Open main menu

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/September 2015

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

Contents

September 30Edit


[Withdrawn] Update: Volkswagen's new CEO, Oliver BlumeEdit

WITHDRAWN:
--George Ho (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sources like Bloomberg and Motor Trend report Oliver Blume as Volkswagen's new appointed CEO amid its emissions scandal. Shall we include it without hassle? --Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you may have misread. Mueller is still CEO of Volkswagen. Blume replaced him at Porsche. Fuebaey (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Tesla Model XEdit

No consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Tesla Model X (talk, history)
Blurb: ​American automotive company Tesla Motors unveils the Tesla Model X vehicle.
News source(s): BBC, Wired, The Verge, ExtremeTech, TechCrunch, The Guardian, Business Insider, Gizmodo, CBC

Article updated
 sstflyer 14:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Routine business announcement. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Well, not exactly routine, but not really news. Sca (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as a routine product announcement. Mamyles (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Tesla has once appeared on ITN for allowing other companies to use its patents. It has not appeared on ITN for product launches, of which they have had several.--WaltCip (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Russian air strikes in SyriaEdit

Articles: Russian intervention in the Syrian Civil War (talk, history) and Syrian Civil War (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Russia begins air strikes against Islamic State in Syria.
Alternative blurb: ​Russia begins air strikes against anti-government forces in Syria in support of President Bashar al-Assad's government.
Alternative blurb II: ​Russia begins air strikes against Islamic State and the anti-government forces in Syria in support of the Syrian government.
Alternative blurb III: ​Russia mounts air strikes against jihadist Islamic State terrorists and reportedly against political anti-government forces in Syria.
News source(s): RT, France 24, BBC, Al Jazeera English, Euronews

 Jenda H. (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I closed it as a speedy keep, since the article will grow or at least end up merged in the parent article. --Tone 15:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Wait – At least for now. Another tremor tumult chapter in the Mideast mess. Sca (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb & neutral ongoing. It is a new development, but as of yet not significant enough for a blurb. Mamyles (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, support ongoing. Another development in the ongoing story. Not enough here to write a full article, nor to justify a blurb. However it does show that there is sufficient development to justify putting Syrian Civil War back in the ongoing slot. Modest Genius talk 15:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - we should not post the claims of Russian propaganda unquestioned. At best it seems doubtful that they have targeted IS, see for example The Independent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.69.93 (talk) 11:09, September 30, 2015‎
Right, Russia claims they attacked ISIL but nearly everybody else say they attacked moderate rebels who have nothing to do with ISIL. We could say they attacked anti-government forces without going into the disagreement in the blurb. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - notable development in this story. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Countries bomb each other almost daily over there. France recently launched air strikes and no one so much as blinked. I am not seeing anything that suggests long term significance at the moment. If that changes we can revisit the topic. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
    Well there's a fundamental and obvious difference between France and Russia taking part, but never mind, it's very informative that you consider the two to be equitable. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support France and Russia are not the same. Russia's involvement with Syria is more significant, as the news coverage attests. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support though the name of the group should be that of the article (ISIL). It's not just that Russia is bombing Syria but that they have warned the US to stay away from its planes and also called for an international coalition. [1] 331dot (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Added altblurb, as it is abundantly clear that Russia did not strike ISIL positions and it has acknowledged it is acting in support of Assad's embattled government. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Russia's intervention in Syria is a major development for sure and a clear step forward in the war against ISIL. The comments with strong anti-Russian sentiment above are completely irrelevant, as ISIL's presence is a much bigger problem than al-Assad's government. Even if confirmed that Russia extend military aid to al-Assad's government, it's simply because they both are allied parties in battling against ISIL. More striking to me is the United States' reluctance to join Russia in this intervention and their "willingness" to continue battling against ISIL without the legitimate Syrian government being one of their allies.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Not everyone questioning the truthfulness of Russian propaganda and the claims of the Russian government is anti-Russian. The claim that other editors have a strong anti-Russian sentiment is uncalled for, and I would kindly ask you to retract it. As for your statements about Russia's motives, this is what the Russian government says and claims, but it is unclear to what extent these public claims reflect the real motives. After all it is reported that Russia's air strikes so far did not target IS, but rather the Free Syrian Army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.73.242 (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The news reporting that Russia don't target ISIL's troops is the official position of the United States echoed by the Western (mostly American) media. Under the given circumstances, when everyone accuses the other for doing something, including the non-sense claims made by the US that al-Assad's government aid ISIL, the worst thing is to politicise the matter and blame the actions undertaken by the others.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I requested that you retract the claim that I have an anti-Russian sentiment. Could you please do so, or is that the way you conduct discussions here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.73.242 (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't blame particularly you but, if you insist so, the use of the words "Russian propaganda" in all comments posted by a single user doesn't convince one to have different opinion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Just wow. I am not anti-Russian, for your interest, and given your new comment I am expecting an apology from you. It' not your right to accuse other editors of being anti-russian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.73.242 (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support big news and even bigger news trying to determine exactly who the Russians are targeting. Given that uncertainty, best if we used an alt blurb which just talks of Russia joining in bombing runs in Syria... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I have proposed another blurb which reflects exactly what is written in the target article. Russia join the Syrian government in the fight against ISIL and its other enemies (please see in the lead and the infobox). Of course, we may change it once the uncertainty of what they really target is cleared.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Comment I agree with adding whole Syrian opposition (including ISIS) into blurb. The first blurb was added in rush and doesn't reflect reality properly. --Jenda H. (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Altblurb 3 – Ham-fisted Russian intervention does seem significant. (Altblurb 3 offered above.) Sca (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, but wait. While this is definitely a significant development, we have to be careful with the blurb, because so far it seems unclear who Russian jets actually attacked. Russia claims it is against ISIS, but other sources disagree. Since we are in no rush (because Wikipedia is not a news media), we can wait until the picture clears. --bender235 (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
That's why Alt3 sez reportedly. Sca (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Altblurb 3. Russian launching airstrikes is big news. Third altblurb captures nuance of current situation until more reporting comes in . -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Altblurb 2. It's the entrance of a major power into the war, and thus deserving of ITN. Supporting Altblurb 2 because the original blurb and altblurb 1 are both incomplete. Altblurb 3 calls IS terrorists and / or jihadists, which is not something Wikipedia should make a stance on. It's pretty clear at this point as well that Russia is targetting the Syrian opposition (see the main article). Banedon (talk) 02:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Objection: Where is the evidence, beyond the infamously mendacious Kremlin's say-so, that Russian jets attacked ISIL at all? As far as I've seen, they have exclusively hit areas where ISIL holds no territory (but the Free Syrian Army and other rebel groups do). -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Like this? The Telegraph, "The Russians continued their aerial bombardment on Thursday. Targets included Jisr al-Shughour and Jabal al-Zawiya, areas under the control of Jaish al-Fatah, the Army of Conquest, an alliance of Islamist groups which have won significant victories against the regime this year. They also included Isil targets in Raqqa and Deir Ezzour provinces, including a Syrian Air Force base which fell to Isil earlier this year after a long siege." Banedon (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Obviously this is a big news item precisely because the Russians are doing something the West and the Arab states do not want. One may suspect there is more to this, you have to consider what all the fuss is about for making sure that the forces don't accidentally target each other. That's really not a very complicated issue, as there is no air to air threat from ISIS. The Russians are not even attacking ISIS and only bombing in areas where the moderate rebels are active. US bombs won't accidentally hit Russian soldiers, but perhaps the worry is that Russian bombs may hit undercover US agents. That would also explain why the US asked Bulgaria to close its air space. The US knew that the Russians would simply fly over Iran and Iraq, this would only cause a few days delay. But that few days might have been enough to extract some of its undercover agents from the area. It could be that there are still quite a few agents left in the area or that the US also wants to extract rebel fighters out of that area. Count Iblis (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - This source criticizes mainstream media's omission about al-Nusra Front's alliance with al-Qaeda, a terrorist group, and believes that anti-government rebels are not as "moderate" as supposed to be. George Ho (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Altblurb 2: major news. 178.135.80.223 (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Update – U.S.-led anti-'IS' coalition calls on Russia to stop airstrikes outside 'IS'-controlled areas. Added to article. I think it's time to move on this. – Sca (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This is a major move that is shaking up a war that has been a virtual stalemate for the past few years. And it's rightfully receiving tremendous coverage.--Tocino 15:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted Consensus to post; not a strong consensus on which alt blurb to use, so went with alt blurb 2. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

September 29Edit


[Closed] Nexus 5X, Nexus 6PEdit

Thanks for the nomination, and for the one above, but this isn't the sort of thing that get posted at ITN. BencherliteTalk 15:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Nexus 5X (talk, history) and Nexus 6P (talk, history)
Blurb: Google announces the Nexus 5X and Nexus 6P smartphones in the Nexus family running the Android Marshmallow system.
News source(s): AnandTech, TechCrunch, The Verge, Times of India, The Guardian, Pocket-lint, Gizmodo

Both articles updated
 sstflyer 14:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Routine business announcement. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Buy an ad. Sca (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Routine product announcement. Mamyles (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Close - Precedence dictates that we do not post product launches. I refer to 2011 and 2012 when the newest iPhone models of those years were announced. Both nominations were snow-closed. So too should this one be closed.--WaltCip (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We do not advertise products; but if something actually news-worthy about these handsets can be proposed it can be considered (off the top of my head, we wouldn't run a new computing product but would surely consider a new FLOPS record made by a new computer). GRAPPLE X 15:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

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

September 28Edit


[Posted] Taliban captures KunduzEdit

Articles: Battle of Kunduz (talk, history) and War in Afghanistan (2015–present) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Taliban seize control of the provincial capital of Kunduz in northern Afghanistan.
News source(s): Sky News, BBC, Al Jazeera English, RT, CNN, DW, France 24

Nominator's comments: Taliban captures provincial city for first time since 2001. This is big event for whole Central Asia. Jenda H. (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Good article quality, notable event in the Afghanistan conflict. SpencerT♦C 18:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The first provincial capital to fall to the Taliban since the American invasion. Neljack (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - This shows that Taliban strikes back and is on the move. George Ho (talk) 05:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Talibans are at it again. Notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Marking ready. SpencerT♦C 07:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted Cyclonebiskit (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] The Waters of MarsEdit

NO CONSENSUS
In the hope of saving people time and energy, I'm opting to close this nomination with "no consensus" (vote tally was 18 supporting and 13 opposing). Arguments on both sides are reasonable, but the rationale put forth by opposing arguments is stronger as many of those supporting put forth little reasoning (the strongest argument I read is that science is incremental and this particular discovery/confirmation has notable implications). This announcement, in essence, is a repeat of announcements by NASA in 2011 and 2013 but with greater confidence. The only notable difference in this announcement is additional evidence that further confirms the previous assumptions/theories. The media often suffers from amnesia and picked up on this announcement as if water had never been noted on Mars before, which is contrary to the truth. Continued reports in the media appear to mostly be rehashes of the same story that was announced on September 28, so this event can also be considered "stale" to a small degree. If you have concerns about my reasoning for closing this, or simply that it's been closed in general, feel free to bring up discussion on the talk page. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Mars (talk, history) and Seasonal flows on warm Martian slopes (talk, history)
Blurb: ​NASA has found key evidence that water is flowing on today's Mars
Alternative blurb: NASA announces that satellite images show evidence of liquid water flows on Mars.
Alternative blurb II: NASA announces that its Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter captured spectrographic evidence of liquid water on Mars during warm seasons.
News source(s): Nature Geoscience The Telegraph

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Seems to me an interesting development Hektor (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Long March 6 and 11Edit

Articles: Long March 6 (talk, history) and Long March 11 (talk, history)
Blurb: Long March 6 and Long March 11 successfully perform their maiden orbital launch.
Alternative blurb: ​Over less than one week, China successfully performs the maiden flights of Long March 6 and Long March 11
Alternative blurb II: ​In under one week, China launches the maiden flights of Long March 6 and Long March 11
News source(s): spaceflightnow

Article updated

Nominator's comments: And two new launchers in less than one week is an impressive feat. Also LM-6 marks the transition of China to kerosene propulsion. Hektor (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

  • General support but I feel the articles are lacking. For example both mention payloads but what are they for? The articles both need expansion before this can be ITN. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I just checked the zhwiki versions of the two articles and they are no better, so we cannot expand these articles by translation from Chinese Wikipedia. sstflyer 15:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Is there a good chance of a Long March program summary article? --MASEM (t) 16:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with Masem, this seems significant but both articles are stubs, and the payload lists on both are all redlinks with no summary. The rocket performance details are the strongest point in the current article but most front page readers aren't likely to gain much from that alone. That said, I'd like to see this posted, because rockets. - OldManNeptune 20:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The ITNR list has first launches of a type of rocket listed. 331dot (talk) 00:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
    • ITNR does not guarantee posting if the article(s) quality is not up to par, which is the case here. --MASEM (t) 00:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
      • I agree; I just mentioned it because it hadn't been. The quality issues are obviously valid. 331dot (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • No need to support as this is on ITNR. It should go up once the articles are in shape, but at the moment they're both uninformative stubs. Not the sort of thing we want to show off on the Main Page. If we get some actual referenced articles before this goes stale then it can go up. Modest Genius talk 09:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on articles as it is at the moment. -- KTC (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment As a close follower of Chinese spaceflight, the reason that there isn't more information on both pages is that the Chinese really don't like to talk about both of them. Unlike the development of their larger siblings, the development of LM-6 has been in tight wraps and almost nothing is known about the LM-11 (hence the lack of technical parameters on that page, because we have no idea!). Heck, the Chinese apparently refuse to show any photos of the LM-11 first launch because it apparently uses a TEL launcher car (in contrast with the Russians, which have no problem showing off their Topol-M TEL)! Given how little the Chinese have released, the current articles are probably as best as they could right now. Alas, that doesn't really give them a chance on the front page. On the other hand, when the Long March 7 and Long March 5 rockets fly next year, I think they have a much better chance because the Chinese do show them off a lot as their next generation flagship rockets. Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I fully appreciate that because the Chinese generally don't broadcast their scientific achievements, that we can't really develop the articles. I will point to my previous suggestion: What if we use Long March (rocket family) as the target article, which does need clean up but is more complete about the program, with the two above articles as non-bolded links for that? --MASEM (t) 20:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
    • It is certainly unfortunate that China is so secretive about it's space programme, but ITN exists to highlight decent-quality Wikipedia articles that have been updated to reflect recent news. If there isn't enough information to update the article, there is nothing ITN can do with it. Shifting the bold link to Long March (rocket family) might help, but that article would still need several sentences of update on the new launches. That might still be impossible if there simply aren't any available sources. Modest Genius talk 10:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose—the articles simply aren't of sufficient quality for highlighting in this way. For example, I've looked for basic information about (any) of the long list of redlinked payloads listed in the LM6 article, and can't find any info. Purpose? Mass? Orbital altitude? etc. I've started a discussion on the Talk page to try to find others with more information. My guess is that a bunch of Chinese students might have flown some microsat educational payloads of the size that would have allowed a single LM6 launch to transport that bunch of payloads, and I hope one of them may have links to Chinese university PR media that might tell us what was launched. But none of that info is in the article today. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] AstrosatEdit

Article: Astrosat (talk, history)
Blurb: ​India launches its first ever astronomical satellite, Astrosat.
Alternative blurb: ​The Indian Space Research Organisation launches Astrosat, India's first space telescope.
News source(s): Time, BBC, Nature

 Banedon (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Support once a couple of unreferenced grafs are properly cited and a copyvio scan is performed. The article generally looks to be in good shape, provided it isn't ripped off from a non-public domain source, and notability for a nation's first satellite of this type seems clear. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Kudzu1. Something on the way the article is written smells of a scientific-like press release but that could also just be some writing that needs improvement. --MASEM (t) 04:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support when ready. It needs a little work on sourcing but overall it looks to be in decent shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as non-notable. India sent a satellite to Mars just recently, which is a significantly more challenging task. This is comparatively weak tea. Are we going to post every odd satellite launch (numbering in the dozens per year), or accept that such pigeonholing is a suitable replacement for actual firsts?128.214.53.18 (talk) 08:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. This would be significant enough even if it was launched by Nasa or Esa, but being ISRO's first space observatory just makes it even more notable. However, the article could use some work - there are unreferenced sections and paragraphs, questionable prose, and a general lack of quality. Should be plenty of sources now to bring this up to scratch. Modest Genius talk 09:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support when ready. Per the others above.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Added an alt-blurb which makes a bit clearer what Astrosat is. Smurrayinchester 07:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Notable feat for India and its space industry. Good article. --Tocino 09:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Note – Once the "Ground support" and "Participants" sections are referenced, this will be good to go. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 09:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 09:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

RD: Phil WoodsEdit

Article: Phil Woods (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NPR NY Times

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.

 shoy (reactions) 12:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - Multiple Grammy Award winner with a distinguished international career. Article can use a bit of lovin'. Good nomination. Jusdafax 13:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support – Desperately needs sourcing improvements, but worth posting once this issue is addressed. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 13:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Notable enough for RD, with four-time Grammy Award winner. Dearth of inline cites though; Unreferenced discography and an almost unsourced biography section. The only cited parts seem to be his Grammy wins and his brief personal life. Fuebaey (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

September 27Edit


[closed] Catalonia electionEdit

CLOSED FOR NOW
Consensus is not to post this election result at this time. There's a general feeling, even among the opposition, that the Catalonian independence/sovereignty movement is an active, newsworthy story, but that this specific moment in it is not the right one to post to ITN. --Jayron32 14:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Catalonian parliamentary election, 2015 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The pro-independence parties Junts pel Sí and Candidatura d'Unitat Popular win a majority of seats in the Catalonian parliamentary election.
Alternative blurb: ​The pro-independence parties Together for Yes and Popular Unity Candidacy win a majority of seats in the Catalonian parliamentary election.
Alternative blurb II: Pro-independence parties win a majority of seats in the Catalonian parliamentary election.
News source(s): Guardian
Nominator's comments: Normally, a state election wouldn't be notable. However, separatist parties have crossed the 50% line, and have promised to begin the process of declaring independence. Per ITN/R "Disputed states and dependent territories should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits." This is of course not an actual declaration of independence, which would be obvious posting material. Smurrayinchester 07:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, because the results were a little ambiguous. The pro-independence parties won an overall majority of seats, but did not win an overall majority of votes. Therefore it is not yet clear whether or how the government of Catalonia will push its mandate. Obviously if it did make a declaration of independence, or if a binding sovereignty referendum were held, that would be newsworthy. At this stage it is more analogous to the Scottish National Party winning an overall majority in the 2011 Scottish election (not recorded in ITN, I would have thought), which created the mandate for the 2014 referendum (which was, even though the pro-independence side lost). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I did consider the similarity between the two. The difference is that the SNP promised a referendum on independence, while the Catalonian nationalist parties promise unilateral independence (since, unlike in the UK, the Spanish national government refuses to allow a referendum). Smurrayinchester 09:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I would be willing to post a referendum for independence of Catalonia, but the pro-independence party getting >50% of seats (and not the vote) in the region doesn't necessarily cut it for me. If someone has a compelling argument in favor of posting, I'm willing to reconsider. SpencerT♦C 08:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • There will probably never be a referendum, since the Spanish government maintains that it goes against the Spanish constitution (there was to be a referendum last year, but it was blocked). Unilateral declaration is the only option available to separatists, and one that both of the winning parties have committed to (although Together for Yes wants it in 18 months, while CUP wants it now). Smurrayinchester 09:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this sub-national election. They may well intend/threaten to unilaterally proclaim independence (unlikely) or hold a non-binding referendum (possible), but equally neither of those things might happen. If/when they do we can consider posting, but for now we should not be a crystal ball. Modest Genius talk 10:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe 'sub-national' but an autonomous region with 7.5 million inhabitants - that places it in the midfield of countries by population. And Catalan independence would significantly affect Spain and the EU. I wonder even if considering nation-states (regardless of population) more notable in a dispute about statehood doesn't conflict with WP:NPOV. --ELEKHHT 13:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Independence would certainly have major impact. So let's post it if/when it happens. Sub-national entities are not sovereign, regardless of their degree of autonomy (which is hardly binary anyway). If we simply went with the size of the electorate we would be continuously posting a stream of Indian, Brazilian, US etc. state elections. Modest Genius talk 22:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think many state elections in federal systems with high level of local autonomy are much more relevant than that of tiny nation states with small populations and limited power. --ELEKHHT 07:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 12:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The SNP were in the majority when the Scots said no to a split, so this is no certainty that there's even a popular majority for independence '''tAD''' (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per previous comments. In the target article, rather odd that the reader has to slog through 1,700 words before reaching Results.
In the text, the word "majority" occurs once, in a sentence about the 2012 election. Sca (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support given that in the past we have posted independence demonstrations twice and election results are far more important than parades. μηδείς (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
PS: Analysis here seems to say: One thing's sure, the issue won't go away. (Yawn.) Sca (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

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

RD: Frank TysonEdit

Article: Frank Tyson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ABC (AU) The Guardian BBC AFP

