위키백과:뉴스/후보/2015년 3월

3월 31일

---

[폐쇄]The World is Bardo

[게시] 나이지리아 총선

명명자의 의견:지명자로서 지지하라.알리 파잘 (토크) 2015년 3월 31일 (UTC) 16:49 [응답]

• ITNR 항목은 ITNR 목록에 존재한다는 것은 그들이 이미 주목할 만한 것으로 간주되고 있다는 것을 의미하기 때문에 장점에 대한 지원을 요구하지 않는다. 논의는 기사 품질이 적절한지, 갱신되는지, 그리고 모호한 부분을 결정하는 것이다.또한 일반적으로 자신의 지명을 지지한다고 가정한다.331도트(대화) 16:57, 2015년 3월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

331도트 고마워.알리 파잘 (대화) 2015년 3월 31일 (UTC) 17:11, 응답

• 지원 게시 가능한 한 빨리.세계 최대의 민주주의 국가 중 하나(그리고 명백히 민주적인 결과로서 부팅!)이자 지역 정치의 큰 발전. -쿠즈1 (토크) 17:02, 2015년 3월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
• 기사 업데이트에 대한 지원 ITNR을 고려하더라도 아프리카에서 가장 큰 뉴스의 대상이 된 선거.그런데 그 기사는 지금으로서는 완전하게 완성되지 않은 것으로 알고 있지만 대통령 당선의 요약을 해야 하고 상대가 패배를 인정했다는 선거 결과가 빠져 있는 것 같다. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 2015년 3월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
• 조나단이 양보한 지지, NYT와 BBC가 부하리의 승리를 선언했고, 부하리로 갈 것으로 안전하게 예측할 수 있는 마지막 주는 보르노다. --바라버 (대화) 2015년 3월 31일 (UTC) 18:21 (답변)

선거관리위원회는 부하리를 당선자로 선언했다...정말 게시해야 한다. --Baravour (대화) 02:45, 2015년 4월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

• 충분히 업데이트되지 않은 반대.더 램블링맨 (토크) 2015년 3월 31일 (UTC) 18:29 [응답]

  @The Rambling Man: 몇 가지 불충분한 점을 항목별로 정리해 주시겠습니까?그것은 나에게 포스팅할 준비가 된 것 같다.그 기사는 결과, 승자, 그리고 굿럭 조나단의 양보를 인용했다.나머지 글도 탄탄하고 광범위하다.어떤 정보를 알고 있는지, 기사에서 부족한 점이 있는지 알려주시겠습니까?무엇을 추가해야 할지 고민하는 사람들에게 도움이 될 것이다. --Jayron32 19:28, 2015년 3월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

  주로 여론조사와 결과조절에 앞서 있는 부분들의 시제였고, 아직 "예비결과"가 남아 있다는 사실은 결정적인 결과에 대한 다소 미진한 주장을 시사한다.게다가 결과를 확인할 수 있는 36번째 주가 보인다.또 국회와 상원 표는 불완전하다.하지만 그것 말고는, 가는 것이 좋다.더 램블링맨 (토크) 2015년 3월 31일 (UTC) 21:02, 응답

  고마워. 업데이트에 필요한 출처는 잘 모르지만, 게시되기 전에 작업할 수 있는 아이템들의 리스트야. --Jayron32 21:38, 2015년 3월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

• 조나단이 양보한 지지. --Panam2014 (대화) 21:12, 2015년 3월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지원: 매우 중요한 국제 뉴스 기사.미드나이트블루올 (토크) 2015년 3월 31일 (UTC) 21:14 [응답]
• 지지하다.매우 명확한 WP 사례:ITNR. -LtNOWIS (대화) 21:53, 2015년 3월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

@LtNOWIS:@미드나이트블루올:ITNR 목록에 있는 이벤트는 목록에 등재되어 주목할 만한 것으로 추정되기 때문에 장점에 대한 지원이 필요하지 않다. 이 논의는 기사 품질을 평가하고 흐림을 결정하는 것이다. 331 도트 (대화) 21:59, 2015년 3월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

아니, ITNR의 개별 인스턴스가 문제가 될 수 있지만, 이 특정 사례가 일반적인 사건이 아니라 문제인지에 대한 논의가 중심이 되어야 한다.Not that I don't think this case is close to be one to challenge on the event (Africa's biggest element at 50M+ voters, tight race, etc.), but ITNR is not a guarantee that article topic automatically qualifies, just that we should avoid quibbling on the event's broad nature. --MASEM (t) 22:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

그것을 명확히 해줘서 고마워; 나는 그것이 자동으로 게시될 것이라고 제안할 의도는 아니었어.331닷 (대화) 22:20, 2015년 3월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지원 – 현재 주요 사례스카 (대화) 01:26, 2015년 4월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지지. - 아마도 지금 가장 중요한 아프리카 이야기일 것이다.닉 꿩 (대화) 09:41, 2015년 4월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지지. - 거기 있을 줄 알았어.다른 사람들이 말했듯이, 현재의 아프리카 톱이야기.사용자:마린홀딩스 10:44, 2015년 4월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
• 포스팅.그림도 바꿀 수 있다. --Tone 14:56, 2015년 4월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

3월 30일

---

[폐쇄] 와시쿠르 라흐만 바부 살해

[폐쇄] 에후드 올메르트는 부패혐의로 유죄판결을 받았다.

[게시] 우즈베키스탄 대통령 선거

브랜드마이스터^talk 14:38, 2015년 3월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

• Classic ITN 항목 지원.업데이트는 이미 충분해 보인다.마밀레스 (대화) 14:49, 2015년 3월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지지 - 애처로운 '선거'지만 여전히 선거…-밥바Q (대화) 16:19, 2015년 3월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지원 - 주목할 만한 광고 ITN/R.알리 파잘 (토크) 2015년 3월 30일 (UTC) 16:25 [응답]
• 가능한 모든 지원 중 가장 약한 것은 단조로운 것에 지나지 않으며 위의 모호한 내용에는 없는 정보를 거의 포함하고 있지 않다.그것은 완전히 참조된 것이지, 그렇게 짧은 기사를 완전히 참조하는 것이 어려운 것은 아니다.조금 확대되면 좋겠지만 그 이상의 품질에 대해서는 공식적인 불만이 없다. --Jayron32 16:29, 2015년 3월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
• 게시물. --tone 19:13, 2015년 3월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
• 코멘트 나는 이런 종류의 최소한의 요구조건은 거의 충족시키지 못한다는 것을 이해한다. 그러나 그것은 실제로 단조로운 품질을 넘어서지 못한다.ITN의 핵심 축 중 하나가 "현행사에 대한 양질의 위키백과 콘텐츠를 선보이기 위해"일 때 이런 글을 올리는 것일까?더 람블링맨 (토크) 2015년 3월 30일 (UTC) 20:12, 응답
  • 공천 당시 나는 기본적으로 영어 출처 하나만 보았는데, 개표가 막 끝났기 때문일 것이다.이제 더 많은 출처가 있을 때, 그것들을 추가하는 것이 가능하다.브랜드마이스터^talk 21:41, 2015년 3월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 나는 그것을 반박하는 것이 아니라, 나는 단지 게시 당시 단지가 될 정도로 간신히 긁어모은 그 기사가 우리가 '품격 있는 위키백과 콘텐츠'라고 여기는 것이었는가를 의심하고 있을 뿐이다.물론 더 추가할 수 있지만, 게시되기 전에 추가해야 할 수도 있다.우리는 B급 혹은 그 이상의 제품을 요구하곤 했다.《람블링맨》(토크) 08:47, 2015년 3월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
      • 그래, 6문장밖에 없고 그 중 하나를 추가했어.1면에 포스팅한 것은 다소 시기상조였습니다. -- 아론작 (토크) 08:59, 2015년 3월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

3월 29일

---

이들립의 몰락

노미네이터의 논평: 아사드 정부로의 중대한 발전 및 복귀.이들립은 현재 2013년 ISIL에 이어 두 번째로 반란군에 점령된 지방도시다.이는 시리아 내전(최근 4년간 가장 치명적인 분쟁)을 ITN에 다시 불러올 수 있는 좋은 기회이기도 하다.피츠카말란 (대화) 2015년 3월 29일 14시 52분 (UTC)[응답]

• 지원 참고 사항 알누스라는 IS의 일부가 아니므로 IS의 '옹구' 항목에 포함되지 않는다.그리고 어떤 경우든 Idlib의 몰락은 진행 중인 항목이 겹치더라도 흐릿하게 보일 만큼 주목할 만하다.화요일 (토크) 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC) 14시 57분[응답]
• 반대하라 현재 진행 중인 IS에 등재된 다른 것은? -헤럴드 15:55, 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC)[응답하라]

당신의 논평에 오타가 있는가, @ The Herald:?나는 그것을 해결할 수 없다.전립 (대화) 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC) 17:42, 29[응답]

내 말은 이 흐림이 계속에서 주어진 세부사항과 다른 어떤 것을 보여준다는 거야?같은 거..-더 헤럴드 02:26, 2015년 3월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

• 기술성에 대한 지원은 계속으로 다루지 않는다.아마도 지금 진행되고 있는 이 모든 IS/al-누스라/사우디-예메니 상황에 대해 새로운 '진행형'이 있어야 할까?조슈아 가너(토크) 2015년 3월 29일 17시 38분 (UTC)[응답하라]
• 지원 - 사용자 1인당 - BabbaQ (대화) 17:39, 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
• 코멘트 이것은 진행 중인 이벤트로 다루어져야 한다.그리고 적어도 한 소식통이 이것을 확정적으로 확인하지는 않고 있다.ITN에 이런 것을 쏟아 부을 것인지 제안해 보십시오. 우리는 또 다른 일반적인 진행형 항목을 고려해 보십시오.더 램블링맨 (토크) 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC) 20:35 [응답]

어디선가 선이 있어야 한다.언제 멈출까?현재 진행 중인 '북아프리카 분쟁, 중동 및 아대륙 분쟁' 항목이 있을 때?아니면 '세계 정치' 아이템?지역 상황은 다음을 포함한다.

• 시리아 아사드 정부에 대한 저항
• 미국 주도의 정권 교체로 인한 이라크 내 민족 분쟁
• IS는 칼리프(caliphate)를 구축하기 위해 이전 두 명을 납치했다.
• 지난 몇 년간 튀니지, 리비아, 이집트에서 일어난 인기 폭동
• 이슬람주의자들이 신정국가 수립을 위한 민중 봉기를 장악하려는 시도는 성공의 정도와 IS와의 연관성이 다양하다.
• 나이지리아의 보코하람 반군;
• 보코하람의 IS와의 연관성
• 나이지리아가 보코하람을 상대할 수 있도록 돕기 위한 주변 국가들의 노력
• 예멘에서 (AFAICT) IS에 직접 충성할 의무는 없지만 비슷한 목표를 가진 반란(이 시점에서 내가 시대에 뒤떨어진 것일 수 있음)
• 사우디와 이란의 예멘에서의 결과에 영향을 미치려는 시도는 사우디와 이란간의 갈등으로 이어질 수 있다.
• 너무 개입하지 않고 위의 모든 결과에 영향을 미치려는 서방 정부의 시도
• 이 지역에 알카에다의 잔존물이 있다면
• 파키스탄 및 아프가니스탄에서 알카에다와 연계된 탈레반의 활동
• 위의 어느 것과도 직접 연결되지는 않지만, 위와 같은 모든 면에서 한쪽, 다른 쪽, 혹은 양쪽 모두에 의해 분노할 것으로 인용될 이스라엘-팔레스타인 분쟁.

ITN에 기사를 쏟아 붓지 않고 진행 중인 항목을 생성하기 위해 정확히 어디에 선을 긋고 있는가?골든링 (토크) 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC) 23:05 [응답]

• 성찰 - 음, 현재 진행 중인 전쟁에 대한 논쟁.어느 시점에서 이 모든 것이 지역 수니파와 시아파의 전쟁으로 합쳐질 것인가?밤마다 하는 뉴스들은 예멘의 상황이 바로 그것이라는 것을 우리에게 상기시켜주고, 무서운 것은 작은 도미노 같은 나라들이 한쪽 방향이나 다른 방향으로 떨어지는 가운데, 제1차 세계대전이 이렇게 시작됐다는 것이다.base야구 벅스 당근→20:52, 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

논평 이것은 전혀 분명한 수니파-시아파가 아니다 - 수니파 쿠르드족은 시리아와 이라크에서 수니파 ISIL과 싸우고 있고, 시리아에서는 수니파 알누스라(알카에다)가 수니파 ISIL과 싸우고 있다.LoveToLondon (토크) 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC) 22:26 [응답]

• 반대 그 지역에서는 3개의 주요 내전이 진행 중이다. (이라크 내전, 시리아 내전, 예멘 위기(2011–현재) 각각 주요 교전국이 있다.200명이 사망하는 전투가 일어날 때마다 번개소리를 내는 것은 일주일에 한 번 이상 번개를 일으킬 수 있다.이 모호한 문자는 또한 그들이 전쟁에서 얻은 다른 많은 측면들 중 어느 쪽으로부터 얻었는지 말하지 않는 것에 있어서 매우 혼란스럽다 - 시리아 정부가 알누스라에게 이들립 시를 빼앗기는 것과 같은 것이 필요할 것이다.LoveToLondon (토크) 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC) 23:06[응답]

대안 제안:계속:시리아 내전 - 이라크 내전(이슬람국가 이라크와 레반트(이슬람국가 참여 및 간접 취재) 제거, 예멘 내전은 현재 2015년 예멘의 군사 개입으로 다루어지고 있다.LoveToLondon (토크) 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC) 22:38[응답]

• 165k 도시에 반대한다는 기사는 "이들립의 몰락은 전략적인 도시라기 보다는 바샤르 알아사드 대통령에게 더 큰 사기 타격이었다"고 말한다.네르가알 (대화) 02:06, 2015년 3월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
• 플레이 바이 플레이 내레이션 반대, TRM 및 골든링의 응답에 대한 거부.128.214.53.18 (대화) 06:22, 2015년 3월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

[포스팅] 2015 크리켓 월드컵

-더 헤럴드 10시 5분, 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지원은 "호주가 결승에서 뉴질랜드를 꺾고 2015 크리켓 월드컵에서 우승".117.192.184.165 (토크) 10:16, 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC)[응답]과 같은 것이어야 한다.
• 지원 및 117.192 당 변경 사항.러그넛 10:33, 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
• 본문의 방송권 섹션이 제대로 조달될 때까지 반대한다.일단 고치면 지지할 것이다.starship.paint ~ "올레! 2015년 3월 29일 11시 43분 (UTC)[응답하라]

만약 그것이 아래의 TRM당 최종 기사라면, 나의 위의 언급은 문제가 되지 않을 것이다.스타쉽.페인트~"올레! 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC) 13:17, 29 (응답)

• 지원 - 우려 사항 해결starship.paint ~ "올레! 2015년 3월 29일 22시 47분 (UTC)[응답하라]

