위키백과:뉴스/후보/2013년 8월

8월 31일

---

스티븐 타리 RD

8월 30일

---

[포스팅] 신세계 최장 협곡

명명자의 의견:나는 그것을 업데이트하지 않을 수 없다 - 나는 뉴스를 검색할 수는 있지만, 내가 일하는 동안 그것을 읽을 수는 없다."세상에서 가장 긴 협곡"은 자주 깨지는 음반은 아니어서, 여기에 올리면 누군가 기사를 업데이트 할 수 있을 거라고 생각했다.아직 이름이 있는지 모르겠는데, 새 기사 이름이 얼마나 좋을지 모르겠어.제시카 라이언 (토크) 11시 29분, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)

• 코멘트 더 좋은 블러브 제안 - 나는 내 것이 형편없다는 것을 안다. :-P 제시카 라이언 (토크) 11:37, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)

세계에서 가장 긴 협곡이 그린란드의 빙판 아래에서 발견된다.자격을 갖추기 위해서, 그 레드링크는 협곡에 관한 기사를 가리켜야 한다.시작 후 WP에 제출하십시오.DYK. 또한, 협곡은 새로운 것이 아니다.오래 전부터 있어온 것이다.Jehchman 12:14, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)

• 여기가 가장 긴 협곡인 게 확실해?일단 그 기사가 만들어지면(그리고 제발 "세계에서 가장 긴 협곡"이라고 부르지 마라) 팩토이드는 확인을 위해 이차적인 출처를 필요로 할 것이다.나는 그 협곡이 오랫동안 그곳에 숨어 있었기에 충분히 흥미롭다고 제안하고, 흐릿한 협곡은 그것을 가장 오래라고 부르는 것을 피해야 한다고 제안한다.납북(이유) 13:30, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)
• 협곡에 자체 기사가 나면 지원. -- Ypnnipn (토크) 14:20, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)
• 주요 발견 지원: altblurb: "그린란드 빙하 아래에서 발견된 새로운 협곡이 세계에서 가장 긴 협곡이다." (토크) 16:17, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)

"과학자들이 그린란드 빙하 아래에서 세계에서 가장 긴 협곡을 발견한다"는 것은 어떨까? - Ypnynpn (토크) 17:51, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)

그렇다, 혹은 "세계의 것 중 하나"가 좋은 것 같다.μΔείςς (talk) 20:12, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)

나는 지금까지 이게 최고라고 생각해.— -다이노마이트 20:23, 2013년 8월 31일 (UTC)

• 댓글을 달다.협곡에 이름이 있니?"그린랜드 협곡"은 이상한 기사 제목처럼 보인다.구립(토크) 17:00, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)

아직 이름은 없다.나는 기사가 좀 더 확대되면 이것을 게시하는 것을 지지한다.Jehchman 17:10, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)

• 당깃, 정보원이 '가장 긴 것 중 하나'라고만 해납북(이유) 17:43, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)

오늘 아침에 읽은 소식통이 가장 길다고 해서 현재의 기록 보유자(중국에서, 내 생각엔)와 비교했는데 어디서 발견했는지 기억이 나지 않는다.여기서 링크한 건 검색한 첫 번째 히트곡인데, 게시할 때 말했듯이 지금은 읽을 수가 없어.나는 메데이스의 애매모호한 말을 다시 쓰는 것을 지지한다. 그리고 만약 대부분의 정보원이 그것을 가장 오래라고 부르지 않는 것이 밝혀진다면, "세계에서 가장 긴 것 중 하나"로 바꾸는 것을 지지한다.제시카 라이언 (토크) 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)

• 현재 기사에는 이런 참고 자료가 있다.Staszek Lem (대화) 20:05, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)

• 댓글을 달다.나는 방금 이 기사를 발견했다: 그린란드의 그랜드 캐년.제시카 라이언 (토크) 2013년 8월 30일 18시 10분 (UTC)
  • 하지만 공식 명칭은 아니다. 내 강연을 보라.그린란드의 그랜드 캐년.Staszek Lem (대화) 19:30, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)

그때도 우리는 공식적인 이름을 가질 필요가 없다.중요한 건 그 자체고, 우리는 항상 방향을 바꿀 수 있다.μΔείςς (talk) 20:12, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)

그 글은 두 단락의 가치가 더 필요하지만, 나는 과장되게 다루어져야 한다.μΔείςς (talk) 22:12, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)

• 웁 지지, dat 엄청나게 큰 협곡이 하나 있다.(대백과사전 가치, 기사는 새 세계 최대, 새것으로 만들어지고 있다...) --솜차이 선 (토크) 22:40, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)
• 기사가 더 잘 업데이트될 때까지 기다리세요.이것은 흥미롭지만, 무심코 읽는 사람에게는 이미지가 없으면 거의 말하지 않는다.누군가가 무료 버전을 만들 때까지 누군가 이것을 업로드할 것을 제안한다.네르가알(대화) 02:05, 2013년 8월 31일 (UTC)
• 느린 뉴스 데이를 채우려면 "...그리고 마침내" 아래에 있는 파일에 반대하라.Lugnuts 14:55, 2013년 8월 31일 (UTC)
• 지원 일단 그 기사가 좀 더 발전되었다.— -다이노마이트 20:23, 2013년 8월 31일 (UTC)
• 그 이야기를 지지해 주지만, 그 모호한 표현은 적어도 400만년 이상 된, 어쩌면 더 오래되었을지도 모르는, "새로 발견된" 것 보다는 "새로 발견된" 것으로 표현하는 것이 더 나을 것이다.이 규모의 지리적/지리적 특성은 매일 지구상에서 발견되는 것이 아니기 때문에, 이것은 분명히 뉴스거리가 될 만한 것이다.Thryduulf (대화) 14:58, 2013년 9월 1일 (UTC)
• 티리듀울프 제안과 함께 게시.시크릿 01:01, 2013년 9월 2일 (UTC)

[게시] 시무스 헤이니 RD

명명자의 의견:노벨 문학상을 수상했고, 일부는 W. B. 예이츠 이후 그를 아일랜드 최고의 시인으로 여겼다.The Rambling Man (talk) 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)

• 지지하다.그의 장문의 명예와 상, 그리고 그의 연구 목록을 보면 그의 분야에서 그의 중요성에 대해 납득이 간다.기사 상태가 좋은 것 같아. 331도트(토크) 10:34, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)
• 든든한 지지.지난 100년간 가장 영향력 있는 시인 중 한 명.노벨상 수상자.정확히 RD가 뭘 위한 거지?Modest Genius^talk 11:08, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)
  • 게시 후 업데이트:나는 완전히 애매모호한 것에 반대하지 않는다.Modest Genius 11:22, 2013년 8월 31일 (UTC)
• RD에 대한 지원이나, 그가 일반적으로 20세기의 가장 위대한 영어 시인들 중 한 명으로 여겨지기 때문에, 흐릿하게 들린다.구립(토크) 11시 12분, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)
• Tom B (talk) 11:13, 2013년 8월 30일(UTC) 이상의 코멘트에 대한 지원 동의
• 25년 전 영문학 시험을 위해 그의 시를 공부했던 기억이 난다.그 기사를 보면, 너무 영향력이 있어서 아마 그는 아마 애매모호한 사람일 것이다, 솔직히 말해서.하지만 분명히 RD를 위해서.블랙 카이트 (토크) 11시 17분, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)
• 지지하다.나는 RD를 선호하지만 그가 RD에 대해 언급하는 것으로 충분하다고 느끼는 나의 일반적인 느낌은 충분하지만 그는 흐리멍덩할 정도로 충분히 주목할 수 있다.노벨상 수상자는 분명히 우리의 사망 기준에 부합하지만 수상자들은 상당히 자주 사망한다(확실히)-존셀락 (대화) 11:51, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)

나는 그를 다른 노벨상 수상자들과 함께 묶는 것이 그를 좀 모자란다고 생각한다.구립(토크) 12:04, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)

• 지원 RD, 흐림 반대. 요즘 흐림 지위에 도달하려면 매기 대처처럼 뉴스거리가 될 만한 진정한 죽음이 필요하다.– 무보슈구 (대화) 12:14, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)
• 지원 RD Jheald (대화) 12:22, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)
• 절대적으로 그리고 의심할 여지 없이 그의 분야에서 영향력 있는 지원. --Somchai Sun (토크) 12:44, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)
• "최근의 죽음"은 이미 게시되었고, 그 게시물을 게시하는 것에 대한 공감대가 형성되지 않은 것 같다.Jehchman^Talk 12:48, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)
  • 응? 아니, 템플릿에 아무것도 없어. 그리고 네, 청소하고 새로워보려고 했는데.Modest Genius 12:56, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)
• 완전한 흐림을 위한 지원.매우 유명한 아일랜드 시인.에게미 (대화) 13:23, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)
• 지지 (풀 블러브) 엄청나게 주목할 만한 시인.RA - (1905) 13:26, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)
• RD 또는 전체 블럽에 대한 지원.의심할 여지 없이 지난 100년 동안 가장 영향력 있는 시인 중 한 명이다.Thryduulf (대화) 13:35, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)
• 흐림으로 게시됨 흐림 또는 RD에 대한 명확한 공감대가 있지만 흐림에 대한 공감대를 찾는 것은 극히 드물기 때문에 나는 흐림으로 대신했다.그러나 더 나은 업데이트가 필요하다.시크릿^account 14:47, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)
  • 그래, 업데이트 전에 게시되다니 놀랍긴 하지만, 이봐.그 이미지를 Heaney의 이미지로 바꿔 주시겠습니까?The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)
• 포스트 포스트 댓글, 봐봐, 얼간이가 그가 노벨상 수상자라고 말하든지 아니면 그냥 좀 더 긴장해야 할 거야.또한, 나는 Abject blumb를 게시한다.납북(이유) 15:23, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)

• 노트는 이미지를 바꿔 자신의 노벨상 수상과 연관성을 더했다.무슨 문제가 있으면 내게 알려줘.검은 연 (토크) 15:32, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)

• 업데이트되지 않은 wtf, 여러분?그 기사에는 그가 죽었다는 새로운 문장이 하나 있다.업데이트될 때까지 당겨야 한다.μΔείςς (talk) 16:12, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)
  • TRM, 업데이트해줘서 고마워. (그리고 내가 여기 있는 동안, 문학계에서 그의 위상을 감안해서 완전히 흐린 것에 대한 포스트 포스트 지원책을 추가하겠다.)Bencherlite 16^Talk:46, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)
• 예상치 못한 죽음이나 임기 중 정치인이 아닌 기록상 완전히 흐릿해지는 것에 반대한다.μΔείςς (talk) 17:58, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)
  • 죽은 사람에 대한 ITN의 흐릿함은 "예상치 못한" 것이거나 "임기 중"이어야 한다는 정책을 나에게 가르쳐 주시겠습니까?(예: 마가렛 대처는 그런 기준들 중 어느 것도 충족시키지 못했다...) 건배.The Rambling Man (talk) 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)
  • (그리고 결국 대량 살인으로 기소/고발/고발된 미군들로 ITN을 어지럽히지 않은 것은 신선한 변화 아닌가?)The Rambling Man (talk) 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)
    • RD가 세워졌을 때 휘트니 휴스턴이 일종의 벤치마크를 대표한다는 공감대라고 할 수 있는 것이 대충 생각나는 것 같다.그녀의 죽음은 예상하지 못한 것이었을지도 모르지만, 그때 (말씀을 망설이며) 코리 몬티스의 죽음도 마찬가지였다.구립 (대화)2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)
      • 만약 휴스턴이 77세에 죽었다면 그녀는 더 흥분했을 것이다.Monteith는 너무 빨리 게시되어 심의가 불가능했다, 이 흐릿했던 것처럼.완전한 흐림을 위한 지지가 4개밖에 없는 것을 감안하면, 나는 이것이 하향 조정되어야 한다고 생각한다.μΔείςς (talk) 20:40, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)
        • 몬테이스는 모든 치료를 받는데, 그건 선례야.여기, 우리는 TV쇼에 나오는 어린아이가 아닌, 매우 상을 많이 받은 한 랜드마크 시인에 대해 이야기 하고 있다.몬테이트를 흐려서 기준이 정해졌으니 완전한 흐림을 반대하는 주장은 타당하지 않다.그리고 나의 질문을 반복하면서, "예상하지 못한" 혹은 "임기 중"의 호소를 지지하는 정책이나 지침은 어디에 있는가?The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)

코리 몬티스는 흐림이 아닌 RD로 등재됐다. --봉와리어 (토크) 20:57, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)

아니나 다를까, 위의 나의 잘못된 논평이 적중했다.이 기사에서 언급했듯이: "2013년 그의 사망에 대해 인디펜던트는 그를 "아마도 세계에서 가장 잘 알려진 시인"이라고 묘사했다. 아마도 결국 흐림으로써 가치가 있을 것이다.The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)

• 완전히 반대하다.내가 이해한 것은 죽음에 대한 완전한 모호함은 사회 전반을 위한 것이라는 것이다; 널리 퍼지고 즉각적인 보도(예: 정규 TV 프로그램에 침입하는 것)가 되고 폭넓은 관심을 갖는 죽음이다.분명히 이 시인은 시 분야에서 매우 주목할 만하지만, 나는 그가 마거릿 대처나 넬슨 만델라(내가 흔히 보는 완전한 목록을 얻을 수 있는 마지막 죽음을 믿는다)의 경지에 오르지는 않는다고 생각한다.331닷 (토크) 21:23, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)
  • 흐릿함에 대한 사망 기준을 이렇게 엄격하게 해석한 전례는 없다.사실, 우리는 과거에 많은 노벨상 수상자들을 애매모호하게 다루었다.Teemu08 (대화) 22:32, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)

나는 여기에 그렇게 오래 있지는 않았지만, 그 '과거'의 대부분은 티커가 등장하기 전이었다고 믿는다. 331 도트 (토크) 23:29, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)

간지럼은 상관없다.티커를 사용하는 것이 정말로 모호한 것에 대한 기준을 높여야 한다는 일부 논의가 있었지만, 내가 알기로는 그 문제에 대해 어떠한 합의도 이루어지지 않았다.만약 내가 틀렸다면, 나에게 알려줘.Teemu08 (대화) 00:57, 2013년 8월 31일 (UTC)

• 댓글을 달다.Meidis 및 331dot:원하면 반대 후를 받을 자격이 있지만, 두 사람 모두 상상의 기준들에 근거하여 그렇게 하고 있는 것 같은데, 이것은 유효한 접근법이 아니다.우리는 여전히 최근의 사망에 대한 기준을 가지고 있고 그들을 제거하려는 최근의 시도는 실패했다.여기서 관련된 기준은 2번이다: "고인은 그 분야에서 매우 중요한 인물로 널리 간주되었다."티커가 들어오기 전보다 더 높은 바(bar)를 적용해야 한다는 게 대체적인 이해가 있다고 봐야 옳다.그러나 새 기준을 허공에서 끌어낼 근거는 없다.구립 (대화) 22:41, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)

나는 단지 내가 본 토론의 일반적인 일치점이라고 내가 관찰한 것을 요약하고 있었다.나는 그들이 구체적인 기준이라고 주장하는 것이 아니었다.어느 쪽이든, 죽음에 대한 모호함이 어떻게 선택되어야 하는지에 대한 내 의견으로 남아있다.331dot (대화) 23:29, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)

"그의 분야에서 매우 중요한 인물"이 되는 것은 한 사람을 더 화나게 한다.이 기준을 만족하는 사람들이 어떤 사람들을 흐릿하게 할 자격이 있는지 어떻게 결정해야 하는지는 구체적으로 명시되어 있지 않지만, 대부분의 사람들은 티커를 대부분의 죽음에 사용하도록 의도되었기 때문에 상당히 높은 임계값을 적용하고 있다.넬잭 (대화) 23:49, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)

아니, 그건 옳지 않아.기준이 더 까다로워 이를 적용하지 않겠다는 공감대가 형성돼 있지 않다.구립 (대화) 23:52, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)

만약 그것이 사실이라면, 티커에게는 별로 의미가 없어 보일 것이다. 331 도트 (대화) 23:56, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)

아니, 한 경우에 다른 경우보다 높은 임계값을 적용한다.다른 기준에 근거한 문턱이 아니다. 왜냐하면 그런 결정을 내린 적이 없기 때문이다.구립(토크) 00:18, 2013년 8월 31일 (UTC)

달리 주장해 본 적이 없다.나는 기준을 정하지 않았고, 나는 당신이 말하는 높은 문턱이 충족되지 않았다는 나의 의견을 주었는데, 그 이유는 내가 말한 이유들(주로 뉴스 보도 수준과 세계적인 관심사) 때문이다.이것은 여전히 "In the News"이고 뉴스 보도는 적어도 어떤 것이 게시되는 것과 부분적으로는 관련이 있다.나는 그가 마가렛 대처와 동등한 지위에 있다고 생각하지 않는다. 331 도트 (대화) 00:21, 2013년 8월 31일 (UTC)

"마거릿 대처와 동등한 지위"는 그 기준의 일부가 아니다.ITN은 뉴스 보도 수준을 감안하되 언더프레스에서 CNN 앞에 앉아 고개를 끄덕이지 않도록 돼 있다.문제는 그가 그의 분야에서 얼마나 중요했는가 이다.정답은 그가 사망할 당시 그의 위에 아무도 없었다는 것이다.그것이 바로 애매한 점이다.구립(토크) 00:38, 2013년 8월 31일 (UTC)

나는 대처가 이 문제를 기준이 아닌 기준과 비교하기 위해 여기 있는 내 시대에 모호한 반응을 받은 극소수의 죽음 중 하나라고 언급한다.나는 뉴스 취재를 고려한다면, 이것이 흐림을 정당화할 수 없다고 생각한다.그렇지 않았다면, 나는 흐릿해졌어야 했지만 그러지 못한 수많은 다른 사람들을 생각할 수 있었다. 331 도트 (대화) 00:46, 2013년 8월 31일 (UTC)

내가 보기엔 너는 뉴스 보도와 어리석은 기준만 고려하는 것 같아.그것은 좋지 않은 접근이다.구립(토크) 01:06, 2013년 8월 31일 (UTC)

나는 어리석든 그렇지 않든 어떤 새로운 기준을 세우려 하지 않는다. 단지 이 사람이 죽음에 대한 모호한 이유로 당신이 말한 더 높은 기준을 충족시키지 못했다고 말하고, 내 의견에 대한 이유를 제공하려고 한다.당신은 확실히 이 죽음이 그 문턱에 부합한다고 믿을 자격이 있다; 나는 단지 동의하지 않는다. 331 도트 (대화) 01:17, 2013년 8월 31일 (UTC)

• RD 지지, 블럽 반대 분명히 그의 분야에서 매우 중요한 인물이지만, 나는 블럽이 매우 중요한 국제적 영향을 받은 사람들을 위해 유보되어야 한다는 것에 동의한다.넬잭 (대화) 23:46, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)
• 흐릿하게 당기다.나는 (애초에 경미하게 보였던) 합의가 흐릿함을 갖는 것에 대해 반대 방향으로 돌아섰다고 믿고 그것을 당겨줄 것을 요청한다.간지럼을 타는 사람이 사망할 정도로 눈에 띄는 사망자가 많기는 하지만, 완전한 흐림을 위해 필요한 뉴스 보도 수준은 없다. 331 도트 (토크) 23:55, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)

• 당기지 말고, 이것에 대해 생각해 보아라.그것은 매우 퀴퀴한 물건을 대신했고, 그곳에는 아직도 일주일 이상 된 물건들이 남아 있으며, 그것이 메인 페이지에 나타나서 한 명의 독자들이 가서 헤이니의 작품을 조사하게 한다면, 위키피디아는 이곳에서 자유로운 지식의 제공자로서 그 역할을 하고 있는 것이다.지금 그것을 제거하는 것은 정말 터무니없는 일일 것이다.블랙 카이트 (토크) 00:26, 2013년 8월 31일 (UTC)

• 나는 그것이 티커에 기재되는 것을 지지한다. 단지 완전히 흐리지는 않을 뿐이다.지식을 주겠다는 목표는 여전히 더 간지러운 데서 이루어진다.그것은 단순히 최근의 사건을 나열하기 위해 존재해서는 안 된다.이 남자는 정말로 마가렛 대처와 동등한가?그녀의 죽음과 함께 광범위한 뉴스 보도를 보지 못했다. 331도트 (대화) 00:29, 2013년 8월 31일 (UTC)

• 특히 그 이미지가 거기 있을 때, 티커는 분명히 훨씬 덜 보인다.그리고 일주일 전 뉴스에서 사라진 8일 전의 대량 학살자나 그 이후 더 많은 사건에 의해 추월된 시리아의 CW 공격과는 달리, 우리는 거기에 존재함으로써 무엇을 잃고 있는가?아무 것도 없어요.그대로 놔둬라, 내버려둬라..블랙 카이트 (토크) 00:33, 2013년 8월 31일 (UTC)

• 특히 공감대가 바뀐다면, 그것을 지키면서 아무것도 잃지 않는 것은 그것을 지킬 이유가 되지 않는다.대처와 달리 이 죽음은 내가 살고 있는 TV프로그래밍을 방해하지도 않았고, 장례식은 광범위한 취재(또는 유언)를 받지 않았으며, 수일 동안 수다쟁이들이 죽음에 대해 의논하지도 않았고, 1면 치료를 받지도 않았다.그는 그의 분야에서 절대적으로 중요했지만, 세계적인 중요성 면에서 대처에 필적하지는 않았다.다시 말하지만, 새로운 이야기의 부족은 이것을 간직할 이유가 아니다.새로운 이야기들이 지명되어야 한다.331dot (토크) 00:39, 2013년 8월 31일 (UTC)

• 대처의 죽음이 정말로 당신이 사는 TV 일정에 끼어들었는가?사람들이 죽으면 더 이상 그런 일이 없을 줄 알았어.그것은 영국에서 일어나지 않았다.여기서 헤이니의 죽음은 시리아 다음으로 톱이야기다.알두스 헉슬리는 아마도 씁쓸한 미소를 지으며 아래를 내려다보고 있는 것 같다.구립 (대화) 00:44, 2013년 8월 31일 (UTC)
• 새로운 스토리가 잘 선택되어 있지 않기 때문에, 그건 정말 엉터리야.그리고 그를 우연히 완전히 모호하게 된 마지막 사람과 비교하는 것은 단순히 사과와 오렌지를 비교하는 것이다; 우리는 이 시점에서 가장 많은 관심을 받고 있는 이야기를 올린다. 그리고 이것은 확실히 전세계적인 보도 범위를 가지고 있다.블랙 카이트 (토크) 00:48, 2013년 8월 31일 (UTC)

• 이런 의견 교환에 진심으로 감사하지만 여전히 의견을 유지하고 있다. 331닷 (토크) 00:51, 2013년 8월 31일 (UTC)

• RD에 대한 지원 그는 분명히 그의 분야에서 매우 주목할 만하다.나는 뉴스 보도는 아마도 지속적이지 않을 것이기 때문에 흐릿함을 지지하지 않는다.Taylor Trescott - + 00:47, 2013년 8월 31일(UTC)

관리주소 나는 의견 일치에 따라 그 모호한 내용을 게시했다.나는 헤이니가 문학에 미친 영향에 대해 알고 있었지만 지금까지 그의 죽음에 대한 의견은 없었다.죽음의 틱커는 모호한 토론이 논쟁의 조짐이 될 수 있는 경우에 대해서만 만들어졌다.그렇지 않았더라면 만장일치로 그리고 보편적으로 진찰에 앞서 흐림 치료를 승인받았을 죽음에 대해 만들어진 것은 아니다(이것은 다소 명백하다).또한 우리는 여기서 유명인사에 대해 이야기하는 것이 아니라, 많은 학자들이 우리 세대의 가장 위대한 시인이며 노벨상을 포함한 그의 분야에서 가능한 모든 주요 상을 수상한 시인이다.이 모든 부고들을 읽으면서, 헤이니는 그의 분야에서 단지 "매우 중요하다"는 것이 아니라 그의 분야에서 최고였다.그의 죽음은 거의 게시되지 않는 전혀 다른 주제 영역(문학)을 고려하므로 반대는 다소 황당하다. 그리고 그것은 분명 우리가 무작위 유명인사의 죽음과 달리 RD 대 흐림의 미끄러운 비탈길로 이끌지는 않을 것이다.

히네이의 죽음은 뉴욕 타임즈에서 시리아와 다른 많은 영국 언론 소식통들뿐만 아니라 스페인어 [1]에 이어 톱 기사인 반면, 이 매우 설득력 있는 CNN 부고는 빌 클린턴의 애도를 표하며 북아일랜드 분쟁에서 히네이의 역할에 대해 말했다. 다른 세계 지도자들 사이에서는 [2] 더하기 [4] [5] 그리고 수십 개의 다른 사람들 사이에서.부고(대부분의 부고, 다른 출처에서 사용되어도 같은 통신사 출신이다)는 그의 세계적 영향력을 나는 (대부분의 미국) 반대자들이 알고 있다고 믿지 않는다, 이 정도의 광범위한 유산 보도조차도 나를 놀라게 했다.내가 믿는 그 이상의 논의는 일반적으로 위키백과 비평가들에 의해 뉴스에서 비웃음거리가 될 것이다. 몬테이스와 있었던 일과 유사하다.OMG를 예로 들어보자. 모든 나라에 세계적인 영향을 준 정치인만이 토크 페이지에 대한 모호한 토론을 할 자격이 있다.시크릿 03:00, 2013년 8월 31일(UTC)

나는 그런 논의를 바라지 않는다; 나는 단지 이것과 비교하기 위해 내가 아는 가장 최근의 그리고 유일한 예를 들었을 뿐이다.나는 그가 그의 분야에서 최고라는 것, 그가 광범위한 보도를 받았다는 것에 대해 한번도 이의를 제기한 적이 없다; 단지 그가 획득한 IMO가 다른 사람들이 받는 보도를 받지 않았을 뿐이다.내가 틀렸을 수도 있고, 내가 미국인이기 때문에 해고당해야 할 수도 있지만, 내가 생각하는 것만 진술할 수 있다.나는 너보다 미끄러운 비탈길이 되지 않을 것이라고 훨씬 덜 확신한다; 나는 네가 맞기를 바란다. 331 도트 (말)

ITN에 게시된 이후 대부분의 게시물들은 게시물이 흐릿하다고 반대하는 반면, 게시물을 흐릿하게 옹호하는 유일한 사람들이라는 게시물이 처음 게시된 이후 공감대가 옮겨갔다고 생각한다.그렇긴 하지만, 나는 이것이 지속될 것이라는 것을 알지만, 내 의견은 여전히 똑같다.331dot (대화) 03:19, 2013년 8월 31일 (UTC)

매우 주목할 만한 죽음에 대해 전적으로 반대한다.그것은 우리가 게시하는 다른 RD들과 유사하게 훨씬 더 사소한 것이다.완전한 모호함은 또한 강력한 의견 일치를 가진 그것에 대한 명확한 권한이 필요하다.여기선 비난하지 마, 그냥 잘못 지명되어 선의로 게시된 거라고 생각해.리하스 (대화) 11시 44분, 2013년 8월 31일 (UTC)

정확히 어떻게 잘못 지명된 거지?내가 RD 후보자로 지명했는데, 그게 내게 적절해 보였어.다른 사람들은 완전히 적절하다고 느꼈다.The Rambling Man (talk) 2013년 8월 31일 (UTC)

• 왜 좌천되지 않았는지 주목하라.완전한 모호함에 대한 다수결이나 근거는 분명히 없다.μΔείςς (talk) 20:49, 2013년 8월 31일 (UTC)

• 단 두 개의 ITN 항목 중 하나가 실제로 오래되지 않은 항목이기 때문에?(그렇지, 기준 등은 아니지만, 사실 여전히 소수의 찬성이 있고, 나는 Modest Genius와 마찬가지로, 더 이상의 세부사항 없이 "지원"만 하는 사람들 중 몇몇도 완전한 흐림을 지지했을 것이라고 의심한다 - 그 당시 그것은 여전히 RD로 광고되었다.)그리고 위의 제 코멘트에 따르면, 이 코멘트가 지금 게시되어 있기 때문에, 우리는 이 코멘트를 제거함으로써 아무것도 얻을 수 없을 것이다.코리 몬테이스의 실패에 대한 타릭의 말을 인용하자면, "이것은 적어도 게시 당시엔 게시물을 올리기로 합의했기 때문에 게시되었다. 왜 제거되지 않았는가? 왜냐하면 지금까지 우리가 누구에게도 그렇게 함으로써 서비스를 하고 있다는 어떤 징후도 없었으니까."블랙 카이트 (토크) 21:06, 2013년 8월 31일 (UTC)
• 내 추측으로는 지금까지 어느 행정관도 그 흐림을 제거하기 위한 설득력 있는 사례가 만들어졌다고 느끼지 못했다는 것이다.구립 (대화) 21:25, 2013년 8월 31일 (UTC)

관리자들은 또한 왜 그들이 특정한 변화에 반대하는지를 표현하는데 찬성하지 않으며, 아무도 왜 이것이 합의에 반대하는 완전한 모호함이 필요한지에 대해 의견을 제시하지 않았다.IP. μηδδίς(talk) 21:57, 2013년 8월 31일 (UTC)

이것은 내가 위에서 언급한 바와 같이, 그리고 이 시점에서 실제로 그것에 반대하는 의견이 일치하지 않기 때문이다.그리고 더 중요한 것은, 아직 아무도 그가 ITND 기준 2를 통과하지 못하는 방법에 대해 지적하지 않았기 때문이다.검은 연(토크) 12:28, 2013년 9월 1일(UTC) 검은 연(토크) 22:05, 2013년 8월 31일(UTC)

우리는 무작위로 글을 올리지 않는다. 왜냐하면 그렇게 하는 것에 반대하는 공감대가 없기 때문이다.Heaney가 ITN에 종사하는 것에 대해 다수 의견 일치는 없다. 그는 RD로 강등되어야 한다. 그것은 RfC가 애초에 RD를 설립하면서 결정한 정책이다.μΔείςς (talk) 18:55, 2013년 9월 1일 (UTC)

당시 올리자는 공감대가 형성돼 있었다.지금 그것을 끌어내야 한다는 공감대가 아직 형성되지 않았다.물론, 이것은 게시물이 이미 게시되었기 때문에, 그 게시물을 지지할 사람은 지금 논평하지 않을 것이라는 사실에 더해진다.지금 논평하는 사람들은 그것에 동의하지 않는 사람들뿐이다.균형 잡힌 토론이 아니기 때문에 그것을 근거로 해서 우리가 끌어내야 할 방법은 절대 없다.나도 프로스트가 (괜찮아) 완전히 흐릿하게 게시되려고 한다고 지적하고 싶지만, 히니만큼 자기 분야에서 주목받았을 리가 없다.검은 연 (토크) 19:21, 2013년 9월 1일 (UTC)

ITND 기준 2는 완전한 모호성을 보장하는 것은 아니다.사실, 사망이 애매모호한 것이어야 하는지, 아니면 RD 게시물이 되어야 하는지에 대해서는 어떠한 지침도 없다: 그 문제는 전적으로 사례별로 지역 합의에 달려 있다.—WFC—12:51, 2013년 9월 1일(UTC)

• 트라우트 시크릿, leave blumb - 나는 여름 위키브레이크에서 나와서 이것이 최근에 행정 시크릿이 ITN 피쳐링에 올리기 위해 눈에 띄게 파괴적인 전화를 건 두 번째라고 말할 것이다.이것은 ITN의 불명확한 죽음이 아니라 훌륭한 RD 후보였다.철수를 요청하는 타인과 함께 하고 싶은 유혹이 있지만, 우리에게 안정성이 필요한 현 시점에서 그렇게 하는 것은 ITN에 더 큰 지장을 줄 것이다.나는 개인적으로 타협한 관리자인 시크릿에게 트라우마를 받아들이고 올해 남은 기간 동안 어떤 ITN 관리 게시물에도 물러서 줄 것을 요청하고 싶다.이제 ITN 신규 후보작을 몇 가지 얻어서 앞으로 나아가자.Jusdafax 09:59, 2013년 9월 1일 (UTC)

• 그럼 데이비드 프로스트는 어때?(악마의 웃음) 블랙 카이트 (대화) 12시 30분, 2013년 9월 1일 (UTC)

• 내가 위에서 말했듯이, 어느 것도 ITN의 완전한 흐림을 위한 현재의 표준에는 적합하지 않다.우리가 RD를 받기 전에 나는 그렇다고 말했을 것이다.Jusdafax 18:13, 2013년 9월 1일 (UTC)

• David Frost를 위한 새로운 블러브와 함께 RD로 이동하십시오.—WFC—12:51, 2013년 9월 1일(UTC)

• 프로스트를 넣을 거면 히니보다는 아주 퀴퀴한 다른 항목(사우디아라비아와 애쉬에서 온 것 말고 모두 일주일 이상 된 것)을 빼는 게 어때?검은 연 (토크) 14:44, 2013년 9월 1일 (UTC)

• 그 이야기들 중 몇 가지가 얼마나 진부한지를 본 나는, 두 명의 죽음을 맞이하는 것이 세상에서 가장 나쁜 일은 아닐 것이라는 것에 동의한다.매우 흥미있는 두 작가를 연속적으로 둔하고 공식적 모호함으로 묶는 것은 주제들을 정당화하지는 못하지만, 대안은 거의 2주 전에 일어났던 사건을 계속하는 것이다.—WFC—20:28, 2013년 9월 1일(UTC)

8월 29일

---

8월 28일

---

룬즈버그가 문을 닫다

명명자의 의견:영국의 이튼을 폐쇄하는 것과 비슷할 것이다.스웨덴의 고등 엘리트들은 이 학교의 학생이었고 그 뉴스는 세계 미디어로부터 주목을 받았다. --BabbaQ (토크) 21:40, 2013년 8월 29일 (UTC)

• 반대한다. 나는 학교 자체가 이튼 칼리지와 동등하게 그것이 얼마나 중요한지를 보여주는 기사가 있었으면 좋겠다.지금 기사는 폐쇄에 관한 1개 본문 섹션의 소개야.그럼에도 불구하고, 휴업은 일시적이고 학교에 미치는 영향이 그렇게 오래 지속되는 것 같지는 않다.내가 상황을 오해하고 있다면 알려주면 반대 의견을 다시 생각해 보겠다.스펜서^T♦C 22:20, 2013년 8월 29일 (UTC)

비록 학교가 임시 휴교하더라도, 그 학교는 다시 문을 열지 않을 것이 이미 확실하다.이러한 학대는 아주 오랜 기간 동안 학교 시스템의 일부로서 계속되어 왔지만 지난 몇 년 동안 "해고" 되었을 뿐이다.학교장 등 학교 주동자 전원이 직무에서 손을 뗐다.--BabbaQ (토크) 22:31, 2013년 8월 29일 (UTC)

• 스펜서 한 명당 반대한다.넬잭 (대화) 00:03, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)
• "일시적"에 반대하는 것은 모든 것을 말한다.μΔείςς (talk) 01:13, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)
• 스펜서와 메데이스에 반대하라.331닷 (토크) 01:40, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)
• 하나만테오 지원 (토크) 04:28, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)
• 반대 학교도 크게 눈에 띄지 않는 것 같고 폐교도 큰 행사가 아닌 것 같다.Taylor Trescott - + 17:05, 2013년 8월 31일(UTC)
  • 지극히 미국적이거나 영국적이거나..멋지다.--BabbaQ (대화) 12:06, 2013년 9월 1일 (UTC)
    • 자, 스웨덴어 위키백과에 관한 기사는 이것보다 거의 길지 않다. 71.178.184.73 (대화) 18:52, 2013년 9월 2일 (UTC)

[게시] 사우디아라비아 가정폭력법

명명자의 의견:사우디에서 가정폭력이 하루아침에 영(0)으로 떨어질 것으로 예상할 수는 없지만, 전통적으로 가정폭력이 남의 일로 여겨져 온 나라에서 여성의 권리에 큰 발전이다.구립 (대화) 21:15, 2013년 8월 28일 (UTC)

• 우리가 그 정도까지 다루지 않는 한 지역에서 주목할 만하고 흥미로운 이야기 - 여성의 권리 - 를 지지하라.넬잭 (대화) 00:05, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)
• 지지하다.주목할 만한 발전, 사우디아라비아뿐 아니라 중동 전반. 331도트(토크) 01:40, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)
• 지원 사우디 아라비아에서 이런 일이 일어나고 있기 때문에 특히 주목할 만하다.기사 업데이트가 잘 되어 있어서 이번 지명을 [준비 완료]로 표기하고 있다.스펜서^T♦C 03:54, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)
• 게시. Jehochman 12:19, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)

8월 27일

---

시리아 스티키

대부분의 뉴스는 시리아에 관한 것 같다.화학 공격이 아직 ITN에 있지만 곧 떨어질 거야...ITN에 다른 항목을 추가할 때 현재 및 잠재적 향후 커버리지의 양을 고려할 때 시리아 블럽을 끈적끈적하게 변환할 것을 제안한다. Ashish-g55 18:48, 2013년 8월 27일(UTC)

• 오늘의 지지 헤드라인은 미국의 파업은 언제가 아니라 언제가 문제라는 것이었다.μΔείςς (talk) 19:37, 2013년 8월 27일 (UTC)
• 지지하다.이르면 이번 주 후반에 시리아에 대한 조치가 나올 수 있다.331닷(대화) 21:36, 2013년 8월 27일(UTC)
• 반대 대부분의 뉴스가 시리아에 관한 것이라는 것은 분명 사실이 아니다 - 다른 국제 뉴스는 시리아에 대한 관심에도 불구하고 줄어들지 않고 있다.공습이 단지 시간 문제라는 것이 사실이라면, 그 때 우리는 그것들이 발생했을 때 게시할 수 있다.나는 우리가 게시물이 너무 많을 때 스틱을 게시해야 한다고 믿는다; 나는 우리가 보통 게시할 시리아에 대한 새로운 이야기들이 있다고 보지 않는다. 만약 우리가 그것들을 게시할 수 있다면, 현재의 시리아 이야기가 곧 중단될 것이기 때문이다.넬잭 (대화) 21:49, 2013년 8월 27일 (UTC)

시리아는 현재 NBC 뉴스, CNN, BBC 뉴스, 호주, 아일랜드 타임즈, 타임즈 오브 인디아, 르몽드, 슈피겔, 내가 계속 가야 하나?이것은 사람들이 위키피디아에 더 많은 것을 배우기 위해 올 수 있는 것이고 우리는 그들이 그것을 쉽게 찾을 수 있도록 만들어야 한다.실제 파업을 기다릴 필요가 없다; 이것은 지금 뉴스에 나온다. 331닷 (토크) 22:08, 2013년 8월 27일 (UTC)

• 반대한다. 우리는 우리가 예견한 일들에 대한 이야기를 게시하지 않는다. 스틱도 마찬가지다.구립 (대화) 22:13, 2013년 8월 27일 (UTC)

우리는 아무것도 예측하고 있지 않다.내 말은 시리아에서 많은 업데이트가 나오고 있고 (현재 상황을 고려할 때) 계속 나올 것이고, 위키에서 기사를 찾기가 반드시 가장 쉬운 것은 아니기 때문에 시리아 이야기가 중단될 때라는 것이다.ITN은 그것을 보관하는 장소 -- Ashish-g55 22:19, 2013년 8월 27일 (UTC)

• 반대하라. 이미 템플릿에 시리아가 흐릿하게 그려져 있는데, 끈적끈적한 (반대)를 구현하기 전에 무슨 일이 일어나기를 기다려야 한다.지금은 잡담과 추측이 난무할 뿐이다.Modest Genius^talk 22:17, 2013년 8월 27일 (UTC)
  • 무슨 일이 일어나고 있다; 공격이 계획되고 있다.한 국가가 공개적으로 다른 국가를 공격하려는 음모는 흔한 사건이 아니다. 331닷 (대화) 22:24, 2013년 8월 27일 (UTC)
    • 공격은 항상 계획되어 있다.유능한 총참모부라면 누구나 언제든지 출동할 수 있는 수십 개의 공격 계획을 가지고 있다.우리가 가지고 있는 것은 정치인들의 미사여구다 - 그리고 우리 모두는 그것이 미래에 대한 예측자로서 얼마나 신뢰할 수 없는 것인지 알고 있다.만약 공격이 일어난다면 그것은 뉴스가 될 것이다.정치인들이 '마침내 뭔가를 진지하게 고민해야 한다'고 말하는 것은 아니다.Modest Genius^talk 22:59, 2013년 8월 27일 (UTC)
      • 공격은 "항상" 계획될 수 있지만(그리고 순전히 가상적인 계획과 실제 공격을 계획하는 것 사이에는 차이가 있다) 그것들은 "항상" 뉴스에는 없고, 이것은 "뉴스 속"이다.In the News의 역할 중 일부는 "독자가 뉴스에 한 항목이 있기 때문에 검색하고 있을 가능성이 높은 콘텐츠를 찾고 신속하게 접근할 수 있도록 돕기 위해"와 "현행사에 질 좋은 위키백과 콘텐츠를 특집하기 위해" 이 두 가지 경우다. 331dot (talk) 23:36, 2013년 8월 27일 (UTC)

• 공격을 기다려라 - 미국과 동맹국들은 목요일에 시리아 목표물에 대한 공격을 시작할 것 같다([10] 참조).그 때쯤이면 기사가 흐릿하게 나올 준비가 되었으면 한다.당장은 끈적끈적한 것이 진짜 필요없을 것 같다.시리아에서 벌어지고 있는 일에 관심이 있는 사람들은 그 기사를 쉽게 검색할 수 있다.그리고 이미 많은 조회수를 얻고 있다.--FutureTillionaire (대화) 00:17, 2013년 8월 28일 (UTC)

• 어포게이스트 전자IP는 타당한 주장을 하고 있고 나는 지금 이 끈적끈적한 글을 올리는 것이 추측성처럼 보인다는 것에 동의한다.중대한 국제적 개입 등 갈등에 대한 근본적인 변화가 있을 경우 스티커는 또 다시 의문을 제기할 수 있다. --hydrox (대화) 19:14, 2013년 8월 28일 (UTC)
• 지지하다.이전 동안IP의 요점이 맞아, 이제 끈적끈적한 것을 게시할 수 있을 만큼 충분히 진행됐다고 생각해.시리아에서 벌어지고 있는 폭력사태와는 별개로, 미국은 기본적으로 파업을 준비하고 있다는 신호를 보냈다.데이비드 캐머런은 조치를 승인하는 유엔 결의안을 제출했다.이것들은 꽤 수준 높은 움직임이다.상황이 냉각되면 끈적끈적한 것을 제거할 수 있다.--Johnsemlak (토크) 22:43, 2013년 8월 28일 (UTC)

일반적인 끈적거리는 것은 다른 제안이다.그러나, 현재 진행중인 상황과 관련하여, 유엔 결의안은 아마도 ITN의 가치가 있을 것이고, 군사공격은 분명히 가치가 있을 것이다.단순히 우리가 블러브라고 올릴 무언가를 기대하기 위한 끈적거리는 것은 말이 되지 않는다.BTW, 나는 데이비드 캐머런이 이것에 대해 그의 행동 계획을 생각해 냈을 때 확실히 "매우 높았어"라는 인상을 받고 있다.구립 (대화) 23:35, 2013년 8월 28일 (UTC)

• 하나만테오 지원(토크) 03:04, 2013년 8월 29일 (UTC)
• 반대야, 끈적끈적한 자들의 표적은 정확히 어떤 게 될까?(아직 WP:모두가 찾으려 할...납북(이유) 03:44, 2013년 8월 29일 (UTC)
• 지지, 시리아는 영국 하원에서의 논쟁이 BBC-월드, CNN 등을 통해 생중계되어 시리아 이외의 어떤 것도 "뉴스에 없다"는 식으로 시리아에 완전히 빠져들 정도로 세계적인 뉴스 헤드라인이다.옳든 그르든 시리아만 '뉴스에' 있기 때문에 위키피디아가 그 반대되는 것이 사실인 척 하는 것은 잘못된 것이다.아이블리스 카운트 (토크) 13:59, 2013년 8월 29일 (UTC)
• 지원 - 우리는 ITN에서 시리아가 ITN의 관심사라는 것을 보여주기 위해 무언가를 해야 한다.시리아 내전 기사로 이어지는 끈적끈적한 상황이 앞으로 전개될 상황을 기다리면서 아마도 최선의 선택일 것이다.Jusdafax 18:34, 2013년 9월 1일 (UTC)
• 지지 끈적끈적함 나는 거의 2주 동안 게재된 화학 공격 기사를 제거하는 것이 최선의 이익이라고 생각하지 않는다. 그것이 명백히 뉴스에 나오는 시리아의 위기와 우리가 가진 유일한 연결고리이기 때문이다.우리는 특히 아랍 연맹이 서구인들의 개입을 요청한 후, 지금 끈끈한 게시물이 필요하다[11].시크릿 01:07, 2013년 9월 2일 (UTC)

8월 26일

---

밀리언 피플 행진

명명자의 의견:필리핀에서는 2001년 EDSA 혁명 이후 처음으로 이 규모의 시위가 벌어지기 때문에 중요한 사건이다.필리핀 밖에서도 뉴스 보도를 접했고, 해외 필리핀 커뮤니티들 사이에서도 항의 시위가 있었다.ITN에 편입할 가치가 있다고 생각한다. --Sky Harbor 10:01, 2013년 8월 27일 (UTC)

• 논평 기사에는 POV 문제가 있다.이 용어로 그것의 원인을 설명하는 것은 중립적이지 않다: "우선순위개발원조기금 사기에 대한 분노," "많은 정치인들이 계속해서 우선순위개발원조기금을 남용하고 있다".넬잭(대화) 21:46, 2013년 8월 27일(UTC)
  • 다른 누군가가 이미 infobox POV 문제를 해결한 것으로 보인다. :) --Sky Harbor 02:30, 2013년 8월 28일 (UTC)
• 하나만테오 지원(토크) 03:06, 2013년 8월 29일 (UTC)

암젠은 오닉스 사들인다.

