Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/September 2013

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

September 30

[edit]
September 30, 2013 (2013-09-30) (Monday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

[Posted] United States federal government shutdown of 2013

[edit]
Article: United States federal government shutdown of 2013 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ With the United States Congress unable to agree on a budget measure, the US federal government officially shuts down non-essential services (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Ok, ok, ok, this hasn't actually happened yet, but it's possibly a few hours away. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 1994 shutdown was called a shutdown, all the American sources refer to this as a shutdown. The Democrats and Republicans call it a shutdown. Is there some reason why we should not call it a shutdown beside your spellchecker? μηδείς (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
President Obama also called it a shutdown about an hour ago. 331dot (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Call it a shutdown if you must, although my spell checker problem suggests that it's not a good word for a global encyclopaedia. More importantly, tell the world what it means. Do you really think it's obvious to someone not hearing the daily news inside America? Simply, WHAT would be shut down? Prisons? The Military? Unemployment services? Tax collection? (Woohoo!), Etc? HiLo48 (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everything not vital to public safety or national defense will be shut down- and even they won't get paid until the shutdown is over. Federal museums(Smithsonian), National Parks/Monuments/Etc., passport processing, National Archives, etc. etc. 331dot (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I understand better now. So how about we amend the blurb to "Non-vital government services are shut down in the US after the Senate rejects a House of Representatives budget bill."? HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose that blurb, but I think the nominated blurb would be better, as details about the shutdown would (I assume) be in the article. 331dot (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps: Much of the United States Federal..." 2.102.187.114 (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we must do better than a simple "shutdown". I can't understand any objection. "Much of" is OK, but not very precise. 331dot explained the situation above pretty well by using the words "not vital". That at least gives an indication of what kinds of services are being shut down. Not qualifying "shutdown" at all would be very sloppy. HiLo48 (talk) 02:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object per se, just feel its not necessary. To clarify my explanation, a bill was passed to pay members of the military only, so they will still get paid. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely it's bloody obvious. HiLo48 (talk) 02:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it isn't obvious, and it isn't neutral. The suggested blurb places blame on the Senate, when technically it appears the House will fail to pass the re-amended bill sent back to it by midnight EDT. (And various partisan analyses place blame on one side or the other, e.g. blaming the House for not passing a "clean" bill, or blaming the Senate since budget bills must originate in the House.) A better wording would be something like "Non-essential government services are shut down in the U.S. after the House of Representatives and Senate fail to agree on a budget bill." Of course, it's way too early to post this in any case. Odg2vcLR (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose At the time of typing this comment, an article has not been created for the subject. As Tóraí noted earlier, "ITN is not here to report the news. ITN is here to highlight content. No content. No ITN." Gfcvoice (talk) 03:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article for the subject has only just been created and only contains a few sentences. Also it is still only 11.19pm on 30 September on the east coast of the US, and nothing much has happened as yet. I suggest we wait for at least 24 hours before considering this as an ITN candidate. Gfcvoice (talk) 03:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agree with HiLo48 that the blurb needs to consider non-US audiences and provide a better explanation of what a "shutdown" is. Gfcvoice (talk) 03:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously support - it's the #1 trending story in Twitter worldwide, you hit Google News, it's almost every article on the page. It's got a rapidly developing article, it should be ITN -- Tawker (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Much of the opposition was because there was no article and it was before deadline. There is now an article and it's after the deadline. I suggest we fast-track this. People come to Wikipedia for the latest info. Why are we delayting 12-24 hours for no good reason? BE BOLD. Don't be Nupedia. -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - First shutdown of a sovereign country's government's executive functions in 17 years. Certainly newsworthy. Harej (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I also support fast-tracking this to put it on the main page as soon as possible. Harej (talk) 04:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support upon condition that the article gets some more beef. Background from the United States debt-ceiling debate of 2013 and related articles should make for something meaty. --Natural RX 04:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Update is still insufficient. The way to have something "fast-tracked" is to expand the article to meet the update criterion. In this case, that may mean expanding the article to include more information about what the shutdown means; readers not intimately familiar with U.S. politics would not have a good idea of what this shutdown means by looking at the article. -- tariqabjotu 04:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has five paragraphs and 10 references. It's clearly substantial and worthy of highlighting, and abides by the guidelines you mention. -- Fuzheado | Talk 05:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is what the article looked like at the time of posting, which is definitely not enough. One could barely even discern what Congress's role was in the affair. There's no rush, and your insistence that this is in the news so it must be added now, immediately, is misplaced. All breaking news stories are expected to fulfill update criteria first -- as ITN is not meant to be a news source -- and this story is no different. -- tariqabjotu 05:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted I believe that there is consensus that this is worthy of In the News, and I do not believe that "not now" is a sufficient reason to not post it. Keegan (talk) 04:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Keegan: I give up. Did you even read the two comments just prior to yours? -- tariqabjotu 04:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I did, and I don't consider that the article needs beefing up to trump its' importance. The article covers the topic and is sourced; I am quite confident that it will be expanded rather rapidly. I know that there is no deadline, but why wait other than to make sure that there is a wonderful piece of prose to show off? As I recall, this is Wikipedia we're running here. It's always a work in progress. Keegan (talk) 05:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not a news source, so, yes, "a wonderful piece of prose" is desirable (minus any sarcasm intended). And, let me just say, this will feed into the impression that ITN suffers from a systemic U.S. bias. This story will have no discernible effect for several more hours; I can't imagine any reason why this needs to be posted now. By comparison, the Westgate shopping mall shooting was posted seven hours after it began, largely because the article took a bit of time to get up to snuff. Especially because it would have taken no more than half an hour to bring the article up to the required standard (with all the information, background and prospective, out there), there is nothing special here. -- tariqabjotu 05:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And your very welcome for that. Praise from you. WOW! im in 7th heaven ;)Lihaas (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Systemic U.S. bias? Yes, obviously, blatantly. And the fact that some can't see it just proves it. I've been behind a couple of significant Australian items recently. They failed because of poor articles. I was very busy at the time and unable to put in the necessary work, and there aren't enough other Australian players here. I supported this all the way for ONCE IT WAS READY, but posting it when it was posted just proves our systemic bias. Some people here just don't pay attention, or just don't care. HiLo48 (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The way to address that is for you to go out and get your fellow Australians on Wikipedia, work on articles, and persuade others to support them, not to restrict what else is posted. 331dot (talk) 09:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's absolutely not, because that would be pushing the rules on canvassing, and POV, and several other Wikipedia sins. Everyone should care about articles from EVERY country. We shouldn't be specifically pushing those from our own country. YOU should care about Australian stories, and Irish ones, and Moroccan ones, just as much if not more than you care about stories from your own country. That's one of the major issues here. Too many discussions are no more than popularity polls. HiLo48 (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between lobbying for support for an issue on Wikipedia and encouraging people on the street to come and take a look around and maybe make a few edits to Wikipedia, without encouraging them to support or oppose anything in particular. I don't care about stories from the US in particular and am willing to support any story regardless of location (you don't have to believe me, examine my edit history), I care about stories that are covered in the news in at least a few locations around the world, and I treat all such stories equally. It is precisely because of my belief in equal treatment that I oppose efforts to restrict stories just because they are from a nation with a good chunk of Wikipedia editors and somehow give favoritism to stories that aren't. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, I am not suggesting this be removed from ITN now, but the eagerness to post poor-quality articles under the idea that "that's all there is to say" or "it'll get updated once it's on the Main Page" or "this is really important" undermines the mission (or at the least the original mission) of ITN, which is to highlight decent-quality content. ITN already has the lowest quality standards of the Main Page sections; we don't need to begin undercutting them, especially when -- in the process -- we reflect a systemic bias. -- tariqabjotu 05:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sob. Actually, Featured Pictures is by far the worst part of the main page, frequently bold-linking to articles plastered with maintenance tags. Oh, and then there's DYK which is virtually a permanent laughing stock. ITN is half decent compared to that lot. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Half decent? Maybe around that level, I agree. Should we not aim higher? HiLo48 (talk) 06:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's a really good idea to have ITN articles that have potential for improvement. A user may see the article and think, "Hey, I can make that better," and they start editing, which is exactly what we want most of all. Jehochman Talk 13:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is key (and why we should be featuring topics on the main page, not just ITN), but particularly for ITN, the article should have a stable structure/core that makes it easy to new readers-cum-editors add in new information to improve it. When this was posted last night, this article was not in that shape. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting Support per Keegan, but Tariq's concerns about article quality are valid as are HiLo's about the blurb. Article is upgrading quickly however, and as to the blurb it could be discussed further. Point being, it is up, so let's NOT pull it, let's fix it. I did a bit of work to bring the article talk page up to snuff. Jusdafax 05:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor quibble - "Non-essential" sounds like a value judgement. Perhaps "non-core" would be more neutral? --LukeSurl t c 10:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick search shows "non-essential" is by far the more common way of referring to it. -- KTC (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support. Many many readers in the US will be interested in Wikipedia's treatment of this topic, as will a subset of readers outside the US. Abductive (reasoning) 14:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the topic for posting, but really this didn't need to be posted that fast with the article in the shape it was. Since this happened overnight, it will take a bit of time for core sources to explain everything (which are likely out now) to get the new article to a reasonably better state for ITN referencing. --MASEM (t) 14:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tweaked the blurb from "it was unable to pass a budget measure" to say "Congress fails to pass a budget measure." (1) The Federal Government is often understood to mean the executive branch. They don't pass a budget; Congress does. (2) Congress wasn't "unable". They could have passed a budget if they wanted to. There wasn't a natural disaster, lack of a quorum, or some other thing that prevented them; they simply chose not to. (3) Getting rid of "it" and "was" improves the writing style. I think this change will not be controversial, so I just took care of it, but if I am wrong and there are reasons to change it back or to something else, I will gladly do so. Jehochman Talk 13:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an ongoing event, which by its very nature will affect more people, and the global economy the longer it lasts. As this is a rather unique situation, I suggest that it be held as the bottom item on ITN until it's resolved, or (sadly more likely) the impending debt limit crises also makes it ITN. JoltColaOfEvil (talk) 10:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Chicago train crash

[edit]
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 07:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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: Chicago Transit Authority (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A crash involving two Chicago Transit Authority trains leaves 33 injured in Chicago, Illinois. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters via Yahoo!
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Train collisions are rare and notable. --Alex (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm seeing a bit more discussion regarding "hijacking" or the idea that an empty train had been "deliberately set in motion" [1], but even if this is found to be terrorism (which does not seem to be the case), I would not support it unless there's some crazy response. Ryan Vesey 16:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 29

[edit]
September 29, 2013 (2013-09-29) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
  • Syrian civil war:
    • Activists fighting Syrian government forces say that at least 16 people, most of them students, were killed in an air strike from Syrian government warplanes that hit a secondary school in the rebel-held Syrian city of Raqqa. (Reuters)

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

[Posted] Gujba college massacre

[edit]
Article: Gujba college massacre (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Fifty students are killed at the College of Agriculture in Gujba, Yobe State, Nigeria. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Over fifty students are massacred by members of Boko Haram at the College of Agriculture in Gujba, Nigeria.
News source(s): The Irish Times Al Jazeera
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Attacks on schools are not exactly rare in Nigeria, but an attack on college students while they were sleeping appears to be uncommon and newsworthy enough to be in the ITN section. Andise1 (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Students are killed? As if it were their fault, like they touched power cables in their sleep? Who killed them, and why are we not identifying the killers? μηδείς (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an alt blurb. Ryan Vesey 22:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The massacre got worldwide coverage and is likely to attract many readers. Over 50 students killed is definitely notable for ITN. The section on the attack needs to be updated, however. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 22:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose these are all too frequent in the region and such an attack is better at the list of terrorist incidetns apage.(Lihaas (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)).[reply]
  • Why on earth was this posted? It's nowhere near a proper update. Did you actually read the discussion? Why was this article posted in it's current state? The article doesn't have a proper update. Specifically, the bulk of the article is copied from another, and there is little information on the attack itself. Ryan Vesey
  • Indeed. This is not an article we should be proud of putting on the main page. There's plenty of news sources that could be used to expand the article, and yet no one who seems to care about highlighting good Wikipedia content on the main page ITN section seems all that interested in creating that content in the first place. Sad. --Jayron32 02:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we post an article that's underway, editors will quickly improve it. We might even retain a few new editors. I don't think we should be so fussy, especially with news. Old news is about as useful as old bread. Jehochman Talk 11:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PULL for god sake Jehochman, ITN has a standard (and please get consensus for your view that posting anythign to get an update is acceptable, taht waSW NEVER policy), there is only 1 line of the attack and this is not notable!
IDONTLIKEIT (or ILIKEIT) is not a readon to postLihaas (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please leave deities out of it, and please stop yelling. There is a discussion about with pretty strong support. Who is the anonymous party who pulled the item? Perhaps they could leave a note here explaining their action. Jehochman Talk 16:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
not yelling, thats the policy title at WP.Lihaas (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then please check your prior post and clean up typos, and maybe apply WP:WOTTA. The article has received substantial updates and expansion and is looking pretty good at present. Please look once more and see if the issue is resolved. Jehochman Talk 16:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with this is the word "Over", wouldn't "More than" sound much better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.173.212.21 (talk) 10:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UCI Road World Championships

[edit]
Article: 2013 UCI Road World Championships (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The 2013 UCI Road World Championships conclude with Rui Costa winning the men's road race and Marianne Vos winning the women's road race. (Post)
News source(s): BBC Sport
Credits:

 Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • A quick search on news.google.com:

Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, India, Ireland, Italy, Middle East, Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Serbia, South Africa, Slovenia, Slovakia, Spain, United States Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I know little of cycling, but this seems to be a significant event in the sport and is getting news coverage. 331dot (talk) 10:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. In response to Nergaal's comments, cycling did not die off with Lance Armstrong's appearance on Oprah. That said, I can't support a sporting article which has more prose about school closures than about the event itself. —WFC— FL wishlist 10:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Berthing of Cygnus

[edit]
Article: Cygnus (spacecraft) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The first Cygnus berths to the International Space Station. (Post)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: I did not put this mission as candidate for the launch because it was the second launch of Antares but I think that the first berthing of a new commercial cargo vehicle to the ISS is a good candidate. Hektor (talk)

Austria election

[edit]
Article: Austrian legislative election, 2013 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The coalition government of SPÖ and ÖVP led by Chancellor Werner Faymann defends its parliamentary majority at the 2013 Austrian legislative election. (Post)
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

 Lihaas (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Austria has a smaller population than New Jersey or North Carolina, whose governor's races we would not post unless maybe the Communists or the Pirate Party won unexpectedly. Do we have a link to the discussion that established the consensus to add this to ITNR? μηδείς (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This tired old discusion everytime. If you want to challenge it discuss it at ITNR (and we did start a conversation but no one wants to partake in that, just bitch and whine at ITNC). As of right now it IS ITNR.Lihaas (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If this is going to be marked here as ITNR then a link here showing when it was added is entirely appropriate. The burden is on the one making the claim. μηδείς (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to revive Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items/Elections go ahead. From what I can remember, no option which would have excluded excluding sovereign states as large as Austria ever had even minority support. --LukeSurl t c 17:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the only burden is to show that it IS in ITNR. You are welcome to challenge that, but its a can of worms...Lihaas (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's already been demonstrated multiple times that things listed on ITNR have not necessarily been discussed, and unless there's a diff shown there of such a discussion there is no such proof. μηδείς (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you really want to assert that general elections of sovereign states wasn't validly put on the ITNR list, shouldn't be on the list at all, should have an arbitrary cutoff of some kind, or something in between, then go to the ITNR talk page and do it. 331dot (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but someone should come up with a nice blurp...--FoxyOrange (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (when the result is declared and article updated) - ITN/R states for an election to qualify as ITN it has to be results of general elections of a sovereign state. The article is on the legislative election (which is a general election) of Austria (which is a sovereign country). So I guess it qualifies for ITN once the article is suitably updated. LegalEagle (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond the fact that we've omitted the elections of various sovereign countries over the last year, we still need a link to a discussion, whether of Austria alone or of all 200+ sovereign countries. μηδείς (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion achieved consensus that all sovereign nations' general elections should be on ITN/R. Previous omissions have been for want of an update (or perhaps a nomination) rather than notability. Elections in nations which garner little coverage in English-speaking media sometimes fail to reach ITN, though these are due to deficiency in updates rather than inconsistent notability judgements. --LukeSurl t c 23:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Luke. Even though I opposed this, it's disappointing when these die on the vine. μηδείς (talk) 03:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And non-European ones are less notable? And if Austria is a major European country then most countries in the world are major countries in their respective continents. Nonetheless, support. Neljack (talk) 03:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has a one sentence prose update and is marked with explanatory and reference needed tags. μηδείς (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't also be dismissed on those grounds being INT/R national general election, which are fairly important. Who knows perhaps it will be better updated after we post it. And anyway it seems unlikely that it will stay on the main page for long anyway. SeraV (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Consensus and Update ready] Philippine conflict ends

[edit]
Article: Zamboanga City crisis (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Philippine President Benigno Aquino's government announces an end to the weeks-old Zamboanga City crisis. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Philippine government declares the Zamboanga City crisis to be over, after causing the deaths of 218 people.
News source(s): [2]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Its been highlynotable and lasted some 3 weeks, we dint post the poutbreak like we did for others such as Mali, so this is a good moment to post I t as its freshly announced to have finally ended.. Lihaas (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Informative? It speaks of 20-30 rebels and "several" people killed. Let's have a few solid facts, please. Otherwise this sounds like an infomercial.μηδείς (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, what article are you reading? –HTD 18:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] New Marathon world record

[edit]
Article: Wilson Kipsang Kiprotich (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Wilson Kipsang Kiprotich wins the Berlin Marathon at 2:03:23, setting a new world record. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: New world record at a World Marathon Majors event, noteworthy per ITN/R. FoxyOrange (talk) 08:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Posting. The update is not exceptionally long but the relevant info is there. --Tone 18:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 28

[edit]
September 28, 2013 (2013-09-28) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

Italy's government coalition collapses

[edit]
Article: Grand coalition (Italy) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Italy's government coalition collapses after Silvio Berlusconi's The People of Freedom party withdraws their support. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: This news might not qualify for ITN if it was another country (eg Belgium, which seems to run fine without government), but the shakiness of Italy both politically and economically makes the collapse of a government coalition significant. Thue (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not object to posting it now but I wonder if it would be better to wait until the new government is formed (one way or the other). I don't recall what we have done in similar situations before. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say this is premature. ONe party withdrew its five ministers; and there is "crisis"; this Dutch site says the coalition "wankelt" (let's say: is limping), so it's hard to see where this is going. In a politically unstable country like Italy, there are probably several of these events newsworthy; so it might be better to wait for something more definite (resignation of the government; new elections; a new composition of the government)… L.tak (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. If new elections are called that's almost certainly newsworthy. If a new coalition is formed that's probably newsworthy. A minority party withdrawing from a coalition is not, in itself, newsworthy I don't think. Thryduulf (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. As per source, this nomination is premature. Gov' has not yet collapsed and the critical vote of confidence is next week, according to BBC. Most likely support if gov fails the vote of confidence and has to resign. --hydrox (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As it happened, the coalition survived its vote of confidence after all. --hydrox (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. I think maybe the coalition has still collapsed, but the Prime Minister has survived. Given that we are struggling to post at the moment, this could still count as a story, I think. Formerip (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miss World

[edit]
Article: Miss World 2013 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Miss Philippines Megan Young wins the Miss World 2013 in Bali, Indonesia. (Post)
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: No idea if this is ITNR, but its always posted. Just got over so I'm not sure of online sources yet. Articel needs sources though and a prose update. Lihaas (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've definately seen pageant postings. (odd its not on ITNR, should be in arts, etc as an annu7al posting).Lihaas (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like we posted Miss Universe 2009. But even there, I'm not sure "we did it once" means the same thing as "it is a good idea". Formerip (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess well leave it to a consensus discussion to see how noteworthy it is. I would support as nom as an important global event and outside the4 usual. Nice to have arts/"cultur"Lihaas (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of pageant i would support Miss Universe... and Miss world only based on quality of article which sucks right now -- Ashish-g55 17:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Miss World is among Big Four international beauty pageants, is there any reason to single out this one (although it seems to me that only Miss World and Miss Universe are frequently mentioned)? Brandmeistertalk 18:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Quite a widely acclaimed pageant and many news sources keep covering it for it's popularity. Also the article is good; its boring to have so many lists in it, but that how all Miss World YYYY articles are. (I would also support ITNR entry for this.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. I am skeptical of posting purely subjective beauty pageants but this does seem to be getting decent coverage in the news. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based on purely article quality. 1) Lots of the article is still in future tense. If the event is completed, then it would need to indicate that by being in the past tense. 2) Prose has problems in places. Bad purple prose, things like "Several auditions stages have taken place, with some truly wonderful performances put on by the contestants". Ugh. Plus, no substantive text about the actual competitions, just stuff like this. Rewrite the article so there is a substantive synopsis of the actual competitions instead of "truly wonderful performances" and put things in the past tense instead of the future, and you can consider this vote instead a support. --Jayron32 20:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Apart from the fact the article is mainly lists and contains little prose, much of what there is is directly lifted from the Miss World site including practically the whole of the "challenges" section. (i.e. "The Miss World Top Model event is one of the most highly anticipated challenge events on the Miss World Calendar, and this year is set to be spectacular!"). Some of the rest is so badly written it's actually incomprehensible. No way. Black Kite (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Consensnus and update READY] Syria UN resolution

[edit]
Article: United Nations Security Council Resolution 2118 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United Nations Security Council unanimously passed resolution 2118 concerning the agreement to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons. (Post)
News source(s): [3][4][5]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I know there is no article yet but after three attempts passing such a resolution is notable.
Incidentally theres a political issue without election or deaths.. Lihaas (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please move: This news candidate should be placed under September 27 because nominations should be posted under the heading of "the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC". 184.147.52.114 (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
updated - Why cant others add content to it? Just waiting for me and then warring over minor details instead of adding content??Lihaas (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
People do what they can, when they have time and the information to do it. Most, if not all, of us aren't getting paid to edit here. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, [eople just prefer to fight andwar on their version. Like the Kenya shooting where virtually nothing was added by others.Lihaas (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can think what you wish, but I prefer to assume good faith without evidence of deliberate actions with poor motives. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I did before the Kenya article, clear evidence there. See what was added to that article
Anyways, We now have an article with consensus and a more than aqdequate and relevant update (not a token ITN one) that is not posted. YET articels with dubiosu consensus and a lack of an update are posted (with activist admins withotu conseus) and this which could have gone on top will now either not go OR be at the bottom! Not to mention there are sources here and elsewhere showing it IS in the newsLihaas (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Dawn

[edit]
Article: Golden Dawn (Greece) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Greece, leaders of the far-right political party Golden Dawn are arrested. (Post)
News source(s): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24314319
Credits:

Article needs updating

 Formerip (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting case here, but the arrest is not that notable (just a stupid move that would embolbden them), nevertheless the killing of Killah P would be more notable but thats probably stale for ITN. Perhaps the ensuing riots can be noted here.Lihaas (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hurling