• 지원부서는 두 개의 대담한 연결고리가 필요 없다. 결승전은 여기서 중요한 연결고리로, 그리고 그 기사는 적당한 틈새에 있다.더 람블링맨 (토크) 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC) 12시 18분[응답]
• altblurb에 대한 지원 —Vensatry 13:03, 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지원 이것은 국제적으로 중요한 주제다.Gfcvoice (대화) 13:29, 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
• ITNR과 최종 기사는 보기 좋다.[ready]를 표시하는 중.나는 알트 블럽을 사용할 것을 제안한다. 다만 결승전 자체에 대한 링크만 굵게 할 것을.머디드 지니어스 15:16, 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지원 - 분명히.◆야구 벅스 당근→15:28, 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
• 코멘트 크리켓을 모르거나 게임이 어떻게 재점검으로 작성되나 Final 페이지에 하나 이상이 있어야 하는가(이것을 우리가 올리기 전에 올해 슈퍼볼 페이지가 기대했던 것과 비교하고 있다) ? 이 페이지가 연계될 경우, 게임 자체에 대한 세부사항이 매우 누락된 것 같다. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC) 응답하라.
  • 그 기사는 꽤 광범위해, TBH.결승전에서 있었던 것을 제외한 모든 것이 거기에 있다.만약 TRM이 이것을 지원한다면(그리고 그의 "지원"은 이것이 관련이 있고 업데이트되었다는 것을 의미함) TRM이 이를 지원한다면, 이것은 업데이트되는 것에 대한 그의 기준을 통과해야 할 것이다...–HTD 16:51, 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
    • Final 페이지에서?경기 시작은 분명히 있지만, 보통 스포츠 리캡의 경우 다른 스포츠에서 경기의 전반적인 썰물과 흐름을 이야기하는 단락 이상을 보는 데 익숙하다.경기 내용은 요약표뿐인데, 별로 내키지 않는 것 같다.하지만 다시 말하지만, 이것은 내가 좋은 생각을 가지고 있는 스포츠가 아니다. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
      • 응, 결승전에 관한 기사는 실제 시합에 들어가기 전까지는 꽤 광범위해.총알 포인트를 "프로세스"로 계산하지 않는 한. –HTD 17:45, 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
        • 첫 번째 시점으로 돌아가면, 네, 물론 "관련성"이 있고, ITNR이 있고, 네, 최종 기사는 이미 말했듯이, 제대로 업데이트 되었다.더 램블링맨 (토크) 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC) 18:24 [응답]
          • 물론 업데이트 되었다.사람들이 누가 이겼는지 알고 난 후, 기사에서 다음과 같은 일이 벌어졌다.
            1. 인포박스에서 이미지 변경.
            2. 경기 참가자와 남자 업데이트.
            3. 과거 시제로 바꾸는 거 말이야
            4. 박스 스코어에 글머리 기호 "노트" 두 개를 추가했다.
            5. 호주가 가장 인기 있는 나라라는 단 한 문장의 선두에 산문이 추가되었다.
            6. 이어 경기 결과 조항이 나오고, 이어 출석 기록에 대한 문장이 나왔다.
          • 전체적으로 약 2.5문장의 새로운 산문이 나온다.–HTD 19:19, 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
            • 좋아, 그럼 업데이트되었군다음으로.더 램블링맨 (토크) 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC) 19:21[응답]
              • 올해 경기를 2011 크리켓 월드컵 결승전과 비교해보면 아쉽게도 업데이트되지 않았다.나는 경기 시작 전까지만 해도 광범위한 세부 사항을 기대하지는 않지만, 최종 집계를 제외하고는 경기 세부 사항을 전혀 예상하지 못한다.더 필요해. --MASEM (t) 19:31, 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
                • 야, 그만해.업데이트 되었다.TRM은 이미 그렇게 말했다.업데이트에 관해서라면, TRM은 그의 재능을 알고 있다.–HTD 19:36, 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
                  • 이제 더 자세한 내용이 있다.Gfcvoice (대화) 2015년 3월 29일 19:59 (UTC)[응답]
                    • 이제 ITN 포스팅을 위해 좋다.단지 1면 기사 중 1면 항목에 포함되지 않는 것이 그리운 느낌이었다. --MASEM (t) 20:21, 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
                  • 하워드를 위한 바이올린.더 램블링맨 (토크) 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC) 20:02 [응답]
• 분명한 중요성을 뒷받침한다.숙성된 필모어 (대화) 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC) 17:09 [응답]
• 중립 - 이 스포츠는 전문적인 수준에서 경기를 하는 몇몇 국가들에게 매우 중요하다.나머지 세계에서는 비스포츠다.--BabbaQ (토크) 17:40, 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • Repeative Item으로 등재되어 있는데, 매번 공신력을 통과시켜 ''tAD''(토크) 18:05, 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC)[응답] 등의 이유로만 반대할 수 있다는 뜻이다.
  • 그리고 여러분은 이미 그 "feew countrys"에서 약 20억의 인구가야구 기사를 올릴 때 이런 문제는 전혀 없어 보인다.더 램블링맨 (토크) 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC) 18:23[응답]
  • 크리켓은 프로급에서 경기를 하는 많은 나라들에게 매우 중요한 스포츠다.그리고 미국과 같이 이 스포츠를 하는 많은 다른 나라들의 경우, 그들은 월드컵 출전 자격을 얻기에 충분하지 않다.Gfcvoice (대화) 2015년 3월 29일 18:34 (UTC)[응답]
    • 사실 크리켓에 대해서는 잘 모르지만, 지구상에서 가장 인구가 많은 나라인 인도를 포함한 많은 곳에서 크리켓이 크게 인기 있다는 것을 알고 있다. 331닷 (토크) 18:36, 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
      • @331dot: - 인도 2위 -> 세계 인구, 중국 1위. 스타쉽.페인트~"올레! 14:13, 2015년 3월 31일 (UTC)[응답하라]
        • @Starship.paint:고마워요.분명히 나는 그것을 충분히 생각해내지 못했다.나는 인도가 중국보다 출생률이 훨씬 높기 때문에 미래에 1위가 될 가능성이 높다는 것을 알고 있다.내가 앞섰나 봐331도트(대화) 14:16, 2015년 3월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
      • 미국에는 아마 5개의 크리켓 경기밖에 없을 것이다.그들은 너무 나빠, 신경도 안 써. –HTD 19:19, 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
      • 너희들이 뭐라고 하든 크리켓은 소수의 국가들에게만 매우 중요한 스포츠라는 것은 사실이다.그렇게 크긴 하지만 아직 몇 개 안 돼사실.--BabbaQ (토크) 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC) 19:42,9[응답]
        • 당신이 BabbaQ를 뭐라고 말하든, 이 기사는 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Recurring_items#Cricket에 나열되어 있다.따라서 얼마나 많은 나라의 주민들이 크리켓이 중요하다고 생각하는지에 대한 논쟁은 무관하다.Gfcvoice (대화) 2015년 3월 29일 19:51, (UTC)[응답]
        • 크리켓 월드컵은 축구, 농구, 럭비 유니온, 크리켓의 주요 팀 스포츠 중 14개 팀으로 가장 작은 대회(최종 토너먼트 참가팀 수)이다.심지어 2019년에는 10개로 줄일 것이다.예를 들어, 현재 32팀에서 40팀(? 48?), 농구를 24팀에서 32팀으로 추가하는 풋볼 월드컵을 비교해보자, 2006년 16팀으로 시작했을 때 월드 베이스볼 클래식 조차도 더 많은 팀을 갖게 되었다(지금은 없어진 야구 월드컵은 2009년에 22팀까지 도전했다).이러한 "주요" 스포츠 중에서 크리켓은 참가국이 가장 적다; 국제 크리켓 위원회는 100개국을 조금 넘는다. (세계야구소프트볼연맹과 비교해서, 서인도제도 많은 국가로 구성되어 있다.)배구, 핸드볼 같은 건 생각도 안 했어. –HTD 19:57, 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
          • 그러니 ITNR에 투덜거려서 없애버려.더 램블링맨 (토크) 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC) 20:04 [응답]
            • 주전자의 검은 논쟁을 부르는 모든 팟은 위의 당신의 코멘트로 새로운 차원을 얻는다:) loll.--BabbaQ (토크) 23:45, 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
              • 하지만 다른 많은 스포츠보다 훨씬 더 많은 시청률을 가진 것은 크리켓이다.예를 들어, 인도-박의 경기는 2억 8천 8백만 명이 시청했는데, 이는 기록적인 기록이다. - The Herald 02:23, 2015년 3월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
              • 늘 그렇듯이, 밥바큐, 넌 정말 말이 안 돼.가능한 경우 주제를 벗어나지 말고 논리 시퀀서를 사용하십시오.《람블링맨》(토크) 05:55, 2015년 3월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
                • 네가 비판을 받을 때 이해하는데 어려움이 있다면 그건 내 문제가 아니야.나는 단지 당신이 징징대는 것에 대해 불평하는 것이 웃겼을 뿐인데, 사실 당신은 ITN에서 자신과 다른 의견을 가진 사람들에 대해 계속해서 불평하고 있다.원하는 것을 읽을 수 있다 :).--BabbaQ (대화) 16:19, 2015년 3월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
                  • 아니, 아직도 모르겠어.당신의 논평이 이번 지명과 무슨 상관이 있는가?아무것도 아니야, 네가 이 지명을 이해하지 못한다는 명백한 선언 이외에는.그래도 일은 끝났어!계속 징징거려!!: (그리고 일관성을 위해 331dot, Gfcvoice, AtHome을 조사하십시오.In神戸, Aircon, HappyWaldo, Starship.paint, Lugnuts, Vensatry 등, 그들이 나와 같은 의견을 내도록 선택했기 때문에, 당신은 단지 나에게 계속 불평하고 싶을 뿐인데, 우리 모두에게 호의를 베풀어주거나, 우리 모두에게 압력을 가하거나, 일관성을 유지하라.)더 람블링맨 (토크) 2015년 3월 30일 (UTC) 19:31, 30[응답]
• 충분히 업데이트된 최종 모양에 대한 기사를 지원하십시오.그것이 "비스포츠"라는 것에 대한 어떤 주장도 터무니없다.앳홈인in(토크) 01:54, 2015년 3월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지원 조항은 업데이트되었고 위에서 언쟁을 벌였음에도 불구하고 스포츠 경기로서의 그것의 의미에 대해서는 의심의 여지가 없다.에어콘 (토크) 02:29, 2015년 3월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지원 아직 메인 페이지에 없는 방법마음이 흔들리다.좋든 싫든 크리켓은 참가와 시청률 면에서 세계 주요 스포츠 중 하나이다. - 해피월도(토크) 05:11, 2015년 3월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
• 가장 확실한 지원. 그냥 게시해!나는 사람들이 실제로 이것의 관련성에 대해 토론하고 있다는 것을 믿을 수 없다.국제적으로, 대륙에 걸쳐 그리고 문학적으로 수십억의 사람들에게 널리 호소한다.국제적인 매력이 훨씬 적은 야구에 관한 것이라면 이런 논쟁은 없을 것 같다...'더블 스탠더드' 82.21.7.184 (대화) 06:31, 2015년 3월 30일 (UTC)[응답하라]라는 단어를 언급하고 싶을 것이다.
• 왜 지연되는가?이제 모든 미국인들이 작은 침대에 누워있으니, 우리는 이것을 지금 올릴 수 있겠지?러그넛^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:07, 2015년 3월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 그들이 그것을 더 오래 끌고 나간다면, 다음 월드컵을 시작할 때가 될 것이다.FYI, 이 미국인은 24시간 전에 ESPN-크리신포 게임캐스트를 보고 깨어있었다.◆야구 벅스 당근→07:21, 2015년 3월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
• 게시. '람블링맨'(토크) 07:47, 2015년 3월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

3월 28일

---

RD: 진 삭스

명명자의 의견:미국 극장 명예의 전당의 멤버인 토니상을 세 번 수상했다.매일 아침 토크 21:20, 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

• 반대 조항은 기껏해야 질기다.더 램블링맨 (토크) 2015년 3월 29일 21:34 (UTC)[응답]
• '약한 반대' 나는 기사의 페이지에서 지명을 하려고 했고, 기사의 페이지에는 사망 소식을 업데이트했지만, TRM의 말처럼, 그 기사는 그가 왜 중요한지를 묘사하는 데 있어 애석할 정도로 빈약하다.만약 (특히 이러한 오비트를 사용하여) 기사를 확장할 수 있다면, RD 포스팅을 위한 DC가 충족된 것처럼 보이는 데 도움이 될 것이다. --MASEM (t) 21:36, 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
• 질적인 이유로 반대하다.자기 분야의 사망 기준에 부합하는 것 같지만, 그 페이지가 작업이 필요하다는 말이 있듯이. 331닷 (대화) 21:39, 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
• WP가 그의 마지막 영화 이후 약간 놓친 서포트가 저장되어 있는 영화와 무대 감독, 보아하니 나는 도끼 살인자와 결혼했고 그의 마지막 TV 출연은 1998년이었다.㎕δεες (대화) 03:23, 2015년 3월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
• 반대한다. 그 기사는 빈약한 것에 지나지 않는다. 그의 수상/공천/명예가 나타내는 것처럼 보이는 경력을 가진 사람에게 전혀 정의롭지 못하다.챌린저 l (토크) 2015년 3월 30일 16:41, (UTC)[응답하라]
• 지지하다.그 기사는 확실히 개선될 수 있지만, 적절히 언급되어 있고, 이미 그가 기준을 충족시켰다는 것을 증명하고 있다. - 2003년 이후 Tlön의 Smerdis - 인간정신을 죽였다! 2015년 3월 31일 (UTC) 03:51, 2015년 3월 31일 (답)
• 내 편협한 영역 밖에서의 코멘트는 전혀 없지만 나는 적어도 내 반대를 없애기 위해 그것을 개선시키기 위해 그 기사와 약간 동감했다.다른 누군가가 그것을 더 확장하기를 원할 수도 있고 질적인 이유로 반대하는 사람들은 다시 한번 살펴보기를 원할 수도 있다.《람블링맨》(토크) 09:06, 2015년 3월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

[포스팅] 2015년 막카알무카라마 호텔 습격 사건

명명자의 의견:호텔에서 공격이 발생했는데, 이 호텔은 인기가 많고 보안 시설도 상당하며 유엔 외교관 또한 사망했다.(참고: 조항이 확대됨)안톤^Talk 16:03, 2015년 3월 28일 (UTC)[응답하라]

• 지원이 중요한 이야기인 것 같아, 기사는 당연히 출처. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 2015년 3월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지원 좋은 기사, ITN을 만든 다른 총격 사건보다 더 주목할 만한 기사.조슈아 가너(토크) 2015년 3월 28일 17시 24분 (UTC)[응답하라]
• 주목할 만한 뉴스가 될 만한 사건을 기술하는 합리적인 품질의 기사를 지지하는 것은 게시물에 대해 너무 많이 생각할 것이 아니다.더 램블링맨 (토크) 2015년 3월 28일 (UTC) 19:43 (응답)
• 지원: 대규모 사건, 명백한 테러 행위, 국제 사건.ITN을 위해 많은 박스를 체크하고, 뇌가 없어야 한다. -Kudzu1 (토크) 19:53, 2015년 3월 28일 (UTC)[응답
• 반대 숫자는 그리 높지 않고, ITN에서는 테러리즘이 지나치게 대표되는 주제며, 소말리아에서는 테러가 흔하다.유일하게 주목할 만한 것은 유엔 대표가 죽었다는 사실이지만, 결국 소말리아라는 사실을 깨닫게 되면 그다지 충격적이지 않다.네르가알(대화) 20:06, 2015년 3월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

  내가 며칠간 너에게 읽어준 것에 대해 가장 웃긴 반대야.잘했어요.더 람블링맨 (토크) 2015년 3월 28일 (UTC) 20:54 [응답]

마스터로부터 배운다.네르가알 (대화) 21:39, 2015년 3월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

난 아니야, 분명히.나는 보통 물건의 질에 반대하는데, 네가 거의 고려하지 않는 것이다.더 램블링맨 (토크) 2015년 3월 28일 (UTC) 21:48 [응답]

• 분할 결정 많은 테러 공격이 서방 세계든 다른 나라든 ITN에 게시된다.그러나 방글라데시와 버마의 난파선들은 그것이 항상 그곳에서 일어난다는 명분에 반대해 왔다.소말리아에서는 테러가 빈발하고 있다.''tAD''(토크)20:13, 2015년 3월 28일 (UTC)[응답

2010년 이후 모가디슈에서만 발생한 테러에 대한 7번째 기사다.네르가알 (대화) 21:40, 2015년 3월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

그리고 그것은 관련이 있다 왜냐하면... ?더 램블링맨 (토크) 2015년 3월 28일 (UTC) 21:48 [응답]

너는 보기보다 훨씬 더 고지식하다.네르가알 (대화) 22:13, 2015년 3월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

그리고 그것은 전혀 말이 안 되고 공천과는 전혀 관련이 없는 것이지 처음이 아니다.더 람블링맨 (토크) 2015년 3월 28일 (UTC) 22:15 (답변)

오, 얘들아... 샌드박스에서 토의를 꺼내줘.--밥바Q (토크) 22:19, 2015년 3월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

정말, 전적으로 동의한다.더 램블링맨 (토크) 22:36, 2015년 3월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지원 - 유의미한 사연, 좋은 기사. --BabbaQ (토크) 20:29, 2015년 3월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 분할 결정 ITN에서는 테러에 대한 보장이 너무 많은 것 같지만, (특히 외교관일 때) 20명의 사상자는 나를 궁지에 몰아넣기에 충분한 양이다.숙성된 필모어 (대화) 23:26, 2015년 3월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 게시 --Jayron32 03:10, 2015년 3월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

3월 27일

---

[폐쇄] 아만다 녹스

RD: 로드 헌들리

[폐쇄] 스콧 켈리, 미하일 코르니옌코, 게나디 파달카 발사

[포스팅된 RD] 토마스 트란스트뢰

브루자옴 (대화) 2015년 3월 27일 (UTC) 16:04 [응답]

• 지명자별 지원.정말 주목할 만한 상을 받은 시인, 죽을 때까지 활동한다.브루자옴 (대화) 2015년 3월 27일 16:21 (UTC)[응답하라]
  • 나는 당신의 의견을 반박할 것이 아니라, 분명히 말하는데, 이것은 "유명인 1인당 지지"가 아니라 "유명인으로서 지지"이다.– 무보슈구 (대화) 2015년 3월 27일 (UTC) 16:28[응답]
• 노벨상 당 지지도가 흐릿하다.RD는 머리가 잘 돌지 않는다.가말리엘 (토크) 2015년 3월 27일 16:13 (UTC)[응답]
• 기사에는 사망 날짜만 나와 있지만, 더 나은 업데이트를 위해서는 적어도 한 문장 정도는 있어야 한다.나머지는 합리적인 출처로서 게시해도 괜찮다. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 2015년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 확실히, 나는 RD를 지지하지만 blurb는 반대한다.일상적 성년의 죽음, 그리고 이것은 대처나 만델라 같은 사람이 아니었다.--MASEM (t) 16:23, 2015년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• RD를 지지하되 흐릿함은 반대한다.나는 이 이야기가 흐리멍덩하게 들릴 만큼 "중대한" 것으로 보지는 않지만, 노벨상 수상자는 분명히 사망 기준을 충족한다.– 무보슈구 (대화) 2015년 3월 27일 (UTC) 16:18 [응답]
• 지원 블럽 RD – 노벨상 수상 시인그의 분야에서 영향력이 있고 최근까지 활동했다. (그가 영어권 출신이라면 여기서 주어질 것이다) P. S. 버튼 (토크) 17:08, 2015년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 동의하지 않는다.예를 들어 앨리스 먼로에게 불쑥 말할 이유가 없다고 본다.– 무보슈구 (대화) 2015년 3월 27일 (UTC) 17:17[응답]
• RD만 지원하십시오.나는 단순히 노벨상 수상자가 되는 것이 애매모호하다고는 생각하지 않는다.브랜드마이스터^talk 17:27, 2015년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• RD를 지지하되 흐릿함은 반대한다.노벨상을 수상하는 것은 과거 노벨상이 수상자들에게 주는 것으로 인식되는 것에 대해 많은 논란이 있었던 만큼 어떤 대가를 치르더라도 블러브를 게시하는 결정적인 기준으로 받아들여져서는 안 된다.트란스트뢰머는 확실히 그의 시대에는 훌륭한 작가였지만 다른 세대에 영향을 준 그의 동시대의 작가들 중 한 명은 아니었다.여기 있는 우리들 대부분은 노벨상 수상 전에 그에 대해 들어본 적이 없을 것 같다.--기릴 시메오노프스키 (토크) 17:29, 2015년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  • 그는 또한 누스타트 국제 문학상, 스루가 시 저녁의 황금 화환, 페트라르카 프레이스의 수상자다.그것은 국제 맨부커를 제외한 모든 주요 국제상이다.나는 네가 그에 대해 들었는지 안 들었는지 여부에 따라 그의 중요성을 가늠할 수 없다고 생각한다.우리가 Transtömer를 게시하지 않는다면 나는 시인을 위한 소유권이 어디에 있는지 궁금하다.어떤 시인이 흐릿함을 보증하는가?흐릿하게 글을 올리지 않은 내가 알 수 있는 유일한 이유는 그의 노년기일 것이다.P. S. 버튼 (대화) 2015년 3월 27일 (UTC) 18:07 [응답]
    • 우리가 자연사/노후에 의한 사망이 마거릿 대처나 넬슨 만델라와 같은 일크족일 것이라는 한 유명한 사람의 최근 죽음을 강조하기 위해 언제 흐림을 사용할 것인지 대략적인 척도가 된다.이 두 사람은 정치 등에서 국제적 수준에 상당한 영향을 미쳤으며, 그들이 세상을 떠난 것에 대한 세계 각국의 반응은 분명 큰 사건이었다.시인은 다른 노벨상 수상자는 말할 것도 없고, 당장 이런 종류의 영향력을 가질 가능성은 매우 낮다. --MASEM (t) 18:11, 2015년 3월 27일 (UTChave)
      • ^^ 당장, 나는 저명한 만델라가 노벨 평화상을 수상했다고 생각한다.'AD'' (대화) 01:48, 2015년 3월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
      • P. S. Burton, 당신이 언급하는 모든 상들은 현장 맨 위에 있지만 그들은 특히 RD 섹션을 소개한 후에 블럽에 대한 자동 한정자를 제시하지 않는다.RD 코너 도입의 주요 목표는 사망자를 문서화하는 방대한 게시물을 이름만 표시하는 단순한 줄로 대체하는 한편, 그 사람이 세상에 큰 영향을 미치고 수백만 명의 사람들과 전 세대에 영향을 미쳤을 경우에 대비해 완전히 배제하고 허용하는 것이다.솔직히, 나는 우리가 지난 몇 년 동안 매우 양보적이었다고 생각한다; RD 섹션에 게재된 사망자의 수는 지나치게 부풀려졌고, 일부 사람들은 억울하게 불쑥 나타나서 사망 기준을 낮추었다.따라서, 이것이 변경사항을 적용하기 전에 지명되었다면, 노벨상 수상자나 노벨상 수상자만을 이유로 블러프(Novel Prize)를 받을 만했을 것이다(참고: 일반적으로 노벨상 수상자들은 RD가 존재하기 전에 블러프(blurbles)를 받았다는 것이다).--기릴 시메오노프스키 (talk) 2015년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답)
        • 그래, 그럴 만도 하지.나는 최근 죽음 섹션이 소개된 이후 위키피디아의 이 부분에서 활동하지 않았다.시간을 내서 설명해줘서 고마워.P. S. 버튼 (토크) 2015년 3월 27일 19:10 (UTC)[응답]
• RD를 지원하되 위의 모든 것에 대해 blurb를 반대한다.-더 헤럴드 17:51, 2015년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• RD 지원 이유 이상의 Blurb 반대.조슈아 가너 (대화) 2015년 3월 27일 18:33 (UTC)[응답]
• 기사가 준비되지 않아 "Ready"를 제거함.1라인과 별도로 사망했다는 업데이트는 없으며, 이를 반영하기 위해 여러 곳에 기사를 고쳐야 한다. --Tone 19:12, 2015년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• RD 지지, 블러브 반대 그의 죽음은 세계적인 영향력과 커버리지의 예외적인 수준을 가진 것이 아니다.이것은 그가 매우 중요한 작가였다는 것에 이의를 제기하기 위한 것이 아니지만, 요즘은 흐릿한 일이 당연히 드물다.넬잭 (대화) 2015년 3월 27일 21시 56분 (UTC)[응답]
• 지원 RD 노벨상 수상자는 분명히 글쓰기에서 선도적인 인물이다.나는 RD 흐림이 길고 성공적인 삶의 끝에서 지나가는 것보다 사건을 일으키는 것(재위하는 군주의 죽음, 인기 있는 인물의 암살)을 위한 것이라는 것을 알고 있다고 생각했다.수백만 (그러나 노벨상을 받지 못한) 작품을 팔았던 테리 프랫쳇은 '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''AD'' (토크) 01:45, 2015년 3월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 2015년 3월 28일 (UTC) 02:43, RD 나콘 게시[응답]
• 지원 RD, blurb 반대 - 노벨상 수상자로서 성공했지만, J.K. 롤링. starship.paint ~ "Olé! 2015년 3월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

3월 26일

[재포스팅] RD: 딩카 4세

명명자의 의견:동부 아시리아 교회의 이라크 카톨릭교-파트리아치. -헤럴드 04:13, 2015년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지원: 주목할 만한 종교인, 탄탄한 기사. -쿠즈1 (토크) 04:19, 2015년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• 그의 분야에서 최고 수준의 인물을 지원하라, 좋은 기사, 시사점.128.214.53.18 (토크) 08:15, 2015년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지원, 역사적으로 중요한 교회의 주목할 만한 총대주교.--카토보토크 09:26, 2015년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지원, 주요 종교 단체의 수장물품의 상태가 적절한 '''tAD'' (대화) 10:48, 2015년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지원 명세서, 좋은 기사.—조니 닉슨 - (토크) 2015년 3월 27일 (UTC) 11시 30분[응답]
• 게시 — 커피 // 원두 한 잔 // 14:56, 2015년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

