by nominator. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Norman Gordon (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): REUTERS

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 world's oldest test cricketer died at 103. --Nathan121212 (talk) 13:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Which of the recent deaths criteria does this man meet? Is he important to cricket just for being old? His career doesn't seem particularly remarkable(though admittedly I know little of cricket). 331dot (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose No evidence of being a leader in his field (cricket). Being the oldest X is not sufficient. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose a minor cricketer I'm afraid, nowhere near the top of his field. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Withdraw I'll admit that a best of 7 runs in test cricket is not that impressive unfortunately. Nathan121212 (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

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

September 1Edit


Ongoing: Pakistan anti-government protestEdit

 -- Legaleagle86 (talk) 10:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Nominate under ongoing category. The article is well updated, the unrest is ongoing, has been covered by numerous newsoutlets etc. and has also been mentioned in the wiki Current Events portal. The unrest is important because it may lead to change in government and has already led to hundreds of casualties. Legaleagle86 (talk) 10:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. For Ongoing; alas another area of conflict, let's include it with the others. Mistook the "unrest". Let's change that to Oppose until the protests grow, spread, or have more of an effect. Rhodesisland (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- This is not "another are of conflict", it's protests. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this time. If the change in government occurs,(or worse) that might be ITN worthy and would have a specific blurb to hang our hat on. I don't think it's a broad enough conflict for ongoing yet. 331dot (talk) 02:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose nothing since 1 September? Not ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • ^ "Contract Employee Charged in Fire That Grounded Chicago Flights". ABC News. Retrieved 27 September 2014.
  • ^ "Joachim Gauck welcomes presidents to Mecklenburg to adress demographic change and commemorate the Wende". Official Presidential Website (de). Retrieved 18 September 2014.