위키백과:뉴스/후보/2013년 10월

10월 31일

---

10월 30일

---

안드라 프라데시 버스 참사

명명자의 의견: 버스 사고로 인한 45명의 사망은 큰 사고일 뿐만 아니라 인도와 해외 언론에서도 광범위하게 보도되고 있다.

• 지원군, 많은 사망자가 발생했어, 오늘은...농담할 겨를이 없다비록 몇 주 전 6명의 목숨을 앗아간 러시아에서의 최근 테러 공격은 후보 지명조차 되지 않았지만, 3명의 목숨을 앗아간 보스턴 폭탄 테러는 가해자들을 체포하기 위한 게시물과 함께 게시되었다.어쨌든 이건 미국 문제가 아니야. 늦은 밤에 미안해.아침에높은 사망률에 대한 지원 I 75.73.114.111 (대화) 10:17, 2013년 10월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
• 주요 스포츠 행사에서의 테러 공격은 버스 사고와 비교했을 때 사과와 오렌지였다. 그러나 그것은 우리가 올해 초 비슷한 충돌 사건을 게시했다고 말했다.하지만 기사는 많은 작업을 필요로 한다. 331닷 (토크)
• 반대하라 이 이야기가 더 발전하지 않는 한 나는 일단 반대할 것이다.사망자 수는 높지만 불행히도 그런 사고는 그 지역에서 유례없이 흔해졌고, 뉴스 보도도 뜸해지고 있다.--존셀락 (대화) 13:52, 2013년 10월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
• ITN에 게시하기에는 치명적인 버스 사고가 너무 많다는데 반대한다."그냥" 또 다른 버스 사고는 진짜 역사적 가치가 없다.화요일 (토크) 14:04, 2013년 10월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
• 앞서 내가 연계한 버스 충돌 사고와 마찬가지로 약한 반대, 여기에 특이한 상황은 없다. 331dot (대화) 14:10, 2013년 10월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
• 관련자들과 동조자들에게는 매우 비극적인 것에 반대하라. 그 중 나는 한 명이다. 그러나 파괴 행위나 주목할 만한 죽음과 같은 다른 주목할 만한 요소가 없다면 그것은 백과사전의 1면보다 신문과 경찰의 오점이 더 적합하다.㎕δεες (대화) 16:44, 2013년 10월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
• 이렇게 치명적인 서포트 로드 사고는 인도에서 그리 흔하지 않다. 지난 4년 동안 단 한 건만 더 있었다.만약 이것이 45명의 목숨을 앗아간 비행기 사고였다면 그것은 거의 확실히 게시될 것이다.만약 그것이 기차 사고였다면 아마 그것 역시 그랬을 것이다.왜 사람들이 똑같이 치명적인 도로 사고를 게시하는 것을 꺼리는지 나는 알 수 없다.관련된 운송수단의 형태는 내가 보기에 그것의 중요성과 거의 관련이 없는 것 같다.그것은 기본적으로 IDONTLYKIT의 한 형태일 뿐이다 - 여기 사람들은 비행기 사고에 더 관심이 있다.물론 그것은 좋은 이유는 아니다.넬잭(대화) 23:06, 2013년 10월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

네 우편물에 무슨 문제가 있었던 것 같아, 넬잭.사망률을 넘어서 여기서 주목할 만한 것을 우리에게 말하는 부분은 실수로 포괄적 모욕으로 대체된 것 같다.㎕δεες(토크) 00:13, 2013년 11월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

항공 사고나 철도 사고보다 도로에서 더 많은 사망자가 발생하기 때문에, 그 수는 전체의 훨씬 적은 비율을 차지한다.에스프레소 중독자(토크) 00:29, 2013년 11월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

그게 왜 관련이 있는지 잘 모르겠어.또한 철도나 항공기보다 도로를 여행하는 사람들이 많다.그리고 메데이스, IDONTLYKIT은 모욕이 아니다. 사람들은 토론에서 자주 그것을 언급한다.당사자가 아니라 논쟁에 대한 비판인데 왜 개인적으로 받아들이는지 모르겠다.넬잭 (대화) 06:58, 2013년 11월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