[edit]
Article: 2013 All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship Final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Clare defeat Cork 5-16 to 3-16 to win the 2013 All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Irish Times
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Crackjack game if game 1 was anything to go by and the ref knows when to blow his whistle, cheating Clare!. Anyway, ITNR Gaelic games. --Lihaas (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Woops. but why is GAA football there and not hurling? This is in fact more unique (and fun. ;))Lihaas (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. First, I am unable to support any nominations from Lihaas until he/she does them properly(which means including sources with the nomination per the instructions on this page). Second, I would oppose this anyway because I can find little if any news coverage outside of Ireland. To clarify I don't care that it is from Ireland if it has coverage elsewhere. 331dot (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1. You make decision on the content not the editor, that is not local politics and would be clearly NPA. Secondly, the game starts in 2 hours so there is NO result yet. (and plenty of users add nom's here to generate discussion beforehand)Lihaas (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not make my decision based on the editor themselves, but on their actions. I notified you of this and was ignored. We need sources provided in the nomination per the instructions on this page to establish that an item is "in the news" and not just updated(which we look at the article for). I further stated that I do oppose based on content as well. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough (and good reason), how to make it ITNR as in the GAA football?Lihaas (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Propose that it be added, demonstrating that there is regularly consensus to include it when nominated. If there is conensus that it should be ITN/R it will be added, if there isn't it wont be. Thryduulf (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was in INT/R (this is the first year it's not, I think). Broad interest really doesn't come into it IMO. We're not a news station. --Tóraí (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The game will end in about 3 hours//...Lihaas (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good reason to include it in on the front-page of an educational website then, no? Did you know who H. C. McNeile was before it was today's featured article. --Tóraí (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based on article quality only. If someone were to write a prose summary of the replay, like there is for the first match, I would fully support this. There is no prose summary of the replay match, which was the deciding contest. That needs to be done in order to have a reasonable update to the article. Fix that, and I think this should be posted. --Jayron32 20:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We're not a global news outlet, we're an encyclopedia. ITN is intended to promote our content and act as hooks to educational content (what we're here for). Lesser known (though not obscure) sports have an important place in remit. (Dharmadhyaksha, an article like is not suitable for DYK. See the DYK criteria.) --Tóraí (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are not a global news outlet, but news coverage does play a role here, and AFAIK there is little coverage of this outside of Ireland and the UK. ITN is to promote content that is 'in the news' and generally not just in a single location. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Grey Cup? Super League? Grand National? Stanley Cup Finals? The Ashes? AFL Grand Final? All ITN/R. I support all of these, by the way. My point is that there are more considerations than just reach or the number of countries involved. --Tóraí (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but one of those is news coverage. The popularity of the sport must also be considered. 331dot (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This sport is very popular where it's played. Your argument says that we drop everything except baseball, American football, basketball and association football. And we won't. HiLo48 (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I was trying to say; but fundamentally this is the "in the news" page and this sport is not widely "in the news"(or I have yet to see evidence it is). Many sports are popular where they are played, but this sport is played mostly in a nation of 5 million people and receives little coverage outside of that country. I wouldn't support a sport just played in Manhattan or Los Angeles. If this was played in a more populated country, and/or received a lot of attention outside of the country, I would support this without hesitation. But it doesn't. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's what you said. You told everyone that if you're not from the US, UK, or some other big country, stop wasting your time here. Pure systemic bias. And I don't think you recognise it. (This was removed for being "sniping". I submit that it's an accurate but embarrassing paraphrasing of the previous post.) HiLo48 (talk) 11:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a diff to back up your accusation, or else please strike your remark. I don't see where anybody said to "stop wasting your time here". Jehochman Talk 11:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say ITN has no issues with systematic bias, but we did post the GAA football final recently. Formerip (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and ti is silly to have one ITNR and not the other./Lihaas (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that isn't what I said. I treat my country of 300 million people the same as I treat a country of a billion people, or a country of 5 million, or a country of 300 people. I support posting events which have widespread coverage. That's the purpose of this page, and I do not see evidence that this has such coverage- and I have continued to await being proven wrong. I certainly did not state that people from any country should "stop wasting their time here" and I am offended by the accusation. We do not have and should not have an affirmative action program for small countries or niche sports. 331dot (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Has this (and the Gaelic football one) has been reported outside ROI+UK? Reported as in they've been featured in TV news, and not just filler wire stories? A couple of examples: Bloomberg TV had reported about the State of Origin rugby in Australia, while Channel NewsAsia has reported the knockout stage of EuroBasket 2013 (basketball isn't a widely practiced sport in Singapore). The former wasn't nominated(?), while the latter was rejected. This hurling event must've escaped their radar... –HTD 19:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Global coverage can never be our measure. American college football hardly ever makes the news in Australia. Probably hardly mentioned outside America. But Americans still think it's important. HiLo48 (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why it's not posted despite perennial nominations year after year, although it some TV time in places such as CNN International every January... –HTD 08:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • But we posted some paedophile who only differed from other paedophiles because of his involvement with college football. That says we treat is as something special. HiLo48 (talk) 08:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we're into high profile pedos, the Irish Roman Catholic sexual abuse scandal was posted twice: Roman Catholic Church sexual abuse scandal in Ireland and Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. According to the latter article, there were 253 claims of sexual abuse by boys by different men from 1914 until 1999, or an average of 3 molested children by different men per year; Sandusky was found guilty on 45 counts of sexual abuse between 1994 to 2009, or an average of 3 molested children by one man, per year. Sandusky was a prolific child molester on his own, whether he was connected to American football or not. –HTD 09:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why did the case for posting his story place so much emphasis on his status in college football? It really gave the impression to an outsider that his paedophilia was seen as more significant because of that. And it wasn't. All paedophilia is equally and horribly significant. HiLo48 (talk) 10:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd imagine him being a pedophile college football coach, a sport ingrained in American culture, is possibly quite the same with pedophile priests, a religion ingrained in Irish culture? If he was say, a hurling coach in America, or the Irish kabaddi federation, molesting generations of children, it wouldn't be in the news, at least in the extent of both events. –HTD 10:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not the only measure, but it is a factor. The stated purpose of ITN is "to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest". An event is not of wide interest if it is only in one country and not mentioned elsewhere. I'm not yet convinced this is receiving a great deal of coverage in Ireland. American college football is mentioned in other countries to varying degrees. I still await evidence of the same for this sport; I would love to be proven wrong here. 331dot (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 27

[edit]
September 27, 2013 (2013-09-27) (Friday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime
Sport

[Posted] Sudan protests

[edit]
Article: Sudanese protests (2011–present)#Protests against fuel price in September 2013 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 50 people are killed in protests against a fuel hike in Sudan (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Dozens of people are killed in protests against a cut in fuel price subsidy in Sudan
News source(s): [6]
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: High casualty count in growing protests and instability in the region. --Lihaas (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, but you dint/AGF forgot to give your support reason?v Lihaas (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Standoff ongoingLihaas (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its not updates though...Lihaas (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please update the article. Better forwards than backwards. There's a link above to a good source. Jehochman Talk 03:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Updates shuold come BEFORE postingLihaas (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posting might also motivate others to update the article, as they might not see it otherwise. This is your nomination- if you want it updated by a certain time, then do it. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The admin needs to note if its updatged or not. The ITNC nom is for consensus discussionLihaas (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, the article will get more visibility when posted, but the posting admin should ensure that the quality of the update is commensurate with the length and breadth of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. Now enforcing this?Lihaas (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] IPCC Fifth Assessment Report

[edit]
Article: IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change publishes the first part of its fifth Assessment Report. (Post)
News source(s): Guardian liveblog BBC (pre-publication) New York Times, Washington Post, The Guardian, The Australian
Credits:

Nominator's comments: News with truly global relevance for science and public policy. This part is Working Group I's part, The Physical Science Basis, which is the bit that is generally most high profile. --LukeSurl t c 07:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be absurd. Formerip (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, you should edit Scientific opinion on climate change --DrLee (talk) 13:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is true that this is a "political body", this is still being widely covered. It's still news if you agree with their conclusions or not. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which is just about the only reason why I'm not joining Medeis in opposing. The UN is a corrupt body, and every single thing it does is tainted as a result. Resolute 14:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dang! where yu been hiding,? haven't seen yu here in eons..;)Lihaas (talk) 01:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He was busy stealing all of the letter "o"s from your writing. --Jayron32 04:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 26

[edit]
September 26, 2013 (2013-09-26) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

International relations

Law and crime

September 25

[edit]
September 25, 2013 (2013-09-25) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Sports

[Posted] 2013 America's Cup

[edit]
Article: 2013 America's Cup (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In sailing, Oracle Team USA defeats Team New Zealand to win the 2013 America's Cup (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: In what could be the greatest comeback in the history of sport (needing 9 wins to win the cup, Oracle Team USA was down −2-6 (that's "negative 2") and 1-8), a loss by TNZ could mean $37 million of New Zealand public money gone to waste. Also, race might be suspended to another day. –HTD 16:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC) --–HTD 16:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Recent death: David H. Hubel

[edit]
Article: David H. Hubel (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times.
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Nobel Prize winner in medicine 1981. Iselilja (talk) 08:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 24

[edit]
September 24, 2013 (2013-09-24) (Tuesday)
Business and economy
  • Hundreds of garment factories in Bangladesh shut down due to strikes by workers seeking higher pay. (Bloomberg)

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

Sport

Kenya attacks

[edit]

Theres no consensus to keep moving it up and reissue it. Because in this case the German election doesnt get much time on ITN. At the very least there should be a consensus discussion to move it up, as we do for "bumps".Lihaas (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Pakistan earthquake

[edit]
Article: 2013 Pakistan earthquake (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 45 people killed in 7.8-magnitude earthquake in Pakistan. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ An earthquake in Pakistan creates a new islet off the coast of Gwadar.
News source(s): Al Jazeera
Credits:

Article updated

 --Gfosankar (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral leaning weak oppose, news is describing the event as occuring in a thinly populated area, [7]. The event is, of course, personally devastating for the families of those directly affected by it, but it does not appear to have affected any large population centers, and the News does not appear to be, as yet, treating this as a major story, excepting purely for the strength of the quake. Thankfully, the impact has been minimal given the strength, but I don't as yet see this as a major story. Willing to be convinced otherwise in the coming hourse and days if more detailed stories come along showing a wider impact than we are seeing now. --Jayron32 17:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support not that common and high enough death toll in the earthquake (as opposed to bobmiings). Casualty count is notable enoughLihaas (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The simple solution would be "An earthquake killing 45 creates a new island off the coast of Gwadar, Pakistan" μηδείς (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the island is that significant. Seismologists suspect the island is a temporary formation. --LukeSurl t c 23:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is not a significant island, but the sources, and our readers, are finding it interesting. So it is a significant event. It is now well documented and a mechanism has been put forward (soil liquefaction) so please, some admin, edit the blurb. It has consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 01:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support adding the part about the island. Yes, it is probably sounds trivial alongside the deaths of so many people, but it is a fascinating aspect of the indecent from an educational point of view (remember education, not news, is our thing). --Tóraí (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Brotherhood

[edit]
Article: Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A Egyptian court bans the Muslim Brotherhood and seizes its assets. (Post)
News source(s): NY Times Washington Post
Credits:

Article needs updating

 --Gfosankar (talk) 06:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addition; the Egyptian cabinet has postponed the ban. So we should wait. Egeymi (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Really??? You know the amount of effort it would have taken to check for the update would have been roughly the same as the effort you expended adding this parenthetical declaration of your own laziness and an excellent reason to disregard your opinion? 97.81.161.12 (talk) 03:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
theres more... If anyone cares to update instead of merely voting and whathaeyou over WP bureaucratic stuff, this would be ready to post.Lihaas (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone has the means or time to provide an update right when you want it. It doesn't mean they don't care just because they posted their opinion here without adding content to the article. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Article has 2 sentences about the ban, but some more information on the ban's impact would be nice. Will the Muslim Brotherhood continue underground and how so? Or are they just a banned political party and can continue as an organization in other respects? Or other relevant information. Yes, I know I counted sentences but I think an article update could do a little better job explaining more in depth the ban's impact. SpencerT♦C 02:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just as an aside, this is how you make a note that an update is insufficient; without regard for the number of sentences or whatever, but by noting specific information which should be in the update but is missing. That's a reasonable reason to object to the sufficiency of an update, not an arbitrary count. People should take note, because this is how it should be done. --Jayron32 02:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Irregardless of the size of the update, has it been determined that the ban is actually in effect? The source I had read saying the ban was passed had also said it was being appealed. μηδείς (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 22

[edit]
September 22, 2013 (2013-09-22) (Sunday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and impacts

Law and crime
  • A Chinese court finds former senior politician Bo Xilai guilty of bribery, embezzlement and abuse of power and sentences him to life imprisonment. (BBC)

Politics and elections

Sport

[Closed] Ciudad Juárez murders

[edit]
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 18:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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: Ciudad Juárez (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Ten people, including a 7-year-old girl and three teenagers, are shot and killed at a home near Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, with the Attorney General's Office saying it was the act of a single shooter. --> (Post)
News source(s): Milenio, (in Spanish) Latino Post
Credits:
Nominator's comments: An instance of ten people being killed in one fell swoop seems notable. --Alex (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In a single attack against unarmed civilians, maybe—or at least in the past year. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 06:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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] Poor Mayo lose again

[edit]
Article: 2013 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Gaelic football, Dublin defeat Mayo in the final to win the All-Ireland Senior Football Championship. (Post)
News source(s): Times BBC
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Comment: I'd really prefer if this article had a similar level of expansion to 2012 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final (the equivalent for last year). SpencerT♦C 00:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article looks decent enough to me. Neljack (talk) 01:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Since in the Emmy Awards discussion below, Formerip said that "If its on ITNR without there ever having been a discussion about it, then it should be treated as a regular nomination", well, this was boldly added without discussion, has been the subject of opposition on almost every time it is nominated, and survived every WT:ITNR discussion as "no consensus" even though there was no consensus of adding it in the first place. –HTD 10:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you began a discussion at the ITNR discussion page about this item with those arguments, I would probably support removing it from the list if it has been objected to in the past- it doesn't seem to be a horribly popular sport to me as well. Until it is removed, however, it should be considered. 331dot (talk) 11:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is, since there's no discussion with a clear consensus of retaining this at the ITNR list, this should be treated as a regular ITN/C nomination. –HTD 13:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think in this case there is a discussion somewhere in the archives where it was proposed for removal and retained. Formerip (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here. So, it is legitimately ITNR. It can always be nominated again for removal. Formerip (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion was just archived and wasn't closed (like the IPL one immediately above it). Therefore the really long discussion never resolved anything. It was "retained in default", which is actually worse than "no consensus".–HTD 14:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding that, formerIP. I will say that I would still support removal of this from the list, but since it is on the list currently it should be posted. 331dot (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsing side discussion about another nomination. SpencerT♦C 23:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • How ironic that the Emmys gets many supports "because it's ITN/R" yet those same contributors who are blindly following that approach are scarce here, even more ironic that this particular article is nicely updated while the Emmy article is just a bunch of tables. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not ironic in any way. This is apples and oranges; a well-known awards show about a popular subject versus a sport largely specific to one small country. 331dot (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And that is bollocks. Both are ITN/R, so both should be supported based on an adequate update and nothing else. The Emmy award article is crap, this is, at least, decent. So many supporters of a crap article seem absent on this, another ITN/R. How curious. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can call it whatever you wish, though I find your slightly vulgar language in this entire section unnecessary. 331dot (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said below, people are supporting based on the suitability of the news story, not the suitability of the article. If you had an issue with people commenting on the suitability of the news story, you (and others opposing it) shouldn't have brought it up as reason to oppose. That was an invitation for people to counter with supports based on suitability. -- tariqabjotu 19:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"suitability"? Wow, a new direction. ITN/Rs guaranteed if the update is supported. This is an ITN/R so the update was excellent and should have received the same level of "update is acceptable" support as the Emmy entry. What is this "suitability" criterion that I've never heard of suddenly being introduced? Is it ITN/R or not? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dont understand.. why do you want to see supports for ITN/R... whole point of ITN/R is to save time by eliminating the need for supports on items that we know will go up when updated. -- Ashish-g55 20:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, you don't understand. Never mind, but next time you vote for an ITN/R, re-assure yourself you've thoroughly reviewed the update! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who in the world is saying post it before its updated? I don't see single support/comment that is asking for ITN/R to be posted without proper update -- Ashish-g55 20:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt you've even looked at the Emmy article. If you have, shame on you for supporting it for main page inclusion. Enough said. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well doubt away then... your comment clearly shows that you did not even read any of the Emmy talk below. I never supported... my first comment was its ITN/R and doesnt need support, then i discussed the blurb. Either way i don't think you are even trying to understand either mine or tariq's point so i'll just stop -- Ashish-g55 20:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) TRM, your opposing remark began with the phrase of such little interest to anyone outside the cliquey ents industry, purely transient, of no long-lasting impact to anyone or anything. You basically seconded a remark by Medeis that said, in full, this is a local vanity item with no historical import. Imagine anyone even knowing how these subjects are 25 years from now. This is a world encyclopedia, not People Magazine. And, yet, somehow, you have an issue with people then arguing the other direction, that the story is suitable for ITN. (And by that, as I'm sure any other person could infer, I mean meets the significance criterion, which believe it or not, is codified in our criteria.) If you had a problem with people commenting on that part of the nomination because it's already on ITN/R, you shouldn't have commented on that part of the nomination. Goodness. -- tariqabjotu 20:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I supported the fact that the Emmys is not ITN/R-worthy. Correct. I then noted the "update" was horse shit. Correct. Finally, you, of all people, should refrain from lecturing on the update strategy and assessment of consensus here. Seems like it's catching mind you. Goodness. Me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cory Monteith? Just say it. I've had enough of your petty nonsense and the whining because things don't go exactly how you want. -- tariqabjotu 20:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is ITNR; if you would like it removed, then propose it for removal on the ITNR talk page. 331dot (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

65th Primetime Emmy Awards

[edit]
Article: 65th Primetime Emmy Awards (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At the 65th Primetime Emmy Awards, Modern Family wins Outstanding Comedy Series and Breaking Bad wins Outstanding Drama Series. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Breaking Bad and Modern Family win awards for Outstanding Drama and Comedy series at the 65th Primetime Emmy Awards
News source(s): Washington Post
Credits:

Both articles need updating
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: ITN/R Andise1 (talk) 03:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As noted below, there was NO DISCUSSION TO ADD THIS TO ITN/R and hence there is no such consensus. μηδείς (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ITN/R discussions dont necessarily take place in ITN/R talk page. ITN/C always takes precedence... its been posted multiple years without objection to it being on ITN/R which gives it consensus by default. Have a look at last year's nomination that i linked below. -- Ashish-g55 14:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is going to need some prose about the actual event. Perhaps highlight some interesting parts of the ceremony or some notable wins and upsets (e.g. the fact that The Colbert Report ended The Daily Show's ten-year run as Best Variety Series, The Voice winning over The Amazing Race, Bryan Cranston not winning for acting). There's a lot that could be written here. -- tariqabjotu 05:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've edited the blurb to remove redundancy and excess words. Jehochman Talk 09:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it matters all that much but the actual awards are called "outstanding" not best... im fine either way but would prefer keeping the award category the same -- Ashish-g55 13:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I watched about half the ceremonies, and found it interesting and entertaining. I just don't think the subject is encyclopedic and if you'll look below you will see concerns by myself and others that this was never discussed in regards to ITN/R, so a free pass in that regard is invalid. DYK would make much more sense for this. μηδείς (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia; if this isn't an encyclopedic enough subject to be on ITN, then isn't encyclopedic enough to have an article and should be removed. Something in this encyclopedia cannot be unencyclopedic. 331dot (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The information is encyclopedic as data. Comments on the front page as to the winners are not, however, of such importance, compared to other items which have historical significance. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What you consider historically significant might not be what others consider historically significant, and vise versa. Also, the ITN page states that the purpose here is "to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest" mentioning nothing about any judgement as to historical significance. Further, listing events of so-called historical significance is not listed as a purpose of ITN. 331dot (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course. I don't have a problem with people being of a different opinion from mine, or expressing that, or this being posted if such a consensus exists. My opposition is just as valid as any person's reasoned support. The real problem is the "nyah, nyah, nya, nyah, nyah--this is ITN/R" assertion, which assumes reasoned argument is not only irrelevant, but somehow invalid per se. μηδείς (talk) 03:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a reasoned argument to make about this item's presence on ITNR, then go and do it on the proper page, the ITNR discussion page. From what I can see this event has been on the ITNR list for almost three years unobjected to. This has also been posted in prior years, and we post other similar awards ceremonies. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)

  • Oppose of such little interest to anyone outside the cliquey ents industry, purely transient, of no long-lasting impact to anyone or anything. Add to that the fact the article is simply a copy-and-past of results with no critical commentary or substantial interest. I think Medeis commented on the right nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still ITN/R. If it gets a sufficient update -- which isn't exactly a given -- it will be posted. -- tariqabjotu 16:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm certain it will, given some admin actions, it may be posted already. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If you oppose this nomination you might as well oppose the Academy Awards, the Grammy Awards, and the Tony Awards. Why? Because this award show is similar to the others I mentioned. It recognizes people from a specific field, which is television. Just like the Academy Awards recognizes people from film, and the Tony Awards recognizes people from theater. This is no different. Whether the subjects will be known in twenty five years is irrelevant. Even if it was relevant, both Modern Family and Breaking Bad are widely watched shows among many people so I highly doubt the subjects will be forgotten in twenty five years. Andise1 (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not necessarily. I find it hard to believe that you'd suggest an Academy Award is on the same level as a "Primetime Emmy". Perhaps you just don't get it. Who knows? Anyway, thanks for letting me know where you stand on a bunch of B-list (usually US) TV celebs, it's highly informative going forward from here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you don't like ITN/R, then go talk about how to change it. This is the wrong place to make that sort of objection. Jehochman Talk 17:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you'd been around here a while, you'd know that I've objected to most, if not all, of ITN/R, it's just divisive and unhelpful. But thanks, once again, for your helpful advice on how to suck ova. Surprised you haven't already posted this.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Please can we have a link to the discussion that got this established at ITN/R? Not every item on that list was added after an actual discussion, and if there's opposition now the presumption of consensus is obviously false. μηδείς (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing trigger happy about posting this. this was posted last year and its in ITNR... admin should post it as long as its updated. Here's last years discussion if it helps -- Ashish-g55 18:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If its on ITNR without there ever having been a discussion about it, then it should be treated as a regular nomination. Formerip (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have come up with this issue before; if it was added to the list improperly, it should be easy to go to the ITNR discussion page and gain consensus for its removal if that's what people want. That said, this has been posted before and we post other award ceremonies or just awards in other areas. 331dot (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further, I have kind of been derelict in my attempt to compose a draft ITNR list to replace the current one (in which every item listed would have some sort of discussion to back it up). I may post further discussion on that at another time soon. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support pending article update. Irregardless of ITNR issues, the Primetime Emmy (particularly the two items listed, Best Drama + Comedy) are the equivalent of the Oscars for television medium. It is no means a triviality as some suggest, and since we also cover other entertainment awards at the national level (eg BAFTAs), there's no reason to exclude this. --MASEM (t) 21:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The BAFTAs (ETA: TV BAFTAs) are not ITNR, though. I think both of these should be posted only if the winners of the main awards are a surprise or in some way special, or if a single show dominates the ceremony. For this year's Emmy Awards, I have no idea if that applies (so I am not voting). Formerip (talk)
The BAFTAs are under ITNR for Film. 203.45.232.62 (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have duly clarified my comment. Formerip (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify I support posting this and believe the ITNR listing should be respected until the event is stripped from the list following a proper discussion to gain consensus to do so. We're not talking about a second-tier sports tournament or some other odd event, we are talking about one of the top (if not the top) awards ceremonies for television and it is followed by millions. We post other awards ceremonies and specific awards. 331dot (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Television programmes are often broadcast outside the country where they are produced. Celebrities, by definition, are a subject of wide interest. —rybec 01:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Currently we have 7 ITNR items for film and only one for television, a major imbalance, so this definitely should remain on ITNR. This is by far the most important awards show for TV in the US and possibly the world, the TV equivilant of the Oscars. It has also has recieved significant media coverage and was in ITN last year. -LtNOWIS (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It may be remembered I !voted to eliminate INTR. Others here saw it differently. Since we still have it, let's not now Wikilawyer over what we have. If you don't like an INTR item, propose a change in the appropriate venue. This is a valid INTR item, as far as I can tell, and will doubtless be read by numerous Main page visitors. Post the blurb, and let's move on. Jusdafax 05:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The ceremony is broadcast internationally (try saying that about most TV awards!) and the shows which win are shown in even more locations. Perhaps the most prestigious TV acting award. Rightfully at ITNR. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support of widespread general interest. Pretty much the top TV award. --LukeSurl t c 11:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Modern Family has been winner since last 3 years. Is this win unexpected? How is it News-y? & someone had to win. So, "award is presented" is not news and "award is won by XYZ" is not news either in this case. If at all anything extraordinary has happened in this award show, then that can be presented as news. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you oppose mentioning the award ceremony in general, or just mentioning Modern Family in the blurb? The ceremony in general is ITNR; if you oppose its being there, then propose its removal from the list. 331dot (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of anything like WP:ITNR. The fact that Emmy, along with some others, is listed there is kinda not really great and i will voice this out at the right location. But if the consensus as established by that page says that this blurb should appear every time these awards are presented, i don't see any harm in putting my oppose here either. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reminder to those voting "ITN/R"', there was another ITN/R above which didn't seem to attract as much "support" yet the update was excellent compared to this mere list of winners. Why are there so many "supports" for a ITN/R whose update was never really discussed (and which was poor) versus an ITN/R whose update was very comprehensive? Most of the supporters here didn't even review the article. You guys kill me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You answered your own question. As in virtually every other nomination, most people choose to comment on the suitability of the news story rather than the suitability of the article about it. That people have continued to do that on this item marked ITN/R is partially the fault of editors of who have chosen to oppose the nomination on the grounds of the suitability of the news story; naturally, such opposing remarks will be met by supporting remarks arguing that the story is suitable for ITN. -- tariqabjotu 19:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, so ITN/R supporters don't bother to check the updates, or whether the article in question is in a decent state for main page inclusion, just blindly vote "support" because it's an ITN/R. Bingo. And that is part of the ITN/R problem. Dense and drive-by editors who just tick the box. "Support" as ITN/R. Utterly ridiculous. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This happens on every nomination. Most comments are in regards to the significance of the story, and there are times articles with massive support don't get delayed or don't get posted at all because there's no update. No one's singling out the nomination you opposed. And, by the way, I think it's highly hypocritical for you to be complaining about people not caring enough about quality of update when you called that a "mythical update requirement" and suggested it be removed. -- tariqabjotu 20:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You just don't get it, do you? I'm asking for the arbitrary 5/3 update to be removed and for people to judge an article's update on its merits. Last time I looked, the Emmy article was a bunch of results tables, yet so many supportive folks here seem to think that's adequate for main page inclusion. "Support per ITN/R" etc. Those people are the hypocrites. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the end, we really need to decide "what is the state of the article which we are asking X million people to click on by putting it in ITN?" This article is crap. A bunch of tables. The process for FAC is very intensive. Isn't about time we started wondering whether ITN/R should override the fact that some ITN/R articles are useless and shouldn't be something we are displaying to the world?. I have no massive interest in the Irish football article above but it is an ITN/R article that's actually decent. As such, it's a hell of a lot better than this. Black Kite (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No part of ITN/R says that an article will be posted regardless of its state. If it did, this would have been posted the moment the ceremony ended. The aim of ITN/R was/is to avoid discussions about significance and just focus on discussions about quality of update -- as it says in the third paragraph of WP:ITN/R. -- tariqabjotu 20:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Which, I think, is exactly my point. If we had an actually interesting and imformative article about this topic, then (even though my personal view is that it shouldn't be ITN/R) it should be posted. However, it doesn't. So it shouldn't be posted. Black Kite (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Has it been posted already? Whenever it meets update requirement it will.. Not sure what your point is. -- Ashish-g55 20:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it hasn't been posted already, and given that we've had two later stories already posted, and a third about to be, it may well not be unless the obvious problems with the article are fixed. Once the Muslim Brotherhood article is posted there's pretty much nothing that can be pushed. Regardless, we should not, ever, be presenting main page viewers with crap articles. ITN/R is not a free pass to foist rubbish onto the main page. Black Kite (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is true, but this comment is a bit misplaced. The fact that this ITN/R item article hasn't been posted, even now with substantial support, is an example of us not putting "rubbish" on the Main Page. (And note that I mentioned those issues very early on.) This comment seems more relevant after, say, the Super Bowl or the Grey Cup or other sporting events, when people demand the article be posted when it contains nothing about the event itself. -- tariqabjotu 21:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but we assume that articles such as the Super Bowl, even if they are not updated immediately, will have massive updates very quickly. It is low-priority articles such as this that are the issue - we can never assume that anyone will bother to make them good. Black Kite (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ITNR and posting this year. It is unfortunate that there is not a broadly-accepted international award for television, but such is the case. I could see a justification for the Emmys as the most prominent such award, but it is split up into two categories (daytime and primetime), somewhat diluting the prominence. While Primetime obviously features the bigger-budget shows, the division nonetheless makes many American television shows ineligible. The Emmys are a good candidate to be discussed each year, and can be analysed on a year to year basis. As this year went mostly as expected, I see little need to post. Teemu08 (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Sadr City bombing