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: Renowned and accomplished English cricketer whose career was short but who then made a lengthy second career as a well-respected commentator. Death is receiving international attention. Kudzu1 (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment I can't really judge as having little knowledge of cricket, but looking at the article, are we sure that the lyrics of the song are in the PD? Otherwise that's a massive copyvio. The article otherwise seems okay for sourcing and I would support assuming that others reasonably demonstrate that he was important to the sport. --MASEM (t) 18:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Good catch. Deleted. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose 17 tests is not notable enough for RD. Even otherwise he doesn't have the global stature as Holding, Boycott, etc...or even the comic Dean Jones.120.62.13.133 (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support best cricketer in the world in 1955 per Wisden. This is far more notable than the Hall of Fame stuff we see for every baseball/basketball/football nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Collapsing side discussion. SpencerT♦C 08:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • Dunno about baseball and American football, but Moses Malone, the only basketball (arguable played in more countries than cricket) player RD that we had ever since RD was added, was almost certainly the best basketball player in 1983... (I realize basketball coaches are a different beast altogether, so I'd reckon our standards for them are quite low.) –HTD 20:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Why has America been brought up in this thread? μηδείς (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
A good question. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
At any rate, Hall of Fame is for a lifetime of playing not merely 1 season.
Not to mention there is a cricket of the year EVERY year. To set the precedence with that criteria there will be far more postings than any U.S. sport.120.62.13.133 (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Hardly, there have been only 80 distinct winners of the leading cricketer in the world award since 1900. We might, on average, see one every 18 months at RD. Scaremongering is not required. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support As a cricket follower, this is the sort of name I'd expect to see on RD. He played in the 50s and his name is still well known to followers of the modern game. His playing career may have been cut short by poor circumstances, but he was clearly a great player, and he had a supplementary career as a well known and respected commentator. My support is only weak because I'd place him below Arthur Morris (who was definite RD material), and there has to be a cutoff somewhere. (On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if Dean Jones didn't make the RD cut - his main claim over Tyson is recentism, in my opinion.) --dmmaus (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per the IP comment. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support - Although he wasn't at the same level as Marshall or Lillee, he was one of the fastest bowlers of all time and quite successful in the limited number of Tests he played. 1.39.62.111 (talk) 06:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Shoaib, Lee and particularly Bond's limited career are all just current examples of "one of the fastest bowlers of all time and quite successful". Where do you draw the line if you were to set this precedence?120.62.35.224 (talk) 12:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Tyson bowled genuine fast about 50 years before Shoaib and Lee. He was also the world's leading cricketer, unlike Shoaib and Lee. But Shoaib and Lee would both be reasonable shouts for RD (in many years to come one imagines). The Rambling Man (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, does the name Johnny Unitas mean anything to you?--WaltCip (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Sure, but only because I enjoy sports from around the world, not just from own little microcosm of specialist games like association football and cricket and kabaddi and freediving. I also like Frankie Goes to Hollywood songs. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay, just checking. I'm okay with having a diverse selection of sports at ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose a one year best of six decades ago in one of the world's smaller countries not internationally followed or feted hardly deserves to be called influential or major. Did they change the wickets from bone to metal due to his violent slam dunks? μηδείς (talk) 05:16, 29 September 2015 (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." The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
    An addendum needs to be added to that rule which says "...except regional amateur sports, which are fair game for criticism" so that we can avoid the bitching and bellyaching that occurs at ITN anytime one of those is nominated and fails.--WaltCip (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not seeing any evidence that the subject was at the top of his field, other than for a few games in 1955. --Tocino 09:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Query I occasionally close/post ITN stuff, but not frequently enough to make this judgment call alone. Opinion is evenly divided on this - no consensus - but ITN is a little stale (currently nothing at RD, and I just removed a blurb from 9/20, bottom one from 9/22), this article looks in good shape, it wouldn't be pushing any other article off the page, and it seems better to give the reader something rather than nothing, so... what harm can it do? Is there any opposition to posting borderline cases when (a) there is a lack of current items to post, and (b) the article quality is not disputed, just the noteworthiness? If it was up to me I'd post this particular item. Any strong objection? if we don't do it now, we should close this, it will be considered stale soon. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
    All good with me, RD is empty, this will get a couple of days... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

September 26Edit


September 25Edit


[Closed] John Boehner resigningEdit

Good faith nomination, but there's no chance of this passing. Usually, anything less than head-of-state or head-of-government getting replaced. Party leadership changes (unless it results in changes of other more important positions, like in Australia earlier) rarely merit ITN posting. I know this just opened, but the purpose of WP:SNOW is to avoid wasting time on good-faith nominations that stand no chance. This stands no chance. --Jayron32 16:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: John Boehner (talk, history)
Blurb: John Boehner, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, announces that he will resign from the United States Congress at the end of this October.
News source(s): USA Today New York Times BBC
Nominator's comments: Boehner is a very high ranking politician, and as the speaker he is second in the presidential line of succession. In addition, this story is the lead story on the NY Times homepage and has also received coverage from the BBC, as indicated by the link above. There is also international coverage from the Guardian [4] and Reuters [5]Everymorning (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose not significant, or at the very least, the significance of an American politician announcing his retirement is not clear, even if he is "speaker". We would never post the speaker of the House of Commons moving on, would we? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Fair point, but I would say the Speaker of the US House functions differently from the Speaker of the House of Commons(from what I know). 331dot (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is indeed big news in the US. However, to put it into perspective, it is as notable/significant as a cabinet reshuffle. Changing the individual leadership for the lower house of a country does not seem to rise to the level of ITN. Mamyles (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It was looking like his caucus might vote to remove him, but he beat them to it. He's not resigning due to a scandal, and will be replaced by someone of the same party(though likely more conservative). I might be less opposed to posting the actual change when it occurs. 331dot (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait-Oppose this is an announcement that he will resign, the actual news will be whoever replaces him. This could possibly have a huge effect on the rest of Obama's term, since Boehner has been consistently siding with the president and against his own party. But this certainly won't merit two postings, so let's wait and see who is selected to be his successor before discussing this. μηδείς (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
    • "Boehner has been consistently siding with the president and against his own party" Really? Only in wanting to keep the government funded. Boehner is hardly an Obama ally. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict × 3) Weak oppose I think this may be unprecedented (has a Speaker ever stepped down mid-term before?) but Speaker isn't head of state, and his likely successor is going to step into the same position of discord with Tea Partiers that Boehner is leaving, so not much changes. The real news is that the U.S. government will apparently not shut down on October 1, but that's a status quo story. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Snowball oppose per above Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

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

September 24Edit


[Posted to ongoing]: 2015 Southeast Asian hazeEdit

Article: 2015 Southeast Asian haze (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
News source(s): Today: Euro News, Fox News, Al Jazeera America. Previous: Al Jazeera, Reuters, Associated Press, Australian Broadcasting Corp, Time, BBC

Nominator's comments: See the above nomination. Affects millions of people and multiple countries, particularly more disruptive and long-lasting than previous years (we did post one in 2013), international coverage. HaEr48 (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak support – Notable environmental event, but like anything involving the atmosphere its severity ebbs and flows and notability might be questionable (especially given that this has essentially become an annual occurrence). Given that it's a prolonged event, it's more suited toward ongoing than a blurb. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - notable event that's been ongoing for weeks, and affects millions of people. Banedon (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - event is clearly still happening and has been happening for a while. Article is high quality, well updated, and continuously maintained for new information. Check and check, all requirements met for ongoing link. --Jayron32 11:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing. This has reached hazardous levels, nearly as bad as the 2013 case, and affects a very large area. Mamyles (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 14:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Colombian justice dealEdit

obviously a reasonable and good faith nom, but no traction after 60 hrs. μηδείς (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Colombian conflict (1964–present) (talk, history) and FARC (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The President of Colombia Juan Manuel Santos and the leader of FARC Timoleón Jiménez announce an agreement on how to punish human rights abuses committed during the fifty-years-old conflict.
News source(s): DW, CNN, Al Jazeera English, BBC
 Jenda H. (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – This is just one step along the long road to the much sought after peace treaty. From Colombian President Santos: "On 23 March 2016 we will be bidding farewell to the longest-running conflict in the Americas." Once the treaty is actually signed, this will be major news. Until then, here's always the possibility that the talks could fail. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait until the treaty is signed, or even perhaps until it is voted on(as the President has said will happen). 331dot (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. A positive step in negotiations, but the peace deal has not yet materialized. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose deals like this are announced all the time, and unless there's actually an amnesty and a surrender of arms, it's just words on paper. μηδείς (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] 2015 Hajj stampedeEdit

POSTED
I'm closing this because discussions have veered off the purpose of this venue, which is to discuss the posting, or non-posting, of an item. Discussions over specific words should happen elsewhere 1) If the use of the word "stampede" in the article title is incorrect, start a WP:RM discussion on the article talk page itself. 2) If the current, already posted, blurb is incorrect, use WP:ERRORS. Recent discussions over wording, while worthwhile, are incorrectly placed in this venue and need to happen elsewhere. --Jayron32 14:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015 Hajj stampede (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 700 people are killed in a stampede during the Hajj pilgramage at Mecca, Saudi Arabia.
Alternative blurb: A stampede during the Hajj pilgramage at Mecca, Saudi Arabia kills more than 700 people and injures at least 800.
News source(s): BBC
 The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • There is currently absolutely zero content in that article beyond the blurb. Probably notable enough to post when there's an actual article. Smurrayinchester 09:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
    That's why it isn't marked as updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once content of article is sufficient – BBC updates the death toll from 220 to 310 in the minutes since nomination. Could potentially be hundreds more. Devastating. Twirly Pen (Speak up) 09:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support; massive loss of life in one of the world's largest pilgrimages. The article definitely needs to be expanded though. --Droodkin (talk) 10:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending additional expansion. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 10:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Aren't we supposed to call it a "crush" and not a "stampede", per the Shanghai incident in December last year?--WaltCip (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
    Well, a lot of the news sources are using "stampede" in their headlines (Al Jazeera, BBC, CNN, ...), though there are a few I can find that do use "crush" or both. -- KTC (talk) 11:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
    I was waiting for that to be brought up... perhaps we should focus on the article and the event, rather than the rather odd need to rename something against RS. P.S. the article you refer to is 2014 Shanghai stampede.... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
    I don't mind either way, whether it's called a crush, a stampede, or a right stompin'. Just wondering if there needed to be consistency on this. I post-posting support, for the record, as it's received worldwide coverage.--WaltCip (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
    Well it is consistent. Hurrah. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support A horrible and well-covered disaster, not something you see everyday. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 12:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Marked as ready. Although the article is quite thin, there's really not much to go on yet as news only broke recently. Information is properly cited throughout the article as well. The number of casualties has skyrocketed above 1,500 and I think this warrants a push to the main page. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support This is the most deadly stampede since 1990. Article quality is sufficient (thanks, Droodkin). Mamyles (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Between this and the recent crane disaster, it's been a tough year for the Hajj. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted -- KTC (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Can we change the description from "stampede" (to "crush" maybe); these are human beings, not cattle. Belle (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
    The sources in the article frequently use "stampede" (BBC, Guardian, Economist, New York Times, Independent, and so on), so there's no need for us to editorialise by pretending people can't stampede like other animals. GRAPPLE X 12:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
    But there's also no need for us to repeat the prejudices or inaccuracies of the media; if you look at the reports the vast majority claim the cause of the disaster was two large crowds trying to push forward in opposite directions; stampede is a snappy headline, but not accurate or sympathetic. Belle (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
    My understanding of a stampede is a press caused by one or more crowds moving under their own momentum; this what is being reported as having happened. If sources were reporting something a priori incorrect, things may be different. But when it's simply a matter of saving feelings, that's not on us. We do not need to be "sympathetic", we're here to record what is said, not synthesise it. GRAPPLE X 13:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
    Yeah, I suppose you are right, screw feelings; why follow the widely used more sympathetic wording when we can justify using the more pejorative term just by redefining it to fit the facts. Belle (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
    You believe "crushed to death" to be more sympathetic? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
    "Strawman crushed to death" would be; c'mon TRM, you don't have to try that; "crush" drops in in place of stampede just fine. Belle (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
    Not at all, in any shape or form. The notion of being crushed brings up visions of people's lungs being squeezed, their ribs being cracked, their organs being pulverised, their necks broken and limbs flattened. Still, if that's what you prefer to the neutral "stampede", we are operating on different levels entirely, and I'm glad to be where I am. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • What I find more pejorative is the notion that raw fact should somehow be subordinate to yellow journalism. There is nothing special about people that means words have to be bent to fit them. GRAPPLE X 14:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
    I agree with your first sentence; the second one, not so much; most language is altered when we use it in reference to humans rather than animals or objects. Belle (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

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

September 23Edit


[Closed] Ugrunaaluk kuukpikensisEdit

Consensus against posting. Subject lacks contextual significance that would set it apart from other regularly identified dinosaur genera. Topic is far better suited at WP:DYK. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Ugrunaaluk kuukpikensis (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A new species of dinosaur, Ugrunaaluk kuukpikensis, is discovered in Alaska.
News source(s): CBS News SCI-News The Washington Post
Nominator's comments: As mentioned above it is late so the article is not in good condition whatsoever (I just created it with about two sentences so there was an article when I nominated this.) Andise1 (talk) 08:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait until the article is expanded. There is not enough to evaluate at the moment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose It looks like the article has been expanded into a credible stub. But I have to agree with some of the other comments, there is nothing here that is exceptional or unusual enough for ITN coverage. On the other hand this looks like an excellent candidate for DYK. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • So? A new dinosaur genus is described every 2 to 3 weeks. Most new species will never appear on ITN. What makes this one special? Dragons flight (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment new dinosaurs do sometimes get posted if they are special in some way. From the article, I can't see that just yet. Still, if it fails ITN and you expand it enough, DYK is always a good venue to go. --Tone 08:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Article needs expansion before it can be considered. Right now, I cannot see enough significance. sstflyer 09:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose (in addition to article issues) - Unlike, say, the more recent discovery of a feathery-wing dinosaur in the last year (IIRC), which there was considered a major evolutionary find, here it's more "A dino that would have appeared to survive in cold and odd light-cycle climates" which is not yet established why this is a major evolutionary find. I don't know if, say Dragons flight says, we're finding new genus of dinos that often but they are often enough that not every discovery is ITN-worthy. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Another day, another dino. Not sure why or how this discovery is very significant. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Nothing special to make this stand out amongst other dinosaur related discoveries in order to prompt a spot. However, once expanded it would be fine for a DYK placement. Miyagawa (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose but simply because I know nothing about the alleged frequent discovery of new dinosaurs every few weeks and that the article is sub-stub and doesn't appear to have been touched in any great form for the past 12 hours, perhaps indicative of its general interest to anyone out there who really cares. So, in short, it's an oppose from me until, at the very least, the article is much larger and explains why I should care about this particular discovery beyond all the others that Dragons flight has stated are noted every few weeks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • DYK This should definitely go to DYK. It's a run-of-the-mill duckbill, and dinosaurs living in the polar regions have been known of for decades. μηδείς (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

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

September 22Edit


[Posted] RD: Yogi BerraEdit

Article: Yogi Berra (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Former Major League Baseball catcher and manager Yogi Berra dies at the age of 90.
News source(s): KNBR CBS13

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: Legendary baseball player and manager, Hall of Fame inductee, pop culture icon for his "Yogi-isms", etc. Kudzu1 (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Conditional Support – Unsourced pieces scattered about the article (including his death at the time of this comment) holding back my full support. Once those are covered this is a no-brainer for RD. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 06:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Weak support for blurb – I'm not terribly familiar with how notable someone has to be to warrant a blurb, but I'd venture to say Berra was about as notable as you can get in Baseball. I may have some personal bias, however, since I grew up in New York. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 07:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm a New York Mets fan and thus no great fan of the Yankees. But even I grasp that Yogi was a giant in sports. The standards for blurbs are not spelled out with great clarity and a good deal of it is discretion based on consensus. But in general blurbs are given only very rarely if the death was not unexpected. Past precedent suggests that if your death was not a shock, then you have to be a truly iconic figure to get one on your death. The last such case I can recall was Sir Christopher Lee. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I guess it finally is over   (Sorry. You just know his epitaph will be some variation on that line). I'm real glad now that I did Harmonica Incident last month when I did. Daniel Case (talk) 06:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD only - Iconic baseball figure, obvious RD addition, but he died peacefully at an advanced age, and I don't see the case for a blurb. Jusdafax 06:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Pre-emptive Snowball Support – might even deserve a blurb. Twirly Pen (Speak up) 07:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Article is in good shape. "The future ain’t what it used to be." YB --Light show (talk) 07:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Known well enough for this baseball ignorant European to know of him. Oppose for blurb though. Fgf10 (talk) 07:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support (I see a snow storm in the forecast for this nomination.) One of the most iconic figures in American sports, so much so that I too might consider this to be blurb worthy. Article is in decent shape though I did add a {{CN}} tag to one paragraph. Overall I think it is in acceptable condition for posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Support blurb per my above comment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD – Tentatively posted to RD but discussion is still open for an "upgrade" to a full blurb. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 07:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb RD only, death at 90 is hardly unusual and I don't think he rises to the level of Mandela... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Do you mean "support RD only"? Nelson Mandela was also posted as a blurb so your current vote reasoning is inaccurate. Andise1 (talk) 07:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
That "Nelson Mandela" standard holds no water anymore. One of the latest persons to get a blurb was a German book author, who clearly did not rise to the level of influence of Mandela.--WaltCip (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
It depends on global influence. This fella, while clearly loved by the US, is a nobody elsewhere. No disrespect, he just lived a long time, made some daft quotes, and Americans love him. The rest of the world is "meh" about the situation. The Mandela standard is something we should strive for, whether or not it's been degraded for American actors or German authors. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, support RD A great player, but not among the absolute top echelon of all-time baseball greats. His odd sayings were entertaining and made him an iconic figure but hardly warrant a blurb. Neljack (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – There's virtually a "pick-em" of sources that consider him the greatest catcher of all time. Literally too many to list here. Being considered a top player out of 10 positions in a sport that is ~150 years old certainly qualifies one as "among the absolute top echelon of all-time baseball greats." Also appeared in (and won) more World Series over the course of his playing & managing career than anyone else in the history of the sport. Twirly Pen (Speak up) 08:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Yogi was, in fact, a top-tier Hall of Famer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talkcontribs) 08:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Just want to say that baseball is wildly popular in some countries yet practically inexistent in others. Neither opposing nor supporting, but baseball seems less a sport of global appeal than, for example, soccer or athletics. Banedon (talk) 08:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree, but Yogi Berra was a legend - he's one of only a handful of baseball players I (as a non-sport-following Brit) can name. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD, Oppose blurb Died in old age, just what RD was made for. --86.135.158.125 (talk) 09:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD, neutral on blurb - A legend in his own lifetime. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb. Less famous internationally than his namesake - who is probably the only reason why his name is known at all outside the US. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb Death was not surprise, and not a global cultural icon that the rest of the world will pause regarding death. RD is exactly for this. --MASEM (t) 11:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that a blurb is probably a bridge too far here, though an obvious RD. 331dot (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support RD, oppose blurb - not Babe Ruth nor Yogi Bear, I'm afraid. starship.paint ~ KO 14:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Guess who Yogi Bear was named after... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.148.249 (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry for my ignorance. Still, I believe the bear is more popular worldwide, rather than just considering the USA. starship.paint ~ KO 23:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Yogi was a giant in the game of baseball (and also for his contributions to linguistics) but a blurb isn't necessary. RD is fine. RIP to one of my favorites. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] "Happy Birthday" copyright ruled invalidEdit

Article: Happy Birthday to You (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A U.S. federal judge rules that the lyrics of "Happy Birthday to You" are not under copyright of Warner/Chappell Music, potentially placing the song into the public domain.
Alternative blurb: ​The copyright to "Happy Birthday to You" claimed by Warner/Chappell Music is held to be invalid by a U.S. federal judge.
News source(s): LA Times, BBC, Billboard

Article updated

Nominator's comments: One of the most famous copyright battles, and while there is possibility of more legal action (including potentially someone else claiming copyright on the lyrics), this is a big point in this. There's also additional legal aspects of the case (Warner/Chappell paying back licensing fees) but that's less a key factor here. MASEM (t) 05:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Support if article found up to snuff, which it looks like it might well be. Most importantly, this is a victory for the free-culture movement of which Wikipedia (and by extension all of us) has been a major part. I think that gives us extra incentive to front-page this. Daniel Case (talk) 06:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – A frivolous lawsuit that was going to go nowhere with the record company. In fact, I thought it was always in public domain. I don't recall anybody using the song significantly for commercial gain. Twirly Pen (Speak up) 07:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
    As mentioned in our article, as of 2008 the company was earning roughly $2 million per year by demanding royalties from people who wanted to use the song in TV, movies, and other public venues. Dragons flight (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
    According to [6][7], Happy Birthday has been the highest earning single song of all time, generating roughly $50 million in income since its creation. Dragons flight (talk) 08:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
    Well, consider me schooled. This still doesn't strike me as blurb-worthy news though. Maybe good for DYN... Twirly Pen (Speak up) 08:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Few knew it was even copyrighted. And few would have cared if they had. --Light show (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Interesting case, but it should be made clear that this only applies to the US. Blythwood (talk) 07:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
    Actually, it would affect the copyright in the rest of the world since the originating copyright is with the US, per the Berne Convention. Presuming that no one steps forward to claim copyright on the lyrics, those fall into the PD in the US, and thus in all other Berne-abiding countries, it would fall into the PD there too. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support - This is a well-known case in the field; arguably the highest-profile piece of copyright trolling ever. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, fair point. But that's about the scale of the competition. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb. Probably the most well known case in this area of law, and affecting a major industry(media). 331dot (talk) 10:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - "I didn't know" is not the same as "nobody else knew". For those who have even the slightest education in the world of law, this is considered a pivotal example and a pivotal moment in copyright law. We don't have much of an opportunity to feature law in ITN; we should seize it.--WaltCip (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - My earliest memory of copyright law zzz (talk) 11:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This has been a landmark copyright issue for decades, and the final resolution of it is being widely reported in major news sources. The article is of sufficient quality for the main page. --Jayron32 12:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. This is the world's most recognized song and the one that has generated the most all-time royalties. Discovering that it is suddenly free (and turns out the company shouldn't have gotten those royalties in the first place) is a big deal. WaltCip is right that we don't often feature legal cases, and this is a good opportunity to do so. Dragons flight (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Be aware that since I posted this ITNC, people have added some (reasonable) cn tags to the article that should be dealt with before posting. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This is one of the most famous English songs, and until now has been the highest grossing licensed song. It looks like article tags have all been resolved. Mamyles (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: We don't get stories like this very often, but the copyright on the highest-grossing song of all time being ruled invalid seems like an obvious choice for ITN. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted alt blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Volkswagen emissions cheating scandalEdit