  하지만 더 멋진 일이지.나는 그의 죽음이 언급조차 되지 않았다는 것을 안다.이 기사 읽는 사람 있어?품질과 참조에 관심이 있는 사람?더 람블링맨 (토크) 2015년 3월 27일 (UTC) 19:44[응답]

  @커피:이 게시물을 설명해 주시겠습니까?기사에서 사망자가 언급된 것을 확인하셨나요?더 램블링맨 (토크) 2015년 3월 27일 21:01, (UTC)[응답]

• TRM당 당김.나는 그가 특정 사용자를 비하하는 어조를 사용하는 것을 용납하지 않지만, 그 기사는 중요성과 상관없이 품질 문제로 게시될 수 없다.게시하기 전에 두 가지 수정 사항이 필요하다.죽음을 묘사한 보라색 산문은 조금 중화시킬 필요가 있으며, 전체 사망 단락은 참조되지 않는다.우리는 그 사실에 대한 어떠한 언급도 없이 죽은 사람을 게시할 수 없다. 그것은 주요 BLP 문제가 될 것이다.이 두 가지 수정 사항에도 불구하고 즉시 반환되는 것에 대한 편견 없음. --Jayron32 21:06, 2015년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

  이는 지난 24시간 동안 ITN에 글을 올리는 과정에서 두 번의 부실한 판단 오류를 범한 한 관리자에 대한 이야기다.그러한 실패에 대한 우리의 과정을 빨리 제거할수록 더 좋다.그리고 신의 사랑을 위해, RD 게시물에는, 당신이 확인해야 할 것이 하나 있다.여기에 이것을 지지하거나 게시한 사람은 아무도 그것을 확인하지 않았다.슬픈 얼굴.《람블링맨》(토크) 21:08, 2015년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

  아기를 거세한 것도 아니고[ITN에 대한 관리자의 조치가 TRM에서 다룰 수 있는 것이 아니라는 설명] 되돌릴 수 있다.진정해. -- 타리카브조투 21:41, 2015년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답하라]

  대체 무슨 소리야?너의 비교는 역겹고 전혀 불필요하다.그런 헛소문을 올리기 전에 "타릭"을 다시 한번 생각해봐.더 램블링맨 (토크) 2015년 3월 27일 (UTC) 21:42 (답변)

  이제 문제가 해결된 것으로 보인다. -쿠즈1 (대화) 21:21, 2015년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

• 코멘트, 이 주제의 죽음에 대해 여러 가지 언급이 있다.지금 이것을 RD에 게시하는 것에 대해 반대하십니까?나콘 02:59, 2015년 3월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지지하다.인정해, 나는 이 사람이 누구인지, 그리고 그가 실제로 어떤 중요성을 가지고 있는지 완전히 이해하기 위해 조사를 해야 했어.현재 그의 사망에 대해 적절히 인용된 소식통이 몇 군데 있지만, 그들 중 누구도 사망 원인을 직접 진술하지는 않는다.기사 전반에 걸쳐 인라인 인용문이 존재하는 것 같다.그래야 할 것 같다.챌린저 l (대화) 04:56, 2015년 3월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

나에게 있어 TRM의 발언은 또 다른 지명을 더럽혔다.심지어 TRM이 자신의 행동에 동의하지 않는 모든 사람을 비난하고, 계속해서 그들에 대한 조치를 취하는 것과 함께, 여기에도 기꺼이 글을 올리려고 하는 관리자들이 있다는 것은 놀라운 일이다. -- 타리카브조투 05:33, 2015년 3월 28일 (UTC)[응답하라]

나에게, 너의 비열한 비교와 몇몇 사람들에 의해 증명된 일반적인 무능이 진짜 문제야.《람블링맨》(토크) 08:47, 2015년 3월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

• 제발, 여러분, 우리가 서로에게 더 친절해질 수 있을까? 스타쉽.페인트 ~ "올레! 08:52, 2015년 3월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

• 그래, 그리고 아기 거세와 비교하는 것도 피할 수 있을까?《람블링맨》(토크) 09:03, 2015년 3월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

• 정말, 그것도 포함되어 있다.starship.paint ~ "올레! 2015년 3월 28일 12시 39분 (UTC)[응답하라]

• 지원 - 문제 해결, 이 RD 복원? 스타쉽.페인트~ "올레! 07:51, 2015년 3월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

  약간의 트윗과 긴장된 변화로 다시 게시한다.더 람블링맨 (토크) 2015년 3월 28일 (UTC) 12시 45분[응답]

[폐쇄] 리차드 3세 퇴행 및 재회생

3월 25일

---

[포스팅] 사우디아라비아, 예멘 공격

명명자의 의견:현재 진행중인 예멘의 위기상황에서, 잠재적으로 수백만 명의 예멘 주민들과 그 이웃들에게 영향을 미칠 수 있는 헤드라인을 장식하는 발전.상황이 더 명확해질 때까지 ITN 탈주에 대한 대통령의 루머를 언급하는 것을 보류할 것을 제안하고 싶지만, 지난 24시간 동안 예멘에서 일어난 많은 일들이 우리가 며칠 전에 열거한 자본 선언보다 더 중요한 것이라고 말해도 충분하다.쿠즈1 (대화) 2015년 3월 26일 03:00 (UTC)[응답]

• 현재 진행 중인 예멘 위기 상황의 일부 코멘트? --MASEM (t) 03:03, 2015년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 그것은 나의 생각이었지만, 그것은 애매모호한 것으로 받아들여져야 할 것이다.좋은 알트(alt)를 생각한다면 어서 하나를 추가하라. -쿠즈1 (토크) 03:06, 2015년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 나는 알트를 추가했다.초풍비는 아니지만 위기를 맞고 조금 짧다. -쿠즈1 (토크) 03:17, 2015년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
• 제방을 받들다사우디 아라비아의 중요한 조치.음호세인 (대화) 03:52, 2015년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
• SA의 군사행동이 일상적으로 일어나는 것은 아니다.㎕δεες (대화) 03:58, 2015년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
• 이 문장이 선호하는 코멘트로 두 번째 블럽을 지지하십시오.후티 무장세력과 그 동맹국들이 예멘의 임시 수도 아덴을 진격하자 사우디는 만수르 하디 정부를 지지하는 공습에 돌입한다.--세이예드(t-c) 04:00, 2015년 3월 26일(UTC)[응답]

@사.바킬리안 및 쿠즈1:이 제안은 짧고 유익하면서도 더욱 정확하다.음호세인 (대화) 05:40, 2015년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

@Mhhhosene: 어떤 제안?--Seyed(t-c) 05:44, 2015년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

@사.바킬리안: ...사우디아라비아는 만수르 하디 정부를 지지하는 공습에 돌입한다.음호세인 (대화) 05:48, 2015년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

• 두 번째 블럽이나 세이예드를 지지하십시오.조슈아 가너 (대화) 2015년 3월 26일 04:14 (UTC)[응답]
• 사우디가 분쟁에 개입하는 것은 이례적이지만, 실제로 이란과 싸우지 않고 이란과 싸우는 방식인가.◆야구 벅스 당근→04:24, 2015년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

@야구 버그:보아하니, 하지만 이 문제는 이 논의와 관련이 없다. --Seyed(t-c) 04:33, 2015년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

• 반대 - 그것은 현재 진행 중인 예멘 위기의 또 다른 단계일 뿐이기 때문이다.◆야구 벅스 당근→04:48, 2015년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지원, 주요 개발.한 번만 흐릿하게 하고 가능하면 진행하지 마십시오.납북(이유) 05:36, 2015년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
• 반대 – 이것이 얼마나 중요한지 말하기에는 너무 이르다.그들은 예멘에 개입한 적이 있다.어느 쪽이든, 나는 예멘 위기에 대한 계속되는 언급은 한 번의 흐림보다 훨씬 더 충분할 것이라고 믿는다.예멘에서는 주목할 만한 사건들이 많이 일어나고 있는데, 왜 이것이 선정되어야 하는지 모르겠다.지원 진행 중.RGlucester — 2015년 3월 26일 (UTC) 05:40, ☎[응답]
• 사우디는 최근 예멘에 여러 차례 공세에 나섰다.《람블링맨》(토크) 05:43, 2015년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

"간섭"과 붕괴될 정권을 지지하는 것은 매우 다른 것이다.그것은 마치 의사들이 환자에게 호흡기 질환을 치료하고 있고, 환자가 정맥내 항생제로 중환자실에 입원해 있다고 말하는 것과 같다.㎕δεες (대화) 05:51, 2015년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

그것과 무관하게, 중요한 문제는 왜 우리가 이러한 많은 발전이 현재 일어나고 있는 상황에서 이 한 가지 개발을 애매모호하게 배제하느냐 하는 것이다.진행만이 합리적인 해결책이다.RGlucester — 2015년 3월 26일 (UTC) 05:55 [응답]

나는 네가 "무례한" 것을 의미한다고 확신해, 너의 반칙적이고, 역겹고, 음탕한 직감 말이야.어쨌든, 진행 중인 블러브는 날 귀찮게 하지 않을 거야.㎕δεες (대화) 06:05, 2015년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 그 이슈가 메인페이지에 오를 만하다고 생각한다.두 과목을 동시에 다루는 제안서를 찾을 수 있다.--Seyed(t-c) 06:11, 2015년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

• 17Kb로 Ready로 표시되며 주황색 태그가 없고 게시물도 2:1로 지원된다.㎕δεες (대화) 06:14, 2015년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

• 10여 개국이 공습에 참가하고 15만 명의 사우디인들이 국경을 넘을 위기에 처한 주요 행사인 지원.가능성이 희박하지 않은 미니월드 전쟁이 이어진다면 이것이 출발점이 될 수 있다.--카토보 토크 06:20, 2015년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지지하되, 반란 정부를 "임시적"이라고 부르는 것에 반대한다.그럴듯한 결과처럼 보이지만, 위키피디아는 볼게이징을 위한 것이 아니다.불가침헐크 (대화) 2015년 3월 26일 12시 48분 (UTC)[응답]

잘못 읽었어.임시 자본.좋아불가침헐크 (대화) 2015년 3월 27일 10:25 (UTC)[답글]

• 코멘트 – 사람들은 여기서 생각할 필요가 있다.ITN 박스에 예멘 블러브가 하나 있는데이제 하나 더 추가하자.이것은 동일한 사건에 대해 계속 흐릿해지는 것을 막기 위해 계속적으로 사용되는 상황의 유형이다.이 글귀는 올리면 안 된다.예멘은 계속 진행해야 해 그렇지 않으면 며칠에 한 번씩 계속 할 거야RG루스터 — 2015년 3월 26일 (UTC) 15:11, 26 (응답)
  • 나는 이것을 위해 길을 터주기 위해 다른 흐림을 제거하는 것을 제안한다.이것은 우리가 다루고 있는 진화하는 상황이지만, 외국의 군사 개입이 시작되는 것은 의심할 여지 없이 주목할 만한 진전이다, IMO. - Kudzu1 (대화) 2015년 3월 15일, 2015년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
• 게시 — 커피 // 원두 한 잔 // 15:26, 2015년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

• 말도 안 돼, ITN 이름을 "예멘 티커"로 바꾸자.우리가 언제 같은 아이템과 관련하여 두 번 모호한 적이 있었는가?더 램블링맨 (토크) 2015년 3월 26일 (UTC) 21:05 [응답]

안 된다는 룰을 말해줘?--WaltCip (대화) 21:14, 2015년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답하라]

그런 일들에 대해 계속 진행 중이라는 상식적인 접근법을 알려주시겠습니까?"규칙을 가르쳐 줘..."?정말?자라다그리고 질문에 답하라.더 램블링맨 (토크) 2015년 3월 26일 21:23 (UTC)[응답]

나는 우리가 훨씬 더 많은 WP가 될 수 있다고 생각한다.이것보다 Civilizen, 우리가? -Kudzu1 (토크) 21:39, 2015년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

와, 무례하기도 하지, 램블링?나는 그것이 즉각적인 사과를 할 수 있다고 생각한다.그리고 기록에 의하면, 지역적으로 중요한 분쟁에서 뚜렷하게 분리되어 있지만 매우 중요한 두 개의 모호함이 완벽하게 이치에 맞는다. 82.21.7.184 (대화) 22:55, 2015년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

오, 그만해.합의는 흐릿함을 위한 것이었다.이 게시물은 기술적으로 잘못된 것이 없었다."크게 자라라"?진짜??--WaltCip (대화) 12:03, 2015년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

공손함은 제쳐두고 요점을 놓치셨군요.흐릿함에 대한 합의가 있었다는 것에는 의심의 여지가 없다.문제는 이 아이템이 예멘 분쟁과 관련된 기존 흐림을 대체해야 하느냐 하는 것이다.나는 적어도 그렇게 해야 한다고 생각하는 사람들을 본다. 지명자를 포함해서.그리고 보통은 이런 이야기들이 일어나는데 -- 타리카브죠투 13:30, 2015년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답하라]

• 대체 질문에서 답을 찾을 수 있을 것 같다. 예멘에서 이런 일이 언제 일어났는가?두 뉴스 항목 모두 국제적으로 믿을 수 없을 정도로 중요하고, ITN 가치가 매우 높다. - 미국에서 이런 일이 일어난다면, 그것에 대한 논쟁조차 없을 것이다. - 같은 지리적 지역에 있다는 그들의 "관계"는 그들을 무효로 하거나, 같은 것으로 만들지 않는다. (참고: 이것은 내가 결국 이 위기를 "옹구" 항목으로 올리는 것에 동의하지 않는다는 것을 의미하지는 않는다; 단지 이것들은 현재 독립적으로 인기 있는 항목일 뿐이다.)— 커피 // 콩 한 잔 // 23:32, 2015년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

만약 이것이 미국에서 일어난다면, 그것에 대한 논쟁조차 없을 것이다.사실, '람블링 맨'이 있다면, 아마 있을 겁니다.

그리고, 말하기는 싫지만, 나는 그의 말에 동의한다.나는 이것이 다른 블러브를 대체할 것이라고 생각했다.사람들은 심지어 공천에서 그렇게 말하고 있었다.네가 원한다면 역사를 파헤칠 수 있지만, 난 우리가 항상 이 일을 한다고 확신해.이 두 사건은 충분히 관련이 있다. 거의 같은 기사와 연결되었을 수도 있다. 이것은 분쟁의 사건들에 대한 최신 정보일 것이다.이 모호한 표현은 아덴의 움직임을 "잠정자본"이라고 부르면서 언급하기도 한다.그리고 아덴과 관련한 모호한 내용을 삭제하면 또 다른 예멘 관련 기사인 2015년 사나 모스크 폭탄이 메인페이지에 다시 등장할 수 있으니, 예멘에 대해 이런 식으로 행동하지 마십시오.그 폭탄 테러와 이 캠페인은 후자가 전자에 대한 업데이트를 구성하지 않을 만큼 충분히 뚜렷하므로, 괜찮다. -- 타리카브조투 02:48, 2015년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답하라]

명목상으로는 다른 블러브도 대체할 줄 알았다. -쿠즈1 (토크) 06:13, 2015년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

그래, 그게 일반적인 접근법이야.특히 "잠정"/"임시" 자본이 더 최근의 흐림에서 다루어지기 때문에 이 경우에는 더욱 그러하다.《람블링맨》(토크) 08:55, 2015년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

@Coffee: 이 이슈를 재방문하십시오. -- 타리캅조투 13:22, 2015년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

커피가 핑에 반응하지 않고 심지어 유목민조차도 이것이 새로운 블럽이 아닌 혹이 될 것으로 예상하고 있었기 때문에 아덴 수도 블럽을 교체했다. -- 타리카브조투 21:01, 2015년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

좋아 보이네, 고마워. -쿠즈1 (대화) 03:30, 2015년 3월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

[포스팅] 아벨상 2015

• 명. --bender235 (대화) 02:24, 2015년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지원 두 기사 모두 충분한 품질이다(상대적인 길이의 길이가 당신에 대한 영화를 만들 때 발생하는 홍보 효과를 보여주지만...) 반대 의견이 없는 한, ITN/R이므로 몇 시간 후에 게시하겠다.스머린체스터 2015년 3월 26일 08:26 (UTC)[응답하라]

편집: 사실, 니렌버그는 몇 가지 인용 문제가 있다.내가 먼저 고쳐줄게.스머라인체스터 08:28, 2015년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

그의 모든 상이 지금 인용되었고, 바라건대 지금 평신도들은 적어도 그의 작품이 왜 그렇게 중요한지 눈치챌 수 있을 것이다(그는 아마도 그 누구보다 우리를 난기류에 대한 이해에 더 가까이 데려왔을 것이다).스머린체스터 09:07, 2015년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

• ITN/R별 지원.아벨상은 수학에서 큰 의의를 인정받은 상이다.--기릴 시메오노프스키 (토크) 12:27, 2015년 3월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
• 기사로서의 지원은 둘 다 질이 좋고 이것이 ITN/R이다.나는 이것을 준비되었다고 표시했다.마밀레스 (대화) 2015년 3월 26일 13:57 (UTC)[응답]

  2015년 3월 26일 (UTC) 14시 40분 게시[응답]

• 잠깐, 내시가 노벨상+아벨상을 받은 첫 번째 사람이 아닌가?아벨은 수학의 노벨상이고, 매우 극소수의 사람들만이 두 개의 노벨상을 탔다.네르가알 (대화) 05:44, 2015년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 제안하는 대체 블러브 있어?너의 코멘트가 현재 아이템에 어떤 영향을 미치는지 잘 모르겠어.스펜서^T♦C 06:24, 2015년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

아벨은 노벨상을 받은 최초의 수상자가 되는데, 그는 이 상을 니렌버그와 공유하지만 더 나은 표현으로 받았다.네르가알(대화) 15:13, 2015년 3월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

[폐쇄] 탈영 혐의로 기소된 보우 베르그달

[게시] 계속:예멘의 위기

[폐쇄] 제러미 클락슨

[Closed] Curiosity (rover)

Kraft Heinz merger

Nominator's comments: Major merger between two of the world's largest food and drink companies, worth around $40bn. Business deals are under-represented on ITN. The blurb is carefully phrased, because this is still subject to shareholder approval. However that is expected to be a formality, and the story is in the news now. Modest Genius ^talk 13:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support big business news. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support You make a good point that business deals are under-represented - we usually dismiss them as routine. But even routine business should be posted occasionally. Mamyles (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on article improvements This was valued around $40B if I remember the stories yesterday - I believe this number should be included to provide the necessary scope (As I'm not sure of the international recognition of both brands). --MASEM (t) 14:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and agree with Masem on all points. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I generally think business stories that don't involve some wort of innovation (like getting cable channels on your smart phone) shouldn't be posted. (Weak support if they go with the name Heinzkraft or Kreinz :D ). μηδείς (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Mergers and acquisitions happen all the time. Fifth largest, not largest. If the Comcast & TWC merger is allowed to go through, would that merit coverage? If so, why? If not, why not? And keep in mind that the purpose of these deals is typically to make the wealthy stockholders wealthier, to provide degraded service to customers, and to deprive people of their jobs. So where do you draw the line? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose just the fifth largest food company? What are the other four? This is DYK material. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • PepsiCo, Coca-cola, Nestlé and I think Dole Foods. Modest Genius^talk 23:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 5 largest in the U.S. as of 2010, according to this article were PepsiCo, Dole, General Mills, Nestle and Kraft. World-wide, the top 5 food companies according to this article in 2013 were Nestle, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, ADM, and InBev. But these rankings often depend on how you define words like "largest" "food" and "company". --Jayron32 19:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. Still oppose then, this proposed merger is small fry in big business terms. Not to reiterate the fact that it's a "proposed" merger..... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not so small; you're not going to ever see, say, PepsiCo and Coca-Cola merging since that would violate the Sherman Antitrust Act. So this is about as good as it gets for business mergers in the food sector.--WaltCip (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• No Consensus to post the article yet. Nakon 03:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Smaller than mergers like Volkswagen and Porsche or T-Mobile US and MetroPCS. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this is major business news that also presents a welcome break from the more typical ITN posts. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 24

---

[Closed] RD: Yehuda Avner

Boko Haram kidnappings

Nominator's comments: Seems significant because of the large number of people who have been kidnapped--even more than the Chibok kidnapping. The precise number of people involved, however, is still uncertain, which is why the blurb just says "hundreds" rather than something more precise. Everymorning talk 18:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Given that Boko Haram seems to be aligning with ISIL, perhaps with ongoing we can add "(Boko Haram)" as a sub-point to the current ISIL ongoing? --MASEM (t) 18:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the BBC headline I read says that they have kidnapped "about 500 children". That seems significant and would need us to modify the blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  The Rambling Man I saw that, but I also saw this headline which quotes a government spokesperson as saying that the number was lower than 500. How much lower, as I said above, is still unclear. Newsweek says over 400, for example. [6] Everymorning talk 21:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle, but think we really should just have one Islamist terrorism (not set on the exact wording) ongoing, rather than post every single atrocity daily. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose posting to ITN:O. Nakon 03:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Lil' Chris

[Posted] Germanwings Flight 9525

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support pending info on fatalities and some expansion (and also because Airbus is involved). Brandmeister^talk 11:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support since it is one of the most significant crashes in Europe in recent period.--Egeymi (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle pending more details when and if available; French President Hollande has said they believe there are no survivors. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per above. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, looking that there will be no survivors. Obviously worthy of posting. Mjroots (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting. --Tone 12:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTEfile:Germanwing Airbus A320 D-AIPX.JPG is of the actual aircraft, and is available to use. Mjroots (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, can the image be replaced with the more recent version which depicts the "Germanwings" logo and colour? --Stemoc 16:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Mass-casualty, high-profile air disaster. Obvious ITN material. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – At some point we may want to update blurb with statement by French prosecutor that co-pilot Andreas Lubitz appeared to have crashed plane deliberately. Sca (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Update and have proposed an Altblurb. The essence of the story is a murder-suicide, not a mechanical failure. μηδείς (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^{Although there doesn't seem much doubt, given circumstances, we need to get some element of "apparently" in Altblurb. Sca (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

• Support update as it adds an important element to the story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose update I don't think that a blurb change is necessary. Readers who want to find out what the suspected cause of the crash is should simply follow the bolded link to the article. It would be inappropriate (and a BLP violation) to definitively say the co-pilot is a murderer, since an official report has not been released. Mamyles (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • BLP violation? Are you suggesting the pilot in question survived the crash? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP applies to the recently deceased. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-intuitively, BLP policy does apply for a short period after death. Please see WP:BDP for details. Mamyles (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Define "recent". In any case, BBC is reporting it as an "apparently" deliberate act, based on the findings from the black boxes so far.[7] So, no BLP violation, dead or alive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Update. We don't need to say that the co-pilot was a murderer, but the plane was clearly intentionally brought down. 331dot (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly support Update – "Deliberate" action by (co-) pilot cited by official French sources and is all over int'l. media, including German. Suggest immediate update via Altblurb 1 with following modifications (adding two words, number and comma):

"French officials conclude that the co-pilot of Germanwings Flight 9525 apparently deliberately crashed plane the Airbus 320A in the French Alps, killing all 150 on board.