[edit]
Articles: 2013 Sadr City bombing (talk · history · tag) and Sadr City (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Over 60 people are killed by a bomb at a funeral in the Sadr City district of Baghdad, Iraq. (Post)
News source(s): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24190728
Credits:
  • Nominated by [[User:--Simfan34 (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)|--Simfan34 (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)]] ([[User talk:--Simfan34 (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)|talk]] · [{{fullurl:User talk:--Simfan34 (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)|action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/preload_credit&preloadtitle=ITN+recognition+for+%5B%5B2013+Sadr+City+bombing%5D%5D&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=2013+Sadr+City+bombing&preloadparams%5b%5d=nominated}} give credit])[reply]

Both articles need updating

 --Simfan34 (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FIBA EuroBasket 2013

[edit]
Proposed image
Articles: FIBA EuroBasket 2013 (talk · history · tag) and FIBA EuroBasket 2013 Final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The FIBA EuroBasket concludes with France (MVP Parker pictured) defeating Lithuania in the final. (Post)
Credits:

Both articles updated

 --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't use a Parker pic in a Spurs uniform. Neutral otherwise.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a pic of Parker on a French uniform. –HTD 04:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Pope Francis interviewed

[edit]
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 18:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Proposed image
Article: Pope Francis (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Pope Francis says in an interview that the Catholic Church has focussed too much on "abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods" and that "the feminine genius is needed wherever we make important decisions." (Post)
News source(s): Deutsche Welle (English), Washington Post blog, CNN blog, Reuters blog, Christian Science Monitor, Las Vegas Guardian Express, ABC (Australia), Bloomberg, CBS, Slate, Guardian, Guardian op-ed, Time, NY Times, New Yorker, American Thinker, Fox News, Independent
Credits:

Article updated
 --—rybec 19:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
this is also a few days ol.d.Lihaas (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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] German federal election

[edit]
Article: German federal election, 2013 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Angela Merkel's CDU/CSU won plurality/majority in the German federal election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Angela Merkel's CDU/CSU wins its highest vote share since 1990 in the German federal election, and will continue to lead Germany's government.
News source(s): BBC News, Deutsche Welle
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
The second part of ALT blurp is wrong: Unless CDU/CSU do not get the majority of the seats, there are possible scenarios in which Merkel would not lead the next government.--FoxyOrange (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please describe such a scenario. - Nbpolitico (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If CDU/CSU do not get a majority, then someone else has (for example, SPD+Left+Greens). This means that theoretically, they could form a government without Merkel. It is unlikely, though, but not impossible. So currently, the statement that Merkel "will continue to lead Germany's government" is wrong. One might say "is widely expected to", but I'd prefer to stick to the hard facts.--FoxyOrange (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The SPD has explicitly ruled out working with the Left, therefore no government can be formed without CDU/CSU. As CDU/CSU has 2 thirds more seats than runner up SPD, they would undoubtedly lead the government. - Nbpolitico (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To make my point perfectly clear, I just wanted to point out that I'd prefer to use some kind of an irrevocable fact to describe the outcome of the parliamentary election. As Wikipedia is not a real time news source, it might be best to wait a few hours until the results are totally clear.--FoxyOrange (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not.--FoxyOrange (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thumb

  • Support as this is ITNR and all over the news. If this is posted right away I'd suggest that admins be ready to adjust the blurb to reflect any possible changes in the wording, as an absolute majority for Merkel's party is not clear. If it happens, coalition negotiations are unneeded, if not, talks begin, possibly for weeks. Jusdafax 20:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Whatever happens to the FDP and the previous coalition, it's a triumph for Merkel & CDU/CSU. Negotiations for a new coalition, if necessary, probably won't be completed for some time, so there's no point in waiting. Sca (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until the results are in (we only have exit polls at the moment) and don't crystal ball-gaze about Merkel leading the next government (even though that is almost certain). Neljack (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Final results are now in and the site is updated accordingly. - Nbpolitico (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Once parliament will indeed re-elect her as chancellor, another ITN may be posted.--FoxyOrange (talk) 08:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
edit, rm factually wrong "since German reunification"--FoxyOrange (talk) 08:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why? These two have nothing to do with each other. --bender235 (talk) 09:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I support that.--FoxyOrange (talk) 09:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Updated support — In morning-after comments, various players reiterate that negotiations to form a new coalition will take some time. For example, Ralf Stegner, head of the left wing of the SPD, says "It will be an extremely long road"[8]
Once again, there's no point in waiting. Sca (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the all-purpose wording in the proposed blurb and agree with the sentiment that we should post it now. Let's get this ITN item into the feature without further delay. Jusdafax 16:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find it odd that, effectively two days after the election, this hasn't yet been posted. It's all over the news all over the world, and BTW was on French (and of course, German) Wiki on Monday. Why not English Wiki? Is there some bias against German news? One hopes not. Sca (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also find it odd, as we have obvious consensus and a decent update, but perhaps it has been overlooked. Marking as ready. Jusdafax 02:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's the deal with election articles getting the short end of the stick? This, the Australian and the Philippine elections got delayed; that last one was delayed so bad (despite 100x more updates than this one), it just had a couple of hours in the live page (lol). –HTD 14:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not "make an accusation," I raised the question. It was not "spurious," since it was engendered by the circumstances. Kindly assume good faith. Thank you. Sca (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Atrtention needed - NO UPDATE] [posted] Bo Xilai

[edit]
Article: Bo Xilai (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In China, Bo Xilai is convicted of corruption and sentenced to life imprisonment. (Post)
News source(s): BBC NBC News CNN
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Big news in big China. Very high profile trial comes to a conclusion. Major incident in Chinese politics. The extent of the "show" level of this trial is up for debate, we should be satistied this is adequately covered in the article before posting. --LukeSurl t c 13:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - not because it is not newsworthy but because the trial is 100% political and a complete circus from the Chinese regime that we should not recognise in my opinion. I do understand if others says Support but I will always oppose these kind of politically motivated trials and circus sentences.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • So by your own admission, you and Vejvančický are voting based on whether you personally condone the actions of China's political elite, and not whether the item is newsworthy? That is completely unacceptable in the context of an ITN discussion, and your "votes" should be summarly discounted. Thue (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point, Thue, and it is good that it was posted, but it's also good that voices like BabbaQ's are here. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 21:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And did you see the article before posting. Where is the update? All it says is: "On 22 September the court found him guilty on all counts, stripped him of all his assets, and sentenced him to life imprisonment.[118]"Lihaas (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is that not an update? It pretty much sums up what happened. Not much more to say. Jehochman Talk 17:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, thanks. We seem to have a mythical update requirement that, if Lihaas is correct, this doesn't meet. Along with several other recently promoted ITN items. I'm glad to see it, all we need now is to actively remove the "three reference/five sentence" comment at WP:ITN, especially as this is used as a stick to beat some when others' claim an update "doesn't meet the requirements", and we're finally getting somewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been a regular here for three years, and the requirement is unofficial but conversely has served as a great benchmark. It's a motivation to insert more elaboration or more meaningful content (such as official reaction) and certainly isn't mythical. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the opposite. It encourages the introduction of poor quality fluff, just to achieve the threshold. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, most articles need a 3-4 sentence update and many admins explicitly seek that. This is inconsistent and hypocriticalLihaas (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Such a rule is not written in stone and should be weighed on a case-by-case basis. Some articles might need such an update, while other's don't. 331dot (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone read anything here? We have a "5 sentence/3 ref" update "standard" recommended. It's nonsense, as exemplified by a number of admins who post "regardless" and nonsense as it creates trash updates just to meet the "standard". Get rid of the numbers. Ask for an "adequate update" and rely on admins to do their job. Stop this stupid "5 sentence/ 3 ref update" madness. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WsO WE selectively cherry pick which articles we deem worthy of an update and which can be posted anyhow? Thats hpw this game works per WP:IDONTLIKEIT?Lihaas (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what IDONTLIKEIT has to do with this. It's a fact that some articles need more of an update than others. We shouldn't make up article content or add meaningless content just to satisfy some arbitrary requirement that isn't appropriate for every article. 331dot (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Lihaas, please take more time over your updates, some are barely readable. This isn't a case of IDONTLIKEIT, it's a case of COMMONSENSE or DONTFLUFFTHEUPDATE or STOPADDINGCRAPTOMEETANARBITRARYMINIMUM. The recommendations on 5/3 need to be removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case we need to determine consensus on what articles should get a pass. We can't go along when it suits us. Why should sports need prose update? Wjhy should elections need prose articles? Considering the nom said not updated and no discusion in this thread mention the need to post without an update, apparently this wa s asbritrary and without consensusLihaas (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Pakistan bombing

[edit]
Article: September 2013 Pakistan bombing (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 60 people killed in a suicide attack outside a church in Peshawar, Pakistan (Post)
News source(s): BBC NBC News CNN
Credits:

Nominator's comments: major attack on christian community in Pakistan. --Gfosankar (talk) 09:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Against Christians? Not often. Against Shiites? Frequently...--Somchai Sun (talk) 11:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mass shooting in the US is frequent as well, and we usually cover it on the main page (Washington Navy Yard shooting was there five days ago). Of course I know this is English not Pakistani Wikipedia. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added the clarifying word "Christian" in front of "church" because this is one of the facts that makes the bombing so notable. Also updated the death toll to "at least 75".[9] Jehochman Talk 14:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PULL there is a giant under construction tag on this, and other pertinent articles are pulled for lesser tagsLihaas (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the tag. Stephen 23:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] 2013 Sri Lankan provincial council election

[edit]
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 18:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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: Sri Lankan provincial council election, 2013 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Tamil National Alliance wins first ever provincial council election in the Northern Province, Sri Lanka (Post)
News source(s): Times of India
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Article is not updated with the results, now I'm working on that. --Gfosankar (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dodgy, we don't post local elections but there is some precedent on landmark elections as we posted the West Bengal election when the lognest serving democratically elected commie govt were ousted. This is arguably more notableLihaas (talk) 05:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 21

[edit]
September 21, 2013 (2013-09-21) (Saturday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Posted] Typhoon Usagi

[edit]
Article: Typhoon Usagi (2013) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Typhoon Usagi produces massive rainfall in Luzon and Taiwan, causing two fatalities. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Typhoon Usagi makes landfall in Guangdong, China, killing 33 people.
News source(s): The Hindu
Credits:

Article updated

 --Looie496 (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is not yet a major story, but I think I might as well open the bidding, because it is sure to become one. This is a massive storm that passed between Taiwan and the Philippines, producing enormous rainfall in both places that will cause damage that will emerge over the next couple of days. It is taking dead aim at Hong Kong, where it is sure to cause havoc even if it weakens as expected -- at the moment it appears to be strengthening. Looie496 (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose not significant dmage and at this rate we could post all hurricanes.Lihaas (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW closes are for when an article has no chance of being posted, not because one user feels it is too early. There is clearly some support for posting now, so it has a chance. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The new blurb is much better. It's a shame this discussion started prematurely, because it's become muddled. Jehochman Talk 09:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This should have gone up when nominated and when it was an active story. To call the nomination premature, as if all people would want to know was a death count after the fact, is an odd focus to say the least. μηδείς (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Westgate centre shooting

[edit]
Article: Westgate centre shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 22 people are killed in the upscale Westgate centre shooting in Nairobi, Kenya. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Somali Al-Qaeda cell Al-Shabaab claims credit for killing dozens at the Westgate mall in Nairobi, Kenya
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: We posted DC's 14 deaths and these types of things are far more rare in Kenya thatn the USA.. ---- Lihaas (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patience, the article is in existence. I added quite a bit immediately but I'm off now. Will be back in a few hours. Feel free to add.
Incidentlly, its got a potentially bigger dimension now.Lihaas (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rare IS a criteria we go on. Otherwise wed post a lot more bombings in Iraq and Pakistan. (with bigger casualties)Lihaas (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's more of a "don't post every death in a war" sort of thing (did you mean Afghanistan?) Lots of rare stuff isn't newsworthy. In this case, though, it's front page everywhere I've looked, and you gave the article a good start, so I'll support pending more expansion. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment someone should go through that article and clean out stuff I put. I just put in a bunch of details, not all of which maybe notable.Lihaas (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment 1. Is the pic a copyvio? Seems so. 2. The death is universally reported as at least 22, wso we can up that.Lihaas (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it look like a copyright violation? Because it's a high-quality photo? All evidence suggests it's not a copyright violation; it has its EXIF data included, and the uploader has several other photos taken with the same camera from Kenya. The confirmed death toll is only eleven, which some reliable sources have chosen to change their reporting to indicate (BBC, CNN, LA Times). -- tariqabjotu 17:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True on hthe first point. Too goodto be tru so quick i guess ;)
The majority of sources have now updated tp 22. I read ibtimes.co.uk that says upto 100 with 50 bodies they affirmed. Red Cross which is on the ground and credible sasy at l;east 20 (see your cnn link). Many sayibng over 22 [10]Lihaas (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Al Shabaab have claimed it. We could add it to the blurbLihaas (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have suggested an altblurb for the update. Note the attackers used grenades, not just guns. I am not certain what the actual name of the mall is--sources are just calling it the Westgate mall. μηδείς (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
removed al Qaeda part. its on the wikilinkLihaas (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Restoring the Al-Qaeda part, or maybe it should say Islamist, which is in all the sources. (The deletion is also ungrammatical, BTW>) It's odd why we would remove this essential information while comparing the story to an American schizophrenic. μηδείς (talk) 03:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Islmist as more npovLihaas (talk) 05:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This story is ongoing and should therefore be at the top of the template. Also, replace "masked gunmen" with "Al-Shabbab". --09:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Grand Theft Auto 5

[edit]
Article: Grand Theft Auto V (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Grand Theft Auto V posts 800 Million US$ in first day sales setting a new record for all forms of entertainment media (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The video game Grand Theft Auto V sets a three-day $1 billion world sales record for all entertainment media
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

Nominator's comments: 800 Million $ is just unprecedented number that may not be broken for quite a while to come. We posted Call of Duty Black ops for sales record as well. This entire week has clearly been dominated by news for this game... it is definitely worth posting as games Do not get any bigger. this has a strong support from me. It should also be noted that it was projected to make half that amount, these kind of numbers dont get posted by games every day. Please discuss and change blurb... ---- Ashish-g55 03:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i thought of that but proper numbers were only released on friday i believe. can mention day of release though -- Ashish-g55 04:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The $800M came Thursday, as I recall, with the $1B out Friday. (For the record the game was released on Tuesday). --MASEM (t) 14:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The video game Grand Theft Auto V sets a single-day sales record for all entertainment media with US$800 million.
The video game Grand Theft Auto V reaches US$1 billion in sales faster than any single entertainment media. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 12:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support any alt blurb that mentions US$1 billion dollars. The round number makes a better blurb. Jehochman Talk 13:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caution. Does the 800 million represent sales to consumers, or does it include sales to retailers? I think we should be careful per WP:NOTADVERTISING. I notice that, for example, the BBC have not picked this story up.
Also, if it is posted, it should reflect that it is a record for video games. Because of the difference in unit price, you can't really compare it to CDs, cinema tickets etc. Formerip (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its always sales to consumers. However retailer stock is usually very close too since this things is basically sold out. Issue with getting number for a game vs movie is that the number of retailers are much much more. So i believe and correct me if i am wrong.. only major retailers will be able to provide the sales figures and smaller ones might be taken as retailer figures. Thats why it takes them couple of days to even get these numbers. I get that its different media form but its still money one is willing to pay for entertainment. This can include stuff like broadway shows, books (Harry potter i believe did break similar record by the way)... So i think its OK to compare when it beats all forms altogether. Only works for records -- Ashish-g55 13:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworded the altblurb for grammar and to include the billion dollar figure and the world media record. μηδείς (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Majuro Declaration

[edit]
Article: Majuro Declaration (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Pacific Islands Forum held in Majuro, Marshall Islands, ends with the Majuro Declaration being signed by all Pacific island nations claiming the World more action on climate change. (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera America
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Another try to get the Pacific island nations to the main page haha. I love those countries. And I think that Declaration is important. -- Kiplimo Kenya (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 20

[edit]
September 20, 2013 (2013-09-20) (Friday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations
  • Iranian President Hassan Rouhani calls for "constructive dialogue" and an end to "unhealthy rivalries". (CNN)
  • The Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise, which was protesting against Gazprom drilling in the Arctic area 60km north of the Russian coast, is boarded by the Russian military. The activists claim that oil exploitation would risk three nature reserves protected by Russian law. (The Guardian)

Sport

[Closed] Recent death: Carolyn Cassady

[edit]
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 18:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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: Carolyn Cassady (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BrianHassett.Com, Beatdom Magazine
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: published author, widow of Neal Cassady, associate of Jack Kerouac and Allen Ginsberg, seminal figure in own right of Beat Generation --Shearonink (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can't support your own nomination. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 19:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, whatever, somehow I thought I had to vote. Anyway, I have now adjusted my Vote so it will now only be a comment and simply provide more information for anyone who cares. Cripes, I swear, this is the last time I try to fix something that was started for me by a misplaced post from an IP on Main Page/Errors. Shearonink (talk) 06:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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] Syria submits chemical arms data to OPCW

[edit]
Article: Framework for Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Syria submits data regarding its chemical weapons to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. (Post)
News source(s): BBC Telegraph1 Telegraph2
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A somewhat concrete development in the conflict. The article Framework for Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons could, with a little work, contain a good overview of this story. --LukeSurl t c 22:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

support main link THE framework is more important than just one step in the process.Lihaas (talk) 12:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could one of the admins who complained about my last posting please look at this one and post it? Jehochman Talk 13:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 19

[edit]
September 19, 2013 (2013-09-19) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Gaming

Law and crime

Imperial Petroleum indicted in the largest instance of tax and securities fraud in [Indiana] state history

[edit]
Article: United States vs. Imperial Petroleum (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Imperial Petroleum of is indicted in the largest instance of tax and securities fraud in [Indiana] state history. (Post)
News source(s): [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]
  1. ^ InsideINdianaBusiness.com Report (2010-11-09). "Hoosier Companies Indicted in $100 Million Scheme - Newsroom - Inside INdiana Business with Gerry Dick". Insideindianabusiness.com. Retrieved 2013-09-19. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)
  2. ^ Cronin, Margaret (2013-09-16). "Imperial Petroleum Chief Charged With Fraud Over Biofuels". Bloomberg. Retrieved 2013-09-20.
  3. ^ Orr, Susan. "Feds file fraud charges against president of Evansville-based Imperial Petroleum Inc. » Evansville Courier & Press". Courierpress.com. Retrieved 2013-09-20.
  4. ^ Gillam, Carey. "U.S. charges 6 people, 3 firms with $100 million biofuels fraud". Reuters. Retrieved 2013-09-20.
  5. ^ Cronin, Margaret. "Imperial Petroleum Official Charged With Fraud Over Biofuels (1)". Businessweek. Retrieved 2013-09-20.
  6. ^ "United States Securities And Exchange Commission V. Imperial Petroleum, Inc. Et Al :: Justia Dockets & Filings". Dockets.justia.com. Retrieved 2013-09-20.
  7. ^ "US indicts 7 individuals and 3 companies in alleged $100M biodiesel RINs fraud in Indiana". Green Car Congress. Retrieved 2013-09-20.
  8. ^ Dan Human. "Biofuel fraud case shines light on Imperial CEO | 2013-09-19 | Indianapolis Business Journal". IBJ.com. Retrieved 2013-09-20.
  9. ^ "Imperial Petroleum, Inc., et al. (Release No. LR-22800; September 18, 2013)". Sec.gov. Retrieved 2013-09-20.

Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: United States vs. Imperial Petroleum is the largest instance of tax and securities fraud in [Indiana] state history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as of now. Subnational issue; how is the largest tax fraud case in Indiana significant on a global scale? (or even nationally) If this story gets reported on a wider scale or has wider effects, I would be willing to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not that anyone doubts the sources. It's just very oddly parochial. Can we have an explicit link to a list of biggest such fraud cases in world history. Also, we usually wait for convictions, not indictments. μηδείς (talk) 04:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Federal charges were filed and the story was covered by one news company from New York and another news company from Texas. If there is a better story for the Main Page, I am all eyes ;) --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I'm not seeing how this is suitable. Is this the largest state-level case ever, and it just happens to be in Indiana, or is it only a record for Indiana? Because, you know, if we took that approach to every US state, Canadian province, Russian federal subject, and so on, we'd post nothing but stories with sub-national records in. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose sorry but this hasn't struck any chords. It's sub-country-specific and really hasn't made it "in the news" as far as I can tell. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] JP Morgan fined

[edit]
Articles: 2012 JPMorgan Chase trading loss (talk · history · tag) and JPMorgan (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ JPMorgan Chase is fined a total of $920m for illegal practices related to trading losses in 2012. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ JPMorgan Chase is fined a total of $920m for illegal practices related to trading losses in 2012.
News source(s): BBC, Guardian, Sky News, Reuters, Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, NBC News, Le Monde
Credits:

Second article updated, first needs updating

Nominator's comments: $920m is a lot of money. Would welcome better blurb suggestions, this is all a bit too complicated for me to work out what has actually occurred. -- Altblurb now links to section of JPMorgan rather than 2012 JPMorgan Chase trading loss, which is unlikely to be ready soon. --LukeSurl t c 21:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Opposed "fines" like this are basically post-facto negotiated bribes to regulators--had there been a criminal trial it would be fifferent. Also very much doubt there will be any readership interest. μηδείς (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place to opine about when a bribe is a fine. The story is all over the front page of every major publication, which is the definition of "in the news". Jehochman Talk 21:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Is that why all the listed media sources published the story? Because they thought no one would be interested in it? 331dot (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The stats show this peaked at just over 3000 views on its own, that is low for even the average RD posting, let alone full blurb. There are all sorts of things that people read in other sources with great avidity, like weather and cartoons, that simply don't cut it here. μηδείς (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I ask again, is that why the listed sources (and others) are publishing this story? We aren't talking about a cartoon or a weather report. 331dot (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are the financial sections of those institutions, not the front page. Compare the interest in Phyllis Diller when she died, which we did not post either, 250,000 reads for two days, or even the current interest in her. I agree this is the big government fine story of the week. I simply don't see it merit pushing, say, the Colorado floods (which I also opposed, but grant are of great interest) off the front page. μηδείς (talk) 01:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been two days since we've posted an update. I or somebody else will post this as soon as the article is updated and presentable. The current article has ugly top template, lacks even basic info about the punishments in the lede, and is a bloated mess. Please fix it. Jehochman Talk 21:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec)Support. Large fine of a large, well known company. The nature of how the fine was arrived as is immaterial(as is one person's opinion of the nature of negotiated settlements). 331dot (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A $920 million bribe would be very newsworthy, simply because it's a large amount of money (for most of us). This story involves the United Kingdom and United States, to which a large proportion of the English Wikipedia's readers have an affinity. Although there hasn't been a trial, there have been indictments from a grand jury. —rybec 21:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A criminal trial would be a different issue. Black Kite (talk) 00:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This fine came with an admission of guilt according to the BBC ("As part of the deal JP Morgan admitted violating US federal securities laws"), unlike many fines where the fined party does not admit wrongdoing. 331dot (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point is that we don't need to wait for a trial, as they have already admitted to government officials that they violated the law, we don't have to wait for an adjudication of a legal case. I also don't recall any other recent $920 million fines in the financial world recently. 331dot (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, which means, we are going to accept this as the cost of doing business, and take our bonuses to the bank. An actual jury trial and conviction would be a much bigger story. There's nohing wrong with using our knowledge of the world to make judgment on story notability--it's not like whatever is at the top of some "in the news list" (say the top story at google financial news) goes up without input.μηδείς (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to your opinion about what the fine is, accurate or not, but that doesn't alter its existence and the fact it is being widely reported(and not just on business news sites). 331dot (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't need original research. Do you agree that the item is "in the news" or do you think that it's not "in the news"? Do you think this is the peak coverage, or are we waiting for something else to happen? Jehochman Talk 01:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would be in support but for the sorry fact that neither article is suitable for an ITN Main page blurb. The "trading loss" article is a hopeless mess of lists and seemingly unrelated facts, and I hesitate to try and read through it, much less edit the thing. The main bank article is also massive and while a somewhat easier read, the update is swallowed up in it and the subsection directs readers on to the tangled "trading loss" article. It would take more time than I have to fix this, which is unfortunate... the nearly one billion dollar fine is a huge story. If anyone was to improve either or both articles, a consensus might form up. Jusdafax 06:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
there are 2 supportsd and 2 opposes adn this was posted without knote. Jehochman maybe a new admin but even the recent other posting he made was awith dubious consensus!Lihaas (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He's been an admin for nearly six years. Having said that, it's an odd way to judge consensus, I would agree with that. In any case, please take more care when writing here, your comment is full of errors. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I ignore !votes that are tantamount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The valid reasons to oppose a listing are (1) not very significant news coverage, (2) article isn't in good shape, (3) it's not a "final" disposition or not the peak of the issue (e.g. Obama and Iranian president exchange letters about a possible nuke deal). A bunch of people said they would support if the article improved (which happened). A couple opposed because of their own opinion that this story shouldn't be in the news. Anyhoo, I now count 5 editors in support, and 2 opposed. You have to read the comments and judge their tone, not just look for the bolded votes. Jehochman Talk 15:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem, I think most of us know that, but it's a push to come to the numbers you've arrived at, particularly as we've done a switcheroo with the main article, and cheated our way to an ITN by avoiding the real main article (the proposed main article is still in a hell of a state, and that's the one most people commented on...) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the 'attention needed tag. There's certainly no consensus that there's any attention needed here, and it's not one of the standard tags we use anyway.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Post posting support because I agree with the intent but I completely agree with TRM that this is hardly a straight and narrow ITN post. The trading loss article really should be dealt with, and I suggest as much as half of that article be trimmed out as unencyclopedic. Yes, it is true that we don't directly point to it in the blurb, but anyone attempting to get more information is going to wind up in the bloated trading loss article. Someone put up a notice on the article talk page and then start chopping away at it to make it readable. Jusdafax 17:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have a real shortage of good nominations right now. In addition to cleaning up as Jusdafax points out, would editors please consider nominating other news items? Jehochman Talk 18:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its ok posting is fine. Next time just mention the word bold :) -- Ashish-g55 19:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no rush to update ITN, in fact the worst thing to do is to update it against consensus and with poorly formed articles (or by cheating and avoiding the proper articles, as in this case). Plenty of news items get nominated, we don't have to crash into something just to satisfy an urge to update ITN. Please remain calm. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a joke. The nomination was posted with a whole one support vote beside the nominator? Describing the opposes as "I don't like it" is, frankly, bee ess. I like the fact JPMorgan was fined. I think they are a bunch of pirates, having dealt with and followed them for years. Opposes based on the fact there was no criminal trial, but a settlement, are reasoned opposes that have nothing to do with liking or not liking JPM at all. Once again, why are editors who are not admins even invited to comment if such comments will be misconstrued and ignored? μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see the list of sources? This was indisputably front page news all around the world, we needed a news item, and there's nothing else available at the moment. It had been over two days since the last update. Jehochman Talk 22:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't dispute it was probably on some front pages and was on many business pages. Neither mine nor Black Kite's objections have anything to do with that. Under normal circusmtances this would have stood unposted until there were some more opinions voiced. With two argued opposes and only one support besides the nominator this should not have gone up so quickly. Saying that the opposes were mere "I don't likes" was insulting to the editors and a false statement to the community. μηδείς (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[RD Posted] Hiroshi Yamauchi