Article: Volkswagen common-rail TDI diesel engine emissions controversy (talk, history)
Blurb: ​As a result of EPA testing, Volkswagen's CEOs admit widespread rigging of emissions test results.
Alternative blurb: ​As a result of United States Environmental Protection Agency testing, Volkswagen's CEOs admit widespread rigging of emissions test results.
Alternative blurb II: ​As a result of EPA testing, Volkswagen's American and German CEOs admit widespread rigging of emissions test results.
Alternative blurb III: ​The United States Environmental Protection Agency announces, and Volkswagen's CEOs confirm, widespread rigging of emissions test results.
News source(s): Reuters BBC euronews

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Though new, the article is of reasonable size and well-referenced Jusdafax 10:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

collapse four-page long discussion merely for scrolling convenience. μηδείς (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Finally, a business news ITN nomination I can get behind. Timely, impactful, a decent article.128.214.53.18 (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - well referenced and has far reaching consequences for VW. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 12:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The far reaching consequences for VW are a penalty and less profits. A company cheating on some regulations is (unfortunately) pretty common, and different from other recent scandals by car manufacturers this is nothing that endangered the lives of people. LoveToLondon (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support all over the mainstream news, a huge issue, possibly the tip of the iceberg, but stands well enough alone to be part of ITN. Decent article to boot. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support both due to the issue itself and the fact that it is rare for a CEO to admit something like this. As pointed out already, the article is in decent shape for such a recent issue. 331dot (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I support altblurb1 with the suggestion of pluralizing CEO as two (US and Ger) have weighed in. 331dot (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Last year the CEO of General Motors admitted that her company was responsible for 13 deaths and met with relatives of some of the killed people. More than 2 million unsafe cars and 13 dead people (these numbers are from the RS given in the GM nomination) and the CEO admitting guilt - and it was clear consensus not to post this to ITN. What is the rationale why this story should be posted even though there was clear consensus not to post the General Motors story? LoveToLondon (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
That nomination was for the recall, not for the deaths. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The original blurb said General Motors' CEO, Mary Barra, testifies before Congress regarding her company's recall of 6.3 million of its vehicles due to faulty ignition switches. It was changed after several complaints that the fact that the CEO admitted it should not be mentioned. So when an US CEO does it before Congress it is consensus that this must not be mentioned in the blurb, but when a German CEO admits guilt this should be mentioned in the blurb and is considered a reason for posting? And when I see that one editor who supports this nomination here opposed the GM nomination due to the low (multi-million) number of recalls and stated that the (Congress) testimonial by the GM CEO should not be mentioned, I really start to wonder whether this different treatment is based on a pro-US and anti-German bias. Why is rigging emission test results so much worse than not telling for two years that your cars have a deadly flaw? The number of recalled cars is lower, the CEO admission was not at US Congress (or any other parliament) and VW did not cause the death of 13 people. LoveToLondon (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support 18B is ITN worthy and this is noteworthy as the first admission of a CEO of fabricating that test. -- Callinus (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – The "Abgasaffäre" has drawn major coverage in Europe but less in VW's biggest market, the U.S., where diesel cars aren't very popular. Although the potential fines seem huge, it's too early to tell what the impact on this mega-corporation may be. Sca (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait This is important news, and VW has admitted fault, but we should wait to see what actual fines and fallout might be from it. If they are going to get a $18B fine, that's a news story. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
    I think the fact that the CEO himself has said that 11 million vehicles around the world have this "feature" is sufficient alone for ITN, the fines and class actions etc would just be a bonus to the story. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
    But what we don't know is exactly how "bad" this is yet. The device added is designed to force compliance with testing standards, and while without the device that the engine is allowed to run out of specs we don't know exactly how much emissions are generated, etc (the 40x number is only an estimate at this point); it could be that the cars still run under all standard compliance without the device fixing things. So while still highly unethical and likely to still be a fine, the net result could be a lot less significant as it initially seems. Hence waiting until we actually have full details on what the impact is. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
    And then it will be stale, as seems to be the problem with all of these kinds of stories. Anyway, we both understand each others' position, no need to prolong the debate. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • It is an interesting fact that you seem to be the same person who last year strongly opposed posting to ITN the recall of several million cars and the CEO of a US company herself admitting before Congress that her company was not telling for two years that their cars had a flaw (that killed 13 people according to the source in the nomination). But now you try to push posting the admission of a non-deadly rigging by a German company to ITN as quickly as possible. LoveToLondon (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Honestly, you can badger me as much as you like, it won't make any difference to me. Oon the other hand, it will definitely continue to detrimentally impact your own reputation. If you'd like to talk about previous contributions, we'd need to check all the various accounts each of us have used, would you like to do that? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I have nothing to hide. Why do you strongly try to push this VW case, even though strongly (and successfully) opposed posting to ITN when the CEO of GM admitted their wrongdoing that had killed 13 people? LoveToLondon (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Stop badgering me please. I would hate to have to request intervention to prevent your ongoing disruption. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The larger point is that no legal charges have yet to be filed. There is clearly an investigation, and given the admissions of the CEO, there will likely be results affirming misdoings and fines, but whether this amounts to civil (unlikely criminal) charges, or something else, we don't know. Just as we would not post an ITN about the arrest of a person before their trial (with very limited exception) we shouldn't be doing the same for companies. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
In virtually all cases of discussing criminal charges, the person charged does not admit guilt, as is the case with this company. I believe TRM is correct that when fines come down in the future it is unlikely it will make the news it is making now(unless it is a record fine, which also seems unlikely given they have admitted guilt); and if it is even nominated again, the argument against will be that it is stale. 331dot (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The criminal investigation has been opened and, as 331dot notes, it's an open-and-shut case because VW have pleaded guilty to this already. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I strongly disagree the fine will be downplayed in the news if it ends up being $1B or more. Take the recent GM ignition switch/recall issue which has been ~2-3 years in actual case-finding aspects (the issue going back more than 10 years) [8]. Even there, it ended up a $900M fine and was widely reported this last week, but we didn't post it. Every major car manufacturer situation like with VW or GM here where there is gov't investigation and fines paid, that I can remember, always gets at least two news blips - on the discovery of the fault, and the resolution of what the fine was and how paid. And remember; they have admitted to having this device that affects performance during testing but they have not admitted (best I can read) that the cars exceed emissions performances when the device is inactive, or even if this is the situation. The investigation will likely work to determine if the cars purposely perform out of spec, which is a much more problematic situation than if it was the case that the cars' emissions are just better managed with the device and only drift in and out of spec during normal use. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • This is clearly being covered prominently by many news sources, however I have some concerns about the article, most importantly that it doesn't cover the full worldwide impact of the problem; for example here is a source which discusses the impact of the scandal in Britain, the article currently only covers U.S. perspective. If the article was expanded showing all countries affected, it would be an easy support based on coverage of the scandal. --Jayron32 15:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
    Jayron32, the toughest pollution requirements in the world are in the U.S. and California in particular, and that's the focus of the scam. Now, obviously I don't agree with those who oppose, since I nominated this, and let me tell you why: as TRM notes, the CEO's in question have admitted designed malfeasance that went on for years, and therefore admitted cynically marketing their diesel engines as "clean" when they were 10-30 times beyond the legal pollution limit. Literally breathtaking arrogance, to plan a long-term corporate strategy to get past even the stringent California clean air requirements and deceive the very people most concerned about vehicle emissions: making them pay to get the opposite of what they wanted to buy. "Clean" diesel? No, dirty, nasty gasses! So those facts alone makes this astonishing story ITN-worthy. Repeat: the VW CEO's admitted it, and it's big news worldwide, and it's highly notable and ITN-worthy. And if you want bonus legal charges, those are not unlikely. But this blurb can, and most likely will, go to the Main page. And soon. Jusdafax 15:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Why do you consider what VW did worse than the clear consensus not to post to ITN case when the CEO of GM explained to US Congress that her company was for 2 years not telling about a deadly fault in their cars (that resulted in 13 people dying and 28 million cars recalled)? LoveToLondon (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • And can you provide RS for your bold claims like Literally breathtaking arrogance, to plan a long-term corporate strategy to get past even the stringent California clean air requirements that you use here to justify pushing this to ITN? You as nominator are basically claiming that the CEO himself approved doing this as part of the long-term corporate strategy he is responsible for, and I haven't yet seen that claim being made anywhere else. And with this edit you made the lead section of the article sound as if the CEO had admitted being personally responsible - which he did not. LoveToLondon (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Regardless of what the fines and/or charges end up being it's already a major news item due to the CEOs admissions and their stock being in free fall. Prefer the original blurb as the most succinct. Kmusser (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - major news. Notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support providing the article remains in decent shape given the rapid updates. Showing that Wikipedia can illustrate a story which is at or near the top of news bulletins is multiple countries is exactly what ITN is supposed to be, rather than the "things a Wikipedia editor feels are cool" it sometimes feels like it too often becomes. ‑ iridescent 16:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Support. Covered in major news sources, article is in decent shape, and coverage of companies on Wikipedia has historically been weak. sstflyer 16:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending renamed title. The current title is both wrong an absurdly long. I added a suggestion to its talk page. --Light show (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment As far as I know, all blurbs suggested so far are factually incorrect. None of the support votes seems to have read the article - otherwise they would have noticed that the article is completely silent on how the violation was found. If there is any RS stating that this was found As a result of EPA testing, then this statement should be added (backed by a RS) into article. As far as I know, this is yet another incorrect claim by the nominator, and it was not the EPA that found it. All article is in decent shape votes must not be considered since they did not even notice that part of the blurb is not at all covered by the contents of the article. Why does noone seem to care whether the suggested blurb is factually correct? LoveToLondon (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
That only means the article needs further updating; the sources clearly state the EPA found the violation. 331dot (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
You do realize that putting your demands in bold doesn't actually make what you say a rule we have to follow. People tend to ignore people when they are both unreasonable and obviously have no idea what they are talking about. So before you start telling is about what admins will and won't do based on the rules, perhaps you should spend a few years around here and maybe learn the rules yourself. Specifically that WP:CONSENSUS determines what admins will do, and if consensus is that the article is in decent shape, it is. --Jayron32 17:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
LoveToLondon is no stranger to Wikipedia Jayron, he knows the "rules", this is standard behaviour I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Subject is getting massive global news coverage and article is in good shape overall. Marking as Ready given the condition of the article and the clear consensus in favor of posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Unmarking Ready A blurb containing a claim that is not in the article (backed by a RS) is a huge warning sign that the article is not ready. If 331dot has a RS clearly stating that it was EPA testing that found it first as he claims, he should add that to the article. As far as I know, both the blurb and 331dot are not telling the truth. LoveToLondon (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
If you are going to accuse me of "not telling the truth" at least say it to me directly. I'd also suggest you read the sources given on this nomination, but if you need it pointed out to you: Reuters: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said on Friday that Volkswagen, the world's biggest carmaker by sales, used software that deceived regulators; BBC: Last Friday, the regulators said VW diesel cars had much higher emissions than tests had suggested.(referring to US regulators);NBC: The U.S. Environmental Protection Administration announced Friday that the automaker had surreptitiously equipped its diesel vehicles with software designed to recognize when those products were being tested on a dynamometer. 331dot (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The article states with citations: "On September 18, 2015 the US EPA and California Air Resources Board served notice to VW that approximately 480,000 VW and Audi automobiles equipped with 2 litre TDI engines, and sold in the US between 2009 and 2015, had an emissions compliance "defeat device" installed". 331dot (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't know why this has to turn into a whole "You're a liar" "No, you're a liar" thing. I was considering posting this, as it has consensus to post when ready, and several knowledgable editors are satisfied with the article. But LoveToLondon is right in that this apparently was not uncovered due to actual "EPA testing". The standard EPA testing was faked out, but it appears the actual testing that uncovered the cheating was done by WVU and by California's version of the EPA, at least some of which at the behest of an environmental group. They then told the US EPA, which has more muscle, and which together with CARB started issuing letters and notices. All that needs done is a revised blurb, and this appears good to go. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Might be as simple as changing "testing" to "investigation". --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • From what I've seen in sources, the first preliminary findings were actually in Germany. Was there actually an "investigation" by the EPA ongoing, or what is the correct term? This word is used in the article only in a completely unsourced section. LoveToLondon (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The best description I've seen of the testing background (haven't read all the refs) is here. It says the EPA launched an investigation in 2014. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This seems more accurate than saying the EPA did the investigation as per Scientific American article. yorkshiresky (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Should the blurb not reflect that VW has admitted to the violation? That is somewhat rare. 331dot (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I support posting this newsworthy event, and propose the blurb "Following an EPA investigation, Volkswagen admits to rigging emissions test results. Mamyles (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Restoring "Ready" label LoveToLondon I respect your right to a dissenting opinion. I've been there myself a few times and understand that it can be frustrating when you believe you are right and the majority is wrong. But the bottom line is that consensus does not support your view and is overwhelming in favor of posting the article. You have made your objections clear. Perhaps it is time to drop the stick?. For now I would ask that you please respect the consensus, even if you disagree with it, and refrain from editing against it. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's quite ready either; unless people just want me to come up with my own blurb and post it. The current blurbs are not correct. We (rightly) complain when DYK posts things on the main page that are inaccurate; let's not let this start happening at ITN too. If it's posted like this, this is a guaranteed WP:ERRORS report. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with the blurbs, RS like the BBC are saying " rigging of US car emissions tests" so it's ready to go as far as I can tell. Worst case is use the alt blurb and remove "widespread" if you're feeling precious that 11 million vehicles around the universe doesn't constitute a clear and unambiguous "widespread" problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Ia this replying to me? I've never expressed an opinion that this isn't widespread. My point remains that EPA tests didn't catch the cheating, other tests did. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Then simplify it, for the sake of brevity and posting: "Volkswagen's CEOs admit widespread rigging of emissions test results." The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
It's certainly not a "controversy," and saying so is inaccurate. In fact it's another cheating violation in what could become part of a larger article, such as Automobile emissions violations. (cough, cough)--Light show (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Neither the blurb nor the article title include the word "controversy". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted, using TRM's suggested blurb that sidesteps the complications discussed above (except article was recently renamed, so avoided the redirect): "Volkswagen's CEOs admit widespread rigging of emissions test results.". Hopefully no one thinks my comments above somehow make me too "involved" to be the one to post it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - One of the two photos in the article would be a plus. Each has its merits, though the second is a better visual, arguably. Jusdafax 19:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
    Working on that... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
    Done, awkwardly, hopefully someone clever will integrate it with a better blurb... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks. It works. Jusdafax 00:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – Since, as I understand it, this applies only to diesel cars, suggest we add the word diesel, as in Volkswagen's CEOs admit widespread rigging of diesel emissions test results. I don't think the in-text link to Volkswagen common-rail TDI engine emissions scandal solves the diesel issue for casual, at-a-glance ITN readers, of whom there are doubtless millions. (Posted also at WP:ERRORS. Sca (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Photo comment - Note that the copyright objection is not to the photo, but to the flowery decoration on the Volkswagen diesel vehicle. To me, this deletion request is a real stretch, since the artist knew at the time that their work would be photographed, seeing as the vehicle was going to be prominently displayed at a major auto show. Again, this is a very debatable issue, and I suggest we keep the photo, which itself is not being challenged. Jusdafax 23:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I am collapsing this merely because it takes me a few minutes to scroll past, and is moot in the American sense of that word. Feel free to uncollapse if there's really a reason to do so. μηδείς (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Update: Martin Winterkorn resignsEdit

  • Should we add to the current blurb to indicate the resignation of Martin Winterkorn? The story of his resignation is becoming the top headline in this story. See, for example [9] or [10]. --Jayron32 16:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support something like "Volkswagen CEO Martin Winterkorn resigns as the company admits...."? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support updating blurb. It seems highly relevant. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support major development in the story. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as an important related event. TRM's proposed blurb change looks acceptable. Mamyles (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Updated it's not ideal as far as I can read, but the facts are there. Feel free to hit me up at ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
* Whoever finally got diesel into the blurb, thank you. Sca (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - The article is now the subject of an ANI report. Jusdafax 03:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Seems more of a localized content dispute rather than a "article is copyvio, need to remove from ITN" case at this point, but I'll keep an eye on it just in case. SpencerT♦C 20:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
    Per Spencer, this is a pissing contest between two small groups of editors, and a behavioral issue rather than a problem with the article itself. Outside of the context of the bad behavior between the two parties involved, the article is still of sufficient quality. --Jayron32 11:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, I'm familiar with a couple of the quibbling editors, and am minimizing my involvement. Happy to elaborate, but happy not to as well. The ANI close was brilliant, thanks. Jusdafax 12:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

September 21Edit


[Closed] 67th Primetime Emmy AwardsEdit

Soft Close: There is a strong consensus that the article quality is well below ITN standards and no effort appears to be underway to fix the article. Any editor should feel free to re-open the nomination if they believe significant improvements have been made. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 67th Primetime Emmy Awards (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the 67th Primetime Emmys, Game of Thrones wins Outstanding Drama Series and Veep wins Outstanding Comedy Series.
News source(s): BBC, LA Times, Straits Times, Times of India, Variety

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.
 Allen3 talk 10:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Weak oppose in current state The article needs a synopsis of the broadcast/ceremony itself. Right now all it has are tables. For awards ceremonies and sporting events, we usually expect some marginally comprehensive synopsis of the event itself, tables of results are usually insufficient. If the synopsis is added, I would fully support this. --Jayron32 12:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The subject is likely ITN material, but the article quality is far below acceptable standards for linking on the front page. Once you get past the lead, sourcing is virtually non-existent. Will happily reconsider if the article is drastically improved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. This article needs improvement and some prose addition, but otherwise it would be a great addition. An ITN mention would invite new edits. Epic Genius (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I put the {{ITN Nom}} tag on it. Hopefully some editors will work on it. But we don't link articles with serious deficiencies on the front page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
OK. Well, in that case, oppose for now. Epic Genius (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ad orientem. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose shedloads of unreferenced claims, limited prose, this isn't the "quality" that the ITN instructions is looking for, by a long, long way. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Opppose this shouldn't be on ITNR in the first place. What other country's TV show awards get posted here? μηδείς (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
If the Emmys make news in India and elsewhere, they clearly have interest and scope outside of the US. The US TV (and movie) industry is known around the world. If there are other similar awards in other countries, please offer them. There is no international body (AFAIK) that gives out TV awards. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
It does seem like real systemic bias to have the Emmys and not, say, British Academy Television Awards. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
If they get the coverage of the Emmys but are not posted, yes, it would be. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality. The article is not even close to being ready for posting. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Another annual entertainment-media event. Yawn. Sca (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with Medeis. This is just the industry giving itself a glorified pat on the back. It's not important news anywhere in the world. What's the difference between posting this and say, posting a news article about KK showing her ass on a magazine cover? --86.135.158.125 (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
You seem to be suggesting that "not important" means "I don't like it". Others may find it important, as Wikipedia covers virtually all topics, all of which are unimportant to someone. Recognition of the best in a field seems notable, and is covered in media around the world, despite what you say. 331dot (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I did actually see an article on this late yesterday, which I read given the nomination. Apparently the ceremony was at or near the bottom of ratings for all Emmy Awards shows ever, depending on how you calculate it and account for various factors. Yet another reason not to post. μηδείς (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

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

September 20Edit


[Posted] Borno State bombingsEdit

Article: September 2015 Borno State bombings (talk, history)
Blurb: A series of bombings kill more than 100 people across Borno State, Nigeria.
Alternative blurb: ​Following a military offensive in August that drove Boko Haram out of their bases in Nigeria, a series of bombings kill more than 100 people across Borno State.