Two adverbs in succession isn't great syntax, but it's clear. Sca (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Two things, blurbs should be in the present tense, and I think "apparently" is an unnecessary qualification, as the investigators are reporting it, and the voice recorder confirms the events,and the descent was controlled. μηδείς (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever blurb is chosen, it should match with what the article says. Consensus, or any change, is needed there first. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree apparently has been superseded by continued coverage in which big media outlets have dropped that caveat. Don't see where suggested (present-tense) blurb above, minus "apparently," conflicts with article, which appears quite complete. Why wait? Sca (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose update the current blurb is factually 100% correct. Other suggested blurbs, although based on the reports in major news outlets, are still based in speculation. The best an updated blurb could do would be to say that it was concluded from the voice recorder that it was a deliberate act. We're not tabloid, there's nothing wrong at all with sticking with the facts that the plane crashed into the Alps and everybody died. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• BLP does not apply if we say "Authorities indicate the co-pilot of Germanwings Flight 9525 deliberately flew into a mountainside, killing all 150 on board." Given this is the unanimous declaration of all authorities involved and in every press source reticence is baseless. μηδείς (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Unanimous" is an awkward concept here. There if one investigating body - the French BEA. There is only one black box - the CVR. There has been one analysis of that CVR. Essentially this is what the French prosecutor has decided (although, admittedly, the evidence does look compelling). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are we more virtuous than than the most respected journalists? Sca (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I'd vote yes for that one. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

• Support update. We follow the sources. Our job is not to reach our own personal conclusions. The sources are reporting the conclusions of the French authorities, so we report the conclusions of the French authorities. Suggest the blurb say "French authorities conclude that the co-pilot of Germanwings Flight 9525 deliberately crashed in the French Alps, killing all 150 on board." There's no need to speak in Wikipedia's voice, but there is a responsibility to match reliable sources on this. --Jayron32 23:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very reasonable compromise. Would support. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will also support that blurb. 331dot (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose update. The existing blurb is simple, short and factual. Any reader who wants to know why it crashed can click on the link and read the article. We should be very careful about reporting an ongoing investigation, clear as it might seem what the conclusions will be, particularly in a short blurb which cannot capture all the nuances. As for the most recent blurb suggestion: French authorities have provided an update on their current interpretation of the crash - they won't 'conclude' anything until their investigation and final report are complete. Modest Genius ^talk 00:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jayron's suggestion (if someone can make it fit). Here, from Reuters, is another version of the same idea: "French prosecutors believe Andreas Lubitz, 27, locked himself alone in the cockpit of the Germanwings Airbus A320 ... and deliberately steered it into a mountain, killing all 150 people on board."

• Prefer "Airbus A320," which adds information, to "Flight 9525," which could be any type of plane.

• The time is now! Sca (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS — How about: "French officials indicate the co-pilot of Germanwings Flight 9525 deliberately crashed the Airbus 320A in the French Alps, killing all 150 on board." – ?? Sca (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose update based on incorrect claim this would be the conclusions of the French authorities. Jean-Pierre Michel, the head of the French investigation agency, said that some technical details of what precisely happened to the Airbus A320 aircraft were still missing. “At the moment we can’t rule out the hypothesis of a technical fault,” Michel told the French channel BFM TV. LoveToLondon (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Supreme Court strikes down section 66A of IT Act

Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 10:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Possibly notable in India, but has little to no bearing on the rest of the world and is getting little play in the media. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has this been under challenge all along? Does it mean that any convictions will be vacated? A rationale on the impact would help. I read the article but it was pretty cut-and-dried. μηδείς (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the law was used in 2012 to arrest two people that posted something critical, which was based on a vague interpretation of the law (as I read it). This would be equivalent to the US's Child Online Protection Act (and various other attempts to regulate speech on the internet). --MASEM (t) 19:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources the Hindu, and The India Times, say "many arrests". But no detail is given on convictions, imprisonment, etc. I would be supportive if there were imprisonments, but if it was just abused, randomly enforced, and challenged from the start it's a bit different. We need clarity and more informative sources. μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative support See my comment to Medeis above, but this would be the equivalent of the SCOTUS striking down a law used to limit free speech, which while only would affect the US directly, did have worldwide impacts. India is far from tiny and would have a similar impact if the law was upheld. So seems reasonable to post. --MASEM (t) 19:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: ITN didn't post the passage of a far more restrictive law in the Philippines in 2012. –HTD 19:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Large numbers of multi-national companies operate from India, so this has an impact far beyond that country. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Normally this would not get my support, but India is the world's second most populous country with a massive and globalized IT sector. As such the potential ramifications are a bit more noteworthy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd still like a little more information. We didn't post it when the Canadian government Human_rights_complaints_against_Maclean's_magazine#Subsequent_legislative_action repealed its hate speech provisions after the high-profile trial and acquittal of Maclean's, Mark Steyn, and Ezra Levant, after several people's lives had been ruined. Basically, if people are being released from jail sentences on this ruling I will support it, but I don't have the sources. Not having seen "India releases dozens after SC overthrows anti-free speech law" I am not inclined to at this point. μηδείς (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The phrasing seems a bit problematic. The sources state that the Supreme Court struck down the law because it violated freedom of speech as guaranteed by the constitution. Saying "which was used to curtail freedom of speech on internet" is both potentially violating NPOV and leaving out critical information that it was struck down because of the Supreme Court's decision that it violated freedom of speech. Also, the sentence should probably begin with "The". --Yair rand (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I checked the article to see if there were sources there not mentioned in the nomination that make this clearer. I found the criticism section is still referring to 66a in the present tense. Regardless of merits, the article itself is not ready. μηδείς (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Largest asteroid impact ever

March 23

---

[Closed] A Rape on Campus

[Closed] Protests over the murder of Farkhunda

2015 Indian swine flu outbreak

Nominator's comments: This was nominated on 15 March 2015 to close as SNOW. The death toll is rising currently. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 04:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for same reasons - swine flu outbreaks in this part of the world are not uncommon. --MASEM (t) 05:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Outbreaks of swine flu may not be uncommon in India, but ones that kill 2000 people are considerably rarer. Neljack (talk) 06:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the timeline of events goes up to 2 March, if this is really for "Ongoing", we ought to be seeing more than just a tabular update of deaths more than once in three weeks. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait US researchers disagree with Indian researchers about whether the strain is mutating (Reuters Al-Jazeera). This is more likely to be ITN worthy if other journals publish that the virus is mutating to a more contagious strain - or if there is a case overseas. -- Aronzak (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per TRM; I think there needs to be more happening with this than just the number of deaths being updated. 331dot (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose the high death rate per infection seems compelling, but I fear this may be a statistical artifact due to every death, but not every infection being reported. In any case, were I looking for factual information, I would come to wikipedia for comprehensive, non-alarmist coverage, and we have a very good article on this. Looking at swine fu in general, 20,000 + in the US, with a third the population is record. μηδείς (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - high number of deaths. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment for those in support, can they clarify whether they'd like a blurb or an Ongoing post please, it's not clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Neljack, BabbaQ, Mamyles, and Ad Orientem:..-The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 03:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support due to the unusually high number of casualties (prefer ongoing, but blurb would be fine). Judging from the examples in List of epidemics, an event like this occurs only about once a decade. Mamyles (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The death toll is enough to ring the ITN bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a blurb - In regards to The Rambling Man's comment above, I don't know about previous cases of an item becoming "ongoing". But to me, it makes sense that an item like this receive a blurb first if it is ITN worthy, then move to ongoing if it remains ITN worthy after a significant period of time (i.e. there are enough newer items to replace it in the list of blurbs). AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I don't understand, the article hasn't had a prose update for three weeks, why would you think that would make it appropriate for a blurb? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb: Ongoing seems too far, too fast, but thousands of deaths from illness is significant. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I don't understand, the article hasn't had a prose update for three weeks, why would you think that would make it appropriate for a blurb? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd prefer a blurb, but ongoing would be fine too. Neljack (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 22

---

[Posted as Blurb] RD: Lee Kuan Yew

Nominator's comments: Founding father/former Singaporean Prime Minister Fuebaey (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with article fixes - Keeping in mind that last week, his death was falsely reported, this seems like the real thing now. The article has several citation needed tags and paragraphs w/o citation. RD is clear and evident for importance, of course. --MASEM (t) 20:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• As above - No doubt over significance, this man turned a small port into a booming economy and had a father-like reputation to the people he ruled over. Just fixes here and there needed. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb - major figure. a blurb is appropriate--BabbaQ (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and marking ready per this week's updates. I can't imagine there will be any opposition to posting this major leader's passing. 21:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment it would be better if we could post an article without eight [citation needed] tags. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• There are no citation needed tags in the article. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While there still remain a few para without citations, this wasn't as bad as when I commented above, and is reasonably good shape for posting. --MASEM (t) 22:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tag away, but it's dinner time for me, and I really think this is ready to be posted. Problematic paragraphs should be hidden at this point unless they are essential. μηδείς (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and propose blurb - Lee Kuan Yew(pictured), the first Prime Minister of Singapore, passes away at the age of 91. - he's above RD in my opinion. It would not be a stretch to consider him the most important Singaporean ever. Seriously, can anyone name a more prominent or influential Singaporean? He was part of the Singaporean Cabinet pre-independence from 1959 to post-independence in 2011. After Singapore gained independence in 1964, he was Prime Minister for 25 years from 965 to 1990. Sources for "founding father" of Singapore: Los Angeles Times / China Post / BBC News / Associated Press. Timesays he "Made Modern Asia". Wall Street Journalsays he "dominated Singapore politics for more than half a century and transformed the former British outpost into a global trade and finance powerhouse, setting a template for emerging markets around the world". The Guardiansays he is "widely credited with building Singapore into one of the world’s wealthiest nations" . starship.paint~ ¡Olé! 22:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A blurb seems a possibility here, given his importance to Singapore's independence. --MASEM (t) 22:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• He didn't only contribute to independence. He additionally 'raised' a young country after that. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 22:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD, oppose blurb Obviously had a huge impact on Singapore, but I'm not sure his global impact rises to the level I would want before supporting a blurb. Neljack (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Neljack: - since when was global impact a criteria? If so, earlier this month we featured as a blurb the deaths of 3 French athletes killed in a helicopter crash in Argentina. Assuredly, their combined global impact was much lower than Lee's. Perhaps you'll like to read the Washington Post : "But the departure of Lee could also have implications for the United States ... Washington has for decades relied on Lee to interpret events in Asia for it." starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 00:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The French athletes were not posted just because they were athletes; they were posted because of what happened to them; i.e. an event. Blurbs for deaths are generally for either those at the tip-top of their field(such as Margaret Thatcher and Nelson Mandela) or whose death was sudden and unexpected(like Robin Williams). Is this person in the same league as Mandela and Thatcher? 331dot (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From reading, while not have as wide a range of impact as Mandala did, as Starship has pointed out, he is considered to have single-handedly influenced the creation and rise of economic prosperity of Singapore. --MASEM (t) 00:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @331dot: - if the field is Singapore, he's the top person. No question. IMO, even bigger than Mandela and Thatcher to their respective countries. The UK and South Africa existed before these two statesmen. Independent Singapore didn't exist when Lee took the helm. The Hindu: "a towering figure in post-colonial Asia oversaw tiny Singapore's transformation transformation from British tropical outpost to an affluent, global city in just over a generation, setting the example for developing economies from China to Dubai". starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 00:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At this point it's a farce he's not at least on RD yet. Singapore is the third, fourth or fifth richest company by GDP per capita depending on which source one uses, IMF, CIA or World Bank. There are no tags, the article is hugely supported, and we've got both Thatcher's and Obama's endorsements. What else do we need? Users who look to the front page can at least click there. μηδείς (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD and blurb - According to this report, Henry Kissinger called him one of the “asymmetries of history.” Margaret Thatcher said “he was never wrong.” Barack Obama called him “one of the legendary figures of Asia.” Tony Blair said he was “the smartest leader I ever met.” Samuel Huntington said he was one of the “master builders” of the 20th century. -A1candidate 00:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Posted as RD It seems like this may be heading for a blurb, but I'll let the conversation marinate a bit longer. -- tariqabjotu 00:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks Tariq. I'll say oppose blurb more as a comment than a vote, since he died of old age, but a blurb would certainly not offend me. μηδείς (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb. He rises to the Mandela/Thatcher level of importance, due to key role in the transition to independence, and his extremely long and influential time as prime minister. -LtNOWIS (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

source: US P Obama: "giant of history". UK PM Cameron: "Lee Kuan Yew personally shaped Singapore in a way that few people have any nation". Aus PM Abbott: "giant of our region". UN head Ban: "legendary figure in Asia". @Neljack: @331dot: starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb - father of a nation, a giant of our era, as Obama said. Definitely worthy of a blurb. -Zanhe (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted as blurb -- tariqabjotu 01:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Tariqabjotu: - just checking should the nomination be updated and would it be appropriate for me to do it? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 02:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is fine the way it is. -- tariqabjotu 02:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] US State Department to deny any Italian extradition request for Amanda Knox

• After the close, of course, but I see that this current BBC article gives no indication that the US will pre-empt any extradition attempt. It appears to still be an open question. Hence, good close. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Now that the Italian supreme court has closed the book on this case today, maybe a final mention of it would be appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• New blurb: "The Italian Supreme court overturns the overturning of a verdict made by a court that was asked by the Supreme Court to review a verdict of an appeals court that had overturned the verdict of a lower court." Count Iblis (talk) 01:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's one way to put it. Another is "Italian Supreme Court issues final ruling..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Inauguration of Namibian President

March 21

---

[Closed] Perro Aguayo Jr.

[Closed] 2015 New York City house fire

[Posted] Capital of Yemen

Nominator's comments: Designation of a new, albeit temporary, capital city by Yemen's internationally recognized president. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Important news in war-stricken state. I would also support a "Yemen crisis" in ongoing, as things are becoming serious out there. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Interesting. Feels ITN/R-y, though I suppose something as infrequent as a capital change doesn't need a listing. Joshua Garner (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - important news. interesting..etc.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Article has a well deserved orange tag for lacking sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that. Well, the main link could be Yemen, I suppose, which is in much better shape than Aden. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Might I suggest 2014–15 Yemeni coup d'état? --MASEM (t) 02:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or Aftermath of the 2014–15 Yemeni coup d'état? (Noted, both are well sourced articles and only are going to be improved with translations of more localized newssources in time). --MASEM (t) 02:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Those could be good. It's clear the Yemeni crisis needs more representation on ITN than just the mosque bombings. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Is al-Hadi still even the President? He said he resigned a month ago. The Houthis hold the power in the real capital, Sana'a. This seems like a desperation move that won't have any real influence on the current situation in the country. I do support adding the Crisis in Yemen to the Ongoing list, however. --Tocino 01:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Whether he is President or not seems unclear; he 'rescinded' his resignation but the Houthis apparently are still trying to run the country- though he is still recognized by the international community as President. Hard to say. 331dot (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Is the fact the UN Security Council planning to have an emergency meeting on this tomorrow (Sunday) important to blurb too? [14]. --MASEM (t) 02:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Even if who is considered to be in charge is unclear, there seems to be enough developments here to have some sort of listing. 331dot (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] 2015 Six Nations Championship

[Closed] RD: Chuck Bednarik

March 20

---

[Closed] Keith O'Brien resigns

[Posted] 2015 Sana'a mosque bombings

Nominator's comments: Major terrorist attack by ISIS. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as mass-casualty attack, although I'd prefer ongoing status for the Yemen events. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say this is a good first step towards that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support though would like to see the article expanded more before posting. Should we note that ISIS has claimed responsibility for this? --MASEM (t) 18:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can do that now. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I actually edit conflicted in attempting to nominate the same thing. If the current numbers hold up (130+ dead, 340+ wounded), this attack appears likely to eclipse the 2012 Sana'a military bombing as the bloodiest terrorist attack in the history of Yemen. ISIS has publicly claimed responsibility. Admittedly, Yemen is a violence prone area, but this is an exceptional event even for that region. Dragons flight (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Query. Wasn't it four bombs at two mosques? The suggested blurb says four mosques, which I believe is inaccurate. Dragons flight (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right. I fixed that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support first blurb, oppose alt blurb (at this time). It is not yet known exactly which group carried out the bombing, as mentioned in the article. Mamyles (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend changing the first blurb to have the number be less absolute. The number of deaths is rapidly changing at this point. I've changed it to say "kill more than 130 people." Mamyles (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support first blub. This is exceptional even given the context of the ongoing fighting in Yemen. -LtNOWIS (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Any incident involving 100+ deaths is notable, as a rule of thumb. Joshua Garner (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - notable. 100+ deaths.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - very notable event, was coming here specifically to nominate/support this being included. Joseph2302 (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted - Article is brief, but acceptable considering the importance of the event. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rae Bareli Derail

-The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 12:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Does this nomination refer to the subject of the article 2015 Uttar Pradesh train accident? If so, that should be the target article. Everymorning talk 12:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. But its a stub and I spotted it now. -The Herald^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 13:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a stub now! Mjroots (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's fairly close to being ready. The article was two sentences when I looked at it earlier, so very nice work by everyone there. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Significant transport accident, and very much in line with the types of incidents we normally post. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - whilst train crashes in India are not that rare, this one has a higher death toll than most. Mjroots (talk) 07:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose in current state. The article is still a bit small, and the text is just a series of disjointed sentences along the lines of "Photographs show that the carriage next to the locomotive was severely telescoped." Also, rail accidents are unfortunately not rare in India, and unless there's something more notable, like a criminal act, or odd cause or notable death it seems just to be a traffic accident (no disrespect) that will be unlikely to draw much encyclopedic attention. (I.e., "not the news") μηδείς (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Medeis: if you can improve the article, please feel free to do so. Six sources immediately available for you to use. Mjroots (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I do, on many occasions, improve articles that are nominated and borderline for quality. But given I feel this lacks sufficient notability I would rather spend my time elsewhere. You'll note I opposed the Metro North derailment (fewer casualties) vehemently, and am normally on the side of not posting transportation accidents unless there is some more notable issue like criminality, an inordinate death toll, or an already notable victim. I know this matter hits home for the victims and locally, and I certainly mean no disrespect, but in the long perspective it doesn't reach the "showcase" level. μηδείς (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Death toll now 58, ALT blurb added to reflect this. Mjroots (talk) 08:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Solar eclipse