[edit]
Article: Hiroshi Yamauchi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC NBC News
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Heaven must be in need of Japanese businessmen. Formerip (talk) 10:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No source?? Formerip (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There certainly was a source. 331dot (talk) 12:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not when I chcked, theone BBC referenced linked to a general page. That has since changes, don't know who changed.Lihaas (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the BBC homepage which linked to the article about Yamauchi's death. Your opposition was somewhat pointy. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant to point out here, 331Dot, that this was posted in less than three hours with what is essentially a one-sentence update: he died while in hospital and was survived by his family. I actually think the RD guidelines should be relaxed. But without making a serious accusation, it looks here like someone was in a hurry to get to bed or to work when this was posted. We shouldn't have guidelines that call for a certain standard, then ignore that standard at the posting admins sole discretion. Amalthea, I am confused by your point. μηδείς (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of bluster for two words to appear on the main page. Moreover, once those two words appear, people are drawn to it, to improve it, to enhance the "death" section which was added (with three sentences and two refs, *shock* *gasp* *horror*, not five sentences and three refs).... Can we now get on with something useful? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)

Ignore what I said, Medeis, I missed the parenthesized "in accordance with ITN updating criteria" when I read the RD guideline. Amalthea 18:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Call for reparations for nuclear testing

[edit]
Article: Pacific Islands Forum (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Republic of the Marshall Islands calls on the US government to pay more than two billion US dollars for the nuclear tests conducted on the islands during the 1940s and 1950s. (Post)
News source(s): Radio Australia Radio New Zealand International
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I think it's worth publishing since Pacific nations never get attention. Kiplimo Kenya (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment With all due respect comments such as "X and Y subject doesn't get any attention" are generally poor platforms to argue for a stories inclusion. As far as I can see, this is another "reparations" demand - (basically trying to make people who had no responsibility for those events cough up!) and ones like these in the not-so-distant past haven't even resulted in a penny being dropped. I can't see this passing for ITN unless something meaningful happens. --Somchai Sun (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think you'll find that the US government did have responsibility for these events. Neljack (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely doubt that any current member of the US government did, or indeed anyone who isn't either retired or close to it. MChesterMC (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. And I never even remotley suggested that the US gov at the time were not responsible for the nuclear testing, so please retract your comment. --Somchai Sun (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Stories should not be posted from a particular region simply for the sake of doing so; if the US actually paid up that might be notable. 331dot (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually it is more notable that the blurb makes it sound, since the entire Pacific Nations Forum endorsed the claim for compensation. If the blurb is changed to reflect that and there is a good update, I might be inclined to support. Neljack (talk) 03:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, they're only asking for compensation at the moment. If the United States agrees to pay, that would be a better time to post it, if not then it's a non-story. --W. D. Graham 07:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Based on the New Zealand source provided, the "big two" are throwing their weight behind a bilateral discussion (in effect merely saying that the US should listen), rather than showing outright support for the Marshall Islands' calls for $2billion+ in reparations. If I have misunderstood, and Australia and New Zealand are going a lot further than that, then that might be a big enough story for me to support, given the combination of strains in US-AUS/NZ relations being unusual and the pacific nations as a whole being underrepresented. —WFC— FL wishlist 15:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 18

[edit]
September 18, 2013 (2013-09-18) (Wednesday)
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
  • Hurricane Manuel:
    • More than 2,000 tourists have been airlifted by the Mexican Army after floods caused by Hurricane Manuel isolate the resort city of Acapulco with many tourists and residents stranded. (BBC)
    • At least 58 people are missing after a mudslide caused by Hurricane Manuel buries approximately 70 people in the Mexican town of Atoyac de Alvarez. (CNN)
  • At least 6 people are dead in Ottawa after a collision between a Via Rail train and a double-decker OC Transpo bus. (CTV)
  • Teen Graciela Martinez is found dead after school from possible heat stroke in a locked BMW in which the doors would not open. (Los Angeles Times)

International relations

Law and crime
  • The French parliament moves to ban children's beauty contests in an attempt to halt what one former minister called the hyper-sexualization of young girls. (The Guardian)
  • In Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Antonio Feliu fatally shot his ex-girlfriend and her adult daughter, and killed another woman in a head-on crash during a police chase. He shot himself as police approached his stopped car. (Epoch Times)

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sport

[Posted] RD: Ken Norton

[edit]
Article: Ken Norton (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: "A planet in Ali's solar system". Big figure in boxing. --LukeSurl t c 21:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible I miscunted; I am not a boxing fan. μηδείς (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware "cunting" was part of being a boxing fan. I thought anyone competent could count five sentences, especially if that's a standard they continually demand? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sixty-eighth session of the United Nations General Assembly

[edit]
Article: Sixty-eighth session of the United Nations General Assembly (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The sixty-eighth session of the United Nations General Assembly opens. (Post)
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Its not ITNR (but it should be), but its akin to oher high-profile annual global summits. Lihaas (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment since we post the END of summits how abiut the en dof the 67th session yesterday? It passed the Palestine resolution..(Lihaas (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)).[reply]
  • If you nominate something specific about this event, including a blurb that says why it is important and sources to demonstrate news coverage, then I (and I suspect others too) will evaluate it on its merits. This nomination does none of that. Thryduulf (talk) 04:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To expand on that, it is not our job to seek out evidence to support your nomination. It is up to you to submit all necessary materials to support your own nomination, just as every other regular user here does with their nominations. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
wwell when we post most summits closing we do so just that it happened. (the ITNR ones)Lihaas (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This isn't an international summit, it's the routine sitting of an established body. We don't carry the risings and sittings of the UK parliament or the EU parliament, or of the US Congress. I don't see a compelling reason why the UN should get this treatment. And I really don't think this should be ITNR, and I'd call on Lihaas to withdraw the proposal until such time as a couple of these have actually been posted. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All summits are routine.annual meetings of established bodies. Conversely ever'y country has a say here in the annual "state of the world" topics.Lihaas (talk) 10
18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Most summits are not "established bodies", but simply annual gatherings that only exist at the pleasure of those in the meeting. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

University of Alabama ends segregation

[edit]
Article: University of Alabama (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The University of Alabama announces measures to end segregation in the sorority system (Post)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: This is a fairly important, even shocking bit of news for the UofA, for the South, and for the US university system--one reason being that for many it probably comes as a shock that such segregation still existed. Another is that the university finally recognizes that this type of segregation (enforced by alumnae more than by students) actually exists, and is prepared, after at least three decades of controversy, to do something about it. Note: it's serendipitous that only a few days ago I wrote John P. Hermann, a biography of one of the system's most vocal critics. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Recent death: Marcel Reich-Ranicki

[edit]

Article: Marcel Reich-Ranicki (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): FAZ, Washington Post, New York Times, FOX News, The Guardian, Jerusalem Post
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Currently, the death of the "Pope of Literature" is in breaking news mode all over the German speaking media; I'm pretty sure it will soon be picked up by others as well. by now, it has also been covered by the Washington Post. FoxyOrange (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, see nomination box above.--FoxyOrange (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've combed those obits for references for the article and added several. The facts I cannot find references for I have labelled [citation needed] and these will need to either be referenced from other sources or removed from the article (By someone else I'm afraid, I have work in the morning). --LukeSurl t c 22:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added cites for most of the remaining unsourced statements and allowed myself to remove the tag. If the two-and-a-half sentences need to be addressed before linking it on the Main Page they can be removed without taking much from the article, but I think it should be fine. Amalthea 00:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Quite notable and award-winning. Fine ITN RD candidate. Of international interest. Article "has issues" as noted but will be improved and is sufficient for now. Jusdafax 23:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted per above consensus (LukeSurl's initial concern was addressed I believe, mainly due to his work on the article) and criteria from WP:ITND. If I made a mistake please get someone to revert me. :) Amalthea 00:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger, Lion, and Snow leopard genomes mapped

[edit]
Articles: Tiger (talk · history · tag) and Lion (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Scientists have successfully mapped the genomes of the Tiger, Lion, and Snow leopard. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Both articles need updating

Nominator's comments: This seems like a notable story for ITN if the relevant articles are adequately updated. Aside from the articles mentioned above that need to be updated, Snow leopard also needs to be updated. Andise1 (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is our quite incomplete list of sequenced animal genomes, which doesn't even include sequenced genomes of plants, fungi, protists, or bacteria or other organisms. μηδείς (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The blurb doesn't fully do justice to this: they sequenced the genomes of five species, not three: the Siberian tiger, African lion, white African lion, snow leopard, and Bengal tiger. —rybec 00:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
White lions are just a coat color difference. Bengal and Siberian tigers are just subspecies. So three. Abductive (reasoning) 00:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At this point sequencing is simply a matter of having the grant money to turn on the machines. It's not like rocket launches or space probes that can fail spectacularly. The information is academically of great interest, but it's not a field of firsts anymore. μηδείς (talk) 02:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think is is even of great interest academically anymore. Especially in well-studied taxa such as mammals. Abductive (reasoning) 00:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's of great interest to taxonomy and hence evolutionary biology, of which this is the golden age. μηδείς (talk) 03:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And if the taxonomy has been worked out for a particular group? Then it is not interesting. Mammalia? Not interesting. Tunicates? Interesting. Sipuncula? Interesting. Abductive (reasoning) 14:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The taxonomy of the cats has been hugely in flux in the last decades. Sequencings like this allow for definitive answers. Of course these are only a few of the species and limited to the Old World. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to Abductive's comment of 14:45: for a general audience, large mammals are the most interesting organisms. Should this part of the main page panda pander to that, or take a scholarly tone? —rybec 16:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 17

[edit]
September 17, 2013 (2013-09-17) (Tuesday)
Arts and culture
Armed conflict and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime

UN report on North Korean prison camps

[edit]
Articles: North_Korea#Political_prison_camps (talk · history · tag) and Prisons in North Korea (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A UN commission makes a preliminary report on "unspeakable atrocities" in North Korean political prison camps. The North Korean government, which had not answered the commission's inquiry, calls the report "slander". (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A UN commission reports atrocities in North Korean prison camps.
News source(s): AFP via Yahoo, Chicago Tribune, Malaysia Sun, Al Jazeera, Reuters via Yahoo, Deutsche Welle (English)
Credits:

Both articles need updating

Nominator's comments: noteworthy for the extreme nature of the alleged abuses

Human_rights_in_North_Korea#Reeducation_camps is also related (not updated). --—rybec 02:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative, short one now added. —rybec 09:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that the UN puts out numerous reports over the course of a year; rarely does anything significant arise from them. If the report revealed something previously unknown, then we might have something here, but it doesn't. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD - Eiji Toyoda

[edit]
Article: Eiji Toyoda (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times Reuters
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Toyoda is unarguably the man most responsible for Toyota's rise to the top rank of global automakers. A blurb would not be unreasonable, but I hesitate to launch a time wasting debate over that: let's settle for a fast RD posting. His international honors speak for themselves; he is well-known around the world. Jusdafax 20:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support for RD. Clearly recognized for work in (and is important in) his field. 331dot (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Significant impact on the automotive industry and lives of millions of drivers. -Zanhe (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for RD. Passes the criteria set by RD2 for his contributions.--Somchai Sun (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. For RD. Clearly a very significant figure in business and industry. Given how reliable his cars are, it's pretty fitting that he died just after his 100th birthday. Formerip (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for RD per given reasons. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Jehochman Talk 23:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • PULL that is is certainly not updated, there is only ONE line.
    • Is there any requirement for RD articles to have more than one-line updates? If the death was uneventful (and RD deaths are per definition uneventful), then writing more than one line would be recentism. Thue (talk) 09:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The death is fully reported in the article. There's not much more to say. Jehochman Talk 11:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • "One line?" Hm. The article gives when and where he died, as well as why and his remarkable age. Lihaas, what more would you like to see, aside from possibly some reactions and tributes, which can be added as they happen? By the way Lihaas, allow me to suggest that you sign your pull !votes, especially when they could be interpreted, rightly or wrongly, as deliberately unsigned retaliation for my recent "tough love" comments on your sketchy nominations. Now, seeing no other request to pull, and a couple outright disagreements with the notion, could someone please remove the mooted 'attention needed' flag? I would do it but it's a conflict of interest, or could be taken that way. Thanks. Jusdafax 17:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • As has been discussed endlessly, RD follows the same update rules as the rest of ITN. This was made explicit in the RfC used to create the subsection. Five sentences with three sources is standard. We have a recent trend of nominations for ITN that have been supported and updated not being posted and of nominations with little support and a perfunctory "John Doe died on 30 February" "update" being posted. The admin who posts is supposed to confirm the criteria before posting, and should be willing to pull his own work or fix it if he makes a mistake. I agree just adding stuff to meet the update requirement technically is not very helpful. In a case like this three sentences with three sources would be reasonable, given the otherwise unquestionable merits of the nomination. μηδείς (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • If "five sentences with three sources" is standard, then it should be written down somewhere(if it is, please link). 331dot (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Five sentences and three sources is Medeis own personal standard. There's no consensus that that is required, merely that the update is sufficient and that sufficiency is judged against the nature of the event being reported; there are no numerical or length-based standards in any guidelines written down anywhere. Medeis has been pushing for arbitrary numerical standards in this vein for years, though despite the singular effort on her part to insist on such a standard, it has never been agreed upon or documented anywhere as such. --Jayron32 19:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the kind of bullshit I would just make up. I am surprised you post here without knowing this. "The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable. Changes in verb tense (e.g. "is" → "was") or updates that convey little or no relevant information beyond what is stated in the ITN blurb are insufficient." updated content. As long as I have been here we have aimed for five/three and posted once that is met--not just one sentence. Not even Amy Winehouse. I am not for pulling, just for the nominator and the posting admin to do their jobs. μηδείς (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's our pathetic two-phrase, two-source "update" which says he died while under treatment in a hospital, applicable to half the people in the developed world. diff
Medeis, it says "generally sufficient", not "always sufficient" or "required". That's just inventing criteria. 331dot (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And what does it say about one-sentence updates that give no more information than is in the blurb, here, namely, that the subject is dead? Admins here have far too much power and little accountability. The last thing we need is throwing out the rules and letting admins do as they please, or don't please. Admins should be certifying the rules have been met, not deciding when they apply. μηδείς (talk) 23:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one objected to the update until the unsigned poster did above. Users are free to object at any time, which is what was done. There's no reason to be on an anti-admin power soapbox. Further, there is no "rule" to be met here, there is a guideline which specifically says it applies "generally", not in every instance. 331dot (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one's calling for the blood of the firstborn over this and there's no need for the excuse making. Mistakes and oversights happen. That's obviously what happened here, an oversight. Before it was posted no one argued that this was the nomination for which we would finally abandon standard practice. μηδείς (talk) 02:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No standard practice was abandoned. The article was updated; there is no length requirement written in stone, just a "general" guideline. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added two tributes to the death section. Should be adequate now. --LukeSurl t c 20:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Luke, that should do it. Jusdafax 20:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me, and please, if it is User:Lihaas posting all these unsigned comments, stop it, do better, sign posts etc etc. As for the "x sentences, y refs" update nonsense, move along, there's no such requirement. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New snail species

[edit]
Article: Zospeum tholussum (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A new species of snail, Zospeum tholussum, is discovered in Croatia. (Post)
News source(s): International Business Times
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: A new species of snail was discovered in Croatia. This seems like a good story to post if the relevant articles are adequately updated. Andise1 (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, I'm not an expert on such matters, but I gather new species of insects and suchlike are discovered quite regularly. Is there anything particularly newsworthy about this snail? The article is rather short on information. Bob talk 17:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We must post all new species discoveries. For the greater good of Wikipedia. All hail Lugo. --Somchai Sun (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now based on the length of the article. The item is newsworthy, but we really can't post an article that stubby on the main page. If this is expanded to a more reasonable length, you can consider this a support. --Jayron32 18:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, at lest. While I think it's ridiculous to post every new species found (half the nominations say how rare it is to find a new species, but there's a new nomination every week), this one seems to have far more news coverage than most new species do, and unlike many others that are nominated, this one actually WAS just found. However, 1) the article is three sentences. No three-sentence article will ever nor should ever be posted on ITN. And 2) the snail's shell is transparent, which is the only interesting thing about it- almost every headline on Google News mentions it. If that's not in the blurb, there's no point, because if not for that fact, finding the new type of snail wouldn't be noteworthy at all. -- Mike (Kicking222) 19:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are no good sources for this yet. We have a paper in the journal Subterranean Biology, which I've never heard of, and a dozen press stories that clearly are entirely press release-based, except for one post in the LA Times Science blog. We should not report this if it is not covered by a reliable source that exercises independent critical judgement. Looie496 (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: How frequent are new snail findings? 168.7.237.212 (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite common, but they're difficult to document because you have to catch the snail, which can be quite tricky. Formerip (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Surely catching the snail is the easy bit? (Unless these are new super-fast snails... in which case it's an obvious strong support!) BencherliteTalk 00:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, most snails are really fast, which makes them really hard to catch. It's just that you only tend to see the slow ones since the others are moving so quickly that they redshift out of the visible spectrum. 91.208.124.126 (talk) 09:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 16

[edit]
September 16, 2013 (2013-09-16) (Monday)
Armed conflict and attack

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sport

Health and medicine
  • Naegleria fowleri is found in tap water near New Orleans, marking the first time the pathogenic amoeba has been detected in U.S. public water supply. (NBC)

Daocheng Yading Airport

[edit]
Article: Daocheng Yading Airport (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Daocheng Yading Airport, the world's highest civilian airport at 4,411 m (14,472 ft) above sea level, opens in China. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, Xinhua
Credits:

Article updated

 --Zanhe (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • support, reasonably sourced good news of a record that isn't broken often. No systemic bias here. Teply (talk) 04:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Teply; seems to be a 'first' that will be hard to break, as there are only so many high places to build airports. 331dot (talk) 07:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Airports get built frequently enough so that new ones are not very exciting, but infrequently enough so that records of some kind are going to apply in a lot of cases. Highest, lowest, tallest, biggest, smallest, most expensive, longest, most passengers, slowest baggage handling - take your pick. I don't see what's so impressive about building something high up in any case. Unless the actual terrain is at sea-level. Then I'd be impressed. Formerip (talk) 10:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme altitude makes it hard for planes to land and take off. Thin air reduces the lift. This airport probably has to have unusually long runways and possibly even different glideslopes to account for the differences in aircraft performance. Jehochman Talk 12:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, hardly any newly-built airport breaks any kind of record. I don't recall ever seeing any airport make ITN (except when mentioned in passing in plane crashes or terrorist attacks). -Zanhe (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose Does not seem like a record worth posting. Previous highest airport was about 100m below this one... Is there anything here besides the airport being at high altitude? Also article is not in best of shape -- Ashish-g55 13:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose minor "feat", if you can call it that. There isn't any special significance or benefit for an airport being at a higher elevation, as far as I can tell. This seems more like an item for DYK if it can be expanded properly. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support famous first.Lihaas (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, as the very first airport would be the "first highest" /pedant. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. I don't think there's anything particularly notable about a one-runway airport that is at a slightly higher altitude than another airport. However, I am somewhat swayed by Jehochman's observations about the potential difficulty of constructing such an facility. If the article could be updated to reflect the challenges of this construction, showcasing why this is notable in the field, then I could see supporting the nomination. Teemu08 (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination is about the highest airport in the world, not the longest runway. Although at 4.2 km, Daocheng's runway is longer than most of the largest airport in the world including Atlanta, Beijing, and London Heathrow. This is because the very thin air at such high altitude poses challenges for planes to take off and land. -Zanhe (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, possibly not. But I'm not sure this story would provide a great antidote. Formerip (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At least a good antidote for Costa Concordia that is featured right now, which received near unanimous support without anyone questioning whether it's a "remarkable engineering feat". I don't know about others, but to me the "world's highest civilian airport" is more impressive a superlative than the "world's most expensive marine salvage operation". -Zanhe (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is I see a engineering challenge associated with height of a building and expense of a salvage operation. (Whether we have appropriately drawn the line with those two criteria is another story.) However, I don't see an engineering challenge with altitude for an airport, particularly when the airport is such a minor one. -- tariqabjotu 23:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I fail to see the engineering challenge associated with erecting the world's 73rd tallest building. The thing is we never applied that test to The Shard. -Zanhe (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, "whether we have appropriately drawn the line with those two criteria is another story". You may believe The Shard wasn't tall enough, but my point is height of a structure can be associated with engineering difficulty or innovation. I don't see altitude of an airport associated with difficulty or innovation; it's virtually the same airport, but higher. We probably wouldn't post the highest altitude high-rise building either. -- tariqabjotu 00:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was a bad post, but it's too late now. Or, if we are going to start a compensation scheme for that sort of thing, I would rather do it by giving the next British story a hard time than giving a free pass to a random Chinese story. Formerip (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Despite the accomplishment of building this airport, and the significance of connecting a city with a one hour jet flight to replace a two day bus ride, this news does not appear to have been widely reported. The target article is not particularly engaging. It's just a compilation of basic facts. I think this would be a great item for WP:DYK. "Did you know that the newly constructed Daocheng Yading Airport is the highest in the world?" Jehochman Talk 12:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Tariq. SpencerT♦C 07:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CSeries first flight

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Bombardier CSeries (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Bombardier CSeries aircraft completes its first flight in Montreal. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Bombardier CS100 aircraft completes its first test flight in Montreal.
News source(s): CBC Reuters
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: These first flights are "one in many years" event. New aircraft are quite rare nowadays and the last narrowbody aircraft prior to this one was launched a long time ago (1986). Plus we have a freely licensed image to accompany this blurb. ---- OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Hurricane/storm in mexico

[edit]
Articles: Hurricane Ingrid (2013) (talk · history · tag) and Tropical Storm Manuel (2013) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Hurricane Ingrid and Tropical Storm Manuel kill at least 40 people in Mexico. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters BBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: I was not going to nominate this but when the sources use the term "Historic Flooding" and two major storm hitting from each side at same time kill 34 people we have to post this. Especially since we posted Colorado floods... even if its just to avoid systemic bias. These storms have clearly caused more problems and obviously Colorado floods will get more attention in media but ITN should give equal. Please change blurb as required -- Ashish-g55 22:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC) ---- Ashish-g55 22:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

well i said below i would be ok for posting both... but since nobody nominated it i had no choice (infact you yourself encouraged others to nominate). Lowering bias isnt about making a point... if we start thinking like that then we would be too afraid to nominate anything that goes against systemic bias. -- Ashish-g55 23:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, you said you weren't going to nominate this but did in part because "we posted Colorado floods". There certainly are other reasons to nominate this and support this but the way this nom was worded seemed pointy to me. I accept that wasn't your intent, but that is just how it seemed to me. 331dot (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to think that Ashish is trying to discredit anything (which is what pointyness is about); he just wants it applied without systemic bias. Neljack (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't say that, did I. μηδείς (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"[the deaths] are small numbers compared to events like Hurricane Mitch". If you didn't say that, your comment is ambiguous enough. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for that claim? It sounds extremely unlikely. μηδείς (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
pick your ref, do you need more? Because simple common sense indicates that is "extremely unlikely" these events happen. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Without wishing to take sides in what feels like an argument rather than a discussion - there has been at least one instance of 3 named storms making landfall on Mexico within a 5 day stretch before now.Jason Rees (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why it would be "common sense". Mexico is bordered by two oceans and September is the height of the hurricane season, at least in the Atlantic. Sure, I can easily see it being uncommon, but I'm surprised it's the first time ever. -- tariqabjotu 18:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its the first time in the Satellite Era that 2 tropical storms have hit, within a day or so of each other. However Larry, Olaf 2003 made landfall on Mexico as tropical storms on October 5 and 7 while Nora struck as a tropical depression on October 9, 2003.Jason Rees (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Washington Navy Yard shooting