Nominator's comments: This is a revision to the previous nomination that includes the events in Monguno. As before, my suggested blurb excludes mention of Boko Haram since they're only assumed to be behind it but have yet to claim responsibility. Alt blurb is based on suggestions by Signedzzz on their talk page to give greater context. Still working on expanding the article and cleaning up some info, but wanted to get a head start on this and restart discussions. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose When I ignore the ridiculous previous claim by the military that Boko Haram would be defeated (that was not posted to ITN for good reason), this is (unfortunately) normal for Nigeria - and less deadly than the 2015 Baga massacre earlier this year. The number in the blurbs is the claim of an unnamed civilian defense group, and the same source also gives lower official numbers. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I was going with the 100+ stated by Abba Mohammed Bashir Shuw (aide to Governor Kashim Shettima) via the New York Times, just for clarification. The police report of 70 seems wrong right off the bat as it contradicts the 82 bodies recovered (54 in Maiduguri and 28 in Monguno). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Question Why did you move this entry to the 21st? It seems all attacks in the article were on the 20th? LoveToLondon (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Mistake on my part at first with the confusing news reports. Posted it before I found conclusive evidence that all the events were on the 20th. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support A clearly horrific series of events well worth attention on ITN. Although not very long, the article covers the events decently and is well sourced. The preponderance of reliable sources seem to support 100 as a conservative number for the casualties. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support It may not be a surprising piece of news, but this kind of thing doesn't happen every day. A reasonable thing to add, especially considering the death toll. Banedon (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the events are even worse than before. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Article is well-referenced, death toll is substantial, and we haven't posted up much recent Boko Haram news, so I'm not concerned about saturating ITN with bulletins about the conflict. This should be posted and I'm going to go ahead and mark it ready. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 14:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Alt Blurb would be far better, because without the context the impression is given that Boko Haram are still in control of southern Borno state as previously. if you check the Reuters source, that is how they reported it. It would seem to be the only reason, in fact, why this attack should be posted when all previous attacks have not been. zzz (talk) 18:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
    As I suggested to you just a day or so ago, if you object to this kind of succinct blurb, take it to WP:ERRORS. Now you are unblocked, you can fix the article according to your preference. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
    As I mentioned, it's not the article that concerns me, it's the blurb! zzz (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
    As I mentioned, probably four times now, take it to WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Jagmohan DalmiyaEdit

Article: Jagmohan Dalmiya (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Times of India BBC

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

Nominator's comments: Noted cricket administrator. Former President of the International Cricket Council, Board of Control for Cricket in India and Cricket Association of Bengal. Brought about radical changes in international cricket. Regarded as the greatest sports administrator of India117.216.148.215 (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Support: Article appears suitable for posting, and his high position in the most popular sport in one of the world's most populous countries seems to qualify him as notable enough for RD inclusion. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose According to the source, it is only the current secretary of the organization he was president of who made the claim greatest sports administrator of India. I also have doubts when a person who was leading an organization for one sports in one country should be posted to RD, even more in this case where the combined time presiding over this oranization was less than 5 years. Everyone looking at the article immediately notices that claims like In 1996, the BBC declared him to be one of the world's top six sports executives. are not backed by sources. LoveToLondon (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support upon improvement. Reading the page, he seems notable to cricket for working to bring its World Cup to India(and outside of the UK) for the first time, which led to increased interest in the sport. It is true that some citations are needed. 331dot (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Improvement Needed I won't oppose at this point, although I am not sure I would support an RD candidate just because he was an NFL or MLB commissioner. That being said, the article needs some going over by someone familiar with the topic. And it needs to be written so people unfamiliar with the subject will understand the claims. Sentences like "Dalmiya's death was condoled" are not particularly well written, and saying that his wife was associated with the Ghosh family might make just as much sense as saying he married into the Kennedys to an American, but it should be amplified on and linkified for those of our readers who do not know who the Ghoshes are. μηδείς (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article does appear to be improved to the point of being ready to post, but I'd like to see a clearer consensus. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support article is half-decent, I'll head there shortly to tweak obvious things but there's nothing stopping this being posted in the mean time. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Ghosh The article is indeed improved, but the personal life section has only two sentences, one of which is the unexplained "Dalmiya’s wife hails from the Ghosh family." First of all, people "hail" from locations, and second, why mention the Ghosh family? It sounds like namedropping by Hyacinth Bucket. We wouldn't say a woman inherited the Johnson family wealth without mentioning if it were the talcum powder Johnsons or the floorwax Johnsons There should be something either linking to the family or explaining their notability as in the Bush political dynasty or the Barrymore acting family or the scientific and literary Huxley family. With that addressed I see no problems with the article, and TRM can post if he likes. μηδείς (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
    No, I'll try not to post things I support. I hope another admin will be here to do that. I'm not sure why the personal life section needs expansion, that's not why he's notable, but hey, YMMV. In articles that you want to see posted, you normally just comment out the bits you don't like. Perhaps you could do that here if you want to remain consistent. I won't replace the ready tag in case you threaten me with Arbcom sanctions again. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I thought the point of my voluntarily dropping the iban restriction on you was that you were not going to make everything personal again. I just said above that you have my full support to post this article once fixed. I don't see how you can possibly take that as anything "personal", an attack, or a threat of "arbcom", as I was not involved with that complaint. My argument above is quite clear, based solely on the text, and it would be like posting an RD for Caitlyn Jenner saying he married a woman who "hailed from the Kardashians" with no explanation of whom or what they are. μηδείς (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The article has since been updated to remove the "offending" text. Hope that helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I noted this, and am wondering why this hasn't been posted yet. μηδείς (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: His death has not made a big news within India. It has mostly been covered in sports section and not like a national news. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
    The death of Arthur Morris received lesser news coverage than this, but got posted anyway last month. Notability of the individual and article quality are what they consider for posting RD, if I'm not wrong. 117.221.127.208 (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support making my support explicit, assuming my comments above were ambiguous. I have also marked this ready, based on the 5-3 support. But I do think the admin considering posting should take the opinion of Indian citizens over mine on the gentleman's notability. μηδείς (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted While not unanimous, there is consensus to post and the article quality is quite decent. SpencerT♦C 01:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support I think this was the right decision. I'm Australian, and Dalmiya was certainly a well-known name to anyone who follows cricket. He influenced the game in India (its biggest market) enormously, and his reigns as head of the BCCI and ICC had significant onflow effects to the sport in all the major cricketing nations. He was arguably the most influential administrator in the sport since Kerry Packer in the 1970s. --dmmaus (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Maiduguri bombingEdit

Article: September 2015 Maiduguri bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: A series of explosions kills at least 54 people in Maiduguri, Nigeria.
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: Well, so much for Boko Haram being defeated... Not a topic I'm familiar with but I've put together a basic article to start from. Opted to leave Boko Haram out of the blurb since they're only speculated to be behind it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak support I can't believe this took me until tonight to notice, the loss of life and the manner of the deaths makes this significant, the article is a little light, fair enough, but good enough for posting. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per TRM. Neljack (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Article is short but provides sufficient coverage of the event and is well sourced. The event clearly is ITN material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Notable event with significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support , didn't have a chance to comment a few hours ago but article is in good shape from when I looked then. Don't expect we'll have full set of answers soon but good coverage for now. --MASEM (t)
  • Support - good shape article, notable event.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Article seems too thin to me. Two paragraphs and five refs? Hmm. Jusdafax 06:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Note – Withdrawing this specific event after further developments. I'll be expanding the article shortly and moving it to a new title to cover the attacks earlier today. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Syriza wins majority of seats in Greek legislative electionEdit

Article: Greek legislative election, September 2015 (talk, history)
Blurb: SYRIZA wins 145 seats in the Greek legislative election and is set to form a minority government.
Alternative blurb: Syriza wins the most seats in the Greek legislative election

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: Greek election held on 20 September and is a Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items item. Gfcvoice (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Support on article improvements I would reasonably expect a bit of discussion (prose) about the results, rather than just a table dump. --MASEM (t) 22:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support on article improvement. If Greece holds anymore elections this year we should charge them rent for the front page space. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Charging Greece rent? Now that's just cruel. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support – Needs a prose discussion on the results, as stated above. Reactions to the results may also be of interest. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Clear notability as a national election. Prose has been added. It can be expanded as desired, but it should be sufficient now to post. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - per Kudzu1. Major international news. Article improvements ongoing but make this postable. Jusdafax 01:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support but the blurb should just say that they won the most seats (without knowing the size of the legislature, the figure of 145 seats means little) and avoid speculating on whether there will be a minority government or a coalition (which is what the article suggests). Neljack (talk) 05:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, and support adding it ASAP - It looks very strange coming to the Main Page and looking at In The News and seeing no mention of it. No doubt there are rules-based reasons for this, but, given that we've had plenty of warning about this event, I suspect the average reader is at least as mystified as I am by the current state of affairs, which, incidentally, at least appears to be a violation of WP:IAR, and of the related Pillar of Wikipedia (the fifth of our 5 Pillars), as it at least appears to show Wikipedia in an unflattering light. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm with you, but chill: sometimes it takes a day or two for stuff to get posted. There's no conspiracy here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
    • There is something massively ironic about claiming that WP:IAR has been violated.--WaltCip (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
    • The article hasn't been posted yet because there are still outstanding concerns about its quality, particularly with sourcing issues. Posting this article in its current state would reflect poorly on Wikipedia as it would show a lack of care to properly verify material before putting it in the limelight. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news site, so there's no rush to have it ready. ITN is meant to showcase quality articles of current events, not just any article of a current event. Whether or not this article receives the necessary improvements is up to the people who volunteer their free time. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I concur that we should get this up as soon as it is ready. Unfortunately, as of this posting it is not ready. There are some fairly glaring gaps in sourcing that need to be corrected before this can be linked on the front page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • No need to support as this is on ITNR. It can go up once the article is ready - there is no need to break our own rules and this event is no more urgent than most others we post. I've suggested an alternative blurb that addresses the issues raised above. Modest Genius talk 09:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
    • As oft pointed out, ITNR is not an automatic guarentee of posting. The article quality, likely all other ITNC, must be there before it hits the front page and, like in the case of the US Open (tennis), if no one bothers to update the article, it won't be posted, ITNR or not. It would be breaking the rules to post the article in a poor shape just because it is on ITNR. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support because it is international news and likely to get many hits. Epic Genius (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Article looks pretty good to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. ITNR and the article is in fine shape (and has been since at least yesterday).128.214.53.18 (talk) 11:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Posting. In such cases, we use the term plurality. --Tone 11:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Pull The article is not in "fine shape." Entire sections are unsourced. The article is no where near our standards for linking on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
    Can you indicate which entire sections are unsourced? Almost all of the prose paragraphs I can see have at least one clear source, and a while a few CN tags could be added, the presence of a small number of such tags is not usually grounds to keep something off the main page. --Jayron32 16:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I withdraw my objection. I just noticed that the sourcing for all of the polling and voting results were embedded in the collapsed tables as external links. A somewhat unconventional method but it works. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

EuroBasket 2015Edit

Nominator's comments: The EuroBasket is one of the strongest continental basketball tournaments with many NBA players representing their national teams. It also attracts millions fans every time it takes place. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Support on article improvements There should be a brief recap of the final game (not just box scores), identifying any key players as noted by secondary sources etc. --MASEM (t) 19:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – The specified event is not listed under WP:ITN/R and I removed the qualifier accordingly. The discussion on European basketball topics concluded that only Euroleague and the FIBA Basketball World Cup warranted ITN/R. I'm not well-versed in sports, to say the least, so I can't adequately judge the notability of this event. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose not referenced, not comprehensive, not "quality". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This would make two European basketball articles that we post and just one North American one, despite North America being pretty much the epicenter of basketball. This is simply a regional qualifying tournament for the Olympics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.148.251 (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on notability, and please discount this incorrect claim from an IP. The results of two amateurs-only US basketball tournaments ave been posted this year, and the participants at EuroBasket are professional players. LoveToLondon (talk) 07:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • It's a regional qualifying tournament for the Olympics. No need to discount me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.148.249 (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Needs more refs. Epic Genius (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose nearly stale, minimal coverage.--86.135.158.125 (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: Rugby World CupEdit

Consensus is against posting: There is and has been for sometime a strong consensus against posting most sports related events in ongoing. The Olympics appear to be a generally agreed upon exception. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015 Rugby World Cup (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified

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.
 Torqueing (talk) 09:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Question – Does the event warrant ongoing status or simply a blurb when a country claims victory (the final is set for October 31 if I'm reading the article right)? ITN/R doesn't specify. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 10:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Thryduulf (thanks for clarifying the ITN/R standing, Thryduulf and 331dot). Re-nominate with the final result when the event closes. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 10:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
    ITNR does state this: 'the conclusion of the tournament or series, unless otherwise specified'. So we wait for the final. Modest Genius talk 09:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose ongoing The recent consensus has been that sports events that are just a series of matches to determine one winner do not get added to ongoing, which is something I completely agree with. The Olympics and Paralympics are massive, top-level mutli-sport events that produce many different winners in all sorts of different competition formats that would overwhelm ITN if posted separately. As there is almost no chance that the winners of the individual matches in a single-sport tournament would be posted if nominated, I do not consider it an appropriate use of the feature. If we had a sports section then this might be different but we don't (and I have a vague feeling there was a recentish consensus against having one?). Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The paralympics is nowhere near as big as even the rugby wc. Nergaal (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The difference is that the Rugby World Cup has only one winner '''tAD''' (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Thryduulf expressed my view quite well, though I would add the FIFA World Cup made it because it is such a large sporting event(though I also opposed posting it for the same reason). Ongoing is not meant to be a sports ticker of events in progress. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The ITNR listing means that the final result will be posted(pending update and blurb selection). 331dot (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, those of us who know ITNR (and this entry) pre-date the Ongoing section are all aware of this, but the listing in ITNR now could use an update to make it explicit, as I think this is the second time such confusion has arisen. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I'd only support ongoing for the Olympics, which has both a wide popularity and an intrinsic number of events which can't be posted one-by-one. The only global story of a World Cup in any sport is often its winner, nobody remembers the quarter-finalists etc. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

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

September 19Edit


[Posted] RD: Brian SewellEdit

Article: Brian Sewell (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Independent, BBC, Look, a Dutch article!,

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: Variously described as the "nation's most outspoken art critic " and "Britain's most famous and controversial art critic". Even the article is in decent shape.... No doubt it will be shot down because he is British and is little known to the gun-belt, but it's worth a punt. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Did you not realize that America has no gun belt or were you joking? It has a Bible Belt and an Unchurched Belt and ones for corn, snow, wheat, sun, salt rusting your car, Mormons, economic decay, frost, Blacks, cardiovascular disease, fruits, lead, "Borscht", pines, rice, warmth and others but the zone of gunness is not in the shape of a belt. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
TRM seems to of created a cult of snark around here...86.135.158.125 (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Those are all real belts you know. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Evidence seems to suggest he was top of his field. --86.135.158.125 (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose "Fame" (or more in this case infamy) != "importance". Knowing nothing of him before reading the article, he feels like a figure that wanted to make controversy to keep himself important. I don't think I see that the same as someone that the field of art criticism would equate to actual importance. --MASEM (t) 21:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, he's so unimportant that he has obituaries running in The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, The Guardian, Daily Mail, The Huffington Post, Sky News, The Sunday Times and on the BBC. He's clearly not important enough... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
    Famous but not "important in their field" will often get wide obit coverage on death because of being a household name even for negative qualities. There's a subtle difference here to be aware of. I don't see anything that this person setting a new bar for criticism (taking the example of Roget Ebert below, who was clearly an important person in reviewing) that would be taken as an easy sign for importance. --MASEM (t) 06:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
    I'm fully aware, that's why I nominated it and that's why it was posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
    I concur with TRM here. Although he's best remembered for his railing in his later years against modern art, Sewell was arguably the most important art critic of the 20th century. ‑ iridescent 17:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not trying to challenge the consensus of posting here, but I still want everyone to keep in mind that "lots of obits" != "importance". Clearly there's more to justify his importance here, its not just posted due to lots of obits, but we shouldn't use volume of coverage to drive ITN (otherwise, we simply become a news ticker). --MASEM (t) 18:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
    The number of obits was simply a response to your opposition. I nominated the article because I believe Sewell meets RD criteria, as does the community. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as very important to his field, much as Roger Ebert was in the US(that seems like a valid comparison, at least, though I'm not 100% on that). 331dot (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - very famous writer and broadcaster, legendary for his very outspoken reviews (and by that I don't just mean always critical - his praise of early (not late) Hockney remained rapturous to the end, despite the quote in the article, and his criticisms were regularly very stimulating) Blythwood (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - anyone who is "Posher than the Queen" deserves a place. 109.152.177.235 (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - notable writer. important within his field.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I didn't often agree with him, but there is no doubt that he was at the top of his field (art criticism). Thryduulf (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted Article is in decent quality, no tags, no major unreferenced text, consensus here is to support. --Jayron32 01:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Collapsing side discussion. SpencerT♦C 06:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Post-posting comment – Vulgar American that I am, I would guess Mr. Sewell is famous mainly in the UK. Sca (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
    Indeed, equivalent, say, to the various college basketball coaches that waltz to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
This user is firmly opposed to waltzing coaches of any nationality on the Main Page. Sca (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Except this is clearly a notable person, as compared to the parochial, provincial, amateur leagues that are college sports.--WaltCip (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
    Sure Sewell qualifies but the highest paid government employee of 4 out of 5 states is an amateur provincial sports coach. [11] A gov't with only a few million taxpayers pays a coach more per game than the leader of 320 million Americans makes in a year and that amateur sports program still runs a profit. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
    Money means nothing. We wouldn't post Kim Kardashian's newest "Internet-breaking" photo on ITN even though she has the wealth of a Saudi prince.--WaltCip (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Japan Security-related billsEdit

Articles: 2015 Japanese military legislation (talk, history) and Japan Self-Defense Forces (talk, history)
Blurb: Japan's upper chamber of Parliament approves new legislation expanding the role of the Japanese Self-Defense Forces overseas for the first time since World War II.
Alternative blurb: Japan's upper chamber of Parliament approves legislation allowing the use of Japanese military forces overseas for the first time since World War II
Alternative blurb II: Japan's upper chamber of Parliament approves legislation allowing use of Japanese military forces outside Japan for the first time since World War II.
News source(s): CNN, The Guardian, BBC, Yahoo news, South China Morning Post

Nominator's comments: Historical change of Japanese security policy, with implication for whole Eastern Asia. Jenda H. (talk) 08:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - After some clean-up of article. But overall it is an interesting subject. --BabbaQ (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Conditional support – Major change in attitude from the Government of Japan. Article needs some cleaning up first, however. The article title also feels a bit too generic. I was confused at first if it was just a general security bill article but it is indeed just for this specific instance. Not sure about an alternate one to suggest, though. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support upon article improvement; a notable shift in Japanese defense policy. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending updates - A partial but significant reversal of seven decades of policy since Japan's surrender in WWII. Suggest rewording from "controversial legislation" to "amid controversy", to give it a connotation of objective fact rather than value judgement. - OldManNeptune 11:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait – Significant, but Security-related bills needs updating and rewriting to be comprehensible. Sca (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending updates Indeed a notable change in the Govt attitude. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait. The blurb as written suggests that the bill has passed one house of a legislature; if anything should be posted, wait till it is enacted. The article is hard to follow, and Security-related bills is an extremely poor title for a Japan related article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Can anyone actually understand the article? C628 (talk) 03:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Never mind, I have rewritten it, now located at 2015 Japanese military legislation, so it makes more sense. Also I support. C628 (talk) 05:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - major development drawing hundreds of thousands of protesters, significant coverage worldwide. Thanks to C628 for fixing the article quality issue. -Zanhe (talk) 06:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Article still needs work but the item is a big deal. Jusdafax 07:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support – Agree with Jus. Better but still seems a bit thin. (Tweaked it a bit.) Nevertheless, such a significant policy and constitutional issue probably should be posted forthwith.   Sca (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Marked as ready with clear consensus to post. As Sca noted, the article is rather thin but it's been cleaned up from the original nomination so there aren't any outstanding issues. Opting to wait for another admin to check it over instead of posting right away. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I've swapped the word "controversial" to "new" in the blurb to comply with WP:NPOV. Brandmeistertalk 20:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Er, I think new is redundant – the Parliament wouldn't be approving old legislation, would it? But agree that controversial isn't necessary.
How about: "Japan's upper chamber of Parliament approves legislation allowing use of Japanese military forces overseas for the first time since World War II" – ??. Sca (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Support Sca's alt blurb, it gives a clearer indication of what the legislation was about. Banedon (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb. Obviously a major geopolitical development and interesting news for our readers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Altblurb 2 Sca (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted ALT2. SpencerT♦C 06:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Jackie CollinsEdit

Article: Jackie Collins (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NY Times, People, The Guardian, Stuff.co.nz

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: Jackie Collins started out as an actress, but soon became a successful novelist. All of her books have appeared on The New York Times Best Seller list, and she sold over 500 million copies around the world. Her most recent book was published in June of this year, while her death was quite unexpected. JuneGloom07 Talk 00:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Would easily support on significance, she's a very recognizable author and actress. Oppose at this time only on article quality. Most of the biography section is entirely unreferenced. If anyone can fully reference the article, consider this a support without having me needed to change my vote. --Jayron32 01:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality grounds only. RD criteria for importance are clearly met, however almost all of the "writing career" section is unreferenced and the single sentence about her death is also lacking an inline source. Per Jayron32 please consider this a support if the referencing is improved. Thryduulf (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: There are over a dozen books covered in the career section, and each has a wikilink to an article which supports the brief book details noted. So most of the career section is at least indirectly well-sourced. The few personal life details are all supported by the news stories I checked, and their cites can easily be added. --Light show (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Very weak oppose due to article quality: The subject is by far notable for RD posting, but the article needs improvements. The article needs more sources. Strong Support article has been improved. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Well known bestselling author and as per the nominator, the death was rather sudden. Easily notable for RD. Aerospeed (Talk) 02:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support subject to article meeting quality standards. Mjroots (talk) 05:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on article improvements - RD criteria clearly met but lots of unsourced work in the article. --MASEM (t) 06:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support when article is improved. Notability is obvious. sstflyer 11:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Wikipedia has a woman problem. We should let her death go unnoticed based on waiting for article improvements. By the time that happens, it could easily no longer be a recent death. The page has the tag at the top regarding missing citations. The introductory section seems to be well referenced, and that is the section the majority of people will read. Many references have been added since her death. Lena Key (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Undersourced BLP that are suggested for RD/ITN are an issue neutral of gender (and her article still is a BLP despite her recent death). Such articles should never be in this shape to start, much less for front page posting. --MASEM (t) 16:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
      • @Lena Key: Masem is quite correct; if you want to see this posted, please make the necessary improvements to the article. Articles that appear on the front of one of the most visited websites in the world need to be in decent shape for posting. Gender issues are not relevant. 331dot (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Article has been improved and notability is clear, as a very important figure in her field. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
    • @Kudzu1: It's almost ready, noticed a paragraph still unsourced in the "1970s" section as well as a sentence at the end of the "1990s" section. Once those are covered, I'll be happy to post. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