명명자의 의견:가끔 일어나는 초대형 대혼란을 제외하면 합병은 재계의 톱기사다.이번 발표는 최고의 게시물인 IMO가 가장 주목을 받고 있으며, 이는 올해 2, 3대 빅딜 상품 중 하나이다. (예를 들어 위에서 링크된 깊이 있는 NYT 이야기)사업소식을 많이 올리지 않기 때문에(1개의 합병, 2개 정도의 스캔들이 올해 우리가 올렸던 전부라고 생각한다) 이를 바로잡을 수 있는 좋은 기회가 여기 있다. --ThaddeusB (대화) 00:59, 2013년 8월 27일 (UTC)

• 이와 같은 이야기에서는 반대한다. 결론은 중복으로 잃어버린 일부 중간관리직들이 될 것이다.소유권 변경으로 인해 막대한 신규 투자나 새로운 기술 혁신이 아닌 일부 비용을 절감하는 것을 의미한다.μΔείςς (talk) 02:18, 2013년 8월 27일 (UTC)
• 코멘트 나는 인수합병이 스캔들을 제외하고 가장 큰 비즈니스 뉴스라는 것이 사실인지 확신할 수 없다.중앙은행의 정책 발표는 매우 크다 - 우리는 연준과 ECB의 중요한 발표를 올리는 것을 고려할 수 있다.이 사연에 대해서는 큰 중요성을 나타내는 것은 보이지 않지만, 우리가 올렸던 이전 M&A의 달러 가치가 무엇이었는지 알고 싶다.넬잭(대화) 03:01, 2013년 8월 27일 (UTC)

유나이티드 항공/미국 합병 건을 올렸나?μΔείςς (talk) 03:18, 2013년 8월 27일 (UTC)

발표될 때 후보자로 지명되지는 않았지만, 완성되면 지명할 계획이다.또한 넬잭의 말이 맞아, 금리 변화는 합병보다 더 큰 이야기야.Publicis Omnicom 그룹 합병의 두 회사 중 작은 회사는 140억. --ThaddeusB (토크) 04:03, 2013년 8월 27일 (UTC)

아메리칸 에어라인/US 에어웨이즈 합병에 대해 얘기하는 거야?만약 그렇다면, 나는 그것이 발표되었을 때 그것을 지명했다 - 그것은 게시되지 않았다.(미국/미국 합병은 없었던 것 같다.) --봉와리어 (대화) 04:18, 2013년 8월 27일 (UTC)

그래, 그게 내가 원했던 거야. (이것은 도움을 청한 것이지, 시험이 아니었다.내가 물어보지 않았을 이름을 알았더라면)고마워!μΔείςς (talk) 04:21, 2013년 8월 27일 (UTC)

내 요점을 확실히 하기 위해, 만약 미국/미국 합병의 규모가 게시되지 않았다면, 이 또한 그렇게 해서는 안 된다.μΔείςς (talk) 04:23, 2013년 8월 27일 (UTC)

미국/Cactus의 합병은 단지 발표였기 때문에 반대했다.FAA는 그것을 조용히 승인했고 그것은 다시 지명되지 않았다.기업 합병은 어느 정도 시간이 걸리고, 여러 가지 작은 단계로 이루어진다.리본 커팅이나 불꽃놀이, 퍼레이드, 그리고 그것이 끝났다는 신호를 보낼 만한 어떤 것도 없다.그 발표는 보통 큰 행사다.위 지명자에 대한 언급 없음 --76.110.201.132 (대화) 10:58, 2013년 8월 27일 (UTC)

• 댓글을 달다.만약 이것이 주목할만하다면 그 이유를 설명하기 위해 훨씬 더 많은 모호함이 필요하다.현재 나의 반응은 "그래서?"인데, 예를 들어, 104억 달러가 큰지 작은지 설명할 맥락이 없고, 이것이 논란이 될 것 같은지 아닌지 말할 것이 없으며, 그것이 예상되었는지 아닌지에 대해서는 아무 것도 없다.왜 이 합병은 다른 어떤 합병보다 더 주목할 만한가? 그것은 애매모호한 상태여서 내게 그것이 일상적인 것보다 더 많은 것임을 말해주지 않는다.Thryduulf (대화) 11:08, 2013년 8월 27일 (UTC)
• 반대 두 회사 모두 들어본 적이 없다.도니박(토크) 23:56, 2013년 8월 27일 (UTC)

....이 행성의 70억 인간들 중 많은 수가 그러할 것이다.이것을 게시하지 않는 다른 이유가 있을 수 있지만, 그것은 그 중 하나가 아니다. 331dot (토크) 00:03, 2013년 8월 28일 (UTC)

페어차일드 일렉트로닉스와 허니웰컴퓨터가 합병해 페어웰 허니차일드가 되면 나는 후보 지명을 지지할 것이다.μΔείςς (talk) 00:43, 2013년 8월 28일 (UTC)

• 약한 자는 있는 그대로 흐릿하게 반대한다.사용자를 인용하지 않는 동안:도니 박, 나는 두 회사 모두 들어본 적이 없고, 왜 이 회사들이 처해 있는 사물의 계획에서 이것이 중요한지 전혀 알지 못한다.'주요 경쟁자'나 '4대 매수' 같은 것, 혹은 이것이 주요 뉴스가 되는 이유에 관한 어떤 종류의 문맥도 내 표를 바꿀 수 있다. 203.45.232.62 (토크) 05:50, 2013년 8월 29일 (UTC)

8월 25일

---

[포스팅] 2013년 애쉬 시리즈

명명자의 의견:재는 이제 끝났다.음, 테스트는.러그넛 19:08, 2013년 8월 25일 (UTC)

• 테스트는 재(적어도 남자 버전에서)에 중요한 유일한 것이다.그 기사는 4번째와 5번째 시험을 설명하는 몇 문장의 산문으로 할 수 있고, 모든 기록들이 최신의 최신 결과인지 확인할 수 있다.그렇다면 가는 것이 좋을 것이다; ITNR은 지원할 필요가 없다.Modest Genius^talk 19:17, 2013년 8월 25일 (UTC)
  • 아 그리고 우리는 보통 ENGVAR 중립적인 표현을 사용하고 점수를 회피하기 때문에, 나는 Alt burb를 추가했다.Modest Genius 19:19, 2013년 8월 25일 (UTC)
• 지원, 이제 그들이 실제로 이겼으니.마르티네반스123 (토크) 19:27, 2013년 8월 25일 (UTC)... 하지만 분명히 필요하지는 않다.
• ITN/R에 따른 지원 --Somchai Sun (토크) 19:28, 2013년 8월 25일 (UTC)

ITNR에 관한 이벤트는 게시물(ITNR이기 때문에)에 대한 지원이 필요하지 않다. 토론은 기사의 품질을 평가하고 업데이트가 충분한지 판단하는 것이다. 331닷(토크) 01:34, 2013년 8월 26일(UTC)

• 이것이 마지막으로 제안되었을 때, 대회가 끝날 때까지 기다리는 것이 의견 일치를 보았는데, 이제 그것이 완성되었으니 게시되어야 한다.331dot (talk) 01:36, 2013년 8월 26일 (UTC):

  영국이 재를 보유했지만 산문 업데이트가 전혀 없을 때 더 일찍 게시해야 한다는 공감대가 있었다고 본다.--존셀락 (대화) 10:31, 2013년 8월 26일 (UTC)

  어떤 것도 하자는 합의는 없었다.그 실에는 '재'가 어떻게 작동하는지 전혀 터무니없는 오해를 담고 있는 수십 개의 게시물을 수집할 수 있게 했고, 그 후 죽음을 허락했다.만약 현명한 행정관이 실제로 그 실을 아끼고 읽고 관심을 기울였다면, 영국의 "The Rees"의 보존은 몇 주 전에 게시되었을 것이다.위키피디아 역사상 슬프고 애처로운 장면이었다.이 일이 이제 끝나서 다행이다.HiLo48 (토크) 12:11, 2013년 8월 31일 (UTC)

• 댓글 테스트 4와 테스트 5는 기사를 게재하기 전에 일종의 텍스트 요약이 필요하다. --ThaddeusB (토크) 01:51, 2013년 8월 26일 (UTC)
  • 아직 업데이트를 하기 위해 발 벗고 나선 사람이 없기 때문에 시험4와 시험5의 간결한 일치 요약을 찾아낼 수 있다면 자원봉사를 하겠다.(귀뚜라미에 대해 아는 것이 없으니 아는 사람이 했다면 더 좋을 것이다.) --ThaddeusB (토크) 01:03, 2013년 8월 27일 (UTC)

테스트가 아니라 테스트다. ;-) 루그넛 19:58, 2013년 8월 27일 (UTC)

• 지원 및 준비 상태 표시, 지금 바로 진행하기 좋으며, 모든 테스트에 적합한 업데이트.The Rambling Man (talk) 2013년 8월 27일 (UTC)
• 게시 -- tarikabjotu 21:45, 2013년 8월 27일(UTC)

최근 죽음: 줄리 해리스

명명자의 의견:토니상 5개, 에미상 3개, 그래미상 3개, 아카데미상 후보에 올랐다.Andise1 (대화) 06:51, 2013년 8월 25일 (UTC)

• 악보에 기반한 RD 지원 - 내 말은, 5x Tonys와 3x Emys 그리고 그래미.그러나 기사의 대다수는 인용되지 않았고 이미 인용에 필요한 태그가 두어 개 있다.미야가와 (토크) 09:51, 2013년 8월 25일 (UTC)

난 내가 본 유일한 "cite need"를 고쳤다.— Wyliepedia 12:27, 2013년 8월 25일 (UTC)

• 그녀의 분야에서 주목할 만한 지원. --Somchai Sun (토크) 11:02, 2013년 8월 25일 (UTC)
• RD 지원.영화와 극장에서 복수 수상, 연기 분야에서 중요성 표시. 331닷(토크) 11:54, 2013년 8월 25일(UTC)
• RD를 완벽하게 지원하십시오.그래미상 뿐만 아니라 어느 연기장에서나 눈에 띈다.기사는 여러 언어로 번역되어 있다.— Wyliepedia 12:10, 2013년 8월 25일 (UTC)
• RD 지지, 반대 토니상, 에미상, 그래미상, 아카데미상 후보작은 나에게 아무런 도움이 되지 않는다.케네디 센터 명예상, 국립 예술훈장, 미국 명예의 전당, 특별 평생 공로 토니상은 그 분야에서 나에게 중요한 영향을 주었다.– 무보슈구 (토크) 13:28, 2013년 8월 25일 (UTC)
• 사망 업데이트는 작업이 필요하다. --ThaddeusB (대화) 16:21, 2013년 8월 25일 (UTC)
• RD 지원.EGOT에 가깝네 가말리엘 (토크) 00:33, 2013년 8월 26일 (UTC)
• 넝쿨째 굴러 떨어져서 두 문장이 더 죽었더라면 이렇게 되었을 것이다.하지만 나는 팬이 아니다.μΔείςς (talk) 01:11, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)

8월 24일

---

8월 23일

---

[게시] 교도소 폭동

명명자의 의견:꽤 중요한 폭동이 내게 지속적인 영향을 줄 것 같군틀릴 수도 있지만, 이런 종류의 일은 그 지역(또는 다른 곳에서는 정말 흔하지 않다고 생각한다.) --ThaddeusB (토크) 01:00, 2013년 8월 24일 (UTC)

• 여기에 다른 주목할 만한 것이 없다면 지원을 반대하십시오. 이것은 단지 또 다른 사망자 수 이야기일 뿐이다. 최근 베네수엘라에서만 60명과 25명의 사망자를 낸 두 건의 교도소 폭동이 있었다. 그러나 폭동에 관한 우리의 기사는 둘 중 작은 것에 대한 언급조차 하지 않고 있다. ㎕δεες(토크) 02:08, 2013년 8월 24일 (UTC) 사망자의 배후 이야기를 전하기 위해 기사가 잘 업데이트되었다.μΔείςς (talk) 00:58, 2013년 8월 26일 (UTC)
• 지원 상당한 사망자와 많은 해외 취재.넬잭(대화) 03:13, 2013년 8월 24일 (UTC)
• 약한 반대.여기 메데이스 주처럼 눈에 띄는 다른 것이 없다면, 이곳에는 충분한 사상자가 없을 것이라고 생각한다. 331 도트 (대화) 03:17, 2013년 8월 24일 (UTC)

나의 구체적인 반대는 이것이 45명의 죽음으로 더 나은 이야기가 될 것이라는 것이 아니라, 죽음의 숫자만으로는 백과사전적 명성이 어떠한 순환에서도 확립되지 않는다는 것이다.백과사전 표지에 대해서는, 지금 우리가 가지고 있는 것은 한 뭉치의 뭉침이다.μΔείςς (talk) 18:05, 2013년 8월 24일 (UTC)

나는 이 사건이 그 자체의 기사를 쓸 가치가 없다는 것에 동의한다. 그러나 우리는 감옥 자체에 대한 기사를 가지고 있기 때문에 그것은 백과사전적인 주제다. 331닷 (토크) 03:02, 2013년 8월 25일 (UTC)

• 넬잭의 말대로 상당한 사망자와 많은 해외 취재 지원.--밥바Q (대화) 17:52, 2013년 8월 24일 (UTC)
• 업데이트된 경우 지원베네수엘라에서 교도소 살인은 다소 흔하지만, 이것은 볼리비아에서 일어난 최초의 주요 교도소 살인 사건 중 하나일 것이다. 31명의 사망자와 50명 이상의 부상자(그리고 광범위한 국제적 보도)는 메인 페이지에서는 충분히 주목할 만 하다.하지만 기사를 업데이트 할 시간이 더 있었으면 좋겠어.컴퓨터JA (☎) 21:15, 2013년 8월 24일 (UTC)
• 업데이트됨 - 이제 문서가 업데이트됨품질 문제가 남아 있으면 알려 달라. --ThaddeusB (대화) 02:48, 2013년 8월 25일 (UTC)

기술적으로 팔마솔라 기사는 갱신되었다.그러나 그 뉴스는 교도소 마을이 아니라 폭동에 관한 것이다.교도소 도시 구역은 스스로 업데이트 요건을 충족시키지 못할 정도로 엉망이다.아래 내 관심사에 관심을 끌기 위해 업데이트된 "예"를 삭제한다.μΔείςς (토크) 17:19, 2013년 8월 25일 (UTC)

• 코멘트 우리는 폭동 자체를 두 개의 타드데우스(좋은 것)가 기고하지 않고 세 단락의 업데이트가 필요한 새로운 기사로 다룰 필요가 있다.현재 기사는 A구역과 B구역의 경쟁자들 사이에서 폭동이 일어났다고 설명하고 있지만, 우리는 전체 세포가 전쟁 중인지 알 수 없다(두 갱, 아마도?).또는 이것이 단지 각 블록에 있는 사람들의 일부분이었다면, 애초에 왜 그들이 그렇게 분리되어 있는지(중남미의 많은 감옥은 수감자들에 의해 운영된다), 그리고 세포 블록들 사이에서 벌어지고 있는 "갈취"가 정확히 무엇에 해당하는지.이러한 질문들을 다루지 않고, 우리는 기본적으로 "어떤 이유로 폭동이 일어났고, 30명 이상의 사람들이 죽었다"라고 쓰여진 기사 섹션을 가지고 있는데, 이것은 사망자 수가 중요한 것이라는 생각을 다시 하게 한다.폭동의 이유를 세 문장으로 풀 수 있다면 공신력을 확립하는 데 큰 도움이 될 것이다.μΔείςς (talk) 17:14, 2013년 8월 25일 (UTC)
  • 나는 강탈이 꽤 설명이 된다고 생각한다 - 그들은 다른 사람들을 때리지 않는 대가로 돈을 원했다.나는 그것을 "A블록의 멤버"가 아니라 "A블록의 갱"이라고 말하는 것으로 바꿀 것이다. - 분명히 그것은 모든 사람들이 그 블록에 있었던 것은 아니다.수감자들은 이미 언급된 바와 같이 교도소를 크게 통제하고 있지만 그렇다고 해서 그들이 거주지를 배정받지 않았다는 뜻은 아니다.나는 왜 벽의 존재가 특별한 설명이 필요한지 모르겠다.좀 더 정밀한 설명은 조사가 이루어져야 아마 가능하겠지만, 내가 찾아낼 수 있는 것을 보겠다. --ThaddeusB (대화) 17:44, 2013년 8월 25일 (UTC)
    • 나는 너의 해석에 이의를 제기하는 것이 아니다.나는 이 지명이 업데이트 요건을 충족시키지 못한다고 말하고 있다(Palmasola 기사는 그 이야기와 아무런 관련이 없기 때문에, 우리는 독립적인 3항 섹션이 필요하다.그것은 죄수들이 왜 상호 적대적인 감방 장벽으로 분리되었는지, 전체 블록이나 단지 일부 수감자들이 적대적이라면, 그리고 진행 중인 강탈의 본질을 설명함으로써 매우 쉽게 이루어질 수 있다.이것은 두세 개의 소싱된 문장을 추가함으로써 이루어질 수 있다.μΔείςς (talk) 18:44, 2013년 8월 25일 (UTC)
• 추가적으로 업데이트됨 - 나는 (희망적으로) 행사의 중요성을 더 잘 설명하기 위해 현지 출처로부터 확장했다.사법제도 개혁과 폭동의 결과로 그곳에 살고 있는 아이들의 종식을 요구하는 현지의 반응은 상당하다.이 문제가 해결되기를 바란다. --ThaddeusB (대화) 18:59, 2013년 8월 25일 (UTC)

아주 훌륭해, 타드데우스!다른 한 가지는 폭동 구획이 자체적인 팔마솔라 교도소 폭동 기사로 만들어져야 하는지 여부일 것이다.나는 그것을 강력히 지지하며, 대담하겠지만, 문제를 일으키고 싶지는 않다.두려울 것이 없다면 정말 분리되어야 한다.μΔείςς (토크) 19:04, 2013년 8월 25일 (UTC)

이제 당신의 요청에 따라 독립형 기사가 존재한다.나는 지금 이것을 준비된 것으로 표기할 예정이지만, 물론 검토 관리자는 업데이트와 컨센서스가 좋은지 확인해야 한다. --ThaddeusB (토크) 21:24, 2013년 8월 25일 (UTC)

대. μηδδς ( (토크) 22:06, 2013년 8월 25일 (UTC)

• 메데이스 당 반대하라.가말리엘 (대화) 00:34, 2013년 8월 26일 (UTC)

지지로 표를 바꿨어, 가말리엘나는 여전히 죽음의 상담만으로는 이것을 지지하지 않을 것이다.그러나 업데이트는 아주 아주 좋은 것이며, 사람들이 노력을 기울였을 때 우리가 어떤 종류의 자료를 가질 수 있는지를 보여준다. (여기에서의 노력은 내 것이 아니었다.)μΔείςς (talk) 01:00, 2013년 8월 26일 (UTC)

• 메디슨별로 지원으로 변경.331닷 (토크) 01:30, 2013년 8월 26일 (UTC)
• 게시 -- tarikabjotu 04:22, 2013년 8월 26일(UTC)

[포스팅] 로버트 베일스

명명자의 의견:이것은 매우 주목할 만한 사건에서 주목할 만한 문장이다.Andise1 (대화) 2013년 8월 23일 19:45, (UTC)

• 댓글을 달다.내가 이것을 지지하는지 아닌지 확실하지 않지만, 나는 더 나은 맥락을 줄 수 있다고 생각하는 애타심을 썼다.Thryduulf (대화) 2013년 8월 23일 (UTC)
• 논평 그 기사는 검토할 필요가 있다.꼬리표를 붙이지는 않겠지만, 그 중 상당 부분은 실제 학살 바깥에 있는 "배경"이다.만약 이것이 유죄협상이라면, 나는 "사형을 피하기 위한 갈등"이라는 모호한 진술로 더 행복할 것이다.그렇지 않으면 공천을 지지하되 원론적인 막말에는 강력히 반대한다.μΔείςς (토크) 22:15, 2013년 8월 23일 (UTC)
• alt blurb Brandmeister^talk 22:26, 2013년 8월 23일(UTC) 지원

altblurb's good, I would like a month off the month, I would just leave after the month: "Robert Bales 전 미 육군 하사는 2012년 칸다하르 대학살에서 16명의 아프간 민간인을 살해한 혐의로 가석방 없는 종신형을 선고받음" 01:39, 2013년 8월 24일 (UTC)

• 칸다하르 대학살은 인정받는 좋은 기사다.나는 그 페이지를 대담하게 만드는 것이 더 나을 것이라고 생각한다(아마도 두 글에서 업데이트는 매우 유사할 것이다).주제는 한 달 전 발레스가 자백하고 판결 때까지 기다리는 것이 합의점인 것 같았을 때 논의되었다. --ThaddeusB (대화) 22:32, 2013년 8월 23일 (UTC)
• 댓글을 달다.이것과 포트후드 이야기의 장점이 무엇이든 간에, 우리는 미국 법원의 세 가지 계엄령을 연속으로 게시할 수 없다.물론 우리는 할 수 없다.세상에는 분명 다른 일들이 일어나고 있다.구립 (대화) 22:53, 2013년 8월 23일 (UTC)
  • 이것과 포트후드 스토리를 하나의 포스팅으로 결합할 수 있을까?첼시 매닝의 이야기는 아마도 이 시점에서 합쳐지기에는 너무 오래되고 너무 클 것이다.Thryduulf (대화) 23:06, 2013년 8월 23일 (UTC)
• 코멘트 US는 몇 가지 형을 집행하고 있어...비행기 추락 사고가 연달아 발생할 경우 발생 횟수를 제한하는 것처럼 우리도 이를 제한해야 한다.선택 및 선택...모두 게시할 수 없음 -- Ashish-g55 00:31, 2013년 8월 24일(UTC)
• 해결책? - 베일즈 포스트 베일즈(Post Bales)와 하산에 대한 선고 대기 중? --ThaddeusB(Talk) 00:51, 2013년 8월 24일(UTC)

하산을 기다려라.유죄 판결은 전적으로 예상되며, 선고 공판은 26일에야 시작되는데, 이때쯤이면 매닝이 줄을 서게 된다.지금 하산을 포스팅한 다음 10일 후에 형을 선고받을 수 있도록 업데이트하는 걸 볼 수 없어μΔείςς (talk) 01:37, 2013년 8월 24일 (UTC)

• 지지 alt blurb.전범행위가 눈에 띄고, 형량을 올리는 것이 적기. 331도트(토크) 03:18, 2013년 8월 24일 (UTC)
• 나는 그 기사에서 과도한 무게에 대한 불평을 제거해야 한다. 그것은 다른 대량 살상범들과 비교했을 때 적절해 보인다.기사는 잘 쓰여져 있고, 업데이트는 3문장에 불과하지만, 참고가 잘 되어 있고 꽤 만족스럽다.μΔείςς (talk) 04:31, 2013년 8월 24일 (UTC)
• 레디 예스라고 표기되어 있는 것으로 보아, 여기서는 두 가지 전폭적인 지지만 있는 것으로 보이나, 위의 하산 휘하의 댓글들을 포함하여, 모든 댓글들이 이 게시물을 선호하고 있으며, 이것이 우선되어야 한다고 주장하고 있다.이것은 매우 서둘러서 게시해야 한다.μΔείςς (talk) 04:35, 2013년 8월 24일 (UTC)
• 지원 - 베일의 기사에 재판의 각 단계에 대한 세부 사항을 추가했는데, 베일은 원칙적으로 "사건 발생"을 위해 모든 것이 업데이트에 중요하다.(어쨌든 그 자체는 1.5 단락이다.)마지막 단계를 기다리는 ITN의 선호로 인해 게시되지 않은 마지막 단계(유죄가 성립됨)에 이것을 지명했으므로, 당연히 지금도 지지한다.2012년의 가장 큰 이야기 중 하나로 최종 종료. --ThaddeusB (토크) 05:51, 2013년 8월 24일 (UTC)
• 지원 - 전쟁 범죄.주목할 만한.--BabbaQ (대화) 12:50, 2013년 8월 24일 (UTC)
• 게시 -- 타리카브죠투 13:04, 2013년 8월 24일 (UTC)
• "미군"으로 바꿔라.현재 메인페이지의 블러브에는 '미국 하사'라고 적혀 있는데, E-1로 순위가 줄었기 때문에 정확하지 않다.어쨌든 그가 군인이라는 사실은 그가 어떤 계급이든 아니던 간에 더 관련이 있다. -NOWIS (대화) 13:31, 2013년 8월 24일 (UTC)
  • 완료 --Jayron32 14:43, 2013년 8월 24일(UTC)

[포스터드] 포트후드 대학살

명명자의 의견:이것은 매우 주목할 만한 사건에서 주목할 만한 확신이다.Andise1 (대화) 2013년 8월 23일 19:45, (UTC)

• 지원군이 이걸 지명하려고 온 거야주요 사건, 유죄판결은 보통 게시된다.– Muboshgu (대화)20:09, 2013년 8월 23일 (UTC)
• 지지 그렇다, 이것은 매우 주목할 만한 유죄 판결이며, 9/11 이후 미국 땅에서 일어난 최악의 테러 공격이다. 선고가 내려질 때까지 기다리는 것에 반대하지 않는다.μΔείςς (talk) 22:09, 2013년 8월 23일 (UTC)
• Perhpas는 양형이 선고될 때까지 기다린다 - (잠재적으로) 동시에 3번의 미군 재판을 게시하는 것을 피하기 위해. --ThaddeusB (대화) 00:51, 2013년 8월 24일 (UTC)
• 판결을 기다려라.분명히 주목할 만한 사건이지만 선고를 기다리자고 제안한다.사형을 받으면 얼마 후 첫 사병이 된다. 331도트(토크) 03:20, 2013년 8월 24일(UTC)
• 위의 Robert Bales 지명을 참조하십시오. 이 지명에 대한 의견에 대한 응답으로 내가 부분적으로 준비된 것으로 표시했다.μΔείςς (talk) 04:37, 2013년 8월 24일 (UTC)
• 지원하되, 위와 같이 선고될 때까지 기다리십시오.--Chaser (대화) 16:49, 2013년 8월 24일 (UTC)
• 반대 - 개인적으로 나는 Robert Bales ITN을 지지하지만, 이것은 국제적인 의미도 없고 심지어 중요한 국가적 의미도 없는 총격에 대한 국가적 이야기 입니다.ITN을 위한 것이 아님.--BabbaQ (대화) 17:49, 2013년 8월 24일 (UTC)

그의 기사에 따르면, 그는 사후세계에 합류하기를 기다릴 수 없다고 말한 고 안와르 알-울라키와 접촉했고, 적어도 알카에다와 접촉을 시도했으며, 다른 테러 웹사이트를 자주 방문했다고 한다.이것은 단지 일터 총격 사건이 아니다.μΔείςς (토크) 18:13, 2013년 8월 24일 (UTC)

누구든 알카에다와 빈번한 테러 웹사이트에 접촉하는 것을 "시도"할 수 있기 때문에, 그것은 별 의미가 없다.그리고 안와르 알-아울라키는 하산이 살았던 워싱턴 D.C.에서 가장 잘 알려진 이슬람 사원 중 한 곳에서 이맘을 지냈기 때문에, 둘 다 별 말이 없다. -- 타리카브조투 18:34, 2013년 8월 24일 (UTC)

나는 네가 "much"를 어떻게 정의하는지 잘 모르겠다.여기 '멍청한 놈'이 희생자들인 것 같군그러나 그의 행동은 "방어"에서 그 자신이 주장했던 세계적인 맥락에서 일어난다.그가 국경을 넘어 캐나다인들을 죽이지 않았다는 사실은 공천과는 무관하다.토요일 밤 영화와 팝콘의 공유된 즐거움을 바탕으로 이전의 우정을 다시 불러일으키고 싶은 욕구에 근거하여 하산이 알라키와 접촉한 것을 지적할 수는 없다.μΔείςς (talk) 18:51, 2013년 8월 24일 (UTC)

• ITN은 현재 게시글을 기다리고 있는 것으로 보인다.이것이 일치된 의견이라는 것이 내 말이 맞니?납북(이유) 04:27, 2013년 8월 26일 (UTC)

그것은 내 추정이다.매닝 이야기는 그때쯤이면 끊어질 테니, 우리는 세 번의 군법회의에 참가하지 않을 것이다.μΔείςς (토크) 17:13, 2013년 8월 26일 (UTC)

• 하산은 사형을 선고받았으니, 이 일은 일단 업데이트되면 시작할 준비가 되어 있다.다른 사람이 갈 수 있을지 모르니, 나는 당분간 바쁠 것이다.μΔείςς (토크) 19:24, 2013년 8월 28일 (UTC)

단지 명확히 하기 위해(그리고 이것에 대해 보고하는 대부분의 출처는 이 점에 대해 충분히 명확하지 않다):배심원단은 하산에게 사형을 선고하라는 권고를 돌려보냈다.실제 선고는 판사가 할 예정이어서 아직 이뤄지지 않은 것으로 보인다.원칙적으로 판사는 배심원의 권고에도 불구하고 하산에게 가석방 가능성이 없는 종신형을 선고할 수 있으며, 이는 아마도 일어나지 않을 것이지만, 일어날 수 있다.우리가 이 항목을 특징으로 삼기 전에 선고를 기다리기로 한 결정을 고려할 때, 틀림없이 게시하기 전에 실제 선고를 기다려야 한다. 168.12.253.66 (대화) 20:49, 2013년 8월 28일 (UTC)

나는 너를 의심하지 않고, 그것이 사실이라면 동의한다.출처가 있으십니까?왜냐하면 내가 읽은 정보원은 배심원단의 선고를 최종으로 보고하기 때문이다.μΔείςς (토크) 21:20, 2013년 8월 28일 (UTC)

CNN은 UCMJ의 사형 집행 절차에 대해 자세히 보도하고 있다. 그들은 판사가 판결을 받아들였지만, 군법무부의 권한을 가진 장군인 "결정의 권위자"가 사형선고를 내리는 것을 여전히 거부할 수 있다고 보도했다.이것은 내가 상술한 이후 최근 업데이트한 것으로서, 왜 그것이 그것에 그다지 동의하지 않는지, 그러나 요점은 여전히 서 있다. 168.12.253.66 (토크) 22:35, 2013년 8월 28일 (UTC)

브리즈번 타임즈 기사는 일련의 사건들이 최대 4년까지 걸릴 수 있다고 말하고 있다(내가 마지막 단락을 잘못 읽고 있지 않는 한).상소 절차가 사형이 확정되기 전에 이루어지는지 여부는 불분명하고 아마도 군 소식통이 필요할 것이다. 203.45.232.62 (대화) 23:11, 2013년 8월 28일 (UTC)

그 소식은 그가 지금 그런 일이 일어나는 단계에서 사형을 선고받았다는 것이지, 그의 심장이 고동을 멈춘 것은 아니다.소집당국에 의해 뒤집힐 것이라고 믿을 이유가 없는 한 이 일은 빨리 올라가야 한다.그때도 그것은 고쳐질 수 있다.μΔείςς (talk) 00:39, 2013년 8월 29일 (UTC)

사용자 동의:메데이스, 선고일이 주요 사건이다. 말하자면, 항소 절차나 잠재적 오버라이드 또는 뒤집힘(여기서 적절한 용어 중 하나)은 언제 일어날지 고려하는 후기 사건이다. 203.206.185.55 (대화) 01:43, 2013년 8월 29일 (UTC)

• Ready I 표시 배심원들이 그에게 사형을 선고했다는 정확한 사실을 반영하기 위해 blurb를 수정했다.이 연구 결과가 뒤집히지 않으면 몇 달 안에 뉴스가 될 수 없을 것이다. 그것은 예상된 것이 아니다. 단지 케케묵은 것이다.그 이야기는 시사적이고, 기사는 잘 업데이트되었고, 지금 뉴스는 잘 보도되었다.μΔείςς (talk) 01:56, 2013년 8월 29일 (UTC)

PS가 보류한 것은, 이것은 ITN에 지난 주의 유죄 판결이 아닌 오늘 판결로 게시되어야 한다.μΔείςς (talk) 02:05, 2013년 8월 29일 (UTC)

• 게시 -- 타리카브죠투 15:37, 2013년 8월 29일 (UTC)
• 의문점은, 다른 미군 대량 살인자(발즈)에 의하면, 하산은 그의 계급에서 제거되었다. 즉, 그를 장교라고 부르는 것이 여전히 옳은가?The Rambling Man (talk) 2013년 8월 29일 19:06 (UTC)

  아하, '탈락'당한 것 같아아마도, 발레스에 따르면, 이것은 흐릿함에 반영되어야 한다.The Rambling Man (talk) 2013년 8월 29일 19:10 (UTC)

그는 선고 당시 장교였던 장교였다.나는 우리가 기술적인 부분을 지나치게 신경쓸 필요가 없다고 생각한다.나는 내가 준 것보다 타릭의 흐릿함을 매우 선호하는데, 그것은 기술적인 것에 대해 너무 걱정된다.μΔείςς (talk) 20:18, 2013년 8월 29일 (UTC)

발레스와 함께, 그의 새로운 계급(E-1)이 그의 예전 계급(E-5)을 대체했다.그러니 "발즈는 하사관이다"라고 하면 틀렸다.하산과 함께라면 다시는 비관료 계급이 없을 것이고, 해고는 아직 AFAIK가 발효되지 않았다.그래서 나는 현재의 흐림이 괜찮다. -LtNOWIS (대화) 04:46, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)

• 논평 - Tarikabjotu, 미국의 사형제도에 대한 연결고리를 미군에 의한 사형제도로 대체해야 하는가?군법규정 등에 따라 재판을 받았으니까?궁금해서 그러는데, 치어리더, -데이나이트 00:41, 2013년 8월 30일(UTC)

동의하며, "13명"은 Fort_Hood_shooting#Falativity와 연결되어야 한다.μΔείςς (talk) 01:09, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)

@Dainomite:적어도 나에게는 그런 {{ping}}의 사용이 통하지 않는다.그렇긴 하지만, 나는 아까 이 질문을 보았다.나는 그 연결고리를 바꾸는 것을 이해할 수 있었지만, 메데이스'를 추가하면 그 연결고리의 바다가 될 것이라고 생각한다.어쨌든 포트후드 총격은 이미 연관되어 있다.하지만 한가지 문제는 "포트 후드 촬영"이라는 문구에서 흐릿한 부분이 약간 구겨져 있는 것처럼 느껴진다는 것이다.칸다하르 대학살의 흐릿함을 반영한다고 생각하지만, 그렇다고 하면 훨씬 듣기 좋을 것 같다.니달 말리크 하산 미 육군 장교가 텍사스 포트후드에서 13명을 살해한 혐의로 사형을 선고받고 있다.그럴 경우, 나는 링크 문제의 바다를 피하기 위해 어떤 사형 기사의 링크도 빼놓을 것이다.요청하신 링크를 추가해 드리겠으나, 그 리워드(rewording)에 대한 몇 가지 생각이 있으면 좋을 것 같아. -- 타리캅조투 02:22, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)

합의된 현재의 흐림 현상은 긴장되어 있으며, TA가 제안한 흐림에도 반대하지 않는다.μΔείςς (talk) 03:03, 2013년 8월 30일 (UTC)

[폐쇄] 노르말람스토르그 강도

8월 22일

---

[게시] WISE

명명자의 의견:해체된 우주선이 다시 살아나는 것은 일상적인 일이 아니다.적용 범위는 넓고, 전 세계적으로, 다양한 출처로부터. --ThaddeusB (토크) 22:47, 2013년 8월 22일 (UTC)

• 지지 - 기사의 상태가 양호하고 정보가 흥미롭고 전 세계적인 관심사여서 나는 이번 지명을 매우 좋아한다.타드데우스B, 경례한다!Jusdafax 01:53, 2013년 8월 23일 (UTC)
• 지명자별 의견 지지 88.88.162.176 (대화) 14:29, 2013년 8월 23일 (UTC)
• 우주 탐사를 위한 좋은 소식을 지원하라.– 무보슈구 (토크) 2013년 8월 23일 (UTC) 16:20
• 지원, 물론이지, 왜 안 되지?케플러의 실패가 게시되었다.납북(이유) 19:01, 2013년 8월 23일 (UTC)
• 유목민 및 기타 지지자당 지원.이걸 올리지 않을 이유가 없어.Thryduulf (대화) 2013년 8월 23일 19:25 (UTC)
• 준비 - 문서가 업데이트되고 준비 완료됨.알트블루브는 새로운 구역에 직접 연결해서 덧붙였다.(두 버전 사이에는 선호도가 없다.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:20, 2013년 8월 23일 (UTC)
• 지지/블러브 I는 게시물을 지지하며 알트 블러브를 약간 선호한다.다크스트 트리 토크 23:18, 2013년 8월 23일 (UTC)
• 하나만테오 지원 (토크) 01:19, 2013년 8월 24일 (UTC)
• 게시 -- 타리카브죠투 01:55, 2013년 8월 24일 (UTC)

원자시계

명명자의 의견:연구는 오늘 사이언스지에 발표되었지만, 지난 달 네이처 커뮤니케이션즈에서 암시를 받았기 때문에 (당시 몇몇 인기 있는 언론 매체에서 다루어졌으므로) 공동체가 그것이 "날씨"인지 아닌지를 결정할 수 있도록 하겠다.시계는 10^-18과 일치하여 기본적인 물리력에 대한 우리의 이해를 증진시킬 수 있다.CNN은 이를 "침투"라고 부른다.BBC는 "2차 재정비"를 할 수 있다고 말한다.타임은 「타임키핑의 재정립」이라고 한다. --ThaddeusB (토크) 22:28, 2013년 8월 22일 (UTC)

• 반대해. 이전 시계보다 3배 더 안정적이야. 나에게 있어, 성능으로의 혁명적 업그레이드가 아니야.신기술은 항상 옛 기술을 향상시키는 것이 될 것이며, 이 경우 ITN에 충분히 주목할 만한 단계적 변화는 아니라고 생각한다.--LukeSurl ^{t c} 23:08, 2013년 8월 22일(UTC)

• 반대 의견에 동의하지만 Windows Vista를 기억하십시오.— Chrisco 1492 (대화) 01:07, 2013년 8월 24일 (UTC)

• 지원 - ITN에 적합한 것 같음 - BabbaQ(대화) 18:19, 2013년 8월 23일(UTC)
• 논평 나는 무작위적인 난동이나 폭력이 수반되지 않는 모든 것을 지지하고 싶다.그러나 이 글은 총 5바이트의 2개의 업데이트를 가지고 있다.우리는 새로운 단락이나 세 개의 기사가 필요할 것이다.μΔείςς (talk) 22:06, 2013년 8월 23일 (UTC)

8월 21일

---

레무르스

명명자의 논평: IUCN 발표는 모든 여우원숭이의 많은 비율이 20년 이내에 멸종될 수 있다고 주장한다. --– Maky 04:27, 2013년 8월 24일 (UTC)

• 지명자로서 지지하다.마다가스카르의 상황을 고려할 때 타당성이 큰 주요 주장이다.여우원숭이는 매우 다양하며, 그들이 포함하는 종의 수가 영장류 수의 매우 큰 비율을 차지한다.– Maky 04:27, 2013년 8월 24일(UTC)
• 반대한다. 불행히도 그러한 주장은 많은 종족들에게 해당된다.331dot (대화) 10:03, 2013년 8월 24일 (UTC)

그래, 하지만 작년에 여우원숭이는 가장 멸종위기에 처한 포유류로 여겨져.또한 이달 초 ITNC는 영장류 주문에 새롭게 추가된 것이 유의미하다고 주장하며 새로운 여우원숭이 종의 상장을 지지했다.확실히 모든 여우원숭이 종의 90%의 손실은 최소한 똑같이 뉴스거리가 될 만한 것이다.– Maky 12:06, 2013년 8월 24일 (UTC)

• 비고 이 평가는 보존 노력을 촉발할 수 있으므로 멸종을 방지할 수 있다.그 사건이 발생해야만 주목할 수 있을 것이다브랜드마이스터^talk 13:44, 2013년 8월 24일(UTC)

좋아...차라리 IUCN이 여우원숭이를 구하기 위해 마다가스카르에서 760만 달러의 보존 프로그램을 시작하려고 시도하고 있다고 말할까?– Maky 03:05, 2013년 8월 25일 (UTC)

원래의 blurb는 WP로 보일 수 있다.크리스털볼/예측(일부 편집자들이 더 강하게 반대한다고 느낄 수 있음); 이타적 장애로 얼마든지 추가하십시오.스펜서^T♦C 05:34, 2013년 8월 25일 (UTC)

알트가 덧붙였고, 나는 그것을 예측하는 것처럼 들리지 않게 하려고 노력했다.웃기네...나는 ITNC가 여우원숭이를 포함한 마지막 ITNC 후보 이후 자연과 보존에 관한 것들을 원한다고 생각했다.– Maky 14:12, 2013년 8월 25일(UTC)

종에 대한 발견은 한 번만 일어날 수 있기 때문에 주목할 만하다.동물들의 미래 상태에 대한 보고와 예측은 본질적으로 단지 예측일 뿐이고 거의 모든 경우 결코 달성되지 않기 때문에 주목할 수 없다(아마도 보고서에 대한 반응 때문이다).제안도 별로 눈에 띄지 않는다...YuMaNuMa^Contrib 14:44, 2013년 8월 25일 (UTC)

사실, 아니, 종은 한 번만 발견될 수 없다.그것들은 발견되어 기존 종과 동의어로 만들어졌다가 유전자 검사로 다시 갈라졌다가 다른 유전자 검사로 다시 동의어로 만들어질 수 있다.지난 10년간 몇 종의 '신여우원숭이'가 이미 이런 과정을 거쳤다.그러나 멸종 위기에 처한 포유류 집단(우리 자신의 분류 체계 내에서)을 구하기 위한 주요 보존 노력, 즉 수백만 명의 인간의 삶도 (희망적으로) 개선할 수 있는 프로그램도 훨씬 더 주목할 만한 것으로 여겨져야 한다.IUCN이 변덕스럽게 760만 달러를 벌어들인 것도 아니다.나는 이것을 실현하기 위해 산더미 같은 연구와 대규모의 협력 시도가 있을 것이라고 확신한다.하지만 너희들은 뭐가 최선인지 알잖아...결국, 미국의 한 도시의 저급한 시장이 성희롱 혐의로 사임하는 것은 매우 중요하다. ;-) – Maky 18:36, 2013년 8월 25일 (UTC)

RD: 시드 번스타인

명명자의 의견:영국 침공을 (비틀즈를 통해, 롤링 스톤즈 등을 통해) 미국 음악계에 끌어들인 책임이 있는 남자.(음악가가 아닌 프로듀서로서) 독립형 블럽에 대한 영향력이 충분하지 않지만 RD 라인에 대해서는 상당히 중요함. --MASEM (t) 20:36, 2013년 8월 21일 (UTC)

• 수십억 달러 규모의 스포츠-아레나 공연장의 창시자로서의 지원.μΔείςς (토크) 21:19, 2013년 8월 21일 (UTC)
• 지원이 영국 침략에 큰 영향을 미친 것 같다.하지만 기사가 일을 좀 하면 될 것 같다.넬잭(대화) 21:22, 2013년 8월 21일 (UTC)
• 댓글을 달다.마음에 들면 짜증나게 과대망상이라고 부르고, 내가 틀렸다고 하는 사실이 있으면 바로 잡아줘.나는 이 사람이 성공적인 콘서트 기획자였고 훌륭한 자기 홍보자였다는 것을 감지하고 있지만, 나는 그의 핵심이 명성을 주장하는 것이 정말로 많은지 궁금하다.먼저 비틀즈의 첫 미국 방문은 에드 설리번 쇼의 유명한 공연과 워싱턴 콜리세움, 뉴욕 카네기 홀에서의 콘서트로 이루어졌다.번스타인은 미국에서의 세 번째 예약인 카네기 홀을 예약할 책임이 있었다.그래서 그가 당시 그들의 경력에서 중요하지 않은 인물은 아니었지만, "비틀즈 투 아메리카"는 과장된 것처럼 보인다.그리고 1965년 시아 스타디움에서 열린 비틀즈 공연은 스포츠 경기장에서 열린 첫 콘서트가 아니었다.엘비스 프레슬리는 확실히 많은 경기장을 등장시켰고 비틀즈 자신은 1964년 북미 투어에서 6개의 경기장을 경기했다[16].어쨌든 그 기사는 더 많은 내용과 소싱이 필요하다.구립(토크) 23:31, 2013년 8월 21일 (UTC)
• 어포스트 퍼 전자IP. 그는 비틀즈의 성공을 책임지는 몇몇 프로모터 중 한 명인 것 같다.그 기사는 그의 신빙성을 주장하는데 별로 도움이 되지 않는다.--존셀락 (대화) 10:25, 2013년 8월 22일 (UTC)

[포스팅] 브래들리 매닝

명명자의 의견: 관심 --Abductive (Reasoning) 14:38, 2013년 8월 21일 (UTC)

• 지지하다.이것은 국내외에 시사하는 주요 소식이다.지로나7 (토크) 14:52, 2013년 8월 21일 (UTC)
• 지지하다.자신을 진실공방이라고 생각했던 사람에게 이렇게 긴 문장은 국가 안보 문제 vs 자유언론과 '휘파람 불기'에 대한 세계적 논쟁에 박차를 가할 것이다.Sca (대화) 15:07, 2013년 8월 21일 (UTC)
• 지지 나는 (?) 나는 처음의 지명자를 반대할 수도 있지만, 지금 그는 형을 선고 받았다. 나는 그 이야기가 올라가기에 적합하다고 생각한다.이것은 확실히 뉴스다.--솜차이 선 (토크) 15:16, 2013년 8월 21일 (UTC)
• 지원 지난달 위키백과에서 그의 평결을 게시하지 않았다.In_the_news/Candidates/2013년 7월#Bradley_Manning_vertict.이번에는 그의 형기를 올리자.또한 기사가 적시에 업데이트되도록 합시다.모하메드 CJ (대화) 2013년 8월 21일 15:17 (UTC)
• 지지하다.대략 10개의 My Lai 학살과 같은 문장.그냥 말하는 거야.구립(토크) 15:19, 2013년 8월 21일 (UTC)
• 게시됨(토크) 2013년 8월 21일(UTC) 16시 5분(토크)
• "분류된 정보"라는 단어는 미국의 외교 케이블 유출과 연관될 수 있다 --LukeSurl ^{t c} 18:29, 2013년 8월 21일 (UTC)
• 댓글을 달다.그 사람은 현재 첼시 매닝(공식 명칭은 여전히 동일하지만)으로 알려져 있다.모하메드 CJ (대화) 13:17, 2013년 8월 22일 (UTC)

나는 지금 기사 제목이 그런 거라면 메인페이지에서 이름을 바꿔야 한다고 생각해.무스가 풀리다! 2013년 8월 22일 14시 9분 (UTC)

그 기사의 제목은 지금과 무관하다는 것이다.이러한 움직임은 합의점을 도출한 과정이 아니라, 편집자 한 쌍의 움직임과 그것을 제자리에 유지하는 움직임 보호의 결과였다.그것은 WP에 의해 역전될 수 있다.RMT. 우리는 특히 메인 페이지에 문제가 있는데, 첼시 매닝이 브래들리 매닝으로 모든 사람이 알고 있는 사람이라는 것을 명확히 하는 것이 약간 입에 침이 마르기도 한다. -- 타리카브조투 14:29, 2013년 8월 22일 (UTC)

내가 아래에 말했듯이, MOS:IDENTITY는 페이지의 적절한 이름이 "첼시"라고 말한다.– Muboshgu (대화) 19:11, 2013년 8월 22일 (UTC)

• 이름과 성별을 법적으로 변경할 때까지 이름 변경에 반대한다.흐림 현상이 혼란스럽고 현재와 같은 너무 길다. 331닷 (토크) 17:15, 2013년 8월 22일 (UTC)
  • 그녀는 첼시로 가자고 했다.일반적인 관행은 그녀가 브래들리로 더 잘 알려져 있음에도 불구하고, 그 요청을 존중하는 것이다.– 무보슈구 (토크) 17:17, 2013년 8월 22일 (UTC)
    • 그 표준 관행을 단지 내 정보로 인용할 수 있겠니?나는 기사나 기사 제목을 바꾸는 것을 지지하지 않는다. 단지 사람들을 혼란스럽게 할 수 있는 흐릿한 말뿐이다. 331 도트 (대화) 17:22, 2013년 8월 22일 (UTC)
      • GLAAD로부터: "항상 트랜스젠더 사람이 선택한 이름을 사용한다." ("Names, Bestmar Usage & Descriptions"로 스크롤)– 무보슈구 (대화) 17:39, 2013년 8월 22일 (UTC)
        • 나는 위키피디아 정책을 언급하고 있었다; 하지만 우리가 그 루트로 갈 거라면 "브래들리"는 그냥 흐림에서 제거되어야 한다.그 얼간이는 그녀의 이름 변경의 이력을 제공할 필요가 없다.첼시는 어쨌든 현재 표시된 이미지와 닮았다. 331도트(토크) 17:44, 2013년 8월 22일(UTC)
          • 오, LOL 좋은 지적이야.트랜스젠더 개인에 대한 위키백과 정책이 있는지 모르겠다.하지만 나는 정신 건강 분야에서 일한다. 그리고 트랜스젠더 개인들이 다루어지기를 원하는 대로 언급하는 것이 우리의 S.O.P.– Muboshgu (대화) 18:37, 2013년 8월 22일 (UTC)
          • 나는 "Bradley"라는 이름은 WP이기 때문에 모호한 곳에 머물러야 한다고 생각한다.COMPLINNAME, 하지만 혼동을 줄이기 위해 "법적으로" "이전"으로 바꿀 수 있을까?– Muboshgu (대화) 18:40, 2013년 8월 22일 (UTC)
            • WP:COLLYNAME은 기사 적정화 정책이지요? -- 타리카브조투 19:05, 2013년 8월 22일 (UTC)
              • MOS에 따르면, MOS를 능가해서는 안 된다.IDENDITY(IDENDITY), "성(性)에 의문을 제기할 수 있는 모든 사람은 gendered 명사(예: "남/녀", "웨이터/대기자", "의장/의장"), 대명사, 그리고 그 사람의 최근 표현된 성(性) 자기 동일성을 반영하는 소유 형용사가 참조해야 한다." – Muboshgu (대화) 19:08, 2013년 8월 22일 (UTC)

• 요청:우리가 매닝의 옛 이름을 언급할 거면, '법률적으로'가 아니라 '구'라고 말해도 될까?관습법 관할구역에서 누군가의 법적 이름은 일반적으로 그들이 자신을 부르는 것이다.고마워요.알렉스 티플링 (대화) 17:49, 2013년 8월 22일 (UTC)

나는 매닝 주가 출신인지 모르지만, 대부분의 주에서 법적으로 이름을 바꾸려면 법정에 가야 한다.사람은 원하는 대로 자신을 부를 수 있다(스테이파니 게르마노타처럼 자신을 레이디 가가라고 부르고 케이티 페리의 법적 이름은 캐서린 허드슨이라고 부른다) 그러나 그렇다고 해서 법적으로 이름을 바꾼 것은 아니다. 331 도트(토크) 17:53, 2013년 8월 22일(UTC)

매닝은 아직 법적으로 이름을 바꾸지 않은 것으로 보인다.그녀는 성전환 초기 단계에 있다.– Muboshgu (대화) 18:40, 2013년 8월 22일 (UTC)

이건 연방 사건이야연방법에서 성인의 법적 이름이 그들이 자신을 부르는 것 외에 다른 것이라는 증거를 가지고 있는가?알렉스 티플링 (대화) 23:17, 2013년 8월 22일 (UTC)

• 여기와 기사에서 토론할 때마다 "법적 이름"이 무엇을 의미하는지, 그리고 그것이 관련이 있는지에 대한 공감대가 부족했는지에 대한 코멘트를 나는 "법적 브래들리 매닝"에서 "이전 브래들리 매닝"으로 바꾸었다. 이는 그들의 법적 이름이 무엇이고 어떤 지위가 있는지와 상관없이 사실적으로 옳기 때문이다.Thryduulf (대화) 23:34, 2013년 8월 22일 (UTC)

• 원래의 흐림을 복원하십시오. 원래의 흐림을 복원해 주시겠습니까?매닝이 오늘 발표한 내용에 대해 언급하는 것은 시기상조지만, 매닝을 여전히 브래들리라고 부르는 믿을 만한 소식통들 사이에서 문제가 해결될 때까지 기다려 줄 수 있다.너무 이르다.IDENTITY는 사람에게 어떤 이름을 적용할 것인지에 대한 지침을 제공하지 않는다.RA - (iii) 00:29, 2013년 8월 23일 (UTC)

  어? MOS에서 두번째 총알은:IDENDITY starts 성별에 의문이 제기될 수 있는 모든 사람은 gendered 명사(예: "남/녀", "waiter/waither", "의장/의장"), 대명사, 그리고 그 사람의 최근 "표현된 성별 자기 동일성"을 반영하는 소유 형용사가 언급되어야 한다.(원본당 이탤릭체).매닝의 최근 표현된 자기 정체성은 '첼시 매닝'이라는 이름의 여성으로 많은 믿을 만한 소식통에 보도되고 있다.또한, 기사토크 페이지에 널리 언급된 바와 같이, 이 진술이 작성된 이후 발표된 신뢰할 수 있는 출처는 여성 대명사 등을 사용하고 있다.마지막으로 기사는 현재 첼시 매닝에 있으며 메인 페이지 링크는 기사의 이름과 절대적으로 일치해야 한다.기사 제목에 동의하지 않는 부분을 표현하고 싶다면, 바로 이 목적을 위해 현재 토크 페이지에는 공개 요청된 움직임이 있다.Thryduulf (대화) 2013년 8월 23일 00:41, (UTC)

  "첼시 매닝"은 gendered 명사(예: "남자/여자", "waiter/waitress", "의장/의장"), 대명사 또는 소유 형용사가 아니다.그것은 이름이다.내가 쓴 대로, "너무 이르다 그리고 MOS:IDENTITY는 사람에게 어떤 이름을 적용해야 하는지에 대한 지침을 제공하지 않는다.또한, 믿을 만한 출처에 대해서는 까다롭게 굴지 마십시오.예를 들어, 매닝의 발표에 관한 이 BBC 보도는 "he"를 사용하며 매닝을 "Bradley"로 지칭하며, 훨씬 더 전형적인 보도다.

  이 모든 것은 너무 성급해서 (분명히 논란이 될 것 같았던) 이 조치는 논의 없이 이루어졌다.나는 이미 기사 제목을 복원하기 위해 토크 페이지에서 토론하는 데 기여했다.RA -- (ii) 00:54, 2013년 8월 23일 (UTC)

  사실, 매닝의 진술과 위키피디아의 BLP 정책이 모두 얼마나 명확한지 볼 때, 그것은 분명히 논란이 되지는 않을 것이었다.믿을 만한 소식통이 그녀를 남성이라고 부르고 그녀를 여성이라고 부르는 것은 여기서가 아니라 Talk을 위한 문제다.첼시 매닝.이 페이지에서 중요한 것은 메인 페이지 블럽이 기사의 현재 제목과 일치한다는 것이다.Thryduulf (대화) 2013년 8월 23일 01:13 (UTC)

• 어쨌든, 나는 새로운 블러브가 그것을 매우 잘 다룬다고 생각한다.무스가 풀렸다! 2013년 8월 23일 03시 12분 (UTC)
• 원래의 흐림을 복원하라 수정된 것은 옳다고 해석할 수 없다.그의 법적 이름은 브래들리인데, 그것은 그가 기소되고 기소되어 유죄판결을 받은 이름이다.이와 같은 환경에서는 통상적으로 문제가 되는 사건들에 대해 현대적인 이름을 사용하는 것이 보통인데, 바로 브래들리이다.만약 우리가 그것을 제쳐두고 사물을 현재 있는 그대로 반영한다면 그는 미국의 군인이 아니다.그러므로 그 흐림에 대한 당신의 가능한 해석은 틀렸거나, 틀렸거나, 틀렸다.— 87.114.241.71 (대화) 03:30, 2013년 8월 23일 (UTC)이(가) 추가된 이전의 부호 없는 의견
  • 위키피디아의 정책은 한 사람이 삶의 모든 기간 동안 그들의 가장 최근에 표현된 성 정체성(이 경우 첼시라고 불리는 여성)을 사용하는 것을 참조해야 한다는 것이 분명하다.그렇다, 그녀는 "브래들리"라는 이름으로 기소되고 유죄판결을 받았다. 그러나 기사는 첼시 매닝에 있는 반면, 그것은 블러브와 연결되어야 하는 부분이다.(이전 브래들리 매닝으로 알려진)은 그녀의 최근 표현된 정체성을 모르는 사람들에게 필요한 맥락을 주기 때문에 상황별 노트에 대한 더 나은 문구가 없는 상태에서는 (자신이 가지고 있는 어떤 제안이라도 자유롭게 공유해 주십시요) 변경할 필요가 없다.Thryduulf (대화) 2013년 8월 23일 10시 20분 (UTC)
• 이 토론을 종료할 것을 제안하십시오.매닝의 판결은 ITN에 대해 거의 논쟁의 여지가 없는 합의였다.현재 많은 곳에서 명칭 변경에 대한 논쟁이 논의되고 있다. 나는 주로 편집자들을 WP로 안내할 것을 제안한다.오류.--Johnselak (대화) 13:41, 2013년 8월 23일 (UTC)

• 모든 위키백과/ITN 판례? - 과거에 ITN 개인이 "나를 교황이라고 불러"와 같은 말을 했다면, 우리는 그것을 존중하거나 그들의 법적 이름을 사용하는 것을 고수했는가?만약 "첼시" (내가 생각하기에 여전히 다른 남자들처럼 화장실을 사용해야 한다고 생각하는)가 내일 바바라나 다음 남자 밥이 되기로 결정했다면, 그 기사는 어떻게 유지되는가?그냥 물어보는 거야...