[edit]
Article: Washington Navy Yard shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least twelve people are shot to death at the Washington Navy Yard. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Will clearly need updates and blurb refinement when details become clearer. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) oppose per article quality and the frequency of these shootings in USA dont make it notable. As in bombings in some places, if some 30-40 people die then yes (and macabre thought that)Lihaas (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Frequency of assaults on military bases? Name two not involving Jihadists. (PS, wait for details as of the moment, rather than judging ahead of the facts, pro or con.) μηδείς (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't fair. He is referring to general mass shootings, and not those specifically by muslims. Sandy Hook is a prime and very recent example of what he is talking about, and I'm sort of remembering a smaller shooting a few months ago... EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 17:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not referring to shootings by Muslims, but to plots against military targets. The incidents I can think of since 9/11 happen to involve jihadis, the Fort Dix terrorist plot, the Fort Hood shootings and the 2009 Little Rock recruiting office shooting. I suggest we not confuse Muslims with jihadis, and wait for the facts here before expressing support or opposition. μηδείς (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight oppose. While the news coverage is certainly there, the US has become a breeding ground of sorts for this kind of event in the past few years, and therefore it really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Considering we turn down other shootings / bombings worldwide because of their frequency in said area, I don't think this story should be spared that criticism. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 17:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, we already do. We dont bombings in Iraq/Pakistan that kill dozens..Lihaas (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moot point. Spree shootings in the U.S. aren't nearly as common as bombings in Iraq and Pakistan.--NortyNort (Holla) 19:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9/11 Neljack (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Neljack: None of the 9|11 attacks were in Washington, D.C. -- tariqabjotu 23:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I forgot the Pentagon is in Virginia. It's still in the metropolitan area though. Neljack (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - highly notable. -Zanhe (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As Eric says, we turn down bombings etc that kill more people than this on the basis that they are common in the country where they occur. I don't see why the same reasoning shouldn't apply to shootings in the US. The unfortunately reality is that that the mass murder of a dozen people is quite common in the world. Being in the US does not mean that it is more important that it would be in Iraq or Nigeria. If the death toll rises to 20 or so, I would be inclined to change my mind. Neljack (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The difference is between a country/region where there current exists political unrest with open and daily violence that unfortunately often hurts innocents (our stickies), and in a country where there's no open violence and there is a large attack against civilians. The US may have gun problems and people die every day from them, but a mass gun attack like this is rare, and thus why it gets covered. --MASEM (t) 23:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Certainly prominent in the news, and the article is not terrible. --Jayron32 00:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Mass shootings in the US are too common. It seems like one every month or two. In the news should be for unusual or notable events, not another US mass shooting.Martin451 (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is in the top dozen shootings in the last century. Every other month is sloppy math. Can we base our votes here on something a little more secure than a vague opinion of America, please. μηδείς (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Martin is in fact correct. There has been more than a mass shooting every month in the US over the past four years.[15]. Note that he did not say a shooting that kills this many people, he said a mass shooting. Neljack (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some actual relevant point to that? This is apparently the eleventh or twelfth worst shooting in US history, regardless of undefined claims that other shootings have occurred. You'll note above various people, including myself, suggesting we wait for the facts. We certainly have enough now. μηδείς (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is the 17th mass shooting (4 or more victims) in the US this year, that's 2 a month.Martin451 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, don't even waste your breath. It's a US topic, therefore it will always get through ITN. It's the unwritten rule. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 06:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of just criticizing widely covered 'in the news' topics because they are from the US ("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.") why don't you search for non-US related events to nominate? 331dot (talk) 07:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not criticising but making the observation (as above) that these shootings are a monthly occurrence and thus they do not justify FP prominence. Those that take place on military bases are no special case as firearms aren't exactly out of place. ;-) It's not our job to "find" non-USA news items as what happens in the world is largely beyond anyone's control. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Colorado floods

[edit]
Article: 2013 Colorado floods (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A monsoonal flood in Colorado kills five people and leaves several missing. (Post)
News source(s): [16], [17] Le Monde NBC News Times of India
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Multi-hundred-year flooding event.[18] Hundreds reported missing in previous days[19] --~AH1 (discuss!) 15:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Flooding disaster in an area not typically known for flooding; large helicopter rescue operation, thousands of displaced people, significant infrastructure damage. Making news outside the US as well. 331dot (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this wouldn't be news in 99.9999% of other locations. There's no great article or really anything encyclopedic to say, other than that people died due to rains. μηδείς (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Meanhile 21 Mexicans are confirmed dead. μηδείς (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not just that a few have died; 1200 people are missing, thousands are displaced, 19,000 homes damaged or destroyed, significant infrastructure damage, second largest helicopter rescue operation in US history(first being Katrina) This is being covered outside of the US, including the UK, France, even in the Times of India. I certainly do hear about other similar floods in other areas; if you want to see them nominated, do so. 331dot (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I most certainly do not want to see other floods nominated. This is an encyclopedia, not a daily disaster blog. μηδείς (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a disaster blog, but this is "in the news", which this flooding clearly is, around the world. As Jayron states below, part of the role of ITN is to direct readers to articles or information they might be coming here to learn about. 331dot (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite aware there are dozens of stories "in the news" every day. This is simply not a story that will be of interest to encyclopedia readers of the future, as compared to historical firsts. The story is not encyclopedic. I will grant if any significant portion of those 1200 is dead, it will be bigger news. But this is certainly a total based on a number reported to police because cell phone service is out, or based on estimates. When a hundred dozen or even four dozen bodies are found this can be revisited. As it is it pales in comparison to the Mexico story, which should also not be posted. μηδείς (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of where it says this page is to post news stories that will be of interest in the future; it is for posting news stories of interest to people now. Even if that is true, how do you know what will be of interest to people in the future? 331dot (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further, the WP:ITN page's first line states "The In the news (ITN) section on the main page serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest", not mentioning potential interest in the distant future. 331dot (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have there been similar instances of floods in atypical areas not being posted? With thousands of displaced, millions in infrastructure damage, and thousands of damaged homes? 331dot (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether or not this particular item would have been posted if it had occurred elsewhere is not a reason for or against this particular item being posted. Are you saying that you do not think this item of this significance in general rises to the level of posting, regardless of where it occurs? Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I thought was obvious from what Medeis said, I wouldn't support it being posted if it occurred elsewhere either. And whether it would be posted if it occurred elsewhere is a relevant consideration, given the importance of addressing systemic bias. If I believe that the posting of an item would be an example of systemic bias, I am entitled to point that out. Despite the complaints about such arguments, there has never been any consensus here to disallow them. Neljack (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Costa Concordia salvage

[edit]
Articles: Costa Concordia disaster (talk · history · tag) and Costa Concordia (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The world's most expensive marine salvage operation (fails to) right the Costa Concordia wreck. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The world's most expensive marine salvage operation frees the Costa Concordia shipwreck.
News source(s): BBC NBC News CNN Le Monde "Upright"
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: This operation is costing something like $800,000,000 and is called "unprecedented". I am just mentioning it here in case somebody wants to update the article, which sorely needs it. Also, I imagine there will be people taking pictures and uploading them to WikiMedia. --Abductive (reasoning) 06:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lets be pedantic...there is @NO" news source proivided ;)Lihaas (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --LukeSurl t c 09:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support when a result is known. This is the top story (or near the top) in many outlets; largest operation of its kind ever attempted. 331dot (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The blrubs are slightly odd. The story here is really that "World's most expensive salvage operation has begun" or something similar. The full procedure will likely take lots of time. i'll Support none the less as it does seem to interest a lot of people -- Ashish-g55 14:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The salvage operation will be ongoing for months. First they right the vessel, then float it, then tow it to Sicily, and break it up for scrap. What's the major milestone? Currently the parbuckling of the vessel is "in the news". I think we should report this, as the subsequent developments will probably be less dramatic. This is probably the peak coverage. I've tweaked the blurb so that it pretty closely matches the BBC report. Jehochman Talk 15:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, the sources say that getting it into the cradle is the clincher. Follow the money; €520,000,000 spent on building the cradle and other systems involved in righting the ship into the cradle. Abductive (reasoning) 15:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I agree that this is the notable moment, and not the actual towing or scrapping of the vessel. They can't move it unless they refloat it, and a failure to do so would result in a large environmental disaster. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 15

[edit]
September 15, 2013 (2013-09-15) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Politics
Sports

William Ruto

[edit]
Article: William Ruto (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Trial begins at the ICC against Kenya's Deputy President William Ruto and radio presenter Joshua Sang for crimes against humanity. (Post)
News source(s): The Telegraph CNN
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: I know four days have passed but this is important for my country Kenya, even the President has been indicted. -- Kiplimo Kenya (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait we usually post verdicts, not the beginnings of trials. This should be renominated when the trial ends. Also, a five sentence update on the trial would be needed to mark the article as updated--that should best be done when the trial is over and sentencing is passed, not now. μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. I have no problem with waiting for the end of the trial, but in this case we have a sitting Deputy President (essentially a Vice President) on trial at the ICC, which is a rare event indeed(and would be even if it was a national trial) and as such I would support posting now. 331dot (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arrests, perhaps, and verdicts, but I can't think of a single "trial begins" that's ever been posted. Given both the verdict and the arrest are more notable than the opening of arguments posting this would imply all criminal prosecutions should be posted three times, at least. μηδείς (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree, but what is notable here is that (quoting The Telegraph) this is the "first sitting deputy head of state to go on trial at the International Criminal Court". This isn't just an average trial. 331dot (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Salustiano Sanchez

[edit]
Article: Salustiano Sanchez (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  World's oldest man Salustiano Sanchez dies at 112. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: world's oldest man died --Gfosankar (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - oldest living man, but quite far off the oldest living person. Far from the all-time longevity record for men. Not ITN-levels of noteworthy in terms of longevity. --LukeSurl t c 14:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there's been a rather odd inconsistency to this, with other nominations shoed in. I am not sure why we would even nominate these in the first place unless they are an absolute record-breaker. μηδείς (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A man who was rather unremarkable died. The only reason he was notable was because he lived to be pretty old. If I recall correctly, James McCoubrey was not listed here either. (Quick summary: McCoubrey was thought to be the oldest man alive at his death, until Sanchez was verified.) Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I must agree with what other people have said here. If we were talking about the death of the oldest person ever, I'd be arguing for a full blurb. However, this person doesn't even hold the record for the longest-living man. If we posted him, we'd have to post every single time the next holder of oldest man dies, and the turnover is rather frequent as you can imagine. Redverton (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is being covered in the news, but precedent here seems to be that only the death of the documented longest-lived human of all time would warrant posting on ITN. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agni V

[edit]
Article: Agni-V (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ India successfully test fires the Agni-V missile. (Post)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Not sure if this is ITNR but sich a long range missile test is notable Lihaas (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vuelta

[edit]
Article: 2013 Vuelta a España (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In cycling, American Chris Horner, wins Vuelta a España, becoming the oldest winner of a Grand Tour. (Post)
Credits:

-EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 07:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 15

[edit]
September 15, 2013 (2013-09-15) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Politics
Sports

William Ruto

[edit]
Article: William Ruto (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Trial begins at the ICC against Kenya's Deputy President William Ruto and radio presenter Joshua Sang for crimes against humanity. (Post)
News source(s): The Telegraph CNN
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: I know four days have passed but this is important for my country Kenya, even the President has been indicted. -- Kiplimo Kenya (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait we usually post verdicts, not the beginnings of trials. This should be renominated when the trial ends. Also, a five sentence update on the trial would be needed to mark the article as updated--that should best be done when the trial is over and sentencing is passed, not now. μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. I have no problem with waiting for the end of the trial, but in this case we have a sitting Deputy President (essentially a Vice President) on trial at the ICC, which is a rare event indeed(and would be even if it was a national trial) and as such I would support posting now. 331dot (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arrests, perhaps, and verdicts, but I can't think of a single "trial begins" that's ever been posted. Given both the verdict and the arrest are more notable than the opening of arguments posting this would imply all criminal prosecutions should be posted three times, at least. μηδείς (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree, but what is notable here is that (quoting The Telegraph) this is the "first sitting deputy head of state to go on trial at the International Criminal Court". This isn't just an average trial. 331dot (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Salustiano Sanchez

[edit]
Article: Salustiano Sanchez (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  World's oldest man Salustiano Sanchez dies at 112. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: world's oldest man died --Gfosankar (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - oldest living man, but quite far off the oldest living person. Far from the all-time longevity record for men. Not ITN-levels of noteworthy in terms of longevity. --LukeSurl t c 14:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there's been a rather odd inconsistency to this, with other nominations shoed in. I am not sure why we would even nominate these in the first place unless they are an absolute record-breaker. μηδείς (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A man who was rather unremarkable died. The only reason he was notable was because he lived to be pretty old. If I recall correctly, James McCoubrey was not listed here either. (Quick summary: McCoubrey was thought to be the oldest man alive at his death, until Sanchez was verified.) Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I must agree with what other people have said here. If we were talking about the death of the oldest person ever, I'd be arguing for a full blurb. However, this person doesn't even hold the record for the longest-living man. If we posted him, we'd have to post every single time the next holder of oldest man dies, and the turnover is rather frequent as you can imagine. Redverton (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is being covered in the news, but precedent here seems to be that only the death of the documented longest-lived human of all time would warrant posting on ITN. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agni V

[edit]
Article: Agni-V (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ India successfully test fires the Agni-V missile. (Post)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Not sure if this is ITNR but sich a long range missile test is notable Lihaas (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vuelta

[edit]
Article: 2013 Vuelta a España (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In cycling, American Chris Horner, wins Vuelta a España, becoming the oldest winner of a Grand Tour. (Post)
Credits:

-EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 07:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 13

[edit]
September 13, 2013 (2013-09-13) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections

[Posted] 2012 Delhi gang rape case defendants given death sentence

[edit]
Article: 2012 Delhi gang rape case (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The four adult defendants in the 2012 Delhi gang rape case have been given the death penalty. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ An Indian court sentences the four adult defendants in the 2012 Delhi gang rape case to death.
News source(s): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-24078339
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Reports of the initial crime triggered widespread protests in India and drew attention to the social status of women in that country. Nominating now since the trial is over. --It Is Me Here t / c 09:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as per nom, others above, and previous discussions. --LukeSurl t c 11:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting Jehochman Talk 11:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an article Capital punishment in India which might be a better link. --LukeSurl t c 12:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post Blurb Posting - Strong Support I had nominated the article way back in December 2011 for ITN. Considering the gravity of the crime committed, the widespread global media coverage the incident had received and the subsequent protests and public debate on rape laws made it an ITN blurb. Nirabhay (Delhi Braveheart) losing the fight with her life resulted in the rewordings to the blurb. I am posting my comment now as people may contest that the journey ain't over -> Supreme Court->President of India->Challenge to the President Order in the Supreme Court->Final Hanging....a long process. The article is not updated in many sense. Take for instance: the mother of braveheart receiving a presidential award for the extraordinary courage displayed by her daughter, Christiane Lagarde beginning her Davos speech by referring to the courage of the Malala of Pakistan and the Braveheart of India, President of India mentioning the incident twice in the television speeches- once during the Christmas eve address to the nation and later during the New Year eve, parents receiving an posthumous award from Hillary Clinton... and the list goes on. The article would receive global coverage as it marks an important event in the lifecycle of the journey. My comment is for those who may oppose its posting or ask for a pull request.Regards, theTigerKing  17:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
can we remove the silly "2012" from the blurb. That's more for article title differentiation and looks silly there as its not a proper noun. Link to the page ocfcourse but don't show that.Lihaas (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm normally against including years. But when referring to a non-current event, it is not uncommon to include the year. This is particularly true when the event is as generic as "Delhi rape case". At least point them in the right temporal direction (ah... yes, I remember hearing about that case last year...). -- tariqabjotu 18:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Attention needed] [Ready] Issus has interlocking gears on legs

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Issus (genus) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Mechanical gears evolved by insects of the issus genus. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Insects of the genus Issus are the first animals found to have evolved multi-cellular gears for use in locomotion.
News source(s): the Independent National Geographic NBC News
Credits:

Article updated

 EdwardLane (talk) 08:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is huge news if you know anything about biology. No circular or gear structure has been discovered at a level above the flagellum or cilium prior to this. If it has, let's see the source, FIP. μηδείς (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't believe the hype. This structure is not a full 360° gear. Abductive (reasoning) 23:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed altblurb per Ericleb01. μηδείς (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand (although strongly disagree with) opposing this on a judgment of notability, but my comment shouldn't be construed as disparaging the claim based on a lack of full 360 degree circularity. They are indubitably gears, and indubitably a unique discovery on a multicellular level. μηδείς (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discovery should not be parsed by distinguishing between single-celled and multicellular life forms. The gear are not "loose" within the organism. They are (if I had to guess) derived from and quite similar to the stridulatory organs seen in crickets. So people should not believe that these are like the rotating gears in a car or anything like that. I direct this comment at people such as User:Patar knight who are confused enough to make wildly incorrect statements like "Very big in evolutionary theory." Abductive (reasoning) 05:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel this is not important or notable, that is your privilege, but most would seem to disagree; the NatGeo article refers to this as "astounding" and is described as "This is to our knowledge the first time that proper, engaging, counter-rotating gears have been seen in the animal kingdom.". Patar knight's statement is not unreasonable. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That quote, "This is to our knowledge the first time that proper, engaging, counter-rotating gears have been seen in the animal kingdom." is from one of the discoverers and is HORRENDOUSLY UNRELIABLE. How dare you attempt to sway the debate by putting it here. Abductive (reasoning) 15:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the discoverers get their discovery published in Science I would say they are reliable. How should supporters convince people except by pointing out the exceptionality of the discovery by quoting or referencing relevant sources? 88.88.162.176 (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was a big thing when it was discovered that the spiral flagella of bacteria have a wheel mechanism, a first. This is the first discovery of gears at the multicellular level. I'll consult with an engineer later to see what the technical terms are. I am fairly certain a gear doesn't have to be a circular cog. In any case, the terminology doesn't matter. If Abductive wants to claim this is no big deal it's incumbent on him to provide sources that show that this is not a first. He can't expect us to prove a negative in light of his personally argued objections. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(to abductive) It is not "horrendously unreliable" to claim that "to their knowledge" something is the first to be discovered. If they are in error, I await your posting of evidence of that, as does most of the worldwide media. "How dare you attempt to sway" the debate with your uncited personal opinion. 331dot (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please post, this has two-to-one support and the article is updated. μηδείς (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The update, for a new article, seems poor. A second opinion would be great. -- tariqabjotu 15:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unless one starts making stuff up there's nothing much left to add to the article, which is basically a list, in regard to the discovery. Note the article has gone from the merest stub to having three full paragraphs as well as a five sentence update on the gear mechanism. μηδείς (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is what the criteria say constitutes the minimum for a new article. The neglect this nomination and article have faced over the past couple days seems to suggest this is less news and more along the lines of "oh, that's cool". -- tariqabjotu 17:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Oh, that's cool" hardly conflicts with our stated purpose: "To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them." This is not a "new, event-specific article". I am not a new support. I have commented on this case earlier from a very different IP. 62.249.160.249 (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I understand Tariq'a objection in concrete terms. Whether you take this as a new or an updated article it has been expanded to fulfill both the three paragraph and three new sources requirement. Within biology it's a huge new discovery, a mechanism once thought unique to human engineering. μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a few more sentences and a link to gear. Please post this, there's no reason for it to fall off the queue. μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD - Ray Dolby

[edit]
Article: Ray Dolby (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Sound engineer Roy Dolby dies (Post)
News source(s): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24075429 (BBC)
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Could be happy with a blurb but am putting this forward as an RD --doktorb wordsdeeds 00:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 12

[edit]
September 12, 2013 (2013-09-12) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Religion
Science and technology

[Posted] Voyager 1 leaves the solar system

[edit]
Article: Voyager 1 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Voyager 1 becomes the first man-made object to leave the Solar System. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ NASA confirms that on August 25, 2012 Voyager 1 became the first man-made object to reach interstellar space.
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Pretty self explanatory... will provide reasoning if i see opposes (which i doubt). Article needs updating though. Post with the picture please. ---- Ashish-g55 18:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment third nom is the charm? The article has a one-sentence update. μηδείς (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit the page This belongs here. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 19:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I know it's an essay and not a policy, but per WP:Proseline, the #Heliopause section makes me want to run into a wall. Why are the dates bolded? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't we already discuss this multiple times before in the past? I don't know if we posted it or not, but very few months or so the popular press picks up on some arbitrary milestone as "leaving the solar system"; Voyager 1 has already "left the solar system" multiple times in the past, depending on whatever fuzzy boundary you are defining as the edge of the solar system. It's has been, is now, and will be for the foreseeable future the farthest man-made object from earth. Unless that particular distinction changes, there's nothing particularly noteworthy about an object moving away from us getting farther away. That's what it does. All the time. Breaking its own record for distance will continue to happen every second of every day, and we don't need to report these arbitrary milestones merely because some it was a slow day at the science desk of some newspaper and so they felt the need to remind us of Voyager 1. --Jayron32 19:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving solar system always meant entering interstellar space since there is nothing beyond that but next star. Yes there were milestones like entering/exiting heliopause, bow shock etc. but this particular milestone is FAR from arbitrary... -- Ashish-g55 19:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dont understand your oppose... how is "exiting the heliopause" itn worthy but not "reaching interstellar space". NASA specifically announced it in those words because that is what happened. How is it vague? -- Ashish-g55 20:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is this exact same item's third nomination. It has been posted once and rejected once due to the inherent obscurity in the definition of "solar system" and the moment an object crosses its border. This still holds, and one ITN mention for one and the same event is enough. Would obviously support this if it was April 1, though. --hydrox (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternate blurb. It is factually correct and a very notable event. --Philpill691 (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close this is stale. As TRM's Nat Geo source mentions above this is simply confirmation of the news we posted last summer when it was first released. This has become a joke, see Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead. μηδείς (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a link? I think you are confusing two different things. This is the first time that scientific confirmation has been published. It's like a crime that happened a year ago, and the court just declared the verdict. It's news. Jehochman Talk 22:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I like that analogy, and I wholeheartedly agree. Girona7 (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A link to what? To the article's talk page where it says this was listed on ITN last summer, which I supported? Or a link to The Rmabling Man's post above in this very same thread where he links to the Nat Geo article explaining that today's announcement by NASA is confirmation of last August's story? Why should I provide links to links that have already been provided? μηδείς (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Even though this is confirmation of an earlier report, this is how science works. Many people did not comment on the event last year because it was as yet not confirmed. Many outlets around the world are already covering this news today, and it will be news over the next few days. I think Wikipedia should cover it, too. Lastly, there are many people who do not check Wikipedia every day. For those who may have missed it -- and even for those who may have caught it -- I think this is important enough to repeat, with the clear update about the confirmation. Girona7 (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this is about the tenth time it has been announced - the problem is that nobody really knows where the edge of the Solar system is, and new regions have been discovered after it has been announced. This might actually be the "real" one, but it's already been announced far too many times. --W. D. Graham 23:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bloody hell I was going to suggest this when I got home from work, I'm glad I didn't now. Support if it makes any difference. Facepalm Facepalm Black Kite (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose without mention of the metric used to verify it has left the Solar System; per Phil Plait, "I'll note there is some argument over what constitutes the boundary of the solar system.". Sceptre (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We posted when this left the heliosphere, and it seems at this point each further announcement is another arbitrary measurement, similar to other nominations about the price of gold reaching $500, then $1000, then €1000 and so forth. The whole accomplishment is that it's been further than anything else, and we've posted that already. SpencerT♦C 00:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The oppose votes include original research or other irrelevant logic. What matters is hat this event is currently in the news. Jehochman Talk 00:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's nonsense, Jehochman, the Nat Geo source has been provided to you above by TRM, please read it. It says today's formal paper confirms the announcement Voyager left the solar system last August 25th, which we posted at that time. The current blurbs are stale and falsely imply this is happening now, not a year ago. Have you read that source or not? μηδείς (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what you refer to. Can you post a link to our prior blurb. I think you have confused different things. Jehochman Talk 01:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Prior blurb can be found here (the previous nom). SpencerT♦C 01:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
--SpencerT♦C 01:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much for that list! Reaching the heliosphere (June 2012) is clearly different from what is being reported now, reaching interstellar space. The unposted items are irrelevant; they were correctly not posted. The May 2005 ITN about the Heliopause relates to an inner layer, not the same either. The solar system has layers. It is newsworthy, very much so, each time Voyager's instruments detect a new layer. This is experimental confirmation of what otherwise is just theory, very exciting stuff for scientists. We need to avoid hyped, imprecise language like "leaving the solar system". We can post the current news about reaching interstellar space (exiting the heliosphere), and then some time between now and 2025 +/- 5 years we will probably post that Voyager 1 has ceased communicating, whenever that happens. If Voyager 1 happens to stumble upon something really interesting and unanticipated in the meanwhile, I am sure we will figure out what to do. Okay? Jehochman Talk 02:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters this March, also about the data from 25 August 2012. The New York Times story in the nomination mentions a Science article from yesterday; the Science abstract says that on 9 April 2013 there was the first observation of a phenomenon indicating Voyager had crossed the heliopause. Support if the new Science article, which NASA waited for, is mentioned along with the NASA announcement. —rybec 03:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt blurb. What's notable here is really that Voyager 1 has entered interstellar space, so that should be the focus of the blurb. Entering interstellar space is not "arbitrary" as if saying it reached a certain distance is; there are certain qualities about interstellar space that don't exist within the System. And lastly, whether it was posted a year ago or not, this is "in the news" and this item is in the news now. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • support alt blurb my initial concerns have been alleviated by other supports that have explained the significance of this event. --Jayron32 11:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to opposers: do you guys realize that scientific discoveries are made well in advance before their report? For example the DNA of lemurs is studied months before news of new lemur species are published in the literature, and we usually wait for the peer review part to put stuff on ITN. Support. Nergaal (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Open the pod bay doors, Hal Support. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I seriously didnt think there will be any opposes to this, since last time this was nominated it was not NASA that announced it. And decision was to wait. Not sure why people are calling it stale news or that this happened long ago... it took a year for them to verify and release the information. Before NASA officially verifies anything, its all speculation hence previous noms were not posted. Every news media out there still has this or atleast had it on front page. IMO its a pretty big accomplishment to reach interstellar space and should be posted -- Ashish-g55 13:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: Why don't we make it "NASA confirms..." instead of "NASA announces..."? That is what is particularly newsworthy, and it answers any questions as to why Wikipedia would mention it again after initial reports that it had happened... Girona7 (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support along similar lines to the second half of Bongwarrior's argument. I question why we posted last year, but beyond the technicality TRM raises I see no good reason not to post this one (and it is a technicality, because we're either damned for prematurely nominating what we think has happened, or we are damned because verification took too long). The only grounds for a future nomination in our lifetimes would be permanent loss of power/communication, or if our current understanding of what lies beyond the solar system is show to be way off.