September 18Edit


September 17Edit


[Closed] General Motors agrees to pay $900 million to the US governmentEdit

Closing good faith nomination as stale. The oldest news item currently on ITN is newer than this so it would not appear. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2014 General Motors recall (talk, history)
Blurb: General Motors agrees to pay $900 million to the US government after admitting to not telling about a serious malfunction for over a decade that resulted in at least 124 deaths and nearly 30 million cars recalled.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated
Nominator's comments: pretty big regarding fine, number of people killed and recalled cars LoveToLondon (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Collapsing side discussion. SpencerT♦C 16:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Given your opposition to the VW posting above you wouldn't be trying to make a point here, would you? 331dot (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I stated above that I do consider the GM case worse than the VW case. So you agree with that? LoveToLondon (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • What I agree with is not relevant; would you have made this nomination if not for the VW nom? 331dot (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I would have said that both are not important enough, but the pro-US selection of posting only the less severe one is not good for WP. Are you just looking for revenge, or do you have a constructive contribution to the merits of the GM case? LoveToLondon (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Seriously, stop going down that "pro-US" bullshit line of yours. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • (ec) Just looking for an answer to my question, which you haven't given. If you decline to that's fine too. Do you believe that we are stooges for GM? 331dot (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Which part of I would have said that both are not important enough did you not understand? LoveToLondon (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Is that a "yes", you would have made the nomination anyway? 331dot (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I don't think that questioning motives for the nomination is particularly constructive. What we should be focusing on are the merits, or lack thereof, of the nomination and whether or not it should be posted on that basis. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree to have no further comment on motives, but there are times when they are relevant. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Question I don't see any reference to a $900 M fine in the article. Maybe I missed it. Could someone point to where it is? Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • As part of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, GM agreed to forfeit $900 million to the United States. LoveToLondon (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Stale. This was five days ago and even then did not get as much attention. Punishments or other final dispositions of cases like this always get less attention than the actual incident(with companies, at least). Maybe this should have been posted when it occurred, I don't know, but all I know is that consensus can change and that this nomination seems intended to make a point, as I describe above. 331dot (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Subject is significant news and the article is in good shape. My concerns are that the reference to the fine is so passing as to be trivial and is confined to the lead. It would need expansion in the article. Additionally, as noted above, this is a late nomination. It would still fit on the ITN column but it will be near the bottom. So yeah there is some legitimate concern with it's being stale. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I added that below and shortened the lead, hope it's better now. If I count correctly, it would get the third spot at ITN. LoveToLondon (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose not in the news. And a pointed nomination to boot. Best to stop bullying those who oppose your POV LoveToLondon, and just move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Who cares what mainstream reports and doesn't report? We should post this settlement, now that the GM thing is posted. Meanwhile, Toyota was fined $1.2 billion last year. There's still enough time as Burkina Faso's coup d'état and Chilean earthquake are becoming old news. --George Ho (talk) 10:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
    Sorry, we don't post A because we posted B. That's just not how it works. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] RD: Sir David WillcocksEdit

Article: David Willcocks (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, Gramophone, The Daily Telegraph

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 most influential choirmaster of his generation", says one obituary. Director of Music at King's College Cambridge for many years, where his arrangements of Christmas carols, as performed in the Nine Lessons and Carols service, have become internationally known standards. BencherliteTalk 23:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Support with reservation, the article, as noted in the nom, needs some more work, but there's no doubt the individual meets the RD criteria, so here's hoping for some improvement in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per TRM. Appears to meet RD criteria, but the article isn't postable as yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. One of the most important figures in 20th Century church music. His "Carols for Choirs" is the standard in pretty much every church and choir in the UK. Guy (Help!) 00:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on article improvements About 3 paragraphs have no citations, and some of the larger ones seem a bit thin for inlines. Should not be serious issue to rectify but should be rectified before posting. --MASEM (t) 02:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Says one obituary" pretty much sums it up. Let's hear the names of some of these influential musical works, or see some links. This simply seems to be a workmanlike sincure holder in a moribund institution, not Aretha Franklin, or even Burl Ives. μηδείς (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I've given you four links already. Did you read them? BencherliteTalk 07:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Obviously notable and important in his field. Merits posting. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose until the nominator claims most influential choirmaster of his generation and have become internationally known standards are backed in the article by non-British RS. LoveToLondon (talk) 07:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Collapsing side discussion. SpencerT♦C 17:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Interesting development, suddenly we need multi-national RS? Where is that in policy? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
    That's the same guy who, in April, was calling the NCAA basketball tournament a "youth competition". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
    Comment How much would you trust an Indian source stating that some Indian actor you have never heard of was internationally known and the most influential actor of his generation? If someone claims that someone was the most influential choirmaster of his generation and some of his works have become internationally known standards, and the person is not a liar, then it should be easy to find international sources for such claims about international recognition. These are the claims of the nominator, that caused people to vote support. Support voted based on claims by the nominator of international recognition that are only based on British sources must not be considered. If it is true that he was considered the most influential choirmaster of his generation, then add US RS for that claim to the article and I will support this nomination. LoveToLondon (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
    If it's an RS, it's an RS. Your bold claim is simply untrue and must not be considered. You're way outside policy here so your "vote" should be discounted. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
    Your claim that any RS should be trusted on anything is a bold violation of a WP content guideline: Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Sources from the home country are not the most reliable source for claims about international recognition or being a leader in a field. LoveToLondon (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
    Your approach, much like that of IP98, is hostile and unnecessarily so. It's fascinating that you don't like this particular nomination, I have seen you and IP98 support plenty of items based on RSs from a single country claiming international notability. However, I am aware that neither your nor IP98 like to be questioned, so let's leave it for the closing admin to assess your brand new approach to RS. It's good that you appreciate that you have lied here too, that your claim we must not consider the sources given directly contradicts the guideline you have just quoted........ The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
    I did not lie, my must not was referring to support votes based on incorrect (?) claims by the nominator. Please name three nomination I supported based on RSs from a single country (should be easy for you assuming your plenty claim is not a lie). LoveToLondon (talk) 08:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
    This isn't the place to continue your misguided view of how RS works, if you'd like to continue elsewhere, please do so, but stop trying to deceive people with your erroneous interpretations. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
    I showed you the WP content guideline proving your claim that any RS should be trusted on anything is misguided. Why do you consider this the right place to deceive people by telling lies about how I voted in other nominations? LoveToLondon (talk) 08:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
    Your "interpretation" is misguided and misleading. Stop it now, if you wish to discuss this further with me, do it elsewhere. Your position is clear, you don't need to bloat this nomination further with your ongoing misinterpretations. As Blythwood said some twelve hours ago, the debate was already interminable and unconstructive by that point. Enough is enough, you oppose and you oppose the supports made on British RS. We all get it. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
    You are doing everything you can (including personal attacks against me by telling lies about my past edits) in your attempts to silence me? LoveToLondon (talk) 10:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
    If you believe that to be the case, then it clearly isn't working, is it? You have made your misguided position clear. So have many others. Time to move on to something constructive, like article building. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
    This debate is becoming interminable and unconstructive. Support and close. Blythwood (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
    You agree that some of the support votes above might be based on incorrect claims by the nominator? LoveToLondon (talk) 08:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
    My friend, as has been indicated in the above collapsed side discussion, the consensus is clearly against you. There is absolutely nothing that says having British sources disqualifies the notability of an article or event. Moreover, your badgering of !votes is considered disruptive and not constructive to discussion - to say nothing of the fact it makes you look hopelessly desperate.--WaltCip (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
    My friend, why do you support editors making incorrect claims in their attempts to push an article to ITN? It is sad to see how many people who insist on proper sourcing in articles defend not properly sourced (and often incorrect) claims in ITN nominations. The nominator based his nomination mainly on the international acclaim of the person, which makes it his duty to prove his claims with international sources. Sources from the home country only cannot be considered reliable sources for international acclaim. You can base a nomination mainly on importance inside the UK (which is explicitely allowed by the rules), but this is not what the nominator did. Do you want to encourage editors telling lies in ITN nominations, or do you first want to get the facts right before discussing the importance based on the actual facts? LoveToLondon (talk) 08:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
    SHOUTING never got anyone very far. Move along please, or else you may be requested to stop posting here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - A stellar individual in his field. Just because an event relates only to one country, that does not make it non-notable.--WaltCip (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Would support on significance, oppose solely on article quality. Large blocks of text are unreferenced. If and when it is fixed, this vote should be counted as a support without my needing to update it. --Jayron32 11:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - RD is appropriate here. OK so article quality isnt at top but the article subject is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Article could use more work, but recent efforts have brought improvement, and this is a notable person indeed and worthy of posting to RD, which is why RD was created. I also boldly suggest consensus exists to post now. Jusdafax 10:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The article has no discography, no reconition or awards section. Yes, he has been a house choirmaster for the established Church of England. Yes, you'll hear him at Christmas in Great Britain. But did he go on world-wide tours? As does the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, the Vienna Boys Choir, or the Bulgarian Women's Choir? Did he influence how choirs were arranged? There is really no evidence whatsoever from his article to base a judgment for any leadership in his field or influence on it. μηδείς (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
    I guess you either bother to read the RS or you don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Articles are not lists of sources. They are text summarizing the important or essential parts of a topic with RS serving as a justification for claims in the text. If the article is to be featured at RD it should explain to the reader unfamiliar with the subject why he meets the RD requirements, and I think it is quite clear with the examples I have given above that that importance is not evident from the article. If these RS'es do make clear his many awards and influence in the field of choir that information should be added, and there would be no question as to the merit of the nomination. μηδείς (talk) 22:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted Consensus to support on significance, article quality has improved enough to assuage concerns over article quality and referencing. --Jayron32 01:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] FIFA Secretary General dismissedEdit

Consensus against posting. BencherliteTalk 07:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: No article specified
Blurb: ​The Secretary General of FIFA Jérôme Valcke is dismissed after probes into FIFA corruption case.
News source(s): BBC, The Guardian

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Looks like new high-level FIFA corruption revelation. Haven't updated myself as it's bedtime, so going to sleep. Brandmeistertalk 21:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose another glitch in the pathetic story of a pathetic organisation. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment that sounds like emotion, not reason, speaking. Banedon (talk) 05:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Nah, just part of the ongoing scandal. If Blatter gets taken down, that will be ITN-worthy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Procedural oppose – You mean to say that more members of a corrupt organization are corrupt? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose For a start, he is only under suspension pending an investigation rather than dismissed... -- KTC (talk) 02:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Person and position are only minor players in the larger scandal. Rhodesisland (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose FIFA is a big organization, but I don't think we should feature every personnel change. If the leader of the organization (i.e. Blatter) changes, then yes, but otherwise it is too minor. Banedon (talk) 05:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose We can't have every employee of every organisation getting fired for graft showing up here can we? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

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

September 16Edit


[Posted] 2015 Chile earthquakeEdit

Closing the discussion. Further comments on the blurb, if necessary, should be brought to the attention of WP:ERROR. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015 Illapel earthquake (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An 8.3 magnitude earthquake strikes about 34 miles (55 km) from Illapel, Chile, killing at least one person and sending tsunami alerts across the southern Pacific coastlines.
Alternative blurb: ​An 8.3 magnitude earthquake strikes in the Pacific off the coast of Chile, killing at least one person and prompting the evacuation of about 1 million Chileans from coastal regions.
Alternative blurb II: ​A magnitude 8.3 earthquake strikes in the Pacific off the coast of Chile, killing at least ten people and prompting the evacuation of about 1 million Chileans.
News source(s): CNN BBC
Nominator's comments: One of the largest recorded quakes, and there are sights of 10-ft high tsunami waves as a result. MASEM (t) 02:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

2015 Chile earthquake

  • Support as any 8+ quake with a 15 foot tsunami is per se notable. μηδείς (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - There is a similar article at 2015 Illapel earthquake. Jusdafax 02:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I have been bold and history-merged the articles to the Illapel version, as that appears to be the normal naming standard for quakes. --MASEM (t) 03:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Good work, thanks. Jusdafax 05:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait No reports of massive damage and casualties appear minimal thus far (Deo gratias). No need to rush into posting. Let's see what develops. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait. Magnitude might be 8+, but one person has died and it has sent a Tsunami alert, not caused a tsunami. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Actually, there are stories of 15-ft tall waves close to the episode. I've also seen word (but not confirmed by major sources) the death toll is up to 5. --MASEM (t) 05:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Then we shall wait for more sources to report it. Let us not hurry. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support An earthquake does not get less notable because it doesn't kill many people. This is a magnitude 8+ earthquake. Enough said. Banedon (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – 8.3 magnitude, tsunami - although minor - has struck Chile and warnings issues up the Pacific seaboard to at least California. At least 5 deaths per Reuters. Twirly Pen (Speak up) 06:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - earthquake, notable. --BabbaQ (talk) 06:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait - earthquake, not sure if notable (probably though). --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment A number of the supporing editors have cited the obvious notability of the event. I don't think anyone is questioning that an 8.3 earthquake is notable. What we are questioning is whether a major earthquake that occured relatively far from land and has thus far (mercifully) caused little damage or loss of life, is ITN material. The bar at ITN is much higher than WP:GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – 46km is not relatively far from land. In fact, it's relatively close. The Japan earthquake in 2011 was both farther out to sea and deeper in the Earth. Twirly Pen (Speak up) 07:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Note maybe don't feature death toll in headline - it's at least five now and will rise. Maybe "one million evacuated" -- Callinus (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait – Although it's the largest earthquake since May 24, 2013, effects appear to be relatively limited (thankfully). Disruptive effects, namely 1 million people evacuated, are probably the most notable aspect of this from an ITN standpoint. Would opt to wait a bit longer when morning comes so we have a better idea of the scale of impact. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait. Reports of damage and casualties are so far surprisingly light for a quake of this magnitude. At the moment there isn't enough to be worth posting. That might change if parts of the country which currently haven't been reached have taken a major hit, but we won't know that until perhaps 24 hours times. Modest Genius talk 09:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The 2010 Chile earthquake that was posted to ITN was more than 5 times stronger and killed over 500 people. 2014 Iquique earthquake was a similar earthquake at the same area as the current one, also comparably weak and followed by a tsunami, mass evcuations and a small number of deaths. It's just an earthquake in an area where earthquakes are normal. LoveToLondon (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, although I might be biased. As a Chilean, having experienced three 8+ magnitude earthquakes, I think this is huge news for a number of reasons: 1) as many people here have noted, events this big are a less than once-in-a-year world event, perhaps comparable to a big hurricane or typhoon, 2) the fact that the dead toll is small (it will doubtless grow, but not too much) does not diminish the event's notability, maybe it increases it, and undoubtedly makes it better news (if your country suffers half of the world's biggest earthquakes, you have to be prepared. Besides, the trauma of the 2010 tsunamy is still fresh, and that is why the authorities overreacted, ruling out most or all potential tsunamy-realted deaths) 3) I've seen 6th magnitude quakes listed ITN because of their effect on people. Well, today no one speaks of anything else here, even though we are used to tremors (you never get really used to them, especially 8th magnitude). Cato censor (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC) - sorry but I can't remember my password right now 200.9.73.21 (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe another reason for the small dead toll is the earthquake's frequency. I live in a 9th floor and you could feel the building move chaotically, yet not a single cup fell (anyway, on 2010 we lost just a couple of loosely-fixed bathroom tiles) 200.9.73.21 (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The, slightly weaker 2014 Iquique earthquake had a smaller dead toll, took place in a less-populated region, yet was posted ITN. I know this is not concluding argumentation, but I think it is something to have in mind. 200.9.73.21 (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Note It is currently fronpage headline on both BBC and CNN, the first two international media I could think of. 200.9.73.21 (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – One to get out there as soon as sufficient detail known. Altblurb based on BBC offered above. Sca (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This earthquake has caused a chaos over here! Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support this would have gotten posted in seconds if it wasn't for the surprising low deathtoll, which is IMO a pretty cynical way to dismiss an otherwise rare phenomenon. Nergaal (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Agree that the apparently low death toll isn't a reason not to post. In terms of human impact, it seems to be forcing a great many people to leave home. Sca (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Reports keep coming about coastal streets either flooded or full of derbis and even small ships. 200.9.73.21 (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article seems noteworthy for ITN, but currently it is just about the 1500 bytes, still has a stub template, and no article sections. I think that it should be improved a bit before posting. Cambalachero (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Marked as ready – Consensus in favor of posting (9 support, 5 wait, and 1 oppose) at the time of this comment. Aspects warranting its posting include the magnitude (8.3 MW, largest in over 2 years), number of evacuees (~1 million), Pacific-wide tsunami alert, and to a lesser degree the resulting damage and deaths (10 killed). As brought up by other users, a lack of deaths isn't necessarily a reason to oppose a natural disaster being placed on ITN. They can be quite disruptive without claiming many lives, as this earthquake demonstrates. Additionally, the 2014 Iquique earthquake serves as sufficient precedent as a nearly identical event that was posted. Before actually posting, I want to have a more solid agreement on a blurb. I've provided a second alt blurb, a variation of the first alt blurb, as my own suggestion. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb 2 – which obviously may be updated periodically. Sca (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support recent reports indicate that few of the million evacuees remain evacuated, so that part of the blurb is stale now. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Large earthquake event that affected millions of people. Article is long enough and of sufficient quality to post. Mamyles (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - The article is still skimpy but this was a major event per IP200. Agree that the bottom Altblurb 2 is best. Jusdafax 20:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted alt blurb 2 Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] 2015 Burkinabé coup d'étatEdit

Closing the discussion. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nominator's comments: Adding this here since I noticed it has been overlooked. The article is decent already. Tone 08:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – Notability is straightforward. Suggested a blurb for use so there's something to start with. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 09:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once sources are given; If the President has actually been removed(page says 'detained' AFAIK) this might be ITNR(a change in head of state). 331dot (talk) 09:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Significant change of state and the article is indeed decent. Bound to receive more content as details come in, but we can certainly post now. Modest Genius talk 09:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose RS like the BBC or the sources in the article are not calling it a coup without quotes or question marks, so calling it a coup d'état is currently clearly OR. LoveToLondon (talk) 11:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Meanwhile your linked article has coup in the headline without quotes and multiple times thereafter. The only instance of it being used in quotes is in a direct quote from Cheriff Sy. The military has also made an official statement confirming the coup (via AlJazeera). The President of France outright calls it a coup d'état as well (via New York Times). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support mayor international story, and change in country leadership. --Jenda H. (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Support Major story, yes. The only thing I don't understand is how you detail a government. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Obvious notability whenever a government is deposed. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Subject clearly satisfies ITN criteria per longstanding precedent. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support A coup is both notable and interesting. The article is of sufficient quality to post. Mamyles (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted with almost unambiguous support. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - coup is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

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

September 15Edit


2015 Southeast Asian hazeEdit

Article: 2015 Southeast Asian haze (talk, history)
Blurb: Indonesia declares a state of emergency in Riau, and thousands flee the province capital Pekanbaru due to haze that also affects the neighboring Singapore and Malaysia.
News source(s): Al Jazeera, Reuters, Associated Press, Australian Broadcasting Corp, Time, BBC

 HaEr48 (talk)

  • Weak oppose We did post the 2013 Southeast Asian haze, and I agree that it is a story that affects several very large nations. However, the Southeast Asian haze seems to have become an annual affair, and this one doesn't seem to be unusual. Northern-North America experiences disruptive blizzards pretty much every winter, but we only post especially severe ones (I hope). Smurrayinchester 13:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - this is a more intense year, so it may be significant enough to be posted to the main page, but the article is not in very good shape. sstflyer 10:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once article is in shape. This is something that severely affects many million of people. Even if it is a recurring phenomenon, posting it once a year is not excessive. Thue (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - shape of the article is good. Notable event. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - article looks fine and this is notable enough. starship.paint ~ KO 23:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's a haze, I'm certainly not seeing widespread coverage of it. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
It was showing in the international headlines on September 15/16 (around the day the emergency was declared), see the news source. Otherwise it's consistently in the local news in the affected places. As @Thue: said millions are affected (counting just the population of Sumatra and Singapore it's more than 50 million people). HaEr48 (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: added more news sources starship.paint ~ KO 01:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Affects millions. Would prefer an alternative blurb though, such as "Haze covers much of South East Asia as Indonesia declares a state of emergency in Riau" - admittedly a little poetic, but does not single out Malaysia and Singapore (other countries are also affected). Banedon (talk) 05:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The annual haze in Beijing even affects tens of millions. LoveToLondon (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
As noted in previous comments, this year's one is more severe, affects more countries/area, and last longer, so it's more notable than just an annual phenomenon. HaEr48 (talk) 03:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
About the tens of millions thing - Indonesia is a country of 200+ million people, and Malaysia + Singapore is something like 40? million people also. Banedon (talk) 04:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

September 14Edit


[Closed] Utah flash floodsEdit

Closing own nomination as stale. No consensus to post and the event has long since dropped out of international media. Only being covered locally now. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015 Utah floods (talk, history)
Blurb: Flash floods kill at least 19 people in Utah, the deadliest such disaster in the state's history.
News source(s): WUnderground, USA Today, BBC, The Washington Post