OR: 뉴스 시퀀싱을 보존하고 그것이 실제로 연주한 것처럼 말하라 - "브래들리 매닝은 유죄판결을 받았다..." - 유죄판결 당시 이름과 그에 따른 이름 변경 요청 둘 다 인정된다.— 98.19.147.115 (대화)에 의해 추가된 이전의 부호 없는 논평

당신의 첫 번째 코멘트(Barbara 또는 Bob)는 트랜스젠더 개인과 트랜스젠더 개인에 대한 이해의 놀라운 부족을 보여준다.당신의 후자의 제안은 "이전"이라는 단어로 더 잘 표현되는 불필요한 단어들을 덧붙인다.– 무보슈구 (대화) 2013년 8월 23일 (UTC) 18: 18:24

ITN and every other main page item practice is to match the title of an article in all cases except where pipes are used to avoid dismabiguation or for a more natural flow of words (e.g. today's featured article blurb is: [[Albert Bridge, London Albert Bridge]] is a [[listed building Grade II* listed]] road bridge over the [[River Thames]] in [[Lon돈]]...)기존에는 기사를 옮길 경우 새로운 기사 제목과 일치하도록 메인 페이지의 링크가 업데이트된다."내가 생각하기에 여전히 다른 남자들처럼 화장실을 사용해야 할 것 같다"고 한 당신의 말에 대해, 어떤 사람이 화장실을 사용하는 것은 전적으로 당신이나 우리의 일이 아니며 그것에 대해 추측하는 것은 그들의 사생활을 심각하게 침해하는 것이다.Thryduulf (대화) 2013년 8월 23일 19:14 (UTC)

ITN에서 첼시 매닝 철수 요청, 새로운 소식으로 대체

안녕, 처음 게시하는 re: 메인 페이지야. 그러니 내가 규칙을 제대로 따르지 않는다면 용서해줘.하지만 나는 ITN에서 첼시 매닝을 빼달라는 요청을 제출하고 싶다.이 아이템은 벌써 2일(?)이 넘었는데, 이 아이템의 뉴스감이 점점 퇴색하고 있는 것 같아.레바논에서의 폭탄 테러, 요세미티에서의 산불, 콩고에서의 유엔 군사 행동, 포르투갈에서의 화재와 같은 아마도 포함시킬 가치가 있는 다른 세계 뉴스 사건들이 있다.나는 첼시 매닝의 판결에 대해 충분히 다루어졌고, 위키피디아가 어떻게 하는지에 대해 동의할 수 없더라도 최소한 이름/성별 발표는 보도되었다고 생각한다.그러나, 이 항목을 ITN의 상위에 두는 것은 해당 기사의 제안된 이동과 성 대명사의 사용과 관련하여 편집자들 사이에 진행 중인 대규모 분쟁에 계속 관심을 끌기 위한 역할을 한다.나는 그것이 전체적인 백과사전 프로젝트에 해가 된다고 생각하며, 위키피디아 사람들은 본질적으로 메인 페이지에 그것을 세계에 광고하지 않고 막후에서 이러한 갈등을 가질 필요가 있다고 생각한다.또한, 이 페이지 상단에 있는 빨간 상자를 제대로 읽고 있는지 모르겠지만, 새로운 ITN 항목이 12시간에서 24시간 정도 연체된 것 같으니까, 아마도, 때가 된 것 같다.존경하는 가장 어두운 나무토크 18:10, 2013년 8월 23일 (UTC)

• 상황이 당장 새로운 것이 아니라는 이유만으로 "당장"해지는 것은 아니다.그들은 새로운 아이템이 게시되면 회전하지 않는다.다른 게 올라오길 원한다면 지명해줘.– Muboshgu (대화) 18:22, 2013년 8월 23일 (UTC)
  • 현 시점에서 여러 가지 좋은 후보 뉴스가 지명된 것으로 보인다.ITN 품목 순환도 늦어진 것으로 보인다.다시 한 번, 나의 우려는 위의 갈등, 그리고 문제의 기사에서 일어나고 있는 갈등이 백과사전 프로젝트에 해가 된다는 것이다.사정이 이렇다 보니 현 시점에서 ITN에서 이 기사를 삭제해야 한다고 본다.나는 이곳이 그 의견을 표현하기에 가장 좋은 곳이라고 생각했다.나는 메인 페이지와 상호작용하는 것이 처음이라, 여기서 내가 취할 수 있는 다른 조치들이 무엇인지 모르겠다. 이미 지명된 다른 뉴스 항목들에 대해 그냥 다시 지명하고 싶지는 않다.Darkest TreeTalk 19:23, 2013년 8월 23일(UTC)
    • 만약 당신이 기사가 너무 터무니없다고 스스로 주장하고 싶다면, 그것은 당겨져야 한다. 당신은 그렇게 할 수 있다.하지만 저녁 식사 "스테이프 돼지고기, 닭갈비"는 없다.기사가 간지럽혀질 때까지 깨어 있다.μΔείςς (talk) 22:03, 2013년 8월 23일 (UTC)
      • 나는 기사 자체가 터무니없다고 주장하려는 것이 아니다. 비록 나는 그것의 GA 지위가 ITN에서 올라갔을 때와는 다른 문제가 제기되었다고 생각한다.하지만, 내가 말하고자 하는 요점은, 제3차 세계대전이 첼시 매닝보다 위키피디아에서 일어난 것 같다는 것이다.이런 상황에서 아마도 정상적인 절차에 예외를 두어야 하며, 이 기사는 지금 ITN에서 떨어져야 한다는 것이다.ITN(현재 ITN의 가장 중요한 항목이 그 아래에 게시되고 있음)의 상위에 머무르는 것이 갈등으로 가는 교통을 촉진하는 데 도움이 되는 것 중 하나라는 점이 걱정스럽다.기사의 토크 페이지에 있는 캔버스 태그를 보십시오.그것은 백과사전에 이롭지 않다.Darkest TreeTalk 23:01, 2013년 8월 23일(UTC)
        • ITN의 흐릿함은 발생 순서에 따라 나타나는데, 이는 그들이 포스팅에 대한 합의를 얻은 순서가 아니라, 가장 위에 가장 최근에 나타난 것이다.최근의 죽음은 항상 템플릿의 맨 아래 줄에 나타나며, 왼쪽의 가장 최근의 것부터 시작된다.선거운동은 토론에서 다른 사람으로부터 코멘트를 요청받을 때, 사람들이 직접 메인 페이지 링크에서 기사의 토크 페이지를 찾는 것에 의해서 이루어지는 것이 아니다.마지막으로, 우리는 뉴스에서 다루어야 할 어떤 특정한 표준의 기사가 될 것을 요구하지 않는다. 그리고 어떤 경우에도 GA 검토가 조기 마감되었다(다른 기사가 공개되지 않았다면?).간단히 말해서 나는 이것이 왜 당겨져야 하는지 이유를 모르겠다.Thryduulf (대화) 23:15, 2013년 8월 23일 (UTC)
          • 지지 당기기 - 그 이름이란 것이 터무니없이 논란이 되었다.ITN을 흐리게 하는 것은 단지 그 논란을 광고하는 것처럼 보인다.NickCT (대화) 00:14, 2013년 8월 24일 (UTC)
            • 아이템은 논란이 있어 뽑지 않는다. --Jayron32 00:24, 2013년 8월 24일 (UTC)
              • 정책에 관한 한 이것이 어디에 '논쟁적'인지조차 확신할 수 없으며, ITN에서 대부분의 성 관련 주제에 대해서는 보수적인 반대자다.μΔείςς (talk) 01:56, 2013년 8월 24일 (UTC)
                • @μμδες - - 확실하지 않아?나는 당신이 이 주제에 대해 전개된 토론의 몇 페이지 가치에 대해 간단히 살펴보는 것을 제안한다.아마 너는 조금 더 잘 이해할 수 있을 거야.@Jayron - 오, 그렇지 않니?인용하십시오.NickCT (토크) 04:12, 2013년 8월 24일 (UTC)
                  • • 그래, 전에 없던 일을 하자고 요구했는데, 이제 와서 해서는 안 된다는 것을 증명하는 것이 남의 일이 되었단 말인가?리야이트. --Jayron32 11:52, 2013년 8월 24일 (UTC)
                  • 닉CT, 내 싸인으로는 코멘트하지 말아줘.내 사용자 이름:사용자:메데이스는 정책별로 괜찮다.네가 언급한 토론에 대해서는, 내가 읽기를 원한다면 나를 그것과 연결시켜야 할 것이다.고마워요.μΔείςς (talk) 04:19, 2013년 8월 24일 (UTC)
                    • 토크:첼시 매닝.전체 토크 페이지 같은 거 말이야또는 WP를 확인하십시오.오류 또는 대화:메인 페이지.또는 WP:ANI. 또는 WP:VPP.아니면, 바로 여기. -- 타리카브죠투 04:21, 2013년 8월 24일 (UTC)
                      • 이해하겠어, 타릭, 그 말은 그가 단지 하나의 특정한 토론을 언급하는 것이 아니라 추상적인 집단적 의미에서 "토론"을 사용했다는 뜻인가?어쨌든 제이론은 위의 상대적인 반응을 삽입했다.사람들은 그것에 반대하는 규칙이 없다고 주장하고 부정적인 것을 증명하거나 변화를 받아들이기 위해 의심하는 사람들에게 도전함으로써 새로운 정책을 수립하지 않는다.μΔείςς (talk) 18:31, 2013년 8월 24일 (UTC)
• 당김에 반대하다.우리는 아이템이 새것이 아니거나, 너무 논란이 많거나, 오로지 기사 태그 때문에(보통 기사가 그렇게 나쁘다면 애초에 게시되지 않았을 것이다.)이기 때문에 뽑지 않는다.지명 과정에서 어떤 종류의 부적격이 있었던 것이 아니라면, 그대로 머물러야 한다. 331닷 (대화) 10:07, 2013년 8월 24일 (UTC)

[포스팅] 시리아 가스 공격

명명자의 의견:만약 확인된다면, 1,300명의 사망자를 인용한 보고서들 중 하나가 거의 1세기 동안 군사작전에서 독가스를 사용한 가장 큰 규모의 것이 될 것이다.Sca (대화) 15:03, 2013년 8월 21일 (UTC)

• 반대하라. 지금까지 이것은 야당의 주장일 뿐이며, 정권은 이를 부인해 왔다.이번 공격은 분명 1차 세계대전 이후 최악은 아니다. 할라베자 독가스 공격을 보라.유엔 무기사찰단이 시리아에 있는데 공격이 확인되면 내가 지원하겠다.모하메드 CJ (대화) 2013년 8월 21일 15:11 (UTC)
• 이것에 대해 모하메드 CJ와 합의 반대. --솜차이 선 (대화) 15:15, 2013년 8월 21일 (UTC)
• 확실히 "확정되면"이 여기서 비판적인 말이다.그때까지 참아야 할 것 같아.또한 시리아 내전은 방대한 기사다.연계할 수 있는 더 구체적인 것이 있는가? --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:16, 2013년 8월 21일 (UTC)

노미네이터의 논평: 이것이 만들어낼 관심의 양을 고려할 때, 나는 그 보고서가 곧 확인되거나 반증될 것으로 예상한다.난 할라베자 독가스 공격을 막아냈어Sca (대화) 15:32, 2013년 8월 21일 (UTC)

• 명백하게 검증 가능한 사실을 가지도록 수정된 경우 승인:유엔 안전보장이사회가 다마스쿠스에서 화학무기 공격으로 인한 사망자가 xxx를 넘어섰다는 주장이 제기되자 긴급회의를 열고 있다.L.탁 (대화) 2013년 8월 21일 18:38 (UTC)

노미네이터의 논평: BBC의 최신 이야기는 독가스가 아닌 "화학 무기"를 언급하지만, 로이터는 여전히 "수백명의 사람들을 사로잡고 있다"고 말한다. BBC는 이 호소와 함께 지상의 사람들에게 정보를 제공해줄 것을 요청한다.구타에 가십니까? 아니면 이 지역에 가족이나 친구가 있으십니까? 아래 양식을 사용하여 귀하의 경험을 공유하십시오.Sca (대화) 2013년 8월 21일 18시 49분 (UTC)

(분쟁 편집) 여기서 독가스와 화학무기는 거의 동의어(용납된 독가스/스프레이는 정의상 화학무기지만 후자는 내가 믿는 일반적인 용어다...) 그러나 "누가 그랬는지", "정확히 어떻게 했는지"(그리고 심지어 "언제"까지)는 곧 해결될 것 같지 않다.그건 전쟁이야. 즉, 그 어떤 정보도 직접적으로 의존해서는 안 된다는 뜻이지. 그래서 내 안보리의 제안은...L.탁 (대화) 2013년 8월 21일 18:55 (UTC)

뉴스에서, 우리는 여기 괜찮은 형태의 기사를 가지고 있다. 위의 기사를 바꿔보면, 100명에서 1500명의 사람들이 심각한 국제적 파장을 겪고 있는 것 같다.나는 포스팅을 지지하지 않을 수 없다.에드워드 레인 (대화) 2013년 8월 22일 12시 10분 (UTC)

• 최근의 전개를 보면 확인하려는 노력과 확인을 막기 위한 노력도 한몫한 것으로 보인다.2013년 8월 구타 화학 공격이 좋은 기사로 구체화되고 있으며, 적절히 중립을 지킬 수 있다면 메인 페이지 포스팅을 지지하겠다. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:18, 2013년 8월 22일(UTC)
• 지지하다.그렇다, 2013년 8월 Ghouta 화학 공격은 현재 보고서에 근거한 믿을만한 요약으로 보인다.피해자들의 온라인과 세계적인 분노에 비추어 볼 때 확실한 확인 없이 게시하는 것은 정당해 보인다.Sca (대화) 14:20, 2013년 8월 22일 (UTC)

PS: 사망자 수 없이 프랑스 위키의 실사자 등지에 게시되어 있다.Sca (대화) 14:30, 2013년 8월 22일 (UTC)

PPS: 슈피겔의 영어 사이트는 "시리아에서 신경가스를 사용하는 것을 증명하는 전문가들"이라고 말한다.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/experts-chemical-weapons-likely-used-in-syria-attacks-a-917965.html Sca (대화) 15:19, 2013년 8월 22일 (UTC)

• 이것을 지지하는 것은 거짓말이 아니라 널리 보도되고 있다.μΔείςς (talk) 02:07, 2013년 8월 23일 (UTC)
• 이거 다 된 것 같아.에드워드 레인의 과감한 지지와 나의 과감한 지지가 왼편과 잘 맞지 않고 원작의 두 반대는 이야기 전개에 꽤 이른 시기였다는 점에 유의하십시오. --LukeSurl ^{t c}, 2013년 8월 23일 (UTC)

• 나는 여전히 내 반대 입장을 고수한다. 왜냐하면 나는 확인되지 않은 공격, 특히 분쟁의 당사자에 의해 주장될 때 더 적은 관심을 가져야 한다고 생각하기 때문이다.내가 기억하는 예로는 트레미즈 대학살이라는 주장이 있는데, 트레미스 전투로 끝나게 되었다. 나는 그것을 지지했지만, 우리는 이틀도 안 되어 그것을 끌어냈다(링크: 1, 2, 위키백과:In_the_news/Candidates/7월_2012#.5BPulled.5D_Turaymisah_massacre_in_Syria).그러나 이 기사는 현재 상태로는 괜찮고 상황을 반영하고 있다.모하메드 CJ (대화) 13:16, 2013년 8월 23일 (UTC)

• 지지 — 8월 23일 오바마 대통령은 그 보도가 "중대한 우려의 큰 사건"이라고 말했다.Sca (대화) 15:38, 2013년 8월 23일 (UTC)
• 지원 - 높은 사망자 수, 언론의 많은 관심.--미래조력자(대화) 16:54, 2013년 8월 23일(UTC)
• Ready로 표시 이것은 업데이트되고 지원되지만, 나는 적절한 흐림에 대해 의견이 없다.μΔείςς (talk) 16:59, 2013년 8월 23일 (UTC)
• 지지/블러브 나는 제안된 혹은 대체적인 모호함이 괜찮다고 생각한다.본질적으로 이 사건을 확인하는 모든 뉴스 출처를 감안할 때 대안은 지나친 주의일 수 있다.다크스트 나무토크 19:31, 2013년 8월 23일 (UTC)
• 기본적으로 대체 블럽을 게시했지만 "확인되지 않음"은 게시하지 않았다. 어쨌든 이미 보고된 것으로 되어 있다. -- 타리카브조투 20:24, 2013년 8월 23일(UTC)

드디어!구타가 다마스쿠스의 일부인지 아니면 다마스쿠스의 교외 지역으로 여겨지는지는지는 나에게 분명하지 않지만, 아마도 블럽은 "시리아 수도 다마스쿠스의 구우타 지역에서" 즉, 그런 취지의 말을 해야 할 것이다.Sca (대화)20:37, 2013년 8월 23일 (UTC)

다마스쿠스에 있는 것이 아니라 리프 디마슈크(다마스쿠스의 시골이라는 뜻)에 있는 것이다.리프 디마슈크에 있는 지도를 보면, 이 지역의 중심부에 구멍이 뚫린 것을 볼 수 있다; 다마스쿠스 시. -- 타리캅조투 20:40, 2013년 8월 23일 (UTC)

그럼 '다마스쿠스 근처'나 '다마스쿠스 외곽'은 어때?내가 이 문제를 제기하는 이유는 다마스쿠스가 영어권 세계에 널리 알려져 있기 때문인데, 구타는 아직 그렇지 않기 때문이다.Sca (대화) 22:02, 2013년 8월 23일 (UTC)

8월 20일

---

RD : 나렌드라 다볼카르

• 홀드: 나는 그 주제에 대해 더 많은 것이 나올 것이라고 느끼고 그때까지 기다릴 수 있을 것 같아.현재로써는 죽음도 충분히 가려져 있지만, 정치와 일반 대중의 후폭풍은 아직 드러나지 않고 있다.§§§§ {T/C} 18:39, 2013년 8월 20일(UTC)
• 이것은 자연사라기보다는 암살/살인이었다.죽음 자체가 이야기인 만큼(부고 작품이 아닌) 흐릿함을 고려해야 한다. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 18:58, 2013년 8월 20일(UTC)
• RD라기 보다는 흐릿하게 이것을 지지할 것이다.아마도 그 기사는 먼저 약간 과장될 수 있을 것이다.구립 (대화) 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)
• 인도의 운동으로서 합리주의가 얼마나 중요한가?스펜서^T♦C 03:31, 2013년 8월 21일 (UTC)

그것에 대한 답을 어떻게 얻어야 할지 모르겠어.널 죽일 만큼 중요해, 아마도?

이 이야기는 오늘날 인도 언론에서 주도하고 있는 것 같다: [18][19][20][21]이전집 (토크) 09:25, 2013년 8월 21일 (UTC)

여기도 마찬가지야.나는 이 문제에 어떻게 대답해야 할지 한동안 고민했다.솔직히 말해서 그는 뉴스에 매일 등장하는 사람이 아니었다; 적어도 최근 2-3년 동안은 아니었다.하지만 그는 1980년대에 그의 행동주의를 시작했고 그때 그가 충분한 파문을 일으켰을 것이다.그의 암살 사건이 지역 신문과 전국 신문의 헤드라인으로 다뤄졌다는 사실은 여전히 남아 있다.푸네 시는 비록 매우 엄격하지는 않지만, 오늘날에도 여전히 반드(bandh)로 남아있다.그러나 자동차 인력거는 오전 10시부터 오후 5시까지 도로에서 멀리 떨어져 있었다.§§§§ {T/C} 12:18, 2013년 8월 21일(UTC)

• 강력한 지원 - 앞서 말했듯이 비폭력 수단을 사용한 사람을 죽이는 것 자체가 뉴스다.그리고 세상은 그것에 대해 알아야 한다.고마워. --Abhijeet Safai (대화) 08:44, 2013년 8월 21일 (UTC)

이것을 게시하는 다른 이유들도 있을 수 있지만, 단지 행사를 홍보하기 위해 위키피디아를 사용하는 것은 그 중 하나가 아니다. 331닷 (토크) 09:32, 2013년 8월 21일 (UTC)

331 도트에게, 코멘트 고마워.내 의무는 그 문제를 경험 많은 편집자들의 눈에 띄도록 하는 것이었고 나는 그렇게 한 것 같다.나는 이제 그 문제를 공동체의 지혜에 맡긴다.그는 맹목적인 신앙에 맞서 싸우기 위해 일생 동안 일했다.그는 인도에서 이런 방향으로 일하고 있는 가장 중요한 인물 중 한 명이었다.매우 훌륭한 편집자들이 있고 나는 그들이 이것을 읽고 있다고 확신한다.나는 그들에게 그들이 옳다고 생각하는 대로 결정을 내려달라고 요청한다.들어줘서 고마워. -- 아비지트 사파이 (토크) 12:13, 2013년 8월 21일 (UTC)

강력한 반대WP는 POV를 강조하기 위해 미디어 캠페인을 실행하지 않는다.그는 알려지지 않았고 국제 에디아에서의 그의 죽음의 특징도 모른다.우리가 거절하는 무리들을 고려하면 쉽게 반대해야 한다(그리고 승인)리하스 (대화) 2013년 8월 21일 14시 2분 (UTC)

나는 어떤 것이 더 나쁜지 잘 모르겠다: 당신이 개인적으로 중요하다고 느끼기 때문에 어떤 것을 지지하는 것과 다른 누군가가 중요하다고 느끼기 때문에 어떤 것을 반대하는 것이다.구립(토크) 15:21, 2013년 8월 21일 (UTC)

• 지원 그의 사망은 가디언과 BBC를 참조하는 등 전세계적인 보도도 받았다. -Ugog Nizdast (대화) 14:10, 2013년 8월 21일 (UTC)
• 또한 오스트레일리아 [22] 알란스코트워커 (talk) 02:11, 2013년 8월 22일 (UTC) 및 미국 [23] 알란스코트워커 (talk) 13:07, 2013년 8월 22일 (UTC)
• 주어진 언급에 따르면, 그가 매우 중요한 인물이었다는 것은 매우 분명하다.이제 남은 문제는 우리가 그를 지지하느냐, 반대하느냐이다.우리가 지지하거나 반대하더라도 그를 소홀히 할 수는 없다.그리고 나는 반대하는 사람들이 그의 생각을 반대하려고 한다고 말하고 싶다. -- 아비지트 사파이는 2013년 8월 22일 (UTC) 10:55, 10:55

아무도 여기선 누구의 생각도 반대하지 않는다.문제는 이 사람이 포함 기준을 충족하느냐 하는 것이다.그 이상도 이하도 아닌.이것은 명분을 널리 알리거나 기념물이 되려는 포럼이 아니다. 331닷 (대화) 20:09, 2013년 8월 25일 (UTC)

• 리하스 당 반대하라.μΔείςς (토크) 18:18, 2013년 8월 22일 (UTC)
• 지지 뉴욕 타임즈와 워싱턴 포스트를 인도 밖의 신문에 추가하십시오.파리1127 (대화)20:07, 2013년 8월 25일 (UTC)

[포스팅] 최근 죽음: 엘모어 레너드

명명자의 의견:영향력이 큰 작가.뉴욕 타임즈가 "범죄 스릴러들의 지위를 높인 독신주의자"라고 묘사하는 가운데, 그들은 아직 오비트조차 올리지 않았다.업데이트할 것도 별로 없고, 기사도 그의 유산을 설명하는 데 꽤 도움이 된다. — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 14:30, 2013년 8월 20일(UTC)

이제 시간이 다 되었다.'미국 장르문학의 현대적 거장' '신세대들을 위해 [스릴러]를 재발견해 더 높은 문학 선반에 올려놓음' 등.기준 2. — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 14:36, 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)

• 잘 알려진 작가 지원 RD, 기사 업데이트. --Vejvanchický (토크/기여) 14:41, 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)
• 지원 블록버스터 영화로 각색된 그의 소설의 수에 근거한다.도니파크 (토크) 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)
• 지지하기 위해 -- 나는 아마 그의 소설을 30권이나 읽었을 것이다.Loie496 (대화) 15:22, 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)
• 기사는 일거리가 필요하다 - 짧은 "문단"이 많고, 몇 개의 간단한 URL 인용구들이 있으며, 그 기사는 일반적으로 다소 짧다.업데이트는 매우 미미하다. --ThaddeusB (대화) 15:31, 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)
• 그의 분야에서 주목할 만한 지원. --Somchai Sun (대화) 15:51, 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)
• 블러브에 대한 지지 나는 개인적으로 그가 사실적으로 모호한 몇 안 되는 죽음들 중 하나라고 생각한다. 그는 특히 범죄/드릴러 유전에서 20세기의 최고 저자들 중 한 명이었고, 오늘날에도 여전히 톰 클랜시, 제임스 패터슨 등을 쓰고 있으며, 국립 도서상을 수상한 수많은 작가들에게 길을 열어주었다.이 상은 노벨상 밖 작가에게 수여되는 최고 유산상이다.비밀 16:42, 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)
• RD에 대한 지원은 확실히 사망 기준에 부합한다.– Muboshgu (대화) 16:44, 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)
• RD 기준별 지원--Johnselak (대화) 21:08, 2013년 8월 20일(UTC)
• 지원 RD, blurb 반대 수상과 조공을 고려할 때, RD 자격이 있는 것 같다.하지만 나는 그가 애매모호한 수준에 가깝다고 생각하지 않으며, 나는 국가 도서 공로상이 "노벨상 밖의 작가에게 주는 최고의 유산상"이라는 말에 이의를 제기해야 할 것이다.미국인에게만 열려 있는 일인데, 단 한 가지 예를 들자면, 누스타드 국제 문학상은 확실히 국제적으로 더 권위 있는 상이었습니다.넬잭 (대화) 23:36, 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)

맨부커 인터내셔널 상은 전반적인 작업에 대한 더 권위 있는 상의 또 다른 예다.넬잭(대화) 05:05, 2013년 8월 21일 (UTC)

• 댓글을 달다.내가 보기엔, 이 글이 올라오는 것을 막는 유일한 것은 기사다; 그것의 두 섹션에는 오렌지색 태그가 있다.모하메드 CJ (대화) 2013년 8월 21일 15:38 (UTC)
• 댓글이 아직 올라오지 않았다는 게 말도 안 돼.Loie496 (대화) 2013년 8월 21일 18:28 (UTC)
  • 우스꽝스러운 것은 사람들이 글을 개선하려는 시도로 게시되지 않는 것에 대해 불평한다는 것이다.현재 커리어 섹션은 짧은 두 단락 모두인데, 그 중 하나는 미결이다.초기 생활 부분 또한 거의 완전히 언급되지 않았다.적응 섹션은 참조되지 않았으며 짧은 조각 문단으로 가득 차 있다.그의 5개 상 중 2개는 조회되지 않았다.이 글은 너무 많은 자료가 참조되지 않아 현재(최근 사망한 사람들에게도 해당) BLP 위반이다.나는 메데이스가 실제로 문제를 해결한 이슈 태그를 제거했음에도 불구하고 기사가 품질 기준에 부합하지 않는다는 나의 평가를 지지한다.--ThaddeusB (토크) 19:12, 2013년 8월 21일 (UTC)
  • (편집 갈등) 사망 업데이트도 다소 약하다 --ThaddeusB (대화) 19:20, 2013년 8월 21일 (UTC)
    • 그 소리 논리를 바탕으로 다시 "ready" 태그를 제거한다.– 무보슈구 (대화) 2013년 8월 21일 19:15 (UTC)
      • 네, "85세"는 약하지만, 기술적으로 그 섹션은 갱신된다.우리가 미학으로 내려간다면 불만을 표출하는 사람들이 스스로 원하는 개선책을 만들 수 있을 것이다.μΔείςς (토크) 19:47, 2013년 8월 21일 (UTC)
• 준비, 모든 태그가 주소 지정, 축소 또는 제거됨.μΔείςς (talk) 04:19, 2013년 8월 22일 (UTC)
  • 모든 태그가 실제로 제거되었지만(그리고 인용에 필요한 많은 태그는 "필요하지 않은" 태그로 제거되는 대신 실제로 수정되었다), 일부는 실제로 다루어지지 않았다.예를 들어, 나는 합리적인 "비필수 태그"가 있는 커리어 섹션의 {{expand 섹션} 태그를 기사 개선으로 언급하는 것을 거의 고려하지 않는다.60년 동안의 경력에 대해 6문장 이상(그리고 그 6문장 중 1문장 이상 참조)을 쓰는 것이 왜 그렇게 어려운지 모르겠다.보아하니 1960년 이후 그의 경력에서 주목할 만한 일은 아무것도 없었던 것 같군!?꼬리표를 복원하기 위해 전쟁을 편집하지는 않겠지만, ITN의 상당수는 백과사전에 실제로 내용을 추가하는 작업을 하기보다는 그 사람을 좋아하기 때문에 굳이 소위 말하는 상태로 기사를 억지로 통과시키려 한다는 것이 한심하다고 생각한다.(그리고 내가 그 기사를 수정하는 것은 내가 할 일이 아니다) --ThaddeusB (토크) 05:53, 2013년 8월 22일 (UTC)

TLDNR. 중요하면 내 강연을 떠나라.μΔεεςς (토크) 07:03, 2013년 8월 22일 (UTC)

• RD를 지지하라, blurb를 반대하라 - 이것은 타협이다.기사 내용은 타드데우스 편에서는 신통치 않지만, 만약 그의 반대 의견이 토론 페이지에 게재된다면 그 이슈들이 다뤄질 것이라고 생각한다.완전히 상하기 전에 한번 해보자.Jusdafax 19:01, 2013년 8월 22일 (UTC)
• 볼 수 없는 다른 문제가 없는 경우 게시하십시오.μΔείςς (토크) 18:25, 2013년 8월 23일 (UTC)
• 게시 -- tarikabjotu 20:09, 2013년 8월 23일(UTC)
  • 내 관심사 중 극히 일부만이 실제로 해결되었다. 대신 그것들은 메데이스에 의해 숨겨지거나 무효라고 선언되었다.하지만 레너드의 높은 중요성을 감안할 때 공감대가 거의 '좋다'는 수준에 그쳤기 때문에 게시물은 괜찮다. --ThaddeusB (토크) 22:23, 2013년 8월 23일 (UTC)
    • 나는 (미리 오해하지 마, 오해하지 마) 그 남자를 좋아한다고 해서 이 일을 밀고 나갔다는 비난에 분개한다.나는 그의 책을 한 권도 읽지 않았고, 오직 '냉정해져라'(그가 비판한 것)와 어쩌면 나의 관심을 끄는 '정당화'의 반 계절만을 보았지만 결코 나를 흥분시키거나 그를 읽고 싶게 하지 않는다.비평가나 팬의 시각에서 그에 대한 객관적인 판단은 그의 장점을 게시하도록 요구되었기 때문에 나는 이 일이 일어나지 않은 24시간 후에야 관여하게 되었다.지지되지 않는 자료를 접거나 삭제하는 것에도 아무런 문제가 없다.기사를 확대하려는 사람이 있다면 무보수 작업에 투입하고 싶은 사람은 자신의 작품을 아는 팬이어야 한다.μΔείςς (talk) 22:34, 2013년 8월 23일 (UTC)
      • 공식적으로, 남성 코멘트를 좋아한다는 이유로 밀어붙이는 것은 특별히 아무도 겨냥하지 않았다. --ThaddeusB (토크) 23:12, 2013년 8월 23일 (UTC)

8월 19일

---

[게시] 이란 쿠데타 (60년 전, 그러나 이것이 막 들어온다)

구립 (대화) 23:40, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)

• 약한 반대.이런 글을 올리는 것은 이해할 수 있었지만, 개인적으로는 이미 모두가 알고 있는 것을 인정하고 있을 뿐이라고 생각한다. 331닷 (토크) 00:15, 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)
• 지지-이것은 다른 나라의 문제들 내에서의 부당한 간섭을 의미 있게 인정하는 것이다.카타르스타스리그 (토크) 01:03, 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)
• CIA가 인정하지 않았다는 사실이 그것이 알려지지 않았다는 것을 반대한다.μΔείςς (talk) 01:12, 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)

나는 문제의 사실 그 자체가 주목할 때 제기되는 사실의 확언은 주목할 만하다고 생각한다.카타르스타스리그 (토크) 2013년 8월 20일 01:24 (UTC)

• 지지, 그것은 주목할 만한 확인이다.에게미 (대화) 05:36, 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)
• 지지, 역사의 주목할 만한 수정.미국 대통령 후보 토론의 주제였고 이 지역에서 미국 외교 정치에 영향을 미쳤다.결국 대량살상무기가 없었다는 것을 인정하는 것과 비슷했다.Sun Creator^(talk) 09:04, 2013년 8월 20일(UTC)
• Sun Creator의 WMD 누락은 좋은 비유다.화요일 (토크) 10:23, 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)

그것이 알려지는 것에 반대하며 그것은 영구적인 효과가 없다.(입장)만약 이란이 이에 근거한 조치를 강화한다면, 우리는 2013년 8월 20일 12:08, Lihaas (대화) 포스팅을 고려할 수 있다.

• 논평 - 우리는 POV가 여기에 기어들어오는 것을 피해야 한다; 공천에 부당하고 오도하는 영향력이 있다.우리가 비슷한 의견을 공유하는 사람들로 우리 자신을 에워싼다고 해서 '모두 이미 이것을 알고 있었다'는 일부 반대는 사실로 증명될 수 없다.CIA의 성명은 기본적으로 추측에 해당하는 것을 단언하는 것이 아니라 모든 의심을 제거하는 역할을 해야 한다.월트킵 (대화) 13:50, 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)

정확히 어떤 POV가 여기 숨어있도록 놔두는건가?이건 60년 전 이야기야, 교장들이 다 죽었어μΔείςς (토크) 17:39, 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)

• 설명 - 현재 업데이트는 2문장(선도에만 해당). --ThaddeusB (대화) 15:33, 2013년 8월 20일(UTC)
• 지지하다.이를 인정하는데 60년이 걸렸다는 사실이 주목할 만하다.BBC 아랍 라디오에 따르면 미국 역사가들은 이 사건의 모든 세부 내용을 기록했지만 MI6 압박으로 이 출판 결과는 몇 년 동안 상세하게 기록됐다.모하메드 CJ (대화) 2013년 8월 20일 15:53 (UTC)

• "쿠데타와 CIA 기록" 섹션의 끝에 3줄짜리 단락을 추가했다.나는 이것과 리드 업데이트로 충분하다고 생각하고 업데이트된 기사를 표시했다.모하메드 CJ (대화) 2013년 8월 20일 17:13 (UTC)

• 반대 - 대부분 업데이트 범위가 제한되어 있기 때문에(그대로) 그러나 입사가 영구적인 결과를 낳을 것 같지 않다는 데 동의하기 때문이다. --ThaddeusB (대화) 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)
• 지지하다이것은 상징적인 중요성의 주요한 인정이다.공식적인 소식통에 의해 '모두가 알고 있다'는 많은 것들이 부정되고 있다.나는 어떻게 이것이 영구적인 결과를 초래하지 않을 것이라고 주장할 수 있는지에 대해 강하게 의문을 제기한다.확실히, 사람들은 미래에 대해서만 추측할 수 있다.그러나 이것이 특히 이란이 보다 온건한 정부에 의해 지배받게 된다면 이란-미국 관계 개선의 출발점이 될 수 있다. --Johnselak (대화) 21:23, 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC

그것은 인정되지 않았다.그것은 RTI가 CIA의 재지원으로 강제적으로 석방한 것이었다.[25]리하스 (대화) 23:37, 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)

그들이 압력을 받았다고 해도 그것은 여전히 인정이었다.당신이 인용한 소식통은 그것이 'CIA의 첫 공식 인정'이었다고 말하고 있으며, 계속해서 "1953년 쿠데타는 여전히 전 세계의 관심사로 남아 있다"고 말한다.기사에서 언급하는 거의 모든 것이 이 지명의 공신력을 강화시킨다.--Johnsellak (대화) 00:33, 2013년 8월 21일 (UTC)

• 업데이트 요건은 충족되지 않았다. 최근 기사에 대한 업데이트는 전체적으로 있었지만 CIA의 이야기에 대한 단 한 마디의 업데이트만 있을 뿐이다.μΔείςς (talk) 00:46, 2013년 8월 21일 (UTC)

• 나는 이것이 한 문장보다 길다고 확신한다.리드:2013년 8월 CIA는 이란 정치인과 치안, 육군 고위관료들의 뇌물 수수와 친쿠데타 선전 등 쿠데타의 기획과 실행 모두에 관여했음을 공식적으로 인정했다.[8] [9] CIA는 쿠데타가 "중앙정보국(CIA)의 지휘 하에" 수행되었다는 것과 "미국의 외교 정책으로서 최고위급 정부에서 구상하고 승인한 것"이라는 것을 인정하는 것으로 인용되고 있다."[10] 쿠데타 및 CIA 기록란에 다음과 같이 적혀 있다.2013년 8월, 쿠데타 60주년 기념일에 CIA는 이들이 쿠데타를 일으키는데 관여했음을 보여주는 문서를 공개했다. 그 문서들은 또한 쿠데타의 동기와 그것을 준비하기 위해 사용된 전략들을 묘사하고 있다.[6] 이 문서들은 또한 영국이 쿠데타에 대한 자신의 역할에 대한 정보를 검열하려 했다는 것을 보여주었다. 외무부는 "영국의 쿠데타 개입을 확인하거나 부인할 수 없다"고 밝혔다. 쿠데타에 관한 많은 CIA 문서들은 여전히 기밀이었다.[9] 모하메드 CJ (대화) 04:49, 2013년 8월 21일 (UTC)

• 지지 - 전 세계적으로 흥미진진한 관심사 인정.누군가가 이것을 게시하기 위해 약간의 업데이트를 해야 한다.내가 될 수 없어, 다른 일들은 내 시간을 강요해.Jusdafax 03:49, 2013년 8월 21일 (UTC)
• 지지하다.전공 입학, 좋은 기사, 백과사전 개발.쿠데타 자체는 큰 영향을 끼쳤으며, 널리 퍼진 의혹에도 불구하고 CIA의 개입은 적어도 그들이 우리의 기사를 읽기 전까지는 독자들에게 널리 알려질 것 같지는 않다.Modest Genius 12:18, 2013년 8월 21일 (UTC)
• 업데이트됨.나는 그 기사에 갱신된 것으로 재표시를 했다.내가 위에서 말했듯이, 나는 그것을 스스로 준비되었다고 표시하지 않는 것이 좋겠다.모하메드 CJ (대화) 2013년 8월 21일 15:34 (UTC)
• 게시. Spencer^T♦C 06:09, 2013년 8월 22일 (UTC)

[포스팅] 2013년 중국-러시아 홍수

지명자의 논평: 상당한 사망자수.피해지역 최악의 홍수(중국)나 1세기(러시아). --ThaddeusB (대화) 17:49, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)

• 기울어진 지지, 이러한 홍수가 주장된 것만큼 예외적이라는 비 원어민 매체로부터의 확증, 그리고 (유명인이 지적한 바와 같이) 기사의 추가 개발을 가정한다.—WFC—17:56, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)
  • BBC, AP
• 반대. 몇 주 전에 우리가 올린 중국 홍수도 규모 면에서 역사적으로 보도되었다.매우 슬프지만 장마철이다.구립(토크) 19:50, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)
  • 다른 하나는 중국의 완전히 다른 지역에 있었기 때문에, 솔직히 둘 다 그 지역에 대해 오랜 시간 동안 최악이라고 말할 수 있다. 중국이 더 작았다면, 우리는 서로 다른 두 나라에 대해 이야기하고 있었을 것이다.전 세계적으로 홍수에 좋지 않은 한 해였지만 IMO는 주어진 홍수에 대한 우리의 평가에 영향을 주어서는 안 된다. --ThaddeusB (대화) 20:54, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)
• 지지하다.사망자가 많은 대형 재난.기사가 업데이트됨. - Zanhe (대화) 20:48, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)
• 댓글을 달다.분명히 홍수는 어디에나 있다: 파키스탄과 아프가니스탄, 수단, 필리핀 그리고 예멘.모하메드 CJ (대화) 21:20, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)
• 이것은 둘 이상의 국가를 포함하기 때문에 약한 지지.331닷 (토크) 21:21, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)
• 불행히도 그렇게 평범하지 않은 것에 반대하지 마라.μΔείςς (talk) 21:23, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)
• 사망자 최대 85명, 기사 업데이트. --ThaddeusB (대화) 21:48, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)
• 지원 대형 재난이 분명함.Thaddeus가 Electron에 대한 회신에서 위에 언급한 의견에 동의하십시오.IP. 넬잭 (대화) 22:52, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)

우선 순위당 p를 지지하다...그러나 이러한 것들이 사후적이어야 하는 곳에서도 재폭발을 지원할 수 있다. 날씨와 인공재해가 매우 흔하다.Lihaas (대화) 12:09, 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)

• 게시. 스펜서^T♦C 19:18, 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)

인도 열차 사고

EughnS'm'on(14) ® 14:44, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)

• 반대 나는 이 기사가 더 나아지는 것을 보지 못한다.인도에서 사람들이 선로를 건너다 죽임을 당하기엔 너무 흔한 일이기 때문에 여기서 많은 발전이 일어나지 않을 것이다.기사가 개선되면 내 입장을 바꿀 수 있다 -- Ashish-g55 15:09, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)

• 당신의 논평 이후 기사가 훨씬 좋아졌다. -잔허 (대화) 16:30, 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)

• 기사가 개선될 경우 지원하십시오.어디든 1면이다. 37명의 사망자가 큰 사건이다. -잔허 (대화) 15:51, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)
• NOTNNEWS로 주목받지 못하는 것에 반대한다.Lihaas (토크) 15:58, 2013년 8월 19일(UTC)에 0의 영향을 미치기 때문에 엔시오패닉 기사가 되어서는 안 된다.

• 나는 "어떤 것에 대한 영향 제로"가 내가 선택했을 문구인지 확신할 수 없다.구립 (대화) 2013년 8월 19일 16:00 (UTC)
• 오랜 기간 ITN 기고자의 흥미로운 논평이다.거의 모든 주요 열차 사고에는 자체 기사가 실려 있으며 ITN에 정기적으로 등장하고 있다. - 잔허 (대화) 16:50, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)

일단 반대하다흥미로운 요인은 NYTimes에 따르면, 폭도들이 사건 이후 운전자를 끌어내고 그를 때리고 기차에 불을 지른 후 발생한 여파다.그러나 그것이 폭력의 정도라면 그것은 거의 비스토리적인 것이며, 따라서 ITN(또는 가치 있는 기사)이 아니다.--MASEM (t) 16:56, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)

• 비슷한 카스텔데펠스 열차 사고가 ITN에 게시돼 사망자는 12명에 불과했다. -잔허(대화) 16:57, 2013년 8월 19일(UTC)

나는 이런 사고들이 인도에서처럼 흔한 일이라 생각하지 않는다.어떤 경우든 현재 상황은 WP에 해당된다.내 생각에 NOTNNEWS는 더 이상의 발전이 일어나지 않는 한 ITN에 올라가지 말아야 한다 -- Ashish-g55 17:19, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)

• 신문이 아니라 백과사전을 반대하라.μΔείςς (talk) 17:24, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)

• 이 섹션이 "In the News"라고 불리는 것을 기억하라.이런 대형사고나 재난사고도 올리지 않으면 ITN구간을 아예 취소하는 게 나을 수도 있다. -잔허(대화)20:41, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)

이것이 백과사전이라는 것을 기억하라, 그리고 우리는 ITN을 일상 사망자가 아닌 장기적 관심의 좋은 기사들을 특집으로 다루기 위해 사용한다.μΔείςς (talk) 01:14, 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)

일일 사망자수?이는 인도에서 발생한 열차 사고 중 1년 만에 발생한 최악의 사고며 세계 최악의 사고 중 하나이다.IMHO와 같은 대형사고는 우리가 정기적으로 올리는 대부분의 스포츠 이벤트보다 훨씬 장기적인 관심을 가진다. - 잔허 (대화) 19:26, 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)

• 논평 - 나는 확실히 그 주제가 기사에 충분히 주목할 만하다고 생각하지만, 우리의 기사는 내가 그것을 평가하기 전에 크게 확장될 필요가 있을 것이다. --ThaddeusB (대화) 20:57, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)
• 타드데우스 노트의 업데이트 대상 지원, 사망자 수를 넘어 주목할 만한 상황이 있으니, 우리가 사망자 수에 너무 치중한다고 불평하는 이들이 이를 지지해주길 바란다.넬잭 (대화) 22:56, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)
• 두 문장이다.납북(이유) 01:02, 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)

• 확장되었어. -잔허 (대화) 16:30, 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)

[폐쇄] 호스니 무바라크

해양노동협약 발효

명명자의 의견:발효일은 '뉴시스' 행사다.ILO에게 있어, 이 행사는 많은 규약을 통합하고, 당사자들이 내일부터 준수해야 하는 큰 배의 절반 이상을 커버하기 때문에, 표준 규약이 아니기 때문에 큰 행사다.(주: 나는 다음을 안다.나는 이 기사의 주요 기고자이기 때문에 다소 편파적일 수 있다; Itherefore는 토론에 참여하지 않을 것이다; 요청 시 명확히 하는 것 외에는...) --L.탁 (대화) 08:45, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)

• 지원 명백한 국제적 중요성.화요일 (토크) 13:23, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)
• 반대, 내가 자주 보는 뉴스 사이트에서 이 이야기를 보도한 흔적은 보지 못했다. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:53, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)
• 반대. "In the News"에 게시하기 위한 전제 조건인 뉴스에서 다루지 않는 것. 331dot (토크) 14:13, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)
• 영구적인 충동을 지지하다리하스 (대화) 15:59, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)
• 논평: 내가 말할 수 있는 한 이것은 단지 기존의 해양법을 하나의 관습으로 체계화한 것일 뿐이지, 실제로 어떤 새로운 관행을 도입하는 것은 아니다.만약 그렇다면, 나는 ITN 포스팅을 정당화할 충분한 뉴스가 없다고 생각한다.아니면 내가 뭔가 놓친 게 있나?Modest Genius 2013년 8월 21일 12시 24분(UTC)

• 나는 당신이 어디에서 왔는지 알고 있고 나는 물질적으로 많은 새로운 규범이 도입되지 않았다고 생각한다.그러나 이들을 하나의 관례로 분류하는 것은 두 가지 중요한 이유 때문이다.
  • i) 이전 협약의 가입은 가변적이었으며, 일부 협약은 가입률이 매우 높고 매우 낮았다.그것을 하나의 협약에 가입시키는 것은 더 많은 나라들로 하여금 동일한 규범을 도입하도록 한다; 그리고 대부분의 광범위한 시행 법률은 그들이 아직 가입하지 않은 것들을 위해 필요했다.특히, 대부분의 중요한 편의 깃발들이 여기에 가입했기 때문에, 이것은 문자 그대로 75%(2014년) 또는 50% (현재)가 따라야 한다는 것을 의미한다.그것은 해양 노동 협약을 위한 것이다!
  • ii) 컴플라이언스 메커니즘은 새로운 것이다.모든 배는 주(州) 정당의 항구에 와야 하고, 당의 깃발을 휘날리는 모든 배는 따라야 한다.실제로, 그것은 사실상 단어 속의 모든 배들이 따라야 한다는 것을 의미한다. (미국은 그것의 배들이 그들이 준수하는 것을 보여줄 수 있도록 MLC-inspection을 하는 비주(non state party) 당사자로서)....

그래서 ITN에 대한 연관성이 충분하다고 본 겁니다.L.탁 (대화) 13:39, 2013년 8월 21일 (UTC)

흠, 좋아, 그래서 좀 더 많은 것이 있어, 그것이 효과적으로 많은 새로운 나라들이 이전의 협약에 가입하는 것을 의미한다는 점에서.하지만, 그 정보는 기사에 실릴 필요가 있고, 그때도 나는 완전히 납득할 수 없다.그래도 반대하지는 않겠다.Modest Genius 22:04, 2013년 8월 22일 (UTC)

[포스팅] 최근 죽음: 데소 갸르마티

명명자의 의견:그에 대한 기사에서: "자르마티는 올림픽 역사상 가장 성공한 수구 선수였고, 역사상 가장 위대한 수구 선수로 여겨진다."나는 데즈소 갸르마티뿐만 아니라 "그나 그녀의 분야에서 매우 중요한 인물로 널리 여겨졌다"고 제안했다.Andise1 (대화) 04:41, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)

• RD 보류 중 지원 - 올림픽 역사상 가장 훈장을 받은 수구 선수는 확실히 공신력 요건을 충족한다.기사는 다소 얇아 아직 사망신고가 충분하지 않다. --ThaddeusB (대화) 04:51, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)
• 지원 업데이트 대기 중.TaddeusB에 따르면.– Connormah (대화) 04:59, 2013년 8월 19일(UTC)
• 지지 RD 그 증거는 그가 역사상 가장 위대한 수구 선수는 아니더라도 가장 위대한 수구 선수 중 한 명으로 널리 간주되고 있다는 것을 보여준다.하지만 꽤 흐리지는 않다.넬잭 (대화) 05:50, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)
• 반대 - 수구는 틈새 스포츠에 너무 많은 비중을 두고 있으며, 나는 그의 그 스포츠에 대한 숙련도를 메인 페이지로의 자동 무료 이용이라고 생각하지 않는다.갸르마티 자신은 대부분 알려지지 않은 인물이고, 그의 사망은 아마도 우리 독자층의 아주 작고 거의 하찮은 비율에 불과할 것이다 - 그의 기사의 하루 평균 페이지뷰는 그가 죽기 전에 한 자릿수에 있었다. --봉와리어 (토크) 06:06, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)

수구는 여러분이 태어난 곳에서 큰 스포츠가 아닐 수도 있지만, 어떤 곳에서는 존재한다. 수구는 발칸반도에서 거대하고, 많은 대륙 유럽에서 크고, 미국에서 성장하고 있다.그것도 올림픽 종목이야.나는 자르마티가 헝가리나 수구가 큰 다른 나라들에서 알려지지 않은 것인지 의심스럽다. 그리고 나는 그에 대해 듣지 못한 많은 사람들이 그의 놀라운 경력에 대해 읽고 싶어할 것이라고 생각한다.어쨌든, 이 사람은 분명히 "그 분야에서 매우 중요한 인물"로 간주되고 있으며, 그것이 필요한 전부다.넬잭 (대화) 2013년 8월 19일 07:12 (UTC)

나는 그가 자기 분야에서 최고의 자리에 있었다고 논쟁하는 것이 아니라, 그가 사망 기준에 부합하기 때문에 우리가 이것을 게시할 의무가 있다는 어떤 정서가 있는 것 같다.우리는 그 분야가 충분히 중요하지 않은 개인들을 게시하는 것을 거절할 수 있다. 나는 그것이 여기의 경우라고 믿는다.퀵, 역대 수구선수 중 2번째로 위대한 선수 이름. 보입니까? --봉와리오르 (토크) 14:49, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)

당신은 확실히 당신의 신념을 가질 권리가 있지만, 다른 사람들은 정반대의 신념을 가지고 있다.당신이 중요하지 않다고 보는 것은 다른 사람들에게 매우 중요한 것으로 여겨진다.단지 이를 위해 기준에 맞는 것을 게시하는 것이 '의무'가 아니라 기준에 맞는 것을 게시하고 충분한 지원을 받을 의무가 있다.331닷(대화) 15:38, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)

아마 알렉산다르 샤피치일 것이다.넬잭 (대화)20:55, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)

그의 사망은 전 세계 여러 언어로 보도되었는데, 이는 그가 중요하지 않은 스포츠를 하는 보잘것없는 사람이 아니었음을 시사한다. --Vejvanchickick (토크/기여) 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)

• 기사는 현재 경량이며 참조가 부족하다.코치 경력, 정치 경력, 가족 부문에는 언급이 없다. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 07:39, 2013년 8월 19일(UTC)

• 기사는 충분히 갱신되고 참조되었다.명목별로 RD 지원. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:36, 2013년 8월 20일(UTC)

• 업데이트 보류 중인 RD만 지원.여러 개의 메달을 획득한 오랜 성공적인 경력은 그가 그의 스포츠에서 매우 중요하다는 것을 암시하는 것처럼 보이지만, 기사는 확장될 필요가 있다.331dot (대화) 11:37, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)
• 331점당 RD만 지원하며, 기사는 약간의 작업이 필요하지만(내가 클릭했을 때 2kb 산문만), 올림픽 메달 5개(3금)와 국제수영대회 HOF는 그의 분야에서 충분한 중요성을 나타낸다.– 무보슈구 (대화) 2013년 8월 19일 17:00 (UTC)
• 너무 좁아서 실제의 공신력에는 미치지 못한다.μΔείςς (talk) 17:27, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)

나는 메데이스가 단지 5개의 올림픽 메달에 대해 잘못 깨달았을지도 모른다고 생각한다.나는 그가 수구가 주류 스포츠인지, 그래서 많은 사람들이 그 기사를 찾고 싶어할지도 모르는지 묻고 있다고 추측한다.이 녀석은 헝가리와 러시아 간의 '물속의 피' 경기의 일부였고, 그의 기사는 C나 어쩌면 B급 기사만이 몇몇 흥미로운 정치와 연결된다.그 기사는 확실히 게재된 몇몇 기사들보다 상태가 더 좋다. 만약 그것이 RD 지명을 받는다면 그것은 개선될 것이다.그래서 나는 RD에 대한 지원이 보장된다고 생각하는데, 아마도 준비가 되어 있거나 거의 준비가 되어 있다고 생각한다.에드워드 레인 (대화) 2013년 8월 20일 08:55 (UTC)

• 준비된 것으로 표시 이 기사는 업데이트, 확장 및 참조되었다. 합의는 분명해 보인다.넬잭 (대화) 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)
  • 맨 URL로 올라가면 안 된다.– Muboshgu (대화) 14:54, 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)
    • 방금 WP:Reflinks --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:02, 2013년 8월 20일(UTC)으로 수정했는데
• 게시 -- tarikabjotu 20:47, 2013년 8월 20일(UTC)

8월 18일

---

마리히 만 싱 슈레스타

명명자의 의견:전 수상, 소버린 주의 총리.우리는 보통 이걸 올린다.리하스 (대화) 08:31, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)

나는 죽음이 우리의 명성 기준에 부합한다는 것에 동의한다.업데이트는 그의 죽음에 대해 전혀 눈치채지 못하는 부분이 포함되어 있기 때문에 충분하지 않다.--Johnselmak (대화) 10:28, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)

• 적절한 업데이트 시 지원331dot (대화) 12:21, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)
• 확장 보류 중인 지원 클릭했을 때 기사는 산문 1200자까지 들어간 단문이었다.– 무보슈구 (대화) 15:11, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)
• 현직 정치인이 아니라 어떤 분야에서든 중요한 영향력을 행사하지 말라.μΔείςς (talk) 20:58, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)
• 그의 정치 경력에 대한 더 이상의 정보 없이 그가 기준을 충족하는지 여부를 판단할 수 없는 의견 - 이 기사의 보도는 매우 제한적이다.넬잭(대화) 21:18, 2013년 8월 18일(UTC)

[포스팅] 2013년 세계 육상 선수권 대회

명명자의 의견:세계선수권대회, 올림픽 이후 최대 대회
– 명예TheKing (토크) 01:00, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)

• 논평 - 18시간 정도 더 있어야 행사가 끝날 것이다.그 기사는 상당한 산문 업데이트가 필요할 것이다 - 아마도 가장 주목할 만한 사건들의 요약일 것이다.(필요하다면 업데이트를 작성할 용의가 있으며, 업데이트에 포함되어야 할 내용에 대해 제안할 용의가 있다.) --ThaddeusB (대화) 01:18, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)
• 우승이 공식적으로 끝날 때 응원하라.나는 또한 메달을 한 개 이상 따는 총 국가 수 대신에 가장 성공적인 국가인 챔피언십을 언급할 것을 제안하고 싶다.-키릴 시메오노프스키 (토크) 08:04, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)

ITNR을 지원해야 한다.리하스 (대화) 08:37, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)

그 자리에 너를 앉혀주어서 미안하지만 그것은 경기가 시작되었을 때 지명되었지만 아직 지명하기에 늦지 않았다.도니박(대화) 13:13, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)

그렇게 생각되면 제안한다. 331닷 (대화) 12:22, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)

그것은 이미 제안되었다.넬잭(대화) 21:15, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)

• 주목할 만한 스포츠 이벤트 지원 및 ITN/R에 대한 위의 제안에 동의함--Somchai Sun (토크) 10:00, 2013년 8월 18일(UTC)
• 지원 - 공식 종료 시.--BabbaQ(대화) 10:08, 2013년 8월 18일(UTC)
• 에이미가 특정 메달 수상자나 국가에 대해 언급하는 것을 반대한다; 첫 번째 지지- 아마도 개최 도시를 언급할 것이다.--존셀락 (대화) 10:15, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)
  • 2주 전 바르셀로나에서 열린 세계수영선수권대회 폐막과 함께 했을 때 왜 안 그랬을까?---키릴 시메오노프스키 (토크) 15:08, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)
• 지지하다.블러브에는 위치가 포함되어야 한다.구립 (대화) 11:29, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)
• 지지하다.하지만 우리가 누가 메달 순위 1위를 차지하느냐를 따지는 것이 더 좋을까? 그것은 오래된 냉전 경쟁자들 사이의 팽팽한 경쟁처럼 보인다.세계수영선수권대회와 세계육상선수권대회를 모두 ITN/R에 포함시키겠다는 나의 제안도 지지해줘.도니박(대화) 13:13, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)

• 제안된 대안적 모호함.육상에서는 러시아(또는 미국)가 세계선수권대회 메달 순위 1위를 차지하고 있다.