Nominator's comments: There will be plenty of photos shortly, I imagine. Smurrayinchester 08:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle. The last total solar eclipse observable from Europe until 2026 is very notable.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ALT blurb added. Mjroots (talk) 09:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everyone loves a Britocentric blurb. –HTD 09:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't know the UK had acquired the Faroes and Svalbard. Has anyone told them? Mjroots (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was not only an absolutely ridiculous blurb, it was also grossly factually incorrect. The vast majority of the UK is not the South-East of England, for your information. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nowt wrong with my blurb, considering it was the one that got posted! Mjroots (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The Wiki Gods are angry. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support to blurb 1 or 2. Laughed hard at alt 3. Greetings from a greyer than usual Berlin. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support article quality is good, prefer shortness of blurb 1. -- Aronzak (talk) 11:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - interesting, notable---BabbaQ (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I live in the United Kingdom and saw the eclipse fine, even if I did have to look at people through a spot of purple for about half an hour afterwards. Unless we're saying that anything outside London doesn't really count, which is fair enough I suppose. Formerip (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What!? UK editors outside London will be apoplectic! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]
  • Yep, perfect unspoiled views here in Cardiff. I can only assume the second blurb was a joke as well? Who suggested that in the first place? 131.251.254.154 (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting, I'll go with the places blurb. --Tone 13:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A lot of cloud cover in Yorkshire, although there I was able to get a lucky break about ten minutes before the peak. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Malcolm Fraser

Nominator's comments: Former PM of Australia. MASEM (t) 23:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support pending updates. Former leader of a major industrialized country, seems an obvious RD candidate. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious support on importance, but the article needs referencing throughout. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support former head of government of a major nation. Article is in great shape too. GA nomination any time soon? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is in poor shape. Several paragraphs lacking citations, at least one CN tag. --MASEM (t) 01:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Admittedly I took a quick cursory look, but it seems to be in decent shape to me, though it does need some more improvements. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. RIP —Jonny Nixon - (Talk) 06:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 4th longest serving of 28 PMs, elected three times. --ELEKHH^T 07:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Head of government of a major nation. Citation tags can be fixed.-- Aronzak (talk) 08:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 19

---

[Closed] Arctic sea ice hits record low

Treaty signed integrating South Ossetia into the Russian Federation

Nominator's comments: Seems like a major change in an already volatile region. The blurb can also be reworded to mention that the treaty unifies the military, economy and various government agencies of the two states. --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I think I've been doing most of the work on updating South Ossetian articles with the new developments today; personally, I would suggest South Ossetia as the linked article instead of the relations page, which has a lot of preexisting issues. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. I originally thought that Russia–South Ossetia relations would be the logical page to point to, but we may as well point to South Ossetia. --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The provided news sources state that the treaty "calls for nearly full integration" while the blurb suggests that the treaty accomplishes that already. A country formally adding part of another (or just another if you take the Russian position that S.O. is a country) to its territory is notable but the blurb might need to be changed here. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Next stop, the Sudetenland! I am of a mixed opinion on this. The annexation is already a fait accompli. It's not a major news story (i.e., front apge) in the US, while Mrs. Obabama's having tripped while trying to curtsey in high heels is. I am leaning towards support based on the historical significance, Putin seems like Hitler, trying to get back his "homeland" after it had been dismantled. But the Ossetes are hardly Russians. Last I remember the area had a population of 50,000. μηδείς (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• support - as it is a result of a very publicized war in 2008. a greater context.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Technically, South Ossetia didn't sign an accession treaty incorporating it into Russia as a new federal subject, like Crimea did. As such, less notable, yet expectable move from Putler. Brandmeister^talk 20:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated discussion. Mamyles (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Putler"? You win an *AWARD* for that! μηδείς (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] In Russian it's a fairly well-known variation actually. Aside from Sudetenland, compare his first appointment by Yeltsin to the transfer of power from Paul von Hindenburg to Hitler, Yanukovych's escape from Ukraine to Gran Sasso raid, Sochi Olympics to Berlin Olympics, Chechen units from Russia in Ukraine to Hilfswilligen, Russia Today to Germany Calling, Dmitri Kiselev to Goebbels and female Putin's Army to the League of German Girls, while Putin is known to speak German fluently. Déjà vu. Brandmeistertalk 21:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC) [reply] I read somewhere recently that his German is just "passable." I wonder how that compares with Merkel's Russian? Sca (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] I believe even though Merkel won Russian prizes in school, it is just "passable". Putin's German should be excellent though, since he spent years in Dresden recruiting German students. I believe they speak both in conversations with each other. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC) [reply] I read somewhere else that German was spoken, for some reason, in Putin's family. Mehr weiss ich nicht. Sca (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] I'm going to be bold and hat this. From some points of view this could be considered mightily offensive, although I'm confident that is not your intention. Mamyles (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Let me make that official, since the annexation is not going to be internationally recognized. μηδείς (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)-[reply]

March 18

---

[Closed] 2015 Gothenburg pub shooting

[Posted] Tunis museum shootings

MASEM (t) 13:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support once fleshed out. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It sounds like the situation is over (the two militants have been killed along with an officer, in addition to the 8 above), so we should start getting more information here. Note that 7 of the killed hostages were tourists visiting the museum, and as pointed out by the BBC article, this is literally next door to the main legislative building of Tunisia at the same time they were discussing anti-terrorism laws. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when article is un-stubbed. Despite the usual flurry on deadly attacks, editing has been slow today. '''tAD''' (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Most sources - albeit only three hours since the attack - say 11 dead (8 tourist, 2 perps and one officer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Almightey Drill (talk • contribs) 10:10, March 18, 2015‎
• Support: Major news worldwide. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 17:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for same reasons as above. Article looks ready, marking as such. Mamyles (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above, and I agree the article is filled in enough to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted -- tariqabjotu 18:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article has been moved (w/ redirect) to Bardo National Museum attack, could an admin adjust this in the ITN blurb? --MASEM (t) 19:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seat of the European Central Bank opening

Nominator's comments: Apart from being a story in itself (significant step in the development of the European Central Bank/Eurozone, and large riots in a major European city), it ties into the current much larger Euro crisis, and particularly the state of relations between Germany and other European nations. Smurrayinchester 09:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As in, "built on the backs of European debtor nations"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I added an altblurb that mentions the name of the group that organized the protests, which seem to be the real story here rather than the opening of the building. Everymorning talk 18:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Personal opinions aside, and not forgetting the US national debt is currently around $18 trillion, increasing by $2.3 billion per day, this story doesn't really appear to be in the news at all, at least not headlining. The article is okay, nothing to write home about. Weak oppose from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Doesn't seem to be generating many headlines, and doesn't seem that notable to me. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Israeli legislative election, 2015

March 17

---

[Pulled] Remains of Cervantes identified

Nominator's comments: Cervantes is regarded as the greatest author in the Spanish language, and his works have been translated into many other languages. His remains had been lost since 1673. '''tAD''' (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Notable enough for ITN. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 13:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - if only to get name of that convent on the front page. (Oh, and because Cervantes an internationally-recognised author, of huge stature, of course.) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is a very interesting and significant discovery which deserves inclusion on the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - exciting and highly notable discovery. -Zanhe (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – He was in a class by himself – and indirectly contributed a very useful adjective to English: quixotic. Sca (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pending article improvements - Several paragraphs are without citations, and while this isn't a BLP, we still should wait until these are addressed. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - above reasons. Joshua Garner (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support once referenced there are massive swaths of the article without a single reference, sub-optimal. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm I don't understand the rationale for "identification". DNA tests have not been done. Nergaal (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems they only need the DNA analysis to identify his bones from those of a bunch of mates he was buried alongside. Shame they didn't wait until next year when it would have been exactly 400 years. It seems that the discovery of a casket with his initials on was the giveaway. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then the article is not adequately updated because it does not explain that. Nergaal (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now updated further. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Came here to nominate it myself. This is a very important discovery that has garnered attention worldwide. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 18:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It was known he was buried there, it was known his remains were moved and returned. They didn't even have to use DNA testing. Basically just an act of cleaning out the basement, forgive the rough analogy. The "discovery" seem mundane, and this would seem to belong as the featured article or in DYK. μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Historian Fernando de Prado spent more than four years battling for funding to make this search. Then it took nine months, even with all that hi-tech equipment. "Didn't even have to use"? - they are still planning to use DNA testing, to confirm the identification? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

You do realize saying that they plan to do DNA testing is a strong argument for not posting yet? μηδείς (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I was supporting because it's in the news now. If the DNA evidence is confirmatory, as seems likely, I suspect there won't be much of an additional story. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

• Neutral It's getting a lot play in the news but as Medeis has pointed out, this looks like over playing something fairly mundane. And yes, the article is not really up to scratch. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The small article Convent of the Barefoot Trinitarians has also been updated. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Doesn't seem really important to me compared to world events like wars etc. Also Medeis' makes a good point. Thue (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We aren't just about listing wars. We have listed other discoveries of lost historical artefacts, such as a Japanese warship and Richard III '''tAD''' (talk) 06:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support once referenced. This isn't the war and bad news page, this is ITN. This is getting much attention (whether it should or not) and is about a notable writer. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - once it is all ready for posting, this is definitely for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What else is needed? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Martinevans123 The section on his literary career is entirely unsourced. Given as that was this man's area of brilliance, the article must source that before it can be featured on the main page. '''tAD''' (talk) 06:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems entirely reasonable. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as an important story relating to the "Spanish Shakespeare." An a side note, it's fascinating that they used clues from his life to identify him.-RHM22 (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven supports. Marked ready. Sca (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a note the article is still missing significant referencing in some paragraphs. For the sake of ITN posting, we should be looking to have at least one cite per paragraph (presuming the cite covers the entire paragraph fairly). --MASEM (t) 13:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to sprinkle some more Britannica fairy-dust. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted -- tariqabjotu 18:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Bad post, with a maintenance tag for the section about which Cervantes was most notable. Still, no longer surprised by this sort of thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Pull until sourcing issues are addressed. There are four unsourced paragraphs in the 'Literary Pursuits' section. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Pulled. Maintenance tags? Nein danke. Perhaps those who supported and posted hadn't looked at the article in detail. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which four paragraphs? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ones that you have now sourced. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All good Martin, now just the works section tag to deal with, including unreferenced floral crap like "it is particularly worthy of attention, as it manifests the poetic direction in which Cervantes moved at an early period of life.".... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can't heavily reference Brittanica though, can we, as is most of that section? Stephen 21:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Especially as Britannica now seems to be a lame mirror for Wikipedia.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an effort. Go ask another hapless editor. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind one way or another, and Donkey hasn't edited for a while so you'll need another hapless editor here sadly. I just think, when we claim we're posting "quality articles" at ITN, we genuinely live up to it, despite the bizarre consensus and even more bizarre posting of an article with grossly under-referenced sections and pure WP:OR writing. It troubles me that many admins just blindly count votes and don't actually review article quality before posting. But it's commonplace, so much so that perhaps I should just let it go and we post anything at all, as long as we have a numerical advantage for it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Repost this is an interesting different story. The article shouldn't have to be at FA/GA standards for it to be on ITN. I wonder if all the sticklers for refs would be happier if someone just slashed half of the info in the article so everything left "is referenced". Would that be of sufficient "quality" to go up? Nergaal (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the information that is uncited, presuming true, is useful encyclopedic information. I suspect that the existing sources already are sufficient as references, they just need to at least include a cite per paragraph (A rough bare minimum). If only one or two paragraphs were uncited, sure, that's probably, but this is not case (last I looked). --MASEM (t) 21:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Always amusing to read people claiming we're looking for GA or FA standards. Far from it. Perhaps these people aren't aware of what GA or FA standards require. Here, at ITN, we're just looking to avoid masses of unreferenced text, sections with no references and original research. It's really simple. Alternatively, let's have an RFC that just seeks to allow us to post any old toss to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't wait. Just off to do some in-depth Spanish literary research. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, I agree. Despite TRM's insistence -- and, honestly, I can't help but think that his quick pulling was just another dig at me -- I did look at the article. We don't need perfect articles for ITN. The relevant section is referenced, and it's in the midst of an article where the orange tags are section warnings for other sections. This standard is understandable in new, shorter articles where the entire article deals with the event. To apply that to longer articles, where there's significant information unrelated to the event, that seems like setting a different standard. But if that's the consensus for article quality, that's fine and that should be codified (right now, the criteria deal only with article tags). In the meantime, the pontificating from TRM based on his unwritten standards for quality is unnecessary. -- tariqabjotu 00:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The standard we are looking for is the same standard for all articles that are "featured" off the main page (not Featured Article , but anything bold-linked from this). DYK has a strong requirement on decent article quality particularly on sourcing and avoiding paraphrasing. There is no reason to weaken ITN's easily-met standards. And yes, while the relevant section is sourced, we are making sure the whole article is of respectable quality. --MASEM (t) 00:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then change the criteria. Obviously there is disagreement on this. Right now, we have complaints about how the standards should be, not what they actually are. And while it is reasonable to take this position, the tenor from the pulling admin over non-codified rules is unnecessary. -- tariqabjotu 00:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would require the Main Page criteria to be changed, and that requires a massive discussion (see Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page). Also, WP:ITN is clear we are looking for sufficiently-referenced articles. In this case, this should not be this hard. There's about a dozen-odd paragraphs that simply need one citation each presuming it can be met by existing sources. Shouldn't take much work. We're not even close to asking for GA-quality sourcing. --MASEM (t) 03:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What? You can propose changes to criteria on WT:ITN; there's even a thread there regarding criteria already. And, no, WP:ITN does not say anything about sufficiently-referenced articles; it says sufficiently-referenced updates (Updated content must be thoroughly referenced.). It mentions article tags, but the way I read it that's talking about tags for the whole article, not about individual sections. And virtually all of the text regarding criteria is under a section simply entitled "Updated content".

The points about article quality and quality of updates are perennial issues here. It seems the criteria have been improved to describe what constitutes a sufficient update -- the criteria section at WP:ITN goes into great detail about what constitutes a sufficient update -- but little is said about overall article quality. It's obvious the criteria are not clear if there remains so much debate. We can change the criteria to say that red- and orange-level tags should not be anywhere in an ITN article (something objective) if that was what was intended. We can proscribe criteria that describe the overall state of the article.

Now, if there is no desire for that to be done, fine, but then we're going to have to live with these subjective discussions. And those gung-ho about having higher-quality articles in ITN will need to cease acting as if this issue is black and white and making flippant remarks in every thread about how this is "no surprise". Threads in individual nominations rarely lead to changes in practice, so if some see a pervasive problem, the talk page is that way. -- tariqabjotu 04:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the attempts at wikilaywering around the criteria for posting, let's stick with one of the key purposes of ITN, i.e. "To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events." Now if you consider articles with maintenance tags, masses of unreferenced claims and appallingly unencyclopedic writing to be "quality Wikipedia content" I'm not sure you should be posting items to the main page at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There really is no point arguing with you. If everything was really as clear as they are in the eyes of The Rambling Man, we wouldn't be having these kinds of discussions over and over. Rather than initiate a discussion that will lead to a clarification or change, you choose to go the route where you insist that everyone who disagrees with you is faulty. It's as if you enjoy lamenting about your recurring concerns in threads rather than starting a centralized discussion. I don't think that's productive, but godspeed. -- tariqabjotu 07:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point of articles being put on the front page is to hopefully draw in new editors that are interested in the topic that can contribute to the article. To make that work, the article needs to be in "good enough" shape to show by example so these new contributors can understand what is expected. Poor citations is not one of those things, and why it is a sticking point here. There's enough uncited paragraphs to put into question how citation on WP works and new editors may add material without understanding the need to reference properly. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, please refrain from posting such low quality articles in the future. No discussion is required unless it's to discuss certain individual's difficulties in determining what quality means. I am not, nor am I ever, alone in noting these errant posts of yours, just read the threads above. Try harder to maintain the quality of the main page please. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article still contains a huge number of citations needed for rather strong claims, and contains 'sentences' such as, "which was made into a film in 1972, directed by Arthur Hiller, and a song by Brazilian tropicalia-pioneers Os Mutantes." Although I have read him in both English and Spanish, I am no expert, and much work is needed by those more familiar with the subject. Either that or mass deletion of unsupported claims. μηδείς (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This just in to the ITN newsroom: Miguel de Cervantes is still dead. Sca (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Repost - interesting article subject. if anything mess delete the unsupported claims. this should be in the ITN section. period--BabbaQ (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel we may be just "pissing in the wind" (as they say in La Mancha), over this one, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Internet Explorer ended

March 16

---

RD: Andy Fraser

-The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 14:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: I don't see how he's all that notable. I've heard "All Right Now", of course, but I don't recognize any of his other work, and I'm a pretty avid classic rock fan. RDs are for people who are at the top of their field, or household names, or somehow otherwise very independently notable. I just don't think he qualifies under the criteria. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not at the top of his field. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not seeing how he could be considered applicable for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I'm not seeing how this person meets the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No awards, no recognition - I understand why fans would want him listed, but he doesn't remotely meet any RD criteria. Challenger l (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral – "No awards, no recognition" (don't know what that means exactly), hung up on hit singles, hmm. I'm reminded of Frank Zappa's monologue about "The Blowjob"; bass players generally don't rank very high on the totem pole. While obviously lacking the celebrity stature of Paul McCartney, he certainly was a hugely influential musician. I suspect we'll be having this same conversation somewhere down the road about Jack Casady, RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 09:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 15

---

[Posted] RD: Xu Caihou

Nominator's comments: A very notable figure of Chinese military and has been covered in major news agencies due to his scandal --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I am not seeing anything especially remarkable about the death of an allegedly corrupt Chinese general. He certainly meets GNG. But ITN/RD typically requires a much higher degree of notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The article reads like that of a lot of midlevel American politicians who eventually get caught in some open scandal once they no longer hold any cards with which to defend themselves. Certainly no military hero or reformer. μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Doesn't seem notable enough for ITN standards, doesn't seem to have international recognizability. Busy Moose (talk) 05:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Doesn't seem to be an important military leader, just someone who fell out of favor. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dropping my oppose given the explanation below. 331dot (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, and actually I'm quite appalled at the level of ignorance with the comments here (although I know it is probably unintentional), particularly those that describe him as "not important." Unfortunately seems to be the result of systemic bias. This has been the top story on almost all Chinese-language news portals, and is the top story on the main page of Chinese WP as a full ITN item. For what it's worth, we posted (on ITN) a full item regarding his expulsion from the Communist Party in June 2014, which was the top headline in the New York Times and BBC, also on every Chinese-language news portal around the world. This man was essentially the number-2 figure in the Chinese military for nearly ten years, subordinate only to the commander-in-chief (the president), as evidenced by this article from the South China Morning Post. I would put his notability to be around that of the U.S. Secretary of Defence and the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff combined, his military rank is equivalent to a US "four-star general", if we were to compare apples to apples, and it is somewhat sad that I have to do this comparison because of the scant knowledge about Chinese affairs on WP. Moreover, he is the highest-ranked military officer ever be implicated in corruption in PRC history. With these facts in mind, I would ask the users above to reconsider. Colipon+(Talk) 14:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course it's headline news in China, but this is an RD nomination, and second in (a highly politized at that) military is simply not the top of a field, no war decorations, nor does the fact he was accused of bribery make him any more noteworthy. Calling editors ignorant is not the way to make the case here. μηδείς (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize if anyone felt my comments were personally directed, they were not intended to be. Colipon+(Talk) 23:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support we posted a story about this guy some 1-2 years ago. I think a fine rule for RD is if we posted it within the last 5 years it should be on RD also. Plus, from the explanation above, it seems to be something along the line of China's Dick Cheney. Nergaal (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Cheney? You mean he shoots people, and drinks children's blood? μηδείς (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment User:Colipon offers a compelling argument. It's practically impossible for me to verify most of the article since the references are in Chinese, but given good faith that they're not a work of fiction, this is a mild support, hoping for more sources in English. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per Colipon. The BBC calls him the "second most senior officer in the People's Liberation Army - made up of 2.3 million people - behind President Xi Jinping." [15] and notes in an article before his death that he was the "highest ranking soldier ever prosecuted" [16]. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Seems to meet notability criteria. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pending article improvements: I'm going to have to agree with the idea this would be equivalent to , say, the chiarman of the Joint Chief of Staff for the US. And this fellow was still in the position (as I read) when he died. RD is met, even if the number of English sources is low. The article does have some paras w/o any inline cites, this needs to be fixed. --MASEM (t) 04:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem not to have read the lead paragraph of the article, Masem, where he was expelled from the PLA and stripped of his rank. We didn't post Tom Foley, third in line for the White House when he died, or famous gadfly James Traficant. At least they held elective office. Xu had no military distinction, led no military campaigns, held a sinecure, was a rent seeker, and sold influence. None of that ammounts to an achievement or makes him influential as an artist. μηδείς (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, yes, I missed that, but there's still the fact he was stripped of that and was shortly to go on trial about this. That part makes the death "interesting" for RD. --MASEM (t) 05:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would make sense if he were shot after a show trial (and might deserve a blurb like all those friends of Kim in NK), or was poisoned to save the state embarrassment. This is just the case of a pathetic party hack ("political commissar of the 16th Group Army in 1990... was offered an air conditioner as a gift from a classmate... chief editor of the People's Liberation Army Daily newspaper... became the political commissar of the Jinan Military Region,") dying in old age of natural causes. Being fired for corruption is not an accomplishment. μηδείς (talk) 05:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support With due respect to Medeis, wishing that a story wasn't a big item in news sources is not the same as recognizing that it is. This seems to be big news, (admittedly in China rather than an English-speaking country) and for that reason, this seems worth at least an RD note. The article has a few clean-up needs, but nothing I would think would keep it off the main page. --Jayron32 05:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean by my "wishing". Do you actually think I am emotionally invested in this? My point is to offer other points to consider, not jump on a bandwagon. I am not troubled or offended by the posting. μηδείς (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