    As an aside, it's nice to strike a perennial topic off of the list. Now we just need to sort out Gibraltar, Lionel Messi, transatlantic race rows, and deaths.—WFC— FL wishlist 16:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong support. Major milestone, regardless of how 'obscure' you think it is, this is the first time mankind has left the Solar System. Even the previous naysayers now agree that Voyager 1 has passed all the boundaries, regardless of which definition is used. It's also passed the peer reviewed paper threshold - this isn't just a press release. Major coverage in all serious media outlets. Modest Genius talk 17:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Medeis. The revised blurb is no better; just the same (nonspecific, almost impossible to precisely define) event described in different words. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 17:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support This is clearly a significant achievement, and this seems like it's the real deal this time. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have been mulling this over, seeing as we have had some opposition, but in the end I am convinced that this is a news item that is truly worthy of ITN... international in scope, astonishing in content, and an inspiring tribute to those responsible for this 40 year mission. By the way, the coverage has been strong in the media, and is on the front page of my LA Times today. The concerns expressed are noted but it is time to give this item an ITN blurb. Jusdafax 22:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Support - This is merely a confirmation, and that's when news articles go on the front page. It definitely deserves a place - this is historic. Decentman12 talk 18:43, 13 September 2013 (EST)
  • Could we post this already, please? Jehochman Talk 11:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this one is for the ages. Nsk92 (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 14:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian chemical weapons deal

[edit]
Article: 2013 Ghouta attacks (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, in an interview with Russian TV, agrees to a Russian-sponsored plan to place his country's chemical weapons under international control. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In Geneva, the United States and Russia announce an agreement to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons.
News source(s): BBC [22], Guardian [23], London Times [24], Die Welt (in German) [25]
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: If implemented in conjunction with the major international players — Russia, the U.S., UK and France — the plan would avert a threatened U.S. military strike against Syrian government forces, leading to de-escalation of the Syrian crisis spawned by chemical-weapons attacks on civilians at Ghouta on Aug. 21, 2013 Sca (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, the Russian-sponsored plan probably should have its own article.
As to waiting, I think the fact that Assad reportedly has publicly agreed to international control is itself significant; in his interview with Charlie Rose on Sept. 9 he refused to even confirm that Syria had chemical weapons. Sca (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Sept. 14 — In Geneva, the U.S. and Russia agree on a plan to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons, ending with their complete destruction by mid-2014. Reuters: [28] BBC: [29] AP: [30] Guardian: [31] London Times: [32] NYT: [33]
After three and a half weeks of international wrangling, this would seem a crucial breakthrough and should be posted now.
— Sca (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 11

[edit]
September 11, 2013 (2013-09-11) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Law & crime
Politics
Sports
[edit]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Article: Rajesh P.N. Rao (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Two University of Washington researchers, Andrea Stocco and Rajesh Rao, use EEG and transcranial magnetic stimulation in an attempt to link each other's brains, claiming that one person controlled the movement of the other's hands. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Indian Express, Discovery, Washington Post, Times of India
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: possibilities of this should be obvious  --—rybec 18:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb revised. —rybec 19:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] California city to establish agency to buy out mortgages

[edit]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Article: Richmond, California (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Richmond, California, city council votes to set up an agency that would use eminent domain to purchase mortgages, becoming the first government to approve such a plan. (Post)
News source(s): AP, Bloomberg, Businessweek, Mother Jones, CBS, Forbes, August Reuters story, Reuters story, Los Angeles Times, Bloomberg again, another Bloomberg story, Forbes again, Time, 4th Bloomberg piece, 2nd Los Angeles Times story, USA Today from August, San Francisco Chronicle from August, Al Jazeera, Al Jazeera #2, yet another Forbes story, the Socialist Worker, Forbes #4, Huffington Post, Washington Post
Credits:

Article updated
 --—rybec 19:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose given this is an impairment of contract Contract Clause, it is forbidden by the US Constitution, and would likely be stayed, appealed, and overturned were it actually put into effect. μηδείς (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Although a Wikipedia user's legal opinion is not relevant to its newsworthiness, I oppose this as there is no guarantee this will happen, as it states they don't have the votes to seize mortgages even though they did to approve the program. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I'm pretty sure this was approved a while ago by (a town in?) another state. Also, of marginal interest in the US, let alone anywhere else. Abductive (reasoning) 21:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is not an illegitimate nomination. If the news item actually were to succeed it would be huge news in the US, again see Contract Clause. I oppose the nom since I don't think it would get beyond the local council vote. Local councils vote all the time for rather bizarre Biblical and anti-science or anti-state/federal constitution stuff. That being said, if this is to be closed it should be done using the {{archive top|reason}} {{archivebottom}} template or the {{hat|reason}} {{hab}} template if it's closed with prejudice. μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: this story in the San Francisco Bay Guardian says there was another vote during the same meeting, in which five councillors were "against a resolution to rescind the city's offer to purchase 624 underwater mortgages and halt any effort by the city to seize those mortgages through eminent domain." In response to Abductive, I've added additional news sources. I had assumed that the AP story and the sources in the article would show wide coverage. The AP story calls it a "first-in-the-nation plan" and other stories make the same claim. Whether it's been done in other countries, I don't know. The blurb could say "first in the U.S." —rybec 04:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have reopened the nomination for time for more consideration. SpencerT♦C 06:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closed - really, per WP:SNOW. This doesn't have any chance of passing, 0% chance. The nomination clearly states why this does not meet the ITN criteria. Preliminary movements towards something that might or might not happen are not suitable for ITN. Jehochman Talk 12:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Anna Lindh assassination

[edit]
fix awkward closure, can still be hatted entirely μηδείς (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Proposed image
Article: Anna Lindh (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Sweden marks the ten year Anniversary of the assassination and death of minister for foreign affairs Anna Lindh. (Post)
News source(s): [34],[35], [36]
Credits:

Article needs updating
 BabbaQ (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only an american can link 9/11 attacks to the assassination of Anna Lindh.. btw. Other things happens in the world..even if America was the victim of that tragedy.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus Christ this American bashing is ridiculous. Check your calendar. The connection is the anniversary, and I was opposing any "anniversaries". – Muboshgu (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You want another non-9/11 reason for an oppose? The update is one sentence, the article is barely sourced, and it's appropriately orange tagged. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only one having an "American agenda" here seems to be you.. geez relax.. I am not going to respond to your erratics anymore.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're the editor who nominated the Stockholm Syndrome anniversary right? I guess you're Swedish and nominating from that perspective, which is fine. My opposition was straight against any post having to do with an anniversary, and given that I can see One World Trade Center out of my living room window, the fact that today is September 11 is not lost on me. After all of the cries of "American bias!!!111!" I've seen on this page, I don't like seeing my nationality brought up here, as it isn't relevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you see La Moneda Palace on this anniversary? Then Sept 11 will not be lost on you...terrorism works in cleansing a democratic sovereign regime ;)Lihaas (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose BabbaQ, Lord knows I agree that ITN overall is too U.S-centric, but this behaviour of yours is silly. Of course an anniversary like this won't be put up, and it's not because it isn't an American story either. What is notable about the anniversary in of itself? Nothing. It's just 10 years. An arbitrary number. Anniversaries like could only be appropriate for OTD. Furthermore, whilst I absolutely won't tell you what you can and can't nominate, if you're going to put up anniversaries like this and that Stockholm Syndrome stuff - that you really should know by now aren't going to get put up - only to follow up with a round of America bashing, I think you need to rethink your priorities here. And no, once again, I'm not an American, so you can't accuse me of defending an agenda. Redverton (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redverton, your accusations are kind of silly and definitly unfounded. I only nominated news here and instantly got this "American agenda"-comment by Mubosghu, why would I otherwise mention America at all if Mubosghu had not brought it up again. Mubosghu has to move on from our previous Stockholm Syndrom/Norrmalmstorg robbery discussion which he still seems to think about for whatever reason and not bring it up everytime I nominate something, simple and clear. Also I have never said that Anna Lindh wont be on ITN just because it isnt an american story so do not put words in my mouth thank you. To respond to your actual vote I say you are ofcourse entitled to that and I think it is disrespectful of you to insinuate that I was going to attack you for it..--BabbaQ (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I will no respond and totally ignore any similar kind of nonsense accusations. --BabbaQ (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could try, but I think they prepare that in advance and only normally update for errors. Formerip (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that is possible this year atleast. But good suggestion.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OTD/SA requires, among other things, highlighted articles to be properly sourced. The {{refimprove}} on top of the Anna Lindh will need to be dealt with properly before the assasination can appear on OTD. As part of the normal ITN update process, Howcheng is fairly good about checking previously suggested articles to see if they have had any deficiencies corrected (ineligible and unused suggestions are kept in the "staging area" of the days OTD page). Anyone truly interested in seeing Lindh mentioned on the Main page thus has just under a year to correct problems with her current article. --Allen3 talk 14:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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] Catalan Way

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Catalan Way (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ More than one million Catalans link up in human chain for the independence of Catalonia. (Post)
News source(s): The Washingont Post, BBC, FT, Guardian, WSJ, CNN, Time
Credits:

Article updated

 --Davidpar (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Pulling I thought posting this was highly premature. I also would probably still vote support. But I am a pro-Catalan partisan. The issue I see is verifying the number of participants. I won't call for pulling, and if we do pull I would want the option of a very swift reposting. Past procedure has been not to post a nomination so swiftly unless it has at least four supports on top of the nominator and no opposes. This had three when it went up. We still have majority support, so a pull seems premature. But I can't objectively add myself to the supports yet. BTW, I have strongly supported and participated in updating prior pro-independence Catalonian nominations. μηδείς (talk) 02:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support continued posting unless it is revealed that the number in the chain has been vastly overstated. Abductive (reasoning) 04:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose pulling unless someone can prove human chains this long are common. politics aside the blurb is about an unusually long human chain. this doesnt happen often as far as i know -- Ashish-g55 05:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose pulling - This is a major demonstration. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support: the logistical magnitude of the event, the sheer number of people involved and the ample coverage in media all over the world make it a shoe-in for ITN.--Leptictidium (mt) 06:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and oppose pulling The demonstration seems to address a very important sign towards the independence of Catalonia. It's also very unusual to see such a mass demonstration involving almost one quarter of the country's total population.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kiril. Also, we should probably have some standard wording for pull/don't pull. Skimming this discussion, it's easy to misead "Oppose and Pull" as "Oppose pull" and vice versa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MChesterMC (talk • contribs) 11:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. Think this was posted too hastily - a short series of users who don't normally post here promptly turning up to support a story about a nationalist publicity stunt ought to have led to alarm bells, not posting within a few hours of the nomination. Support purely on the basis of numbers, but the story should be pulled if it turns out the numbers are exaggerated. Formerip (talk) 11:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The numbers are taken from international media like The Washington Post or RT and even Madrid-based press: [38], [39]. --Davidpar (talk) 11:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers are, undoubtedly, taken indirectly from a press release put out by the organisers. Formerip (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers were relesed by the Catalan interior ministry and the present journalists gave it validity. Here is aerial video of some parts of the 400km human chain. --Davidpar (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose pull/support Okay let's think about this for a second: even if the numbers are inflated and say, only half the size, it is still a notable event. And c'mon - ignore the nationality of the nominator and just look at the sources. COI is not handled on ITN/C (My comments are aimed at no one in particular). --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post facto support and keep Massive event, international coverage, why wouldn't we cover this? BTW, love the arguments about the initial supporters, when do we ever hear that when some minor and unworthy US item gets posted straight away with solely US support....? 131.251.133.27 (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't hear about it because that doesn't actually happen.--WaltCip (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support continued posting It is indeed a notable event. We all are aware of how evil demonstration numbers can be, but I'd like to stress the historical value of this event. Inspired in the Baltic Way, it is one of the most (if not the most) participative demonstration for a democratic right in Catalan history. That, imho, makes it remarkable enough. Now please excuse me while I make some edits in English wikipedia so as to be taken seriously. --ESM (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if there were 1 million participants covering 250 miles that means one person per every 16 inches of the distance. That's an entirely incredible (i.e., unbelievable) number. One person every four feet would mean about 300,000 participants. Given there's no visual poof the line was actually complete the number is much likely much smaller. μηδείς (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Once the general, 400km picture is sewn, we'll share the link and you'll be able to check whether the line was complete and otoh notice that, in some parts of its route, there was more than one line of people. In the meantime, some pictures here. Cheers. --ESM (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am all for Catalan independence, I shepherded last year's protest through the nomination process here. But I am also old enough to remember the farce the was Hands Across America. This will also be the third year in a row we will have had a Biggest Catalan Independence Protest Ever on the front page. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Might as well list this at ITNR? (lol) –HTD 05:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 10

[edit]
September 10, 2013 (2013-09-10) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
  • Miley Cyrus breaks the record for the greatest number of views in 24 hours with her latest video Wrecking Ball. The video, uploaded on Monday, has 19.3 million views after a single day, and many people complain about this video. This has been her second record, and the third Vevo record video to become a frequent target for negative comments, the others being Stupid Hoe by Nicki Minaj and We Can't Stop by Miley Cyrus, the latter record set earlier this year.(E online)
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics
Science and technology

Sports

RD Keith Dunstan

[edit]
Article: Keith Dunstan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Death from cancer at age 88 of one of the most prolific of all Australian writers and the author of more than 25 books. --HiLo48 (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. RD postings should not depend on Jusdafax and me having free time on our hands. If it really is our rules preventing posting this, and not just the fact that this guy is not a American singer/actor with very short fame, there's really something wrong here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Penis Envy much? Do the work and stop the bitching, HiLo. It's not like 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots got posted because it's an American article and I am a bigot. μηδείς (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get it, do you? YOU should do the work! HiLo48 (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Steve Dodd wins Jimmy Little Lifetime Achievement Award at the 19th Deadlys

[edit]
per Jehochman's "closed" tag μηδείς (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I know this isn't exactly life shattering but Steve Dodd is a featured article and the award is a significant one in Indigenous Australian culture.

Article: Steve Dodd (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Australian actor and musician Steve Dodd is awarded the "Jimmy Little Lifetime Achievement Award" at the 19th Deadly Awards at the Sydney Opera House. (Post)
News source(s): [40]
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Highly regarded award within Indigenous Australia awarded to pioneer of Indigenous arts. Roisterer (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dodd seems to be an old, (perhaps beloved?) character actor. His article alone doesn't show him to be highly influential or the top of his field. An award limited to an ethnicity is problematic. I certainly would oppose any such ethnic award I could think of in the united states meriting an ITN blurb. Perhaps there is some proof of significance I am missing? μηδείς (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is an award limited to a (disadvantaged) ethnicity problematic? That just seems to be your political POV, which is not relevant to our decisions here. Neljack (talk) 06:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Medeis asks a valid question; unless someone can point them out I don't see the giving of specific awards like this posted often, if at all- especially those of particular ethnic groups. I don't believe we post any awards from the BET Awards, , NAACP Image Awards, Latin Grammys, etc. Why should we post this one? 331dot (talk) 08:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely because our system bias has meant nothing like this has been posted before. HiLo48 (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure an affirmative action program for awards given by ethnicity/racial based groups would set a good precedent, regardless of the racial/ethnic group. 331dot (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How often have they been nominated? Neljack (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ticks all the boxes. Good, well established article, properly updated. A leader in his field which, to reply to Medies, has been a somewhat narrow one all his life, black Australians, but that's hardly Dodd's fault. Given what he is, he is right up the top. HiLo48 (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And here I thought his field was actor, HiLo. μηδείς (talk) 06:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a joke too? HiLo48 (talk) 06:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, frankly I find your racial patronizing highly offensive, and your implication that not sharing your identity politics is bias personally insulting. If Dodd has accomplished anything it was by his individual effort as an actor, for which he deserves all due praise, and not by the effortless accident of his birth. His chosen field is "actor", not "black Australian". What an insult to other Aboriginals to pretend he is somehow their superior in the field of Aboriginalizing. μηδείς (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Featured article, significant though not famous awards. Sort of content we want to showcase on the Main Page and that people are unlikely to have heard of, but likely to find interesting. Neljack (talk) 06:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant oppose. Because there is no article for the award and the article for the ceremony is a stub. That doesn't indicate that someone being given the award is a major event, in the scheme of things. To put it another way, if the bolded article has to be the bio, that's a red flag. Formerip (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose award is of insufficient notability and newsworthiness. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose An award recognizing accomplishments by members of a small minority of Australia's population smells too much like a big fish in a small pond. --Allen3 talk 13:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Firstly, I'm not seeing where this is in the news (the source given is from the group giving the award) Further, this is an award for a small subset of a nation's population. Lastly, I don't see this sort of award posted often, if at all (even from groups with more general criteria). 331dot (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Syria Sticky

[edit]

With all the talk about Syria lately, I think a Syria sticky would be a good idea. Thoughts? Andise1 (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Thomas Bach

[edit]
Article: Thomas Bach (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ German former fencer Thomas Bach is elected President of the International Olympic Committee (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Highly significant position within world sports has been newly elected. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but this could be included into the existing blurp about Tokyo having been awarded the 2020 games, to something like
"During the 125th IOC Session, Tokyo is selected to host the 2020 Summer Olympics, and Thomas Bach (pictured) is elected the 9th President of the International Olympic Committee."
or (to avoid the dual IOC/International Olympic Committee)
"During its 125th Session", the International Olympic Committee selects Tokyo to host the 2020 Summer Olympics and elects Thomas Bach (pictured) as its 9th President."
--FoxyOrange (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems perfectly reasonable to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
definately notably, came here to nominae it too. I too support Foxy Orange. Needs an update though. Perhaps some more on his election and who he ran against, etcLihaas (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
there is one thing which I don't understand. Tokyo and Thomas Bach have been both elected using the same eliminatory voting process (with each round the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated). So why use the verb selected for Tokyo and the verb elected for Thomas Bach ? 83.163.5.82 (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great question. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, what about
"During its 125th Session, the International Olympic Committee announces Tokyo as the host of the 2020 Summer Olympics and elects Thomas Bach (pictured) as its 9th President."
or
"During its 125th Session, the International Olympic Committee awards the 2020 Summer Olympics to Tokyo and elects Thomas Bach (pictured) as its 9th President."
--FoxyOrange (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support combined blurb. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support combined. I made the proposal on Saturday for the 2020 Olympics. Hektor (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Delhi gang rape case

[edit]
Posted aboveLihaas (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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: 2012 Delhi gang rape case (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ All four adult defendants in the 2012 Delhi gang rape case are found guilty. (Post)
News source(s): BBC NBC News CNN
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: The top story in Indian news, and currently a top story on BBC (2nd highest), Al Jazeera, and in the New York Times. This case led to national and international protests and vigils in response earlier in the year, and now appears to have come to resolution. --Khazar2 (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am of no huge opinion one way or the other, but it would be odd to have it come off ITN next Tuesday and then have sentences of death passed on Weds. μηδείς (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For info, sentencing is set for Friday, according to the BBC. Formerip (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, FormerIP. μηδείς (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 9

[edit]
September 9, 2013 (2013-09-09) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
Politics
Sports

[Attention needed] RD Saul Landau

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Saul Landau (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Emmy-winning American documentary filmmaker and journalist Saul Landau dies. (Post)
News source(s): New York Times, Nation, Washington Post, CBS, Reuters, Japan Times, AP/Globe and Mail, Daily Herald
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 --—rybec 14:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I put it in the 9 September section because that was when he died. —rybec 15:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Twerking

[edit]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
WP:SNOW'ball close. ITN/C is srs business. Pedro :  Chat  09:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
👍 1 user likes this.

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: twerking (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A young female accidentally sets herself on fire while twerking. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A young female accidentally self-immolates while attempting to twerk in the fashion of Miley Cyrus.
News source(s): Huffington Post, The Telegraph
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Very notable as twerking has become popular in recent months. --Alex (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

[Attention needed] [Posted] Norway election

[edit]
Article: Norwegian parliamentary election, 2013 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Conservative Party wins a plurality in the Norwegian parliamentary election, 2013. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A centre-right coalition led by the Conservative Party wins a majority in the Norwegian parliamentary election
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

 --Lihaas (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps read the article itself. Which is what ought to happen before "votin"Lihaas (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly do read the article; that is not the issue. This being "in the news" we need some evidence that a story is indeed "in the news". We have a 'sources' line in the nom template for a reason- to make it easy to determine that. Do you think it's there just to take up space and not be used? 331dot (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to defend Lihaas on this one, at least to some extent. Sure, Lihaas sometimes nominates ITNR events before we have a clue of the outcome or whether the article is going to be developed – in fairness the outcome is irrelevant for an ITNR event's eligibility, and from the looks of the article so far it seems highly likely that the work will be done. But Lihaas's habit would actually be a big net positive (drawing editors' attention towards upcoming items) if it wasn't for the fact that other regulars vote (yes, "vote", not "!vote") for stories without even reading the article. —WFC— FL wishlist 17:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If people giving their opinions here aren't looking at the articles, then they should be called out on it and their opinion weighed appropriately; the sources line in the nom template helps to establish that an item is in the news- one can update an article that isn't in the news or only covered in a small area. 331dot (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm,. there is no precedent for this. We could [ppost the result and the governmen formation? We did that for usa, uk, aus and (i believe) canada.Lihaas (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Updated and ready to post...just as soon as we figue a blurb.Lihaas (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Something along the lines of "A loose coalition of centre-right parties led by the Conservative Party wins a majority in the Norwegian parliamentary election" would be accurate. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Using "loose" would only be essential if indeed it were expected to fall apart imminently. μηδείς (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually i think saying the centre-right coalition is deceptive as no government has been formed and there is no coalition yet, in the interests of actual facts (and constitutionally the Labour party should get the first chance to form a government (never mind it will fail) so it should read the Labour wins a pluralitylyLihaas (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Sunset at Montmajour

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Sunset at Montmajour (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The painting Sunset at Montmajour is shown to be a lost work of Vincent van Gogh. (Post)
News source(s): BBC NBC News CNN Le Monde (French)

Nominator's comments: Interesting. And there is an image of it uploaded already. --Abductive (reasoning) 12:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All praise the article's creator, too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 7

[edit]
September 7, 2013 (2013-09-07) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Law and crime
  • A man is arrested on suspicion of burglary, trespass and criminal damage after scaling a fence to get into Buckingham Palace. (BBC)

Politics and elections

Sport

[Closed] Venezuelan Bus Crash

[edit]
SNOW close. SpencerT♦C 23:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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: Dabajuro (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A bus en route to a sporting event in Dabajuro, Venezuela crashes, injuring 40 - including 26 children - and leaving one dead. (Post)
News source(s): Laverdad.com (in Spanish)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: It seems notable, considering the victims of the crash (children) and the number of victims. --Alex (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose of course this is a very traumatic incident - I say this as someone who has been in a major car crash before - but it simply isn't ITN worthy news, let alone not being notable enough for an article of its own.--Somchai Sun (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and SNOW close. While some levels of casualties in accidents (of any kind) are debatable as to their significance, only one death is clearly not significant enough for ITN. Also not seeing evidence of international coverage of this crash. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While I don't understand the opposition to traffic accidents that kill lots of people, killing one person (even if many others are injured) is not sufficient. Neljack (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Venice Film Festival

[edit]
Proposed image
Articles: 70th Venice International Film Festival (talk · history · tag) and Sacro Gra (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Venice Film Festival concludes with Sacro GRA, directed by Gianfranco Rosi (pictured), the winner of the Golden Lion. (Post)
News source(s): Fox News ABC News NPR
Credits:

Article needs updating
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: The film festival is ITN/R so once the relevant articles are updated we should be ready to post this. Gianfranco Rosi also should be updated along with the other articles mentioned in the blurb above. Andise1 (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem here is the lack of update, not ITNR. μηδείς (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Minotaur V

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Minotaur V (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The first Minotaur V, launched from the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport, sends the Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer towards the Moon (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer is launched by the first Minotaur V rocket
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: First launch of the Minotaur V. Mission to the Moon. First solar system exploration mission launched from Wallops. Hektor (talk) 09:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • To clarify (since this is rare) the first launch of a type of rocket is ITNR. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - ITNR convinces me. Even without it, it is a story of fascinating impact, in the news, and of international interest, as the frontiers of human science are expanded. What is that moon dust? Jusdafax 18:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ITN/R so no-brainer (and no arguments)...get it to at least GA status before it touches down/gets to work? ^_^ --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per Jusdafax. Miyagawa (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, both for the new launcher and the mission itself. However I would turn the blurb around to lead with the probe and cut out the unnecessary detail. I've suggested an alternative above. Modest Genius talk 21:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 14:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose current treatment. ITN/R status here is for the rocket, not the payload, therefore it is the lead article in any blurb where ITN/R is asserted. If the relevant article isn't ready ITN/R doesn't transfer to the element that isn't covered by it. Premature posting does nothing to encourage the ITN/R element to be built up to standard. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and pull per Monumentally incompetent. You can't simultaneously assert ITN/R as a reason to reject objections and then focuse on something that is not ITN/R. That's a simple bait-and-switch. 3142 (talk) 04:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's unlikely that a nomination that instead focused on the LDEE specifically (and in which ITN/R wasn't invoked) wouldn't have achieved consensus for posting; space launches of this nature are generally supported at ITN. (Also, I'm not even sure your understanding of ITN/R is the consensus understanding; we often post, for example, articles about sports ITN/R items with an athlete's name, rather than the competition, bolded.) There's no reason to pull due to a technicality, especially as I glean from your remarks that you don't actually have an objection to the story itself. A request to pull is not an accepted tag for ITN nominations, so I'm reverting it back to the current status of [Posted]. -- tariqabjotu 06:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Games of the XXXII Olympiad

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 125th IOC Session (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Tokyo is elected during the 125th IOC Session as host city of the 2020 Summer Olympics. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: This is usual. However there is a twist. In fact this 125th IOC Session will have indeed three votes, two important ones and a minor one: the election of the host city, the election of the new IOC president and the choice of a new Olympic sport. This is the first election of a new IOC president since wikipedia, I think. And I think given the prominent role of an IOC president it should be ITN. So do we do a second blurb when the successor of Jacques Rogge is elected, or do we do a single blurb to wrap everything, for instance "During its 125th Session in Buenos Aires, the IOC elects Xxx as host city of the 2020 Summer Olympics and Yyy as president of the IOC". And what about the election of a new sport ?