• 끝났어.금메달 7개로 가장 성공한 나라는 러시아.--기릴 시메오노프스키(토크) 14:51, 2013년 8월 18일(UTC)

• Ready 이 기사는 게시하기에 충분한 산문으로 업데이트 되어 보인다.--Kiril Simeonovski (토크) 19:37, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)

  응, 방금 가장 주목할 만한 사건들에 대한 산문으로 업데이트 끝냈어.알트블러브가 더 좋은 것 같아. --ThaddeusB (대화) 20:32, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)

• 주요 국제 대회를 지원한다.altblurb가 더 낫다는 것에 동의한다.넬잭(대화) 21:15, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)
• 우리가 원하면 쓸 수 있는 이미지가 많다. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:17, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)
• 게시 -- tarikabjotu 22:03, 2013년 8월 18일(UTC)

8월 17일

---

멕시코 마약왕핀 체포

명명자의 의견:한 달 전쯤 메인 페이지에 또 다른 멕시코의 마약왕(Miguel Trevino Morales 참조)이 게시된 것을 고려하면 이 정도까지는 멀리 갈 수도 있을 것이다.그럼에도 불구하고, 이 남자의 체포는 멕시코 마약 전쟁의 또 다른 주요 에피소드로 걸프 카르텔에게는 큰 타격이다.체포 부분은 조금 더 업데이트가 필요하지만, 더 많은 출처가 나오기 시작하면서 고칠 수 있다. --컴퓨터JA (☎) 00:47, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)

• 반대 격주마다 비슷한 내용의 글을 올린다는 익살과 상관없이, 멕시코인들은 남아프리카의 이중 절단 환자나 뉴저지 주지사들 못지 않게 형사 소송에 대한 의혹의 혜택을 받게 된다.μΔείςς (talk) 01:15, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)

그가 무죄든 유죄든 간에 이번 지명을 지지/반대하는 데 초점이 맞춰져서는 안 된다고 생각한다.미국과 멕시코 양국에 대한 체포의 중요성에 대해 기사를 지명했다.네 걱정거리를 해결하기 위해 "알려졌다"라는 단어를 막 블럽에 추가했어.조언해줘서 고마워.컴퓨터JA (☎) 01:31, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)

그렇다면 무죄든 유죄든 구속이 중요한가?μΔείςς (talk) 18:49, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)

응. 이 사건은 이번 주나 이달, 심지어 올해에도 해결되지 않을 것 같아.그것은 지금 뉴스에 나와 있다.그의 죄의식이나 결백에 대해서는 아무런 판단이 내려지지 않고 있다.내가 아래에 인용한 ITN 기준에 따르면, 이것을 게시하는 것은 불합리하지 않다. 331 도트 (대화) 23:35, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)

• 약한 지지.나는 우리가 매주 멕시코의 마약 왕을 올릴지도 모른다는 우려에 민감하다. 하지만 우리는 유명한 도망자나 범죄 용의자를 체포하는 것을 게시한다. 그리고 이 남자는 미국에서 5백만 달러의 현상금을 받았다. 331 도트 (대화) 02:58, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)
• 반대 우리는 체포 후 유죄 판결을 기다리는 것을 선호하며, 나는 그것이 이 경우에 따라야 할 건전한 관행이라고 생각한다.넬잭(대화) 03:20, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)
  • 이해하지만, 세계 언론이 같은 견해를 갖고 있는 것 같지는 않다(프랑스, 영국, 미국, 호주, 인도에서의 뉴스다).첫 번째로 열거된 ITN 기준 두 가지는 "독자가 뉴스에 항목이 있기 때문에 검색할 수 있는 콘텐츠를 찾고 빠르게 접근할 수 있도록 돕기 위해"와 "현행사에 양질의 위키백과 콘텐츠를 특집하기 위해"이다.독자들은 이 남자가 누구인지 궁금해하며 올지도 모른다. 331닷 (대화) 03:47, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)
    • 그것은 뉴스 보도에 대한 공정한 지적이지만, 의심할 여지 없이 유죄 판결을 받으면 많은 뉴스 보도도 받을 수 있을 것이고, 나는 계속해서 그것이 일반적으로 게시하기에 더 적절한 시기라고 생각한다.중범죄에 대한 유죄 판결은 일반적으로 그러한 범죄에 대한 (검증되지 않은) 혐의에 근거한 체포보다 더 중요한 것으로 보인다.넬잭 (대화) 06:05, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)
• 만약 그것이 극도로 세간의 이목을 끄는 범죄자(예: 오사마 빈 라덴)의 체포였다면, 나는 체포를 게시하는 것을 지지할 것이다(나는 일반적으로 유죄판결이 게시하는 것보다 더 낫다는 것에 동의한다.트레비노가 그런 예일 수도 있지만, BBC 소식통을 보면 '12월 이후 두 번째 고위층 체포', '국내에서 가장 지명 수배 중인 마약 갱 지도자 중 한 명'이다.내가 보기엔 별로 눈에 띄는 말은 아닌 것 같아.--존셀락(토크) 10시 20분, 2013년 8월 18일(UTC)

조직적인 범죄 군벌에 대한 유죄 판결은 사람들이 증거와 그렇지 않은 것들을 모아야 하기 때문에 보통 몇 년이 걸린다.어떤 남자가 불법적이고 느슨한 범죄자들의 네트워크를 이끌었다는 것을 증명하는 것은 어떤 남자가 다른 사람을 쐈다는 것을 증명하는 것만큼 쉽지 않다.게다가 그의 유죄판결이 구속만큼 언론보도를 받을 수 있을지 의문이다.어쨌든 당신의 조언에 감사한다.건배, 컴퓨터JA (☎) 18:33, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)

컴퓨터JA, 체포되기 전에 트레비노가 얼마나 눈에 띄었나?그는 멕시코 당국의 표적과 조직폭력배 혐의자로 멕시코에서 아주 잘 알려져 있었을까?예를 들어, 존 고티와 같은 범죄 인물에 대해 얘기한다면, 아마 체포가 주목할 만한 일이라는 것에 동의할 것이다.하지만 멕시코 사정은 잘 모른다.--존셀락 (대화) 22:17, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)

걸프 카르텔의 최고 책임자가 되는 건 분명 의미가 있어그러나 나는 확실히 그가 미겔 트레비뇨 모랄레스와 헤리베르토 라즈카노(메인 페이지에 게재된 두 명의 마약왕)만큼 중요하지도, 존 고티의 위상에 근접하지도 않았다고 생각한다.라미레스 트레비뇨는 호르헤 에두아르도 코스티야 산체스의 뒤를 이어 11개월 동안 카르텔 최고지도자였지만, 멕시코와 미국의 체포의 의의에 그를 지명했다. 그의 부재는 불과 한 달 전 트레비뇨 모랄레스가 체포되었다는 점을 고려할 때 멕시코 북동부에 위험한 힘의 공백이 생기게 한다.걸프 카르텔은 눈에 보이는 지도자가 없다. 내가 셀 수 있는 몇 개의 지역 군벌들이 있을 뿐이다(백과사전 페이지 한 개만 있음). 하지만 그의 위상이 되는 것은 하나도 없다.컴퓨터JA (☎) 00:40, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)

나는 컴퓨터를 기반으로 지원하고 있다.JA의 댓글.--존셀락(토크) 02:03, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)

• 여자친구의 총살 인정으로 체포된 유명 백인 운동선수가 왜 BLP의 우려로 게시되지 않는지 설명 좀 해주시죠, 멕시코인들에 대한 무죄 추정은 없는지요?μΔείςς (talk) 02:22, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)

피스토리우스는 마약조직의 우두머리였을까, 그리고 그에게 5백만 달러의 현상금이 걸려 있었을까?유죄든 무죄든 이런 것들은 부인할 수 없다.유죄를 선고하지 않고 체포에 관한 기사를 게재하는 것은 불가능한 일이 아니다.대부분의 합법적인 매체들은 정기적으로 이것을 한다. 331닷 (토크) 03:30, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)

당신의 요점은 몇몇 고발된 사람들이 다른 사람들보다 더 낮다는 것 같다.그것은 내 생각과는 딴판단하다.나는 멕시코인들이 그들의 체포가 "중요하다"고 해서 그들의 인권, 무죄 추정, 또는 BLP의 보호를 잃는다고 생각하지 않는다.내게는 그 말이 마치 우리가 이 남자들(그 중 한 명은 보름 전에 풀려난 사람)을 권리와 존엄성을 가진 인간이 아니라 그들의 파괴에 상업적인 현상금이 걸린 해충으로 취급하는 것처럼 들린다.우리가 마지막으로 체포한 유럽인은 누구야?μΔείςς (talk) 04:15, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)

구속이 눈에 띄고 필요한 지원금을 받으면 포함 기준에 부합한다는 게 골자다.그 얼간이는 그가 걸프 카르텔의 리더라고 주장하지 않는다.그것은 국제 언론과 정부가 이 사건을 다루어 온 것처럼 그가 그 혐의의 지도자라고 단언한다.조언해줘서 고마워.컴퓨터JA (☎) 04:43, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)

정말? 그게 국제 언론과 정부가 다루는 방식이야?이것은 메데이스가 제타스 지도자와 함께 하지 못한 것과 마찬가지로, 비록 대부분의 뉴스에서 그를 걸프 카르텔의 지도자로 묘사하고 있지만, 그가 "살아있는" 것을 위해 하는 것과 비슷해 보인다.그는 그 타이틀을 부인했는가?아니, 아마 절대 안 그럴 거야그리고 우리 기사는 그것을 논쟁의 여지가 없는 것으로 취급한다. 음, 거의 그렇듯이.다시 한 번 말하지만, 실제로 걸프 카르텔의 리더가 아닐 수도 있는 이 게임을 하고 싶다면, 기사를 과감히 고쳐 써야 할 것이다. -- 타리카브조투 04:55, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)

우리는 정말로 법원의 판단을 예단해서는 안 된다.그가 이 범죄 조직의 리더라고 말하는 것은 사실상 그가 유죄라고 말하는 것이다.이를 게시할 경우 '알려졌다'는 단어를 포함시켜 어느 정도 주의와 자제를 행사해도 아무런 해가 없다.넬잭 (대화) 06:00, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)

(이번 지명에 사용된 7명의 출처와 대조적으로) 국민들이 갖고 싶어하는 정서가 바로 그것이라면, 기사는 현재 상태로 올라갈 수 없을 것이다.이 기사는 그가 사실상 카르텔의 지도자라고 추측하고 있다. -- 타리카브조투 06:09, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)

그래서 나는 반대한다.넬잭 (대화) 06:56, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)

특히 그가 그것을 부인하지 않는다면 대부분의 소식통에 따라 그가 시간을 보내는 것을 말하는 것은 어떤 것도 편견을 갖지 않는다.그는 스웨터를 뜨는 데 시간을 보내지 않는다. 331 도트 (대화) 11:35, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)

그가 그것을 부인하지 않는다는 것을 우리가 어떻게 알 수 있을까?우리는 그에게 혐의가 적용되었다는 증거를 가지고 있는가?넬잭 (대화)20:57, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)

나는 사람들이 마약 카르텔의 의심스러운 지도자들에게 다가가 그들이 마약 거래자들의 카르텔의 리더인지 물어보는 것이 흔한 일이라고 생각하지 않는다.적어도 그 후 실종되지 않고서는 안 된다. 331닷 (대화) 21:07, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)

정확히 내 요점이야, 331 도트.고발된 마약 거래자들은 단지 너무나 명백한 인간 이하의 쓰레기일 뿐이기 때문에, 그들이 법정에서 무죄를 증언할 수 있도록 일부러 구박하고 체포되는 데 시간을 소비하지 않는 한, 우리는 그들의 결백을 추정할 필요가 없다.그리고 라파엘 카로 퀴테로와 같은 사람들은 검사적인 잘못으로 인해 결코 석방되지 않는다.누가 밧줄을 가지고 있지?끈을 매자.μΔείςς (talk) 01:21, 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)

정보원이 이 남자가 생계를 위해 무엇을 하고 있다고 주장하는지에 대해 여전히 논의하면서 구체적인 혐의에 대해 무죄라고 가정할 수 있다.만약 그가 마약을 거래하는데 시간을 보내지 않는다면, 그는 하루 종일 무엇을 하는가?자신들에게 위협이 되지 않는다고 생각한다면 육해군을 체포하기 위해 데려오지 않을 것이다.331도트(대화) 09:47, 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)

8월 16일

---

루고소돈

명명자의 의견:이것은 아마도 새로운 생물 종을 찾는 것만큼 "섹시"한 것이 아니라 과학적으로 훨씬 더 중요하다.이 발견은 역사상 가장 성공한 포유류 집단의 진화 역사에 관한 몇 가지 질문에 대한 답으로, 그것은 이 시대에서 발견된 최초의 (대부분) 다발성 골격이기 때문이다.이 정도 규모의 발견은 상당히 드물다.(이것은 올해 겨우 두 번째 선사시대 발견으로 나는 지명할 가치가 있다고 느꼈다. 다른 한 곳인 아우로니스가 게시되었다.)연구 결과는 사이언스가 발표했다. --ThaddeusB (토크) 02:31, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)

이 문서는 ITN에 게시되지 않을 이유가 없는 WP에 대한 크레딧인 우수하고 잘 갱신된 기사다.μΔείςς (talk) 02:39, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)

• Medeis, 당신의 추론은 ITN에 이 기사를 포함시키는 것을 지지하는 것처럼 보이지만, 당신의 투표는 반대인가?--BabbaQ (토크) 10:33, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)

나 또한 이것 때문에 어리둥절했다.아마도 너는 분명히 할 수 있을 거야, 메디스. 나는 네가 "지지"라고 말하려고 했는지 궁금했어.넬잭(대화) 21:12, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)

• 논평: 최근에 만들어진 기사로서, 이 또한 DYK에 적합해야 한다.스펜서^T♦C 05:15, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)
• 지원 - itn에 대한 정의--BabbaQ(대화) 10:33, 2013년 8월 18일(UTC)
• 지원 매우 중요함.넬잭(대화) 21:09, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)
• 댓글을 달다.주류 언론의 많은 부분이 이것을 무시하고 있다.데일리메일을 제외하고, 하지만 그게 좋은 일인지 모르겠어.구립 (대화) 15:52, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)
• 반대하라. 나는 지금까지 소수민족에 속할 것이다. 이것은 ITN에게는 다소 난해한 것 같다.더 나아가서, 이전으로IP는 기껏해야 주류 뉴스 외의 보도에는 한계가 있다고 지적한다.적어도, 나는 아직 뉴스에서 그것을 보지 못했다.DYK 331dot (대화) 15:55, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)
  • 타임과 데일리 메일 외에도 CSM, 타임즈 오브 인디아, 헤럴드 선, 허핑턴 포스트 등 비특수성 수레도 다루었다.자연스레, 그것은 또한 모든 "과학 뉴스" 출처들에 의해 다루어졌다.(커버리지(커버리지)는 대부분의 주요 언어에서도 찾아볼 수 있지만, 그런 것들이 주류를 이루는 것인지, 아니면 눈을 흘긴 것만으로도 특산품인지는 잘 모르겠다.)공천에서 말했듯이 그 중요성이 그 관심보다 더 큰데, 다혈질 가족이 멸종하고 설치류도 그렇게 인기가 많지 않다는 점을 감안하면 놀라운 일이 아니다. --ThaddeusB-public (대화) 16:25, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)

나는 뉴스 보도와 관련하여 정정하다; 그것들은 지금까지 뉴스 출처로 등록되지 않았다. 331 도트 (대화) 17:37, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)

그것을 다루지 않은 출처들의 목록은 가지고 있는 출처들의 목록보다 훨씬 더 인상적이다.BBC, 뉴욕타임스, 가디언, CNN 등에서는 찾을 수 없을 것이다.구립 (대화) 22:02, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)

그것은 또한 우리가 올리는 대부분의 과학 이야기들에 대해서도 말할 수 있다.예를 들어, 새로운 여우원숭이는 보장이 훨씬 적었다.나는 이것을 주류적인 관심을 받는 과학 이야기들 중에서 "평균"으로 분류하고 싶다(전체 과학 연구의 1% 미만). --ThaddeusB (토크) 22:22, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)

뉴스 미디어가 대부분 관심이 없을 때 우리가 여우원숭이 이야기를 올렸다는 것은 나를 놀라게 하지도 않고 나를 납득시키지도 못한다.BBC는 과학 이야기를 위한 하위 페이지를 가지고 있다.과학이야기에도 다른 것들과 마찬가지로 광범위한 보도가 필요하다고 제안하는 것은 불공평한 일이 아니다.구립 (대화) 22:41, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)

다른 과학 이야기와 비교해서 여기 취재 수준에 대한 정보만 제공했을 뿐 불공평하다는 뜻은 아니었던 것 같은데...커버리지 수준은 한 요소지만 일반적으로 우리가 게시하는 어떤 스토리에서도 주요 요소는 아니다(ITN이 매우 다르게 보일 경우).그런 점에서 과학 이야기가 왜 달라야 하는지 모르겠다.즉, 다른 모든 종류의 이야기와 마찬가지로 중요도(높음)와 커버리지(여기서 평균)로 판단할 수 있다. --ThaddeusB (토크) 15:42, 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)

그것은 가장 오래된 태반이나 가장 오래된 유대류 포유동물을 발견했다고 선언하는 것만큼 난해하지 않다.μΔείςς (talk) 17:33, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)

• 코멘트, 내가 보기에 그 이야기는 정말 루고소돈이 멀티투버쿨라타 혈통을 과거로 밀어낸 이야기인 것 같다.그러나 멀티투버쿨라타가 화성종 이전과 알을 낳는 포유류(약 220 mya) 이후에 갈라졌다는 점을 고려하면, 이것은 놀랄 일이 아니다.납북(이유) 01:10, 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)
• 반대. 본지에 생물학적 역사를 과포화시킨 것 같은데...과학 뉴스에 관심밖에 없어하지만 누군가가 멸종된 포유류 중 가장 오래된 종족을 찾는 것의 중요성을 지적할 수 없다면, 나는 이것이 증가하는 것을 보고 매우 실망할 것이다._EricLeb⁰¹ (페이지토크) 04:14, 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)
• 코멘트 나는 [Ready] 태그를 제거했다. 이에 대한 충분한 반대가 있다. -- 타리캅조투 06:05, 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)
• 질문 하나, 타릭? 투표하고 동시에 관리하니?유목민들과 함께 당신의 반대를 포함하지 않는 것은 2대 1로 게시하는 것에 찬성하는 것이고, 그것은 업데이트 되었다. 그리고 성숙하다.μΔείςς (talk) 06:10, 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)

  나는 그 지명에 반대하지 않았다.그러나 331dot, Erlicleb의 반대는 "매우 유의하다"와 "Definly for ITN"이라는 지지 발언과 맞물려 의미가 있다. -- 타리캅조투 06:47, 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)

  확실히 하자면 공천 준비가 끝났을 때 아직 반대는 없었다.또한, 전립은 실제로 반대하는 것에 미치지 못했다(물론 그의 언급은 합의/거기에 대한 결여의 일부로 간주될 수 있고 여전히 고려되어야 한다). --ThaddeusB (대화) 15:38, 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)

  그래, 나는 네가 [준비]라고 표시한 후에 조수가 바뀌는 것을 이해한다.그때 준비 표시를 잘못했다고 한 게 아니라, 지금은 준비가 안 됐다는 겁니다. -- 타리카브조투 20:04, 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)

• 좋아, 난 반대할 거야. 그리고 왜 그랬냐면, 출판되는 모든 화석 발견은 지식을 조금 확장시켜.이 경우 위에서 언급했듯이 확장은 매우 제한적이다.과학자들은 이미 지구상에서 멀티튜버쿨라타의 임기 시작과 끝을 잘 알고 있는 것 같다.예를 들어 루고소돈의 조상을 설치류로 부르고 일반적으로 요점을 놓치는 등 일반 언론 기사들은 잘못된 것이다.하지만 행 사이를 읽으면 "가장 오래된 것 중 하나"와 "더 놀라운 발견"을 볼 수 있을 것이다. 비록 이 동물의 뼈 구조가 이 동물이 땅 위를 달렸다는 것을 분명히 해 주었지만, 루고소돈은 믿을 수 없을 정도로 유연했고, 180도 회전할 수 있었다."그래서 이 발견에서 가장 흥미로운 것은 유연한 발목이다.나는 단지 ITN의 가치가 있는 것을 볼 수 없다.마지막으로, BBC와 다른 사람들의 관심 부족은 그 과학 리포터들이 나만큼 인상적이지 않을 수도 있다는 것을 암시한다.납북(이유) 18:08, 2013년 8월 20일 (UTC)

[폐쇄] 이신바예바 게이 발언

[포스팅] 필리핀 난파선

명명자의 의견:침몰한 지 15시간 만에 200명 이상이 실종됐다는 점을 감안하면 최종 사망자 수는 100명을 넘을 것으로 보인다. --ThaddeusB (대화) 06:23, 2013년 8월 17일 (UTC)

• 지지하다.큰 인명피해로 침몰하는 선박은 흔한 일이 아니다. 331도트(대화) 10:49, 2013년 8월 17일(UTC)
• 위와 같은 지원.브랜드마이스터^talk 10:57, 2013년 8월 17일(UTC)
• 지원 사상자가 많은 비극적 사고는 ITN에 가입할 가치가 있다.--Giants27(T C) 14:40, 2013년 8월 17일(UTC)
• 서포트-퍼 자이언츠27.카타르스타스리그 (토크) 2013년 8월 17일 14:43 (UTC)
• 지원 - 사망자 수가 현재 31명으로 더 늘어날 것으로 보인다. - 잔허 (대화) 15:34, 2013년 8월 17일 (UTC)

경미한 사건에 경미한 사상자를 내고 반대하다(우선 순위) 리하스 (대화) 22:40, 2013년 8월 17일 (UTC)

• 지원 - itn에 대한 정의--BabbaQ(대화) 00:32, 2013년 8월 18일(UTC)
• 설명 - 게시물이 게시되면 올링구이토를 교체하고 사진을 찍지 않는 것을 고려해 보십시오.그 이야기는 이집트를 제외하고 가장 오래 올라갔으며 이집트는 여전히 헤드라인 맨 위에 있다.그것은 사진 때문에 템플릿의 맨 위에 있을 뿐이다.(다른 3개 스토리는 지금까지 약 1시간 정도만 특집으로 다뤄졌다.) --ThaddeusB (토크) 01:11, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)
• 이집트의 습격을 제거하고 끈적끈적하게 바꿨어며칠만 지나면 쉽게 제거할 수 있다. -- 타리카브조투 01:59, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)
  • 좋은 생각 --ThaddeusB (대화) 02:17, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)

[포스팅] 야스니 국립공원은 석유 시추에 개방되었다.

명명자의 의견:이번 결정으로 약 8억 배럴의 원유가 시장에 유입될 것으로 추산되는 한편 (잠재적으로) "지구상에서 가장 다양한 야생동물 중 일부"와 원주민들의 생계를 위협할 것이다.이것은 완료된 거래(이행명령)이다. 탐사는 곧 시작될 것이다.가끔 일어나는 자연 재해 이외에는 남미로부터 거의 글을 올리지 않기 때문에, 여기 메인페이지에 과소표시된 지역을 얻을 수 있는 좋은 기회가 있다. --ThaddeusB (토크) 21:51, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)

• 명목당 지원.매우 실망스럽다. --솜차이 선 (토크) 10:29, 2013년 8월 17일 (UTC)
• 명목별 지원. 331도트(토크) 10:50, 2013년 8월 17일(UTC)
• ITN에 참여할 가치가 있는 명목별 지원 -Giants27(T C) 14:39, 2013년 8월 17일(UTC)
• 기사는 이제 업데이트되어 이의 없는 한 게시될 준비가 되어 있다. --ThaddeusB (대화) 19:43, 2013년 8월 17일 (UTC)
• 좌익의 애인이 경제 발전의 찬사를 부르고 선진 세계의 위선을 부르는 것을 듣는 것은 멋진 지지다.블러브는 어색한 "보호해야 할 행동" 대신 "보호해야 할 행동"이라고 말해야 한다.μΔείςς (talk) 01:25, 2013년 8월 18일 (UTC)
• 게시 -- tarikabjotu 22:04, 2013년 8월 18일(UTC)
• 코멘트는 "에쿠아도르가 야수니 국립공원을 재개장해 석유 시추로부터 열대우림을 보호하기 위한 6년간의 계획을 끝낼 것이라고 발표한다"고 의미를 이해할 수 없었다.나는 그것을 "이전에는 방문객들에게 폐쇄적이거나, 국립공원으로 등록되어 있거나, 또는 그 선에 따라 폐지되어 있었다"라고 읽었다."야수니 국립공원을 다시 개방해 석유 시추에 들어갈 것"이라고 명시된다면 훨씬 더 명확해질 것이다.2013년 8월 19일 (UTC) 04:17, 04:17 (UTC)
  • 완료 --ThaddeusB (토크) 04:21, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)
    • 고마워, 훨씬 좋아! -dmema (대화) 04:25, 2013년 8월 19일 (UTC)

[포스팅] RD: 로잘라

명명자의 의견:스페인 최고 갑부 사망, 인디텍스 패션 메가컴퍼니 공동창립자. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:49, 2013년 8월 16일(UTC)

• 스페인뿐만 아니라 전 세계(포브스 선정)에서 주목할 만한 기업가로의 지원을 받으십시오.331dot (대화) 14:01, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)
• 확장 시 지원(업데이트뿐만 아니라 확장된 리드 및 바이오)유명한 자라 체인의 창시자.기사 작성 좀 할게.--존셀락 (대화) 14:24, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)
• 반대: 초부자가 되는 것이 반드시 "중대한 공헌/영향력"이 되는 것은 아니다.이번에는 물건 품질이 너무 열악해서 나를 달리 설득할 수 없다.존셀락이나 다른 사람이 기사를 개선하면 나는 이것을 재검토할 것이다.– 무보슈구 (대화) 15:07, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)

만약 그녀가 단순히 그녀의 초부유산을 물려받았다면, 나는 동의할 것이다. 하지만 이 사람은 그녀의 부를 위해 일했고 그것은 그녀의 성공과 명성을 보여주는 것이다. 331 도트 (대화) 16:40, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)

• 기사의 개선 보류 중인 기사의 개선을 지원하도록 변경!bote를 변경하십시오.나는 내 나름대로 검색해 보았는데 이제 포브스가 그녀를 "세계에서 가장 부유한 자수성가한 여성"이라고 부르는 것을 보게 되었다.앞서 반대했을 때 그 기사는 내게 그렇게 분명하게 하지 않았다.그 글은 지금 훨씬 나아졌고, 조금 더 많은 일이 있으면 우편으로 부칠 수 있을 것이다.– 무보슈구 (대화) 2013년 8월 16:52, 16 (UTC)

• 무보슈구 당 약한 반대.사업가로 (내가 아니라 고인이야!)그녀가 RD 자격을 얻을 수 있을지 확실치 않다.--솜차이 선 (토크) 15:12, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)

사업가의 RD 금지는 없다; 유일한 문제는 그녀가 사업 분야에서 눈에 띄었느냐 하는 것이다.포브스는 확실히 그렇게 생각했다, 그녀를 사업상 가장 부유한 여성 리스트에 포함시킬 만큼. 331닷 (대화) 16:42, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)

• 물건이 현저히 개선된 경우 지원한다.이는 체계적인 편견이 얼마나 작용하는지를 잘 보여주는 사례다.여기 한 회사를 공동 설립한 사람이 있는데, 이 회사는 연간 200억 달러 가까이 벌어들이고 수십 개 국가에 걸쳐 6000개 이상의 상점을 운영하고 있지만, 유명인사도 아니고 영어권 국가에서 온 사람도 아니다.따라서 그 기사는 훌륭하지 않다.그러나, 나는 그녀가 확실히 그녀의 분야에서 매우 중요하다고 말하고 싶다. (그리고 그렇다, 부는 사업 분야에서 가장 중요한 지표다. 그것이 성공이 일차적으로 측정되는 방법이기 때문이다.) --ThaddeusB-public (대화) 16:33, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)

기사는 약간 확대되어, 그녀의 인지도를 요약한 주인공의 전체 단락과 그녀의 경력을 설명하는 3~4개의 단락으로 구성되어 있다.-Johnselmak (토크) 20:14, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)

• 지원 분야는 단연 최고다.μΔείςς (talk) 21:59, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)
• 준비 완료, 강력한 반대 없음.μΔείςς (talk) 21:59, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)

우리는 위선적으로 러시아 최대 검색엔진 설립자의 죽음을 반대한다.리하스 (대화) 05:54, 2013년 8월 17일 (UTC)

틀릴 수도 있지만, 나는 그가 세계에서 가장 부유한 남자들 중 한 명이라고 말해지는 것을 믿지 않는다.컨센서스도 변할 수 있다. 331도트(토크) 11:00, 2013년 8월 17일(UTC)

그의 기사도 내가 기억하기로는 결코 표준으로 올라오지 않았다. --ThaddeusB (대화) 19:44, 2013년 8월 17일 (UTC)

• 게시 -- tarikabjotu 05:55, 2013년 8월 17일(UTC)

8월 15일

---

[포스팅] 위네무카 호수 암각화

명명자의 의견:고고학이나 인류학을 주제로 한 이야기를 특집으로 다룰 기회가 그리 흔하지는 않지만, 여기에 훌륭한 기회가 있다.그것은 합법적으로 가장 중요한 "가장 오래 된" 것이 발표되는 것은 그리 흔한 일이 아니다.이 조각들은 사람들이 아메리카 대륙으로 처음 이주한 것으로 여겨질 무렵으로 거슬러 올라간다. --ThaddeusB (대화) 02:52, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)

• 이거 좀 걱정돼.암각화의 사진을 본 적이 있는가?납북(이유) 04:13, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)

• Nat Geo는 Nat Geo의 후보 지명을 지원하기 위해 제공된 출처로부터 지금 사진을 제공하고 있다.μΔείςς (talk) 04:17, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)
  • 이것 때문에 신경이 쓰이는 게 있어.조사하러 간다.납북(이유) 04:35, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)
    • 예, 예, 방사성 탄소 연대 측정#하드 워터 효과 참조.납북(이유) 04:37, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)
      • 내 걱정거리를 좀 더 자세히 설명할 수 있는지 봅시다.나는 그들이 탄산염과의 데이트와 관련된 문제들을 어떻게 다루는지 보기 위해 그들의 기사를 볼 필요가 있다.심지어 실제 조개껍질과 데이트하는 것 조차도 이 유기체들이 최근에 환경으로부터 다시 분해된 탄산염을 섭취하고 있을지도 모르기 때문에 어려움을 겪고 있다.여기 그들은 바위에서 나오는 탄산염 필름과 데이트를 하고 있다.위네무카 호수는 활발하고, 자라고, 줄어들고, 결과적으로 퇴적물이 재분해되는 것으로 알려져 있다.내가 읽을 수 있는 한, 그 장소의 호수의 흥망성쇠를 연대를 위한 독자적인 방법은 없고, 단지 탄산수의 방사성 탄소 연대만 연대를 하고 있다.납북(이유) 05:10, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)
  • 나는 연구 논문에 접근할 수 있다.나는 아직 그것을 읽지 않았지만, 어떻게 그들이 날짜 범위를 얻었는지에 대한 광범위한 정보가 있다 - 그것은 단순히 탄소 연대 측정의 형태가 아니다.이메일로 보내주면 사본을 보내줄게. --ThaddeusB (대화) 06:02, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)
    • 나는 이것을 지지하고 싶지만, 위의 "이슈"는 해결/수정되어야 하며, 필요하다면 기사가 좀 더 업데이트되어야 한다.분명히 내가 아는 연구분야는 아니다! --솜차이 선 (토크) 14:38, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)

• 연령대가 낮을지라도 지원한다는 것은 주목할 만한 일이다.만약 날짜에 대해 발표된 문제가 있다면 링크가 도움이 될 것이다.μΔείςς (talk) 22:02, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)
• 좋아, 이제 신문을 읽었어.연구원들은 탄소 연대 측정의 직접적 방법 외에 수위 상승과 하락의 날짜를 맞추기 위해 세 가지 간접적인 방법을 사용했다.모든 방법은 대체로 일관성이 있었다.또한, 젊은 날짜 범위는 이전에 이 지역에서 발견된 인간 유물과 일치한다(그리고 호수 자체에서 발견된 한 경우).(논문에서 저자는 더 젊은 데이트 범위를 주장하지만, 더 나이 많은 데이트 범위를 "제외할 수 없다"고 한다.)나는 그 증거가 결정적인 것이라고 말할 자격이 없지만 그것은 확실히 나에게 확실한 과학 조각처럼 보인다.나는 내가 할 수 있는 한 모든 데이트 내용을 설명하기 위해 기사를 확장했다.지금 이 정도면 사람들이 이 이야기에 대한 의견을 형성할 수 있기를 바란다. --ThaddeusB (토크) 03:54, 2013년 8월 17일 (UTC)
• 나는 저자들이 주장하는 젊은 날짜를 애매모호한 날짜에 넣는 것을 지지하지만, 오래된 날짜는 그렇지 않다.납북(이유) 05:27, 2013년 8월 17일 (UTC)
  • 동의해, 좋은 생각인 것 같아. --ThaddeusB (대화) 06:39, 2013년 8월 17일 (UTC)
• Per ThaddeusB 지원 - 감사합니다, sir! --Somchai Sun (대화) 10:28, 2013년 8월 17일 (UTC)
• 게시된 비밀 23:47, 2013년 8월 17일(UTC)

[포스팅] 개성공업지구

지명자의 논평: 북한의 봄철 긴장/포즈화가 끝나가고 있다는 확실한 징후.양측은 한 달 전 이 지역을 다시 개방하고 싶다고 했지만 오늘까지 실질적인 합의가 이뤄지지 않았다. --ThaddeusB (대화) 02:25, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)

• 지지-나는 개인적으로 주목할 만한 뉴스 항목이 제시될 것으로 생각하지만, 이러한 특정 카테고리의 지명은 자주 발생하지 않는다.글을 올리기 전에 유한한 합의를 이루는 것이 최선이다.카타르스타스리그 (토크) 03:03, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)
• 분명히 선의에 반대하며, 버스 충돌보다 더 읽기 좋지만, 사이언티픽 아메리칸의 12페이지짜리 삽입물처럼 너무 많이 읽는다.μΔείςς (talk) 03:37, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)
• 지원 그들이 가까스로 합의에 도달했다는 의미심장하다; 그것은 확실히 관계의 해빙을 나타내는 것 같다.나는 또한 이것이 어떻게 "사이언티픽 아메리칸의 12페이지 삽입과 같은" 것인지 정말 모르겠다.나는 사이언티픽 아메리칸이 한반도의 외교 발전에 관한 12페이지 분량의 기사를 게재한 것을 알지 못했다.넬잭 (대화) 04:01, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)

너는 내가 되고 싶은 곳이 아닌, 더 자주 SciAm을 읽으라고 충고하는 아주 난처한 입장에 처했다.μΔείςς (talk) 04:19, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)

내가 마지막으로 Scientific American을 읽은 지 몇 년이 지났음을 고백한다.지금 이런 걸 출판하는 거야?넬잭 (대화) 04:31, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)

• 지지하다.개성의 위상은 남북 관계의 중심이다.화요일 (토크) 08:53, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)
• 댓글을 달다.나는 이것을 지지하지만, 업데이트 범위가 별로 보이지 않는다.구립 (대화) 10:33, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)

  나는 전자의 의견에 동의한다.여기 IP.2013년 폐막 구간은 어쨌든 상당히 좁고, 재개봉 시 많은 산문을 위한 범위가 거의 없어 보인다. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:17, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)

• 지원 주목할 만한 발전, 개성의 폐쇄는 북한의 마지막 분란의 큰 선례였다. --솜차이 선 (대화) 11:44, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)
• 솜차이 선 당 지원. 331닷 (토크) 12:05, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)
• 업데이트됨 - 이제 기사가 최소 표준으로 업데이트됨. 더 필요한 사항이 있으면 알려주십시오. --ThaddeusB (대화) 18:27, 2013년 8월 16일(UTC)
• 게시. LFARAone 22:35, 2013년 8월 16일(UTC)
  • @LFARAone:그냥 생각일 뿐인데 2013년 한국 위기 기사와 'tensions'라는 단어를 연관 짓는 것에 대해 어떻게 생각하시는지요?— -dainomite 23:59, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)
    • 다 된 것이 합리적인 것 같다.LFaraone 01:05, 2013년 8월 17일 (UTC)

[포스팅] 케플러 소멸

명명자의 의견:지난 5월 케플러가 다시 고장났을 때, 고칠 수 있을지 지켜보자는 의견이 일치했다.NASA는 이제 고칠 수 없다고 선언해 사실상 행성 사냥의 날을 마감했다.ThaddeusB (대화) 02:19, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)

• 합의된 후속 조치로서의 지원.μΔείςς (토크) 03:39, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)
• 반대해 이건 기본적으로 은퇴 얘기지?구립 (대화) 10:28, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)
• 현시점에서 오해의 소지가 있다고 쓰여진 바와 같이 모호한 것에 반대한다.그렇다, 그들은 바퀴를 고치는 것을 포기했다. 그리고 그것은 현재의 임무가 수정되어야 한다는 것을 의미하지만, 그들이 지역사회에 "잠재적으로 나머지 두 개의 좋은 반응 바퀴와 추진기를 사용하여," 다른 임무 계획을 제안하도록 요청했기 때문에 반드시 행성 사냥의 끝을 의미하는 것은 아니다.NASA 보도자료에 언급된 바와 같다.돌아온 제안 중 하나는 케플러의 소프트웨어를 수정하여 보상하는 것이다.별들이 케플러의 시야에서 고정되고 안정되는 대신에, 그것들은 표류할 것이다.그러나 소프트웨어는 이러한 표류를 추적할 수 있었고, 고정된 시야에서 별을 잡을 수 없음에도 불구하고 임무 목표를 거의 완전히 회복할 수 있었다.이 제안에 대한 자세한 내용은 KeSeF - Kepler 자체 후속 조치 미션을 참조하십시오.아스트레디타 (토크) 10:38, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)
• 반대 선두의 마지막 단락은 옵션이 열려 있으며 케플러가 사망자가 아니라는 것을 명시한다.실제로 일어난 일은 중요한 뉴스가 아니다. --Somchai Sun (대화) 11:48, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)
• Astredita당 반대. 331dot (대화) 12:04, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)
• 코멘트 - 나는 모두가 요점을 놓치고 있다고 생각한다.그렇다, 케플러는 여전히 미래에 어떤 과학적인 연구를 하기 위해 이용될 수도 있지만, 이것이 1차 임무의 공식적인 끝이다.휠 고장은 이전에 후보자로 지명되었을 때, 이것이 바로 사람들이 기다려야 한다고 말한 지점이다.논쟁의 여지 없이, 첫 번째 발표는 더 중요한 뉴스였지만, ITN은 사태가 공식화될 때까지 기다리는 것을 좋아한다.음, 그들은 이제 공식화 되었다."진짜 일어난 일은 중요한 뉴스가 아니다"라고 말하는 것은 완전히 잘못된 것이다.예를 들어 우리 태양계 내에서 외행성 사냥과 추적 혜성 사이에는 큰 차이가 있다(향후 제안된 사용 중 하나). --ThaddeusB-public (대화) 16:23, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)

요점은 미세하다는 것-아직 쓸만하지만 예정된 임무를 수행할 수 없다는 것- 하지만 인류가 외부 행성을 탐색할 수 있는 유일한 수단이었을까? 331dot (대화) 16:45, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)

그것은 확실히 가장 좋은 방법이었고, 우리가 알고 있는 대부분의 외부행렬을 찾는 데 책임이 있었지만, 사실은 그게 중요한 것은 아니다.요점은 이것이 매우 주목할 만한 4+년 미션의 끝이라는 것이다. --ThaddeusB (대화) 18:32, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)

• 지지하다.매우 중요한 망원경의 아주 성공적인 일차 임무의 끝.엑소플라넷 사냥은 최근 천문학계에서 대유행으로 번지고 있으며 케플러의 1차 임무는 그 최전방이자 중심이었다.(또한 메데이스와 동의한다는 것도 믿을 수 없다.)화요일 (토크) 16:55, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)

너보다 훨씬 더 나를 아프게 해.μΔείςς (토크) 17:00, 2013년 8월 17일 (UTC)

• 지원 나는 이야기가 꽤 백과사전적이라고 생각한다. 기사는 최신판처럼 보인다. 중간 기사의 실패는 분명히 드물다.마지막으로 이 높은 프로필은 아마도 화성 탐사선이 막혔을 것이다. (우리가 그것을 메인 페이지에 올리면 기억이 나지 않는다...)그러나 나는 블러브를 "일차적 임무의 종료"로 바꾸거나 앞으로 더 많은 2차 임무가 있을 것이라고 확신하는 비슷한 것으로 바꿀 것을 제안한다. -- Ashish-g55 17:17, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)
• 위 토론에 따라 이타블러브를 추가했다. --ThaddeusB (대화) 18:32, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)
• 이 이야기는 허블 망원경이 사용되기 위해 고쳐져야 한다고 발표되었을 때만큼 크다.케플러는 고쳐지지 않겠지만, 이 우주선만 해도 우리가 알고 있는 외부 비행기의 수가 4배 이상 증가했고, 우리의 지식을 위해 훨씬 더 많은 일을 해왔다는 점을 고려하면, 심지어 "퇴직" 발표도 게시할 가치가 있다.스포츠 유추를 계속하면, 그 목표가 연장되더라도(퇴직에서 돌아오는 것처럼) 그 임무는 그것이 가졌던 것과는 상당히 다를 것이다.네르가알(대화) 01:09, 2013년 8월 17일 (UTC)
• 이 주제에 대한 마지막 토론, 미션의 영향 및 기사의 높은 백과사전적 가치에 대한 강력한 지원.케플러의 2차 임무는 아직 바퀴가 두 개 달린 채 작업이 가능하지만, 이를 주목하게 한 것은 외행성 사냥에 미치는 영향이 크다는 점이다._EricLeb⁰¹ (페이지토크) 01:41, 2013년 8월 17일 (UTC)
• 위의 지원 Per, 이것은 당신의 전형적인 "퇴직 이야기"보다 확실히 더 많다.--Giants27(T C) 14:42, 2013년 8월 17일(UTC)
• Ready로 표시됨 이것은 업데이트되고 60/40 지원으로, 아직 투표하지 않은 5월부터 3개의 지지/의무를 계산하면 훨씬 더 높다.μΔείςς (talk) 17:04, 2013년 8월 17일 (UTC)
• 지원, 여전히 손상된 전망대를 이용할 가능성은 희망사항일 뿐이다.납북(이유) 20:15, 2013년 8월 17일 (UTC)
• 게시된 비밀 23:47, 2013년 8월 17일(UTC)

[폐쇄] 베이루트 폭격

[포스팅] 신종 포유류 육식동물 발견

명명자의 의견:기사에 따르면 35년 만에 처음으로 서반구에서 발견된 육식 포유동물이다.미디어에서 큰 영향력을 얻기 시작했다.톰보7791 (토크) 15:33, 2013년 8월 15일 (UTC)

• 지지 - "35년 만에 처음으로 서반구에서 확인된 육식동물의 새로운 종"은 확실히 게시할 가치가 있다.기사는 약간의 작업이 필요하다. --ThaddeusB-public (대화) 16:12, 2013년 8월 15일 (UTC)
• 지원 - 직접 추천하러 온 겁니다.곤충의 종은 항상 발견되지만 포유류는 그리 많지 않다.가말리엘(토크) 16:23, 2013년 8월 15일 (UTC)
• 명목별 지원 - 희귀, 주목할 만한, 특별, 광범위한 커버리지.나는 좋아한다. --Somchai Sun (토크) 16:57, 2013년 8월 15일 (UTC)
• 지원 - 주목할 만한 사항 - BabbaQ(대화) 17:21, 2013년 8월 15일(UTC)
• 지지하다.광범위한 취재를 받는 희귀한 사건(현재 NBC News.com의 톱 헤드라인 기사) 331닷(토크) 17:56, 2013년 8월 15일(UTC)
• 부인할 수 없는 명성에 맞춰 지지해 주고, 그 명성에 따라 사랑스러워.The Rambling Man (talk) 2013년 8월 15일 (UTC)
• 약한 지지.목요일이니까 일생에 한 번 있는 동물 분류 중 하나를 또 게시해야 할 때인 것 같다.구립(토크) 18:14, 2013년 8월 15일 (UTC)

마지막으로 게시된 포유동물은?공천에서 밝혔듯이 지난 35년 동안 서반구에서 발견된 새로운 것이다.새로운 곤충들은 일생에 한번은 아니지만, 이것은 꽤 가까이 다가온다.331도트(토크) 18:16, 2013년 8월 15일 (UTC)

먹이지 마.The Rambling Man (talk) 2013년 8월 15일 (UTC)

마지막은 라바소아 난쟁이여우원숭이였다.12일 전.구립(토크) 18:24, 2013년 8월 15일 (UTC)

마다가스카르는 서반구에 있지 않다. 331닷 (토크) 19:09, 2013년 8월 15일 (UTC)

왜 나한테 이런 말을 하는 거야?넌 질문을 했고, 난 대답했어.구립(토크) 19:16, 2013년 8월 15일 (UTC)

당신의 초기 논평은 이런 일이 매일 일어나는 것처럼 들리게 했다; 나는 단지 그렇지 않다고 말했을 뿐이고, 당신이 가장 최근에 꺼낸 글은 서반구에서 온 것이 아니었기 때문에 그것은 다른 상황이다.그뿐. 331닷 (토크) 19:31, 2013년 8월 15일 (UTC)

말 그대로 매일 일어나는 일은 아니라고 생각하지만, 예선을 몇 개 붙이면 어떤 것이든 실제보다 훨씬 희귀하게 들릴 수 있다.마리온 바르톨리는 동반구에서 태어난 윔블던의 첫 여성 우승자로 모자를 쓰고 은퇴했지만 아무도 그런 요소를 고려하지 않은 것으로 보인다.구립(토크) 19:45, 2013년 8월 15일 (UTC)

우리는 예선전과 기술력의 세계에 살고 있지만 여기서 문제는 그것이 주목할 만한가 아닌가 하는 것이다.바톨리가 동반구에서 태어난 윔블던의 첫 여성 우승자가 모자를 쓰고 은퇴했다는 헤드라인 뉴스였다면, 주목할 만하다.이런 상황에서 우리는 서반구(지리적으로 세계의 절반)에서 새로운 포유류의 발견과 그것이 어떻게 희귀한 사건인지에 대해 이야기하고 있다; 우리는 한 국가도, 심지어 한 도시도 이야기하지 않는다. 331 도트 (대화) 19:49, 2013년 8월 15일 (UTC)

그렇다면 바르톨리를 포스팅하지 않은 이유는 언론에서 예선 없이 뛸 수 있을 만큼 중요한 일이라고 생각했기 때문일까?구립 (대화)20:26, 2013년 8월 15일 (UTC)

모자를 쓰고 은퇴하는 사람들은 주목할 만한 부문이 아니며, 윔블던에서 한 번 우승한 사람들도 아니다.나는 위에서 내 주장을 했고, 이 페이지의 주제에서 더 이상 벗어나지 않을 것이다.331dot (대화) 20:29, 2013년 8월 15일 (UTC)

• 지지, 내 생각엔.소식통들은 그것을 중대한 발견이라고 부른다.동물원 기사 사진 쓸 수 있을 것 같은데, CC-BY 인허가 된 것 같아.납북(이유) 18:20, 2013년 8월 15일 (UTC)
• 준비 이것은 최소로 업데이트된다.나는 우리가 무료 사진을 사용할 것을 제안한다.저 여우원숭이보다 훨씬 귀엽다.μΔείςς (토크) 18:27, 2013년 8월 15일 (UTC)
  • ;). 람블링맨 (토크) 18:28, 2013년 8월 15일 (UTC)

• 지지하다.35년의 사실을 반영하기 위해 갈고리를 수정했는데, 그게 훨씬 더 흥미로웠다.우리는 동물원 이미지를 꼭 사용해야 해.프리오리먼 (대화) 2013년 8월 15일 18:51, (UTC)
• 논평 - 나는 이것이 "35년 만에 처음으로 서반구에서 확인된 육식동물의 새로운 종이라는 사실을 반영하기 위해 모호함을 바꿨다(나의 강조점 또한 거의 모든 다른 근원에 의해 확인됨), 위에서 언급된 라바소아 왜성여우원숭이는 동반구에서 보름도 채 안 되어 발견되었다 - 이것은 중요한 것이다.구별할 만한 것자이언트 스노우맨 19:27, 2013년 8월 15일 (UTC)
• 서반구 대신 아메리카 대륙으로 가면 안 될까?(예: 이 소스가 하는 것)사실상 같은 것으로, 임의의 경도 표시보다 육지 질량이 더 의미 있어 보인다. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:46, 2013년 8월 15일 (UTC)

• 좋아, 그렇다면 적어도 서반구에서는 위키리크라도 해야겠네. 아마도 포유류일거야. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:10, 2013년 8월 15일 (UTC)

• 또 육식성. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:15, 2013년 8월 15일 (UTC)

• 새로운 종은 매일 발견되는 것이 아니다.– 무보슈구 (대화) 2013년 8월 15일 19:54 (UTC)
• 그러나 나는 계단식 보호에 익숙하지 않고 아무것도 망치고 싶지 않기 때문에 이미지를 메인 페이지에 배치할 다른 관리자가 필요하다.고마운 비밀 20:12, 2013년 8월 15일 (UTC)

[폐쇄] 마리온 바르톨리가 은퇴하다

[게시] 바레인 타마로드 시위

명명자의 의견:이 시위는 7월 초 이후 큰 기대를 모았고 정부의 격렬한 반응은 더 많은 기대와 언론의 보도를 더했을 뿐이다.시위대는 어제 대규모 집회(주로 보안군의 집중 배치와 철조망 남용으로 인해)에 실패한 반면, 시위는 "2년 반 동안 계속된 선거 운동"으로 판명되었다[34].모하메드 CJ (대화) 01:33, 2013년 8월 15일 (UTC)

• 지원 업데이트는 확실히 충분하지만, 모호함은 다소 불분명하다.시위는 어디에서 일어났는가? 종교적인가?정치적인가?기타. Spencer^T♦C 05:38, 2013년 8월 15일 (UTC)

• 그들은 (위의 로이터 링크에 따르면) 민주주의였다.이 정도면 알 수 있을까: 바레인 치안부대는 2013년 8월 15일, 모하메드 CJ (대화) 08:35:35 (UTC)

• 지명에 대한 코멘트 노코멘트, 그러나 그것은 이틀 전에 일어난 이벤트에 대한 하나의 지옥같은 기사다. -- 타리카브조투 07:38, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)
• 반대, 다른 지역에서 일어났다면 아마도 중요하겠지만 불행히도 이집트와 레바논에서 일어난 사건들이 훨씬 더 폭력적인 지역에서는 그렇게 중요하지 않다.에게미 (대화) 08:30, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)
• 약한 지원 - 행사가 그렇게 많은 관심을 끌지는 못했으나(적어도 이집트의 일부에 기인했을 가능성이 있음), 기사 품질은 예외적이며 행사는 분명히 현지에서 매우 중요하다.기사는 DYK 자격이 있으므로, 이번 지명이 실패할 경우를 대비하여 그쪽으로도 제출해 줄 것을 촉구한다. --ThaddeusB (대화) 23:38, 2013년 8월 16일 (UTC)

  곧 게시될 것 같아.어쨌든 아직 지명할 날이 하루 더 남았다.그래도 걱정해줘서 고마워.모하메드 CJ (대화) 2013년 8월 17일 16:17 (UTC)

• 지원 이것은 예외적인 업데이트로 포스팅에 찬성하는 한계 스토리를 추가해야 하는 전형적인 사례처럼 보인다.이것은 우리가 메인페이지에서 연결해서 보여주고 싶은 종류의 기사일 뿐이다.그것은 확실히 ITN의 "현행사에 관한 양질의 위키백과 내용"과 또한 "독자들이 찾지 않았을 수 있는 주제에 대해 지적하는 것"이라는 목적에 부합한다. 나는 그 기사가 바레인에서 벌어지고 있는 일에 대해 매우 흥미롭고 명쾌한 설명을 한다는 것을 알았다.시위와 단속은 또한 내가 예상했던 것보다 훨씬 더 국제적인 언론의 주목을 받았다.그 흐릿한 사람은 아마도 부상도 언급할 수 있을 것이다.넬잭(대화) 01:05, 2013년 8월 17일 (UTC)
• 게시되었지만 메인 페이지에는 이미지가 유용할 수 있다.비밀 23:47, 2013년 8월 17일 (UTC)

8월 14일

---

[포스팅] 이집트는 국가비상사태를 선포한다.