네가 내 바로 뒤에 글을 올렸고, 사람들이 비행기 사고를 좋아하고(이 정도 크기의 충돌은 반대해 왔다) 버스 충돌을 싫어한다는 이상한 주장을 했기 때문에 개인적으로 받아들이고 있다.그건 기껏해야 이상할 뿐이야.사실, 내가 좋아하지 않는 것은 안드라 프라데시 입니다. 그것은 나에게 오레곤을 너무 많이 상기시켜준다.㎕δεες (대화) 15:56, 2013년 11월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

음, 확실히 그런 식으로 의도된 것은 아니었어, μΔδςςς, 그리고 나는 그런 인상을 준 것에 대해 사과한다.사실, 그것이 어떤 논평에 대한 반응일 정도로, 당신과는 달리, 관련된 운송수단의 형태를 언급했다는 것은 다른 논평에 대한 반응이었다.넬잭(대화) 21:55, 2013년 11월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

고마워. (그리고 이 글을 읽지 않고 읽는 사람들에게 오레곤의 비교는 아이러니했다.)㎕δεες (토크) 00:12, 2013년 11월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

• 누군가가 이 이야기가 톱뉴스로 널리 보도되고 있다는 것을 보여주는 링크를 몇 개 올릴 수 있을까?지금까지 올라온 증거로는 이 글을 올릴 명분이 보이지 않는다.Jehchman 16:02, 2013년 11월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

[포스팅] 2013년 월드 시리즈

명명자의 의견:과감하게 지금 제안할게- 7차전이 있으면 블럽을 조절할 거야. --331닷 (토크) 03:02, 2013년 10월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

• 명백하게 --եևաաիի 03 03:26, 2013년 10월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지원 또한 주목할 만한 것은 보스턴에서 레드삭스가 시리즈 우승을 차지한 것은 95년 만에 처음이다. - Knowledk87 (토크) 03:41, 2013년 10월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
• 코멘트, ITN/R에 기재되어 있는 경우, 왜 투표할 필요가 있는가?납북(이유) 04:35, 2013년 10월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 여기서의 투표는 뉴스 자체의 가치와 반대로 편집자들이 기사가 갱신되었고 중요한 문제가 없다는 것을 입증하도록 하는 것이다.ITNR은 해당 주제에 맞는 업데이트를 받지 못하면 포스팅을 보장하는 것이 아니다. --MASEM (t) 05:44, 2013년 10월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지지 우리는 아마도 또한 연도를 언급해야 할 것이다.케빈 러더포드 (대화) 05:09, 2013년 10월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

  난 안 그럴 거야.그 결과는 뉴스다; 세부적인 것은 그 팀이 지난 번 우승한 지 얼마나 오래됐는지와 같은 것이다.GRAPPLE X 05:18, 2013년 10월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지원 리드는 시리즈를 더 잘 요약하기 위해 약간의 수정이 필요했고, 아마도 여전히 그럴 것이다. 하지만 확실히 전반적인 순서가 분명해 보이며, 미국에서 가장 중요한 스포츠 경기 중 하나이다.나는 대체 블럽이 전 세계 관객들에게 더 잘 읽히기를 원한다(또는 "2013년"을 언급하고 더 단순화하기는 하지만 "야구에 있다" 또는 이와 비슷한 것을 언급하는 것은 약간 변형된 것일 수 있다)Odg2vcLR (대화) 06:09, 2013년 10월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지지 - 대부분의 팬들의 생생한 기억 속에서 처음으로 홈에서 우승하는 것은 큰 일이다.야구에서 보스턴 레드삭스는 95년 만에 처음으로 홈에서 월드시리즈 우승을 차지했다."2013년 10월 31일 (UTC) Jusdafax 07:03]
• 지지 alt blurb.95년 3년은 필요없어The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 2013년 10월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
• 2013년 10월 31일(UTC) 제호만 13장 24절 게시[응답]
• 6차전 요약본은 실망스러울 정도로 형편없었고, 경기가 어떻게 진행됐는지도 말하지 않았다...–HTD 18:26, 2013년 10월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

소픽스잇경기 내용을 요약한 수백 개의 뉴스가 있다.제호만^Talk 18:50, 2013년 10월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