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Although the effects have been localized, this was the deadliest flash flood event on record in Utah and the deadliest weather event in the US this year (previous was 13 people when the Blanco River in Texas saw record floods). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Plus it's highly unusual to have a tropical cyclone impact Utah, which is well inland and is mostly desert. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Note – After looking into the meteorological aspect further, it seems as though I jumped to conclusions. Currently in the process of splitting off the Utah flood event from Linda as the remnants of the hurricane were not the primary factor but merely a contributing one. Will update the nomination when the new article is up. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Relatively small disaster, and we don't need everything to be U.S.-centric. Rcsprinter123 (remark) 19:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support yes, a relatively small disaster, but a notable one nevertheless, many deaths in a first world country from this kind of event is unusual. Article is fine too. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support a significant disaster in an unlikely place. We also need to fight Rcsprinter's anti-U.S. systemic bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Floods occur all the time. This isn't a big flood, didn't kill the most people, didn't affect the most people. Banedon (talk) 05:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
    Per the instructions at the top of the page: "Please do not...complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive" Oppose votes which are based on the location of an event are routinely ignored. Which is not to say that this should be posted, but in the future, if you want to have your vote counted, don't bring up the locale as the reason for your opposition. Instead, discuss the quality of the article and the prominence given to the story in the news, NOT where it happened. --Jayron32 15:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
    No offense but threatening to ignore the perfectly valid first half by concentrating only on the second half is, in my opinion, quite silly. I've simply deleted the last line of my vote in response. Banedon (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
    I'm going to make a stupid and likely false assumption here, but it's to make a point with your given reasoning. By your statement, a flood that kills 1,000 people may not necessarily be notable because there have been floods that killed millions and by comparison 1,000 isn't that much. You have to take each even into consideration within their context. There has never been a flood this deadly in Utah before. It's also the deadliest flood in a national park in the US since 1997. It has local notability. Other areas, particularly in Asia and Africa, see deadly floods far more frequently and necessitate higher tolls or impact to warrant notability by ITN standards. Opposing because "it didn't kill the most people...[nor]...affect the most people" is a poor argument to shrug off certain events, and that's where the frustration comes from. I'm probably shooting myself in the foot (going against my own nomination...but it's unlikely this will be posted anyways) but give something like "Although notable for the number of fatalities, the event was localized and affected a relatively small number of people. It was only briefly mentioned in international media and has since only been covered locally." Something tangible that doesn't simply shrug off events because of statistics. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
    If you look through the list of floods I linked, you'll see that the death toll of most of them is generally under 250. Therefore a flood that kills a thousand people is notable and I will support posting. This flood killed 19 people, putting it well in the lower range of that scale. On this metric, this flood is not worth posting. The next question is whether this flood is worth posting because it's in Utah. Utah is a state, not a country. It there has never been a flood this deadly in the entire of the United States, maybe. In Utah? I'm sorry but I cannot support this nomination. Banedon (talk) 06:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Banedon. 117.192.181.149 (talk) 09:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Just to point out, all of the !oppose votes on this nomination are invalid. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose And just to point out that the other oppose votes are also valid. The point is not that it happened only in one state of one country, the point is that it is not a big event making frontpage headlines all over the world. And local records like worst event of this kind in this city/state or worst event of this specific kind in this country this year so far are not sufficient reason for ITN. We already had floods with over 100 people killed this year, and I fully agree with Jayron32 that this should not be judged on where it happened or what local (state or country) records it broke. LoveToLondon (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
    Please refer to the 2015 Shoreham Airshow crash, which was posted without opposition. A plane crash that killed 11 people when we've had plane crashes that kill hundreds annually. The argument of "it didn't kill X number of people and Y already killed Z people" is grasping at straws and simply bogs down the ITN/C process more than it already is. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
    It was posted without opposition because I didn't have the time to oppose it. I would've opposed it. Banedon (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. This is an unusual enough event for Utah that it merits posting. We aren't exactly loaded down with US stories right now(a grand total of zero, by my count) so "US centric" arguments are not valid. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
    • They shouldn't be considered "valid" even if there are U.S.-related items on the ticker. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes; I wasn't clear about that. 331dot (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
        • By that logic, is the deadliest traffic accident (with cars) in the history of some state in some country that killed 10 people posted to ITN? There are thousands of states in the world. Or any collapse of a house or bridge in a first-world country killing 5 people? LoveToLondon (talk) 08:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
          • Each item is weighed on its own merits. Some receive more news coverage than others, or have their own circumstances that make them more notable than another, similar event. 331dot (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support — very significant event from both meteorological and disaster management perspectives, and an excellent article. – Juliancolton | Talk 14:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

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

RD: Fred DeLucaEdit

Article: Fred DeLuca (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

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: Founder and CEO of the largest restaurant chain in the world, Subway (restaurant). Article is short, but not too short, and well referenced. Jayron32 19:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Support per ITNDC #2. Article is in good shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - The Colonel Sanders of hoagies, and then some. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose besides the weak article, referencing is poor, dead links, raw URLs etc, all can be fixed up by those who consider this to be significant to post. This isn't "quality Wikipedia content". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - influential businessman. Article needs some work but is not too bad. I've fixed the raw urls and dead links. -Zanhe (talk) 05:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Conditional support Article needs a bit of work. I'll also pitch in. However, I don't know much about Subway being the world largest chain. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
    Here is a reliable source. here is another one. Subway is has more outlets than any other restaurant chain worldwide. --Jayron32 16:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

[Posted and closed] Malcolm Turnbull to become Prime Minister of AustraliaEdit

Posted, further debate over possible errors in the hook belong at .... errors. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, September 2015 (talk, history)
Blurb: Malcolm Turnbull elected the leader of the Liberal Party of Australia and set to become the 29th Prime Minister of Australia following a Leadership Spill
Alternative blurb: Tony Abbott is replaced as Liberal Party leader by Malcolm Turnbull (pictured), who will succeed him as the Prime Minister of Australia, following a leadership spill.
Alternative blurb II: Tony Abbott loses party confidence in a leadership spill, with new Liberal Party leader Malcolm Turnbull (pictured) set to succeed him as Prime Minister of Australia.
Alternative blurb III: Tony Abbott is replaced as Liberal Party leader by Malcolm Turnbull (pictured), who is set to succeed him as Prime Minister of Australia, following a leadership spill.

Nominator's comments: Although not the result of an election, the Leadership spill has seen the ousting of the current Prime Minister and in a few days Malcolm Turnbull will be sworn in as the new Prime Minister. Gfcvoice (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Support when article updated. —Jonny Nixon - (Talk) 12:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support when article updated. —Kidsankyran - (Talk) 12:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
    • A rare sight, identical arguments with identical signature styles. Brandmeistertalk 12:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, change of head of government in a G20 country. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – notability is straightforward. One question, would the target article be Turnbull or the Leadership Spill? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Leadership change in one of the biggest countries in the world, and in dramatic fashion too. Easily an appropriate news item. Aerospeed (Talk) 13:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - if the Singapore election can feature in ITN, a larger country would definitely be appropriate. sstflyer 13:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This seems to have sufficient support to be posted, however, can someone propose a wording that makes sense to non-experts? The PM system in Australia seems somewhat different than in some other countries. --Tone 13:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
    Comment The concept of a Leadership spill is clearly explained in the relevant article. Regarding the wording of the blurb, In The News featured Gillard's defeat of Rudd in June 2010, and also Rudd's defeat of Gillard in June 2013. Gfcvoice (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
    It's a westminister system, if I'm not mistaken, so it's the same as the UK's. Did we post anything when Gordon Brown succeeded the prime ministership from Blair (it occurred in a similar manner, the leadership of the party changing and thus the head of government as a result)? GRAPPLE X 14:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
It's not clear (it was 8 years ago, and things were very basic back then. That said, this is more dramatic - Brown was elected unopposed to Labour leadership after Blair's resignation. This however was a messy vote of confidence - as I said below, it's more like Margaret Thatcher getting chucked out of number 10 in the Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 1990 (although technically she was still the candidate with the most support, she didn't get a large enough majority to win the election and decided to stand down). Smurrayinchester 14:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
It's entirely clear that we did. ‑ iridescent 16:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Added altblurbs. It's not that the Australian system is different - the same thing could happen in any system where the Prime Minister has to survive party vote of confidences - but Australians are much bolder about calling confidence votes than most countries. Margaret Thatcher lost PM-ship of the UK in pretty much the same way. Smurrayinchester 14:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
    Comment Thank you for providing the alt-blurbs Smurrayinchester. As you're probably aware, Turnbull is not yet Prime Minister, however it is near certain he will be within a matter of days. Gfcvoice (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
    Good point (does the PM have to kiss the Governor-General's hand, or is that something Australia has managed to live without?) Reworded. Smurrayinchester 14:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
    I think a handshake with the Governor-General of Australia is sufficient! Gfcvoice (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – No-brainer. Sca (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, significant change to the head of government of a major nation. However I think we should avoid saying 'leadership spill' in the blurb, as few readers will be familiar with that meaning of the word 'spill' and think it is a misspelling of 'split'. Modest Genius talk 15:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
    There is a separate article that describes the concept of a spill. This article is included in the Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, September 2015 article, with a link to Leadership spill being its 5th and 6th words. Regardless, I would have thought that most people could make a reasonable guess about the term using the context of the other words in the suggested blurbs. Couldn't readers who remain unfamiliar with the term get the relevant information from the Leadership spill article if they are really that confused? Gfcvoice (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
    Certainly, but it's easy to rephrase the blurb so it's clear to everyone, without using jargon or forcing them to follow a link first. For example: 'Malcolm Turnbull defeats Tony Abbott to become leader of the Liberal Party of Australia and Prime Minister of Australia'. Readers who are interested in the details will consult the article. Modest Genius talk 16:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This one is a no brainer. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Uncertain Should you wait until he actually becomes Prime Minister first? Decentman12 (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted alt blurb III as Turnbull has yet to officially take the position. Will need to be updated accordingly when he does. Precedent for posting when elected rather than assuming the position has already been established (obvious example is Barack Obama) so no need to wait. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – The phrase leadership spill won't be understood by a large proportion of English-speaking readers. (What did they spill? Coffee? The beans?) Yes, it's linked, but the reader has to go from this link to this one to find out what it means. Sca (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • How about this:
Malcolm Turnbull (pictured) replaces Tony Abbott as the Liberal Party leader, and is set to be the next Prime Minister of Australia.
It is shorter, and gives a clear idea what happened. Also the wording "leadership spill" is hidden in the link title which already has the text "replaces", so I hope it will make it clear that it's some Australian party leadership change kind of thing. HaEr48 (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
@HaEr48: I like it - it's concise, uses active voice, and makes the point without extra clauses. -- Callinus (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Post posting Support I would have preferred a blurb with the active voice and the main subject at the start - "Malcolm Turnbull is set to become the next Prime Minister of Australia after defeating Tony Abbott in a Leadership Spill" -- Callinus (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Post posting SupportHaEr48's suggestion avoids the problem and reads better than current blurb, IMO. Sca (talk)
  • We should reword and remove the words "set to be", now that Turnbull's been officially sworn in. Something like: "Malcolm Turnbull (pictured) replaces Tony Abbott as the Liberal Party leader, and as Prime Minister of Australia." Or even, "Malcolm Turnbull (pictured) replaces Tony Abbott as Prime Minister of Australia.", because (as others have mentioned), all the detail is in the link "replaces". Adpete (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Just curious about the current wording. English isn't my native language, but isn't the article the needed? As in "..the Prime Minister of Australia"? HaEr48 (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Depends on the dialect. In some varieties of English, dropping the definite article "the" is standard, and in others, you're required to include it. --Jayron32 16:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
    What makes this sentence eligible for the-dropping? Or is "the" always dropped in any kind of sentence in those dialects? (I doubt so) HaEr48 (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
    Brit Eng would add a definite article in this case, not sure about Aus Eng, as Jayron says it's WP:ENGVAR so until we find an Aussie who dislikes it, it stands. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

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

September 13Edit


[Closed] U.S. OpenEdit

Closing nomination as stale; one week since the event and no consensus to post. Despite being listed on WP:ITN/R, no noticeable effort has been made to improve the article and address quality concerns. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015 US Open (tennis) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At the U.S. Open, Novak Djokovic wins the men's singles and Flavia Pennetta wins the women's singles.
News source(s): CNN NPR

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: Surprised this hasn't been nominated yet. Kudzu1 (talk) 06:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support conditional on significant improvements in sourcing per ITNR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
    A tragic waste of a comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Not ready. Obviously this should go up, per ITNR, but the articles need multiple paragraphs of referenced prose first. At the moment they're just big results tables. Modest Genius talk 09:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
    Still no prose. Modest Genius talk 09:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality, especially given the excessive lack of proper citations. Most of the existing prose is un-sourced and in need of expansion. The tables are also improperly sourced with no citations directly to their content but rather a single external link labeled "Schedule of Play" under each day. I also see no form of verification for the entire "events" section, merely listing after listing with links to individual events that also lack proper citations. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 09:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Almost 5k of prose now, but only five references. Massive paragraphs are totally unsourced. It doesn't look like it'll get up to quality before it goes stale. I'm surprised. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
    I agree, we should now look to remove this from ITNR if there is so little interest in actually updating it after so many days. Clearly the US Open is no longer of interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
    While I have no interest in the US Open, I don't think this is the right logic for removing it as ITN/R. It remains one of the top tennis events in the world. The fact that this year no one wanted to spend time updating the article doesn't change the nature of the importance of the event. If anything, this shows that the ITN/R system works, in that while the event may be important, we don't automatically post these and do expect articles that fall within ITNR to be of reasonable quality before posting. Maybe when it happens next year editors will learn from failing to update this in a timely manner. --MASEM (t) 00:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
    Agree with Masem. I have zero interest in tennis, but even I knew without looking it up that the US Open this is part of the grand slam. It should be ITN/R and should be updated by editors interested in tennis. I don't know why they've dropped the serve on this one. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
    Also agree with Masem. One quiet year doesn't mean it should come off ITNR. Modest Genius talk 10:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
    Also agree. ITNR lists events that are always considered important enough to be posted assuming the article quality is sufficient. The Grand Slam tournaments in Tennis are clearly important enough for ITNR. LoveToLondon (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
    How many times has this been on ITN in the past, say, six years? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] 2015 Vuelta a EspañaEdit

Article: 2015 Vuelta a España (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In road cycling, Italian Fabio Aru wins 2015 Vuelta a España

Article updated

 EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 06:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Support It's not listed in ITNR but it does appear to be a very major event in cycling and the article is decently sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as long as the last part of the race overview (i.e. who won) is referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per TRM. Cycling these days might be one of the more clean sports. Nergaal (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - major event. sourced.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support if article is OK. A major event in the sport. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Marking ready. Article is good and there's unanimous support. Modest Genius talk 09:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
    You didn't read the comments or the article in that case. I wanted the conclusion to be sourced, it still isn't. Happy to post once it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man:, I added the sources that were needed, but given that it's been four days has it been too long for this article to be posted on ITN? I'm not sure. Please let me know. Aerospeed (Talk) 02:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 05:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Moses MaloneEdit

Closing discussion Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Moses Malone (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ESPN, ABC News

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Three-time NBA MVP, 2001 Hall of Fame inductee bender235 (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. He looks notable enough, with the record he had - but there's a serious lack of sources in the page. Challenger l (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
A shoe-in on notability, easily one of the best players of his generation. Must oppose solely for article quality. A lengthy career bio, but much of it lacks sourcing. If someone could fix upl the article, we could post this.Jayron32 17:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on notability. Let's see if we can get the article up to snuff. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on obvious notability, pending any needed improvements. Storied career and a household name during his era. μηδείς (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support Subject clearly meets ITNDC. However, as noted above, the article quality is far below standards for linking on the front page. It needs a lot of work. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I rarely support sports items, but this is an obvious RD. What little I do know comes from a hit song called Fo Fi Fo where Malone is prominently mentioned. Jusdafax 20:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is shambolic. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Meets even the most stringent criteria for deceased athletes. Article needs work, but it's not a lost cause. Zagalejo^^^ 22:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Very weak oppose The subject clearly meets the requirements, but the article needs work. More sourcing and updating is to was. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Conditional support Meets WP:ITND as one of the top players in the history of the sport of basketball. Article improvement is pending.—Bagumba (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Per comments below on article updates, changing to unconditional support.—Bagumba (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on article improvements - RD criteria is met, but as others have noted, we're still a bit away in terms of sourcing to be ITN. --MASEM (t) 05:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Sourcing has been improved considerably, but it seems the article was originally a massive copvio of http://www.nba.com/history/players/mmalone_bio.html, which now appears to be the biggest remaining issue.—Bagumba (talk) 05:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Eeek. That's been there for over eight years: [12]. Zagalejo^^^ 13:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
That should really be brought up on the talk page, so other editors are aware. Modest Genius talk 16:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Good point. I linked it here so that we can all see when the issue is resolved. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – a little biased towards The Chairman of the Boards, though I would imagine he is pretty notable as a basketball HOFer, and his career is pretty regularly reflected upon as one that was standout among basketball in the 70s and 80s... Twirly Pen (Speak up) 06:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Regarded as one of the greatest basketball players in the 70s and 80s, and a HOFer as well. Aerospeed (Talk) 14:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • COPYVIO UPDATE The copyvio on this article was severe. As Zagalejo pointed out above, the NBA.com profile was copied into Malone's wiki article eight years ago, and it's been there ever since. Bagumba, Kiraroshi1976, and I have worked on this article substantially since yesterday. It's improved now, but not necessarily enough. According to Duplication Detector, it's now minimal, where certain terms can't be reworded. (This is what it looked like in the last edit before his death was reported.) Earwig's Copyright Detector, which is based on patterns rather than exact phrases, is less forgiving at present, but I'm having difficulty finding more ways to present his statistics and awards in a chronological fashion. (Here's how bad it was with the same diff.) I've now made 163 edits on Malone's page, none of them before yesterday. I'm not sure how much better we can get the article, because it's always going to cover the same main points as the NBA.com profile. I seek any advice and input on whether or not the article is postable now, or if it ever can be. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Per my comments at Talk:Moses_Malone#Copyright_violation, I think the copyvio is no longer a major issue. Summarizing my points there, Earwig's Copyright Detector is no longer showing contiguous sentences or whole paragraphs in red as suspected copyvios. The article has been improved to short phrases being flagged. Given that this is a comprehensive biography, there is bound to be overlap on common stat lines, awards, and playoff results being mentioned.—Bagumba (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted very good improvement. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

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

September 12Edit


[Posted] Petlawad explosionEdit

Closing discussion Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Petlawad explosion (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A blast in Petlawad in Madhya Pradesh kills 104 people and injures many more.
Alternative blurb: ​An accidental explosion in Petlawad in Madhya Pradesh kills over 100 people.
News source(s): 104 killed in Jhabua explosion; 'people were thrown away like pebbles'

Article updated
Nominator's comments: A gas cylinder exploded causing illegally stored gelatin sticks to explode. Not your routine, everyday explosion. Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support due to high number of deaths and injuries. Cylinder blasts are uncommon too. --Nizil (talk) 07:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Article is short, but gives enough information to understand the disaster. This is an unusual and extremely deadly catastrophe '''tAD''' (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
    @The Almightey Drill: If you can help out with the expansion, I guess we can fix the article size problem. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Ready the article is in good shape for a new event at this point; I am going to go ahead and mark this as ready, on the assumption we are not going to get a wave of opposes. μηδείς (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The blurb should say over 100 instead of 104 since the number will likely change during the next days. I've also removed the injured people from the altblurb since it is obvious that there also have to be many injured people, and changed from blast to accidental explosion since the former sounded like just another terror attack in Pakistan. LoveToLondon (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted a variation. WP:ERRORS is that way. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] RD: Adrian FrutigerEdit

Article: Adrian Frutiger (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): http://graffica.info/adrian-frutiger-fallece/

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: Appears to have been a major player in the world of typeface design. Creator of Avenir (typeface) and Univers. Many accolades inc. European Design AwardSmerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Typeface designer who created some very well-known typefaces. LoveToLondon (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as clearly important in his field, but the article has some substantial referencing problems, contra the nominator. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support conditional on improved referencing. Subject meets ITNDC #2. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I seem to be the most recent editor of the article though my contributions to it are relatively minor. There's no question that Frutiger is one of the most influential type designers of the twentieth century, maybe the most of all. I think parts of the article are a bit flowery and needs to be made more concrete (it talks about Frutiger's ideas of "letter construction, unity, and organic form" without any details of what they are). Adding more citations shouldn't be hard (in fact maybe there are so few because large chunks of his autobiography are on Google Books), but I have a limited amount of time today. Overall though I would describe the article as decent, maybe needing a few citations about his early life but otherwise OK. Blythwood (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending referencing improvement. Clearly notable in his field (and an uncommon field as well). 331dot (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is a complete mess and as we're objecting to "stunt pilot" as a field, we should object to "typeface artist" as a field too, for consistency. Both are niche, and for what it's worth I'd be happy with both, but some here clearly have agendas that I simply don't understand. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
    Comment Stunt pilot would be a relevant field. If you have objective proof that Alan Purwin was considered a world-leading stunt pilot, then please add that information to the article. According to IMDb, Alan Purwin was only once credited in a film for stunts after 2003. LoveToLondon (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
    Nine more citation needed tags, disambiguation links, poor work. Please IP98, help yourself to this. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - important enough within his field. Article could need some improvements surely but that is not a reason to decline ITN RD here.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I have tagged most of what needs support in the article. Unfortunately, links to MyFonts don't provide the necessary substantial backing for the claims being made, and a link to the MyFonts page for Serifa, for example, does not cover the entire paragraph, although the cite was placed at the end of the paragraph. μηδείς (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality. Loads of orange tags throughout the article - any discussion about notability can wait until the article's seen a lot of work. Challenger l (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
    Now there are sufficient refs. LoveToLondon (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Support on notability but the article needs better sourcing. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in principle - significant designer. Article quality issues now look to be mostly confined to biographical details (I think we can overlook having one for every single font), so hopefully this can go up soon. Modest Genius talk 12:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
    I've added a ref that covers all listed font families. LoveToLondon (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Not Ready the article is much improved, but claims like "The success of this modern, yet human, typeface, spurred..." need support. μηδείς (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, the article isn't brilliantly referenced, but it is close enough and a non-controversial topic. Given Mr. Fruitiger's influence on his craft, I support posting in RD. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • If the 8 people who supported this and the nominator had each contributed a citation, this would have been posted. Now I am mindful of Craig Ferguson's bit, "Does this need to be said, Does this need to be said now, Does this need to be said now by me?" So I will hold my tongue. μηδείς (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - all citation neededs cleared now. This should surely be finally posted. Blythwood (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
    Agreed, all the objections above now seem to have been resolved. There's even a fair-use image too. Marking ready. Modest Genius talk 13:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT♦C 16:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] UK Labour Party leadership electionEdit