명명자의 의견:기사나 업데이트는 아직 확실하지 않지만, 100명 이상의 사람들이 죽었고, 이집트에서 비상사태가 선포되었기 때문에, 나는 이것이 메인페이지에 오를 것이라고 가정한다.필요에 따라 흐림 및 기사 변경 ---- Ashish-g55 14:02, 2013년 8월 14일(UTC)

• 지지하다.나는 제안된 위키링크를 추가했지만 나는 다른 가능성이 있다고 의심한다.우리가 말하고 있는 슬프게도 증가하고 있는 사망자의 수에 대해 현재로서는 모호하게 생각해야 한다고 생각한다.구립 (대화) 14:27, 2013년 8월 14일 (UTC)
• 지원 - 상당한 에스컬레이션.액털리, 업데이트해야 할 기사는 아마도 이 기사일 것이다: 2013년 이집트 쿠데타의 여파.--FutureTillionaire (대화) 14:29, 2013년 8월 14일 (UTC)
• 지지 - 그러나 시위 기사에서 2013년 이집트 쿠데타의 후폭풍으로 연결된 기사를 변경하십시오.Hello320 (대화) 14:31, 2013년 8월 14일 (UTC)
• 지원팀 나는 이 name을 알아차리기 전에 업데이트를 시작했다. Friend_of_2013_이집트어_coup_d'étt#Rynchology (8월 14일)를 참조하라.--Vejvanchickick (대화/기여) 14:36, 2013년 8월 14일 (UTC)
• Friend_of_2013_이집트_쿱_d'ett#14 8월에 업데이트 게시글을 보증하려면 조금 더 많은 정보가 필요하다. --ThaddeusB-public (대화) 15:51, 2013년 8월 14일 (UTC)
• Question. We previously had to pull a story about Egypt because the article title included the word "coup". Has that now been resolved? Formerip (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Is it relevant? This blurb doesn't include the word "coup". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Not the blurb, the bolded article. That was what previously got the blurb complained about and pulled. Formerip (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
      • 허, 언제부터 우리는 정치(이 경우 오바마 행정부가 이집트에 대한 자금 지원을 삭감하고 싶지 않을 것이고, 적어도 그들은 그들 자신의 재량으로 그렇게 할 수 있기를 원할 것이다)를 단순히 보도하는 길로 들어섰는데, 이 뉴스에는 '쿠프'를 '쿠프'라고 부르는 것이 포함되지만, 물론 이 co의 여부에 대한 입장을 취하지 않고 있다.up은 정당했든 아니든 간에 정당했다.아이블리스 카운트 (토크) 17:59, 2013년 8월 14일 (UTC)
        • 언제부터 그랬는지는 확실하지 않지만, 그렇게 된 것 같아.1면에 실린 기사의 등장이 그것에 대한 논쟁으로 이어졌고 기사가 불안정해졌다는 것이 아닐까 싶다.그래서 제 질문은 아마도 "쿠데타" 뒤에 그런 일이 일어날 가능성이 더 적은 "쿠데타" 뒤에 이미 확립된 합의가 존재하는가에 대한 것일 겁니다.구립(토크) 18:04, 2013년 8월 14일 (UTC)
          • 그것은 정의상 쿠데타다.나는 그것에 대해 어떠한 합의도 필요하지 않다고 생각한다.만약 사람들이 글을 올린 후 다르게 생각한다면, 그것은 정말로 ITN보다는 기사 토크를 위한 것이다.나는 우리가 그것을 있는 그대로 게시해도 괜찮다고 생각해.BTW는 현재 149명의 사망자를 보고했으며, 형제단은 2000년! WTH. 누가 옳은지는 아무도 모르지만 두 수치는 꽤 높다. -- Ashish-g55 18:40, 2013년 8월 14일 (UTC)
          • 2013년 이집트 쿠데타 기사 상단의 주황색 꼬리표 때문에 삭제되었는데, 기사 제목이 논란이 된 것은 매우 큰 사실이다. (기사는 한동안 올라갔었는데, 기본적으로 템플릿의 하단에 있었다.)기사 제목표를 아껴 써야 한다고 생각하지만, '쿠프'라는 용어의 사용은 기사 전반에 걸친 주요 이슈였다.아무튼 그 태그는 이제 없어졌으니, 아마도, 그 용어의 사용이 정확하고 중립적이라는 것이 일치된 것 같다. -- 타리카브조투 20:54, 2013년 8월 14일 (UTC)
            • 이 기사는 현재 이집트에서의 정치 폭력(2013년) (최근 몇 시간 동안 안정적)이라는 제목이 붙어있기 때문에 '쿠페' 문제는 더 이상 관련이 없다. --Orady (대화) 21:34, 2013년 8월 14일 (UTC)
              • 그것은 다른 기사다.2013년 이집트 쿠데타는 여전히 문제의 기사의 제목으로 남아 있다.넬잭(대화) 03:11, 2013년 8월 15일 (UTC)
• Support. A state of national emergency, severe clashes, 200 people dead etc. in a major city is a huge event.--FoxyOrange (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support Agree that we should be vague about number of dead, since it seems there isn't clarity on that at the moment. Neljack (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - there is now a stand alone article, August 14th clashes. It is a bit stubby at the moment - I will work on it within the next couple hours if no one else gets to it first. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I have nominated that for deletion. At best it should be a redirect. Imagine someone looking at wikipedia a year from now and finding that August 14th has its own lone article. This is not the news, and we do not need to be creating articles for the sole purpose of supporting nominations. μηδείς (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose using the term pro-Morsi supporters. We haven't yet identified any dead in any post as anti-Morsi supporters. μηδείς (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point, but if it is about the redundant "pro" in "pro-Morsi supporters" the blurb actually uses the word "protesters". Formerip (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support, this appears to be a major event in Egyptian history. I hope the situations with the blurb and the articles gets sorted out soon. Abductive (reasoning) 00:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• Posted Feel free, admins, to tweak wording per subsequent discussions. Jehochman ^Talk 01:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

We should not be identifying the dead as pro- or anti- anything. We haven't done it before when the protestors were against Morsi and we shouldn't be doing it now. Just scores of protestors killed is fine. μηδείς (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

What event are you referring to? -- tariqabjotu 01:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Change target? - there is a standalone article now (August 2013 Egyptian clashes) that is in decent shape and provides much more information. However, it has a (malformed) AfD on it, so not sure what to do about that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Given you know it is malformed you could fix it. Even better, remove "supporting former president Mohamed Morsi" from the blurb as an odd time to forget neutrality here. μηδείς (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Or you could read the instructions on how to nominate an article for AfD. It is not something I do often so I'd have to read them myself to fix it... A have no idea why describing the protestors as supporters of Morsi (when that is the way every source describes them) is supposedly non-neutral. Unnecessary, perhaps, but POV I think not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What's POV about "supporting former president Mohamed Morsi"? -- tariqabjotu 01:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no POV when the protesters were in FACT supporting Morsi. Both camps were entirely there to support him. Thats the reason this whole thing went down... -- Ashish-g55 04:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

comment please move the bold link to the article that now exists August 2013 Egyptian clashesLihaas (talk) 07:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Done, after closing the AFD as a blatant WP:SNOW keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Change Blurb: The blurb is biased saying that security forces moved in to kill 100s of demonstrators is clearly not what happened. The main news event is that the security forces cracked down on the 6 week long sit in by the brotherhood. The sit in included many firearms, molotov cocktails and many videos and pictures show that these "protesters" fired at the security forces with klashinkovs and other weapons. The word used by most media is a crackdown not the killing of demonstrators. You can clearly see that here for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diaa abdelmoneim (talk • contribs)

That's a POV issue; you see it that way, the other side sees it differently. What is factual is that people were killed by security forces. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You should also know better than citing ayoutube video as encyclopaedic fact here.Lihaas (talk) 12:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Change blurb. The blurb should be changed to say "hundreds" dead instead of scores, now that the death toll has gone past 400. [35] 331dot (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.Lihaas (talk) 12:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Huh? The blurb has said "hundreds" almost since it was posted to ITN. The blurb here is not the blurb on the Main Page. -- tariqabjotu 13:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, guess I looked at this posting more than the main page. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] INS Sindhurakshak (S63)

EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 10:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - significant accident, minority topic too. Mjroots (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support but wait till some more info is available like the number of dead... i dont see that anywhere. And i dont think we should say "explosion sinks" since its sort of sitting on the port slightly under water. just damaged with casualty figures would be enough. -- Ashish-g55 13:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support + add an image of the submarine to the main page. Significant accident, "one of the worst tragedies in the history of Indian Navy", covered by media worldwide. The article is updated and gives a good information to our readers. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support-Just as soon as we have a reliable casualty total. It seems to be that up to 18 could have been killed or are currently trapped, potentially more. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The article mentions that 18 sailors are trapped inside. Why do we need "casualty total" to display the article at WP:ITN? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Many sources seem unsure if they are trapped or dead... its too breaking right now. -- Ashish-g55 14:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, but it's for sure that INS Sindhurakshak sank, which is what the blurb says. The rest is explained in the article, with a possibility to update/improve it. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure whether to support or oppose this, since we already have one story about the Indian Navy in the box, and this doesn't seem to be getting really major coverage. The article seems to be updated, though. Formerip (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

IMO, this is clearly more important news compared to Vikrant.. ƬheStrikeΣagle ^sorties 16:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. I'm not sure. But it wasn't really my point. Formerip (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

well indian navy managed to produce two news events in a week. its a rare case and doubt we'll be seeing two items from them anytime soon if ever -- Ashish-g55 16:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support Significant coverage...described as one of the largest disasters of the navy... ƬheStrikeΣagle ^sorties 16:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - A tragic and signficant, newsworthy event. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support it's reporting worldwide and is indeed a tragic and significant event. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Ready well updated and supported. μηδείς (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• I've posted the sinking; we can add the casualty information to the blurb when we have it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • There's something about "a pair of explosions" which reads weirdly. Could we maybe just say "two explosions"? Formerip (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

    I had used "a pair" rather than "two" because I thought it sounded a little more natural. I won't stand in the way if someone wants to change it, but I still prefer "a pair". --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Question: why "a pair of explosions"? All sources I've read only mention one explosion. There was a more minor explosion in 2010, but there's no indication it is related to the recent explosion and sinking of the vessel. -Zanhe (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Post-posting support. Tragic accident, and subs sinking is a rare event. 331dot (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Request. Please resist the temptation to add casualty figures when known. This incident is so obviously serious and unusual that its Main Page worthiness is independent from the statistics – I think keeping the blurb short and sharp makes it all the more poignant. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 00:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Our blurbs are not there to be poignant. They are there to provide information to our readers, who are likely to want to know whether people have been killed and, if so, how many. Neljack (talk) 02:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The question for me is whether the death toll will make the reader more or less likely to go to the article and learn more about the event. In the case of a school shooting or mid-sized earthquake, the toll is very important – events of that nature happen multiple times per year, and the toll helps to emphasize that the impact of that particular event is exceptional. An explosion on a submarine achieves that on its own; adding the toll would in my opinion make the reader less likely to go through to the article. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 23:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Saw the huge ball at midnight with orange flams. And I was not even near it. It was massive. Forget to get a pic for WP though ;(Lihaas (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

August 13

---

August 12

---

Mali election

Nominator's comments: Updaters apply here. Formerip (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• According to that BBC report, the results aren't official yet - though Keita is almost certain to be declared the winner when they are. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 07:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support-Per ITN/R as soon as they become official. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• While I can't see any official figures, the other candidate in the two-candidate run-off election has conceded defeat. [38] --LukeSurl ^{t c} 00:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support as per WP:ITN/R and obvious importance of any national presidential election, but I have to say that the article Ibrahim Boubacar Keita needs more thorough update. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Results in. The article is not sufficiently updated, but the percentages have been added. Anyone care to add a few lines of prose? Formerip (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] NYC stop-and-frisk

[Posted] Whitey Bulger conviction

Nominator's comments: Major mafia figure with a highly publicized trial --– Muboshgu (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• support a decades long most wanted story in the US, with dozens of books written and one man basically running organized crime in all of New England with a huge amount of police and FBI corruption to boot. Biggest criminal story in the US since ABSCAM, Gotti, or the murder of Jimmy Hoffa. μηδείς (talk) 4:41 pm, Today (UTC−4)
• Support Significant figure within the America crime world. Significant conviction given the former protection Bulger received from the FBI (which he had infiltrated). Also given the length of time he was on the run and on the FBI's most wanted list. Alt blurb provided. --RA (✍) 22:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support per RA.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support per RA. 331dot (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Article has two "citation needed" tags in the lede, which need to be remedied. Neljack (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Better update needed - two sentences in a very short trial section isn't really going to cut it given the amount of attention the trial has drawn. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

strong ioppose not in the news outside 1 country and intensly local issue.Lihaas (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Wow. Lihass I respect your aim to maintain a cosmopolitan outlook at ITN but this is a classic example of why our guidelines prohibit an oppose based on that reasoning. Leaving aside that your !vote violates the rules at the top of the page, this is only a local issue on the surface. First off, this was previously the TOP headline at the BBC. But looking at the substance, yes, Whitey Bulger is a Boston based mobster, just as Manchester United are a Manchester based football team. But Bulger had influence and effects well beyond Boston (and certainly commanded interest). He was convicted on federal charges, and was an FBI informant. One of his alleged murders took place in Oklahoma. He supported the IRA. He spent over a decade on the FBI's most wanted list and the reward for information from the FBI was the second largest ever (the first being Osama bin laden). He and his gang have been the subject of numerous bestselling books (certainly read outside Boston). He inspired a character in an Best Picture winning movie played by Jack Nicholson. There are upcoming big budget movies based on him. To describe this as a little parochial matter of interest to a small portion of the Northeast of the US is to look at the mere surface of this story.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Amazon's got almost twenty books with Bulger's name in the title. μηδείς (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• I've updated the article with info on the trial, which is now at the racketeering trial and conviction subsection. I would be hesitant to say he was convicted of murder, however, since he was in fact charged with racketeering. Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Posted w/o mentioning the murders since he was not charged with murder. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

RD: Prince Friso of Orange-Nassau

Nominator's comments: Younger brother of King Willem-Alexander dies after over a year in coma. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support, he meets the criteria for RD.Egeymi (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose under the current RD requirements he is neither a sitting dignitary nor ver important in any field. There is a discussion about the requiremets on talk, but unless they change he in no way qualifies. μηδείς (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• A senior member of a major royal house may fit under #1 or perhaps #3. Regardless, we don't need to follow the rules without question if there's a good case for improving the encyclopedia by ignoring them. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Weak support. Because I like his name. It sounds fictional. And because we have an imbalance of US:non-US stories at the moment. Formerip (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support for RD, also worthy of posting on ITN. Death of a member of a Royal Family is newsworthy. Mjroots (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Friso was actually removed from the Royal House which you will see if you read his article. He was neither sitting, nor an heir to the throne, nor part of any international marriage alliance, nor of any importance beyond maybe his holdingsas a private businessman. μηδείς (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Royal House and Royal Family are not the same thing. Friso was the brother of the King. Mjroots (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Friso was actually removed from the Royal House which you will see if you read his article. He was neither sitting, nor an heir to the throne, nor part of any international marriage alliance, nor of any importance beyond maybe his holdingsas a private businessman. μηδείς (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Pretty shitty of you to just copy and paste the same comment. The Dutch royal house is separate to the royal family, so no need to be a dick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.61.72 (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
          • Bet we would post if Prince Andrew carked it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.61.72 (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
            • We probably wouldn't if he had been removed from the line of succession, as this Prince was. Since Andrew is still in the line of succession(even if further down) that rationale doesn't apply. There may be other reasons to not post him, too. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. From reading the article it seems that though he lost his membership in the Royal House he did not lose his titles; he simply was no longer in the line of succession. That said, however, that does mean he is not "in a high-ranking office of power at the time of death", failing #1. I would think it would also mean he was not important in his field if he could not succeed to the throne (the Royal Family, if you call that a field), failing #2. I also don't see a wide international impact here, failing #3. I also think even if we removed the criteria as proposed that he still might not qualify. 331dot (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think we should post the deaths of members of royal families just because they are royal. There are lots of royal families out there and many of them have lots of members. There is no indication that Prince Friso has a significant impact on the Netherlands, and - as has been noted - he renounced his rights to the succession. Neljack (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Indian aircraft carrier

Nominator's comments: The fifth country in the world to build an aircraft carrier. Formerip (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

it is NOT india's first aircraft carrier. and the page is not updated as the lead says it will be launched in 2018 (unless you mean the table with 3 words for the date, if so that's an insufficient update). See List of aircraft carriers in serviceLihaas (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you see the box above where it says "article needs updating"? 2018 is the date the ship will enter service, though, not a prospective launch date, as the article makes clear. Formerip (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Ideally we would want an article on the INS Vikrant itself (INS Vikrant currently redirects to an article for a decommissioned ship). To clarify Lihaas' first point, INS Vikramaditya (a purchase rather than a new build) is currently undergoing sea trials, so we have to avoid the words "India's first aircraft carrier" without qualification. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• There are several stages for a warship before it is a fully-fledged vessel in a navy. Launch is one such milestone, however I would be more inclined to favour the commissioning. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I've nominated this as an industrial achievement, rather than a military achievement, hence the launch is the key event. Plus it's the bit that is traditionally seen as the "birth" of a ship, with the whole dignitary's-wife-wastes-good-champagne hoopla (assuming they do it that way in India). Formerip (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

OK. Sounds reasonable. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Altblurb suggested which points more to an industrial rather than military angle. Support as per FormerIP, though I would still like an INS Vikrant article. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support we really need a new item... i dont think ive seen a new one in a week now. will go lenient on this since the actual commencement is far away. no need to reject items for something that will not come for 5 years. its still a notable achievement -- Ashish-g55 15:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support when updated--a significant military development. μηδείς (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Posting. INS Vikrant (Vikrant class) has been well updated. Spencer^T♦C 18:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Attention required. It should be Cochin Shipyard, not Cochin port. My bad. Formerip (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

  Done. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Post-posting oppose. We should post when it is commissioned and put in service. Merely launching the ship does not guarantee that. 331dot (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It may depend on perspective but, like I said above, I see this as being about industry and economic development rather than in military terms. Today India formally marked a change from being a country that had never built an aircraft carrier to being one that had. When it subsequently sticks a radar antenna on top, installs the captain's jukebox and sticks the thing in its navy, I think that will be less significant. Formerip (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your views, but I don't see it in military terms so much as usability- anything can happen between now and the expected commissioning date to prevent its commissioning and use- in which case this landmark in industry means nothing. What you said, however, is why I didn't suggest pulling it. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Post-posting support. Unless this wasn't the day it was launched with the bottle of champagne, this is a fine ITN item. Very few nations have ever had an aircraft carrier. Abductive (reasoning) 00:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Darfur clashes

Nominator's comments: Fighting has broken out between tribes in Darfur resulting in many deaths. Andise1 (talk) 05:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support-Immense death toll, needless to say it is uncommon to see this high a death toll outside of war zones. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• War_in_Darfur#2013 needs an update, and I wonder if a separate article might be a better update candidate. Spencer^T♦C 18:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - While these conflicts are not uncommon in the region, ones that kill 100+ are rare and often have lasting consequences. Article is now updated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Posted -- tariqabjotu 03:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

With 2 supports? Theres plenty of other nom's with more consensus that don't get posted.Lihaas (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Two supports and no objections. I can add that I support this as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

First of all, consensus is not determined by vote counting. Second the vote was 3-0 (nominator counts) at the time (after 24+ hours), now 4-0, which is consensus to post by any reasonable definition. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] László Csizsik-Csatáry

The International 2013

Nominator's comments: Biggest single-event prize awarded for an esport event hosted by a well known company, in a rapidly growing esport, which itself, is a rapidly growing area. --49.187.58.5 (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Would need an article on the specific 2013 event, rather than just the over-arching The International (video gaming) article. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral The biggest Electronic sports ("esports") prize ever awarded, which should probably be mentioned in the blurb if this is posted. However, the Electronic sports article needs attention. --hydrox (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Maybe significant itself but how does this compare itself to MLG (the only esport event I ever heard of) other than prize money. Also I cannot see what is significant to this so called "sport" that struggles to get itself nominated, for example the two IPC athletics and swimming, and even if I would support the two, there are plenty of people who will press for an oppose. Even the nomination for the FIFA Club World Cup final was opposed last December and that is supposed to be the most significant event for any football clubs. Donnie Park (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support for 2 reasons: the prize is shockingly large (unless the largest is not mot larger, I don't care too much if it is not the largest-since $1.4M seems much above the top prizes offered in most olympic sports for example); and esports are shockingly under-represented throughout the wiki AND on ITN. Nergaal (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Currently we do not have an article update which would be considered sufficient for a more 'traditional' sporting events. The article offers no information on the actual games that occurred in the tournament (not even scorecards), and nothing about the competing teams apart from the teamnames exists on the wiki. The lack of this information is indicative of the fact that eSports aren't quite at this level of notabilty (yet). --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

August 11

---

Argentine mid-term elections, first round

Nominator's comments: A significant event in electoral politics; over 30 million voters are registered in Argentina, and turnout for this frst round was over 70%. --98.166.186.191 (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Question. Would this be ITNR, or just the final round? I think in elections with runoffs we only post the final election. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • This was the first of two rounds, designed to keep very minor parties and ad hoc splinter groups - which in the past were often created solely to wedge the vote for larger parties - from influencing the final results (GOP efforts to draft Green Party candidates - sometimes even the homeless - in past House races is the closest U.S. analogy I can think of). This may not qualify for inclusion in the headline 'In the News' ticker, but I thought you might like to mention it in the 'Politics and Elections' section of the Current Events portal. 98.166.186.191 (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe you can add it to the portal yourself without needing permission. Formerip (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Much obliged. 98.166.186.191 (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose First-round elections are very rarely put up on ITN unless there's something extremely special about it, and I see nothing particularly special here. Best to try again when the second round happens. Redverton (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Please refer to my comment above where I mention that This may not qualify for inclusion in the headline 'In the News' ticker, but I thought you might like to mention it in the 'Politics and Elections' section of the Current Events portal. As it happens, these news have been in the Current Events Portal for a while now as suggested - so I think it's all been said already. Thanks. 98.166.186.191 (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] PGA Championship

Nominator's comments: This is an ITNR item that should be posted. --HotHat (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Rremove nationalisty, we don't post that for other such events like Tennis/Lihaas (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. Spencer^T♦C 04:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not true. We often post nationality, especially as it's more natural to say "American golfer Jason Dufner wins..." than to say "In golf, Jason Dufner wins..." -- tariqabjotu 04:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment' - updating the PGA article is preferable to Dufner's page. In any case, I do not find the current update at eitehr page to be adequate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Both articles have significant updates to them, and it has to include his nationality.HotHat (talk) 06:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Um, the blurb most certainly does not have to include his nationality. One option may be preferable to the other, but neither is required. Update is sufficient.--ThaddeusB (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - ITN/R and updated. Good work. 2013 PGA Championship should be the bold article. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Posted And, yes, the blurb doesn't need to mention nationality, but I generally believe the alternative blurb sounds more natural. I suppose "American" could still be omitted, but I don't think mentioning nationality is odd or unusual, particularly when the golfer is not particularly well-known. -- tariqabjotu 15:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment when posted, the article (Dufner) was packed with unreferenced claims, and an inadequate lead. Some of the rot has been deleted, but it's still in an appalling state. Why would anyone consider this article to be ready for main page inclusion? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Jason Dufner isn't the bold link --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

New shark species

Nominator's comments: A new species of a Shark has been found in South Carolina. Andise1 (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Intereting but the article doesn't exist and mention on the main page would be useles to our readers. Do you plan to start it? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• Stale, sorry. (June 2006) Would have been good. Abductive (reasoning) 16:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, firstly, there is no article at the moment - and also the point about the initial annoucement coming some seven years ago is quite significant. I think all that has happened recently is that the species has been named. Miyagawa (talk) 08:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

August 10

---

Recent Deaths: Eydie Gorme

Nominator's comments: She was a notable singer who won both a Grammy award and an Emmy award. Andise1 (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Reading the news articles and her WP article, she seems to have been a popular singer, but there is nothing to indicate that she was a very important figure in her field. If anyone can provide evidence to the contrary I will, of course, reconsider. Neljack (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Neljack. She won one Grammy in 1967 for a solo performance and won another later as a duo with her husband. While she had a long career I'm not seeing how she was very important either. I also cannot find a mention of her winning an Emmy in the sources given or her article. 331dot (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • In her singing partneship with Steve Lawrence: ""A prolific 93 albums, 12 Emmys, 2 Grammys and innumerable national tours.. ": People obit? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Definitely more important in my life and had a longer, more diverse and more successful career than that recent dead non-entity from Glee, but we must do something to restore our standards here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

  Can we stop bringing up what happened in the past and move on? Or at least bring it up more tactfully(in a way other than "dead non-entity")? 331dot (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I would really find an essay "My Standards" by HiLo quite. μηδείς (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing formal has changed since the posting of that recent, one-show-wonder from Glee. I will keep highlighting it's stupidity until something happens to prevent such postings in future. HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

That is unbelievably unhelpful. What exactly do you want - a rule that says "thou shall not post Glee actors?" or perhaps we should add "Don't post anything HiLo disagrees with or else be prepared to be reminded of it forever" to the rules? There is a time to express your disagreement with a post, and there is a time to drop the stick and move on. The latter is here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

While it's not an official policy, precedent obviously plays a part in what we post here. Until that Glee precedent is publicly ruled incorrect, and policies put in place to stop such errors ever being made again, it exists as a precedent, so of course we should post Eydie Gorme. Those saying to forget obviously want it to be forgotten, but haven't done anything to fix the problem. I have more principles. I'm not that kind of person. I have more principles. HiLo48 (talk) 04:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Even if it was a precedent, which it is not, part of the reason it was posted was the unexpected nature of the death leading to widespread coverage. That obviously isn't the case here. Again, what policy "put in place to stop such errors" do you want exactly? Maybe you should propose something in an appropriate venue (such as talk page) if you feel so strongly about it instead of repeatedly bringing it up in other nominations. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Referring to Cory Monteith as a "dead non-entity" and a "one-show-wonder" is crass and rude. Yes, the man died of a drug overdose, but that doesn't mean he should be denigrated. God forbid one of his family members stumbles upon this page. 204.111.20.10 (talk) 04:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

If you don't like the truthful negatives, did you argue against the absolute nonsense positives written about him after his death. That thread was sickening in its dishonesty. And the death got posted. I believe in telling the truth. We could do with a lot more of that on Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 06:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between 'telling the truth' and 'being needlessly crass'; you are doing the latter. One can tell the truth without doing that(which was really my main point) There is also a difference between truth and opinion; you are also giving the latter there. I'm not saying "forget" about it, I'm saying bring it up, if you must, in a manner with basic human decency and respect. You don't need to beat the dead horse to do so. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I would also think that threatening to bring it up in perpetuity is essentially a WP:POINT issue. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

User:331dot, it's only WP:POINT if brought up *after* reform (or when reform is expressly ruled out). Because of the precedent created by the Glee nomination, reform to RD is clearly a long way off. doktorb_words^deeds 09:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree; the first example listed on WP:POINT is somewhat close to what is going on here. (swap out a few words) A threat to bring up something in perpetuity until one gets their way, especially in a crass manner, is nothing but disruptive. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Allowing crap items to be posted, and refusing to do anything about it in perpetuity, is disruptive AND destructive. Oh, and we have no policies demanding something YOU define as basic human decency and respect. Showing false respect is, in fact, quite disrespectful. HiLo48 (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Repeatedly whining about a past nomination in other nominations is not "doing something". We, in fact, have a discussion on the talk page about the Death criteria and neither you nor Doktorbuk nor The Rambling Man have contributed, opting instead to bring up "that Glee guy" here [again] as if he has anything to do with this nomination. -- tariqabjotu 21:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Saw that discussion. It's pointless. Wrong proposal. HiLo48 (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Then start the "correct" proposal. As Tariq said, complaining endlessly is not "doing something" and is borderline being purposely disruptive. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

What you call a "crap item" is called a worthy ITN item by others, per consensus. We actually do have a policy about basic decency and respect. Are you the sole arbiter of what is "pointless" on Wikipedia or not? You can either call it pointless and refuse to participate, or you can participate and work to get your point across. 331dot (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

That's quite a brief two word appraisal of the entire career of Eydie Gorme.Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose And I use the "Glee Precedent" as created by User:Tariqabjotu as my basis for wanting reform of RD and admin powers, too. doktorb _words^deeds 09:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

As implied by Thaddeus, something is only a precedent if we allow it to be; content here is posted by consensus. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Support A notable award-winning popular singer. Difficult when one half of a well-know duo dies (Steve Lawrence still alive, of course). Personally I'd have supported purely on the basis of Goffin and King's 1963 "I Want to Stay Here" (and that only reached number 28!) Martinevans123 (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Collapsing side discussion. SpencerT♦C 20:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support Duh! --85.210.101.50 (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC) Intentionally being obnoxious; see contributions. -- tariqabjotu 17:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC) I thought "Duh", "Meh" and "Who" were quite reasonable reasons actually, if a little on the brief side. I see that you actually oppose. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC) @Martinevans123: What? Was any part of that comment meant to be serious? -- tariqabjotu 18:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC) Only the bits between "I" and "oppose". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC) Ok... but I haven't opposed this nomination. -- tariqabjotu 18:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC) Sorry, no you haven't. You just appear to have. Now's your chance! But why do you think those one word reasons are "obnoxious"? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC) He was clearly just mocking the ITN/C instructions that say Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. He even made sure to edit in the exclamation point. -- tariqabjotu 18:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC) Probably not a coincidence, then. How ironic. And I always thought those were some of the most sincere reasons. Of course, they may still be useful...but apparently not when all used in rapid succession. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support per Martin Evans. μηδείς (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support as Martin has made a good case. It's not quite the Glee guy (after all, it hasn't been posted within moments against criteria), but I've noted this passing has been main page on the BBC on my iPhone this morning and is still there some 12 hours later. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Very minor figure in pop music history. (Sorry, Martin.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support Seems to tick all of the boxes for RD notability as an important figure in the field. Eight top 40 hits in the US (and four in the UK), member of the Songwriters Hall of Fame, and won an Emmy and two Grammys. Teemu08 (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

10 August 2013 Baghdad bombings

Nominator's comments: Is anybody going to create this article?

• This isn't the forum to request the creation of an article; I further suspect that the event would probably get added to an article about the ongoing conflict there. Given the ongoing status of the conflict and bombings there, I suspect this would not win consensus to get posted, as it is (unfortunately) not an unusual occurrence in Iraq. 331dot (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Indonesia Paluweh volcano eruption

EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 16:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support this source Wired will give enough for an update. Five dead in a pyroclastic flow. μηδείς (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see this as important enough for us to cover. The volcano has been erupting continuously for over a year; this was a spasm that happened to find a few people in the wrong place at the wrong time. Looie496 (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Searching Google News I haven't been able to find anyone else killed globally by pyroclastic flows in the last decade. The prior reported eruptions of this volcano this decade have just been spewed ash, not pyroclastic flows. μηδείς (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• "cough" 2010 eruptions of Mount Merapi, for instance. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That is the reason I said "I haven't been able to find" instead of there weren't. μηδείς (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• I noticed the careful wording, although honestly I'd have gone with standard Google since Google News purges itself in regular intervals. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I used the date range function. Are you implying even then it is not a complete record? μηδείς (talk) 02:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• The date range function will not pick up sites which have gone dead, naturally. I remember reading that most pages go offline within a year. My experience with Google's cache is that it goes down within a month. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support Because this is an Indonesian news, added by I comefrom Indonesia, I like it! Indonesian language (Karena ini adalah berita Indonesia, ditambah lagi saya berasal dari Indonesia, maka saya menyukainya!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanamanteo (talk • contribs) 07:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Note:This news can be see in Ini Nama Korban Tewas Letusan Gunung Rokatenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanamanteo (talk • contribs) 08:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Being from the nation where this news is occurring is not a reason to post this story to ITN, nor is "I like it". 331dot (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Really does, but I comefrom Indonesia...--Hanamanteo (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

If you want to see this posted, updating the article with info from the eruption will help a lot. μηδείς (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Marginal support How common is the eruption of this volcano? I can see the death count being an issue (if you know what I mean) but it's a rare enough event to be notable. doktorb _words^deeds 09:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Number of deaths is somewhat marginable, volcano has been erupting for the past several months according to the article. Certainly nowhere near the scale of the Merapi eruptions (which did make ITN). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Meh. --85.210.101.50 (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Intentionally being obnoxious; see contributions. -- tariqabjotu 17:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose With only few deaths and 3000 evacuated (which really isn't that much), I don't see this as being that significant. Article quality is also rather poor. SeraV (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

August 9

Portal:Current events/2013 August 9

Current events of August 9, 2013 (2013-08-09) (Friday) edit history watch Armed conflict and attacks An American drone strike kills five suspected Al Qaeda terrorists in eastern Yemen. (Reuters) The United States withdraws diplomats from its consulate in the Pakistani city of Lahore due to terrorist threats. (CNN) Gunmen open fire at a Sunni mosque in the city of Quetta killing at least eight people and injuring 24. (Al Jazeera) Two Turkish Airlines pilots are abducted by a previously unknown Shiite militia, Zuwwar al-Imam Rida, in Beirut, Lebanon. (BBC News) An Israeli drone strike coordinated with the Egyptian Army kills five suspected Al Qaeda militants in the Sinai Peninsula. (AP via ABC News) Clashes erupted between two communities after Eid prayers, in the Kishtwar district of Jammu and Kashmir, India, leaving two dead and several other injured. (The Hindu) Disasters and accidents Taiwan's Control Yuan investigatory agency reports that the Taiwan Power Company's Jinshan Nuclear Power Plant has been leaking radioactive water for three years. (Reuters) Three people are missing after a Rockwell Turbo Commander turboprop plane crashes into two homes in East Haven, Connecticut, United States. (NBC News) An Ethiopian Air Force cargo plane carrying ammunition for international forces fighting Islamist militants in Somalia crashes and catches fire on landing at the Aden Adde International Airport in Mogadishu, killing four of the six crewmembers. (BBC News), (Xinhua) Law and crime Mexican drug lord Rafael Caro Quintero, who was convicted for the 1985 murder of U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration Enrique Camarena, is ordered released from prison. (The Guardian) Liu Tienan, the deputy head of China's National Development and Reform Commission, is expelled from the Communist Party for corruption. (BBC) A 31-year-old Florida man kills his wife and posts a picture of her corpse with a confession onto Facebook. The picture is removed and the man is arrested. (CNN) Politics and elections President Boni Yayi of Benin dismisses his entire Cabinet. (Reuters) Zimbabwe's Movement for Democratic Change files papers with the Constitutional Court in Harare arguing that the recent elections be annulled because of widespread allegations of illegalities and intimidation of voters by Robert Mugabe's ZANU–PF party. (Reuters via News24) Sports At the FIBA Asia Championship, the Chinese Taipei men's national basketball team knocks defending champion China out of the tournament during a quarterfinal match. (Yahoo! Sports)

---

Boni Yayi dismisses entire cabinet

Article: Boni Yayi (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Boni Yayi, president of Benin, fires his whole cabinet. (Post)
News source(s): Bloomberg APF
Credits:

• Nominated by Andise1 (talk · give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: This appears to be a notable and rare event. A president does not fire his whole cabinet that often. Andise1 (talk) 23:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support This is indeed a rare and significant event. Neljack (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. From what I see, we generally don't post cabinet changes, as cabinets typically serve at the President/PM's pleasure. Would be willing to reconsider if it is made clearer why this is significant. 331dot (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment' - I believe 331dot's comment accurately assess previous decisions. Consensus can change, of course, but I would like to see an explanation as to the importance here above and beyond "its rare". --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I would think its notable, btu per precedence it was not approved for South SUdan (and that was more notable as a first) so opposeLihaas (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Rafael Quintero released from prison

Articles:Rafael Caro Quintero (talk · history · tag) and Enrique Camarena (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Former Mexican druglord Rafael Caro Quintero is released from prison after his conviction for killing DEA agent Enrique Camarena was overturned after it was revealed that it was an improper trial. (Post)
News source(s):CBS News
Credits:

• Nominated by Andise1 (talk · give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: He was released from prison for having an improper trial. He originally was sentenced to forty years in jail for killing Enrique Camarena. Andise1 (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I think we should have debated posting the overturning of his conviction, and not just his release. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• Opposed this story as the blurb shows is tortured, esoteric and obscure. μηδείς (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose looks like a non-story. Certainly not ITN-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Big news in Mexico, but I don't see how this story has an impact across the world. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 22:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • From the blue box above: "Please don't... 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." – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I should have read that before posting. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 22:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the Mexican drug war is important enough generally for ITN and key events are ITN worthy. Certainly it gets a great deal of press in the US. However, as said above we probably should have posted the decision, not the actual release.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• • According to this Washington Post article, there are some impacts in the US as well. Spencer^T♦C 22:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't really get the impression the OP was saying "This is not important because it only happened in Mexico. Rather, the implication seemed to be a worldwide impact would be more impressive. That being said, this sort of thing has happened before in reverse, where people have gotten off in America when they are wanted in other countries. The bottom line is it is a very recondite issue. The will be no general interest; just a very emotional response by those very closely related to and invested in the issue. μηδείς (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly what I was thinking, but I would have never been able to express it as well as you did. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 04:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

August 8

Portal:Current events/2013 August 8

Current events of August 8, 2013 (2013-08-08) (Thursday) edit history watch Armed conflicts and attacks Balochistan conflict: A suicide bombing at a funeral in the Pakistani city of Quetta kills at least 28 people. (BBC) War in Afghanistan (2001–present): A bomb explodes at a cemetery in the Afghan province of Nangarhar, killing at least 14 people. (BBC) Three U.S. drone strikes in central and southern Yemen kill 12 suspected al-Qaida militants. (AP via Arizona Daily Star) African Union troops kill 24 militants in a foiled Al-Shabaab planned attack in southern Somalia city of Afmadow. (Xinhua) Disasters and accidents A bus carrying 31 passengers, while crossing the Truc Khe Bridge that was under repair in Cam Lộ (Quảng Trị, Viet Nam), falls into a river, leaving 17 passengers injured. (Tuoitrenews) International relations The Republic of China lifts sanctions imposed on the Philippines after president Benigno Aquino apologized to the family of a Taiwanese fisherman shot dead in disputed waters. (BBC) Law and crime A shooting spree in Dallas, Texas, U.S., kills 4, wounds 4 and the gunman is subsequently arrested. (CNN) Business Environmental Yasser Yehia initiate 1st Whatsapp group to be used in business management (Huawei Optimization Team)

---

Recent Deaths: Jack Clement

Article: Jack Clement (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): USA Today ABC News
Credits:

• Nominated by Andise1 (talk · give credit)

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: He was a country music hall of fame singer/producer. According to USA Today, he was a "country music legend." Andise1 (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Looks like he probably meets the death criteria, but the article is seriously lacking in references. Neljack (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support in pricniple - when I saw the death earlier today, I was too busy to nominate it or I would have. (Member of multiple Hall of Fames, Life Time Achievement award winner, etc.) However, the article is in poor shape and will need substantial work to warrant posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Lean towards support But one look at the article dismantling itself into a string of single-line asides suggests this won't go through quickly doktorb _words^deeds 07:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose based on article quality. At the very least a biographical article posted to ITN should have a decent lead which summarizes why this person is notable enough for ITN.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment agree the article is so substandard as to make it difficult to judge his importance, but I lean opposed. μηδείς (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Who?--85.210.101.50 (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

From above, "... add simple "support" or "oppose" notes. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached." Andise1 (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Intentionally being obnoxious; see contributions. -- tariqabjotu 17:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support in principle - if the article was fully referenced. Which it isn't. Miyagawa (talk) 08:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Recent Deaths: Karen Black

Article: Karen Black (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Los Angeles Times
Credits:

• Nominated by Andise1 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Jusdafax (talk · give credit)

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: She was a notable actor who won two golden globes in her career. Andise1 (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support was considering whether to waste my time nominating this myself. She's not only a double golden-globestress, she was grammy and oscar nominated. Her work is mostly far far to the horror/schlock B side of Brennan's though. Bottom line is posting her beats empty space. μηδείς (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't care if this is posted or not, but your "empty space" argument is no argument at all. The availability of space on the death ticker isn't one of the death criteria. If they are notable enough, they'll be posted. If they aren't, they won't. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I am of the opinion we place the bar too high when, of recent noms, for example, Brennan, Black and Admiral Woodward don't get posted. In effect we are saying we prefer empty space to their names. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The bar we go on is the Wikipedia:ITN/DC, which is the one area in which the criteria for ITN are spelled out. Also, the deaths of suitably notable individuals are a bit random; we usually have several names on the template.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Having no recent deaths doesn't actually lead to any empty space anyway. Formerip (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support (pending update of course) her role in Five Easy Pieces is probably one of the more iconic movie roles ever, top actress of the 60s and 70s where she was either in the main cast or supporting cast of dozens of top films. Rather common sense RD here. Secret ^account 23:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Pending support The article doesn't say much about her death yet, but I'm supporting this when it gets updated - a long career with recognition seems RDworthy to me. Beerest355 Talk 00:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

*Oppose. I don't see how she meets the death criteria.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Not seeing the evidence that she was widely regarded as a very important figure in the field of cinema. The news stories/obits don't seem to provide much evidence of her influence/impact. Seems like an important figure, but probably not a very important one. Will reconsider if further evidence of her importance is provided. Neljack (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Long career, combined with wide recognition for performing one role and two awards with other nominations, suggest she is important in her field. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, per above and although she had long career, it does not mean she meets the criteria given that many influential figures with long career in their fields have not been posted.Egeymi (talk) 13:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Veteran character actor with a couple awards and nominations, but does not meet the death criteria as significant in her field. Not every Golden Globe winner is automatically qualified for RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• Weak support 2X Golden Globe winner and a fair career seems just about good enough for RD. --Somchai Sun (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• I'm considering changing my !vote to neutral as Karen Black's death has gotten some reasonable coverage though looking at the page the update needs work. Most of the update is a quotation from her widower husband posted on facebook, which ought to be removed.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it was one of the most read about stories on the BBC yesterday. --Somchai Sun (talk) 08:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Award winning actress with a long list of films who worked with major names in the industry. Article is decent for an ITN RD nom. Article fails to note she had a role in the iconic movie Easy Rider. Jusdafax 19:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The article is improved. I'm switching from oppose to neutral. Still seems like a weak case but she may have seemed a very high profile actress at the height of her career. However, the update is still insufficient (so I'm naturally opposed on those grounds). I'm removing the part I referred to above, the quote by her husband posted on facebook, right now.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Seeing consensus then, I am marking as ready. Jusdafax 01:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

  I'm removing the ready tag. The article isn't updated.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Done Re-marking as ready. Also: I've also expanded the main section a bit more and added a quotebox. Jusdafax 04:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Question I am genuinely confused. Sandy Woodward commanded the forces on one side in a conflict that is in the 10 largest since WWII (at least those involving Western nations) and is regraded as important but not very important. Winning a science Nobel prize is not sufficient to be regarded as very important. However this case is supported with comments like:

• "Award winning actress with a long list of films who worked with major names", not was a major name but worked with major names.
• "2X Golden Globe winner and a fair career".
• "Long career, combined with wide recognition for performing one role and two awards with other nominations, suggest she is important in her field", one role, two second tier awards and important so presumably not very important.
• "probably one of the more iconic movie roles ever, ... she was either in the main cast or supporting cast of dozens of top films", one role and appeared in many major films - which could be said of loads of people.

I totally accept that these comments are sincere but not one of them suggests to me that she was very important. In fact many of those phrases could, with the addition of only here and there, be associated with an Oppose.

It seems to me that quite a lot of opinions are based, I am sure subconsciously, on whether the editor knows about the person or not. Hence media & sports people get an easier ride than, say, scientists.

I suppose that this amounts to a particular instance of systemic bias.

FerdinandFrog (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Well with Black we are dealing with one of the most iconic actresses of the second half of the 20th century, and it is (if its posted) the first recent death listing in nearly a month. In this exception, I wouldn't call this case of systemic bias, just that her notability proved to be too strong. Everything else, athletes/actors/scientists and so forth nominated for recent deaths has been shut down lately, (hell we shot down Donna Summer last year) not to mention it is almost impossible to post a media article or a sports related article unless its WP:ITN/R or the significance is too great to ignore. We do post the deaths of Nobel Prize scientists and major politicians every so often in RD if it occurs, and there is rarely a day that in the news does not have any science articles there. It's unfortunate that Woodward was shot down (and Rex Hunt was posted), but it happens, also the condition an article is really important as well. Woodward article was a mess before he died, and it took days to fix it, by that time the nomination got rather stale (I did support btw). Secret^account 16:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

    "one of the most iconic actresses of the second half of the 20th century" - Do you actually have any justification for that? None of the Support !votes said anything like that.

    "her notability proved to be too strong" - how is that reflected in there being 4.5 Supports, 1 Neutral and 3 Opposes?

    "We do post the deaths of Nobel Prize scientists" - every time one is nominated there seems to be an immediate comment that winning a Nobel priize does not automatically make someone sufficiently important to qualify.

    "It's unfortunate that Woodward was shot down ... also the condition an article is really important as well. Woodward article was a mess before he died, and it took days to fix it" - days as in less than 22 hours (proposed 5th 21:30, updated 6th 18:54).

    Also you have completely ignored my, implied, question of why this case is being considered when the Support comments say that she was not in the top tier, "worked with major names", "a fair career", etc. FerdinandFrog (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

    • Well I really don't want to be uncivil here (which I could easily), as I replied to your question in good faith and next thing I know is that I'm being attacked like I'm the villain despite supporting Woodward. Can you give me an example that Nobel Prize winners get "shot down" all the time? I been working in this area for several years and the only times a Nobel Prize winner was not posted was when the article wasn't updated and in poor shape, or the October 2012 era which we had such high standards of posting. Before October 2012, almost every death proposal that weren't a sitting head of state or some highly important figure like Steve Jobs and Robin Gibb (and yes well-updated Nobel Prize winners) was shot down quick. Also when it was nominated Woodward was a mess, thus some of the early oppose votes. I didn't ignore your question, you ignored the other parts of those comments including the award winning mentions and so forth to make a point. Secret^account 17:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I am sorry that you interpreted my comments & questions as an attack. However a number of the points that you made were factually incorrect (how long it took to sort out the Sandy Woodward article) or did not reflect the discussion above (her iconic status). Also you have repeated the comment about the Woodward article being a mess. After it was nominated it had two short paragraphs (three sentences) added and then seemed to be acceptable. That does not sound like a mess to me.

I'm sorry but I don't have time now to trawl through the archives but I am certain that at least one Nobel prize winner had had a comment about that not being a mark of sufficient notability but noone seems to object to a Golden Globe award (or even a nomination) in the same way. Possibly the Nobel prize winner may have been rejected for other reasons but that is not really relevant. Winning an acting award seems to confer notability but winning a Nobel doesn't.

I really don't see what you mean by "you ignored the other parts of those comments including the award winning mentions and so forth" In the list of, IMO, poor Supports I included one of the two that mentioned her winning a Golden Globe. That also said she had a "fair career".

I do not at all see how my comments can be regarded as make a point. The discussion was moving towards posting and I wanted to question if we were acting in a consistent manner.FerdinandFrog (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Donna Summer died in May 2012, but Recent deaths wasn't introduced until October 2012. -- tariqabjotu 16:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Posted -- tariqabjotu 16:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Based on what reasoning? I don't see a consensus in the above discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Ok, and I do. What's your point? -- tariqabjotu 17:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
      • You could assume good faith and explain the reasoning that led you to see a consensus. FerdinandFrog (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
        • In what way did I not assume good faith? You and Muboshgu (opponents of the nomination, mind you) don't see consensus. I disagreed, obviously; that's why I posted. What's so complicated about that? -- tariqabjotu 17:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
          • Muboshgu asked a specific question, "Based on what reasoning?" asking how you had come to believe that there was a consensus to post and your response was just to say that you saw a consensus without giving any reasoning. To me that seemed you were ignoring his question. FerdinandFrog (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with Muboshgu, there is no consensus above, even if we ignore that many of the Supports are half-hearted. FerdinandFrog (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't criticize Tariq's posting this, but it is clear the support is far from overwhelming. I voted support, but my wording sounds like a weak oppose. Black's work since the mid 70's has consisted of dozens of horror and B movies: Burnt Offerings, Killer Fish, Invaders from Mars, Plan 10 from Outer Space, Children of the Corn IV, House of 1000 Corpses.... there is no objective comparison which makes this superior to Eileen Brennan's work. Sandy Woodward may not have been the most important military man of the 20th century, but he was certainly more "important" than Ms. Black. I'll repeat that all three probably should have been posted (Woodward can still go up--you can make my vote there a support if it helps). The problem is not really in the nominations but in the way important is being used in judging them. See talk. μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I have no objection per se to Black being posted but I don't see a consensus, or even any very good aguments, that she was very important. I agree with your point that there is problem with the way that important (or very important) is being interpreted.

Counting dead bodies is a bit ghoulish but please excuse me. It seems odd to me that a bus crash that kills 20 people is important enoght to get several lines in ITN but the commander in a conflict that killed over 900 people is not important enough to get two words in ITN. Also I am pretty sure that in, say, 10 years time more people will read about Sandy Woodward than about most bus crashes.

"you can make my vote there a support if it helps" - Thanks but (pardon the pun) I think that boat has sailed!