And I would suggest to add the election of the president of the International Olympic Committee to ITN/R. Hektor (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it would be best to mention the host city and the new IOC president in the same blurb. I don't think the new sport is important enough to mention, but I don't suppose there is any actual harm in listing that also, if it can be done without making the blurb overly long (I doubt that it can be). Either way, my preference would probably be to omit the new sport. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support mentioning both the host city and new IOC president in one blurb. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support including the host city and the new president in one blurb. It's quite likely that there won't be a new sport, since it's widely expected that wrestling will be successful in its attempt to remain in the Olympics. I don't think "wrestling doesn't get kicked out of the Olympics" would be a sufficiently big story, though perhaps a new sport would be. In any case, it might be difficult fitting that into the blurb too. Neljack (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Though since the presidential election will take place three days after the choice of the host city, the blurb should go up with just the latter and then be updated and bumped up when the former is announced. Neljack (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the chocolate fireguards are dripping onto the logs of ignorance. Go Tokyo! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It'll be 2020 before the admins pull their fingers out. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugnuts: Is that really necessary? As yorkshiresky seemed to acknowledge, the problem was the update. It was only marked ready at 12:02 UTC, and was posted within an hour and a half. C'mon. -- tariqabjotu 14:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Australian federal election

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Australian federal election, 2013 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Tony Abbott (pictured) is elected Prime Minister of Australia as the Liberal–National Coalition win an absolute majority in the House of Representatives. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the Australian federal election, the Liberal–National Coalition win an absolute majority in the House of Representatives as Tony Abbott (pictured) is elected Prime Minister of Australia.
News source(s): SMH Liveblog
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

 YuMaNuMa Contrib 00:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Re the blurb... Australia has a parliamentary system. Voters do not vote directly for the PM. Assuming the result is clear enough quickly enough (it wasn't last time; it took weeks), the blurb should read something like "The xxxxx party wins a majority of seats in the Australian federal election, making yyyyy the Prime Minister." HiLo48 (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're probably right. I was going to say something more than just "The Coalition" until I saw from the article on it that it technically comprised four parties (Liberal, National, Country Liberal. and Liberal National), which complicated things a bit. But the Liberal National Party is apparently just a merger of Liberal and National in Queensland, and the Country Liberal Party is sort of a mixture and only exists in the Northern Territory, so perhaps we could refer to the Coalition as "the Liberal-National Coalition". I've seen it called that in the international media and it is referred to as such in the disambiguation note at the top of our article too. Neljack (talk) 06:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Liberal in both Australian and US usage are essentially equivalent terms. Both Democrat and Republican parties would be well on the right side of Australian politics. --Pete (talk) 10:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WTF? You're truly obsessed. That's the first post you've made in nearly a week, and the only one on this page this year, and it's to contradict me. Do you comb Wikipedia in minute detail every day to find things you can say I've been wrong about. You're a very sad case. HiLo48 (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Crikey! Are you stalking me? Never mind. Seems to me that Australian Liberals fall a lot closer to the American idea of liberal than (say) the average Democrat - both major US parties would be seen as well on the right-wing side of Australian politics. --Pete (talk) 22:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good news? I'm sure those supporting the losing parties won't think so. Not a good reason really. HiLo48 (talk) 05:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
:D --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've encountered a unique and confusing aspect of Australian politics. Please look at Coalition (Australia). Note the capital C. It's a virtually permanent coalition of a couple of larger parties that tends to exist even when the parties are not in power. To add further confusion, one of the members of this Coalition is the Liberal Party, Australia's major conservative party. HiLo48 (talk) 10:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll resist commenting on how upside-down that is ;).
In terms of whether coalition is a proper noun, what do major news sources do? Formerip (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Capital C all the time. See here. It's so common and ingrained a usage in Australia that I'm certain many Australian people don't realise that the words "coalition" and "liberal" have very different meanings elsewhere in the world. HiLo48 (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support-A farewell and good tidings is in order for Kevin Rudd! Also, this is INT/R. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "as Tony Abbott (pictured) is elected Prime Minister of Australia." bit isn't strictly accurate - he wasn't elected PM, as this position isn't up for grabs directly (it goes to whoever leads the party who controls the house of representatives). I'm not sure what the best alternate wording is though - "and Tony Abbott (pictured) becomes Prime Minister of Australia." might be an improvement. Nick-D (talk) 05:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Post as soon as possible, someone, please. This is very important news, and Kevin Rudd, when he was elected leader of Labor midway, was put on the news post-haste. Someone do this quickly, please. (btw, good riddance to him) Decentman12 (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2013 (EST)
We're not interested in your political opinions. Such comments NEVER help. HiLo48 (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 6

[edit]
September 6, 2013 (2013-09-06) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Environment

Health

Law and crime

Politics

[Posted] G-20 summit

[edit]
Article: 2013 G-20 Saint Petersburg summit (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The 2013 G-20 summitt concludes in Saint Petersburg. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: For reasons relating to Syria, this summit has had a lot of media attention. --LukeSurl t c 17:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BRICS wasnt posted and that is ITNR/. Why was this done so without discussion?!Lihaas (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lihaas, perhaps the BRICS-related article wasn't updated? If you have concerns about a past discussion, WT:ITN might be the best place to go. SpencerT♦C 00:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Peacekeepers found liable for Srebrenica

[edit]
Article: Srebrenica massacre (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Dutch supreme court rule that dutch soldiers acting as UN peacekeepers were liable for some of the deaths in the Srebrenica massacre. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Dutch Supreme Court confirms state liability for the actions of Dutch soldiers in the Srebrenica massacre.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Likely to affect future peacekeeping missions as governments may be liable if troops fail to keep situations under control. Also opens the way for relatives to file compensation claims, partial update in this section Srebrenica_massacre#The_Netherlands. EdwardLane (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Indeed a significant decision that will surely get plenty of international attention. Suggest changing the blurb to make clear that it is the Dutch state that has been found liable, not the soldiers personally. Neljack (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral on posting, but the proposed blurb is somewhat misleading. The Supreme Court ruled that the Netherlands shoulders liability for three of the 7,500 deaths in the Srebrenica massacre; while "some" might be technically accurate, I think that to most readers it would suggest a higher proportion than 0.04%. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree that the blurb should say "three deaths" rather than "some of the deaths". Neljack (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment alter the blurb please, I was under the impression that the 3 were a 'test case' for 'The three men were among thousands who took shelter in the UN compound'. And yes dutch state were found liable not the individual soldiers but I couldn't figure out a correct sounding blurb for that. EdwardLane (talk) 08:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some sort of clarification will be necessary in the blurb by someone familiar with the case. μηδείς (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Think the blurb should say something like: The Dutch supreme court confirms state liability for the actions of Dutch soldiers which facilitated the Srebrenica massacre.
My understanding is that these were test cases. The principle of liability is the important thing here, so "three" would be misleading. It would be good to see this posted, but the section still needs updating and copyedting. Formerip (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support that blurb, good job formerip EdwardLane (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Altblurb I have added a slightly shortened version of FormerIP's suggestion as the Altblurb. μηδείς (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Bull run decryption program

[edit]
Article: Bullrun (code name) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Information leaked by Edward Snowden reveals the existence of Bullrun, a highly classified decryption program run by the United States National Security Agency. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The existence of Bullrun, a clandestine decryption program run by the U. S. National Security Agency is leaked.
News source(s): NYT, guardian
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This leak is of global impact; we now know the NSA is capable of hacking "HTTPS, voice-over-IP and Secure Sockets Layer (SSL)" among other things. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Especially the confirmation that the NSA has been inserting back doors in hardware, software, and standards (though previously suspected) is highly notable. NSA's collection of private keys through hacking and court orders is also highly notable. The NSA has basically highjacked the Internet security structure. Though it should be noted that the NSA can't actually hack HTTPS and SSL in general. Thue (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I am pretty sure Snowden released all these things in one go. these newspapers just want to take their sweet time and slowly reveal one classified program after another. Its getting annoying... couple weeks after it'll be another thing that he released. We get it NSA snoops on anything and everything. -- Ashish-g55 18:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant oppose because the article is so short, and can not be foreseen to develop much further, because all information about this programme is so incredibly scarce. We know very little (actually nothing) of its specific technical capabilities, like which encryptions it can actually defeat. Quoting The Guardian, after pressure from the intelligence community the publications that ran this story "[...] removed some specific facts but decided to publish the story because of the value of a public debate about government actions [...]." If we actually had information about the specific cryptographic advances NSA has supposedly made, this would be a very interesting story. --hydrox (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is actual technology news, as opposed to, say, the Verizon buy out. μηδείς (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. One of the core responsibilities of spy agencies is cracking encryption and codes. The existence of this program should be utterly unsurprising. In that vein, this seems little more than an incremental update on the already-ran fact that the US government is spying on its own citizens. Resolute 19:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inserting actual backdoors into encryption standards (and getting caught) is not business as usual! On the other hand, would you also argue that the military's job is to wage war, so ITN should not feature any news involving a military waging war? Thue (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Put in parallel, an ITN story on a military going to war would be equivalent of our posting the revelation that the NSA is spying on its own citizens. The latter was posted, and the former would also be posted, of course. This story is like running an ITN blurb on troop movements. Resolute 23:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is non-news. NSA receives billions of dollars to make codes and crack codes. It is not news that a secret government agency is able to do what they are supposed to do. Per Resolute, this is a minor, incremental update of a previous story. Jehochman Talk 20:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The newspapers were asked not to publish specifically these articles because of national security, but posted edited but still revealing article anyway - calling that "not news" is insane. Don't be fooled by diversions in the information war. Thue (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all in a day's work for these guys. No surprise at all that someone else has been buying useless junk on my credit card. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Jehochman. Also, ITN is not an Edward Snowden ticker. We don't need to post every "new" release from the information he took. 331dot (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Important new revelations, raising questions about internet security and privacy with considerable public interest. Widespread international coverage. Neljack (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the oppose comments that suggest we should already all know exactly what the NSA is doing border on the assertion of psychic ability. Indeed, why don't those who suggest this is "no surprise" tell us what other secret domestic spying and other illegal activities the US government is up to? I don't see any reason to wait for the press to cover it, when editors here are so knowledgeable. μηδείς (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    They are filtering everything and reading/listening/looking-at whatever is flagged as "interesting". I don't see this revelation as being different from the one that was already featured. With ITN we don't post every new facet of the same story. This news is significant, but it's not separate enough from the story we already featured to be featured again. If more details are revealed about "back doors", I might change my opinion. If the back door is just a method of complying with a subpeona, that's not really newsworthy. If NSA have found a way to crack PGP or quickly factor really large composite numbers, I'd be impressed and might reconsider. Jehochman Talk 02:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This chunk of the story does seem to suggest that they can 'crack' really large composite numbers - not because they are better at the maths required but because they have forced the people writing encryption protocols to use particular factors (that are then known to the nsa) making cracking any public key encryption possible where normally it would need a supercomputer - all they would need to say is you must use this large prime as part of the composite number - the code appears encrypted but is effectively not encrypted to anyone knowing which large prime is used. That's described here as "adding a common exponent to a public-key exchange protocol," EdwardLane (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Though not stated explicitly in the article, the back door in the encryption standards has to be talking about stuff like this. A confirmation of that really is extremely notable, and much more than just another subpoena. Thue (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is another big twist in the ongoing spiral of online spying. The "back door" revelations are new and highly significant. This is a big breaking story with international implications and clearly ITN-worthy. Jusdafax 19:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's a long-running story, and this is a significant development so a good point to post. Deliberate installation of back doors into entire protocols is a major new revelation, and entirely unprecedented. However, I would prefer to avoid naming Snowden in the blurb, and instead having a link (on 'reveals'?) to 2013 mass surveillance disclosures, which has much more relevant content. Modest Genius talk 23:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this is not about the NSA having cracked a code, that's indeed part of their job (although had that happened, that would still be Breaking News because 256-bit AES requires a supercomputer far longer than the age of the universe to crack using brute force). Rather it is about the use of backdoors, which violates the contract every internet user thinks he/she has agreed to. Count Iblis (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ready The article is updated and support is over 60%. I have added a shorter altblurb. μηδείς (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 22:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Rochus Misch

[edit]
Consensus is that neither Misch nor his death were significant enough to justify an ITN blurb. Modest Genius talk 00:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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: Rochus Misch (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Rochus Misch, last survivor of the Führerbunker, dies at the age of 96. (Post)
News source(s): ABC News The Guardian BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
 Japanesehelper (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The ITN criteria for deaths are not met: Misch neither held a high ranking office, nor was he "a very important figure in his field". His death did not create a major international impact. A listing at "recent deaths" would me more appropriate.--FoxyOrange (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it was worth nominating this, as it is a very interesting fact. Unfortunately, it's a little too trivia-like for ITN. Recent deaths would be a better place for it. Redverton (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A low-ranking, entirely minor — if interesting — historical figure, not significant. Sca (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would think that being the last survivor of the Fuhrerbunker and being Hitler's personal bodguard would fulfil the notability of being an important person within the field. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which field would this person be notable in? 331dot (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're overlooking the fact that posting Misch would mean taking down one of the existing listings, all of which are more notable. I'd be in favor of some sort of ranking system for RD so that this could go up when one of the other listings is stale, but without pushing another listing off prematurely. μηδείς (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 5

[edit]
September 5, 2013 (2013-09-05) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Deaths

Politics and elections

Sport

[Posted] Tamu Massif

[edit]
Article: Tamu Massif (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Tamu Massif in the Pacific Ocean is found to be the second-largest volcano in the Solar System. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Tamu Massif in the Pacific Ocean is found to be the largest volcano in the world.
News source(s): National Geographic (First source I found) NBC News CNN
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Needs significant expansion. Probably wouldn't be ITN ready for at least a day or two, but I think it's worth consideration. The Moose is loose! 23:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Iff it is ready to post reasonably quickly. If not the whole rationale of posting is lost. It's obviously of note but there have been quite a glut of these scientifically notable but otherwise largely ignored "news" items over the last few months. At least it would naturally displace the existing geology story in the template if posted. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Think the blurb should say "largest in the world" and leave the solar system out of it. What proportion of the solar system has been thoroughly surveyed for volcanoes? Formerip (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except for Pluto and Ceres, and the outer Kuiper bodies, the entirety of the solar system has been surveyed for volcanoes. Mercury, Venus, and Mars have been mapped, as have all the tectonically differentiated gas giant satellites. The Earth and Titan are the only bodies with surface oceans, and this volcano wasn't found until now because it is over a mile under water. It's not believed that the gas giants have volcanoes. We shouldn't be dumbing down blurbs on editorial ignorance. Unless there's a source that you know says otherwise this is far and away a huge find. μηδείς (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, other than your own ignorance of the topic, 331, do you have some basis for that? We have full maps of the surface of every terrestrial body in the solar system closer than Pluto and other than Ceres. The earth is an exception because one or two miles of water on the surface is a unique difficulty. Is there some other planet you fear has an ocean hiding a volcano? μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Drawing a map from satellite imagery is very different than actually exploring another planet or moon. Unless you've been to Titan or Europa recently you cannot categorically state we've found every volcano in the Solar System. I know of no scientist who would make such a claim, unless you hold a degree in astronomy. 331dot (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, people with degrees in astronomy have long stated that Olympus Mons is the largest in the solar system. They have gone to the trouble of mapping Titan and Europa, and no such volcano exists. So this subsea volcano is the second largest. No magical weaseling or Wikilawyering is needed here, thank you. Abductive (reasoning) 03:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What you offensively call "weaseling" and "wikilawyering" I call common sense. If we just found this volcano on our own planet, underwater or otherwise, who knows what we will find when we actually get to other locations in the Solar System. That said, I would be satisfied with "known Solar System" in the blurb. Additionally, most news sources I am seeing are describing this as the largest on Earth in the headline, and mentioning the Solar System and Olympus Mons in the article itself. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll call it worse than that; you are engaging in WP:SYNTHESIS of the sources in your head. Real sources say that vulcanism in the solar system is rare, and creates (other than Earth and Mars) small. Abductive (reasoning) 14:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's very simple to add the word "known" to a blurb when that is found necessary. I don't think it is when one also says "discovered" in the same blurb. But one can add "known" much less destructively than other options. μηδείς (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm fine with either blurbs, however the first one is more interesting and has got me reading articles for some hours this morning. Mohamed CJ (talk) 04:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with a preference for the original (+"known" per Medeis). Yes, something larger could be found under the ice of Europa, or a known formation could be re-analysed like this one was and found to in fact be a single volcano, but for now it is certainly the second largest known volano in the solar system. To those supporting only the alt because a new volcano may be discovered: This one was found by analysing data on a known structure (discovered early C20 according to the page), so it's also possible that something larger could be found on Earth through similar analysis. I'd say it's notable as the largest known, despite this. MChesterMC (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with preference for the original blurb, per Mohamed CJ. OrganicsLRO 14:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. I've mentioned both the Earth and the Solar System so that everybody is happy (or no one). --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks. μηδείς (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good choice of words. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is an admin not involved in the discussion here reverting the consensus version of the blurb, and why has he not been reverted by another admin for his disruptive edit? μηδείς (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The correct place for discussion of errors is at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors, and not here. Also, I think the current version, arrived following discussion, is an improvement. PhilKnight (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no error here. There's your arbitrary removal of material that was discussed during the nomination because you are an admin and you can do that sort of thing. Given your personal confusion had nothing to do with removing the fact that this is the second largest known volcano in the solar system, you could simply act in good faith and restore that to the blurb. μηδείς (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the current version is acceptable, and I don't intend to make any further edits to this item. If you want to propose a modification to the current version, I suggest you post your preferred version on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. PhilKnight (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] New species of bats

[edit]
Article: Bats (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Five new species of bats have been discovered in West Africa. (Post)
News source(s): Nature World News, Science World Report Sci News
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: This seems like a notable discovery worthy of being included in In The News assuming the relevant articles are adequately updated. Andise1 (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, this study revises the phylogeny of the bats, showing a different tree than had previously been worked out. So the Vesper bat article (and others?) will need some changes. However, if one looks at that article, one will notice that there are existing bat species that are redlinks, showing the complete lack of interest in bats even from Wikipedia editors. Abductive (reasoning) 16:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the scientists themselves say "Many vespertilionid species lack external taxonomically informative characters and are therefore difficult to identify using morphological keys. Consequently, the possibility of adding new distribution records or even discovering new species is still high". I also oppose on the grounds that these new species have not been properly described and named, merely discovered by their DNA. Now, if the nominator could find some secondary sources that emphasize the revision of the phylogeny and crafts a blurb about that, I might change to support. Abductive (reasoning) 16:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Abductive. This is more like finding out from a blood test that your brother, whom you've always known, was actually fathered by that man your mom had an affair with, rather than like discovering you have a brother no one ever suspected existed. μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Abductive. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 4

[edit]
September 4, 2013 (2013-09-04) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Law and crime

Sport

[Closed] RD Ariel Castro

[edit]
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 22:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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: Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Perhaps posting this in the recent deaths section of the main page is distasteful, but Ariel Castro was still the subject of a very significant international news story within the past few months. He's become a household name. Kurtis (talk) 06:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's certainly In the News, even here in little old Melbourne, Australia. I expect it's bigger in America. HiLo48 (talk) 06:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose He doesn't have his own article; that alone should disqualify him from RD. Also, I should point out that we haven't posted anything about this case; I'm not sure why this would be the one thing we post about this on ITN, especially with no context. -- tariqabjotu 06:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If it's his unexpected death we are posting, we should be discussing a blurb about this event, and as Tariq said we have posted nothing about this case before, we don't need to start now. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Normally we wouldn't have posted anything because we would wait for a trial and conviction. We don't need to wait now. μηδείς (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some nice Wikilawyering happening in many of the above posts. Won't fight it. But something really needs highlighting. Given that Castro's death has probably been mentioned in thousands of news services in almost every country in the world over the past 18 hours, probably more than any other item in the current active list, there is clearly something wrong with our title "In the news". I know we need some sort of guidelines, but something's obviously not quite right here. Please don't respond with existing rules. That's been done above. HiLo48 (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what wikilawyering you're talking about. There is no standalone Ariel Castro article; it seems hard to justify someone being notable enough to be included on Recent deaths when he's not notable enough to have his own article. I don't think Ariel Castro is well-known enough, without the context of his crimes, to be posted onto ITN; four months ago, the name was completely unknown. This could, of course, be posted as a blurb, but I'm struggling to understand why the discovery of the three women was not in the news enough to be posted and his admission and thousand-year sentence were not in the news enough to be posted, but his death is. Perhaps this story should have been posted, in retrospect, but it just seems like an odd point to just change our mind about the notability of this story. -- tariqabjotu 22:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just on a point of fact, he is actually notable enough for his own article, it's just that we have a (perfectly sound) policy that prevents him from getting one by trumping GNG. All the same, I agree that we can't post someone to RD if they don't have an article. Formerip (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I have no problem with there being no consensus to post here, damnatio memoriae is quite fine with me. But had this story been nominated (it wasn't?), the objection, as with the SA girlfriend-shooter, would have been that the subject had not been found guilty in court. Now that that issue is moot, nominating the story for posting is hardly bad form or worth immediate closure. μηδείς (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Medeis: Ariel Castro was found guilty (as he pled guilty) in a court of law, and sentenced accordingly, a month ago; that wasn't even nominated. The discovery of the three women was nominated in May, but there was strong consensus not to post. To be honest, I really don't understand the obsession with waiting until someone is found guilty of the crime (that did not appear to be the objection to the story about the women's discovery anyway). -- tariqabjotu 02:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tariq. μηδείς (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just an FYI, it was big news here in Canada too. Oh, and I'm fine with not posting this in recent deaths; I just proposed it in case anyone else saw him as significant enough to warrant mentioning. Kurtis (talk) 05:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that we need to think about the fact that an item that really, truly was in the news all over the world isn't "In the news" on Wikipedia. Sure, we have rules that meant it didn't make it, but it does make Wikipedia seem pretty weird. Are we really sure that those rules make sense? HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remember the "Occupy" movement was not put on the front page either. I think it's better that we don't always chase the white heat of what's making the front pages. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should change that section heading on the Main page to "Some items that are in the news but not necessarily the biggest ones". HiLo48 (talk) 08:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 3

[edit]
September 3, 2013 (2013-09-03) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Law and crime

[Posted] RD Frederik Pohl

[edit]
Article: Frederik Pohl (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Prominent science fiction writer/editor from the Golden Age of Science Fiction. While his own works are not quite as prominent as those of fx Asimov, Pohl's activity as agent and editor for other writers also contributes to his importance. Thue (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Posted to RD BencherliteTalk 22:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Library of Birmingham

[edit]

Moved up from September 1 to correspond with the date of the opening

Proposed image
Article: Library of Birmingham (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The new Library of Birmingham, the largest municipal library in the United Kingdom and the largest public cultural space in Europe, opens in Birmingham, England. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The new Library of Birmingham, the largest municipal library in the United Kingdom, opens in England.
News source(s): [1][2][3]
Credits:

Article needs updating

 --Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody respond, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that should go in the blurb. How can it be not be the largest public library in Europe at the same time as being the largest "public cultural space" in Europe? Why do the Pompidou Centre (five times as big), the Prado, the Tate Modern (both twice as big) and so on not count? Obviously, the PR people must have found a way.
And, per the above discussion, it should be "municipal" or "city", rather than "public". But yes, it's updated. Formerip (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just used it to support my vote. The blurb should be subject on improvement before posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please fix the blurb, though? It is definitely the biggest municipal library in the UK, but it is not the biggest municipal cultural space in Europe. According to the article it is "20,798m² (plus 6,804m² shared with the Birmingham Repertory Theatre)". But the Cent Quatre in Paris is 36,800m² and Amsterdam Public Library is 28,500m². These are both municipal sites. I'm pretty sure there will be other examples. Formerip (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft's purchase of Nokia's mobile phone division