Large majority in opposition to this. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2015 (talk, history)
Blurb: Jeremy Corbyn (pictured) is elected Leader of the Opposition as the new leader of the Labour Party in the United Kingdom.
News source(s): Telegraph
  • Nominated by [[User:120.62.18.210 (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)|120.62.18.210 (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)]] ([[User talk:120.62.18.210 (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)|talk]] • [{{fullurl:User talk:120.62.18.210 (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)|action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/preload_credit&preloadtitle=ITN+recognition+for+%5B%5BLabour+Party+%28UK%29+leadership+election%2C+2015%5D%5D&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=Labour+Party+%28UK%29+leadership+election%2C+2015&preloadparams%5b%5d=nominated}} give credit])
Nominator's comments: While it's not ITNR, such a far-left leader (possibly future PM?) as leader of a major party is quite darn notable. As the source says the first in over 30 years. Symptomatic of a system on the verge of breaking, perhaps? Another step in hyper-polarized global politics?
(I imagine certain people to be scared shitless at the new Tony Benn 120.62.18.210 (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Elections for party leaders (or election candidates) do not belong to ITN, only general elections. LoveToLondon (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
    For context, west Bengal election result was posted based on its unusual circumstances...120.62.18.210 (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
    There are no unusual circumstances regarding the election of Jeremy Corbyn. He was nominated by 36 members of parliament of his party, and then elected by the majority of members of his party. He is slightly more left than the average of his party, but your far-left claim is absurd - his political positions are only moderately left by continental European standards. LoveToLondon (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose a) shadow prime minister does not exist in the UK - it's leader of the opposition, which has no formal power. b) Leader of the opposition is an important role within British politics, but it carries little recognition and no power outside the Westminster bubble. For you Americans, his role is comparable to Nancy Pelosi's right now. We wouldn't post party leadership elections for any other country, even when they might one day become leader (we didn't post e.g. Mitt Romney's selection as US presidential candidate). c) He's firmly left wing, and in many respects more so than his predecessor, but he's not (by most definitions) far left. Smurrayinchester 13:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
    He is entitled to all-party meetings with your head of state and, hence, a voice there. Although would be darn interesting to see how an anti-monarchist goes about it.120.62.18.210 (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This is quite a significant political development; a much bigger deal in the English-speaking world than the Guatemalan President scandal (which has been up at ITN for ages now). It's as if a maverick like Donald Trump won the Republican nomination... Andrew D. (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
    • If Trump won the nomination, it wouldn't be ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not a Prime Minister nor a President, not significant enough. starship.paint ~ KO 14:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Probably this is a big step for him to challenge the present government. Other leadership elections didn't achieve consensus's approval, especially when David Cameron became the opposition leader in 2005. Of course, Ed Milliband's opposition leadership didn't attract consensus well. Perhaps Corbyn's Labour leadership might. --George Ho (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support it's an interesting one this; I strongly suspect that if Trump was elected as Republican Presidential candidate it would be posted here, so I don't see how a candidate on the other wing of politics being elected as the formal challenger for a Government of one of the major countries in the world is in any way less notable. Black Kite (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Absolutely not. We've never posted the nomination of a U.S. presidential candidate by a major party (I assume that's what you're referring to, not winning the presidency), only the results of the general election. We're not gonna start because Trump. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – May attract interest internationally, but still basically a domestic UK story. Sca (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Political impact is domestic. International interest among readers in the British Commonwealth of Nations. Sca (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
In which world are Russia and france part of our great empire, if you must.120.62.18.210 (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't think that a political party's internal leadership election result warrant main page wikipedia news. I'm saying this as a Labour Party member and as someone who voted for Corbyn. It's not notable enough globally, it is a UK domestic story. Also it'd set a precedent. IJA (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am not aware that we have posted presidential primary nomination results in the US in the past. μηδείς (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
    USA is not god almighty...and its exceptionalist comments like this making the USA the barometer that breed the anti-US comments Wikipedia gets. Anyways, criticize me away if that'll temper your reasons to see why the USA is criticized. (and I'm a fiercely proud TX son, btw)120.62.18.210 (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, one of those Bombay proxy Texans interested solely in UK Labour Party politics, I see. I don't think your actual problem is my comment. μηδείς (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per starship.paint. Banedon (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose while it's parochially interesting, it's not going to change anything for now. The leader of the UK opposition party has been a joke for a while so this just changes the tune, not the theme. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support per WP:IAR. We don't usually post opposition party elections or primary results. That said this one is breathtaking. It is for Britain rather akin to the Democratic Party in the US nominating Bernie Sanders or even John Bachtell. Labour has elected a radical leftist as its standard bearer and it is getting front page attention all over the world. I am not sure we can ignore this. And yes, if either Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump (God preserve us) gets the nomination of their parties, I think we would have to post that too. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, given that this is obviously opposed, we're in a win/win situation now. Either Trump doesn't get nominated, or we don't post it if he does, per this precedent. Black Kite (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This isn't even a British story: it's a British intraparty story. This is parochial on the level of the Republican National Committee chairmanship election, 2011. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. This may be a domestic development (which is no reason to oppose per se), but it is global news - it is currently no. 1 in Google News Norway, no. 3 in Germany, no. 2 in France, no. 3 in the Netherlands, no. 3 in Greece, no. 2 in India among others. It has been covered extensively in other countries: it is the current lead story of Rádio e Televisão de Portugal and is a major story on the front page of this Argentinian news website. It is certainly having much more coverage than the Singaporean election and I daresay that it will have more impact than the "re-election" of Islam Karimov. This is a very unusual, as Ad Orientem put it, "breathtaking" development (and thus will set no precedent for any internal election to come), which IMHO cannot be simply dismissed as an internal leadership election with little impact - international coverage strongly suggests that this is of global interest and ITN-worthy. --GGT (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
    Comment Kim Kardashian's breathtaking ass was also a leading story all over the world, easily beating the coverage of Jeremy Corbyn. Either we set the precedent and add opposition leader changes to ITNR, or we do not put Jeremy Corbyn to ITN until he gets elected Prime Minister. LoveToLondon (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment not sure how it can be "breathtaking" when it's been slated as the result for the past six weeks. Labour party leadership has been in the doldrums for a while now, this is no surprise to most people who follow politics. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Good news, but not ITN-level; the result of his first contested general election would be the necessary item. GRAPPLE X 18:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Election of the leader of a party that is not in government, not even change of prime minister outside of election (i.e. governing party changing leader out of election who then gets appointed prime minister). -- KTC (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is an internal election within a party which isn't even in government. To the people supporting this, have you actually stopped to think about the precedent running this would set? Something like this happens somewhere in the world almost every day. ‑ iridescent 19:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Opposition parties changing leaders is not unusual(it might be more notable if it was the ruling party and would change who was PM, much like this election). 331dot (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Gennady PadalkaEdit

Articles: Gennady Padalka (talk, history) and Soyuz TMA-16M (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Russian astronaut Gennady Padalka has returned from his fifth space mission with the record after spending a cumulative 879 days in space.
Alternative blurb: ​With his just completed fifth space mission, Russian cosmonaut Gennady Padalka has spent record-breaking 879 days in space.
News source(s): RT.com, BBC, Detsche Welle, NDTV

 Jenda H. (talk) 12:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Notable record, slightly different suggestion added as altblurb. LoveToLondon (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Suggest make it present tense. Sca (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as a significant accomplishment. Both blurbs need to be tweaked for tense. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once updated - the article is still talking future terse about when he returns to earth once his current mission is completed. -- KTC (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
    Should be OK now. LoveToLondon (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
    Far from it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support - I like space stuff and I'm happy to see this posted, but it's just a little weird to post this now when he broke the old record in June. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The guy in #3 is only 100 days behind and a typical expedition takes 6 months, so he would be the new recordholder if he were to go to ISS again. But it has been a slow news month too. Nergaal (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
    The guy in #3 is already 59 years old, and not part of any of the crews that will fly in 2015 or 2016 to the ISS. LoveToLondon (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose while I'm interested in this story and I like it personally, it's not really in the news, it's not an adequately quality article, so I have to say no. Once again it's abundantly and sadly clear that some of the supporters haven't even checked the article for quality, V, BLP etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - record is notable indeed. ITN should give room to these kind of stories as well. and so what if he broke the previous record in June... he now has an even better record... --BabbaQ (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
    Did you read the article? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose "Record-breaking" = "No actual accomplishments to speak of" zzz (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Google News writes about this story: "Highly Cited: 3 Space Station Astronauts Safely Return to Earth Space.com, Wikipedia: Gennady Padalka". So, it seems that Google News has already made the decision for us. Count Iblis (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose at least on grounds of article quality. Just tagged some unreferenced sections. Some of the last part of the article (Spacewalks) has the first sentence in a paragraph sourced and the rest of the paragraph unsourced. starship.paint ~ KO 03:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

September 11Edit


[Closed] RD: Alan PurwinEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 02:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Alan Purwin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

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: Film pilot for several major Hollywood movies as well as the founder and president of Helinet Aviation, a company which "provides aerial surveillance technology to government agencies and law enforcement". Died in a plane crash on the set of a film. 117.192.190.21 (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article might be a candidate for AfD, not for ITN. LoveToLondon (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Subject does not meet ITNDC guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment bizarre, he's clearly at the top of his field for what he did before he died. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. He was clearly at the top of his field - a field he had been working in for over 30 years. Sourcing looks very good to me. Challenger l (talk) 03:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
    Comment At the top of what field exactly do you claim he was, and what RS do you have to support your claim that it was generally accepted that noone was better in this field? LoveToLondon (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good to me. I don't blame the above opposes though, the article was rather substandard and somewhat promotional until a few hours ago. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - neither persuaded that this is newsworthy (supporters please add news sources to the nomination) nor persuaded that he's at the top of his field. Article claims aided in the filming of dozens of Hollywood movies, yet somehow only two films are mentioned in the article (Mena (film) and Tropic Thunder, with the latter not even mentioning Purwin in the article) and four television series (three of which don't mention Purwin in their articles and one doesn't have an article). starship.paint ~ KO 05:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
    IMDb has more movies. The actual problem is: Are there any objective rankings that put him clearly ahead of everyone else in a relevant field? There is no indication that he was a leading stunt pilot, and also in the less relevant field of flying cameras around there is no indication that he was the leading person in his field. LoveToLondon (talk) 07:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
    CNN says he was a "prominent Hollywood stunt pilot". Ben Stiller and Michael Bay have called him one of the best pilots in the world. There are no rankings for these things, and therefore we have to judge their work ourselves. 117.192.172.72 (talk) 08:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
    Media calling someone prominent is just a phrase without any value, and friends/colleagues calling someone one of the best in the world in an obituary is also of very limited value for assessing the relevance of a person. In one source in the article he actually claims that he stopped doing his old stunt job in 1987 (!) since he found a more lucrative business - he might have occasionally done stunts afterwards, but that was not his actual job. Everyone who claims he was an important stunt pilot is either too lazy or too stupid for understanding what his actual profession was during the last 28 years. LoveToLondon (talk) 10:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
    Nicely put IP98. A little hostile, but not far from the truth, Purwin is still widely acclaimed despite what you say. As for objective rankings, that's a bizarre request. What objective rankings would have put Paul Walker up there? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. He was at the top of what field? It seems like if you narrow down any field enough you can make someone the top of it...and that seems to be what this is. Obviously there are far more accomplished pilots out there. There are also aerobatic pilots out there who have won awards and competitions and there is no indication that this person did anything other than own a business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.148.249 (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Singaporean general election, 2015Edit

Closing discussion Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Singaporean general election, 2015 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The ruling People's Action Party, led by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, retained its large majority in the Singaporean general election.
News source(s): BBC, Associated Press, Reuters, Xinhua, The Economist
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: Election in a rather important country? We posted a blurb for Lee Kuan Yew's death. HaEr48 (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Meh. I know elections are technically ITN/R, but Singapore is to all practical purposes a one-party state (opposition candidates have an awkward habit of being locked up), and I'm not sure if "result of vote goes exactly the way it was pre-scripted" is really news. Wikipedia has never really developed a policy with how we handle this kind of "election"; we had exactly the same problem with Uzbekistan (I think) a few months ago. ‑ iridescent 21:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
A lot of it depends on news coverage, I think. Even if this technically is ITNR, if it isn't getting a decent amount of coverage in the news, we can't really say it is "in the news" and thus don't need to post it. If this was top level news around the world, it wouldn't matter that the outcome was essentially known in advance. I will say this doesn't seem like it is a top story. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Sure, the winner was predictable and the PAP has a lot of advantages in the political landscape, but the elections themselves are normally considered free and fair. HaEr48 (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I didn't really oppose this per se, though the sources are much improved. Thanks 331dot (talk) 08:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Not a surprising result, but that has never stopped us posting such results before. It may not be top of the news, but it is certainly getting international coverage. Neljack (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Suport - per Neljack. Article appears substantial at first glance. INTR, so with a decent article this is a logical blurb. Jusdafax 00:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Posting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tone (talkcontribs) 12:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Abstain - I was a bit surprised seeing this "news item" on my screen. Happy to see this discussion here and checked the page over my VPN and it looks exactly the same from other locations. So the Wikipedia newspage is not a localized version, good to know - anyone interested in participating with: Draft:2015 Southeast Asian haze ? --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Mecca crane collapseEdit

Closing the discussion. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Mecca crane collapse (talk, history)
Blurb: A crane collapses at Masjid al-Haram in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, killing at least 87.
Alternative blurb: A crane collapses at the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, killing at least 87 and severely damaging the building.
News source(s): BBC, Guardian, Newsweek
Nominator's comments: 52 is significant death toll for Saudia Arabia. Saqib (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose but would support a slightly less wordy blurb and a vastly expanded stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per article size. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 17:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support conditional on significant expansion of the article. We rarely link stubs on the front page and as it stands this one is not ready for prime time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Looks much better. Thanks to the editors who worked on this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once expanded – I share the same concerns as the above users. Notable event but the article needs expansion before this can be posted. A different blurb with a link to the actual article is also necessary. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Support – Full support now that my concerns are addressed. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, but would suggest that the stub on the accident might be merged with the Masjid al-Haram article, which seems a better target anyways. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - major accident. Plenty of deaths. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
User:The Rambling Man, User:Eugen Simion 14, User:Ad Orientem, User:Cyclonebiskit: Article expanded and blurb shorten. Please suggest alternative blurb, if any. --Saqib (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Have added an altblurb and fixed the current blurb. The article has the bare minimum amount of text, but it's accurate and sourced. Support - waiting a little longer would be good but not essential. Smurrayinchester 17:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Mass-casualty event. Lots of international coverage. Let's get this posted ASAP. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Pile-on support – Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Was going to comment on lack of article size earlier, but its clearly been expanded out, and ready to support incoming help from being ITN. Definitely the type of accident (location, timing, and numbers involved) we post for ITN. --MASEM (t) 18:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Majore disaster. 94.187.8.119 (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Tropical Storm EtauEdit

Closing own nomination as stale. Four days without consensus to post and the event has now shifted into full recovery mode. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Tropical Storm Etau (2015) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Flooding triggered by Tropical Storm Etau in eastern Japan affects thousands of homes and prompts evacuation warnings for nearly 3 million people after multiple levee breaches.
Alternative blurb: ​Flooding triggered by Tropical Storm Etau in eastern Japan kills at least 4 people and prompts evacuation warnings for nearly 3 million others after multiple levee breaches.
News source(s): TWC, BBC, The Japan Times, Japan Today

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Widespread and destructive flooding across eastern Japan, from "unprecedented" rains. Search and rescue operations ongoing after a levee breach along the Kinugawa River in Ibaraki Prefecture. This marked the first time the river broke its banks in 66 years. At least 3 people are confirmed dead and 22 are missing; more than 90,000 people have been evacuated while more than 700,000 others have been advised to do so, including 410,000 in Sendai. Thousands of homes damaged or destroyed across the country. The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant also spilled more contaminated water into the Pacific because of the floods. Although Tropical Storm Erika was posted recently (and only just left the main page) for its severe damage in Dominica, Etau has affected a far more developed nation and overwhelmed its extensive flood control network. Effects are widespread and disruptive and the death toll is likely to rise.

The blurb could probably be better but I'm having some issue encapsulating the event properly without over-generalizing it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 06:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak support: Blurb should mention deaths. Widespread flooding and evacuations seems like a significant enough impact to merit ITN status, even if the death toll isn't overly high (which is a good thing, of course). -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Someone marked the Meteorological history section as outdated, that should be resolved. Brandmeistertalk 14:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Tossed in the bare essentials to update the section. Not my proudest work, but it gets the job done. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on improvements: The meteorological section just needs to get rid of that orange tag. In terms of newsworthiness I saw this yesterday on a TV but with no sound on, had come to nominate it but didn't realize it came from the tropical storm. Even if this ends up with only 3 deaths, the damage is significant. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Cyclonebiskit's improvements to that section makes the article ready to go, at least for myself. (clearly room for improvement but from far unusable) --MASEM (t) 16:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support certainly in my newsfeed, a significant disaster for Japan. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Widespread damage and disruption. Article appears sound. Jusdafax 04:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Only 3 confirmed dead, 22 missing. In a country with a high-frequency of natural disasters, this tropical storm was, thankfully, not devastating enough to be significant international news. --Tocino 07:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Currently tied for 6th most deadly Pacific Typhoon this year. Also in other metrics like number of people evacuated it does not even make the first place among 2015 Pacific Typhoons. LoveToLondon (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
    It's significant in a relative sense, not a basin sense. China will always have more evacuation numbers due to the sheer size of its population. Evacuations there are almost always in the millions. Japan sees deadly/destructive storms far less frequently than other major countries in the Western Pacific. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
    It is the forth time this year that a typhoon kills people in Japan, and the second time this year that the number of people asked to evacuate in Japan reaches 800,000. LoveToLondon (talk) 07:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
    The deaths are not the focus of the importance, it's the scale of damage/disruption in a first-world country. Importance doesn't just stem from how many people died. I've already made a correction to the evacuation numbers, which reach nearly 3 million rather than the 800,000 previously stated. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
    Yep, the "where are we in the top ten deaths by typhoon" brigade don't seem to get it at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Note – made a correction to the evacuation numbers...overall was 2.8 million with 183,500 being mandatory (per CNN). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

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

September 10Edit


[Closed] Leopoldo Lopez sentencedEdit

Closing as stale with no consensus after nearly six days. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 10:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Leopoldo López (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Venezuelan opposition leader Leopoldo López is sentenced to thirteen years and nine months in prison on charges of inciting violence during protests the previous year.
Alternative blurb: Leopoldo López, leader of the Venezuelan opposition party Popular Will, is sentenced to over thirteen years in prison on charges of inciting violence during protests the previous year.
Alternative blurb II: Leopoldo López, leader of the minor Venezuelan opposition party Popular Will, is sentenced to 13 years and 9 month in prison for inciting violence during protests the previous year.
News source(s): BBC New York Times The Guardian
Nominator's comments: Lopez is described as "prominent" by both the BBC and the New York Times links above. Additionally, the sentence's length seems to make this story exceptionally significant, as does the fact that it is being covered around the world. Everymorning (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Uncertain. This does seem like a notable event, but it doesn't seem surprising that Venezuela would jail its opposition leader, given the current government. I'm not yet sure how to balance those two points. 331dot (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I believe we posted the release of Yulia Tymoshenko(maybe even her jailing), did we not? 331dot (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Sort of. We posted an item on the Maidan riots, which included Tymoshenko being freed ("Following demonstrations, the Ukrainian parliament restores the 2004 constitution and frees Yulia Tymoshenko, while Oleksandr Turchynov (pictured) becomes acting President." if you want the exact wording). The two aren't really comparable though; Tymoshenko was a former head of government of a major nation, while Lopez's only public office was as mayor of Chacao. "Opposition leader" is also stretching the truth to breaking point; while he is indeed the leader of an opposition party, it's a tiny party with all of one seat in the National Assembly, not the main opposition in any way. ‑ iridescent 21:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support: Sad to see how Venezuela has devolved over the past 15 years into a mafioso state. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Marxist authoritarian thugs lock up political opponents. In other news the sun will rise in the East tomorrow. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Non-election related political events in Latin America tend to be ignored by ITN (with the recent exception of the events in Guatemala). If opposition leaders in the United States or Europe were sentenced to thirteen years in prison, you betcha it would be posted on ITN. The severity of this sentencing was unexpected and unprecedented even in Venezuela, despite the dubious government there. This news trended #1 worldwide on Twitter for quite awhile. --Tocino 07:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
If Barack Obama had Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, or Reince Priebus jailed on trumped up charges, it would merit posting because that doesn't typically happen in the US and would shock most of the US and world. It's different when it occurs in a country with essentially a one-party system that is hostile to opponents of it, as Venezuela has. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
But the thing is, even for Venezuela, this ruling is viewed as "harsh" and an "outrage". Washington Post headline: Harsh sentence for Venezuela opposition leader widely condemned Globe and Mail (Canada) headline: Politician’s harsh sentence draws criticism of Venezuela
I can't think of another recent instance where an opposition politician in Venezuela was jailed for more than a decade. --Tocino 09:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose First, when the US-supported Egyptian president had the previous democratically elected president whom he had overthrown in a coup sentenced to death ITN said is sentenced to death for his role in. So the correct neutral ITN wording would be altblurb2. Second, the opposition leader claim is in reality leader of a minor opposition party. LoveToLondon (talk) 11:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Tocino, and objecting that this is "normal" for Venezuela smacks of patronization and historical ignorance. The article needs a good going over, however. I spent a few minutes on just the lead yesterday, and it was full of puffery and obvious POV. μηδείς (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose let me see, Venezuela, almost the most corrupt nation on the planet has a corrupt opposition politician who has been made an example of by a corrupt regime. That's a no then. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - interesting in a political view, interesting in a criminal view. Overall notability tells me to Support.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Homo nalediEdit