FerdinandFrog (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• While I remain neutral on this, the current !vote count is 6-3 with one neutral (yes it's not a vote yadayadaya) so I think this was a reasonable consensus. The comparison with Sandy Woodward is pointless--he's a general and she's an actress so it's not a like to like comparison. Honestly famous generals don't seem to die that often so there isn't much agreed-upon criteria on what makes a General a worthy RD.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

[Pulled] Lost Orson Welles film rediscovered

Article: Too Much Johnson (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Orson Welles' 1938 film Too Much Johnson is rediscovered after more than 40 years (Post)
Alternative blurb: Orson Welles' 1938 film Too Much Johnson, believed destroyed is discovered in Italy
News source(s): New York Times
Screen International
Credits:

• Nominated by Yorkshiresky (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Fuddle (talk · give credit), Larrybob (talk · give credit) and EFreedenberg (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Very rare for a film as substantial as this from a major director to be rediscovered. Article looks in good shape, I'd suggest that the out of date tag can be removed. --yorkshiresky (talk) 09:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Hmmm. The porn remake won't even need a new title. Support. Formerip (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support for a variety of reasons. Newsworthy, article is updated reasonaby well, unusual event as the nom. points out, secondary links go to a variety of good quality articles, provides added value to the readership and variety to the ITN section. I'm fully aware that most of these reasons are not in the criteria guide before anyone points that out :) Pedro : Chat 11:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support clearly newsworthy and the article is in good shape. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support Interesting and unusual story in the world of cinema/film history/Orson Welles. This film was lost, then found, then presumed destroyed, so yeah - I think very few people saw this coming. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Pedro. SeraV (talk) 11:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Pedro. Gamaliel (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Pile on support. A rare event dealing with a historically notable film. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - the update could use some work. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Ready the third paragraph of the loss and recovery section is well updated. μηδείς (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Agree this is ready, good work on the update. Note to posting admin - to save you checking the image is not free so can't be used. Pedro : Chat 16:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

There is, however, a PD of Welles himself. Teemu08 (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yay! (support) μηδείς (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, suggest we use that and loose Mugabee. Pedro : Chat 16:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support per established importance of Welles' work. --MASEM (t) 16:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Rosebud Awesome Wells. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. You all are aware that this film was never screened, never finished, and was an experimental piece meant to be played along with a stage show? It can hardly be said to be "substantial" or "historically notable". Abductive (reasoning) 18:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

A lost work by Orson Welles is a lost work by Orson Welles. His pea commercial outtakes are classics. The issue here is that because we don't really expect lost works of great artists to be found we don't include that as a category. Instead we have WP:IAR. μηδείς (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I know. I'm not opposing posting, just trying to set the record straight. For instance, it was not a copy of the film that was discovered, it was the film. Abductive (reasoning) 18:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Posted -- tariqabjotu 19:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I think the blurb is misleading. I was trying to figure out why this was in the news now, when the article clearly states the film was found in 2008. If the recent restoration announcement (buried way at the bottom of the article, and not visible in the opening section) is the newsworthy event, then the blurb should reflect that, not a discovery made 5 years ago. - dmmaus (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The canister was found in 2008, it's contents weren't discovered till recently. μηδείς (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

According to the article, it was discovered in 2005, and was found to contain TMJ in 2008. The only news here is "film house announces the completion of a restoration", which probably wouldn't have been posted if that had been made evident from the beginning. I have reworded the blurb - it's now boring as hell, but accurate. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

This would still have been posted in October when it is to be released. We can pull and repost or leave it up as still notable and still in the news. μηδείς (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Would it? I'm less that 100% sure about that. I think maybe we need to just quietly file this under "oops". Formerip (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Pulled At the very least, the story nominated here wasn't the story actually posted, and there is reason to believe this wouldn't have been supported had people known what actually happened recently. -- tariqabjotu 22:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Incredible! I am glad Tariq knows how people would have voted without giving them time to comment. I am not sure why we bothered to have the nomination in the first place given his prescience. Can Tariq let us know whether this will go back up automatically in October? Or will he post it for us in 2008? This is getting tiresome in the extreme. μηδείς (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

In fairness, he was only undoing himself. A pull in no way says the story can't be reposted now or later, just that Tariq was no longer confident in his own reading of consensus. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. Having given Tariq some grief myself over the Glee affair, he's quite correct to pull this in my opinion. Black Kite (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm yeah it seems blurb was misleading, I think pulling was correct choice. I don't think restoration in itself is some huge news, perhaps when this is shown in public. SeraV (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I support the pulling. Beerest355Talk 00:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Not opposed to the pulling. 331dot (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Good call to pull. As Sera V says, perhaps when this opens. Jusdafax 20:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

August 7

Portal:Current events/2013 August 7

Current events of August 7, 2013 (2013-08-07) (Wednesday) edit history watch Armed conflicts and attacks Syrian civil war: The Syrian Army launches a large missile on the southern Damascus neighborhood of Yarmouk, largely inhabited by Palestinian refugees. (Now Lebanon) Six suspect Al-Qaeda militants are killed in a drone strike in Southern Yemen. (Reuters) Yemen authorities foil an Al-Qaeda plot to blow up the oil pipelines and seize some of the country's main ports. (BBC) (Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty) Four Israeli soldiers are wounded by a landmine near the Lebanese border. (Al Jazeera) (Xinhua) (The Times of Israel) One person is killed and 62 are injured in clashes between supporters and opponents of ousted President Mohamed Morsi (Xinhua) A bombing in a market in Karachi, Pakistan, kills eleven people, mostly teenagers. (Reuters) Business and economy President Barack Obama affirms that the US will attend the upcoming G-20 meeting, despite differences with the Russian government and the cancellation of bilateral talks between Obama and President Putin. (BBC) Bank of England governor Mark Carney says the Bank will not consider raising United Kingdom interest rates until the unemployment rate has fallen to 7% or below. (BBC) Disasters and accidents A large fire breaks out at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport in the Kenyan capital Nairobi. (BBC) International relations North Korea and South Korea agree to resume talks on reopening the Kaesong industrial zone. (BBC) (Sky News) Politics The Prime Minister of the Czech Republic Jiří Rusnok announces his resignation after his caretaker government loses a vote of confidence. (China Daily) Portugal's treasury secretary Joaquim Pais Jorge resigns after media reports and opposition politicians questioned his previous role at Citigroup. (Reuters)

---

[Closed] Recent Deaths: Margaret Pellegrini

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 22:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

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

---

Article: Margaret Pellegrini (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN Hollywood Reporter
Credits:

• Nominated by Andise1 (talk · give credit)

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: She was one of the last three surviving munchkins from the movie Wizard of Oz. Andise1 (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose She's not a notable actress on her own.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - unless there is something more to this. Being a Munchkin alone is surely not enough. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. She is notable for one role only, or at least the article only mentions her association with that role. Also agree with Johnsemlak. 331dot (talk) 03:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Weak oppose, as already pointed out she really isn't notable enough for RD.--Somchai Sun (talk) 11:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Follow the Weak Oppose Road. Wizard Of Oz may very well have been a ground-breaking film, but a single role is not part-and-parcel notable for RD; compared to Judy Garland who had the leading role but was also in other movies at the time.--WaltCip (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• I would probably support a full blurb when the last munchkin dies, like we did with Millvina Dean, the last Titanic survivor. Secret ^account 23:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Other than one role (of which she was one of many scores of actors), what else did she do? Anything of note for the front page? RD was not supposed to be an open door for anybody doktorb _words^deeds 07:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Fire Hits Kenya's Main Airport

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 22:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

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

---

Article:Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Fire hits Kenya's biggest airport. (Post)
Alternative blurb:A fire, hits one of East Africa's most vital gateways to travel.
News source(s):Reuters, BBC, TVNZ
Credits:

• Nominated by Lucky102 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by AfricaTanz (talk · give credit)

Article needs updating

Lucky102 (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Update needed three sentences on one reference doesn't make an update. μηδείς (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - An apparently accidental fire now contained with no casualties is a news blip, not an ITN. --MASEM (t) 21:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral now, support if there is a significant update the amount of coverage in the article has actually decreased since earlier in the day when there was about 4-5 sentences supported by 2-3 references (based on memory). There would be a lot more coverage if this had happened at a European or North American airport (for example) but major fires at major international airports are rare and Kenya is under-represented here. I'll definitely support if there is a significant update to the article but at the moment I can't decide whether I'm a weak support or weak oppose, so I'll stay neutral for now. Thryduulf (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Accidental fire with no casualties. The disruption caused by the damage to the terminal is being managed. 331dot (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose flights already back up and running within a day or so. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

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

August 6

Portal:Current events/2013 August 6

Current events of August 6, 2013 (2013-08-06) (Tuesday) edit history watch Armed conflicts and attacks 2013 India–Pakistan border incidents: Five Indian Army soldiers are killed in an attack near the Pakistan border in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. (Reuters) Danish police evacuate part of central Copenhagen after a parked car is found with wires attached to it. (Reuters Trust) 2013 embassy closures: The United States Department of State evacuates staff from the United States Embassy in Yemen due to an al-Qaida threat. (AP via NPR) Ten people are killed in a clash between rival drug cartels in Honduras. (BBC) Syrian civil war: Syrian rebels capture Menagh Military Airbase in Aleppo near the Turkish border. (BBC), (CNN) A car bomb kills 18 people and wounds 55 in a suburb in Damascus. (USA Today) A chemical attack on Adra and Houma in the Damascus Suburbs is reported. (Israel National News) Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal): 25 people are killed and 60 are wounded by car bombs near markets in Baghdad in Iraq. (Reuters) Yemeni tribesman shoot down an army military helicopter killing eight soldiers. (The Times of India) Four suspected Al-Qaeda militants are killed in a drone strike. (Reuters) Tunisian police shoot dead an Islamist Militant on the outskirt of the capital Tunis in a raid. (Reuters) (Daily Telegraph) Disaster and accidents A gas explosion in an apartment block kills five people and injures a dozen in the Argentine city of Rosario. (USA Today) A hot Air Balloon carrying an American family crashes killing one person and injures four in the Swiss town of Montbovon. (Huffington Post) Law and crime The trial of Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a former United States Army Medical Corps officer and the Gunman during the Fort Hood shooting, begins. (Washington Post) The first execution by lethal injection is officially implemented in Viet Nam when 27-year-old Nguyễn Anh Tuấn is executed in Hanoi. (Vietnamnet) Politics and elections Tunisia's constituent assembly is suspended until the Islamist-led Government and secular opposition begin talks to resolve a Political crisis. (BBC) Saudi king Abdullah appoints Prince Sultan bin Salman Al Saud as deputy Defense Minister. (Jerusalem Post)

---

[Posted] The Washington Post

Articles:The Washington Post (talk · history · tag) and Jeff Bezos (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Jeff Bezos to buy The Washington Post for $250 million in cash (Post)
News source(s):BBC, WaPo
Credits:

• Nominated by Ohconfucius (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Nsk92 (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Historical media icon sold to new media baron for small change. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 01:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment We usually post such deals on the completion of the deal, which in this case does not sound like it is completed yet (BBC says "60 days"). --MASEM (t) 01:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm not ready to oppose yet, but I don't see the significance here. A newspaper was sold- the Boston Globe was just sold a few days ago (also for a miniscule price) and we didn't post that. 331dot (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment The Boston Globe and associated papers, which were purchased for US$1.4B ($1,400,000,000.00) by the New York Times in 1993 were just sold for $70,000,000.00--far less than 5% of the original investment, about the value of their real estate holdings, if one accounts for inflation, with the NYT still holding $100,000,000.00 in pension liabilities.[47] This is much bigger, more notable, and sadder news. μηδείς (talk) 02:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

  Point taken, but such a well known newspaper being sold at such a loss would seem to be notable IMO. 331dot (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

If posted, the two (Post and Globe) should go together mentioning they've been sold below asset vallue. Being as I almost always oppose business news, I'll not support the Post sale as an item by itself. A supportable blurb could be something like "In separate sales The Washington Post is sold to Amazon's Jeff Bezos and the Boston Globe to Red Socks owner John Henry at considerable losses." Or, perhaps, "In unrelated sales the Washington Post and the Boston Globe are sold at $US losses in the hundreds of millions." μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support only the Washington Post sale. An iconic newspaper being bought by a very notable individual. The Washington Post is much more notable than the Boston Globe.--24.90.93.88 (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who is able to buy a major newspaper will probably be notable, so I don't think that aspect of the story gives it anything extra. Formerip (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• The blurb should explain who Jeff Bezos is, as he's not a global household name. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

We could write 'Amazon founder Jeff Bezos' though I'd be concerned this would mislead viewers into thinking Amazon bought the newspaper.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

What about "Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon.com, purchases the Washington Post for $250 million in cash." Having the reference to Amazon after his name and not before might reduce confusion. 331dot (talk) 10:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support with article updates and blurb that mentions Amazon. Gamaliel (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Opppose as nominated. The Boston Globe fire sale is the much bigger and still fresh story. The collapse of the industry may be worth covering, but one vanity purchase with no managerial or policy changes promised is not. μηδείς (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - A very big story regarding what is effectively "new media" that has bought up the old media: the newspaper of record in the capital of the USA. I do believe it is a good idea to mention Amazon in the blurb. Suggest we leave the Boston Globe out of this, as the Post is, or perhaps was, in a class of its own. Iconic is not too strong a term for the Washington Post. Jusdafax 07:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

oppose per Medeis.Lihaas (talk) 10:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support — Ever since Watergate, the Washington Post has been a print-media beacon. In U.S. journalism, only The New York Times has had more clout. Sale of the Post far outweighs that of the Boston Globe in significance — and the buyer being a cyber-mogul of sorts may be significant as well.

PS: It's listed today in German Wiki's version of ITN, In den Nachrichten. Sca (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't understand opposition based on the fact that the Boston Globe is a bigger story here. Anybody remotely familiar with the US media landscape will understand that the Washington Post is second only to the NY Times as a mainstream broadsheet. The Boston Globe isn't even in teh top 5.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

That's the case if you are part of the nattering class--the Times, Post, and Wall Street Journal are bought outside their areas for political, cultural, and financial reasons. But the Globe is/was a top-rate paper which the Times itself bought for $1.1 Billion. As papers and not, say , flagships of a certain political party, they are quite comparable. The WaPo has 47 Pulitzers since 1936, The BoGlo 22 since 1967. On your reasoning there should be a lot more support for a combined posting. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't heard the word nattering since Spiro Agnew was vice president! Sca (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Medeis I think you've answered the question of why the WaPo is more notable than the Globe--it is one of the few papers in the US to have a truly national profile.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Sale of one of the world's most influential newspapers to one of the best known entrepreneurs. -Zanhe (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

This story is updated so I'll mark it ready.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Posted by King of Hearts. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:Medeis. — Amakuru (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Recent Deaths: George Duke

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 22:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

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

---

Article: George Duke (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): USA Today Reuters
Credits:

• Nominated by Andise1 (talk · give credit)

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: USA Today refers to George Duke as a "jazz icon" and "a pioneer in the funk and R&B genres." Andise1 (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - sorry, but this man is not "worldwide known" enough to justify an inclusion at ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• There is no requirement that a candidate be worldwide known; the only requirement is that it meet one of the three criteria. 331dot (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose a good working musician but no awards, or major hits and only one album with its own article, on which his trio is listed second. μηδείς (talk) 00:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Medeis. 331dot (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Just not important enough for the front page doktorb _words^deeds 07:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Spanish sex offender

Article:Daniel Galvan (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:After an initial pardon and ensuing protests in Morocco, convicted child rapist Daniel Galvan is re-arrested in Spain. (Post)
News source(s):BBC, Sydney Morning Herald, The New York Times, The Guardian, CNN
Credits:

• Nominated by Lihaas (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Sems to be in the news and with large scale protests, including the sacking of the national prison chief. Lihaas (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. There is no article to evaluate, nor is the scale of this person's alleged crimes given(one victim, a hundred, etc.) 331dot (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I am closing this under the bold policy of WP:BLP. It can be reopened if we get an article with sources to support otherwise defamatory claims. μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Way too premature. Nominations are made here all the time without associated articles, and he is a convicted child rapist, as nearly every source on this story corroborates. Oppose if you feel there's an issue. -- tariqabjotu 03:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he was apparently convicted and then pardoned, and the pardon was withdrawn(part of the reason this hit the international news, I think). Still need an article but I could potentially support this. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Anyone want to help creating 2013 Moroccan protests?Lihaas (talk) 11:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

This really should be closed if we are not going to have an article on which to pin the accusations. He's not notable, and this violates WP:EVENT. μηδείς (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I have created a stub on Galvan atleast.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

And now also on the protests. Take it or leave it.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Turkish trial

Article: Ergenekon (trials) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Over 200 Ergenekon members, including former Army chief Ilker Basbug, are convicted for attempting to overthrow the Turkish government, amid clashes. (Post)
Credits:

• Nominated by Lihaas (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Large scale convictions for an alleged coup attempt in a large country is notable, IMO. I know there is an article for this but I cant find it. Can someone add it here? Lihaas (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support if updated. Also, can you provide some sources ? --Երևանցի ^talk 06:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support only if article gets significantly worked on. It's currently in poor shape and very much outdated, and doesn't even mention the recent convictions yet. The event is quite notable though and definitely has had international news coverage (e.g. top news item on German "Der Spiegel" online edition yesterday). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support Seems a serious political attack on the Turkish military, hitherto guardian of secular republic. Here's a source for the Spiegel article in English translation:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/verdicts-in-turkish-ergenekon-trial-reflect-deep-divisions-a-914924.html

Sca (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I oppose to the blurb in this form, since none, except the Turkish government and the judges, thinks that all these 200 people were really part of a plot (people who speak German can read for example here). Alex2006 (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me that this would make the story more significant, not less. Formerip (talk) 12:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I was not clear: the story is very significant, is the form of the blurb which is wrong. According to the news that I read (Repubblica, Corriere della Sera, NZZ) the existence of Ergenekon is real, but the government used the plot as an excuse to get rid of opponents who had nothing to do with it, manipulating evidences. So, we cannot write "Over 200 Ergenekon members", since the large majority of them were not part of the plot. Alex2006 (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

How about "convicted on charges of..." as a form of phrasing? --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

No. The point is that according to most of the press (at least here in Europe) many of them are not members of the plot at all. Maybe "Over 200 alleged Ergenekon members..." could be a solution. BTW, IMHO a putsch attempt which involves directly so many people would be suicidal. Alex2006 (talk) 07:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

August 5

Portal:Current events/2013 August 5

Current events of August 5, 2013 (2013-08-05) (Monday) edit history watch Armed conflicts and attacks War in Afghanistan (2001–present): A bomb explodes at a market in the Afghan city of Kandahar, killing at least four people. (BBC) Nigerian Sharia conflict: 35 people - mostly Boko Haram militants - are killed in separate attacks on security forces in Borno State. (Reuters) A bomb rigged to a vehicle kills eight people in Cotabato, Philippines. (ABC News via AP) Disasters and accidents US military helicopter crashed at a US Marine Camp Hansen in Japan's southernmost prefecture of Okinawa, killing 4 people and injuring 3 others. (NHK World) More than 160 people are killed in flash floods across Afghanistan and Pakistan. (The Independent) 55 people are hospitalized following a truck fire 3.5km into the Gudvanga Tunnel in Norway. (AP via News24) Law and crime Two people are killed and five are wounded in a shooting outside a taco restaurant in Salinas, California, U.S. It is believed to be gang-related. (San Francisco Chronicle) Three people are killed and five are wounded in a shooting at a town hall meeting in Ross Township, Pennsylvania, U.S. (CNN) Media Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos purchases The Washington Post for $250 million. Politics and elections Opposition leader Enele Sopoaga is sworn in as Prime Minister of Tuvalu by Governor-General Iakoba Italeli after winning a secret ballot held in parliament. (Islands Business) Science The world's first bovine stem cells lab-grown burger is cooked and eaten at a news conference in London. (BBC) Sports In Major League Baseball, Alex Rodriguez of the New York Yankees is banned for 211 games for his role in the Biogenesis baseball scandal with 12 other players given bans of 50 games. (Reuters via the Sydney Morning Herald)

---

The Ashes

Article: 2013 Ashes Series (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: In Test cricket, England secure an insurmountable lead in their series against Australia to retain the Ashes. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

• Nominated by LukeSurl (talk · give credit)

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: ITNR sport event, though we could discuss whether we want to post now or at the conclusion of the series. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Far WP:TOSOON wait until 25 August, when the result of the whole series is known, the Blurb can then be either "In test cricket, England win the 2013 Ashes series against Australia by 4-0 3-1 2-1 2-0" or " In test cricket, England and Australia draw the 2013 Ashes series as holders England retain the Ashes." LGA _talk^edits 09:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• post now. We did the same for the last series. I don't think it can be argued that the retention of he ashes is not the single most notable result in the series, even if the final result is also notable.--24.90.93.88 (talk) 10:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support A retention is as good as a win, so it's good enough for me. I assume we're not going to get an easy ride because of the inherent USA-bias and dodgy admins but a man can hope...... doktorb _words^deeds 10:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• I think precedent has been to post at the conclusion of the series, just in case of the extremely unlikely event that this is somehow reversed or cancelled. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

  The result cannot be reversed or cancelled. The British have won the Ashes. What's not determined is the final score.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

  Things can always be reversed or cancelled, unless the league decides to stop playing. The last stage of the Tour de France is always run even though 99% of the time the winner is not in doubt, because it is still part of the race and needs to be completed to win- the potential winner could crash or have a freak accident to prevent them from winning. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

  In this case it can't be, while they are not lost we can't win them. Sill we should wait till the concussion of the series.LGA _talk^edits 11:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• There is no league to talk of here. There are two more matches to play, and England lead 2 - 0. Australia winning back the Ashes is literally impossible at this point. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes for clarity if the last 2 matches are cancelled or if Australia win them England will retain the Ashes. This is different from the Tour de France since in that case, no one has won the Tour until they actually win it no matter the lead. A better example in racing is perhaps Formula 1. There comes a point where it is mathematical impossible for anyone else to win the world championship (or constructors), this often isn't the last race of the season. However when it happens it's still the time the world championship (or constructor's) is won, which is distinct from say when Schumacher was dominating and was widely expected to win but hadn't actually won yet. (Of course when it comes to the World Championship you generally need to win it outright rather then just retaining it.) Of course it's generally possible for any result to be reversed or overturned in most sports, but this is different an can usually happen at any time, even long after the tournament or whatever is finished. We don't avoid mentioning the Tour results simple because the winner may lose their results years later due to doping, nor do we avoid mentioning the NRL (presuming we still have consensus to post this) winner simply because they could one day lose the premiership over salary cap breaches. Nil Einne (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, "mathematically impossible" unless there were to be a fatal crash in one of the remaining races. I'm not sure what would happen in that case. But I agree your example is a better one. Cricket is not quite so prone to such dramatic twists. I suppose one team might still be disqualified for some reason and the series never complete. But that does seem somewhat unlikely. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• post now. "England retain the Ashes" is the result, everything else is unimportant. DW meter (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

wait Aus can still tie, fgranted England have retained it. Nevertheless, precedence is to post after sports tournaments ends.Lihaas (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Hilarious. Evne though someone above had already said "post now. We did the same for the last series.", the precedent is somehow to do the opposite? Wow. If Australia tie, which in itself is a pretty long shot, literally nobody would care. Not even the Australians. DW meter (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support/post later Could be posted as the final outcome is now mostly irrelevant, news-wise. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• It's Test cricket, not test cricket. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Amended. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 18:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Wait It is incorrect to say England is leading the series (more like crystal balling) as if the next 2 games are won by Australia they will tie it. England will keep Ashes by default however this particular series would still be tie... i would wait till we know which one it is. Even if we posted it earlier last time, i see no reason to follow an incorrect precedence. -- Ashish-g55 18:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• "England retain Ashes" has been the headline. Unlike pretty much any other case in any other sport, in this case a draw is effectively as good as a win for England. Test cricket is weird. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess ill be ok with it if we dont say anything that suggests england won this series or is leading the series etc... as we need to wait for series outcome. just stick to the urn -- Ashish-g55 19:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support posting now The most important result that will come out of this series has now occurred. England has retained The Ashes. Those who don't understand can check out that article. HiLo48 (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support now. The newsworthy item is that England have retained the Ashes, whether that is 2-2 or 4-0 is irrelevant because even in the latter case England will also have retained the Ashes, not won them. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Wait And post the final results of the series along with England retaining the Ashes. CaptRik (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Why? Without a reason, that's just a vote. [And there's a BIG discussion on about voting rather than discussing here.) And votes must be ignored by the closer. HiLo48 (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair point, I voted to wait as the result of the Ashes is not yet clear. England have retained them by the fact that they are guaranteed a draw but they can still win them outright. Comparison with another sport - I'm sure we don't post the winner of the Premier League as soon as it's mathematically finished, we post at the end of the season. With the same logic, we should post this at the end of the series. CaptRik (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

No, that's wrong. The result of The Ashes is completely clear, now. England has retained them. Comparisons with other sports are pointless. The Ashes is a unique competition between two countries which never change. Nobody "retains" the Premier League cup, or whatever they win, in the same way. HiLo48 (talk) 08:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

RE EPL we would post the Premier League winner after the clinched it, not necessarily after the end if the season.--24.90.93.88 (talk) 10:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wait by default. The optimum time to post was two and a bit days ago. The second best time to post is the evening of the end of the final test, and we can get that done pretty quickly. And regardless of that, how do we succinctly explain in a blurb to the wider readership that England have The Ashes in the bag despite the fact that the series could end 2-2? —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 00:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

  I'm not sure there's really a problem for the wider readership. We don't have to report the score in teh blurb--merely state that England have retained the Ashes. The details of the fact that a draw is enough for England can be left to the article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

  I'm afraid I agree with WFC's assessment of the situation. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support posting now As a cricket fan, I can assure you that retaining (or winning) the Ashes is what people care about - the precise result of the series is less important. Even if the Aussies manage to draw the series they will still regard it as a failure - they were here to recapture the Ashes. Neljack (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support the point is the Oz can't gain the Ashes back. A win in the series would be a bonus, but the retention of the trophy is the fundamental note here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wake up call This nomination has had plenty of posts, but has been sitting seemingly unnoticed for two and a half days. Will anyone make a decision? Or will we wait until it's too late be posted? HiLo48 (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Go back to sleep call Surely, the appropriate time will be when that ridiculously tiny trophy is held aloft by the victorious captain. Anything else just isn't cricket, old chap. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

You have every right to have and to express that opinion here. Although that reason doesn't cut it for me. The Ashes is more of a concept than that silly old urn. And England has retained them. But what concerns more me is the failure of process here. Why was this thread allowed to sit idle for so long? HiLo48 (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

For many people the silly old urn is what it's all about, i.e. the full series. The urn isn't a crystal ball, is it? That said, the current plot-spoiler blurb can't be denied as true. When was it decided that Chris Froome had won this year's Tour de France? I suppose in that case he could have easily died before reaching the finish line. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

You don't understand how The Ashes works. Froome could have done something to cause him to not win the TDF at any moment up until the very end, but England has already retained the Ashes. It cannot lose them in this series. And that's what's sad about this thread. Too many posts based on ignorance. A closing Admin MUST understand how it works, and ignore posts like that.HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out my pathetic stupidity. I had thought they all played on bicyles. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I have tagged the nomination as needing attention. Mohamed CJ(talk) 14:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but why did our process fail (yet again) here? (ITN is dying.)HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, it's because we're ignorant. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hilo I don't think it's necessarily ignorance. It seems to me (not only based on this discussion but on the discussion for the last Ashes) that there's a disagreement even among editors familiar with cricket over when exactly to post the Ashes result (when it's retained/lost, or when a definitive series result is clinched, or even after all 5 tests). It's probably something that should be resolved later on at the ITNR talk page. Of course, there's also the lack of an update....--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it's ignorance alright. I can accept discussion about when to post, but there can be no disagreement that this is a very different situation from someone leading near the end of the TDF. That involves someone not knowing how The Ashes works (while thinking they do). Given that it's already been explained several times in this very thread, That's ignorance. Fortunately, as many wise people have pointed out, ignorance can be cured. HiLo48 (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Only one person objected along the lines. That objection, based on a bit of misunderstanding, is not what's holding this up.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Before anyone accuses me of being uncivil here, I must point out that I have used the word "ignorance" here to simply mean not knowing something (and in this case, acting as if they were certain they did.) It's a fact, not abuse. Posts here based on ignorance (and there are several) must be be ignored. It's a basic concept. (Oh, and I did not use the term "pathetic stupidity" anywhere to describe anyone. Implying that I did is blatant misrepresentation.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I don't know what "admin attention" is needed: the article has a very poor update (just a couple sentences in the lead). I also don't understand how one can feel the ITN process has "broken down" here; as always, items can be marked as [Ready] if they are ready (which this is not). -- tariqabjotu 23:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

What kind of update would you expect to find? That third paragraph in the lead says pretty much all that needs to be said and all that can be said, without going into a detailed explanation of why drawing the third Test meant that England had retained The Ashes. That would be inappropriate. We don't go into details of the rules of a sport when describing a particular instance of that sport. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps something about the series itself? The article provides very little prose about the matches; almost the entire article could have been written before the series began. -- tariqabjotu 00:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true. There's usually enough cricket obsessives around to fill articles like that full of all sorts of trivial nonsense. Dunno where they are this time round. HiLo48 (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the 2010-11 Ashes Series article, there's a prose summary for each test. I'd be reasonable to expect that for this article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

That would be nice, and I don't understand why it isn't happening, but that doesn't change the fact the England has retained The Ashes, and the article says so as clearly and completely as it should. HiLo48 (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The fact is a prose summary of the actual match (or test match for cricket) is pretty much the absolute standard for sporting events at ITN. The Super Bowl or the Champions League are not posted until the update is made despite the notability of these events--there's no reason to not hold the Ashes to the same standard.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

If only I could be cured. My observations were questions of most appropriate timing, not of fact. So sorry if you feel have been so "blatantly misrepresented". (They should probably give up on the series now, shouldn't they. Has no-one told them?) But apparently I was only acting. Or thinking, alas. Just off now to add some trivial nonsense... Martinevans123 (talk) 09:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

You clearly still don't understand The Ashes. HiLo48 (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for explaining everything there. Hardly worth my while watching the Oval match then. Do you think Bells' 105 will be enough? What happens if the goalie gets a burst tyre? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

All good cricket is worth watching,but England has already retained The Ashes. HiLo48 (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Opppose until somebody show me that this is a big event in the International cricket in 2013, I am not a Cricket fan, but this look like the same game played too many times, this is not a World Cup or a World Championship, and we do not post every time that Pakistan defeat India in cricket, why England-Australia deserve it? we do not post each time that England defeat his brother-enemy Scotland, or each time that USA-Canada play a exhibition ice hockey game; we do not post another game of the eternal Argentina–England football rivalry, Argentina–Brazil football rivalry, Chile–Peru football rivalry, England–Scotland football rivalry, England–Germany football rivalry, the catchy name of England-Australia is not enouch to me.--Feroang (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

This is an ITNR item This WILL be posted. The only matter under discussion is when, not if. HiLo48 (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It might be argued that, since the weather played such a decisive role in forcing at least a draw, this Ashes series result should be seen as less significant than in other years. That question can only really be answered by considering the quality of play in the remaining matchea. Of course, England could still win the series 4-0, or 3-1, couldn't they? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You could argue that, but you would be wrong. And I know the players and true fans won't see it that way. HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support waiting - They may have technically won now. But they haven't lifted the trophy. Miyagawa (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Nobody lifts the trophy. There is no trophy. The Ashes stay in a special cabinet at Lord's. Please read that article. Sadly, this thread is chock full of misapprehensions. So many posts based on falsehoods. (Is that nicer than saying people are ignorant, even though it means the same thing?) HiLo48 (talk) 10:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Much nicer, thank you. p.s. when does the team celebrate its victory? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

What victory? There have been victories in two Test Matches, which I'm sure led to small celebrations, but no victory in the series. Again, that question doesn't fit The Ashes, which England has retained. HiLo48 (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Isn't retention regarded as a victory? p.p.s. when will England celebrate retention? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC) (there is no trophy?)

• Oppose until updated at least: Other than a discussion of the squads, and the lead, the article has not been updated or expanded sufficiently. There should really be at least a few sentences of prose on each match – at the moment there are just bullet-pointed lists of comments. It doesn't need to reach same level of prose as 2010–11 Ashes series, but should really be expanded before posting. Regarding whether it is posted now or once the series is over, that's really moot while the article needs an update. - Shudde ^talk 11:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Okay, England have now won the Ashes, pending an update, this should be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yet another wrong post. England already held The Ashes, so they couldn't win them. If every wrong post here was struck out, this thread would be half the size. I don't care when it's posted, but I do care about getting things right. When most of the Not yet posts (and this one) are based on falsehoods, DESPITE considerable efforts at education by me and others, plus pointers to the relevant article, I really do worry about the comprehension of other editors here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Biogenesis baseball scandal

Article:Biogenesis baseball scandal (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Thirteen Major League Baseball players are suspended for using performance enhancing drugs, as a result of the Biogenesis baseball scandal. (Post)
Alternative blurb:Major League Baseball announces the suspension of 13 players, pending appeal, for using performance enhancing drugs.
News source(s):CBS SportsThe Guardian; BBC News; Le Monde, The Australian
Credits:

• Nominated by Andise1 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by 76.190.230.66 (talk · give credit) and ThaddeusB (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: CBS News headline: "Biogenesis scandal ranks among MLB's biggest in history." Andise1 (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Drug scandal in a sport with a history of drug use. Besides which, the right time to post would be if the appeal fails. If we were to post now and the appeal were to succeed, we would be duty-bound to post that as well. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 23:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Actually baseball never had a player, especially a star like Alex Rodriguez being suspended such a long period of time (two years in this case) because of a drug/doping scandal. This is easily the biggest doping scandal to hit sports in general since Lance Armstrong which we posted, and probably rank among the top five ever. This has widespread implications in multiple sports, and should end the "doping era" in baseball. Support Secret ^account 23:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support, good suggestion. Although it's a sports item, an area where I think the bar should be held a little higher (along with most other entertainment-related noms), I think this easily meets that bar and will have a more meaningful impact than many of the routine sports items that we usually post. This is a huge deal for a sport that is several orders of magnitude more significant as an entity than swimming, for example, another currently-nommed sports item (and I'm not hating on swimming; that one should and probably will be posted). AP called it "baseball's most sweeping punishment since the Black Sox scandal." --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • My opening remark was intended to be facetious (apologies if it didn't come across that way), although in my defence it was a fair comment. But A-Rod hasn't even stopped playing yet: this surely only meets the bar if he is actually suspended? Otherwise we have a handful of players who have pleaded guilty to doping missing less than a third of a season. Significant, but hardly earth-shattering. In cycling and athletics you generally get one or two years, yet the problem is still widespread, so I don't accept the premise that this will mark the end of drugs in baseball. And to reiterate, if this is posted and A-Rod suspension is overturned on appeal, we would surely then need to post that. It simply doesn't make sense to go now. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 00:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose It's an internal league matter. Far worse, the comissioner is making what are essentially criminal allegations, without any of the protections of the actual criminal system, or liability for other parties like coaches and owners who would be subject to conspiracy charges were these real criminal proceedings. Imagine trading houses that knew of their traders' activities demanding they stop trading and forfeit their salaries while the brokers kept their profits. μηδείς (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. This is the top headline story on NBC News.com and CNN.com, and near the top on BBC's news page. Also covered in other countries. This being "an internal league matter" is irrelevant to its status as a news story. 331dot (talk) 00:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not "top of the news", and we have a policy called WP:BLP. These people are being accused of essentially criminal activity by a private organization. We shouldn't touch this unless there's a court verdict. μηδείς (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

My point was that this is a large story receiving a lot of coverage. Again, it is not illegal to use a PED so a court trial is unlikely unless A-Rod or the others lie under oath, but a private organization can discipline its members as it sees fit and as unfairly as it wants to. If we need to wait until A-Rod's appeal (I believe he is only one appealling) is exhausted to avoid a double post, okay, but this isn't yet a criminal matter. Not even sure if he is under investigation by the criminal justice system. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Question having a bit of a issue in getting to the bottom of this; some background .... Am I correct in the following, MLB paid for information from a informer from a now defunct company to provide them with details of who this company supplied. Last month Ryan Braun took what amounted to a plea bargain, today it has been announced that 12 others have also taken a similar plea deal and one other Alex Rodriguez was suspend for 211 games, that suspension was it's self suspend pending the outcome of an "appeal". Now to the question, I cant find anything which indicates there has been an interdependent hearing on this; if that is the case this would be a the same as a 100m sprinter being charged with taking a performance enhancing drug, as we would never post that until all legal avenues have been exhausted why would we consider this one . LGA _talk^edits 01:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

We have no independent documentation on any of this. If you read Braun's article, there is plenty of ESPN speculation. (ESPN is a TV sports network, not a branch of The United Nations.) He's not exactly taken a plea, but stopped fighting his 50 game suspension, and had an extra 15 game's suspension added on, which would be illegal for a US criminal court to do. Likewise there have been reports that Alex Rodriquez was threatened with a lifetime ban [48], and that he has gotten a longer suspension (211 games) because he didn't cooperate with the commission, which apparently saw him as an easy-to-go-after whipping boy [49]. μηδείς (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It isn't illegal to use a PED(criminally, at least), though it is illegal to lie under oath about doing so. This isn't a legal matter(yet, at least), just a personnel issue. 331dot (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course there are no criminal penalties because there are no criminal charges or protections of the criminal court, just untestable allegations which amount to defamation per se by the league. Most people assume there is some sort of demonstrated or admitted criminality here, but there is nothing other than the bosses deciding an arbitrary number of employees will lose an arbitrary amount of pay, while the managers and owners who were aware of the alleged activity face no sanctions. As in Braun's case, they have shown that if you don't accept these penalties without appeal you will face worse. Compare this to the Cumberland Farms case where the convenience chain settled [50] for having regularly accused cashiers of stealing from the till and forcing them to sign confessions to avoid criminal prosecution. [51] Supports for this nomination because it is "in the news" show our WP:BLP oversight function here is fatally flawed. μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support this is currently the biggest new item in profession sports and involves some of the biggest names (and even formerly-possible hall-of-famers) in baseball. It is also rare in North American sports for there to be such a huge crackdown on players using perfomance enhancing drugs. This has been in the news for several weeks, and will no doubt be in the news for some time as it continues to unfold. --PlasmaTwa2 08:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Wait We need to wait on this, in the same way we did on the Silvio Berlusconi and Bradley Manning cases until the FULL process has been completed (i.e. when all the appeals have been completed). From what I can see up to now MLB has been acting as both prosecutor and judge, and as now that Alex Rodriguez's has announced he will appeal posting risks the requirement for us to post a correction later. LGA _talk^edits 09:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

As a private organization, MLB can discipline its members as it sees fit (in keeping with any labor contract provisions and the law). 331dot (talk) 10:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose A minor internal incident in a minority interest/one-nation sport doktorb _words^deeds 10:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Objections relating to an event dealing with only one country are not valid; and MLB operates in two countries (Canada), has players from many different countries, and is seen around the world. As I linked to above, foreign media has covered this (including France, where baseball is not that popular). 331dot (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

"One nation"? Which nation? Japan, Cuba, or the Dominican Republic? –HTD 18:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Ignore the armchair lawyers, their arguments are irrelevant, if not completely uninformed. This is worthy of posting now because the announcement made the news all the way to the UK, even though we don't give a shit about the sport, precisely because it's a very newsworthy sporting scandal in of itself. DW meter (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Largest scandal to hit Major League Baseball since the Black Sox in 1919, and seems to be in the news on a wide scale. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 12:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Minor comment: If used, "Biogenesis" should be capitalized. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support this is a major league story (pardon the pun) Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. On my scandal scale, this is on par with Ben Johnson. And honestly, if we posted Lance Armstrong, this merits inclusion as well. The story here is the announcement of suspensions, but I would note that some are pending appeal. Resolute 15:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • As a note, reading a Reuters story on it, it appears that only one player is planning to appeal. The rest have accepted their suspensions. Resolute 16:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support A serious scandal, worthy of the front page. --Somchai Sun (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support the suspensions are a joke really (not even a 6 month suspension?). However, considering that baseball is likely even more notorious about drugs than cycling, it it noteworthy that their governamental bodies decided to DO something. Nergaal (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Opposed. Steroids in baseball? Next you'll tell me that there's gambling in this casino. Gamaliel (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I would liek to see a more substantial article/update before posting. It is a little light at current. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Suspensions in a sport are most certainly not worthy of being on ITN.--Giants27(T C) 21:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

  Even if it's one of the longest suspensions ever handed out by MLB for any issue? (the media called it "the most sweeping punishment since the Black Sox scandal" in 1919) 331dot (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment we have extremely uninformed comments above. There is no governmental body here. There is a commission of owners who are covering their own arses by punishing their employees, but not themselves or their coaches or managers. There is no criminal admission of guilt in accepting a 50-game suspension. If one doesn't "accept" such a suspension one faces retaliatory action for appealing, anywhere from 65 to 211 games as in the case of Braun who appealed, and Rodriguez who wouldn't settle. This "scandal" involves players attending a clinic the nature of which the owners and coaches were well aware while it was happening. Calling this the greatest scandal since the Black Socks is simply absurd, looking at the cocaine scandals of the 1980's. But those happened long, long ago in a nation far, far away. μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't have an opinion about whether the event is significant enough for posting but, if so, the article needs work first. Formerip (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Secret and Resolute. AutomaticStrikeout ? 19:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - biggest doping scandal in several years. Article is now updated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. A massive drug ban, and also the ruling affects players from four different countries and implicates a player from a fifth.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with those who have said that we should not post this until the full process has occurred. Neljack (talk) 05:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support: Baseball news being reported in my country is exceedingly uncommon. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Posted -- tariqabjotu 19:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] RD:Admiral Sir Sandy Woodward

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 22:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

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

---

Article:Sandy Woodward (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s):Telegraph, Washington Post, The Province, ad-hoc-news.de
Credits:

• Nominated by FerdinandFrog (talk · give credit)

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: Commanded the task force that recaptured the Falklands. This included the largest naval battles for a long time, possibly since WWII. Most military people never actually fight in a war (certainly over the period 1946-2001) so to be the commander of a successful significant campaign puts him clearly at the top of his field (even though I am sure we all wish his skills had never needed to be proven this way). --FerdinandFrog (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Grenada has 30 times the population of the Falklands, MacArthur's invasion of Korea falls during the period mentioned and is considered brilliant, not to mention the size involved, the first Gulf War, concluded in 30 days, is ignored, the target article has a whole three sentences on the Falklands era.... μηδείς (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Question I'm not really sure what point(s) you are trying to make. AFAIUI in neither of the the invasion of Grenada nor the landing at Inchon was there a naval opposition, certainly not one of any note so there cannot have been any naval battles. The first Gulf War took place entirely on land so I am sure that there was not a naval battle there. FerdinandFrog (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose on article quality grounds; would support upon improvement per nominator. 331dot (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added a couple of, IMO significant, reactions. How does it look now? RL means that I have to stop now and won't be able to do any more for 24 hours. FerdinandFrog (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll support now, improvements have been made. 331dot (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose on quality grounds alone. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 21:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support quality has improved significantly since the last few comments were made, reaction from the prime minister, we also posted Rex Hunt a while back. Secret ^account 23:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• The Falklands War section is still a whole three sentences. The rationale (biggest naval battle since WWII?) has no serious support. μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I have expanded the Falklands War section with a couple of significant items.

I never said that the sole reason for posting was the size of the naval battle and I certainly did not say that it definitely was the largest since WWII. I mentioned that it was the largest for a long time, possibly since WWII. However I cannot think of any other naval combat since WWII when the opponents were trying to (and succeeding in) sinking each other's ships. If you can then please enlighten me.

However a quick search found

• this which starts by saying "The Falklands War was by far the largest and most extended series of naval battles since the Pacific campaign in World War II."
• this which includes "As the largest and most significant series of naval engagements since World War II, the Falklands War ..."
• and this which includes "Militarily, the Falklands War remains the largest air-naval combat operation between forces since the end of World War II."

I am not saying that these are all RS to support including that in the Falklands War article (however it is already there but I do think that they show this is a common belief.

FerdinandFrog (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think Falklands campaign had the largest naval losses since WW2 in terms of ship displacement. US Navy lost more personnel in Vietnam, though. In any case there seems to be very little coverage outside UK. 88.148.249.186 (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - article quality is adequate but I have concerns about importance. Woodward's death doesn't seem to have been covered outside of the UK except for a few wire reprints. That tells me the world doesn't seem him as all that important of a general commanding officer. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

  Maybe because he's an Admiral, not a General? DW meter (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Woodward is one of a rare breed, a post World War II military figure who actually had to make wide-scale life and death decisions in an armed conflict between sovereign nations that was not a foregone conclusion (Stormin' Norman was a great leader, but it can hardly be said the outcome of GW1 was in any doubt, somewhat limiting the notability of his actual wartime decision making). Some might say his decisions affected the UK after the war, right up to the presnt day, given the fact that Thatcher's election win and the subsequent shift in UK politics, is often put down to the feelgood factor after the victory. Lack of coverage outside the UK (if this is even true) is irrelevant - it says so right at the top of the page. DW meter (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I see the Falklands War section has been nicely updated. But I take three things away from the article. He ordered the sinking of the Belgrano. He was later appointed NATO commander of the submarines of the East Atlantic. He was knighted. Not given a baronetcy, but knighted. None of that amounts to "top of the field" or "highly influential". μηδείς (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

  Being knighted for military service, historically the primary purpose of knighthoods, is relatively rare in modern times, I believe. Sinking other large naval vessels is also a rarity since WWII (the Belgrano was only the second vessel sunk by an enemy since then). 331dot (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

  Actually it is customary for any British officer who reaches the rank of Vice-Admiral, Lieutenant-General or Air Marshal (i.e. the equivalent of a three-star general in the US) to be knighted. There are lots of them. So it's not at all uncommon. Neljack (talk) 05:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I am not convinced that commanding the Falklands task force means that he is a very important figure in the military field. Important yes, very important no. It was a significant conflict but not a huge one. Neljack (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Tuvalu Prime Minister

Articles:Prime Minister of Tuvalu (talk · history · tag) and Enele Sopoaga (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Enele Sopoaga is elected Prime Minister of Tuvalu. (Post)
Alternative blurb:Enele Sopoaga is sworn in as Prime Minister of Tuvalu.
News source(s):Radio New Zealand InternationalIsland Business
Credits:

• Nominated by Andise1 (talk · give credit)

Both articles need updating

Nominator's comments: This was nominated before but was closed as it was unsure if he was actually the new Prime Minister. Since he has been sworn in, it is appropriate to post this now when the articles are adequately updated to be on the main page. Andise1 (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support either blurb pending update. A change of head of state is ITN/R I believe. Thryduulf (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

A change in head of state is, but not head of government (Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state of Tuvalu). 331dot (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support. It may be smaller and less populous than my borough, but my borough is neither sovereign nor a member of the UN. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The jurisdiction has a population under 12,000. In most areas this seat would be called Head of Parish Council, not Prime Minister. I'll omit the clips from Vicar of Dibley and The Mouse That Roared. μηδείς (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Weak support. Tuvalu is a sovereign state so their head of government is somewhat notable (though I don't support this as strongly as those of other states due to its population). 331dot (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• support. per user 331dot who covers my opinion as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - this election affects very few people. We would never consider an event of an other type that attracts so little attention. Elections are not that special as to receive a free pass on reader interest. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Where would you draw the line? I find that unless we do so quite high (i.e. elections with large international interest), the only reasonable (non-arbitrary) spot is below them all. Of those two I prefer the latter. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I would prefer to decide on a case-by-case basis based on the level of interest (media attention). Often drawing a bright-line is not the best way to handle things. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Possible, but roughly equal countries differing in internet penetration or continent could be treated differently. There are rather few "Tuvalus" and many "Djiboutis" and "Icelands". 88.88.162.176 (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support as it's ITNR and significant for a nation, despite population size. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Point of order: It is not ITNR; only changes in heads of state are ITNR, not heads of government. 331dot (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Point taken, stricken. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose It is one of three of the highest rank in Tuvalu political ranking, have little to do outside and inside his own country. The British queen and the elected Governor General are high ranks aswell. Not to forget this is only about a country that is less than 12k people.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 08:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support-The results of mayoral elections have been posted, if I am not mistaken. Why we neglect to post the highest governmental change in a sovereign state I cannot comprehend. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I do not believe any mayoral race was posted - In a quick search I found a couple that were rejected, but none accepted. That said, I guarantee the mayor of New York City or London or dozens of other cities has a larger impact on world events than the PM of Tuvalu. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    • The mayors of New York and London should be posted as they "are vastly more integrated with the global economy than any other cities". 88.88.162.176 (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Non-ceremonial head of a sovereign state. Gamaliel (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Thaddeus Secret ^account 18:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support we do usually post these right? If we do I see no reason not to post this based on how populous the country is. Tuvaly is a sovereign territory with spot in UN after all. SeraV (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support - A head of state change is significant both for the country in question and in international relations. Arguments that the population size is small overlook the significance of the event in regional and global affairs. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Please explain what "significance of the event in regional and global affairs" of story is being overlooked exactly? Pleasde name one way this significantly impacts anyone outside of Tuvulu. That Tuvulu is a sovereign state means it sets its own laws. It does not automatically mean that it has any influence over anything that happens in any other country. If this selection is truly going to have an significant impact on the world, why are so few reliable sources covering it? Normally, we expect analysis of the impact of an election, but that is not possible here because no reliable source cares enough to provide any as far as I can see. Most US states (for example) have a far bigger impact on international affairs than Tuvulu; even a mayoralship of a large city has a bigger impact. Sovereignty is not equivalent to influence. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I've seen the number 50,000, as in votes for a candidate, bandied about as a threshold for notability. Abductive (reasoning) 02:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    • You can compare this to other changes that have a "far bigger impact" on international affairs, but I never said that this event will have a super-uber-mega impact on international affairs, only that it will have an impact--which is more than many strictly domestic topics of other countries that make it into ITN. As far as I'm concerned, this is sufficient for inclusion, arguments of small population size notwithstanding. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
      • You didn't really answer my question at all. I asked you to explain what significance people are allegedly overlooking and your reply was basically well it might not have a huge impact, but it will have some. Well every story nominated on this page - even those roundly rejected - will have some impact on the world. As a "strong" supporter, surely you can provide some concrete way that this particular election might impact the world. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
        • It is self-evident that the change of the head of a state of a sovereign country will effect how that country is perceived by other countries and how it will interact with other countries. And again, this is more impact that many strictly domestic topics that make ITN. You're asking for specific instances of how this will affect international relations, yet I highly doubt that you would be demanding such level of detail if it were the head of state of a larger country, and either way such level of detail is unnecessary because this type of event happens often throughout the world and its general effects (even if not its specific effects) are self-evident and well-known. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
          • Analysis of what an election means is a standard part of election articles. None exists here. Granted, this isn't a real election - just the existing MPs selecting a new leader - but still, the lack of analysis speaks volumes as to its importance in the eyes of the rest of the world. That this will have any material impact on international affairs is an assumption, not a fact. More likely, IMO, the vast majority of the heads of the other 205 sovereign states couldn't care less who the PM of Tuvalu is. If we posted every domestic story that affects 12,000 people, hundreds of stories would be eligible everyday. --65.60.163.84 (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral - im not gonna support or oppose this nomination but i would like to point out that we did post the change in leadership in what is considered to be the smallest state in the world. However im sure most people would agree to that one going up since it was the Pope and the Vatican City. It is also interesting to note that the Prime Minster of Tuvalu has instructed lawyers and threatened to sue certain countries including Australia and the USA before now.Jason Rees (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support This is particularly notable because it comes after the previous Prime Minister was dismissed by the Governor-General. This is an extremely rare constitutional crisis involving the use of a reserve power. No Prime Minister has been dismissed a Governor-General or monarch in any of the Commonwealth realms since the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975. Contrary to some claims, there has been a fair amount of coverage of the crisis. Three major British newspapers have covered it [52] [53] [54], as have Australian [55] [56] and New Zealand [57] [58] media. In response to Thaddeus's comments, I would note that, despite its small size, Tuvalu has played a significant role in climate change diplomacy. That is only likely to be increased by the fact that the new Prime Minister was formerly Tuvalu's lead climate negotiator and Vice-Chairman of the Alliance of Small Island States. Neljack (talk) 06:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Marked as ready The article is very good and well updated, and there is consensus to post (11-4 in favour if you want to vote-count). Neljack (talk) 06:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - per Neljack. Jusdafax 08:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Posted -- tariqabjotu 19:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Swimming World Championships redux

Articles:Swimming at the 2013 World Aquatics Championships (talk · history · tag) and Missy Franklin (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:The World Aquatics Championships conclude with the United States winning the most medals. (Post)
Alternative blurb:The World Aquatics Championships conclude with Missy Franklin (pictured) winning six gold medals, the most ever by a female competitor.
News source(s):Washington Post
Credits:

• Updated and nominated by ThaddeusB (talk · give credit)

First article updated, second needs updating

Nominator's comments: This was sort of nominated below, but was nominated too soon (Franklin tying the record), so the discussion focused on the wrong things (IMO). I am re-nominating it now that the event is complete on the basis of the championships themselves, not on Franklin's record. We post the WCs of many sports less popular than swimming, so I feel we should post swimming as well. This year's event is especially notable in part b/c of Franklin's record, but I'll leave it up to the community as to whether or not to mention her. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support posting the championship in some form. This also goes for the upcoming athletics championship. Together with gymnastics they are the most popular Olympic sports. None of them have ITNR items as far as I can see. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support definitly for itn. major sporting event.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support either blurb, but with a mild preference for the alt. The most medals by a single competitor is not something that happens routinely. Thryduulf (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC) (restored Thryduulf (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC), not sure how it got lost but it did)
• Oppose - at present there is zero prose on the actual event, will support once updated. LGA _talk^edits 22:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose posting until the prose is there. I *support* the story, it arguably should be ITNR, but it must not be railroaded through without the sort of update we would expect of non-sporting articles. No objection to the current blurb, although I don't see grounds for Missy Franklin to be bolded. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 23:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Updated and marked ready since opposition was based solely on lack of update which has now occurred. (I wasn't trying to railroad anything through, as evidenced by my "Article will need a significant prose update" comment in the nom - I just didn't have a chance to write the article until this evening.) I prefer the altblurb, for the record, but unbolded Franklin (her page is updated but w/o refs for the WC stuff). --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support Thanks to ThaddeusB for the update. Not sure on the picture though, it is not the best as it is a single person coped from a multi-person shot but on the other hand it is better than the current image. LGA _talk^edits 05:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Change main blurb... to [[[2013 World Aquatics Championships]] if we are going to go for the medal table blurb unless we want to ignore diving, water polo, synchronised swimming and everything else that is not won by the Americans, though regardless tops the medal table. Donnie Park (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Posted I omitted the picture for now. Yeah, it just looked too strange cropped for Main Page viewing. As LGA said, it's a picture from another picture already (with her head chopped off and those words in the background). I don't think I agree that's better than the Mugabe photo; while the latter is also cropped from a larger photo, it shows his whole face and the background is muted. That being said, I wouldn't object if someone swapped the Missy Franklin image in, especially since it would be nice to get some female representation in ITN photos for once. -- tariqabjotu 11:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

THe ITNR typ event would be the whole event 2013 World Aquatics Championships not the focus of ONYL swimming (there was more than that) and the individual nomination. We don't mention that for any event (ie who won how many medlas). No need to do so here. Some of the supports above also mentioned the entire tournament in supporting.Lihaas (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I've reworded the blurb to include more of the overall results. It seemed opinion was divided on whether to write the blurb about the overall results or Franklin's achievement. I feel this formulation appropriately notes both. -- tariqabjotu 11:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Afghan - Pak floods

Article: 2013 Afghanistan–Pakistan floods (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: More than 160 people killed in flash floods across Afghanistan and Pakistan (Post)
News source(s): The Independent
Credits:

• Updated and nominated by Gfosankar (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Droodkin (talk · give credit) and ThaddeusB (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article is in stub, need to expand. --Gfosankar (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Article is no longer a stub and while more detail wouldn't go amiss it's OK as it is imho, Thryduulf (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support-Most certainly notable. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - significant disaster; article now of sufficient length/quality. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Notable disaster with wide effects. 331dot (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as typical "Pakistan and Afghanistan [are] frequently hit by flooding during monsoon season. Every year since 2010, the region has suffered devastating floods that left hundreds dead.[2]" unfortunately. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• A cleanup tag needs to be taken care of before posting. Secret^account 00:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Done --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Posted Secret ^account 01:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Belated Support As others have said this is a complete disaster. The oppose citing the regular occurrence of these disasters do not convince me, seeing as we usually post hurricanes in the United States which do not get even nearly as large of a death toll.75.73.114.111 (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

RD:Art Donovan

Article: Art Donovan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): LA Times
Credits:

• Nominated by ThaddeusB (talk · give credit)

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: Five time pro-bowl selection and Hall of Fame American football player who remained well-known long after his playing days due to his appearance on numerous TV shows. Defensive players are rarely well known, so I think its safe to say Donovan was one of the best at his position ever. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see any evidence that he was one of the best at his position (and I'm not sure that would be enough--one of the best defensive players ever maybe). I just did a search of 'Best defensive NFL players of all time' and I came across this link at Yahoo sports which ranks the 10 best ever and doesn't include Donovan. This list at the Bleacher Report doesn't rank him in teh top 25.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Johnsemlak's compelling evidence of him not being that highly regarded by those who know about such things. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The latter list cited by Johnsemlak is a list of defensive players since 1965; Donovan played until 1961. Both lists are just the opinions of the writers of the lists. He is a Hall of Famer with other achievements that ThaddeusB mentions which meet the "notable in their field" criteria. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support per 331dot. Pro Football Hall of Fame is a much better indicator of significance in his field than Bleacher Report, which is a terrible website that I delete references from whenever I see one, or Yahoo Sports, which isn't much better. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose 331Dot is right that these are just oppinions, but there is no way he can be said to have been influential in his field as far as playing style, etc. Compare Joe Namatah who was revild by mant during his time precisely because of the influence he had on the sport, and ask whether today's players resemble Namath or Donovan. Donovan's TV presence simply followed from his beening able to speak articulately, not his skill at tackling TV producers. μηδείς (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Simply not notable enough doktorb _words^deeds 10:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

In what way? 331dot (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support Pro Football Hall of Famer. Member of the official 1950's All-Decade team. The first defensive player inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. That last one in and of itself should be enough. --12.41.124.5 (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - not notable in that the sport itself is in my opinion not a world interest sport. secondly he doesnt seem to be an outstanding sportsman within his sport. sorry--BabbaQ (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

  I can accept the second rationale, but football is seen all over the world by tens of millions. The last Super Bowl was broadcast in 25 countries. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

  • I can not agree with that personally I find this sport to be at best an American national sport that is seen as a "show" by other countries considering super bowl final each year.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

  We have many "national sports" on the ITNR list; personally I don't understand why cricket and rugby are listed, but others find them important. As stated at the top of this page, we have many events that only relate to a single country; if we prohibited events from being posted based on that, we would have very little to post. The NFL has also recently been playing at least one game a year at Wembley Stadium in London which draws a crowd and is also considering having a permanent team there. 331dot (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Lab-grown burger

Article: In vitro meat (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: The world's first hamburger made using laboratory-grown meat is presented and eaten at a press conference in London. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

• Nominated by FormerIP (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The biggest step forward in food since the invention of the onion. Formerip (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• The target article is a shambles, written mostly in disjoint sentences, with material duplicated in various places (e.g., the PETA prize). Where it's not hagiographic it's POV-laden and where it's not POV-laden it's pure speculation. Might be easier to start over with a new article, but this "burger" is apparently unpalatable and the press event is a press event. μηδείς (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: I assume this is the first time lab produced meat has been eaten. The blurb should make that clear. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The Dutch lab has been making announcements since 2009. I don't believe we have any independent sources. I find it extremely hard to believe they will actually be risking a live first tasting Saturday. μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• This has been widely reported in the news sources I frequent. That said, it is clearly a publicity stunt (they've tested and eaten a few less lavishly prepared pieces of "meat" already with fewer camera's pointing at them) so its debatable whether anything particularly significant actually occurred today. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

"First" is always going to be a bit of a wooden lie with a story like this. If we were posting Elvis's first live performance in 36 years (or however long), we would be discounting him singing in the shower and the fact that he is likely to have rehearsed. As far as I can tell, this is the first time lab-grown meat has been eaten by non-scientists or in public and also the first time it has been prepared so that it tastes like a commercially viable product rather than a gimmick. Formerip (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Overall I am neutral on this item. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Leaning support. I acknowledge all of the concerns above, but the progress of in vitro meat is to food what putting a human on Mars is to space exploration. By no means the holy grail, but as big a leap as we have ever taken. Although I'm mindful of straying into an WP:OTHERSTUFF-style line of reasoning, it is fair to say that this is a bigger milestone for food than the launch of a random orbital spaceflight is for space exploration. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 15:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment It's also the most expensive burger ever made at £200,000. --Somchai Sun (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support if a good update occurs - the press is treating this as a historic first, so that should be good enough for us. "First" will almost always be debatable in the context of true innovation, as noted above, but that is insufficient reason to deny a story. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose this is a press conference by a private company not doing peer-reviewed work. Whether some of us find the concept morally praiseworthy doesn't affect the fact that this is a commercial stunt. μηδείς (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Your point being? —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 20:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

My point is that I oppose this nomination as a press conference by a private company not doing peer-reviewed work. Whether some of us find the concept morally praiseworthy doesn't affect the fact that this is a commercial stunt. μηδείς (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Article is now updated (not by me, although I've given it a bit of a short back and sides).