[edit]
Article: Nokia (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Microsoft announces that it intends to purchase the mobile phone division of Nokia in a deal worth $7.2 billion, pending approval. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Microsoft announces that it will purchase Nokia's mobile phone business in a deal worth $7.2 billion, pending approval.
News source(s): CNET NBC News CNN Le Monde
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Large-dollar amount transaction involving two major names in the mobile technology industry. Similar to the purchase of Motorola Mobility by Google. -- Anc516(Champs!) (Talk ▪ Contribs) 04:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what? And why? 331dot (talk) 11:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's a note up above saying "Deal is pending approval". That seems significant. HiLo48 (talk) 11:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The announcement of business deals typically gets more coverage than the actual conclusion or approval of the deal; it's in the news now. Saying "wait" is essentially saying "oppose". 331dot (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was just breaking into the first line of Please Mr Postman by the Marvelettes. I guess it doesn't come across properly on the internet.ETA: The Beatles version, which does actually start with the word "wait".
Obviously, I mean wait until it is a done deal. That announcement may make less of a splash, but that doesn't prevent us from posting it. It's nothing new for us to post something a while after the main news event (e.g. The Ashes). Formerip (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. For that it is an incomplete transaction. I would had supported it for that ten years ago before smart phones, you either had a Nokia, a Motorola, a Ericsson or anything else that came and went, so that explained how big the company was then, now they clearly are a shadow of its former self. Donnie Park (talk) 12:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I updated the wording of the blurb to be more clear, as ViperSnake151 noted. As for whether or not the "pending" part matters, this announcement will get by far more press than the approval, regardless of whether or not it will be approved. There isn't much preventing this from being denied, either. -- Anc516(Champs!) (Talk ▪ Contribs) 12:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as usual, this is simply a flow of money to a better expected rate of return, not a harbinger of great new innovations. μηδείς (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild support only because I like the idea that Mircosoft appears to have sent a mole into Nokia in the form of Elop to make this deal more affordable.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Although Nokia's phone business had already almost diminished, the brand is still very well-recognised and this was the leading business story of the day globally. Waiting is not sensible: there are two reservations in the acquisition plan (non-approval by shareholders' meeting scheduled for 19 November 2013, and non-approval by regulation authorities), both of which are only theoretical at best. --hydrox (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, one of the sources says, "Nokia is a deeply troubled company and is rapidly losing relevance." Also, allegedly important cell phone blurb already disgraces ITN presently. Abductive (reasoning) 01:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deeply troubled does not mean it's not notable ITN-worthy. Nokia is still one of the largest mobile phone makers and one of the most recognized brands in the world. -Zanhe (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between notable and ITN-worthy. Abductive (reasoning) 02:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I meant ITN-worthy. I've stricken out notable. -Zanhe (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2

[edit]
September 2, 2013 (2013-09-02) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Sports

Law and crime

[Posted] RD: Ronald Coase

[edit]
Article: Ronald Coase (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Nobel Prize winner --– Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Undecided at this moment, but regardless of my opinion my experience here has told me that just winning a Nobel Prize is not a ticket onto ITN or RD(rightly or wrongly). 331dot (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duplicate nomination/support for Coase as an RD entry added for 3rd September by Kiril Simeonovski (talk · contribs), with the comment "Coase was particularly known for his theorem explaining how the economic efficiency improves in case of externalities and no transaction costs. He was also the winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1991.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)". It was supported by Thue (talk · contribs) with the comment "Nobel Prize in Economics => automatic support for RD. Thue (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)". I have taken the liberty of deleting the duplicate nomination and moving their comments here instead. BencherliteTalk 22:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, Thue, that discussion has been had before, perhaps your support will be automatic, but there are a ton of nobel prize winners. μηδείς (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I was going to oppose, but after reading the article ("If you torture the data long enough, it will confess") I am impressed. There's a citation needed tag, and the prose could use some work. I am not sure whether I will be able to get to it in a timely matter. μηδείς (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marked Ready the nomination is well supported, the article is updated and the sources (New York Times, Washington Post, Slate Magazine, Forbes) describe him as one of the greatest of the last century's economists. μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still a CN tag. Tisk tisk. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 03:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the answer was in the essay itself discussed in the tagged discussion. μηδείς (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 06:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Complaint -- As one of the most influential economists of our time - an assertion supported by virtually every obituary - there is no reason Coase should be consigned to the RD line as opposed to a full entry in ITN. If Seamus Heaney is worthy, Coase is certainly far more, there is no reason whatsoever that Coase should not have a full entry. Simfan34 (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But Heaney's not worthy. He was posted over a few hours on a weekend that's a holiday in the US. The ticker is fine for notable old men dying of old age, which is where Heaney should have ended up. You should express your complain under Heaney's nomination and on the errors page. μηδείς (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that whether or not Heany is worthy is different from whether or not Coase is worthy. I definitely think Coase is worthier than Heany, but just because his death was not unlikely does not mean it isn't newsworthy. The flip side is also true that just because one Nobel Prize winner was not worth a full entry does not mean that no Nobel Prize winners are worth a full entry. I think that if John Nash were to die, for example, there would be no question as to whether or not he deserves a full entry. Coase is not as famous as Nash, but certainly within his (high profile) profession, he's close. 0x0077BE (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not complaining about Heany. I am saying Coase should be on there, on his merits, as a leading expert in an important line of study. Simfan34 (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed. I am new to this page and so I would like to make clear that I did not intend my support for the RD line to be mutually exclusive with a full entry. Coase is probably one of the top 5 most influential economists of the last 50 years. (Updated to sign properly - was IP for some reason) 0x0077BE (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Diana Nyad

[edit]
Article: Diana Nyad (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Long-distance swimmer Diana Nyad swims from Cuba to Florida (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Sixty-four year old Diana Nyad is the first to swim from Cuba to Florida without a shark cage.
News source(s): BBC, NBC News; CNN
Credits:

Nominator's comments: First person to ever swim from Cuba to Florida, and she's 64 years old. --Abductive (reasoning) 18:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No Cuban has ever swum it. Abductive (reasoning) 18:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, not in such comfortable and publicized circumstances. But your universal negative is unsupported in a wider context. μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe any Cubans have swam the entire length; they usually get partway out in a boat or makeshift boat and swim if it sinks. This swim is being reported as the second successful attempt. No media is putting a "professional" qualifier on the feat or otherwise acknowledging any alleged Cuban swims; we shouldn't either. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your point seems to be that the accomplishments of non-professional swimmers without professional support are less important than those of well-to-do privileged folk with media support and no nearby attack vessels trying to kill them as escapees. I personally know someone who sam the whole way, with no support, using a large plank like a small surf board, allowing rest. I do support this nomination, but not her deification. μηδείς (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't sound like it's the same thing. Either way, we go by what reliable sources say. -- tariqabjotu 21:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, reliable sources do say that "Professional 64-year old long-distance swimmer Diana Nyad swims from Cuba to Florida with special gear and a 35-person support team."
This is not a soapbox for Cuba's political refugees or situation; but anyway, the issue is not whether or not the swimmer is professional, but whether or not others who have swam the same area are documented and covered in the news, since this is the "In the News" candidates page. If you have a news story of a Cuban refugee swimming or paddleboarding or whatever from Cuba to Florida, I would be more than happy to support it. I don't think it's "deification" to report what the press is reporting. 331dot (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are not a web mirror. When one says "comprehensive encyclopedia" it doesn't mean parrot. You may also note, 331, that I was the first to support this nomination. So the implication that what I am interested in is soapboxing is insulting bullshit. The blurb should simply be accurate. μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, we aren't a mirror, we are "In the News" and this event is indeed in the news as described originally. 331dot (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Our job is not to prove anything, but to report what is being reported, which is that she was the first to do this w/o a cage. It can (and should) be phrased in that context. There is no reason to provide the entire count of her support team and any technical gear she used in the blurb; that's what the article is for. I don't recall any other blurbs about personal achievement going into that much detail. 331dot (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Notable achievement.--Somchai Sun (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a wonderful accomplishment, and it is someplace on the front page of most news sources. Jehochman Talk 22:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is not really unprecedented at all. Note the clarification factored into the sources - without a shark cage. In other words it's been done before. When you have to clarify an achievement like that to achieve a "first" it's notability goes way down. It's isn't even some heroic case of derring-do that she somehow put herself at risk given that she was surrounded at all times by 35 support staff. Really then, what is of note here? 87.114.54.152 (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it has been done before- once in 1997. People aren't doing this every day(even if there are unrecognized Cubans doing so, they don't on a regular basis or this would indeed not be a notable achievement) Even with support staff she was still at risk from jellyfish stinging her(which prevented past attempts at doing this). Further, I know of few achievements which are performed alone or without some level of involvement from others. 331dot (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
re the Jelly fish she was wearing a face mask against those. Does that mean the first person to do this without the mask is also worthy of ITN? The first to do so bollock naked? The first to do an equivalent swim in slightly colder waters or between any other two arbitrary points? It's a clarified first: it doesn't matter how you try and explain them the clarifications are still there. 87.114.54.152 (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The mask was not a guaranteed protection against jellyfish, it was to prevent her from breathing them in. We're not talking about some feat which has been done by thousands of people with protective gear and she was the first to do it without such gear. We also are not talking about something ridiculous like the first person to cross Broadway in Manhattan with a chicken while reading two books at the same time. This is only the second time this has been done and the first was around 15 years ago. Could you do it? 331dot (talk) 09:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it in the news then? It is still a rare event; even with a qualifier it is only the second time and the first was not recently. 331dot (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Verizon Wireless

[edit]
Article: Verizon Wireless (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Verizon Communications agrees to acquire Vodafone's stake in Verizon Wireless for US$130 billion, the third largest corporate deal ever. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Unusually large business transaction that happens only once or twice a decade. This is the largest corporate deal since 2000.[46] Involves both US and UK businesses. Jehochman Talk 17:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is classified as a merger or an acquisition, I am not sure, but it is definitely an M&A transaction. We could replace "M&A" with "corporate" because that's the exact word used by Reuters. Jehochman Talk 17:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - As noted by nom, the third largest business transaction in history. For the record, it is NOT a merger. Update could use some work. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose It is a buyout--an "unmerger". When Bell Atlantic and GTE merged to form Verizon they need cash, so they sold a large stake in their overseas phone service to Vodaphone whith whom I believe they arleady had some sort of arrangement. Now that Verizon no longer need the cash, it wants full control back. This isn't really news. This doesn't mean any brand new age of telephony. It's basically the repayment of a loan, with the collateral being returned. μηδείς (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's the third largest corporate deal ever. It is not just the repayment of a loan. The equity buyout was negotiated, and Vodaphone makes a handsome profit. No doubt Vodaphone will be looking for something to do with the cash. This is quite significant for the telecom industry. Jehochman Talk 18:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, with the exception of "quite significant for the telecom industry" you have just repeated exactly what I said. The problem is that the "quite significant for the telecom industry" is true only for stockholders and middle managment. It's not like they have announced the roleout of DSL, picture phones, or texting. μηδείς (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To call this "not really news" is ridiculous. This ends a 14-year relationship which has lead to NUMEROUS high-profile disputes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I will say this is "not really news" again to see if you'll scream louder. I am intimately aware aware the corporate news on this, and have been since before Verizon was formed. The Vodafon alliance was always looked on as a temporary partnership of convenience, and now looks like a good time for both parties to separate on mutually beneficial terms. That is not something like the groundbreaking on the hyperloop, the debut of the segway or even the release of Mr. Garrison' Entity. μηδείς (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Seriously, for a merger to be ITN-worthy there should be secondary sources explaining why it is revolutionary. An example might be if Google buys General Motors with the intention of turning it into an all-electric vehicle maker. Abductive (reasoning) 18:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good example, it could use an essay, so we could vote "oppose per Abductive's criteria". μηδείς (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is a really unfair standard. We don't require any other story to be "revolutionary". And this deal is quite important - see for example the linked news story which explains how this ends 14 years of disputes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I was trying to say is that the story has to crossover—out of the business pages—into the news. Abductive (reasoning) 03:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is not pointy. What would be pointy is if QatarStarsLeague opposed every death nomination on the grounds that it wasn't revolutionary, even though they didn't support that criterion. As the page says: "As a rule, someone engaging in "POINTy" behavior is making edits which s/he does not really agree with, for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition." Neljack (talk) 04:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"simply to quash" Abductive (reasoning) 05:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out that your criterion would lead to silly results if consistently applied is a perfectly legitimate argument; what would be problematic is if QatarStarsLeague starting opposing other items based on the criterion despite not really believing it was a good criterion. Neljack (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hemisphere Project

[edit]
Article: Hemisphere Project (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Hemisphere Project, through which AT&T gives data about telephone calls to the DEA and other government agencies, is made public. (Post)
News source(s): http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/us/drug-agents-use-vast-phone-trove-eclipsing-nsas.html
Credits:

Nominator's comments: massive database going back to 1987; unusual public-private partnership --—rybec 23:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is my first nomination and I'm unsure what's considered "stale" but there was a mention in an AP story published 7 September in the Las Vegas Sun. A Huffington Post piece from 6 September has a few paragraphs about it. —rybec 23:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, welcome. :) You were correct to post the nomination on the date closer to when this story broke (though the NYT article says September 1st) though I'm not sure it is in the news widely enough currently to consider posting it now. That's just my opinion, though, and others may disagree. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 1

[edit]
September 1, 2013 (2013-09-01) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents
  • A 5.9-magnitude earthquake kills at least four people in southwestern China. (CNN)

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Tommy Morrison

[edit]
Article: Tommy Morrison (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): USA Today
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Big time fighter, former WBO heavyweight champion. 49-3-1 record. Played Tommy Gunn in Rocky V. --– Muboshgu (talk) 01:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Real Madrid Break World record to Sign Gareth Bale

[edit]
Article: Gareth Bale (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Real Madrid pay Tottenham Hotspur a world record breaking £85.3 million (€100 million) for Gareth Bale breaking the previous record of £80 million paid for Christiano Ronaldo (Post)
News source(s): http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23538218 http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/sep/01/gareth-bale-real-madrid-transfer-tottenham NBC Sports
Credits:

Nominator's comments: World record, notable people, unlikely to come up again for some time. Torqueing (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak support. I'm not sure if this is the sort of thing we post(record breaking sports contracts), but I do know this is getting decent coverage, even in the US(which isn't typically disposed towards soccer news) I would suggest that the blurb does not need to mention the previous record holder. 331dot (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support. Ignoring the 1992–2001 period (rapid growth due to the emergence of the Champions League and clubs becoming increasingly confident that the flow of money would not dry up), this is a rare event, and of international interest. Oppose any mention of Ronaldo. —WFC— FL wishlist 20:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose really not newsworthy outside ardent football fans. As WFC has noted, we've gone through one period of seriously stupid transfer fees already. This is trivially interesting but nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support given its very wide coverage. We've got decent free images of Bale as well (which would need a crop). Agree the blurb doesn't need to mention Ronaldo. Black Kite (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's a business deal. Not a big one on that scale. And which "world" record did it break, anyway? If it's just within soccer, then this is nothing. Following that lead we would have to post every highest price for every sports person in every sport. And we won't. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, given that soccer is played worldwide, then it is indeed a world record. I'd guess it's actually the most money paid for any sportsperson's signature in any sport. I have to admit I'm wavering on this one, though. Black Kite (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "here" the UK? That's an honest question. I would never think of using that terminology; if you ask me (or, I'd imagine, almost any American) what "most money paid for any sportsperson's signature" referred to, they would say Alex Rodriguez's $275m contract. Not chiding you at all, just wanting to clarify. -- Mike (Kicking222)
  • Without meaning to be too dismissive, a degree of AFL/NFL "what makes soccer so special?" is to be expected with a nom of this nature. For the record, while this unquestionably meets the ITN criteria in a literal sense (the highest value transfer of all time to the most successful club in European history in what most would consider to be the world's most popular team sport), my weak support is based as much on the lack of recent updates and emphasis on death as anything else. The cynic in me would point out that the staleness has kept Syria on the template... but anyway. If we post on the basis of the €100 million barrier being broken for the first time, then we can ensure that we do not set a precedent. —WFC— FL wishlist 22:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, UK - it is common to see and hear "X team has paid Y pounds for the signature of player Z", or more commonly "X have signed Z for Y pounds". The amount the player is being paid is rarely stated (if indeed it is even known). Black Kite (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moderate support. A story not connected to anyone dying, at last. Formerip (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't think a contract signing is ITN-material at all. We do not post the majority of sports items, such as records or retirements of major stars, and I don't see what makes this as notable as a championship (I don't believe soccer's popularity makes anything major that happens in the sport automatic ITN-quality where it would not in any other sport). --PlasmaTwa2 06:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sports trivia is not really all that important in a world history context. Thue (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. I can understand the attraction of posting this, and the precedent set the last time the record was broken. But at the end of the day it's just a player moving teams. ITN (rightly) restricts itself to posting the results of sporting competitions, not the factors which may or may not influence what those results might be. On the other hand, the news is slow right now. Modest Genius talk 13:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A soccer record, perhaps, but the NFL, NHL and NBA have all had $100 million+ contracts, while MLB easily eclipsed this transfer, going as high as $270 million. €100 million is a very sexy number, but it is still an arbitrary figure, and not a world record. Resolute 14:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose This is a sports transaction, which is of lesser importance than a non-sports business transaction. This doesn't fundamentally change the game in any way. Further, soccer is strongly represented in ITN/R and other posts that get consensus from time to time. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm not a football fan (I only watch big matches), but I find this news to be of worldwide interest. FYI the page was visited 80k times yesterday [49]. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because it's not nearly as important as Verizon buying out Vodaphone for US$130 Billion (1000 times as much money as this deal).[50] If we are going to run a business transaction, why not that one? Jehochman Talk 17:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. The more I read here, the less I support it- if this money is just a fee from one team to another. I'm inclined to agree with Muboshgu's reasoning above- though I still understand this is being heavily covered in the news. 331dot (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose One-sport record. As mentioned, it is dwarfed by both of Rodriguez's MLB contracts. Teemu08 (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This will be a weak support if that matters, though I'm not a believer in that sort of !vote. However this seems to be getting a fair bit of coverage. The baseball drug ban was posted a few weeks ago and one of the support !vote rationales read something like 'baseball news doesn't often reach my country'. This has certainly got coverage across the atlantic. This is certainly viewed in the football world as a very significant story, and it's a record within the sport that won't likely be broken for a few years (I won't attempt to compare it with an MLB contract). My sense is this is less significant than transfers in the last decade involving David Backham or C Ronaldo but it's still in money terms a record-breaking transfer.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a record in football, so I like this news... Hanamanteo (talk) 09:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please just delete nonsensical, pointless posts like the above? HiLo48 (talk) 09:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This user is a newbie who is starting to improve their comments (they were previously only posting simple votes) per comments on their talk page. Let's continue to help them instead of just removing their posts. They might simply be referring to the fact that this was a record in soccer/football as a rationale for their support. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are certainly NOT "simply...referring to the fact that this was a record in soccer/football", because they also said "I like this news". It's important to help a newbie by at least pointing out that whether or not we like something is irrelevant here. HiLo48 (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That may be,(though "I like this news" could mean they "like it" for ITN) but removing their posts is not the answer. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I can accept not biting the newbies, but the post is inappropriate. It doesn't belong. It should be removed, but with a "nice" explanation to the newbie. An inappropriate post is an inappropriate post, no matter who makes it. HiLo48 (talk) 11:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with the post. Saying you like something may not add much to your vote but it is hardly a hanging offence. Formerip (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I can think of no better way to discourage someone from posting here than by removing their posts, no matter how nice an explanation is given to them. The post is not vandalism, vulgar, or a personal attack, and provides a reason for their support. There is no rule that says a reason has to be lengthy, worded eloquently, or deemed appropriate by HiLo48 to be posted here. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Momčilo Krajišnik

[edit]
Article: Momčilo Krajišnik (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Convicted Serbian war criminal Momčilo Krajišnik is released early from prison to a hero's welcome. (Post)
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Well we don't often have early releases for war criminals. Ibn light of the couple of ICTY postings weve made I think this is somewhat different there. Lihaas (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a new story. He hasn't died. Formerip (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced his conviction wouldn't have been posted (convicted of extermination, murder, persecution, deportation, and forced transfer) but I would need to see some news coverage of this before deciding whether to support it or not. Lihaas, it would help your nominations if you posted some news sources with them. 331dot (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lihaas, you're the only person I ever see post possible blurbs without including news references, and there's exactly one in the article regarding his freedom. Additionally, I don't think- even if it was a direct quote from BBC News or the New York Times- we would use a phrase such as "a hero's welcome". Things like that make it very hard to support a nomination. -- Mike (Kicking222) 22:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thats cause on each nom the references are with the update.Lihaas (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a slot in the nom template for "sources" for a reason. An article can be updated without being in the news to the level required for even considering posting an item. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but saying "the references are with the update" is unacceptable. First, as 331dot said, there's a reason "sources" is a field on the template. Second, I obviously read the article, and I noted in my comment that there was only one reference in said article regarding his release (so even if more had been added in the four days between my comment and your response, the crux of your response would have still been moot). Third, there's STILL only one reference about his release in the article. So, to summarize, you nominated an article that you knew was under-sourced, then told me that you didn't have to provide sources in the nomination because they existed in the article, even though those sources clearly were not there. -- Mike (Kicking222) 22:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Death of David Frost

[edit]
Article: David Frost (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  British journalist and broadcaster David Frost dies at the age of 74 (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ British journalist and broadcaster David Frost dies of a heart attack during a speaking engagement
News source(s): Sydney Morning Herald
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 YuMaNuMa Contrib 11:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support as RD. --Johnsemlak (talk) 11:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support As the article will tell anyone who is interested, he was a lot more than a journalist. He played a huge role in British comedy of the 1960s, hosting, among other shows, The Frost Report, which launched the television careers of John Cleese, Ronnie Barker and Ronnie Corbett. Not a bad little achievement. HiLo48 (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC) }}[reply]

support RD. came her to nom it. But pending the requisite UPDATE hIGH PROFILE INTERNATIONAL REPORTER.Lihaas (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb: passes WP:ITND criteria 2. Sceptre (talk) 12:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although given that there have been two deaths in quick succession, neither of which were unusual circumstances and the first was not in unusual circumstances, I would request that Seamus Heaney goes to RD if this is to become a full blurb. Personally I would prefer that both were RD, because neither death was unusual, but I acknowledge that my view on when to RD and when to blurb differs from the general consensus. —WFC— FL wishlist 12:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Corrected —WFC— FL wishlist 12:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
74 year-old man dies of heart attack. Why is that unusual? Formerip (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If dying whilst doing something life-threatening propels someone from no ITN coverage to a full blurb, dying whilst doing a job which wasn't life-threatening should surely merit a full blurb in Frost's case, given that he qualifies for ITN anyway. —WFC— FL wishlist 12:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NO, because YOU knew who he was at 10 that does NOT make a full blurb not objectionable. Are you seriously claiming your whim and fancy determines that? Lihaas (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? Medeis is suggesting that because she has been aware of Frost's prominence since she was 10 (and considering that's an English journalist's significance in the US), she doesn't object to the full blurb. Lihaas, please try to express your opposition with some kind of logical background and demonstration that you understand the preceding comments. Oh, and avoid the SHOUTING nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And yet below, Medeis is (still) virulently opposing Seamus Heaney because RD blurbs should be reserved only for "statesmen in office". Or are there two Medeises? Formerip (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You people need to learn the meaning of objectivity and detachment. I still oppose this being a blurb. You check what I have written above, I will wait while you do so. See? I oppose a blurb for this. But I also recognize that there is a good majority in favor of one. And the article is ready, so I have marked it ready because it is ready, not because I want it to go up as a full blurb. Although I oppose a full blurb, I do not find its being posted objectionable in the way I would the recent MTVA performance by that ex-mouseketeer. It's an objective observation that I knew who Frost was long before I knew who most Brits were, admitting which hardly merits a screaming response. As for virulence, Seamus Heaney (whose Beowulf I own) elicits a ho hum, not rabid hysteria. μηδείς (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copy-edit: Removed unnecessary commas from blurb and alt. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 19:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, oppose blurb. Clearly notable in the field of journalism, but I don't think he was at the tip-top of his field to warrant a blurb, and he certainly isn't at the level of others who have received blurbs. 331dot (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb (can't post this per WP:COI because of criticism to my post below for a similar situation) per reactions to his death, and one of the most respected journalists in the later half of the 20th century. Not to mention all those stale items we have ITN, please nominate more content this for example. I'm too busy to go though global news and look for suggestible candidates Secret account 21:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm surprised at the level of support for a blurb and I think it's a mistake. I think blurbs are for people who are truly exceptional in their field. As in you try to think of someone more significant than them, then after a while you think of someone, then you realise that the person you thought of is actually dead. I'm not knocking David Frost, and I'd definitely put him in my all-time top 50 list of TV personalities named David. But I think any admin that posts this needs to be really sure I have things backwards. Formerip (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, but Frost was standout in his generation of political commentators and interviewers. You may wish to belittle it by your "best David" list, but the community disagrees with you. Deal with it and stop trying to unduly influence any posting admin with your "backwards" speak. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be honest, I was surprised as well, given that Heaney (who is almost certainly more notable in his field than Frost was in his) was such a close call. I guess his more worldwide profile is something to do with that. Black Kite (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to recent deaths. --Orlady (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seamus Heaney] has 50% fewer pages views than Frost both before and after posting. Either Frost deserves a blurb, or Heaney should be put on the RD ticker. Abductive (reasoning) 16:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if you would mention this on the Heaney thread, if you haven't. μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Miley Cyrus blows them both out of the water. But, luckily, that's not how we decide what's important and what isn't. Formerip (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both are old men, who worked with words. Comparing page views tells us that more of our readers are interested in Frost. Be saying that "we" judge you are saying the handful of people who comment on ITN/C are more important than the thousands of readers of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for the readers, not your notions of what is important. Abductive (reasoning) 18:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes ITNC editors do have to make decisions like that. But we do take into account recognition people get from authoritative sources. Semeus Heaney received the Nobel Prize, which is about the highest honor anyone can get in any field. So so it's certainly possible that Heaney is more notable than David Frost despite page views, which are not insignificant but don't necessarily represent notability, ore even reader interest necessarily. I'm making no assertion on who is the more notable of either of these men, but certainly a Nobel counts for a great deal.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A play and a movie were made out just of a set of interviews that Frost did. Other Nobel laureates were not posted. My argument is sound; people are more interested in Frost. Consensus for a blurb is about the same here as in the Heaney nom. Abductive (reasoning) 05:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, people are much more interested in twerking. Formerip (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Specious argument. My argument is that Frost and Seamus should be treated equally. Besides, if Miley Cyrus were to die, not just twerk, would you oppose posting that? Abductive (reasoning) 19:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Booth, Robert (2009-04-03). "Library of Birmingham plans unveiled as recession opens a new chapter for civic buildings". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2010-07-09.
  2. ^ The British Library in London is larger, but is only open to the public by appointment
  3. ^ "Library of Birmingham on BBC Radio 4". Mecanoo architecten. Retrieved 2012-05-08.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/September_2013&oldid=1144427043"