Closing the discussion as there's unambiguous support for this. Any further comments regarding the blurb can be brought up at WP:ERRORS if necessary. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 07:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Homo naledi (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The discovery of a new species of hominid, Homo naledi, is announced.
Alternative blurb: ​The discovery of a new species of hominid, Homo naledi, at Rising Star Cave in South Africa, is announced
Alternative blurb II: ​Scientists announce the discovery of Homo naledi, a new species of early humans.
News source(s): The Guardian, National Geographic, The Telegraph

Article updated
  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Stale - The article states "H. naledi was discovered in 2013 in Rising Star Cave in South Africa." This news story is, shall we say, paleolithic.--WaltCip (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Announcement is only coming out now. Par for the course for finds such as this. Fossils of Australopithecus deyiremeda (posted in May of this year) were discovered in 2011. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Agreed, discoveries like this hit the news when they are published not when they are first found.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. A bevy of articles are about to come out about this. This represents a new Homo species and possibly pushes back the earliest instance of intentional burial, potentially making a twofer of firsts in the field of paleoanthropology.128.214.53.18 (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The finds, with multiple skeletons of a new hominid species, are spectacular. The number of fossils of this new species makes it much better known already than other species considered extremely important such as Ardipithecus with only a single fossil skeleton.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Both scientific papers on it ([13], [14]) popped out today (even though two years between finding and formal description is long, I think). Brandmeistertalk 12:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
There was almost 10 years between discovery and publication of Ardipithecus ramidus - there is a certainl correlation of the length of the lag period between discovery and publication, and the scientific robustness of claims about a discovery being a new species.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. New species are pretty par for the course for ITN and it being a man-thing just sweetens it. GRAPPLE X 12:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support A discovery of a new species is ITN-worthy and certainly represents a nice material for the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Also notable for possibly showing first known example of ritual activity (burial at a single location)? And for being the largest number of such bones discovered in one place? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC) WaltCip, where have you been for the past two years - living in a cave?
    • My apologies, I hereby cave in to stony opposition, as my rationale has clearly been rocked.--WaltCip (talk) 13:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
      • My advice to you is to grit your teeth and be boulder next time. Prioryman (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Should be a no-brainer (or a small-brainer, in the case of this particular creature?). Prioryman (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - The scientists took about 2 years to assess their preliminary findings. It is very notable. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support but would suggest a blurb that would provide better context , along the lines of "a possible predecessor of homo sapians", or the like, as the word "hominid" I don't believe is necessary clear on the importance here. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. What can be more significant than the discovery of a new hominid species? —Bruce1eetalk 14:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Cradle of Humankind to consider into blurb. --Jenda H. (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Science news of this magnitude we have always put on the Main Page. Daniel Case (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Suggest alternative blurb: "Scientists announce the discovery of Homo naledi, a new species of early human." This avoids the passive construction, and specifies the significance of "Hominid" since this is actually classified as a member of the genus Homo - i.e. humans.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support third blurb
  • Posting. --Tone 16:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Because... Science, Yay! Yes, science is important and we must promote it. And anything that can add to the knowledge of evolution is an essential tool for enlightenment Tarquin Q. Zanzibar (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

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

September 9Edit


[Posted] Elizabeth II becomes longest-serving British monarchEdit

Closing the discussion, a vast majority to post, most other discussions can take place elsewhere, e.g. WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: List of monarchs in Britain by length of reign (talk, history) and Elizabeth II (talk, history)
Blurb: Queen Elizabeth II surpasses the reign of her great-great-grandmother Victoria, and becomes the longest-reigning British head of state.
Alternative blurb: Elizabeth II becomes the longest-reigning British head of state, surpassing Queen Victoria.
News source(s): (BBC News), (The Independent), (Reuters), (Time)
 SusanLesch (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - Obviously it is going to be well-covered (the British monarchy has world-wide interest) but I don't think this is an ITN item, it feels more like DYN or even a possible On This Day maybe? --MASEM (t) 00:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. This is getting a decent amount of coverage over here in the former British colony in America. This seems to be a milestone we aren't likely to see again in our lifetime. 331dot (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Highly notable bit of news of international (yes, international) interest.--WaltCip (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose love the Monarchy, but this should have been timed for On This Day or a Featured Article. It's not really an ITN sort of thing, and what's the three-paragraph five-source updtae going to say? μηδείς (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Honestly this feels a bit like royal trivia and normally I would probably not bite. It is debatable if this really meets ITN standards. But lately the news cycle has been drier than Death Valley in July and this is actually getting a lot of attention, so why not. It's a harmless feel good story that we can use to freshen the ITN feed, and it will give us a break from the endless run of blood and gore that seems to dominate ITN during more normal news cycles. So yeah, I will give a polite nod to the old girl. God save the Queen. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is trivial with no real significance. Along the lines of "world's x person", which I also oppose. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - A rare milestone. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not sure we should start posting countries' longest-serving monarchs/prime ministers/presidents. Such records do not have any substantive impact. Medeis's point about what the update would say is also a good one. Neljack (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Unusual milestone, international interest, ITN-worthy... And the article on the Queen is a Featured Article. Jusdafax 01:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Noting that it is featured, it was also TFA about 3 years ago. And there's almost no question that when she passes away that it will be a blurb. --MASEM (t) 01:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Very big deal about this milestone. Being covered globally even here in Chicago. ITN-worthy indeed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Given that Her Majesty does not view the occasion as worthy of exceptional note, I do not believe that we should be promoting stories of this sort in a time of great crisis across Europe and the Near East. RGloucester 02:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - core encyclopedic-related news. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - a rare milestone that will receive widespread news coverage and international interest. Kiwi128 (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Just because it's a "slow news period" doesn't mean we should start putting trivial, DYK-esque stories on to ITN. --Tocino 04:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support – Straddling the border of DYK and ITN for sure...topic is of high interest to many and widely reported, but is the subject matter being covered all that notable? Arguably, it's not ITN-worthy but I share the same sentiments as Ad Orientem that there's no real harm in posting this. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Significant milestone, going to be a heck of a long time before the next King or Queen breaks the record. Mjroots (talk) 05:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose We don't usually post records. She's currently 49th on the list of longest-reigning monarchs and the King of Thailand has been ruling for longer. This is basically trivia, it has no impact on her rule or the country. She didn't even have to do anything, except to live long. Would be nice for DYK though. Isa (talk) 05:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support it is notable news if it receives international news coverage and may lead readers to linked articles and learning something new e.g. about constitutional monarchy or republicanism. Whizz40 (talk) 05:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - She could probably drop dead later this year so this is a major achievement for her...--Stemoc 05:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. And the news is? - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 06:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • COMMENT - all those suggesting this is DYK material, please explain how the article meets DYK criteria. It's ITN or nowt. Mjroots (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't speak for anyone else, but I was looking at it from a content perspective rather than a policy one for DYK vs. ITN. The information conveyed is more appropriate for a DYK blurb as it's an interesting fact. It garners greater notability because of who it is and how far back the British monarchy extends. However, the article obviously can't be brought to DYK since it fails the expansion criteria. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Exactly. DYK isn't just a dumping ground for what ITN throws away, it actually has rules on what can be included, which continually seems to be overlooked here. GRAPPLE X 07:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - definitely a major milestone. Makes a change from the usual doom and gloom stories.  — An optimist on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 06:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: This will be in the history books. Let's post it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support This does not have to be posted to ITN in general, but considering that even the newest current ITN item is already 6 days old it is time for something new. LoveToLondon (talk) 07:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: God bless her and all who sail in her. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This is global front page news even on sites like China Daily. The page is FA quality and is a heavy hitter – it gets more traffic on an average day than Tropical Storm Erika got at its peak. The mudslides have had their day. Andrew D. (talk) 07:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This seems to match squarely with the first two points of the purpose of ITN. GoldenRing (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
But note that I also support the suggestion, below, to wait until 1630 UTC. GoldenRing (talk) 11:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Marking as Ready The article is rated as FA and as of this comment the votes are running roughly 2:1 in favor of posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 08:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • May be ready, but I would suggest deferring until 17:30 BST (16:30 UTC) as that is the time accepted when she will break the record. (The precise time isn't known).  — An optimist on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 08:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I love the Germans. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb (which I just added). Significant milestone and of encyclopaedic value. Modest Genius talk 10:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Trivial. Wait til she's dead. zzz (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Altblurb – No big fan of royals here, but QEII is one for the books. Sca (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted Clear consensus to post something, and most ITN items are getting stale. I'm posting original blurb now, because (a) it isn't wrong, (b) replacing a fairly long blurb with another fairly long blurb, and TFA is long, (c) shorter alt blurb was just proposed, so it would take a while to get consensus for it, and (d) the alt blurb can always be substituted in if it becomes a fan favorite post-posting, or if tomorrow's TFA is short, etc. I'm not going to have time to swap out the picture for an hour or so, if an admin skilled in main page images wants to. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC) (p.s. I wonder what the record is for number of times an article has been linked on the main page? QEII has been TFA, OTD a dozen times, and now ITN. Has any article hit a grand slam and been a DYK, TFA, OTD, and ITN? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC))
    @Floquenbeam: Brenda was also DYK on April Fools day a few years back: see Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/2006. Smurrayinchester 09:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose So what? This isn't UKpedia. If she were the world's longest serving head-of-state then we could talk. Otherwise, Thailand's already surpassed that record. LavaBaron (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • No, it's USpedia, isn't it? Meanwhile, even as someone from England, I'm not massively convinced that this is ITN-worthy. Slow news week, obviously. Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – I do not support posting, as noted above, but if this is to be posted, I certainly cannot accept the phrase "British head of state". This sounds like a neologism or foreignism, or something. The correct term would be "British monarch". In addition, I'd argue that this should be changed to "Commonwealth monarch". Her record also applies to Canada, for instance. RGloucester 19:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • You are correct that she's also Head of the Commonwealth (definitely not "Commonwealth monarch") but that's a secondary designation. "Monarch" or "Head of state" are better. Black Kite (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Attention to this kind of minutiae and personal preference is normally addressed at WP:ERRORS, where your own erroneous assertions can be debated! More power!! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • One irony being that the word "Canada" doesn't appear in that article at all.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Parts of Canada" don't really constitute a nation. I think that claim is effectively taken apart at the article Talk Page. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Boko Haram defeatedEdit

No consensus to post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Boko Haram (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The spokesman for the Defence Headquarters in Nigeria announces the destruction of all known Boko Haram camps
Alternative blurb: Boko Haram is claimed to be in disarray as the Nigerian Defence spokesperson announces the complete destruction of its camps
News source(s): Premium Times (Nigeria) This Day Live (Nigeria) News 24 IBTimes Vanguard (Nigeria)

Article updated
 zzz (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose at least until more reliable sources comment on this. The end of the Boko Haram insurgency is a no-brainer ITN posting, but as the nom says, the press were sorta taken in by a similar announcement last year, and I'm not seeing places like the BBC, NYTimes, or the like comment on this despite the story being > 8 hrs old. We should wait for better sourcing to support the claim to come out. Also, if this story is true [15] ( which is Bloomberg reiterating what Nigeria forces on twitter said) they also have the kingpins of BH in custody, which if also confirmed should be part of the story. --MASEM (t) 20:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait Let's get a couple of reports citing western military/intelligence sources before we start taking Nigerian government announcements on this subject at face value. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait until the kidnapped girls are returned. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait: The Nigerian government should not be treated as a definitive source when we're considering posting news of this magnitude. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait – What one would assume to be a major achievement by the Nigerian Government and Military is not being covered by major news outlets. Makes the claim questionable at best for the time being. Leaning in favor of opposing this, but given that it could be real there's no harm waiting Cyclonebiskit (talk) 07:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose – no independent verification of claims more than three days later. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 06:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose No point in waiting - even the government does not claim that Boko Haram has surrendered. Even a verification of their claim that they destroyed all Boko Haram claims they knew about (their wording implies that this is likely not the same as all) would not bring that to ITN. LoveToLondon (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose [16] Explosive attack on refugee camp makes it likely that this declaration of victory is not reciprocated. I'm not an expert on Nigeria at all, but it seems that the problems are not gone in a flash '''tAD''' (talk) 08:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Note - No one is/was claiming miracles. I won't speculate further on why the western news cycle don't like the story. Western intelligence, NGOs etc. have no presence in the conflict zone, so corroboration is unlikely to materialise soon, unfortunately. zzz (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm afraid, there's absolutely no real objective evidence to independently support this tabloid headline. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
"Tabloid headline" - so you would classify all Nigerian media as "tabloid". zzz (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
That's not what I said, I suggested the blurb was tabloidesque because we have no way of confirming this objectively, and that's precisely what a tabloid publication does. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If they made a claim like that with no evidence, I certainly would. I would note that not a single one of the sources you give actually says "Boko Haram defeated"; the first says that a military spokesman claims they have been driven out of one particular part of the country, the second says that one town has been recaptured and warns that "it would require a collective effort to detect and apprehend would-be suicide bombers in the North-east", the third just reprints a military press release with a disclaimer that "The information could not be independently verified", and the fourth says that a military spokesman has said "We are making a lot of headways and a lot of achievements and people should know that Boko Haram is no longer strong enough to hold ground. Very soon this issue of whether they are in control of any territory in Nigeria or not will come to the open", and notes that the same claim has been made previously and transpired to be untrue. ‑ iridescent 21:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
The blurbs attribute the claim to the Nigerian military. The blurbs do not say "Boko Haram defeated". The military claim to have defeated them in terms of territory and command and control capability. The blurb is therefore %100 accurate and reliable, since there is no doubt that that is what the military have claimed. zzz (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I would agree however that "independent confirmation", which unfortunately, in this case is not an option, may be necessary to proceed with this. zzz (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
This discussion is irrelevant. It is an unverified claim from one side, and even if it would be verified it would not appropriate for ITN. The end of a (civil) war is relevant for ITN, a major victory in the middle of a (civil) war is not. LoveToLondon (talk) 06:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

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

September 8Edit


[Closed] Kim Davis released from jailEdit

Snow Close: Closing this good faith nomination. It does not meet ITN guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Kim Davis (county clerk) (talk, history)
Blurb: Kim Davis, a county clerk in Kentucky who was jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples, is released from jail after five days.
News source(s): BBC News The Guardian New York Times
Nominator's comments: This story has received a considerable amount of news coverage from around the world since it began last week. Everymorning (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose This is a non-story, at least at the current stage. I can see this growing to be religious freedom vs gov't job requirements court case that could react the SCOTUS but right now, the wide coverage of this story is due to some groups using this as a pedestal for their various sides. It has little impact on the US presently, much less the world. --MASEM (t) 21:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose I agree with everything Masem said, and I add this: she's very likely to be going back to jail real soon. She's been released on the condition that she doesn't interfere with licensing same-sex couples to marry, and her lawyers have promised that she will. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Oppose covering a five day prison sentence. Criminal completes punishment for minor crime is not an ITN-worthy story. Modest Genius talk 21:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Tempest in a bigotry teapot. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Snowball oppose – Yeah, no. This is just the "flavor of the day" with the U.S. media. There's nothing better to talk about other than this one woman who refused to do her job because "religious rights". Nothing has been changed and nothing seems like it will change because of this. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the reasons given; I also suspect her release was timed so she would appear with Mike Huckabee outside the jail at a rally. Purely domestic dispute. 331dot (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Nah, Huckabee was going to talk to her in jail and then rally for her freedom outside of it. His visit just coincided with a judge releasing her, so he got a photo op with her at the microphone instead. Still not gonna move him up past 4% though. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - A provincial government yeehaw refusing to do their oath-sworn duty; not exactly newsworthy.--WaltCip (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

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

September 7Edit


[Ready] Trinidad and Tobago general electionEdit

Article: Trinidad and Tobago general election, 2015 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The opposition People's National Movement wins a majority in Trinidad and Tobago with Keith Rowley (pictured) becoming prime minister.
  • Nominated by [[User:120.62.18.210 (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)|120.62.18.210 (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)]] ([[User talk:120.62.18.210 (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)|talk]] • [{{fullurl:User talk:120.62.18.210 (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)|action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/preload_credit&preloadtitle=ITN+recognition+for+%5B%5BTrinidad+and+Tobago+general+election%2C+2015%5D%5D&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=Trinidad+and+Tobago+general+election%2C+2015&preloadparams%5b%5d=nominated}} give credit])

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: Far more notable than that tin pot dictatorship that is singapore (yes I know ive lived there)
Plus the only second PM from Tobago
Not to mention the underlying racial implications in a highly diverse country...(as was in the Guyana election recently...although he did reach out to indians to break the monopolistic party of ramotar (even have a south indian pm)) \120.62.18.210 (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment That should be moved to September 7 (date of the election). LoveToLondon (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
    He was sworn in 9 September.120.62.18.210 (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Shifted because the election happened on 7 September 2015. Results were out within a day by 8 September. starship.paint ~ KO 14:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Shifting again, please read the nomination instructions: Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC. starship.paint ~ KO 00:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as ITN/R once some more references are added. Would also be nice to have some prose on the campaign issues and the reactions to the vote. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per ITNR upon improvement in sourcing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose once again, for those voting "support, per ITNR, pending sources" are wasting time here. It's ITNR, we need to qualify it once the update and article quality are sufficient. Right now it's far from sufficient. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
    Considering the highly deficient prose quality on the Singapore election, how is this worse? Kindly compare to what's already posted. 120.62.13.218 (talk) 02:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
    Why aren't you asking the posting admin to comment? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Amount of content is also a factor in article quality. Too little prose is a problem. starship.paint ~ KO 03:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - ITNR, and some improvements overall. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support There have been significant improvements over the past few days. Looks ready for posting. Mamyles (talk) 03:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Candida RoyalleEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Candida Royalle (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Daily News New York Post

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: Well-known and influential performer, director, and producer in the adult entertainment industry. Recognized in the AVN Hall of Fame, which is apparently a thing. Seems to have been at or near the top of her field, such as it is. Kudzu1 (talk) 06:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - For our purposes, recognition in the Porn Hall of Fame is about as useless an honor as there is - 98% of those names aren't going anywhere near the Main Page when they pass. Nothing in the article or the obits suggests she was particularly significant within the porn industry. She does appear to have been the first female director in the industry, so I guess there's that, but it seems like a pretty weak straw to grab. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD. Article's in fine shape for appearing, and it does list her as being in two industry halls of fame, which is as good a benchmark as any. The "first female director" thing would be another qualifying factor but at the time of this comment it's not in the article and I think it would need to be to count. 86.188.148.242 (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Article doesn't seem to be in the greatest shape, but I've seen worse. It's short, but sourced. I'm also unclear on whether or not the HoF indicates she's important enough in her field. It would seem that it should? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose the NYP article suggests she was famous as a friend of Annie Sprinkle and because she was shooting a now-unlikely to be released documentary on her search for the mother who abandoned her, and had died of the same cancer that eventually killed Candice herself at 64. μηδείς (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are undoubtedly RD-worthy people in the porn field—if Ron Jeremy, Hugh Hefner or Traci Lords fell under a bus tomorrow I'd support them wholeheartedly for RD—but this one easily fails the "if I asked an expert in the subject to name the ten most important people in their field, would this person be on the list?" test. ‑ iridescent 23:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Evidence that the deceased was a really major figure in the field seems pretty dicey. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Quality of "European migrant crisis" articleEdit

Currently, the article, European migrant crisis, is tagged as non-neutral. Shall it affect the article's status as "Ongoing"? --George Ho (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It could, better response would be to fix it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
It's already discussed in the article talk page. As long as the article is frequently edited, registered editors would be aware of this. --George Ho (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
An Ongoing article is expected to be in a constant state of construction. There are indeed some neutrality and bias issues present, but it looks like they are actively being resolved. I would recommend keeping the article in Ongoing. Mamyles (talk) 23:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

September 6Edit


[Closed] Italian Grand PrixEdit

WP:SNOW close. Just another race, even if we're having slow news week. -- KTC (talk) 12:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015 Italian Grand Prix (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Formula One, Lewis Hamilton wins the 2015 Italian Grand Prix.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator's comments: If I'm not mistaken, ITNR. Anyway, one of the longest running events in F1, according to Italian Grand PrixBrandmeistertalk 17:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Note it's not ITN/R, that's Monaco only. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's not much more notable than any of the other races on the F1 calendar, and worse, the article itself doesn't have any prose update about the race. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Hamilton's 40th career win, but nothing record-breaking or notable about the race. Twirly Pen (Speak up) 19:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – We include the Monegasque equivalent as it's part of a trio of races known among motorsport's community as the hardest of the lot. That's what separates it from the rest of the season. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nothing special about the race. 117.192.189.67 (talk) 11:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

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

September 5Edit