• Support per Colipon. The claim that the former highest-ranking soldier (outranked only by the Chinese president) of the world's largest army was not at the top of his field is simply laughable. -Zanhe (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted consensus to post and some good updates have taken place over the past few hours, well done to those involved. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Withdrawn] Swine influenza in India

Lahore church attack

--Numancia (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Given the size of the list of the second article, this doesn't seem to be anything unusual or special, an unfortunate common event in that area. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Tragically, not an unusual event there. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: This is not a usual event to ignore. Such attacks are rare in Lahore. This event should not be considered ordinary. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 14:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose just reading Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2015 (which is a better link than the second suggested linked article) enlightens us that this is commonplace and unremarkable. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist attacks like this is common in some parts of Pakistan, like the FATA, KPK, and Balochistan, but an attack on a church in Lahore is rare. Lahore is relatively peaceful. This is significant.
(Update:) The news source above supports my statement. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 14:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be looked at with a more national eye than a local one; while it may be unusual in Lahore, it isn't for Pakistan. 331dot (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Inter religious terrorist attacks are of concern to people of both the parties in various countries, and not just a specific country. Even in this particular country, attack on minority Christianity (is not very common in Pakistan), which is a world majority religion, is of significant interest religious communities especially to Christian religious community. --Samuelled (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per 331, TRM. Besides, reluctant though one is to choose on the basis of body count, three times as many were killed in a bus crash in Brazil. Sca (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This type of deaths, which are caused by hatred/ideology is very different from deaths due to accident. And are more significant issue to be looked into than say a traffic accident. And current head count of deaths which has now increased to fifteen, and sadly increasing, is definitely not a small number. --Samuelled (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] The group behind this has a very crooked ideology. They want to establish an Islamic State, and if the government doesn't agree to that, they'll kill Christians. Both ways, Christians lose. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 16:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] Terrorists are not known for adhering to rational thought. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] No. See psychopath. Not for nothing was Hitler labeled The Psychopathic God. Sca (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] A bit like Christians during the Crusades then, but the other way round? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] A Request Could we please refrain from posting editorial comments, a number of which appear rather incendiary and are likely to be offensive to some editors. This is not an appropriate forum for those kinds of posts. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] What is offensive or incendiary? Everything I see written above is factual. If you don't like the facts, that's another matter. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] I think you are confusing fact with opinion. But again, this isn't the forum for that discussion anymore than it is an appropriate venue for attacks on religious groups. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] WP:NOTFORUM. The Crusades have no relevance to 2015 -- Aronzak (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] I think you are confusing discussion with relevant and factual discourse with making attacks on religious groups. Again, if you personally find it offensive, that's a different matter altogether. It may be worth your while appraising yourself of the article I linked, for some context. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Little to no mention of international significance in the article. I've added a section on violence to Religious discrimination in Pakistan - these events are part of a trend in Pakistan where the official use of the blasphemy law creates a culture of impunity for attacks on religious minorities - be they Hindu, Ahmadi, Sufi or Christian. -- Aronzak (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Attack on religious minorities is of concern to the civilized world. --Kinderlander (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Terrorist attacks with those levels of casualties are fairly common around the world. This also seems to be related to an ongoing matter. Busy Moose (talk) 05:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bomb attacks on minorities in a religious center in Pakistan is not very common, also not common around the world. --Kinderlander (talk) 05:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on principle. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 14

---

[Posted] RD: Valentin Rasputin

-The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 02:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article does a reasonably good job situating him in is genre and describing his writing style. Spencer^T♦C 02:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Seems to meet DC2 for his field, given his recognition. 331dot (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A major figure in his field. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted seems to meet the criteria and the article is decent enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Indian Gang Rape sparks large protests

[Posted] Mohamed Nasheed

Nominator's comments: The blurb may be modified.. Ṫ Ḧ ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 13:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Notable. --BabbaQ (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - If reporting a former national leader being jailed is typically done here, this guy would seem to qualify. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a former national leader being jailed is probably significant enough anyway, but when the guy is being jailed for terrorism (legitimately or otherwise) that definitely qualifies for ITN. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A former president being jailed for an allegedly terrorism related offense is ITN worthy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Former head of state becoming incarcerated is newsworthy. Do not know enough about any aspect of the Maldives to know if this is legitimate incarceration or otherwise, but both of those options are still newsworthy '''tAD''' (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Former heads of state being jailed for their activities (actual or otherwise) along with being named a terrorist is noteworthy. 331dot (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The article needs the two sections referring to this amalgamating, out of date material removing, and the events need to be mentioned in the lead. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have trimmed it up Espresso Addict..-The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 08:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support A head of state going to jail merits inclusion (even a former one), although it's a country without a lot of influence on the global stage. Busy Moose (talk) 05:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Per Espresso Addict, fixes look adequate. There are a few "cn" tags and maybe one or two other sentences that could use a cite, but that usually doesn't keep something from ITN. Article is in decent enough quality now. I tweaked the blurb to be a bit more complete and grammatically correct. @David Levy: for the pic, there's a good one in the article infobox.--Jayron32 13:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I found one in which Nasheed isn't smiling. —David Levy 17:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

per TRM, closing. Metadiscussion unrelated to this posting
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wait, there are posting admins pinging David now? It's really not that hard to add a picture... -- tariqabjotu 18:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] So do it yourself. Yes, there are admins who aren't confident in doing this, and it's a 10000% no-no to get it wrong. Plus David is a Commons admin too. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] Um, ok? I can, and I do, and I would have done the same here had I seen this first. I understand non-admins pinging David when they want a photo changed, but it's a bit strange seeing an admin doing it. We shouldn't be relying on just one or two admins to do this, especially when it -- as I said -- is not that difficult. Now, if Jayron knew how to, but just didn't feel like doing it/didn't have time, that's a different story; that's fine. But that's not the impression his request gave. -- tariqabjotu 23:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] Jayron used to do it every time he posted a blurb, for many years, and literally every single time he did so he would screw it up, and every single time he screwed it up, David Levy would graciously and politely fix his screw-ups, so Jayron started cutting out the middle step and just pinging David to do it, since he had to clean up after him anyways. --Jayron32 01:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] tariqabjotu: What, exactly, is your problem with someone who is willing to do something, being kindly asked to do it every so often, and then them doing it? Seems like regular Wikipedia collaboration to me. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Coffee: I think I answered that question quite clearly in the comment that you just replied to. Maybe @David Levy: doesn't mind or otherwise enjoys being seen as the guy who knows how to add a picture to ITN. But why, exactly? What if he goes on vacation for a couple weeks? Is the section lost without him? Maybe one or two admins not feeling confident enough to add a photo is no big deal, but we shouldn't make this a thing, where David is the guy who adds images to ITN. And, as I said, the procedure is not very difficult and does not require Commons adminship. If the admin instructions still result in mistakes, the solution is to devise better instructions, not give up and put the task in the hands of a single individual. -- tariqabjotu 03:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] No one has tried to stop you from doing it... --Jayron32 03:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] (edit conflict) You'd think I was speaking Aramaic here. Anyone else have any points I've already addressed that they want to bring up again? There isn't anything revolutionary in the idea that there should be more admins involved in this section aware of how to do a common task, and I'm shocked at the resistance to this concept. -- tariqabjotu 04:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] It is a common task, but the process is a bit arcane, and as noted below, the fact that David is a Commons admin (whereas many of us are not) actually makes it easier for him. I did do this many times, for quite a while, and fucked it up so much that I just started asking David, because he was kind enough to clean up my mistakes so often. I know you believe differently, but I'm not a total idiot, and jumping through the hoops to upload and protect the picture can be a bit of a hassle. David is good at it, and people who are good at things who also don't mind doing it can be asked. Your defense of David's free time is admirable, but let him speak for himself. Again, if you want to do it yourself to save him the work, no one is asking you to NOT do it. If David has no problems, you certainly have no reason to object to him doing it. --Jayron32 04:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] There are others who can do it, but (a) David is more efficient as he can ensure protection at Commons rather than a local upload, and (b) it's often not a case of lacking skills but rather lacking time or resources (there's no way I'll switch a picture while editing from an iPad, for example). Stephen 04:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] (a) David is more efficient as he can ensure protection at Commons rather than a local upload Cropped images need to be uploaded locally anyway. Now whether waiting for David to do this is more efficient... (b) it's often not a case of lacking skills but rather lacking time or resources Right. I give up. There's no point in me even commenting in this thread if nobody is going to read my comments. -- tariqabjotu 04:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] I think giving up would be a good idea, you don't seem to want to hear the many editors here. We all have things we're good at around here, and as there's no actual problem, I suggest this portion of the "discussion" which is entirely unrelated to the ITN item be collapsed. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] Good idea. --Jayron32 06:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] 2015 Myanmar ferry accident

March 13

---

RD: Al Rosen

Nominator's comments: Named the Most Valuable Player in the American League in 1953. Was also a four-time All-Star, and played on a Cleveland Indians team that won the World Series. Thus, seems to meet WP:ITND criterion 2. Everymorning talk 23:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - Perhaps better known as an executive, so maybe there should be more emphasis on that part of his career. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I feel like Baseball Hall of Fame should be the minimum requirement for MOST former players/executives (Pete Rose would really be the only notable exception). Hit under .300, under 200 home runs, a little over 1000 hits and was one of the most error-prone third basemen in his day per [18]. Only championship he ever won was as a bench player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.224 (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'd be interested to see how many baseball players have won the "World" Series, he seems like "just another baseball player" to me, e.g. we don't post every footballer who dies who won the FA Cup.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. I don't think he quite rises to the level needed to meet the RD criteria. Baseball has been around a long time with many notable people which makes it harder to be "very important" to it; as TRM points out merely winning the FA Cup would not merit an RD posting. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - I would say Rosen ranks as a good but not great player, also a respected executive, but is at best a borderline case for ITN. To the furriners out there, the term "World Series" has been around since the 1880s, at a time when baseball was pretty much exclusive to North America. The game is now widely played in Latin America and the Pacific Rim, but MLB is still the top level of the sport, with a strong international flavor to its rosters, so the term "World Series" still fits. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] World's first successful penis transplant

[Posted] Cyclone Pam

Nominator's comments: Strongest storm since Haiyan, according to CNN link above. Also, according to the BBC link above, dozens of people are already feared to be dead. Everymorning talk 19:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Deadly and powerful natural disaster. Article is long enough and well-referenced throughout. Only minor point of improvement is a couple of bare URL references. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait nothing to report as yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Seems obvious this is a major weather event impacting many thousands of people. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait but expecting to be posted once we have an idea of death tolls/damage. --MASEM (t) 21:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This story will continue to develop over the next few days, but since the eye of the storm passed directly over the most populous island in the chain at category 5 intensity, it is clear that there will be massive devastation and a substantial death toll. Looie496 (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - major weather event.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Too soon This looks like a possible future ITN candidate. But we need to have more information and a better article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Will post - Once we have the impact information, this is definitely ITN worthy. Especially considering the historical strength of this storm... which should be mentioned in the hook somehow. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Article is still in need of further work, suffers from an abundance of irrelevant links per WP:OVERLINK and an over-reliance on primary data sources for referencing. 3142 (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - latest is 60 dead in Vanuatu. Mjroots (talk) 04:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this should be posted now, the article is well updated, and it's a category 5 that has made landfall. It's absurd to think any formal issues won't be addressed or that people aren't already looking for this now. μηδείς (talk) 05:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The article currently has no information about the effects in Vanuatu. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to get, currently no electricity in Vanuatu...--Stemoc 05:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait until it causes trouble to White people in New Zealand. –HTD 09:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a joke? 331dot (talk) 10:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More like "satire". ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 14:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, it is irony, saying what you don't mean. μηδείς (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - The Cyclone has now moved on from Vanuatu and is tracking towards New Zealand. Multiple fatalities have been confirmed and the Cyclone is nearing the half-way point in its life. Definitely ITN worthy... 23:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrashesToAshes (talk • contribs)
• Posted — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The current blurb is ungrammatical. --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I've attempted to rectify the matter. —David Levy 16:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, thank you. --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Grazie. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Exceptionally strong and destructive storm. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Egypt's investment summit

[Closed] RD: Daevid Allen

March 12

---

RD: Ada Jafri

Nominator's comments: The most significant female figure in Urdu poetry —ШαмıQ✍ @ 16:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD, oppose blurb - Clearly meets RD, but not to a blurb level. Article's fine for sourcing but could use some prose TLC. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with the terminology here at ITN. What's TLC? And how can I make this meet the blurb level? —ШαмıQ✍ @ 20:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Go back in time and change history so that she was a head of state or acclaimed Nobel laureate? She meets RD criteria, but a blurb, no way. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Why so harsh? I thought that the article didn't meet the blurb level due to some problem with the article which I could rectify. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 03:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • • TLC = Tender loving care - basically someone to massage and clean up the prose to be a bit more elegant. It's current state (at least, when I checked) would not prevent ITN posting but it can be better. --MASEM (t) 21:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 03:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD per Masem. Also, is "poetess" really the best descriptor? -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I chose to write 'poetess', rather than 'female poet', since it is shorter and both convey the same meaning. It would otherwise be 'The first major female Urdu poet' which has a lot of crowded adjectives. 'The first major Urdu poetess' is more concise and sounds better. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 20:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb This would inevitably involve more of a significance judgement than is consistent with OR: we are not here to lavish praise on people. What constitutes a "major" poet? I'm not madly keen on even an RD listing either but I'm not opposing it at his stage. 3142 (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The significant thing here is that she was a woman, and the first woman to not just compose poetry, but to also get it published like a mainstream male Urdu poet, despite the social issues. She received a lot of acclaim for her Urdu poetry. That's what makes her "major". Sidenote: I had got this article for DYK, too. There, the hook was: "The first Urdu poetess..." (as sources say). Some people objected to that and weren't ready to accept the claim. So I added a qualifier this time to make the claim more credible. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 04:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So the fact that she is a woman makes her more significant as a poet? Sorry, but I don't accept that. If that is the basis of the claim to notability then my evaluation has just gone down a couple of notches which is why I have amended my position to outright oppose. That, and I don't see the interest to our users. Remember that ITN is a convenience for our users rather than a judgement of significance - what is there here to signify a broad level of interest in an Urdu poet with an English speaking readership? 3142 (talk) 05:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not evaluating significance by myself in any way. Sources recognize her being a great poet, but also assert her importance as a woman poet (since her poetry deals with feminism, too). That's why the blurb would be just ordinary if it said: "Famous Urdu poet, Ada Jafri, dies at the age of 90." That fact that she was a woman (and a feminist) is significant and I mentioned that in the blurb. However, it's up to you. If you think that her being a woman, and her struggles as a woman which male poets didn't have to go through, are insignificant, go ahead and just mention that she was a famous poet. But don't completely discard her importance as a poet. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 06:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose If the significant thing here is that she is a woman that is an insult to humans of all genders. Let's honor merit, not identity politics. μηδείς (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't identity politics. Women have to struggle a lot to get a name in this part of the world. She did just that. She took a field which is heavily dominated by men (Urdu poetry), excelled in it and made her name in the field. Her poetry won her plenty of awards to justify her merit. She was the first woman to do so. How does this undermine her merit in any way? —ШαмıQ✍ @ 05:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In any given country, typically there is going to be a dominant ethnic group. For anyone either not male or not in that ethnic group, the social barriers to success are typically higher, and historically much higher. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 14:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is whether she is at the top of her field as a poet. There are plenty of noted women poets. I am a big fan of Plath. But being born a woman is not an accomplishment, and at the time of her birth the nominee was a subject of the British empire, which had just been ruled for 60+ years by a female monarch. If the nominator wants my support he can provide evidence she was at the top of her field, not a woman in a field. A good comparison would be Umm Kulthum, widely considered to be the best Arabic singer of all time, regardless of her gender. Her funeral had more attendees than that of Nasser. μηδείς (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Query. Is her death being reported internationally? I realise it's not necessary but I found it hard to get a sense of her notability based on the article, and eg the BBC are not covering it as yet. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did not find anything in international newspapers. But all local newspapers have an article on her death. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 06:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Update:) Here's some coverage by VOA Urdu: 1, 2, 3. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 07:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarifications: Let me clarify a few things here:

1. She is notable and significant as a poet: She was an internationally acclaimed Urdu poet (regardless of her gender).
2. She was a woman: This is remarkable because women face various hindrances when pursuing careers like this. The fact that she did that is worth mentioning.
3. Why I want this on the English Wikipedia: Because most Urdu speakers (in Pakistan as well as abroad) browse the web in English. They are most likely to see this article in English rather than Urdu. For example, see the sorry state of the Urdu Wikipedia and the entry on Ada Jafri there.