The "commercial stunt" aspect of this is really what makes it historic, I think, not a limiter on its significance. If you think about it, the basic technology (cultivating animal tissue in vitro) has been around since the 1990s. The technological bridge between that and saying you've produced meat is really just a few seconds in the microwave and a nice Chianti. In vitro tissue was first eaten a decade ago - a tiny morsel of frog, although it apparently tasted nothing like frog. The step forward today is producing enough tissue with enough similarity to natural meat so that it can undertake (and pass) a taste-test. So it's a culinary/commercial milestone, rather than a strictly scientific one. But it's pretty massive as a proof-of-concept.

Incidentally, not that it's very important, this is a university project, rather than a corporate one. It doesn't even appear to have a corporate sponsor, which makes it less "corporate" than almost all science. Formerip (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

So the fact that this is just a stunt is what makes it not just a stunt? I am glad you found the source on the artificial meat from the 90's. I looked but couldn't. The bottom line is we have people reproducing work from the 90's, but in the form of American fast food, given the $300,000 in grant money they got to do so. μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The fact that Christopher Columbus was sponsored by the Crown of Castile does not change the fact that he increased European awareness of the New World. The fact that the space race primarily happened because of the intense political and ideological rivalry between East and West does not lessen the achievement of Yuri Gagarin going around in a large circle, or of Neil Armstrong's small step. And it's the same story here. The way of invalidating the supporting arguments here is surely to refute the culinary and/or scientific achievement, rather than to play up the fact that a sum of money equivalent to second or third prize in the lottery was involved. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 21:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, basically a publicity stunt rather than a new scientific achievement. Nsk92 (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose this is a publicity stunt; the actual announcement that they had grown meat in the lab was quite some time ago. --PlasmaTwa2 07:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as a publicity stunt. As Plasma said, this "meat" had already been created. Perhaps if this product is approved for commercial manufacture/consumption by a government, we could post that. 331dot (talk) 10:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

August 4

Portal:Current events/2013 August 4

Current events of August 4, 2013 (2013-08-04) (Sunday) edit history watch Armed conflict and attacks Worldwide embassy closings The United States closes 22 embassies in the Middle East and North Africa due to intelligence of an Al-Qaeda attack. (CNN) Canada closes its embassy in Bangladesh amid terror threats. (Toronto Sun) Britain, France and Germany close their embassy in Yemen amid terror threats. (BBC) Tunisia kills one suspected terrorist and captures another six in an early morning raid in Tunis' El Ouardia [fr] neighbourhood. (AP via Philly) Arts and culture Scottish actor Peter Capaldi is announced to portray the twelfth incarnation of the Doctor on the long-running British science fiction show Doctor Who. (The Guardian) Politics and elections Hassan Rouhani is officially inaugurated as President of Iran in the House of the Parliament and announces the members of his cabinet to the parliament. (Aljazeera) (Dailystar) (Reuters) Voters in Australia will go to the polls on September 7 for a federal election. (The Age)

---

Embassy Closings / Terror Threat

Article: No article specified
Blurb: The United States closes 22 embassies in the Middle East and North Africa due to intelligence of an Al-Qaeda attack, while Canada closes its embassy in Bangladesh and Britain, France and Germany close their embassy in Yemen amid terror threats. (Post)
News source(s): (BBC) (CNN) (Toronto Sun)
Credits:

• Nominated by Johnsemlak (talk · give credit)

--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think such a large-scale closing of embassies is notable, though like the nominator I'm not sure what article should be posted. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Do we have an article on ostriches? We do have one on cheese eating surrender monkeys, quite ironically. This should go up some how if we can get a target article. μηδείς (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps List of terrorist incidents, July–December 2013 could be used - I see no reason why a credible threat with large reaction can't be called an "incident". I'm not sure something like August 2013 terrorist threat would survive an AfD challenge :/. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Doctor Who

It's been posted twice and pulled twice. Enough is enough. If editors absolutely have to go on beating a dead horse with a stick, take it to the ITN Talk page, please. We need to move on with ITN business here. Jusdafax 11:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Endorsing archival. Sheesh. -- tariqabjotu 12:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Endorsing archival as nominator. --LukeSurl t c 12:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Endorsing archival as second administrator. Secret account 16:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

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

---

Articles:Peter Capaldi (talk · history · tag) and Doctor Who (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Peter Capaldi is announced as the actor to play the Twelfth Doctor in Doctor Who' (Post)
Alternative blurb: Peter Capaldi is announced as the next actor to play The Doctor in Doctor Who'
News source(s):BBC; The Globe and Mail; NY Times; Brisbane Times; Irish Times; India Today
Credits:

• Nominated by LukeSurl (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Quite big entertainment news. Apart from Bond, no other role gets this much media attention. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Big entertainment news, but not big news news. I doubt that we would post the selection of a new James Bond actor either. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support (subject to update) Would appear to be in the news, judging by the 5 mins that ABC Breakfast has just given to this. LGA _talk^edits 20:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Seriously? A casting decision for a television show? How is this a "significant development" in world events? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral. I actually think this is fine for ITN, but the precedent it would set, the pointy follow-up nominations etc is probably not worth it. Formerip (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support I like it for its uniqueness... all entertainment news we ever post is awards, film festivals and more awards. You will not get a new doctor every year... and to comment on FormerIP's concern, being afraid of future moron's may not be the greatest reason to not post it -- Ashish-g55 21:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Based on that reasoning, we could post all sort of stupid news stories from all sorts of disciplines. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You must not really know what Doctor who is or the influence it can have over British audience to call this stupid. My point is we do not really ever post TV related news and this definitely has worldwide interest. Just because its a topic that we dont post regularly doesnt make it stupid -- Ashish-g55 21:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware of the show. It's long running, but just a television show. Who they cast for the part does not matter relative to ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• As I said in the nomination, the only comparable character would be James Bond (which I would also support). Otherwise I can't see what this would open the floodgates to. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• DYK I won't oppose, since I would surely go to hell if I did. And I would love to see this on ITN personally. But there is no way this meets ITN requirements, and it belongs on DYK under Twelfth Doctor anyway. μηδείς (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - there is no question this is big news to the public (i.e. our readers). There is absolutely nothing wrong with posting important entertainment news (NOT gossip - there is a difference) despite some people's extreme bias against it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Opppose No, absolutely not. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

please read guidelines above and refrain from opposing/supporting without providing a reason for it. "absolutely not" is not a reason -- Ashish-g55 21:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - There is unusually broad interest in this item. The speculation about the new Doctor was mainstream news here in the U.S., and the level of editing activity on Peter Capaldi indicates that this news is something that many Wikipedia users are very interested in. --Orlady (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

What that says is that our editors are 50% under 22 years of age and 87% male. μηδείς (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Ding ding ding! This nomination is an example of systematic bias at work. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not those editors' fault that other socioeconomic groups aren't as numerous in editing the Capaldi article. Their views are not irrelevant. 331dot (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I thought about this, and had the initial thought that it was a mere casting decision- but as the nom suggests, a very small handful of roles (such as James Bond) have heavy interest in them and are covered by mainstream media (not just entertainment news). I think this rises to that level Part of the role of ITN is to direct readers to stories "in the news" if they are sufficiently covered and of wide interest- and I think this qualifies. It also doesn't hurt to have a variety of stories in ITN. As such, I support. I think any precedent here is limited; I think the number of similar roles can be counted on one hand, or close to it. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support The longest running sci-fi TV show of all time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • So "long running TV show continues to run", then? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Twelfth Doctor is not a very good article yet. It may be better to link to Doctor (Doctor Who) instead (see alt blurb). --LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support Doctor Who and James Bond are clearly exceptional casting news in terms of cultural impact. I cannot think of a third example of similar, for lack of a better term, "importance". As this prefix search seems to agree. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. I'm as much of a science fiction fan as anybody but this is way below our notability standards. A permanent cancellation of the show would be notable. This is fancruft, and is far less notable than many stories we do not post. Also, I think some leeway would be given to above opposes who simply wrote 'absolutely not' or something similar. This shouldn't require discussion. I'd even be bold enough to nominate this as a SNOW close.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • "Fancruft" is a good term for this. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

There are no grounds here whatsoever for a SNOW close; given the support it clearly has at least a chance of success. The suggestion is, frankly, outrageous. Your opposition boils down to I don't like it as what is notable is determined by consensus. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see "I don't like it", I see "why are we discussing this?" because it falls far short of the significance required for ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The supporters of this would seem to disagree. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not 'I don't like it'. I do like the subject material, even if I'm a trekkie. The matter is this falls way short of our notability guidelines and I think that's plainly obvious. If SNOW isn't teh appropriate policy (I don't see why not--there's a snowball's chance this can meet the notability guidelines), then perhaps IAR is the right policy.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

If you are citing IAR then you need to establish how dismissing the views of those who support this and ignoring any potential consensus that this is notable is somehow beneficial to Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

IAR is Ignore all Rules. As i see it supporters are ignoring a few rules to try and get this story onto ITN in benefit of the encyclopedia. So how in the world is IAR going to be invoked to keep it out of ITN lol. what rule would we be ignoring... consensus? -- Ashish-g55 22:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Which rules are being ignored by supporters? 331dot (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Added comment--teh blurb is a classic example of systemic bias--the overwhelming majority of people in the world have no idea who the 12th doctor is. And I'd strongly contest teh notion that Dr Who is anywhere near James Bond on global notability. If Dr Who get's a big blockbuster movie franchise, then I'd consider that thought.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

  • • Just to add on the "James Bond" thing, if Daniel Craig gets replaced and someone else is cast as Bond, I would oppose that nomination too. James Bond is far more culturally significant than Doctor Who, and still not ITN-worthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Absolutely right. I'm not going to be bold enough to close this via WP:SNOW but if a third or forth editor agrees I hope they do so. This is really beyond ridiculous that this is getting this much discussion. A little broader perspective is required here.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Some people would think a royal baby getting attention was also ridiculous... infact i think that was more ridiculous than this, however consensus was to post and hence it was posted. Suggesting SNOW close for something with heavy support is taking the discussion in a wrong direction. You should oppose if you feel so since thats what ITN/C is for, however this discussion right here about snow close is frankly the only ridiculous thing here -- Ashish-g55 22:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with a SNOW close (and really, the royal birth, as stupid as it was, did relate to the British monarchy, so it's a lot more relevant to "news" than this"), but with all of the opposition that has been raised, I'd be disappointed if an admin found anything other than "no consensus to post". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment The update in Peter Capaldi is currently insufficient. -- tariqabjotu 22:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose like others has said this is a casting decision in a tv show. It can't possible be important enough for us to post. Like Johnsemlak said, little perspective here please. SeraV (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a little perspective that this is no ordinary TV show. 331dot (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

A sci-fi show, that, if I'm reading the page correctly, wasn't broadcast outside of the UK until 2005. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

No, my bad, has been broadcast out of the UK longer than that. But still this nomination is built on a UK-bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes well I disagree with you on that 331dot, and I even like doctor who quite much if you think that is relevant. SeraV (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. When this gets posted, we should deliberately not replace the photo of Robert Mugabe with one of Peter Capaldi, just to see how many confused people post at ERRORS. Formerip (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Just a niche interest, in no way significant enough as world news. Beerest355 Talk 23:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose A new actor on a TV show is not worthy of being mentioned on ITN at all.--Giants27(T C) 01:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose We don't generally post pop culture stuff of this ilk. Major award winners, deaths of significant actors are probably fine. But actors getting roles, even iconic ones, fall well below common standards here. --Jayron32 02:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Just how much money is involved in all of this? –HTD 04:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Light-hearted Support. Dr Who is an icon and British institution, which marks this as an important appointment, more so than a number of appointments of prime ministers of island states. Arguably more important and impactful than the expected (re-)election of a tin-pot dictator. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 06:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support Featured on BBC homepage, front pages of the Guardian, Telegraph, Times etc etc. It might be pop culture news, but it is exceptional pop culture news. Plus, Capaldi's page here on Wikipedia got 431,325 visits yesterday - yes, nearly half a million - [59] so people want to know about him. So why not put it in the news where they can find it easily? 86.133.51.86 (talk) 07:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Posted. Most everyone agrees that it is in the news, with the main opposition coming from the perspective that it is not a significant enough event. Even among the opposition I see mentions that this is an iconic role above and beyond the significance of a usual casting, and so after sitting here weighing it all I find that there is consensus enough to post. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 08:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• You've gotta be kidding me (i.e. strong oppose). How did you think this was consensus enough to post? Please remove. Casting decisions do not even reflect actual time spent acting. Teply (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I thought there was consensus enough to post because there was (I gave a short explanation of my analysis in my posing comment). If consensus swings in the opposite direction rather rapidly I'll be more than happy to remove, but as it stands it stays. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 08:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have undone the posting of this item, has no consensus so far. If there are other formalities to do in such an unposting, please let me know. No objection to this getting reposted if it actually does get consensus, but let's wait until then... Fram (talk) 08:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Consensus doesn't really exist at ITN for this sort of situation. The decisions are basically binary (post or don't post) with no latitude for compromise. We don't have the luxury of time for the "grind down opposition by attrition" form of "consensus" that exists elsewhere on the wiki. Controversial items have to be decided one way or another and those who object have to just have to deal with decisions not going their way from time to time. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Well, the posting admin claimed consensus (which seems to be lacking though), and Wikipedia:In the news/Administrator instructions starts with: "Make sure the item has consensus for posting at WP:ITN/C." (bolding in original). Determining consensus doesn't mean that the decision can't be binary, but it does mean that in more unclear situations ("no consensus" discussions like this one so far), one group will be unhappy. Anyway, the page I linked to above continues with " If the consensus is not entirely clear, consider letting the nomination run for more time, especially if the nomination is less than 24 hours old." I see no reason not to do just that in this case. Fram (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I nominated this for DYK, my suggestion is that we wait until Christmas, when he starts, to put this up. Matty.007

  I believe that, according to DYK rules, it's not eligible because the article has already been posted to ITN, even though only for half an hour. See 1(e) of the eligibility criteria. -- tariqabjotu 09:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

  I think that would fall under IAR. It's purely because it was posted at ITN with Twelfth Doctor bolded rather than Peter Capaldi that technically make it fall foul of the criteria; assuming the article meets all other DYK criteria I think the ~ 30 minute appearance is neither here nor there. Pedro : Chat 10:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

  Well, we shall see. But I have seen someone from DYK mention this precise point here when someone suggested a pulled article be nominated at DYK instead. -- tariqabjotu 10:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

  Also, if this doesn't get posted to ITN now, it's certainly not going to be posted at Christmas. -- tariqabjotu 09:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

  • I think there's this DYK "rule" where the articles have to be "recent" at the time of posting. This article can't be possibly new by December. And unless it is posted again at ITN, this can no longer be posted at DYK, which screwed any chance of this article getting on the Main Page. –HTD 10:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• In the DYK queue you're allowed to delay the submission for a calendarically meaningful release. Beyond that, DYK has become rather absurdly bureaucratic over the last few years. The intended purpose of DYK is to bring public attention to new articles, even if they're not quite polished. You can probably bend a rule or two there if you're persuasive enough. As much as I oppose this for ITN, I don't see any significant problems for DYK. Teply (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

  AFAIK, there's some rule that disallows a potential blurb languishing at the queues for a long period of time. In any case, an argument is to post this at DYK now (or after it is approved). –HTD 18:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe Matt was suggesting putting it on ITN, not DYK, at Christmas. -- tariqabjotu 10:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Noted. –HTD 18:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Restore the posting. The admin's decision to post was sound; most (not all) of the opposes boil down to IDONTLIKEIT and even a lot of those concede this is a unique, iconic role/situation. It is being covered by mainstream news in several countries, it is clearly "in the news", whether we disagree with the merits of them doing so or not. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Twelfth Doctor has been improved and would probably be the better bold article now. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support Google gives me 685 fresh news sources for "Capaldi". The comparable figure for "Mugabe" is 398 and "super rugby" is 351. This is big news. Warden (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Come on guys, this is a british-american-centric matter. I mean Dr Who casting is definitly NOT of world interest. Had this been a series of any other country than the US or the UK every single one of you would have said Oppose.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• The show is broadcast in more than fifty countries. Warden (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• And this is after all the English Wikipedia. I'm personally opposed to this being posted, but being a "british-american-centric matter" is not a good reason why something should not be posted. Abductive (reasoning) 04:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

This show is not all that important in those 49 other countries, it is just another tv show. Fairly good one certainly. Who plays next doctor does not get that much interest outside UK. SeraV (talk) 11:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey at least the Glee dude who died stayed in the news for a week in my neck of the woods. This? Zip. –HTD 18:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• ABC Breakfast news had this second only to the election. LGA _talk^edits 11:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • (ec) Not if the article on said hypothetical series established that it had been on (with one interruption) since 1961 and the role was as iconic as a James Bond. If you can find such a comparable role, I would be happy to support it. Objections about an item relating to a single country are not valid(see top of page). 331dot (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Ireland, Australia, and India are hardly "british-american". 331dot (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    • At 4.00 a.m. today Australian Broadcasting Corporation television had a live link to the the announcement in the UK. (No, I didn't get up to watch, but a couple of friends did.) Exclusively British-American? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

How is this American? -- tariqabjotu 15:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, how is this American? The Deadly Assassin (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The phrase you are looking for is "exclusively angliloquent." μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Is that what you're going off of? An episode that took place in New York? Is this also French too because there was an episode in Paris? I don't watch this show and know very little about it, but if that's the closest connection to the U.S., that's really pushing it. Unless we're going with Sex and the City 2 being an Emirati film. -- tariqabjotu 17:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

One doesn't always know what one's looking for, by Jove. But if I find it, I'll certainly pass it on to "the management". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Ultimately, to claim this is some kind of jingoistic nomination is flawed. Doctor Who has been running for decades, it's popular in all corners of the globe. I have no real interest in whether this is posted at ITN or not, but it's a good test of how defensive various nationalities become when it comes to something as straight-forward as this. It's made massive news across the world (for whatever reason, you can consider it like the royal baby if you find it hard to envisage), and, after all, if it has consensus to post here, it should be posted, regardless of criteria etc (see Cory Monteith). Oftentimes, Wikipedia is critiqued for not going with modern popular culture. Perhaps this is an example of such. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to say, a lot of the opposes have had some strange notions. The show's been syndicated world-wide since the 70's and earlier, with lost episodes being retrieved from tapes sent overseas for viewing. I started watching it in the US in 1978, not 2005. That being said, this is a casting decision for a TV show. Posting this would be like posting Tim Tebow being traded to the Cowboys. μηδείς (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Sort of. The difference being Tebow won't be cast again and again, in different guises, over a 50-year period, and have a worldwide popularity. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Pull I can't believe this was posted with 50/50 support. Had my suggestion it is only fit for DYK been counted it would have been under %50. Now it is not even eligible for DYK, brilliant! We have a continuing serious problem with admin prerogative. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Well at least we had some chance to comment on it, unlike Glee guy. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Oh, you're still on that? -- tariqabjotu 17:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Yep, check out precedent. You set it. No going back now. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
        • The "precedent" is a self-fulfilling prophecy you manufactured. No one is forcing you to bring it up in every nomination, especially ones beyond comparison. It has no relevance to this nomination whatsoever, but you choose to raise it here twice (once in response to, again, an irrelevant comment) to rile me and hopefully attract more of my critics to join you in your game. Pathetic. -- tariqabjotu 17:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
          • The precedent is one you made of your own volition. Pathetic is correct. A shame you didn't think about it before you set the precedent itself. Now deal with the consequences. Popular culture is now ready to go, with little discussion. This is as notable, if not more so, than the death of a Glee actor. You know that. I'm not here to attract any more of your critics, you're doing a marvellous job of that yourself. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
            • TRM, as you well know Wikipedia doesn't work based on a "precedence" system. First, mistakes can and do happen. Second, consensus can change. You repeatedly bringing up a posting you disagreed with in unrelated topics is very much not helpful. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
              • Firstly, it clearly does work on precedents, if it didn't, it'd be unique. Secondly, are you suggesting Tariq's posting was a mistake? Thirdly, there was no consensus (other than the rapid fanboy ex-criteria supports) for the Glee kid. I'm afraid the stall has been set out that certain posting admins apply different criteria to those agreed at ITN. Your tacit acceptance of such is very much not helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
                • I am neither approving or disapproving of Tariq's posting - I am disapproving of your repeatedly bringing it up to make a point. Doing so serves only to turn ITN into a battleground. The posting of an unexpected death of one person is not going to decide any other ITN nomination ever, especially not ones that aren't even RD noms. Every situation is unique and even if they were not we are under absolutely no obligation to respect precedent. This isn't a court of law. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Question' how did pulling (as in posting and removing) this make the encyclopedia any better? Pulling items should be done only if there was major consensus against posting... i see about 50/50. Im ok with waiting for consensus if its that unclear and then posting but really pulling just makes ITN and wikipedia in general look bad. A normal person viewing the main page doesnt know what goes on in background... -- Ashish-g55 17:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • ..., thank goodness. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It shouldn't have been posted in the first place. Pulling is the only option when a bad posting is made. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    • In your opinion. There's no doubt it's world news. There's no doubt it's popular news. But no, it's a "bad posting". Well done! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
      • By your logic, half of the shit on TMZ.com deserves to be posted on ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Thank you Muboshgu for confirmation that you cannot participate civilly or articulately in this debate. Noted for future reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
          • You're the one who has sunk to personal attacks. I'm dealing with content. And calling TMZ "shit" is neither uncivil nor inaccurate. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - It would be an encyclopedic embarrassment to post about a new actor in a television show, especially given the number of much worthier national and international topics that never make ITN. If this project truly is an encyclopedia, then the proper criteria to judge whether something should be included ITN isn't merely the popularity of the topic in Western media. Even the discovery of a new ant species is more noteworthy on an encyclopedia. And I'm sorry to be "that guy", but if something this trivial to most of the world is posted when topics like the resumption of peace talks between Israel and Palestine, the US Voting Rights Act being struck down, or the dismissal of the Tuvalu Prime Minister are ignored, we might as well be honest with readers about Wikipedia's content priorities and redirect the Main Page to WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree some people seem to think that we must get as many page views as possible by posting these popular culture pieces, like some sort of common tabloid paper. Frankly I find it annoying. SeraV (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment There is probably an ITN eventually on Doctor Who, but that it likely when the BBC offically say they've concluded the complete series (ignoring side media), and thus hallmarking the end of the longest-run scripted shows on television anywhere. But that's not this point. I would be quick not to have ITN dismiss anything pop culture (we run sports stories all the time, and that's pop culture too), but we have to be more selective about it. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with you that the final end of the entire Dr Who series is notable for mention at ITN absolutely. But a cast change even if it is Dr Who himself is at best "national news of national interest".--BabbaQ (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm in favor of not having this particular item to be posted and I agree it should have been pulled, though I will point out that the show has a wide international audience and not really restricted to a national story as claimed. --MASEM (t) 21:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• It's been 24 hours, every timezone has had a chance to chip-in here. Let's make a decision and then move on --LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • From what I can see no majority wants an inclusion of this at ITN so I say a decision has already been made.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. A decision about a casting change in a TV show for ITN? Give me a break. Nsk92 (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Posted After much consideration, I believe that there is consensus for this to be posted. Unlike several people above stated, consensus is based on policy based, or in this case, reasonable arguments which many of the support commentators had. CONSENSUS IS NOT A VOTE COUNT Many of the oppose votes read like WP:IDONTLIKEIT simply because is a television show and not a bus accident or a election. There is a few comments above that this might lead to a slippery slope which I took into consideration, however Masem is correct that we shouldn't dismiss anything related to pop culture. Note I never seen a Doctor Who episode in my life, and wouldn't care less about the show. I recommend any concerns about the posting to be mentioned in the ITN talk page and not here. Thanks Secret^account 00:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • "I recommend any concerns about the posting to be mentioned in the ITN talk page and not here." So the correct place to discuss whether a candidate should go on ITN is not the ITN candidates page? That's... very interesting. - BanyanTree 00:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I meant on how we treat future candidates related to pop culture that isn't an obvious pass (death of iconic celebrity) or fail (celebrity X married to celebrity Y), such as this case. The discussion started getting off-topic, and soon afterwards out of hand, and that should be discussed on the talk page, not here. Secret ^account 00:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

  You're right, Secret, consensus is not based the number of !votes, but as summarized on WP:CLOSE, Consensus can be most easily defined as agreement. There is no such agreement here to post this article; in fact, disagreement has escalated since it was originally pulled, and the discussion continues. Furthermore, your statement that "we shouldn't dismiss anything related to pop culture" is just as susceptible to a WP:ILIKEIT response as contrary views are suspectible to a WP:IDONTLIKEIT response; neither citation makes any sense, however, given that unlike most of Wikipedia, the ITN nomination process is almost entirely subjective because such little objective criteria exists to guide editors in it. And certainly, none of the criteria that do exist state that "we must accept pop culture topics" and dismiss all arguments to the contrary; that is simply you imposing your own view on this conversation and taking consensus into your own hands. I ask that you reconsider your decision to post this article in light of the fact that no consensus exists to post it; if you refuse, then I ask another admin to do so. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

  Once the "Opppose No, absolutely not" votes with no reasoning, as well as the "unencyclopedic" arguments about an article in this encyclopedia are weeded out, there is indeed consensus, as Secret said. 331dot (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

  And once the "Support just because it's covered a lot in the media" arguments are weeded it, there is a consensus in the other direction. That's not the point. Neither argument is against the ITN criteria or Wikipedia policy, and therefore an admin should not discard either argument when determining whether consensus exists among editors. When both arguments are properly considered, it is clear that no consensus to post exists. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

  This is "in the news"; what is actually "in the news" is relevant, and no one can deny that this event was. This page specifically states that simple "oppose" or "support" votes without any reasoning are discouraged and should not carry as much weight. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose/pull. As a fan of the show who checked on the news first thing this morning, this is far outside the boundaries of what has historically been considered ITN-worthy. Wikipedia has around for two of the previous "regenerations" and, IIRC, there was never even a serious suggestion it was worth a post. I've certainly not seen why this regeneration is more notable than the other two. - BanyanTree 00:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Something not happening in the past is not a reason to keep it from happening now. Consensus can change. 331dot (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose this is pop culture stuff, and the show is well-known and newsworthy only in few countries around the world.--Nero the second (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no prohibition on "pop culture stuff" on ITN, (and it was covered by mainstream news, not just pop culture sections) and an event relating to one or a few countries is not an argument against an event(see top of this page). It's also broadcast in many more than "a few" countries. 331dot (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• I make no comment on any of the three admin actions so far, and have no problem in principle with a bit of pop culture on the Main Page. But my jaw drops when I see some of the ITN nominations this has been taken more seriously than. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 00:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. We need to think about precisely what, precisely, is the relevance of this posting. Essentially, it reports a plot development within the Doctor Who Universe; it's akin to posting in 1980, as a major news story, "Darth Vader is revealed to be Luke Skywalker's father in the latest Star Wars film". So what's the relevance of this posting outside of the Doctor Who franchise? What's the relevance for parties outside of the niche? Even postings on teams which have won sports tournaments or actors who have won awards have some widespread interest, because they've reached a significant achievement. Even if regular people don't read about the achievement when it is a news item, they might encounter it in a record book. But why would anybody who doesn't watch Doctor Who care about who plays the Doctor?theBOBbobato (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Pull I have been watching Doctor Who since 1978, I have a hand knit Tom Baker scarf for fuck sake. This being posted against majority opposition is a shameful farce. Why we even go through this when admins will just do what they want is beyond me. Please notify me if there's an ANI over this. I'll contribute a comment there too, even if it won't matter. μηδείς (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The opposition largely consists of "I don't like it", not logical arguments. 331dot (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose/Pull mostly thanks to Prototime's comment. Come on, really? 75.73.114.111 (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

If you feel that there are not enough subjects relating to certain countries or socioeconomic groups, then I suggest you nominate some for posting. That's not a reason to prevent this one. 331dot (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• I enjoy Doctor Who, but to call this "news" is astounding. How will this affect the world? Or anyone? I don't like it? No, I'm thinking critically. I don't see why this was posted when consensus is clearly against. If an admin disagrees with the opinion, fine, but don't go posting it because you don't believe the arguments to be logical. Beerest355 Talk 01:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

If you don't feel this is news, then speak to the numerous media outlets around the world who ran this story(and not just entertainment news outlets). If we're not going to base what goes on here on logical arguments, then we should just take straight votes on everything. 331dot (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

We may as well embed Google News as ITN, then, if we're going to treat newsworthiness as the only relevant issue.theBOBbobato (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry 331dot, but you have not convinced me to change my mind. I don't think you understood the point75.73.114.111 (talk) 01:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

So 331dot, "being covered by a lot of Western media" is a more logical argument than "it is not an encyclopedic topic"? Last I checked, this is an encyclopedia, not a news outlet. If we're going to let articles come in based solely on the fact that they receive a lot of media coverage irrespective of their encyclopedic value, then we might as well replace the "In The News" section with a Google News feed. And you can batter people's arguments with WP:IDONTLIKEIT all you want, and they can just as easily cite back to you WP:ILIKEIT, but both arguments would be irrelevant in this context. The entire ITN nomination process is subjective; there are hardly any objective criteria that guide the process, making that essay's relevance to this conversation negligible. Judging a topic to not be sufficiently encyclopedic in nature to be on the main page because it is pop culture topic of limited interest to most in the world is at least as logical as the blanket argument that that something should come in on the main page simply because "a lot of media covers it!" –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

This is "in the news"; what the media covers is certainly relevant. I'm confused as to what "encyclopedic topic" means; does that mean ITN can only contain stories about new species, governments, and politicians? If Doctor Who is not encyclopedic then I suggest you propose its deletion from this encyclopedia. Saying "it's not important enough" is not an argument against an event without something to back it up- "it's a TV show" doesn't count. Statistics or information does. Some tried to say it's "british-american centric" which aside from being specifically listed as an argument to avoid on this very page, isn't true as this show is seen in dozens of countries by millions and has since the early 1960s. How many programs can you say that about? This page is also concerned with what readers might be looking for, and whether any of us like it or not that includes this event. 331dot (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

India Today might be disappointed in being lumped into "Western media" by you. If you think there are too many "Western media" stories, then nominate some Eastern media stories. 331dot (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Statistics and information are important, yes, but ultimately we are the ones who decide which statistics and information to give value to. You clearly only give value to information relating to the amount of media coverage a topic has. I and others place more value on consistency and fairness in the ITN process, and here, that value is being discarded. The information I base my argument on is the number of encyclopedic topics that are nominated and never make it to ITN despite being of greater relevance to more people in the world than an actor change in a television show, and also on the traditional purposes of a general encyclopedia, which has never been to specially highlight popular culture topics of interest only to their particular fans. –Prototime (talkcontribs) 02:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, if this subject is "unencyclopedic", then propose its removal from this encyclopedia. Something in this encyclopedia cannot be unencyclopedic. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• pull. I think there's a consensus that this doesn't belong on the main page. The rationale for going against WP:consensus was that the opposes were IDONTLIKEIT votes. Prototime and Bob bobato's rationales are hardly IDONTLIKEIT. --24.90.93.88 (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

....which is two people, not most of the oppose votes. 331dot (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

More editors than just Bob bobato and myself, such as 24.90.93.88 in this very part of the conversation, support the rationales we have been giving, or have made other legitimate points. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support retention: when I saw it, I initially thought it not newsworthy enough, but after thinking it through I've come around. Certainly, this is more newsworthy than Cory Monteith dying. The casting of a new lead actor for Doctor Who is typically very big news, particularly in Britain; in 2008, in 2009 when Smith got cast, and this week, there has been a lot of coverage. That the casting show was simulcast in at least four countries (UK, US, Australia, Canada) also lends credence to it not being just a provincial thing (although being provincial is not a disqualifier for American stories). Sceptre ^(talk) 02:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Pull. And people complain about US-bias:one of the reasons for posting was, "it's a British institution." 75.156.68.21 (talk) 04:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• pull Consenses has clearly been against posting this. Being provincial is disqualifier for pop culture things from any other place on the world but UK US apparently, with lack of support. Most likely same people who are supporting this arguing agaist them even. I feel it seems pointless to even discuss things here when administrators can post these things with completely backward reasoning (most of the supports are basically ILIKEIT after all) even against consensus. Usually when it comes to stories from UK/US only I might add. SeraV (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

While I assume good faith, I agree with you that in this instance the posting administrator discarded opposing views simply because he or she disagreed with those views and not because they were invalid arguments that disregarded Wikipedia policy or the ITN criteria. Once all views are properly considered, it is clear that no consensus exists to post this. The article should be immediately pulled. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Look at the serious and quite substantial opposition to this blurb, both before and after posting. Supporters of this one are just bending Wikipedia terms and guidelines to get what they want. Consensus is now clearly in favor of an immediate pull. If that doesn't happen pretty quick I'd actually be in favor of going to a noticeboard, and that is something I very rarely advocate. Jusdafax 05:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Pull I usually try to stay out of these arguments but this stands out, in my view, as deeply unencyclopedic and an embarrassment to the encyclopedia. Is ITN now to become become a popular culture fan site? We can't post the nomination of a new CIA Director but we can go with this blatant fancruft? I question the taste and good sense of everyone involved in supporting this nonsense, especially the posting admin. Shame on you, sir! There is now more opposition than support by far, and I strongly suggest that an admin pull this at once. Jusdafax 04:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment First off the disclaimer : I supported the inclusion within 10 mins of the nomination. Now for the observation, let us not loose sight of what ITN is for, it (in my view) is a set of links to articles that have recently been updated in response to some developing news story, that assist visitors who may be looking for information on a topic (you can reed the official version here), this is a fine balancing act because as everyone knows Wikipedia is not an online newspaper and we cater for a global English speaking world. Now lets look at was this story in the news, well yes it was, there are numerous links above to major news outlets covering this; I happened to be reading the nomination with the main breakfast news on in the background covering it live from the UK, it was second only to the election; as Colonel Warden pointed out "Google gives me 685 fresh news sources for "Capaldi". The comparable figure for "Mugabe" is 398 and "super rugby" is 351. This is big news". So what item did it displace ? well that was a seven day old link to the Cambodian general election, 2013 so to all those that are asking to pull this because its fancruft or that there is no consensus; why is it more important to have that link on the main than the Dr Who one and how does that serve the encyclopaedia ? LGA _talk^edits 05:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

  If the argument "it's already there, so let's keep it even though there's no consensus" were the rule, then Wikipedia's fundamental policy of consensus would be meaningless, and we might as well grant people the right to post whatever they feel like on ITN irrespective of the community's views. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the default in absence of (new) consensus is always the status quo on Wikipedia. The posting admin (Secret) assessed that there was consensus to post at that time. You are welcome to disagree, but as an interested party you aren't really qualified to judge consensus (neither am I). Assuming good faith, Secret's comment that he had no opinion of his own is true. If a decision is not out of process (and there is no evidence this one was), it remains intact until a new consensus forms. Consensus can change, but keep in mind any late comments will always be biased against posting since people are substantially less likely to come here to say something after seeing the post if they are fine with it than if they are not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Although unrelated to my point, I agree that both of us are interested parties and it would be inappropriate for either of us to be in a position to post, pull, or close the discussion, but we are not inhibited from highlighting the flaws in how someone else determined whether consensus existed. Here, Secret justifies the determination of consensus by stating that the views of opposing editors should be ignored because "we shouldn't dismiss anything related to pop culture". However, that pronouncement exists nowhere in Wikipedia policy or the ITN criteria, nor is there any contention that the opposing views in this discussion violate Wikipedia policy or the ITN criteria. An administrator should not dismiss legitimate views when determining consensus even if he or she disagrees with them (per WP:CONSENSUS, not my biased opinion). And when the opposing views in this discussion aren't dismissed, it becomes clear that agreement to post does not exist now nor did it exist at the time of posting. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

This was pulled once already by Fram, who assessed that there was no consensus. Then this was posted again after this got 1 more support vote and 3 more oppose votes. How are you saying that those 4 votes somehow build a new consensus to post? Or are you saying that Fram somehow make a mistake in his own assesment? SeraV (talk) 06:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you read why people are against posting this, some including me are against this because this is such a great example of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. If we start to put pop culture pieces in the news section only ones there will be from UK/US. I personally don't find it very endearing. Yes there are sports but they are generally INT/R which makes them much more fair because people can't oppose or support them based on their geographical location. Basically this nomination makes a very very poor precedence. SeraV (talk) 05:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to be blunt but not to post this because of any perceived WP:SYSTEMICBIAS is just another way of saying it only applies to one or two countries (please see big blue box at the top of page as to why we don't do that). I also don't think that it is an example of that, look at Doctor_Who#International to see where this show gets shown. (for the record I am not a fan, have probably only watched a handful of episodes and none since the revival). LGA _talk^edits 06:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The systemic bias point isn't merely that Doctor Who is relevant only to a few countries; it's that similar pop culture material of relevance to other countries is not included ITN. This disparate treatment of subjects is a clear manifestation of systemic bias and the blue box at the top of the page does not address this issue at all. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• If you want to see pop culture events from other countries, then nominate them. I don't think there are as many that rise to an equivalent level as this one, though(a show on for roughly fifty years, seen in 50 countries and with millions of viewers) 331dot (talk) 09:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not the fault of WP that this received the level of coverage it did (again I should point the stats posted by User:Colonel Warden above) if there was a similar level of reporting for a TV show from a non-english speaking country and we did not post that, then that could well be WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, but to use any perceived WP:SYSTEMICBIAS as a reason to pull this is wrong. It also should be noted that this is the English language version of WP and our readership by its nature is drawn from the English speaking countries so the content of ITN will reflect what the English language news sources are reporting our job here (I am not talking about in articles) is not to try and correct any imbalance or bias. LGA _talk^edits 06:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the systemic bias isn't a good reason for it to be pulled, but I still think it ought to be pulled. The systemic bias is more from an insufficient number of non-English articles getting nominated. I have no personal objection to occasional pop culture passing ITN. If you'd like to see more non-English pop culture also passing ITN, then you should help edit the relevant articles and nominate them. The reason I do not support this on ITN is as I stated before, that it's a mere casting decision, which does not reflect any actual achievement. These are prone to change for a variety of reasons such as contract disputes and are therefore of low lasting encyclopedic value. I'm no big fan of the show, but I could easily imagine some more ITN-worthy details that would make me think "gee whiz" if I saw them on the main page: the airing of the 1000th episode, the 50th anniversary, heck, even a blurb about Capaldi's first appearance in the season premiere when that happens would have more value than a casting decision. Teply (talk) 07:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is just a casting; but we as WP don't get to decided on the value of that; our job is to look at what others are saying, and in this case for better or worse it got a significant news coverage, at the risk of repeating myself ABC News Breakfast (notice not US or UK) ran it as their second story Monday morning (due to the time zones about 3-4 hrs after the announcement) devoting more screen time to it than the first item which was the calling of the election. It was written about and covered in main stream news reports in numerous countries. Are there more ITN-worthy stories out there that wont get the level of coverage and wont get posted - Yes; but that is not WP's fault and it moist defiantly not the fault of ITN. LGA _talk^edits 07:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it is the fault of WP. It's the Wikipedians' job to be "above" the mainstream media and winnow out what really is of encyclopedic importance. Then again, maybe that's just my idealism showing.Teply (talk) 07:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

English wikipedia is far more international than any other language wiki, that's why we should strive to be as balanced and neutral as possible. I agree that some bias here is a necessary evil. But we should still try to be something else than merely a soundhorn for british and american niche interest. SeraV (talk) 07:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

In your view it is a niche interest; you may be right but the issue as far as I see it is news editors did not think so. LGA _talk^edits 07:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Media coverage is not some sort of gospel that we should blindly follow here, we make our own decisions. At least we should. Newspapers do write stories about things that are important to their own citizens, but those aren't necessarily (and often aren't) important enough for us to put in the news here. This is niche in a way that it only is mostly important to british and then only a certain group of british, those who are fans of the show. This has no international importance whatsoever, sure it has been coveraged in other countries, but then most stories are. SeraV (talk) 08:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

For almost everywhere else on WP you are 110% right, but here in "In the news" we do have to look at what the media (across multiple countries) is covering and give the amount of coverage full weight. LGA _talk^edits 09:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Pull This isn't major news. We have an very high bar for other things (national elections, almost never regional ones; accidents only if there's a high death toll or some other significance; etc.). Doctor Who is culturally significant, but unless it's cancelled or something similarly momentous happens, I don't think it should be on ITN. wctaiwan (talk) 05:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral I'm not sure here if it's "major news" or not. I don't pay attention to this kind of stuff. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 05:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Pull The clear consensus (definition: majority of opinion) in this discussion is for this to be removed from ITN. I don't know if I have ever seen so many pull votes for an item as this one has. --PlasmaTwa2 07:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• It would appear to me that the consensus has been established for this item to be pulled. --Tone 09:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

On what grounds does it need to be pulled ? - is there a error ? is it not in the news ? is there a WP:BLP problem ? You should reverse that and discuss it here and not take a unilateral unannounced action. LGA _talk^edits 09:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I also call for the pull to be reversed; the opposes are mostly "WP:IDONTLIKEIT and have no logical reason for their opposition; "It isn't major news", the news would disagree; "it's not important", in your opinion"; "it's unencyclopedic", something in this encyclopedia cannot be unencyclopedic. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• This is insane - as an observer and reader, can I just say how insanely unprofessional this makes WP look. I don't have strong opinions over whether it should be posted or pulled or whatever, but at this point I'd strongly oppose posting it again purely on the basis that constantly deleting and re-adding something to the main page makes us look crazy. Organics^LRO 09:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • What makes us look particularly crazy is the high number of Opposes that are just factually wrong. These especially include the claims of it only being a US-British thing. That's clearly wrong, but none of the several people pushing that line have yet apologised, nor changed their vote to Support. If the Oppose school cannot get facts right, nor apologise, nor recant, THAT'S a very bad look for Wikipedia. (Oh, and I neither support nor oppose this. I just HATE poor argument!) HiLo48 (talk) 10:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Ridiculous wheel warring This does make a mockery of the whole page, has "In the news" finally outlived usefulness. LGA _talk^edits 09:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Ladies and gentlemen, per WP:WHEEL we can bring, at the very least, Tone, to Arbcom for a desysoping for wheel warring. Tone, could you please give reasoning more than just "consensus has been established" to foreclude that? There needs to be discussion here, people, especially from those who are playing keep-away with WHEEL. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

According to rules at WP:Wheel Tone wouldn't be the only admin to be taken to Arbcom. I think it's rather rude to start calling for an admin to be punished because they made a decision you do not disagree with. Why not try changing the minds of the thirteen people who called for the item to be pulled after it was reposted instead of immediately going after the admin? --PlasmaTwa2 10:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced any admin here needs to be punished, but the thirteen people need to have a better reason than IDONTLIKEIT. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think IDONTLIKEIT is applicable to every oppose given, just the same as how not every support is a logical, well thought-out piece of critical analysis (WP:LWTOPCA?). Many of the pulls have given legitimate and logical concerns based upon the conventions ITN has ran upon for years and others question the true significance of the item, which I think is a legitimate argument to be had. --10:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• By my reading, the only one who has not tried to make his or her point absolutely clear (i.e. initiated or offered discussion regarding post/unpost, rather than just "it's done") is Tone. I couldn't give a rats what happens to this nomination, but the admins here need to stop the wheel warring. If all of them come up in front of Arbcom, so be it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I don't think there was any malicious intent here by any admin(even the ones who improperly pulled this) so I think a desysopping is not appropriate. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm hoping such an act will not be needed either. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Consensus was, in my opinion, not totally clear when this was posted by User:Secret; however it's certainly not clear that there was no consensus either. I don't think Secret was wrong to post it. Given the blunt number of pull comments (and we can have a seperate debate about wether the arguments to pull were good, bad or indifferent) since the seond posting, I think Tone was quite right to pull this as well - in fact I was considering doing so myself (FWIW). Those calling for desysopping per WP:WHEEL need to get a sense of perspective over what we're discussing. This isn't some punitive block or deletion. It's two lines on ITN - and the presence or absence of this bit of news there does nothing particularly to either promote or damage the encyclopedia. Pedro : Chat 10:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep it pulled I would had strongly opposed it had I not being too busy with other things and since this came on in ITN earlier today, I think Wikipedia have brought themselves to a new low. I mean there have been so many blurbs that deserved better than this, talking about significance compared to other sci-fi shows, have this won any serious awards that is non-British (Golden Globes and Emmy). Donnie Park (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• I completely support Tone's action, obviously, and have already given my reasoning why I felt the tv show actor blurb should be pulled. It was posted, then pulled and unlike Pedro, above, in my view this never should have been re-posted by Secret, with what I'd call highly dubious reasoning - and if need be I will go to any civil lengths needed to defend Tone's appropriate corrective action for listening to a clear consensus. Calls for sanctions are way out of line, as Pedro notes. I am hoping cooler heads will now prevail: editors on both sides really need to drop the stick and walk away. Jusdafax 10:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

  There is very little opposition that isn't IDONTLIKEIT, and a lot of that has been refuted. If we're going to include those kinds of opposes, then we should just hold actual binding votes on this page and forget about reasoning and logical arguments. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Keep pulled. Nowhere near any of the other current events in actual importance, and of very narrow regional interest only. And the show of consensus against this item on this page is overwhelming. Trying to dismiss these oppose votes as mere "don'tlikeit" opinions is misguided, because ITN selection is, by its very nature, largely and unavoidably a matter of subjective judgment of importance, so subjective opinions about what we as editors find important, and, even more crucially, what image of Wikipedia's editorial priorities and principles we want to see projected on the main page, do have a legitimate place in this discussion. As such, the oppose votes are legitimate. Fut.Perf.☼ 11:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