See Death of the first lady. It mentions her merits as a poet and next mentions her struggles as a woman. It ought to be significant enough for inclusion. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 06:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Appears to be significant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD only. Clearly meets the RD criteria as "very important" to her field, but I don't think a blurb is warranted here. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, notable enough for coverage. Mar4d (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not seeing this "in the news", the article is poor, including a section which says she was "humble, polite and austere", come on, is this an encyclopedia or a fan club? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I am not a fan or anything. That was what I could find about her personality in one of the sources. (BTW, when someone is writing an article on a recently deceased person, you often find words like these. So it isn't odd to find that in the news article there.) If you can word it in a better way, you are most welcome to do so. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 09:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might also like to see this: ET —ШαмıQ✍ @ 09:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD- Meets DC, no tag-worthy issues with article. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD I believe she does meet dc. I also think this is ready to be posted, there is sufficient consensus for it and her article seems fine. SeraV (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess it's fine if you think phrases like "She spent her early life within impassable social bounds" belong in an encyclopaedic biography. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Small sacrifices are acceptable. Marked ready. SeraV (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you consider non-encyclopaedic writing as a "small sacrifice"? Think again. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome to come and improve the writing. That part about "impassible social bounds" is true. Her family had strong traditions and as mentioned in one lengthy article on her, women of her family could not even go out of the family Haveli. She didn't go to a school/madrassa. She was homeschooled. She didn't even leave that Haveli after marriage and in fact stayed with her parents following the family tradition. Those were some of the bounds. She only left her Haveli during the partition of India when she migrated to Pakistan. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 20:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look @ TRM you really are starting to annoy me, you can't decide yourself what is ready and what is not. Also we need more rd and more blurbs from parts of world that aren't english speaking, and the fact is that articles that are from those parts just aren't going to ever stand up to your standards of perfect english, because they aren't most likely written by natural english speakers. But if they othervise seem fine they should be good enough for us. As Wamiq said you are more than welcome edit the article yourself if you are not happy with it, even though most everyone else is. But your dissent is not enough for it to not get posted. SeraV (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm "starting to annoy" you? Please, spend more time improving the article in question, bringing it up to the encyclopedic standards we required for main page inclusion. You do realise that I am a lone voice here, that if you have consensus for it to be posted, then it will be. I'm not asking for "perfect english" nor am I interested in this particular individual's article (nor do I have time to spend energy trying to get it to a minimal standard). I have no supervote, you know that, so the pair of you can stop berating me for trying to uphold English language Wikipedia's standards. By all means continue to support such poor writing, this is just my opinion. You don't like it? Get over it. Find an interested editor who writes in non-hagiographical English, and we could move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Michael Graves

Nominator's comments: Appears to a major architect, one of the The New York Five along with several design awards MASEM (t) 21:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support once adequately referenced, given that Encyclopedia Britannica described him as "one of the principal figures in the postmodernist movement". [22] Everymorning talk 22:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support once there are more inline citations - Definitely looks like one of the most influential architects of the past century. Challenger l (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, subject to referencing. Appears to be at the top of postmodernist architecture in the US. The article is currently inadequate, though. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A hugely notable figure in the world of architecture. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose until that huge list of mostly unreferenced works receives some attention. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pending article improvements, as subject was at the head of his field. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose based solely on referencing problems. Too much is uncited, especially the giant list of works at the end. Also, it would be nice if the text of the article is expanded (with cites too!) some, if you removed that huge list of works, it would almost be a stub. If the articles quality issues were improved, I'd support on significance (and consider this vote exactly that, without me having to change it). --Jayron32 16:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pending article improvements. Highly notable within his field. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment last time I looked there's absolutely zero about his death in the article, no reaction, no detail, nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added the detail of his death to the article, but more definitely can be added as to his impact. --MASEM (t) 20:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Two police officers shot in Ferguson

[Posted] RD: Terry Pratchett

Nominator's comments: OBE, famed author of the Discworld series MASEM (t) 15:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD: Very well-known author, virtually a household name in some English-speaking countries. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb; well-loved and influential author, easily passes the death criteria. Sceptre^(talk) 15:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • RD is obvious, but just like Nimoy last week, a blurb here is really not appropriate. He had Alzheimers, so it was a matter of when, not if, he'd die. And while he's "nerd popular" (eg I'd suspect a majority of WPians would know of him readily), he didn't have that much influence to the level of a blurb - eg it could be a dangerous precedent. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD very popular and "a household name" also in my country. Sad news, he and his humor will be missed. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Support RD only for the same reasons as Masem. Thryduulf (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• (ec) Support for RD only per Masem. The article is both a good article and one with a long-standing orange-level tag, so needs some work (but hopefully not huge amounts) before it will be ready. Bencherlite^Talk 15:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a note, most of that stuff about adaptions (where the orange tag is at) is all about Discworld adaptions, so potentially a simple solution would be to sweep that under the rug, pushing the issue to the adaptions page but summarizing that his works have been adapted for television, games, etc. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support For RD as per long standing health problems. Miyagawa (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for RD I guess his egg timer ran dry. Legendary modern fantasy author. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for RD Among the very most notable in his field by miles - awards, honors and even a knighthood. He spent the last years of his life documenting and chronicling Alzheimer's in himself. Another that I will miss. Challenger l (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Symbolic support. One of the greatest authors of our time. Joshua Garner (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Support ITN: Probably one of the most prolific English writers in modern fantasy & sci-fi aside JK Rowling & Neil Gaiman. 2602:306:336B:CB00:7582:2B4:C6B4:72D0 (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 11

---

[Closed] 2015 Eglin Air Force Base helicopter crash

[Closed] Hunga Tonga

March 10

---

[Closed] Jeremy Clarkson suspended

[Closed] RD: Frei Otto

[Closed] GOP's letter to Iran

[Posted] Frei Otto wins the Pritzker Architecture Prize

The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Should the blurb mention his death or just focus on the award? 331dot (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  It could mention his death, we could arguably run him at RD at this point, clearly top of his field.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I would mention that he was posthumously given the award in the blurb, as that gives us "two" items for the space of one. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think a blurb at ITN trumps RD for this particular person. Winning an award the day after dying is ITN material. So I Support for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on article improvement Otto's article has one inline reference. While no longer "blp", this needs to be much better sourced to be a front page item. But once that's done, this is clearly good to ITN. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for blurb mentioning his death. It appears to be the first time the prize has been awarded posthumously. The list needs updating in the text part. If Otto is also to be bolded, work will be needed on referencing. Espresso Addict(talk) 22:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is incorrect. The decision that he would be awarded with the prize was made shortly before his death. You can check on the official pages that the jury members do not mention his death in his biography and that is awarded posthumously.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is even reported in the official news that the architect was informed about the decision made by the jury and the news includes his reaction to it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per ITN/R but I strongly oppose mentioning his death in the blurb or making any combination. It was known that he would be awarded with the prize before his death and it practically didn't have any impact on the decision. If you think that his death merits inclusion, then you're encouraged to run another nomination.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  So a blurb about the prize and an RD nomination too, because he was clearly top of his field. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I second you. Just go for it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I've already done it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• RD is a part of ITN, he should not be double-listed, it would be entirely unprecedented and he's not that important to become the first to set such a precedent. That being said, given he does deserve listing at at least RD, and the coincidence of the death and the prize, I certainly:

(This is not a vote) Support blurb mentioning prize and death and oppose RD. μηδείς (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support there is no point in double-listing him, just mention prize and death in the blurb. Something like German designer Frei Otto wins the Pritzker Architecture Prize shortly after his death. SeraV (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem with your wording is that our readers may easily get confused that he was awarded posthumously as it's already the case with one of the fellow users commenting above. In fact, the jury made their decision shortly before his death and the architect was even notified about it and had time to react to it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment for those supporting a combined blurb, please suggest one. It appears to be quite awkward to succinctly capture this in one short blurb, and get it factually correct, i.e. the foundation moved the announcement of the award forward, they let him know, he reacted, he died. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggested blurb; I invite others to alter or change it. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It somewhat misses the focus, i.e. that Otto won the Pritzker Prize, by placing more emphasis on his death and the rescheduling of the announcement (which, in the big scheme of things, is relatively trivial). I still can't see a succinct way of combining all of the elements into a neat blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't say I disagree with that assessment- but maybe others will know better than I. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see what the big fuss is about him having the Pritzker blurb and an RD listing. It's just a sad coincidence, that's all. The ITNR is really all about the prize and probably ought not be derailed by bloat about Otto's death. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I totally agree. The quality of Wikipedia depends on the conciseness of presenting facts but not on stylistic changes that may harm originality. The fact that many users participating in this discussion and that above wrongly perceived that the prize was given posthumously is sufficient indicator that we should pay special attention on the conciseness in the blurb and avoid any bloating.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've attempted to make a start on improving the references on the Otto page, it's a little outside my comfort zone so any other help in sourcing/excising OR would be great. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ALT II, but with both bolded once ITN requirements re article quality have been met. This neatly addresses the issues raised above. Mjroots (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Which articles require further addressing? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ALT II blurb but not RD duplication is not necessary. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment do we really want "The awarding of..."? Sounds dreadful to my ear. I prefer, for expediency, we stick to the facts, and go with the first blurb and worry about the death issue subsequently. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support my ALT III (but not RD) which bolds both articles and makes it clear that the award was pre-death. Marking ready as both articles appear to be in decent shape (the prize article is a featured list). Bencherlite^Talk 17:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt III as short and sweet, covering both important facts. μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted, Alt III, seemed the most concise, and negates the requirement for an RD. Stephen 22:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Removed] Remove "War in Ukraine" from ongoing

[Posted] Villa Castelli helicopter crash

[closed]Wikimedia Foundation sues National Security Agency

March 9

---

US708

Ṫ Ḧ ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 10:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, the star was discovered in 1982, all that's new is the theoretical model of what gave it such a kick. Stephen 23:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So says the alt blurb...Ṫ Ḧ ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 02:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RD: James Molyneaux, Baron Molyneaux of Killead

Ṫ Ḧ ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 12:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support when improved for RD. From his full-page obituary in The Times today: "to many writing the history of Northern Ireland, [James Molyneaux] achieved greatness by prevailing in a long and bitter power struggle with the Rev Ian Paisley for the Unionist vote, and helping to prevent the province from descending into a full-scale civil war." At the top of Northern Ireland politics for decades, and thereby an influential player on the UK stage. He and Paisley were known as the "Laurel and Hardy of Unionist politics"; Paisley was posted to RD in September 2014. Article needs some work, though. Bencherlite^Talk 13:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, one of the most important Unionist politicians of the last three decades of the 20th century.--The Theosophist (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support based on the sources about his death making him seem critically important in discussing Northern Ireland separation, but I would strongly suggest that this relative importance be reflected a bit better in our article, as it doesn't seem to give this same indication towards that. (This importance at least should be documented in the lead, and keep in mind that not every reader is fully aware of the long detailed history of Northern Ireland/UK politics. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support when the "Political career" section is more thoroughly referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support when referencing is improved. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A very important figure in the history of N. Ireland and its politics. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support once article/referencing improved. Though never as much of a household name as Paisley, obituaries make clear he was one of the top NI politicians for decades covering much of the long and slow peace process in the country. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look like its improved now with new 2kB of cites. Ṫ Ḧ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 12:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a few quick spot checks, not all the biography is covered by the references cited, unfortunately. There's an expand tag under the section on his death, but I've not seen a cause of death, and I'm not sure what else needs to be added here. Espresso Addict(talk) 00:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will it not appear on the main page? Ṫ Ḧ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 09:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Herald, you've marked it "ready" without addressing the citation problems that Espresso Addict mentioned here (hence the {{cn}}s he added to the article), so it's not ready, and I've un"ready"ed it. It will appear on the main page once it is truly ready. Bencherlite^Talk 09:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bring back Boko Haram to Ongoing

Countries in the region have sent troops into Niger to fight Boko Haram, following but not totally related to their new allegiance to ISIL.

BBC - Nigeria, Cameroon, Chad send in troops. African Union plan 8,000-man regional force

BBC - NATO train African forces to fight Boko Haram

More reliable sources: Al Jazeera, Reuters, CNN, The Independent, Bloomberg. 2,702 articles in Google News.

If it can not be added to ongoing, then surely Nigeria, Chad and Cameroon's entrance into Niger to fight Boko Haram is worth a blurb? '''tAD''' (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support just as I opposed the pulling last time, which was immediately followed by an attack. Although I think a merged Islamist Terrorism sticky would be just as good. μηδείς (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest we expand the existing Ongoing to cover all significant developments in the subject of Islamic terrorism and the various responses to it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: In order for it to be listed under ongoing, the article in question needs to be updated regularly. It was orginally pulled because the relevant article wasn't being updated. Has that changed? -- Calidum 03:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - the only development to be added to the article since it was pulled from ongoing is that Boko Haram has declared allegiance to ISIL. Nothing about outside troops being trained/sent in. Bencherlite^Talk 09:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Over two days after my last comment, still no updates to the article. Bencherlite^Talk 20:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bring back Boko Haram? Channel 4 must need a ratings boost. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Sam Simon

MASEM (t) 18:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how these are formatted (help would be nice) but I would like to nominate Sam Simon for RD. He co-created The Simpsons one of the biggest shows of all time. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Added the header for you. --MASEM (t) 18:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support with leaning more towards oppose. Several Emmys and the like show "top of the field" , but at the same time, for his work he wasn't the only agent involved (not to dismiss his creative genius). He wasn't a household name even though the shows he did were. --MASEM (t) 18:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nine Emmys, co-creator of one of the most well-known animated series ever made, worked with big-named shows quite a few times over his career. Article quality looks very good. Challenger l (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per the above and the article is a GA too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Seems to meet the RD criteria and is a decent article already. 331dot (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As EA says below, sources are needed despite the reasons to support this. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Before someone jumps into posting this, there is as yet no reliable reference for his death in the article, and I haven't found it picked up yet in major news sources. Espresso Addict(talk) 19:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a RS on the death to header, though yeah, not yet seeing it by non-entertainment sources. Also to note while "young" at 59, this was a matter of when, not if , as he had been considered terminally ill two years ago. [29] --MASEM (t) 19:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And NYTimes has checked in now, so more expected. --MASEM (t) 19:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And now the article has these sources and I cleaned up a bit here. Looks like there's not much more to add since Simon was already preparing for this event (eg his late charity efforts already documented). --MASEM (t) 19:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts; I don't yet see any other barriers to posting once sufficient support is present. 331dot (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note, NYT doesn't give the date of death. But hopefully more news agencies will get onto this over the next few hours. Espresso Addict(talk) 19:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think that's relevant here, if the NYT have only just got wind of it, why wouldn't we do the same? We're not journalistically superior to the NYT (mostly) and we certainly should be posting news items, IAR if he died way back... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, even with the current article (Which I noted has a URL date for tomorrow) they mention they don't have details on Simon's living relatives that survived him. Variety is in no way a non-RS source, (NYTimes affirms that this was a significant entertainment personality) and they establish the date, so it's confirmed. --MASEM (t) 19:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection if the fact & date of death are covered in RSs. Espresso Addict(talk) 19:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Variety has the date on Sunday as reported by Simon's agents, so I think we're good there. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. There's little doubt that the works of Simon have defined modern animation, he was top of his field and his untimely death makes this even more easy to sanction. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Per Challenger l. As well as his long career in television, Simon was also an advocate for animal rights. - JuneGloom07 Talk 19:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest Possible Support as a Simpsons fan. If developing some of the most influential comedy shows of all time doesn't put him at or near the top of his field, I don't know what does. His article is also a GA thanks to my good friend Gran2, so there shouldn't be any issues over quality. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. So sue me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting support - You don't get more well-known in animated comedy (in North America at least) than The Simpsons, and this does seem to be a rather young age for him to die as well.--WaltCip (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

&Support - Important cultural figure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-Posting Support hugely influential writer/producer in far more than just The Simpsons. μηδείς (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] University of Oklahoma bans Sigma Alpha Epsilon

[Closed] Solar Impulse 2

March 8

---

[Closed] City of the Monkey God

March 7

---

[Posted] 2015 Suicide bombing in Maiduguri

Jim Carter 17:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support if the article can get up to par. It will be nice to not have to post news about Boko Haram any more. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative Support, once the article has been substantially improved. Nakon 04:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nakon I updated the article. Pinging an admin for assistance. Big news; Should be updated as soon as possible. Jim Carter 05:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admin, I can get this added to ITN. However, per the guidelines, the article needs "around three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs.". I'm all for getting this added, but the article needs to be a bit longer with some more details before it can be posted to ITN. Nakon 05:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nakon: Done. Jim Carter 06:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing now. Nakon 06:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. Nakon 06:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, supporters (or any other commenters) aren't usually allowed to post blurbs unless no one is man enough to post something that has at least more than 3 people talking about it. –HTD 06:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Howard the Duck:WP:IARJim Carter 06:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      • Of course we can invoke IAR if it is urgent. This, is... not. –HTD 09:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So we can ignore the fact that the blurb unambiguiously attributes this to Boko Haram on evidence that is at best skethcy? We can ignore the fact that the article plays Chinese whispers with referencing, citing the BBC but giving an alternative source to support that? I think not. I invite the posting admin to withdraw this at the earliest opportunity Then consider your position as administrator. Oppose and pull. 3142 (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need to pull the blurb IMO, 3142, I have correct that part. Yes, Boko Haram is not unambiguiously responsible for the attack and I corrected that in the article as well. Nakon, Can you please remove "Boko Haram" from the Live Hook? Jim Carter 13:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural query - Is there any sort of consensus for this? I am neutral, but it looks like this is a very premature posting. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  No, there's no consensus for this at all, not per our usual rationales. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since not many actually bothers to insist for this to be pulled I assume most are happy with this. I can also say that I Support this. SeraV (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think "stunned" might be more appropriate than "happy". This posting by Nakon was completely inappropriate. Isa (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! I thought it was completely out of process. Espresso Addict(talk) 00:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We wikipedians are too stuffy with our processes sometimes. Also this was open for twelve hours, some blurbs have been posted much earlier than that. But if you disagree you should ask for it to pulled, shouldn't be too hard. SeraV (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stories are not usually posted early and when they are, they end up with a lot of unpleasantries. Stories that generate little to no discussion like this one are not usually posted. Posting a blurb requires consensus. You can't have consensus with two people.

As for the story itself, ITN is meant to showcase good articles that are in the news. It is not a news ticker. Stories are not posted just because they're "big news" (whatever that means). I will not personally call for a pull (I disagree with the posting, but it's not a catastrophe), but I do hope Nakon will wait for consensus next time. I suggest that someone uninvolved close this discussion. Isa (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment next time submitters should wait for the articles linked to get to a quality level appropriate. With some events, later reports contradict earlier reports, so no need for a rush. -- Aronzak (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Bamako shooting

Nominator's comments: According to BBC (see above link), this attack is the "the first attack of its kind in the capital [Bamako]." Everymorning talk 15:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• support indeed first attack in Bamako. casualties, etc.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• wait Al-Qaeda has been involved in a widespread civil war there since 2012. This doesn't stand out in the wider context. μηδείς (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when cleaned up, per nom. —Jonny Nixon - (Talk) 22:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support given if this is indeed a terrorist attack. Joshua Garner (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The article is not yet sufficiently developed to post. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Still very minimal, not enough to post - still a stub, just 10 sentences including the lead and quotations. Bencherlite^Talk 20:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 6

---

[Posted] Dawn@Ceres

Nominator's comments: Happened today. It makes sense to post it now, since this is a milestone in the mission. Articles need some updates, though. Tone 15:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. First mission to arrive at a dwarf planet. It might be easier to count Ceres (dwarf planet) as the primary article, since it has been updated over the last several weeks with new photos and information gained during the approach. Dragons flight (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Major achievement in the field of space exploration. Agree with the suggestion of making Ceres (dwarf planet) the primary. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as this is especially interesting, and has been getting significant attention from the news recently. Mamyles (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Significant achievement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but no reason why both articles can't be bolded (I tweaked the blurb to this effect). Mjroots (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Suppprt, the milestone of this craft's mission. Agree with bolding Ceres since the article's been updated as Dawn's approached it. --MASEM (t) 18:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Will free use images of the light side be available? Abductive (reasoning) 19:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is both the first close encounter and first orbit of any dwarf planet. --Njardarlogar (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. I'll leave someone more competent to swap the image. Espresso Addict(talk) 19:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Calling @David Levy:. --Jayron32 01:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Image updated. —David Levy 02:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] DNA barcoding and Universal primer technology

March 5

---

[Closed] RD: Edward Egan

[Posted] Nimrud

Nominator's comments: This was a major city from antiquity that has been reportedly bulldozed. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've added a couple more news sources. Note that this event is not particularly unique - Mosul Library is suspected of being burnt down just last week. Slightly off topic, but I would recommend that an article similar to this one be created for ISIS-related iconoclasm. Mamyles (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, important historic site. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Isis wiping out 3000 year old ruins is tragic. SeraV (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a blasphemy along the lines of the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan, the destruction of the Twin Towers, acid thrown in the face of liberty. An historic atrocity. The vandalism of antiquity.
• Question: Not a statement for or against this, but why should this be posted while ISIL is in Ongoing? That article linked in Ongoing does mention this happening. Spencer^T♦C 04:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A perfectly fair question. A great deal of what is listed in the "ongoing" area is what might called routine, if there is such a thing, war news. This however, I believe rises far above the routine. It is, if I may editorialize, a war crime and an atrocity of historic dimensions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. A significant site was destroyed, which is Main Page-worthy. Epic Genius (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It is tragic that a city of such significance was ruined. ISIS closely resemble the USA. They both destroy things of historical significance and kill people.--Droneanddrone (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is irrelevant here whether ISIS is like the USA. We are discussing whether to post the nomination, not how similar these two are. Epic Genius (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Droneanddrone really should be blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Espresso Addict(talk) 08:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the word "government" in the blurb be decapitalized or it's sometimes acceptable? Brandmeister^talk 13:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surprisingly, I can't find any advice in the stylesheet -- "Government of X" is often capitalised, while "X government" is often not. I've lower-cased it for now. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Please update, include Hatra. (Al Jazeera), (BBC News) --bender235 (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. SeraV (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. If anyone can find a better wording that incudes both Assyria & Parthia without being repetitive or using "respectively", please suggest. Espresso Addict(talk) 20:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The demolition of Dur-Sharrukin has reportedly started today. Brandmeister^talk 22:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose photo: The photo of Ceres has been on the main page for 2 days, and is not easily distinguishable from other planets. This Nimrud / Hatra sentence would do well to have a picture next to it, I suggest File:Iraq; Nimrud - Assyria, Lamassu's Guarding Palace Entrance.jpg which is from the now-destroyed site. Oncenawhile (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Seconded, but that image will not work well at 100x100px -- can you suggest another? Also we have an unfortunate scarcity of admins who are image savvy enough to put them on the main page. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• i disagree with "The Iraqi government reports". Why are we hedging? Either it happened, or it shouldn't up there at all. Let's go with "The ancient cities of Hatra and Nimrud are destroyed by ISIL, who claim they were blasphemous." or better yet, convert to active voice: "ISIL destroys ... Nimrud, which they claim are blasphemous." -- Y not? 14:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Destruction of cultural heritage by ISIL is a good article, and could be linked in future. -- Aronzak (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[closed] India's Daughter

[Posted] Lesotho general election

Ali Fazal (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support article is in decent shape, no obvious errors or anything missing. --Jayron32 00:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Standard ITN fare, no issues apparent here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted ITNR and as Jayron states, no glaring issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  @David Levy: for a picture update? Thanks in advance. --Jayron32 13:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Thanks for the ping. —David Levy 17:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the sterling work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 4

---

[Posted] Oldest Homo fossil

Nominator's comments: The previous oldest fossil was reportedly 2.4 million years old. The update, however, is currently tiny and the article has one orange tag. Brandmeister^talk 18:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support when updated A major archeological find. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, mostly because it is an incremental result. The problem is that the jawbone does not represent a new species, it is still Homo habilis. A jawbone that has been sitting in a museum was assembled incorrectly years ago and now is a reassembled as a bit narrower. It pushes back the age of the genus Homo from 2.33 million years ago to 2.8 mya. So, how can that be justified ITN? The blurb should read, "Paleontologists make a small correction; the genus Homo is now 20% older. Sorry about that." Abductive (reasoning) 20:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain what you mean? None of the sources mention any museum. The BBC source says "The 2.8 million-year-old lower jawbone was found in the Ledi-Geraru research area, Afar Regional State, by Ethiopian student Chalachew Seyoum." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, that was the other Homo find article. My argument stands; a fossil find that does not change the tree; it just makes the tree trunk a bit longer. Abductive (reasoning) 20:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced by your non-argument, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm just being stupid, but it seems to me like a period of half a million years during which we previously thought there were no people but now we think there actually were people does at least rise to the level of interesting. Formerip (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There were many kinds of people at that time, check out List_of_human_evolution_fossils. Abductive (reasoning) 05:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - a major archeological find. period.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not an archeological find. Paleontological. Abductive (reasoning) 20:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably why New Scientist says "this period, between 2 and 3 million years ago, has long been an archaeological blind spot". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Archaeologists would tend to disagree with you Abductive. Most of them, consider the study of early hominin fossils and artifacts to be a part of their field. Our article on archaeology gives it a 4 million year domain and discusses the study of early hominin fossils, even though fossils would more typically be an area of study for paleontologists. Dragons flight (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fossils are paleontological finds, the tools are archeological. In this case there are no tools. Abductive (reasoning) 05:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So if something is "sticking up out of the ground" it can't be "archaeology", even if it's 2.8 million-year-old? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The people might call themselves palaeoarchaeologists. Fossils are paleontological finds and tools are archeological finds. Abductive (reasoning) 19:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this fossil from the Piacenzian age? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Abductive. I find his explanation of the situation more compelling than simply stating that it is "a major archaeological find." The only impact I can see is that it proves a narrower time period for evolution of the genus.Mamyles (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Abductive. And we know how the radiocarbon dating is, it's like "oh, this metal tool is two mya, oh wait, what is this here... a writing that reads... 'Black & Decker', oops!" --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 20:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, why not write in to New Scientist to complain? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Radiocarbon dating had nothing to do with this story. I'm guessing you meant to say radiometric dating, but even so, the scenario you describe is without foundation or relevance to the current story. Dragons flight (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"It's all metric now, mate, you can't even get jawbones with proper teeth no more." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Radiocarbon and radiometric always confuse me. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 21:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support populates a half million year gap in the fossil record. A "mere" 400,000 years is about the amount of time it took Neanderthals, for example, to evolve, live, and disappear from the fossil record. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A nearly 20% increase in the range of Homo isn't something that happens often. As discussed by the BBC, it also makes it more likely that the evolution of our ancestors was a response to changing climate in Africa at about that time. It's no moon landing, but I'd say finding new evidence for an oldest member of our genus is at least as interesting as rediscovering a sunken battleship. Dragons flight (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree with other supports. SeraV (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I also agree that 400 million thousand years is quite impressive on the timeline of human development and warrants inclusion. Considering our documentation lists the latest homo discovery as taking place in 1991, it's not as if this will tie up the ITN ticker in the foreseeable future. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You mean 400 thousand. Abductive (reasoning) 05:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed I do. Whoopsie! - Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 400,000 years of difference, reported in Science and Nature, is major news. The history of the genus Homo is important, and widely misunderstood. -- Aronzak (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose only for lack of significant update. We have no article content to judge here; all of the votes above are based on the significant event; if we posted this now, readers would have nothing to read in any Wikipedia article which covers this information. If anyone bothers to fix this, consider this a full support on significance. But this can't be posted as we have no content to highlight as yet!!!--Jayron32 02:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That is true; at present the entire update consists of changing .33 to .8 here and there. Abductive (reasoning) 05:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It's definitely significant news, but Jayron is right - there is no article on this. None. Challenger l (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Can someone more knowledgeable point to a better target article? This seems clearly suitable, but the current state of Homo is not postable. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Somebody would have to create the article. Before this was even nominated I considered creating LD 350-1 about the specimen. But there is only one primary source article at present, which is paid-access. Using just the secondary sources, one would have a hard time building a long enough article to post. Abductive (reasoning) 19:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentWhat about this? Educationtemple (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WHo expects us to create an article on this? When several other suitable articles are available. Stop making a huge issue out of a small one.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one expects anything except content. So far, we have none. It can be a new article. It can be an existing article where we add content. However, we cant post content we don't have. We have, as yet, nothing to post. ITN exists to highlight quality Wikipedia content which covers material that people may be reading about in the news. If we have no content, we have nothing to post. So either create a new article or add the information to an existing article it doesn't matter. But you can't say it's a "small issue". Content is the ONLY issue at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 01:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But just think, the longer we wait, the older this fossil gets! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC) But alas, by his own admission, the oldest homo fossil was this guy. [reply]

Nearly all the specimens have articles, just look at this Category:Hominin_fossils. And how dare you attempt to stifle debate. What is wrong with you? Abductive (reasoning) 23:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So nearly all, not all. You could probably write a good one. But it's not a requirement for ITN, is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can't. I need to see the primary source, but also need analysis in secondary sources, preferably scientific articles. Abductive (reasoning) 08:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That makes it a requirement? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For an article? Yes, Wikipedia's rules require secondary sources. Presently there are only the news sources that repeat without analysis the claims made in the primary source. Abductive (reasoning) 17:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...for posting at ITN. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about Piacenzian, or is that just a geological concept? Obviously the significance of this find is more on our idea of human evolution. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Piacenzian is a not well-known designation. This find does not represent any evolution, it just changes a date. Abductive (reasoning) 08:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a mention at ITN would help make it better known. These pesky encyclopaedias, eh? What's 400,000 years between friends.Martinevans123 (talk) 10:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No amount of promotion on ITN will change what terminology scientists use. Pliocene has about 280,000 results on Google Scholar, Piacenzian has only 1,850. Abductive (reasoning) 17:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And which is the more precise? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abductive, are we here to find a good solution, or are we here to tell you that you are right?. Seems like your ambition is to be right, not finding a good solution.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I suppose you are correct about the direction this debate has taken. All I really am trying to do is point out that none of us is capable of writing an update to an existing article (or writing a new article) that would be long enough to post to ITN. My argument is that it is impossible; if somebody proves me wrong, then it could be an ITN item or a DYK for sure. Abductive (reasoning) 04:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ask one of your 1,850 Google scholars to take a look at Piacenzian. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prove "you wrong", this is a collaborative effort not a Abductive-Wikipedia. You do not call the shots.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If anyone can suggest an article with a few sentence update and no orange level tags, I'm happy to post this, but it's going stale. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have been trying: Piacenzian? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. The compromise I've come up with is to link directly to the new section of Piacenzian as the target using the wording "late Pliocene Age". This is far from my comfort zone, so please correct me if I'm in error. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Espresso Addict. I think that's a really elegant result (however long it lasts). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Japanese battleship Musashi found

Nominator's comments: Coverage from numerous news agencies. The ship itself was, before it sank, considered to be "the largest battleship in naval history." [32] Everymorning talk 19:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Highly tempted yet weak support a really interesting story and an excellent, high quality subject article. It could use more than just two sentences on the discovery, but otherwise this is good stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, important finding. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support significant story that is a break from all the sports events, deaths, disasters and elections. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - A nice find, being widely covered. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A notable finding. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - A notable finding.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I would like the article to be a bit more updated. For instance, why was the wreck hard to find all these years? Abductive (reasoning) 22:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• A quick inspection of the geolocation coordinates suggests that this is nowhere near the Philippines, but rather inside it. –HTD 22:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depends whether you're thinking of just the islands or also their territorial waters. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 22:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Depends if it was found more than 12 miles off the coast. The Philippines is one of the archipelagic states so any waters inside its baselines are territorial waters. –HTD 22:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Though it would be nice to expand the article a bit more. --Jayron32 00:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with a comment: This is probably the wrong place to raise this, but wouldn't Musashi (battleship) be a more appropriate name for the article? I can't see anywhere in the article's talk page where it has been discussed before. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Japanese battleship Musashi follows Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Ships from navies without ship prefixes, like lots of others in Category:Ships built in Japan. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Cool, obviously notable find. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this really doesn't seem to have been a mystery, just a necessary bit of drudgery. Had it been found off the Azores we'd have a different story. μηδείς (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just passing, but curious as to why it is prefaced with Paul Allen and his profession. Would it not be better to just concentrate on the battleship or is the fact that the co-founder of microsoft found it what makes this notable? AIRcorn(talk) 05:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Alt blurb proposed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Making a big thing out of Paul Allen's team happening to be one that found it, is probably overkill... unless he was actually directly involved in it, as with guys like Robert Ballard (the Titanic) and James Cameron (Challenger Deep). ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 14:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  It appears he was. I had that objection at first, but reading some of the articles, it was his ship, he was on board, and he was leading the expedition, from what I can tell by reading the sources above. I first thought this was a case of "rich guy pays people to do stuff for him, then takes credit", but this looks more like "rich guy spends his own money to do something cool himself". Of course, he was not the only person on board, but he was actively involved in the search, from what I can tell. I'm ambivalent about his inclusion, but it is at least accurate to note he was involved. Whether we should not it is a different story, but it isn't strictly wrong. --Jayron32 18:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt. – Historically significant for what was found, not for who found it (or paid for finding it). Sca (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Support alt blurb but the update is super-short at the moment. I'd like to see a couple of sentences more before posting. --Tone 14:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Btw, the current wording in the article is "what appears to be the wreck", not something more definitive. I think this should be cleared out before posting. Brandmeister^talk 18:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting the alt blurb with some corrections. Jehochman ^Talk 20:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Withdrawn] 2015 Zasyadko mine disaster

March 3

---

[Closed] FREAK

[Closed] Thorbjørn Jagland demoted

March 2

---

[Closed] Wave/partial duality of light demonstrated

[Posted] RD: Dave Mackay

72.69.70.247 (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Scottish footballer Dave Mackay dies. A writer's association Player of the Year in England and a notable playing career.--72.69.70.247 (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Who are you referring to, 72? Dave Mackey is an American runner. Did you spell his name wrong? Some sources would also be nice. Everymorning talk 01:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

think I got it right now. I'm editing on a tablet so it's a little difficult.--72.69.70.247 (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support variously referred to as a "legend" and "one of Spurs greatest players" (and, in fact, as the greatest Tottenham player by Brian Clough), won The Double with Spurs, won leagues and cups in Scotland and England as a player, and successful as a manager too. The BBC article summarises it nicely: "He won 10 major honours as a player in British and European football. The Edinburgh-born player also won 22 caps for his country and was named 'Footballer of the Year' in both Scotland and England." Article could use a few more references in the career section. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I don't follow soccer, but he looks like a major figure in the sport. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Apart from the team honours (full set of Scottish trophies with Hearts, three FA Cups and a double with Spurs), Mackay earned individual honours which cement his legacy. 1969 Footballer of the Year and a member of the Football League 100 Legends, as well as an inaugural inductee of the English Football Hall of Fame. '''tAD''' (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Given his honors he seems to meet DC2. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. He meets the criteria for notability in his field - once the references issue is taken care of, should be good to go. Challenger l (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment much better referenced, ready to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Immense figure in English and Scottish football. --Dweller (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Posted Bencherlite^Talk 17:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Repost Boko Haram to Ongoing

[Closed] Boko Haram removed from ongoing

[Posted] RD: Yaşar Kemal

Nominator's comments: World-famous Turkish novelist often mentioned as a possible Nobel laureate. How could this possibly have been missed? Hegvald (talk) 11:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I am having a hard time seeing how notable Mr. Kemal actually is or was. The biggest claims to fame were that he collected folklore and stories? As for accolades - for all his claim to fame in Turkey, the awards listed are from Sweden, Germany and Norway, and not his own country, which seems more than a little bizarre to me. It also doesn't help that the whole first paragraph about his works is lifted directly from the man's official website - couldn't a secondary source be found? It makes me think that the article needs attention from someone more directly familiar with Turkish history and literature than I am. Challenger l (talk) 11:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• A possible explanation for a lack of awards in Turkey is that he appears to have been in conflict with the government throughout much of his career. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed. I'm surprised that anybody can question his notability. --Hegvald (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent - as I said, he is from an unfamiliar field. My remaining objection is the lack of references for his accolades and his works. Challenger l (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The UK press is clear as to his importance: "ground-breaking Marxist Turkish author and activist" (Independent), "one of Turkey’s greatest writers" (Guardian), "one of Turkey's best-known writers" (BBC). The article could be improved and requires some work on citations. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Maybe a borderline case to some, but that's likely a product of anglocentrism (this being the English-language Wikipedia). He's clearly quite renowned and well-known in Turkey and among the Turkish-speaking diaspora. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Seems to meet DC2 for Turkish writers. 331dot (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I tagged one section which has a number of claims of accolades, most of which are unreferenced. Most of his works are unreferenced. Needs fixing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, seems to be one of the best in his field (Turkish writing). Mellowed Fillmore, I'll try to become a regular again, if I don't get nauseous. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 14:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, extremely important figure for Turkish literature. Fixed the issue with his works, will work on the accolades shortly. --GGT (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Should be more or less OK now. --GGT (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose a Nobel nomination is not a grounds for posting--can we have a better explained rationale? μηδείς (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that he satisfies WP:ITND, #2: as a Turkish speaker, he would have been one of the first 2-3 authors that I would think of if asked about living Turkish-language authors, very well-known and acclaimed. Arguably the country's most important author. Hürriyet, one of the country's most popular newspapers, wrote a lengthy eulogy detailing how he is a symbolic figure in the country and was one of its most prominent authors: [33]. He was also world-known, I reckon, from the worldwide recognition he got and per Espresso Addict's comment. --GGT (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted - he died on 28th Feb, so posting in that position in the RD list. Bencherlite^Talk 22:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 1

---

[Posted] Estonian parliamentary election

Johnsemlak (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Can you post some news sources? 331dot (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The article is not ready. The lead is not updated and there is no commentary on the results whatsoever. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I see that the article has been updated and that full results are included. Will post it now, and am sure further improvements will be made soon. Jehochman ^Talk 14:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. In the past, ITN consensus has required a paragraph of discussion of the electoral results prior to posting. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Ongoing: Replace "War in Ukraine" with "Minsk II"

[Posted] RD: Minnie Miñoso

Nominator's comments: Nine-time MLB All-Star. Three-time Gold Glove Award winner. Member of the Cuban Baseball Hall of Fame and Mexican Professional Baseball Hall of Fame – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for RD based on notability and article quality. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Rather notable in baseball. Joshua Garner (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per the above. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as highly notable sports figure. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the article has swathes of unreferenced claims, I've tagged the worst offending sections. Perhaps some of the keen supporters who overlooked this issue can help fix the article. Otherwise, no doubting that this is a decent RD shout. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been adding sources throughout the day, and will let you know when those sections are addressed. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 56 total cites now. No major passages uncited. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle on the merits as meeting DC2. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Done. --Jayron32 20:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Fine, but if you've read the article, you'll see an unreferenced BLP issue in this sentence, "The earlier extensions to his career with the Sox were publicity stunts orchestrated respectively by one-time Sox owner Bill Veeck and his son Mike, who at the time owned partial or controlling interest in the team." Please either remove the claim or cite it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Plenty of articles refer to it as publicity stunts.[34][35] Veeck was the master of the publicity stunt. I'll make sure it's cited. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. Of course, personal anecdotes are all very well, but this is an encyclopedia so claims like that should be referenced with reliable sources, or removed. I appreciate your work. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • To those of us following the White Sox at the time, there was absolutely no question it was a publicity stunt. The various milestones are connected with it: Oldest player to get a base hit, only player to bat in five, six, etc. different decades. He was closely associated with Veeck for many years anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      • I agree that adding citations is desirable, but it is obvious that when a long-retired ballplayer is given a single at-bat at age 55, this is not because he is the best available player. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

        You might as well be speaking Mongolian, that your assertion is "obvious" is clearly out of step with many English speakers, particularly those who have not the foggiest idea about baseball. Don't forget, this isn't American Wikipedia, and importantly that when you assume ....... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

        The 1976 and 1980 appearances were late in the season after the Sox were well out of the race.[36] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

        • Better cited than not, especially for those who don't understand enough about baseball to know what that means. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

          • Cited is better than uncited. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• comment. I know this is way after the fact but I think MM is way below our notablilty standards. He doesn't meet DC2. He was never considered one of the best baseball players. He wasn't recognized as such (he never won an MPV). His career stats don't put him among the very best. He's not even a MLB hall of famer. His latin origins maybe boost his case, but it's way short for me. This is not a 'pull' vote, merely an observation. (but i'd be fine with it being pulled).--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Just as a counterargument, there are nonquantifiable intangibles that make someone noteworthy enough to be considered for RD. Counting awards or positions held is a fine metric for people when they have no experience with the person in question, but ultimately there are some people who don't have any tangible or quantifiable way to express their importance to some field or endeavor. For a recent example, I remember recently we posted the death of a politician which had fairly widespread support even though they had never been a head of state or similar position (I can't remember which country it was from, forgive me), but because they were the leader of a vocal opposition party, and had been for such a long time, and had become a cultural touchstone within that country. One does not need to actually win an award or hold a position to be considered newsworthy enough for people to notice your death. Cultural relevance is really the thing we should be judging here, and while many people with cultural relevance would also have lots of awards, some times a person is clearly relevant enough for their death to be noteworthy, but no one gave them any awards for doing anything. --Jayron32 19:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Just as a countercounterargument, these particular individuals are promoted through clear systemic bias. The "cultural relevance" is usually US-dominated here which is of no surprise since most editors are from the US. Hence why we have had non-entity college basketball coaches posted at RD recently. As a project, it's great that we try to promote a diverse set of RDs, but when we falsely lower the bar, as we seem to have done more and more often for these minor US sports personalities, it undermines the process. The problem with claiming "cultural relevance" is that it is often mistaken around these parts as an opportunity to wax lyrical about how individual editors remember the nominated people, how much of an impact the nominated people made in their individual lives; when pressed on how those nominated people actually meet the RD criteria, we get a hand-wavy "cultural relevance" argument and not much more. Sure, every nomination is subjective, but the more we encourage and allow this overt systemic bias, the less likely this section of the main page will be taken seriously from an encyclopaedic perspective. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I really don't understand how posting Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, which is the person I note in the argument above, represents a pro-US bias. --Jayron32 00:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat was far more significant than Minnie Minoso. Just not famous in the West Also I think Minoso's 'cultura relevance is mostly from his publicity stunts which made him known to a generation after his playing career, but didn't really make his career more notable.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Plus I wasn't referring to Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, although Johnsemlak's point is a perfectly good one on that subject. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]