  So we should just hold binding votes then, if arguments don't matter or this is about "subjective judgement". 331dot (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, this is sad. We have abandoned aiming for quality discussion, and are just counting votes. Depressing. HiLo48 (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, clearly this is helping. --PlasmaTwa2 11:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Don't re-post I didn't give a very good explanation as to why I opposed above...simply put, this should of never of been nominated. This is simply not front-page news to begin with, and re-posting a story that is now stale...plus the fact there isn't enough support...? No no, put this to bed. And I was waiting on tenterhooks for the announcement on Sunday, so stick that up your bias pipe and smoke it! Hehe. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

  There is no requirement that something be on the front page in large print(I did see this on a few front pages, if not near the top). 331dot (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Ad that's where the facts get in the way of the Oppose and WP:IDONTLIKEIT VOTES. Read the thread properly. It was major new all around the world. This discussion is appalling. I didn't think we had so many incompetent editors here. HiLo48 (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Get a grip and stop attacking people based on the fact you don't like their reasons for opposing. "It was major new all around the world." No, it wasn't - an outright, distorted half-truth and you know it. You are confusing major hype of non-importance with real news. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)if we are making the benchmark "front-page news" (or for sports - back page) then we need to start to scrap a lot of things from ITN/R and lets start by pulling Lavasoa dwarf lemur off now. LGA _talk^edits 11:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support This 'casting decision' was worldwide news, precisely because it affects the future direction of TV show that has major cultural significance to millions of people spread across several countries around the world. Anyone who claims otherwise is either being deliberately obtuse, or is just too incompetent to be even commenting here. Alongside the factual programme Top Gear, it's basically one of the two crown jewels of the BBC, a worldwide broadcaster, which is why both shows make them millions through BBC Worldwide. If you don't like Wikipedia posting stuff like this that is so clearly "In the News", why not change the title to something more appropriate, like stuff that I like and you might too?. The title "In the News" is clearly wrong when things like a new bat species, a new leader of a tiny island, or a new ISS rotation, are posted, despite the media not giving a tiny rat's ass about any of those 'events of global significance', certainly not when compared to the coverage announcements like ths get. As for the people claiming Doctor Who is not 'encyclopedic', what are you smoking? If that was really true, then why the hell does Wikipedia, the "online encyclopedia", have 1947 articles on it? It's stupidity like this that takes a lot of the gloss off of Wikipedia as an otherwise fine project. DW meter (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: it's ridiculous to post on ITN a casting decision of a show that's mainly popular in the UK. There's got to be hundreds of popular TV dramas in India, China, Brazil, Mexico, Egypt, etc. that get higher viewership than Doctor Who (and many of them are popular in multiple countries). Are we ready to post casting calls of all those shows as well? -Zanhe (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

---

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

New species of cavefish

Articles:Cavefish (talk · history · tag) and Typhleotris mararybe (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:A new species of cavefish, Typhleotris mararybe, is discovered in Madagascar. (Post)
News source(s):The Guardian
Credits:

• Nominated by Andise1 (talk · give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Not sure how notable this is but I thought it might be notable enough for ITN (even though some people are not huge on new species stories). Andise1 (talk) 02:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Unfortunately cavefish redirects to Amblyopsidae, an unrelated family of cave-dwelling fish from the United States. There is no article on cave fish! So to be posted an article on Typhleotris mararybe would have to be created expanded (and perhaps one on fish who live in caves). As for ITN-worthiness, there are 150-170 known species of cave-dwelling fish in the world, a nice low number and roughly the same as the number of described lemur species, so finding one more is rather significant. Abductive (reasoning) 03:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Cavefish should probably be turned into a dab page. Any idea what other taxon(s) are commonly referred to as "cave fish" besides Amblyopsidae? Obviously there is at least one, but it is not immediately apparent to me what level of classification Typhleotris mararybe and related cave fish share in common. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I decided to make cave fish as dab page and leave cavefish as a redirect. Still looking for an answer to my question above if anyone has any insight. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Cave fish evolve from whatever surface species there happen to be in the area, so there is no connection (other than they are all freshwater, as far as I know). I have other stuff to do irl but I'm thinking about this situation. Abductive (reasoning) 15:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Yah, I should have been more clear... The linked article implies there is some relationship between this fish and the otehr cave fish mentioned (which is not all by any means). The question is not what all cave-dwelling fish have in common but what taxons are commonly called "cavefish". Please review/expand/fix the cave fish dab page if you get a chance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, unfortunately, as I have begun the article it seems the fish was described in 2012, meaning this nom is stale. No idea why it is hitting the lay press now. Abductive (reasoning) 03:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Stale per Abductive. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

August 3

Portal:Current events/2013 August 3

Current events of August 3, 2013 (2013-08-03) (Saturday) edit history watch Armed conflict and attacks War in Afghanistan (2001–present): Nine children die in a suicide bombing near the Indian consulate in the Afghan city of Jalalabad. (CNN) Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal): At least eight people have been killed in violence across Iraq. (AFP via Al-Aribya) Syrian civil war: Syrian rebels capture an ammunition depot with anti-tank missiles and rockets north of Damascus. (Reuters) Disasters and accidents A man crashes his car into a crowd of pedestrians in Venice Beach, California, U.S., injuring eleven people and killing one. The driver fled the scene and was being sought by authorities, but later turned himself in. (CNN) (CBS Los Angeles) Crimes 16-year-old Hannah Anderson was abducted after cheerleading practice from Sweetwater High School in National City, California. The suspect was later identified by authorities as 40-year-old James Lee DiMaggio, owner of a home in Boulevard, California. The bodies of her mother Christina and brother Ethan Anderson and the family's dog, Cali, were found in DiMaggio's burned home. DiMaggio was later killed by FBI agents during a shootout at the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness in Idaho, where he had been camping with Hannah Anderson. Politics and elections Hassan Rouhani receives his presidential precept and enters to the Sa'dabad Palace to begin his work as President of Iran. (BBC) (theGuardian) (CNN) Zimbabwean general election, 2013: Robert Mugabe is declared the run-away winner of Zimbabwe's controversial presidential election by a 61% majority, extending his 33-year rule. (AFP via News24) Opposition candidate Morgan Tsvangirai promises legal challenges to the results and the refusal of the MDC-T party to cooperate with Mugabe's Zanu-PF. (The Independent) A commissioner of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission resigns, citing the conduct of the election process. (AllAfrica) Sport In rugby union, the Chiefs win the 2013 Super Rugby Final, defeating the Brumbies 27-22 at Waikato Stadium in Hamilton, New Zealand. (Bleacher Report) (Sky News Australia) Television YTV Premiere of Oh No! It's an Alien Invasion

---

West Germany systematic doping

Article:Doping in sport (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:A study reveals that West Germany had a government-funded, systematic doping program. (Post)
News source(s):Original from sueddeutsche.de and Google translation
Credits:

• Nominated by 88.88.162.176 (talk · give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Revelation of a large scale doping program. Covered in my local paper (non-German) as well (e.g. this article). --88.88.162.176 (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wait - right now this is unsubstantiated allegations by a newspaper about an unpublished government report. If the story proves to be accepted as plausible when the report is published then of course this is huge news. However, it is probably too soon for ITN given the extraordinary nature of the claims (no athlete or official has ever come forward with such allegation before as far as I know; keeping such a large scale conspiracy quite for 40 years is improbable to say the least). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and we aren't there yet. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Huffington post article

John Palmer

Article:John Palmer (TV journalist) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s):NBC News, CNN, CBS News
Credits:

• Nominated by 331dot (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Jab73 (talk · give credit) and Kennvido (talk · give credit)

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: Nothing in the RD line currently so I thought I'd nominate this; journalist with a long career and several awards, including two Emmys and the Merriman Smith Memorial Award for excellence in presidential journalism(was the first broadcast journalist to receive that award). I believe that suggests he was notable in his field. --331dot (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Nothing personal, but this guy was on the C-end of the B-list, and he was on air during the time I actually watched broadcast news. There won't be a single iconic clip or accomplishment on youtube or elsewhere to demonstrate his influence, notability, or markworthiness. μηδείς (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

How many "B-list" people have won two emmys? 331dot (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Plenty of people in all fields win awards and then fade out of focus. So with regret, it's a no. doktorb _words^deeds 14:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no requirement that someone be recently notable in their field. I also would disagree with that contention, given the many comments from current journalists that have been mentioned in the media. 331dot (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Super Rugby

Article:2013 Super Rugby Final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:In rugby union, Chiefs defeat Brumbies to win the Super Rugby championship for the second consecutive season. (Post)
News source(s):ESPN Scrum, Stuff.co.nz, BBC
Credits:

• Updated by Shudde (talk · give credit) and Stemoc (talk · give credit)

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.

61.245.25.7 (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• This still on ITNR? I've seen page views way better than this one, even on countries where whites are not a majority... –HTD 03:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Since we don't really care about page views here, this is hardly relevant. SeraV (talk) 08:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Needs more of an update on the final before it can be considered. LGA _talk^edits 04:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Please drop the silly nicknames from the blurb and tell us where these teams are really from. HiLo48 (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Those are their names. We can't decide to call them something else. We could say Hamilton-based Chiefs (rugby union), and Canberra-based Brumbies, but I think it's pointless. - Shudde^talk 07:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Why is it pointless? Are you saying that these teams don't really represent anybody or anywhere? Are they just the playthings of some rich bastards who just buy the best players? (Like Manchester United?) If they don't represent anywhere, what does this even prove? And why should we post it? HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
      • The Chiefs represent Bay of Plenty, Counties Manukau, King Country, Thames Valley and Waikato – that might be a little verbose for ITN. Why don't you click the Chiefs article rather than just asking questions? This information is in there. They are based in Hamilton, but do play outside of the city sometimes. So Hamilton-based is accurate, but it paints an incomplete picture. I'm happy leaving the blurb as is. You offered no suggestions, just a complaint (that you didn't like the names). -- Shudde^talk 07:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Strewth, these teams are from different countries! Surely that's worth a mention? Or is this a refreshing acknowledgement that many modern sports teams are just collections of players bought by a wealthy person or consortium to play together to satisfy a TV audience, and don't represent anything at all? Should we follow that lead for all professional sports? Leave out the localities? HiLo48 (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support -- Has been updated. On ITNR. - Shudde ^talk 07:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Posted I omitted the city names because they're not part of the team names and I don't feel they add much to the blurb. It's also unlikely people will know where "Hamilton" is without having to click on the link to the city name. -- tariqabjotu 08:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

[Updated] Fonterra recall

Article:2013 Fonterra recall (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Dairy producer Fonterra announces a large recall of products potentially infected with botulism-causing bacteria across seven countries. (Post)
News source(s):BBC, NY Times
Credits:

• Updated and nominated by ThaddeusB (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Medeis (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Fonterra is New Zealand's largest company and the world's largest exporter of dairy products. The recall of this scale - big enough to attract attention in multiple countries that aren't directly effected - is quite rare. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• A dollar/Euro value figure would be more convincing than the national origin. The NYT doesn't mention one. μηδείς (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • 1,000 tons of product - not sure what that equates to in money, but it is obviously a lot. Nomination is based primarily on it affecting 7 countries. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I'd have thought that we would care more about the babies than the dollars. HiLo48 (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, you know me, always trying to kill the babies to earn the shekels. Don't be silly, HiLo, some sort of objective measure is helpful, and 1,000 tons is really not that much in the scope of things. μηδείς (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support per nom. SeraV (talk) 08:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support; event affecting many countries. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support for the reasons above doktorb _words^deeds 14:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose If we assume the wholesale value of this product is $1/kg we are looking at a total market value of $1 million, which as far as recalls go is nothing. μηδείς (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Our food-recall category seems a bit scattershot, but the Peanut Corporation of America recall accompanied 9 deaths, almost 1,000 salmonella cases, and did an estimated US $1,000,000,000.00 in damage. The 2008 Irish pork crisis did an estimated Euro 100,000,000.00 in damages and may have shortened the lifespan of the average Irishman by a year (i.e., 20% of the population by five years). μηδείς (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Note: A stand-alone article now exists, and work is currently underway --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The article itself is not objectionable, but almost every other sentence needs some sort of attention. μηδείς (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per Medeis. At the moment there appears to be no effects of the contamination besides the recall, fortunately. Hot Stop talk-contribs 19:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

So you think this is not news if no-one has got sick or died? I can similarly argue that if we post this it might stop some people from buying or using affected products. SeraV (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Which is an entirely invalid reason to post (or will we start posting Tornado warnings and nutrtional adviceto save lives?) and as worded "so you think" amounts to a personal attack. Try assuming good faith and focussing on the topic--not motives and editors. μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not very good reason either to oppose just because there are no victims in cases like this. And well if hot stop took that as a personal attack he can tell me and I apologise. It certainly wasn't meant as one, and since he agreed that that was his argument your opinion about this just seems petty. How about you try assuming good faith before you start throwing around accusations. SeraV (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is my argument at this point. Hot Stoptalk-contribs 20:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

China banned the import of powdered milk products from NZ+Australia today. 90% of China's imports come from NZ. Its unclear how long teh ban will last, but say it is one month - that amounts to $140 million of lost sales for NZ/$140 million of product China needs to find a new source for. I'd say that is a pretty significant effect above and beyond the recall itself. Russia which wasn't even part of the recall is also blocking Fonterra imports temporarily. There are ways to measure impact besides deaths. Here it seems the problem was found before much product got into the hands of consumers, but that doesn't mean there are no consequences. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose A 1,000 toms sound like a lot without any frame of reference but some quick checks show it is a fairly small quantity. A 1,000 toms is roughly equivalent to 1 million kg (long tons are a little more, short tons a little less, and 1,000 tonnes are exactly 1,000,000 kg). This compares to 1.3 billion tons of production for New Zealand in 2007 (as shown by Dairy farming in New Zealand), of which Fonterra controls ~94.8%. The math is a little rough due to rounding in the available numbers, but the recall volume works out to a little less than 30% of a single day's average volume for the company. This in turn could be caused by problems with one day worth of production at one of the company's four processing facilities. --Allen3 ^talk 20:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Not only that, but the 1,000 tons are diluted product. It is actually only 42 tons of whey protein, not 1,000, compared to the 1.3 billion total tons of milk solids. μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• I still oppose this, but it is well updated. μηδείς (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Question, was that business with the adulterated Chinese baby food ever posted to ITN? Abductive (reasoning) 03:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • If you are referring to 2008 Chinese milk scandal, it was posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Shanghai Tower

Article:Shanghai Tower (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:The Shanghai Tower, the tallest Chinese structure of any kind, tops out. (Post)
Alternative blurb:The Shanghai Tower, the world's second tallest building, tops out.
News source(s):Xinhua, China News, BBC
Credits:

• Nominated by Guardian of the Rings (talk · give credit)
• Updated by QatarStarsLeague (talk · give credit) and Guardian of the Rings (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Also the structural completion of the world's first trio of supertall skyscrapers. May modify the blurb accordingly to serve as a hook. --GotR ^Talk 22:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - It's more than twice as tall as The Shard, which was on ITN last year. The blurb should probably also mention that it's the second tallest building in the world. -Zanhe (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support but the blurb should simply state that it is the second tallest building in the world. 331dot (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support and agree on blurb that says second tallest in world. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
• Question. So is the tallest or the second tallest? I think that makes a big difference to whether it should be posted. A new worlds-tallest-building seems to come along regularly enough that even that might be questionable, without us starting to post just any really tall building. Formerip (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

  When completed, it will be the second-tallest building. I don't, however, see the need to stick to superlatives. For one thing, the Burj Khalifa set a very high mark; Shanghai Tower is about three-quarters the height of Burj Khalifa, and it will still be the second-tallest building in the world. It took more than twenty-five years for the Sears Tower to be surpassed, and it wasn't much taller than other buildings at the time. Among buildings currently under construction, only one -- Kingdom Tower -- is taller than the Burj Khalifa. It won't be completed until at least 2019, if it's completed at all. (We also have Sky City, which China hopes to be constructed in less than a year next year, but I'll believe it when I see it.) So, second-tallest building is about the best feat in this field we can expect for awhile. -- tariqabjotu 23:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment To the above, despite reports in the media, it's not the second-tallest building in the world until it's completed and habitable (see the last two pages of this document). And I believe that's generally why we wait until the building is open for business, not topped out. That's what happened with The Shard and the Burj Khalifa (although I believe we may also posted the latter when it became the world's tallest structure during construction), and what seemed to be the consensus for One World Trade Center. -- tariqabjotu 23:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
• The second-tallest building in the world is obviously notable enough for ITN, but since the topping out height isn't a record, we should probably wait for completion of the building as we usually do. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
• WP:TOSOON Come back when it is finished and open (as with the The Shard) we don't post construction milestones. LGA _talk^edits 23:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

oppose tallest only in 1 country and also per LGA.Lihaas (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

An alt. blurb has already been suggested to make it about the world in general, but the fact that it only deals with one country (the most populated in the world) is not relevant: "Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." 331dot (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per precedence. When I nominated the topping out of One World Trade Center a few months ago, it was shot down with no supports, and I agreed to withdraw and wait until the building opens. What's the difference here? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Talking robot in space

Article: Kirobo (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: The first talking robot astronaut, Kirobo, is launched into space. (Post)
News source(s): The Telegraph
Credits:

• Nominated by Andise1 (talk · give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: The first talking robot astronaut is launched into space. Andise1 (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose according to the "features" section of the article the construct serves no actual purpose whatsoever. μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, gimmick with no relevance to robotics or to space exploration whatsoever. Abductive (reasoning) 22:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above reasons. 331dot (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Missy Franklin and Swimming at the 2013 World Aquatics Championships

Articles:Missy Franklin (talk · history · tag) and Swimming at the 2013 World Aquatics Championships (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Missy Franklin wins a record-equaling fifth gold medal at the World Aquatics Championships in swimming at the age of 18. (Post)
News source(s):The Globe and MailChicago Tribune
Credits:

• Nominated by Donnie Park (talk · give credit)

Both articles need updating

Nominator's comments: Since the World Aquatics Championships is not on ITN/R, I may as well nominate this. A fifth medal in a single world championships is a record equalling amount or do we wait until she gets her sixth. I do not know what is in store for her for the final day tomorrow but if she breaks the record, then I will put more weight to it. --Donnie Park (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. The World Aquatics Championships does not mention Missy Franklin. Would the relevant article about swimming at this event be a better target? FerdinandFrog (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Made the amendment. Donnie Park (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm game. It is a record achievement at a major world championship event. It should be "Missy Franklin wins a record-equaling fifth gold medal...", however. Resolute 18:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support now - The World Aquatics should be ITN/R and I was planning on nominating it at the conclusion. Even ignoring that, the record makes this year especially notable and should be posted now (it can be adjusted if things change - I assume she will swim the 4×100 m medley relay which the US has a good chance to win). I would leave off "at age 18" though as that is of little importance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

  Note - Event article would need a significant prose update. Franklin's article is sort of updated, but the new section is completely unreferenced. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

oppose individual mentions but support the overall mention of the tournament in line with all sports tournamanets we list. and yes, it should be added to ITNR\Lihaas (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Neutral while it's interesting, it's not record-breaking until the record is broken. Perhaps then it'd be worth a punt at nomination. Right now it's just trivia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
• Question and Comment Are we sure this is a record? I'm sure I've heard claims like this in the past. Of course, these days, there are a lot more events than swimmers decades ago had the chance to compete in. And, only swimmers from countries with lots of competitors near the highest level have a chance of winning relays. A great swimmer from a lesser nation in swimming will never have that opportunity. To count relay wins as part of a swimmer's total glory is discriminatory. (And I say this as someone from a strong swimming nation where the media does this all the time.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. "X nearly breaks a record" doesn't cut it. Formerip (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
• Update. Franklin have broke the record with a sixth medal, new blurb as below. Donnie Park (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• In swimming, Missy Franklin wins a record-breaking sixth gold medal at the World Aquatics Championships.

• Neutral to the story, but opposed to any blurb which does not clarify what record Missy has broken. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 20:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent Deaths: Venkateswaran Dakshinamoorthy

Article: V. Dakshinamoorthy (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Times of India Deccan Chronicle New Indian Express
Credits:

• Nominated by Andise1 (talk · give credit)

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: "Venkateswaran Dakshinamoorthy was a veteran carnatic musician and music director of Malayalam, Tamil and Hindi films, predominantly in Malayalam films. He has set scores for the songs in over 125 films. He has to his credit as many as 859 songs composed over a period of 50 years." Andise1 (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Long career with recognition suggests he is notable in his field. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Even if I would support this, article is not good enough to be posted. Is there actually any change that it might be updated enough to post? SeraV (talk) 08:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't see evidence in the article of major awards or achievements of the kind we often consider in judging someone for RD. He doesn't seem to have ever been nominated for the Filmfare Awards (or Filmfare Awards South), for example. What is it that might put him at the top of his field? Formerip (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
• Lean towards support I have a sneaking suspicion that there's a decent nomination in this somewhere. The article suffers from over-heading syndrome. doktorb _words^deeds 07:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2

Portal:Current events/2013 August 2

Current events of August 2, 2013 (2013-08-02) (Friday) edit history watch Armed conflicts and attacks Syrian Civil War: An ammunition depot explodes in Homs, Syria, killing at least 40 people and critically injuring many more. (Sentinel Source) Disasters and accidents The United States Food and Drug Administration names Taylor Farms as the source of cyclospora parasite tainted salads that sickened 223 diners in the US states of Nebraska and Iowa. (NBC News) International relations The United States Department of State announces a worldwide travel alert for U.S. citizens and some embassies throughout Southwest Asia and North Africa will be closed following an al-Qaeda threat. (CNN) (AP via Washington Post) The UK Foreign Office has warned its embassy staff in Southwest Asia to be vigilant as Eid al-Fitr approaches. British embassies remained open. (WSJ) In his Ramadan message to Muslims, Pope Francis calls for mutual respect. The message is timed for the Muslim feast of Eid al-Fitr, Since 1967, the Vatican has issued an annual greeting to the world’s Muslims on that date. (CNN) Politics and elections The Zimbabwe Electoral Commission says that Robert Mugabe's ZANU-PF party has won 142 seats of 210 seats in the general election. (BBC) Samantha Power is sworn in as the new United States Ambassador to the United Nations by Vice President Joe Biden. (Wall Street Journal) There will be a run-off election on August 11 in the Malian presidential election between Ibrahim Boubacar Keita and Soumaïla Cissé as no candidate could achieve a majority in the election held earlier this week. (Reuters) Science and technology A new primate, the Lavasoa dwarf lemur, is discovered in Madagascar. (Sci-News.com)

---

[Posted] Robert Mugabe

Article: Zimbabwean general election, 2013 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: In the Zimbabwean general election Robert Mugabe is reelected as President and Zanu-PF win a majority of parliamentary seats (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

• Nominated by The Rambling Man (talk · give credit)
• Updated by ThaddeusB (talk · give credit)

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: Don't think this is ITN/R given the status of Zim, but this is certainly a newsworthy item, paticularly considering the indications (and denials) of rigging. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• He's the recognized head of state of Zimbabwe, regardless of how he carries that job out, so this is ITNR ("The results of the elections for head of state, In the those countries which qualify under the criteria above, and where the head of state is an elected position.") 331dot (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• I believe the most relevant article would be Zimbabwean general election, 2013, which has some decent background but has no update on the results. - 20:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose any opposition would be jailed or shot, no? μηδείς (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Possibly true. I'm going with reliable sources. You? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    • It's still nominally an election, even if the outcome is predetermined due to intimidation or outright rigging. 331dot (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Funnily enough, we have outside observers saying it's a fair election, and mainstream news outlets declaring a massive win for Mugabe. How odd is that? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The Telegraph article you've quoted cites a state of almost hysteria on the part of actual interviewees, and quotes the Marxist front organization Southern African Development Community, dedicated to black rule, as declaring the election free and fair. μηδείς (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Point of information: I didn't quote any article from the Daily Telegraph, you must be mistaken, or else you're talking to someone else, either way this comment is incorrectly indented and confusing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Just for everyone's information, apparently the African Union has also called it free and fair with only minor issues, though the EU has said their were big problems. 331dot (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• • In all seriousness, I don't think this would happen this year. 15 years ago, yes, but since there have been steps toward more power sharing, especially since Mugabe realized that it was freer elections or a big crackdown by other nations in Africa. In addition, regarding this election, the Southern African Development Community election observers said "the elections had been free and peaceful". However, the article also states that massive fraud was suspected. So even though the opposition wouldn't be jailed or shot, it's not as if ZANU-PF would simply let them win. Spencer^T♦C 15:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
    • My impression the key to this is that Mugabe would quite probably have been inclined to rig this election had he needed to, but the MDC have spent the past five years blowing their credibility. Whatever anyone's take is, though, there's no clause in ITNR that we post general elections provided we are happy about the outcome. Formerip (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
• I second the directly above. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
• Changed both the focus article and the blurb, as elections should have as the primary article that for the election rather than an individual. By the way, I don't think the presidential result is official yet.--LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Apparently it is official now; despite our collective misgivings, it's not really Wikipedia's job to call foul on election proceedings. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Its ITNR so it WILL be posted when updated. Medeis' non-reason presumption aside. Also the AU sanctioned it . V.s. partisan opposition parties crying foul. alone.Lihaas (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Updated - I updated/cleaned up article to (hopefully) meet minimum ITN standards. Unless someone objects on quality grounds, the article is ready to post. (For the record, I am against blindly posting all elections but this one is actually quite important.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The results section has only two sources. If the accusations section is to be added then the blurb is no good. (Given the huge coverage of corruption) We need a more neutral blurb in any case, so I don't think a full 3-5 sources in the results would actually be enough. μηδείς (talk) 04:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Reactions would also be considered part of the update and is where all the Western concern went... Not including any accusation in the blurb is kind of the definition of neutral; I fail to see how adding accusation would make it more neutral. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Posted I went back to the original blurb as results of elections for legislative bodies are not ITN/R and, thus, are usually not posted unless it's for a prime minister position or where the nomination is specifically for that. I dated the event August 3 as that appears to be the date that the official announcement came out (even though this nomination is dated August 2). -- tariqabjotu 09:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Question how does the Cambodian election get the "allegations of irregularities" treatment, but Mugabe gets a pass? [60] [61] [62] --76.110.201.132 (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Adam and Eve

Consensus against posting. I'm closing this now before discussion gets too far off topic. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

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

---

Article: Adam and Eve (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Scientists conclude that Adam lived over 135,000 years ago, longer than what had previously been suspected and that Adam did not know Eve at the time of their existence. (Post)
News source(s): NBC News Bloomberg Daily Mail Xinhua
Credits:

• Nominated by Andise1 (talk · give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: New research shows that Adam lived a longer time ago than previously thought and that Adam did not know Eve at the time of their existence. Andise1 (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)e

• Comment. The topics are Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve. These have no real relation to the Bible story, and I don't see how the reference to Eve in this context is even relevant. Dragons flight (talk) 03:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, my bad. feel free to modify the blurb to correct it to a version you think is suitable. I did not intend to link to the bible Adam and Eve but I must have not been paying much attention. Andise1 (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. We did a story on Y-chromosomal Adam a few months ago when there was a major revision to the date. That Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve were probably separated by thousands of years has been an established part of the science ever since those terms were coined. Also this doesn't seem to be a new discovery, only a minor refinement. The date quoted in these new stories fall within the established range for the non-A00 Haplogroup Y-chromosomal Adam. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 07:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Request Get rid of the POV religious nonsense. Then I'll think about this. HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Unlike Y-chromosomal Aaron, Y-Adam and mt-Eve have literally no connection with the biblical figures of the same names, and it was already well-known that they could not have been contemporaries. The blurb misrepresents the story, which in turn is not that interesting. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per AlexTiefling. Besides, these two conceptual humans in anthropology have nothing to do with the religious figures, and should never be confused. Linking to that article would be wildly inappropriate. Modest Genius ^talk 11:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Stale this is a rehash of the story on a new Y chromosomal adam date from a few months back. μηδείς (talk) 13:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, nominator has mistaken a resurrected story in the popular press for news. Abductive (reasoning) 14:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose A disgusting attempt to shoehorn religion into old science. Fgf10 (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasons above - I actually got a bit worried there, thinking whether my world's been toppled onto its head. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 15:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Simply not good science. And please, Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. I personally think Evolution is a Satanic lie as do many others, so keep it off the front page. God bless. --85.211.118.34 (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

  Please read Wikipedia:ITN#Criteria to learn the criteria by which ITN nominations are judged. Note that Wikipedia is supposed to have a neutral point of view when discussing a notable topic; neutrality does not mean Wikipedia censors certain topics because some editors are offended by them (see WP:UNCENSORED). –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

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

August 1

Portal:Current events/2013 August 1

Current events of August 1, 2013 (2013-08-01) (Thursday) edit history watch Armed conflicts and attacks War in Afghanistan (2001–present): NATO forces in Afghanistan launch an investigation after a US airstrike in Nangarhar Province kills five Afghan policemen and injures another two. (ABC News Australia) Business and finance The Dow Jones Industrial Average and S&P 500 hit record highs. (Marketwatch) International relations American National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden is granted a one-year temporary political asylum in Russia and leaves Moscow's Sheremetyevo Airport. (RT) (CNN) In talks in Manila, the Philippines and Vietnam agree to work together on a framework for resolving maritime territorial disputes in the South China Sea. (Voice of America) Law and crime Russian police detain 1,200 illegal Vietnamese migrants in raids in Moscow. (ABC News) Eight people are arrested in Greece for allegedly trying to smuggle weapons into Turkey. (IANS via Vancouver Desi) The U.S. states of Minnesota and Rhode Island begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. (MSNBC) The Dhaka High Court rules the registration of Bangladesh's largest Islamic group Jamaat-e-Islami as a political party illegal making it potentially ineligible to contest elections. (Bloomberg) The government of Uruguay legalizes the medical usage of marijuana, restricting legal purchases to Uruguayans in that country. (New York Times) Former school bus driver Ariel Castro is sentenced to life plus a thousand years for kidnapping three women and holding them hostage for a decade in Cleveland, Ohio. (ABC News Australia) Italy's top court confirms that former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi will serve a prison sentence for a tax fraud conviction. (Al-Jazeera via Yahoo!) Politics The Prime Minister of Tuvalu, Willy Telavi, is removed from office by Governor General Iakoba Italeli after accusations that he allegedly tried to replace Italeli as Governor General. Opposition leader Enele Sopoaga is appointed as the country's acting Prime Minister. (Islands Business) Geoff Thorn, the General Manager of Parliamentary Service in the Parliament of New Zealand, submits his resignation to the Speaker David Carter after phone and other data belonging to Fairfax New Zealand journalist Andrea Vance were released to an inquiry without her permission. (TV New Zealand) Robert Mugabe's ZANU-PF party claims victory in yesterday's Zimbabwean general election as the opposition Movement for Democratic Change alleges "massive fraud". (News Limited)

---

[Posted] Edward Snowden

Article:Edward Snowden (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:American whistleblower Edward Snowden is granted temporary asylum in Russia. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, BBC, L.A. Times, VOA
Credits:

• Nominated by Sca (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: After more than a month being holed up in the transit zone of Sheremetyevo airport in Moscow, the now-famous leaker of classified U.S. surveillance documents is granted asylum for one year in Russia and leaves the airport for an undisclosed location. Sca (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Sure, we're probably all sick of Snowden, but this basically brings a conclusion to a story that had international ramifications, at least until his asylum expires or he gets nabbed by the CIA while in Russia.--WaltCip (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment If this is posted, we should probably avoid the use of the term "whistleblower". We can use "dissident", used in the lead of the Edward Snowden article. -- tariqabjotu 16:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - previous stages of this story were rejected with rationale "wait for asylum/arrest". That point is now here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Thaddeus. μηδείς (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support per those above, this is a milestone in the story. Next up, what happens in 364 days? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - Sorry, his 15 minutes of fame was already up a month ago, Wikipedia is not a place to give him his own platform of fame for another 15 minutes of fame. Donnie Park (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "fame." (I should have said "controversial" rather than "now famous" above.) Whatever anyone thinks about Snowden's actions, it's a fascinating and complex personal story dealing with issues that could have extremely important political consequences.

Further, Snowden has been associated, at least tangentially, with Wiki, and for that reason has been very conspicuous by his absence from English Wiki's "In the News." Sca (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikileaks has nothing to do with Wikipedia other than the parasitic use of a morpheme. μηδείς (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Good to know — I wondered about that. But I venture to say that because of its use of Wiki, Wikileaks probably is associated in many peoples' minds with Wikipedia.

PS: Learned a new word: morpheme. Sca (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, wiki- is a free morpheme at this point, since we can say there are various wikis, such as Wikipedia, Conservapedia, and Wikileaks. The latter two I would say are obviously glomming off the prestige of Wikipedia. Unfortunately for those of us who do not want to be associated with conserva- or -leaks, Wiki- and -pedia were not trademarked. μηδείς (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Some smart lawyer should look at the possibility of still trademarking Wiki. Sca (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Put him on the frontpage when this traitor is convicted, not before. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Ready this is well-updated after several "wait" nominations and well supported; a few political opposes are not valid for ITN purposes. μηδείς (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support Undisputable coverage and "asylum" was pointed to as the postable time in previous discussions. Traitor would normally imply co-operating with or leaking something to enemies, rather than to allies and fellow citizens. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Posted -- tariqabjotu 18:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Post-posting support Provoked a strong reaction from the US this one. (And can a certain editor give it a rest with the "traitor" crap?) --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Point of order. I object to the use of "dissident". This is a violation of NPOV. The article no longer used that term in the lede as of a few moments ago when I went in add the word "fugitive", which is how the New York Times describes him.[63] I believe the admin who posted this blub inserted his own personal editorial judgment in lieu of consensus. Can we please fix this now? Replace "dissident" with "fugitive". "Fugitive" is a very nice, neutral, factual term for a person who has been indited and is fleeing (and seeking asylum). Whether he is a whistleblower or a traitor is highly debatable and won't be settled until he faces a court of law. Jehochman ^Talk 02:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
• Whistleblower is correct, he was travelling before he was charged, and he is revealing unconstitutional activity condemned by just about every authourty outside the Obama regime. μηδείς (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

  He's been charged with a crime. Because he has run from the law, he's a fugitive. The article explains who things he's a whistleblower and who thinks he's a criminal or traitor. There are some of each. It is definitely not for us to decide. We just report the facts in the most neutral way possible. Jehochman^Talk 02:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

  I agree with Jehochman that fugitive is the least objectionable term here. It's 100% accurate, since he is evading arrest by legal authorities, regardless of whether you support or oppose what he did, or whether you support or oppose what the U.S. authorities are doing in response, he is a fugitive. Whether he is a dissident or not, and whether he is a whistleblower or not, depends on which political tribe you get your talking points from. But he is wanted by legal authorities, and he is evading them. --Jayron32 02:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

  I've taken out the word "dissident" because it's just unnecessary and controversial. The article explains all the nuances: whether he's a dissident, whistleblower, criminal, traitor, etc. If there is a consensus to insert "fugitive" or "fugitive intelligence analyst", one of those could be added, but I don't feel comfortable doing that until there is a stronger consensus. Jehochman^Talk 02:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

  That's fine too. Less is more; in the sense that no word is better than the wrong word. --Jayron32 02:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

There was nothing npov with the word dissident, our own definition of dissident is "A dissident, broadly defined, is a person who actively challenges an established doctrine, policy, or institution". Who can really argue that Snowden is not one. I feel that Jehochmans oppose of the term is based on that it doesn't have that much negative connotations. However i think current blurb is also fine but I oppose putting fugitive in it, if dissident is npov then certainly fugitive is as well. I also object accusing Tariq of anything here. SeraV (talk) 08:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Unless Medeis is on the US Supreme Court, no activity Snowden has revealed has yet been adjudicated to be unconstitutional. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Even if this stuff is not illegal in USA, which would be a shame indeed for USA, most of that activity is illegal in other countries, including mine and Germany, which still makes Snowden a whistleblower. SeraV (talk) 08:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

(1) Laws of other countries do not apply in the US. For instance, in Germany it is illegal to walk around in a Nazi uniform. In the US this activity is protected as free speach. (2) Whether Snowden is a whistleblower/dissident or a criminal/traitor depends on whether he chooses to stand before a court of law and justify his actions, or perhaps Congress will pass a law or the current or future President will pardon him. We, Wikipedia, cannot decide which term is accurate. It is entirely possible that he will eventually return the USA and be acquitted by a jury of 12 citizens. For the moment, he is a fugitive because he chose to run away rather than to justify his actions. If you look at the biography of Nathan Hale you will see a different type of behavior. (Disclosure: My personal belief is that he needs to take responsibility and face the jury. Delivering those computers to Russia was the worst possible thing he could have done and will undermine his position severely. If he's not a traitor, he should stop acting like one.) Jehochman ^Talk 13:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

He has been granted political asylum, with your logic we could just as well call him political dissident who is persecuted by his own government, but that would be biased. It is just as biased if we use the word fugitive, exactly since it it not our place to decide which term is accurate. With the word fugitive we would be taking the side of US government. And my point was that even if US goverment doesn't see him as a whistleblower other goverments might since he exposed illegal activity towards them. SeraV (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The mistake you are making is that you are applying your own logic or analysis. Instead, just look at the words being used by reliable news sources, and use those same words. Jehochman^Talk 15:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

He has been called whisteblower quite often in reliable sources, you can't claim that most or even majority use the word fugitive. But seriously current wording about this is fine. I just wanted to say that I oppose the use of fugitive. SeraV (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe the admin who posted this blub inserted his own personal editorial judgment in lieu of consensus.

@Jehochman: Excuse me? I request that you strike that comment immediately. There is no basis for that accusation. I have never in my life edited the Edward Snowden article, or any articles related to him. If the first sentence had said "Edward Snowden is an American whistleblower", I wouldn't have objected to the term on the Main Page. And subsequent to my comment, no one commented on the suitability of the term "whistleblower" or objected to my comment about "dissident". The reason I mentioned dissident is because it was in the first sentence of the article, and content on the Main Page defers to article content. Why is it acceptable for you to use the same rationale to promote "fugitive" (also not from the original blurb!), but my use of the same rationale is "personal editorial judgment"?

Now that the term has been removed from the first sentence (with "fugitive" added at your hands, but never mind), I have no objection to it being removed from the Main Page and no objection to the use of the term "fugitive" as now in the article. But, I do firmly object to your baseless suggestion that I usurped consensus in favor of what I wanted, and request that you strike that comment (which was entirely irrelevant to the rest of your comment) immediately. -- tariqabjotu 03:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Post-posting support - I must say that those opposing from a personal POV with personal attacks and heated rhetoric are editors who should really get a grip. Jusdafax 03:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
• Post-posting support High profile case with potential important impacts in Russia-US relations. Spencer^T♦C 16:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, since people continue to comment, post-posting oppose. I don't care about the political and emotional furor in the US. My concern is that this is nothing more than an incremental update. There's nothing here except the fact that a man who was in Russia can stay in Russia. Resolute 18:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. The blurb as it is currently written suffers from goes-without-saying-everything-is-about-America-unless-otherwise-stated syndrome. Could we possibly replace "Former NSA contractor" with something line "Former US intelligence contractor"? Formerip (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

  I can make the modification, but is the NSA really not recognizable here? I don't think it's "everything is about America" syndrome, more "NSA is recognizable with the link and without further context, especially considering this story has been in the news for two months" syndrome. I'd like to think there are some intelligence organizations -- FBI, CIA, Mossad, MI-6, etc -- that could suffice without beating people over the head which country is being discussed [in ITN headlines]. -- tariqabjotu 00:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

  I recommend dropping "American" and using "Former intelligence analyst". That's what the most reliable local media are calling him. We've discussed this at length at the article talk page. Shorter is sweeter. Jehochman^Talk 00:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, being American doesn't make his activities more or less significant. And Tariq..., I'd agree that CIA, FBI, Mossad & MI-6 are well known, but NSA is no better known than ASIO. HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

  Certainly the vast, vast majority of British people (I can't speak to anything wider than that) will have no idea what NSA means. Formerip (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

  We provide links in blurbs for a reason. I bet a large number of people don't know the National Assembly is the lower house in the Cambodian Parliament, but they can click on a link and find out. There is always information omitted from blurbs: for a brief time yesterday, we omitted that he had any ties to the intelligence community, for example. We have to draw a balance between being informative and being brief. (In this case, we have a well-known story with the title a basic formality; the former formulation provided a link to a relevant article.) I think the alternative you suggested is fine, as it's informative (perhaps more so?) and brief, but we face this issue on all blurbs, regardless on origin, and we don't need to levy accusations of bias. -- tariqabjotu 01:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

  I disagree. I feel like the connection to the U.S. is very important to the story, and thus the blurb. It's an American being granted asylum in Russia, after all, and it's only five more characters. I don't understand how one can make the argument that "NSA" can't be mentioned in the blurb because people don't know that's an American intelligence organization, but then state the fact that he's American is not relevant. At least some connection to the U.S. should be made -- by saying he's from the NSA, by saying he was a contractor for U.S. intelligence, or by explicitly saying he's American. I do agree "analyst" sounds more natural than "contractor" though. -- tariqabjotu 01:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Terms: If I may add my 2 cents' worth, it seems to this ex-journalist that whether Snowden objectively meets the criteria for whistleblower remains to be seen — and the jury is likely to be out for a very long time. To call him a "dissident" sounds very odd in the U.S. context, since that word usually is applied in single-party states and dictatorships. The term "leaker" hasn't been used much historically in U.S. English, although it is in the Merriam-Wesbster online dictionary under the noun "leak." While "leaker" seems a rather inelegant term, it appears to be the most accurate one to describe Snowden's recent history and resultant status.

I note that the Guardian, for example, refers to Snowden simply as "the American whistleblower." However, if WP is to call Snowden a "whistleblower" it should be qualified, i.e. "self-proclaimed" or "putative." Sca (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Silvio Berlusconi

Article: Silvio Berlusconi (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: The Italian Supreme Court upholds the conviction of Silvio Berlusconi on tax fraud charges. (Post)
Alternative blurb: In Italy, the Supreme Court of Cassation upholds the four-year sentence of former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi for tax fraud.
News source(s): Corriere della Sera
Credits:

• Updated and nominated by Alessandro57 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by ThaddeusB (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is the first definitive conviction of Berlusconi, who was sentenced to 4 years of jail Alex2006 (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support, convictions of former heads of government are notable, but remove "finally" from the blurb. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support with alt blurb. As per 331dot. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support Ditch "finally" and you've got yourself a perfect nomination doktorb _words^deeds 09:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, and feel free to change the blurb (my italo-english deserves it :-))! "Finally" means "definitively", "irrevocably" because in Italy we have three degrees of judgments (trial, appeal, appeal to the supreme court): he has been condemned several times in trial and appeal, but this is his first definitive condemn, and IMHO this should be pointed out in some way. Paraphrasing Churchill, maybe this is neither his end, nor the beginning of his end, but for sure the end of his beginning. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 09:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support, as I believe that exhausts the legal system and he will now actually go to jail. Another blurb suggestion, which attempts a middle ground between the two above:

The Italian Supreme Court sentences former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to four years in prison for tax fraud.

Modest Genius ^talk 11:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support per Doktorbuk. Must lose the word finally. CaptRik (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. I hope that English speaking readers understand that no appeal is possible. Alex2006 (talk) 12:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I think for the news blurb the clarity is not needed and possibly even lost on readers from some countries. The article looks like it covers it adequately. CaptRik (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose unless maybe we have a picture of him hanging in effigy? He was just posted a few weeks back. μηδείς (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Not Updated curious who marked this updated with one sentence. μηδείς (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Updated and marked ready - article is now updated. I adjusted the blurbs to make it clear that this is a denied (final) appeal, not a fresh conviction. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
• Posted -- tariqabjotu 06:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
• Post posting Support - Berlusconi's final appeal being denied is a big deal, so even though there was a recent post about his legal issues, this is again an ITN-worthy blurb in my view. Jusdafax 06:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Tuvalu Prime Minister

No consensus to post at this time. If new events arise or if he is permanently installed, this can be renominated. SpencerT♦C 16:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

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

---

Article: Prime Minister of Tuvalu (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Enele Sopoaga becomes Prime Minister of Tuvalu after Willy Telavi is removed from office. (Post)
News source(s): Island Business
Credits:

• Nominated by Andise1 (talk · give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Enele Sopoaga is the new Prime Minister of Tuvalu since Willy Telavi was removed from office. Andise1 (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• 'Oppose He's only the acting Prime Minister. Maybe something more permament would cut it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• 'Oppose acting PM, support if permanently installed. Gamaliel (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - only acting PM.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose if only an acting PM; would support if this person is made the actual PM. 331dot (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support He is the actual Prime Minister, not just an acting one. What they mean is that he is acting subject to the caretaker convention until an election is held. It is very unusual for a PM to be dismissed by a Governor-General (or monarch) in a Westminster system - it hasn't occurred in decades. Neljack (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose this jurisdiction has a population of less than 12,000. μηδείς (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Objection - according to the article I read in the Sydney Morning Herald, the (?) former PM notified the Queen that he was dismissing the Governor-General so it is not clear whether the PM or GG has been dismissed and a constitutional crisis brewing. To me, that makes the story more noteworthy but also presently unclear whether a new PM will be needed. EdChem (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Lavasoa dwarf lemur

Article:Dwarf lemur (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:A new species of dwarf lemur, Cheirogaleus lavasoensis, is discovered in Madagascar. (Post)
Alternative blurb:A new primate, the Lavasoa dwarf lemur, is discovered in Madagascar.
News source(s):UPI, Sci-News.com, International Business Times
Credits:

• Nominated by Andise1 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Maky (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A new dwarf lemur species was found in Madagascar. Andise1 (talk) 02:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Are these things really in the news? Maybe it's just me, but I couldn't care less every time a new species of mole rat is discovered wherever. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with Bongwarrior, it is always interesting and highly encyclopedic that a new animal species is discovered wherever. But main news? Unlike the ant story below in which its getting massive headlines for some reason (front page in Yahoo, CNN, etc...), I think this, and other similar articles should be discussed in DYK instead. Secret ^account 04:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not vaguely familiar with zoology but according to a few studies only a minute number of mammals (estimates place it between a dozen and 3% of all known and unknown species) remain undiscovered, so perhaps discoveries as such are more notable than we thought even though there seems to be a spike in discoveries. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 05:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support yeah, I understand the skepticism about what seems like literally every-day report of a new species, however, if there is one thing in biology that I genuinely believe should be ITNR, is a new species of primates is discovered. Nergaal (talk) 06:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Cheirogaleus lavasoensis would need to be created. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 07:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support if someone creates the article. Per Nergaal, a new species of primate is fairly significant. But, seriously guys 'n' gals, we need to establish that there is a high bar for new species stories. Formerip (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, lemurs are speciose. According to Wikipedia's own article, List of lemur species, "From 2000 through 2008, 39 new species were described and nine other taxa resurrected" and it is continuing; Mar 2012, two discovered. Abductive (reasoning) 15:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, that's helpful. Make mine a very weak support. Formerip (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support Dwarf lemurs are sublime. The discovery of 39 species is irrelevant unless we've posted them all. Most will be splits from existing species anyway, not real discoveries. μηδείς (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support If we refuse to post new species, mammals especially ITN will only have post about deaths, politics and sports. As an encyclopedia we really should look bit further than that. SeraV (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support if there's an article, per Formerip. Gamaliel (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support in order "to point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them." A new mammal is "encyclopedic news". Even without any traditional news coverage discoveries like this meet our criteria when the relevant article is created/updated. 85.167.110.98 (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose As some of you know, I write extensively about lemurs on Wikipedia, and though I will probably end up writing this article as well, I have to agree with some of the early comments. Many of the small, nocturnal lemurs are being split into new species, and some years as many as 10 or more may be "discovered"... and it's done almost entirely based on DNA. DYK-worthy, yes. ITN-worthy... I'm not so sure. Personally, I only nominate new primate fossil discoveries and maybe a truly surprising lemur species discovery. Extinctions are another one I would definitely nominate. But not this. – Maky ^{« talk »} 03:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Let me clarify that I'm primarily concerned that frequent new lemur species being listed on ITN may make it more difficult for genuinely important discoveries to get mentioned. If, for example, 10 mouse and/or dwarf lemur species are described this year (and there have already been 3, including this one), will anyone support a related but more significant discovery if I bring it to ITN? At this point, I am weakly opposing because, yes, I would like to see lemur discoveries mentioned on ITN. However, professionally, I favor reserving ITN for more significant discoveries. – Maky ^{« talk »} 03:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I am curious now, what do you think is the biggest discovery when it comes to lemurs in the past 5 years? Nergaal (talk) 03:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Although it was in 2006 (7 years ago), I think the explosive jump in sportive lemurs was pretty big, especially since hardly anyone studies them. Otherwise I think some of the fossil discoveries in Africa regarding Algeripithecus and others were quite significant since it helped begin to establish the evolutionary history of lemurs (beyond speculation). The same can be said of some of the cognitive studies that are slowly debunking long-held views about simian cognitive superiority and cognitive evolution. Also, the 2010 study by Ali & Huber that helped clinch some evidence for oceanic dispersal for the colonization of Madagascar was also very big. However, these latter cases don't get as much press. But then again, our news media is actually for our entertainment, not our enlightenment. People are more entertained by new, cute species than complex cognitive studies or primate fossils that aren't human ancestors. I guess it then becomes a question of what ITN is. Are you like the news media and primarily serve an entertainment role, or do you care about educating the public? I'm not trying to be combative—I'm asking a serious question that I've never seen addressed on ITN before. – Maky ^{« talk »} 03:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

In the "news" is a misnomer. The requirement is that the article is sufficiently updated to reflect sufficiently important recent events. 85.167.110.98 (talk) 06:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

So in that case, if a pivotal research article in the study of lemurs (or primate evolution) is published but doesn't get mentioned on any major news sites, then can I still nominate a sufficiently updated article reflecting these important recent events and expect support? Or does it have to directly involve something cute and fluffy and/or relate to the popular topic of conservation (in which case it might get some press)? I'm just playing devil's advocate. Please understand that I if this nomination passes, then I will happily bring every new lemur species that gets announced to ITNC, even if it's 10 in one month, and I will not be happy if all the reasoning thrown around here in support gets tossed out the window. I want people to think about this fairly and proactively. Again, I'd be very happy to see this one on ITN rather than DYK. I just want this nomination and all future nominations judged evenly, and I don't want more important nominations knocked because less significant articles like this got approved too often. – Maky ^{« talk »} 07:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - new living mammals are sufficiently rare and sufficiently important to post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Two species of mouse lemur were described earlier this year, and were not considered for ITN. Three new species of slow loris were also discovered this year (and got a lot more press coverage), and they only made DYK. The same goes for a sportive lemur in 2011, another mouse lemur 2012, and two more mouse lemurs in 2009. Important, yes. Is it a huge event? No. And so far, no major news organization has covered it, as far as I can tell. – Maky ^{« talk »} 05:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we should cover all of them. They may not be "news", but they are "encyclopedic articles updated to reflect recent events". I would consider this a near-perfect case of "subjects [the readers] might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them." 85.167.110.98 (talk) 06:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Btw, I'm reading the research article now, and the authors note that 3 other new species were also discovered, though not officially named. Expect more in the future. – Maky ^{« talk »} 06:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I looked it up - about 25 species of mammal have been described each of the last few years (sometimes more than 1 at once, which would mean even if we covered all it would be less than 25 postings). That quite a bit more than I expected, as I was relying on old information of ~2/year before genetic testing caused the recent increase. Even so, I personally would support posting most or all of the new mammals (bats and rodentia make up the majority of the new species, so if we were to exclude some those would be good choices). Certainly, we have room for 2 primates (lemurs)/year on average if the trend holds - and it probably won't since at some point the genetic testing possibilities will be exhausted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the data for small, nocturnal lemurs, lorises, and galagos is suggesting that the new species descriptions are only just beginning. The inaccessibility of their deep, dark, wet forests is the only thing holding back the research. Well... that and a relative lack of academic interest in lorises and galagos. But in truth, we are only entering a new stage in taxonomic expansion, similar to what was seen during the 1700s and 1800s. Worse, there will probably be just as much of a mess to clean up afterwards. (In other words, some of these species will be erased and made taxonomic synonyms.) Again, I'm fine with it as long as everyone understands what kind of precedent we're setting. I will be citing this nomination in the future—that's why I'm playing devil's advocate so fervently. – Maky ^{« talk »} 16:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion it would be remiss of an encyclopedia with a "news" section to not use it for the discovery of new species of primates. Personally I would extend this beyond primates as well. A higher turnover rate is desirable, and an increase in "deathless" stories would be even better. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Well put. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks 88.88.162.176 (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Posted -- tariqabjotu 18:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)