불행히도, 이것을 고치라고 말하는 것은 아무것도 해결하지 못할 것이다. –HTD 18:56, 2013년 10월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 이것에 대해 하워드에게 동의한다.나는 점수 외에 실제 업데이트한 것을 한 줄 정도 본다.본질적으로 승리에 관한 기사에는 그들이 이겼다는 사실 외에는 별로 없다.솔직히 이번 업데이트는 에미보다 더 심각해...고칠 때까지 참았어야 했어하지만 이제 막 끝났으니 -- Ashish-g55 19:41, 2013년 10월 31일 (UTC)[응답하라]

얘들아.월드시리즈는 결승전이 아닌 모든 경기가 치러진 결과로 우승했다.그 기사는 특히 여기 지명된 대부분의 항목들과 비교해 볼 때, 엄청나게 좋은 상태에 있다.만약 너희 둘 다 여섯 번째 게임이 충분히 효과적이지 않다고 불평하고 싶다면, 정말로 그것에 대해 뭔가를 할 필요가 있다.변화를 위한 솔루션의 일부가 되기 시작하십시오.The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 2013년 10월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

우리가 스노든 머프를 급하게 잊지는 않을 거야.Martinevans123 (대화) 22:02, 2013년 10월 31일 (UTC)[답글]

게임 6 업데이트의 부족을 지적하는 것은 놓친 것 같은 사실을 언급하는 것을 씹는 것이 아니다.업데이트하고 싶을 정도로 월드시리즈는 신경 쓰지 않지만 그렇다고 무조건 올라가야 한다는 뜻은 아니다. -- Ashish-g55 05:48, 2013년 11월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

HTD와 Ashishg55는 스포츠 업데이트를 통해 우리는 그것이 어떤 경기든 (마스터스의 4일차, WS의 결승전, 월드컵 결승전, 회의 결승전 등)의 산문 요약을 기대하며, 오랜 기간 ITN 기여자로서 그들은 이 규칙을 잘 알고 있다.단, 이 규칙을 구체적으로 기술하는 서면 지침서는 없다. WP:ITN#Updated_contents는 단순히 관련 정보의 업데이트(보통 5문장) 또는 새로 생성된 기사에 대한 3문단 업데이트(새로 생성된 기사에 대한 3문단 업데이트)를 요구한다.그러므로 TRM은 2013년 월드시리즈에 대한 현재 기사가 충분하고 게시 시점에 충분했다고 말할 때 작성된 ITN 지침을 정확하게 반영하고 있다고 생각한다. 물론 6개 게임에 대한 산문은 '관련 정보'이며, 산문 업데이트에서 며칠 동안 발생한 사건을 요약하는 것은 ITN의 정상이다.그것은 내가 분명히 깔끔함의 문제로 생각하고 있으며, ITN의 사명은 '품질 콘텐츠'로 연결되는 것이 마지막 시합에 대한 괜찮은 산문 업데이트를 하는 것이 더 낫다고 말했다.지금 확대하고 있어.--존셀락 (대화) 14:20, 2013년 11월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

• 업데이트 내용이 그렇게 나쁜 것만은 아니었다.그렇기는 하지만, 스포츠 전체(특히 협회 축구)는 산문이 시행되기 전에 주목할 만한 이야기가 게재된다는 평판이 좋지 않다.사람들은 이 이야기에 대한 지지의 수준과 상관없이 이것에 도전할 권리가 있다.불만사항들이 항상 게시 지연의 가치가 있는 것은 아니다 - 여섯 번째 게임 요약은 처음 5개 게임보다 눈에 띄게 짧았지만 업데이트 목적을 위해 충분하다 - 그러나 그것들은 즉시 무시되어서는 안 되며, 게시 관리자에 의해 확실히 무시되어서는 안 된다.—WFC—15:17, 2013년 11월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

영국 언론 규제

명명자의 의견:ITN이 할 만한 이벤트인 것 같은데, 업데이트에 적합한 기사를 찾을 수가 없어.좋은 생각 있어?구립(대화) 18:32, 2013년 10월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

반대는 한 나라 밖에서는 어떠한 영향도 보지 않는다. ("내부"의 근원은 여기 국내적이다.)만약 그렇지 않다고 증명될 수 있다면, I changeLihaas (talk) 22:55, 2013년 10월 30일 (UTC)[응답하라]

'댓글 적절한 기사는 언론자율규제에 관한 왕실헌장이다.현재 사용하기에 너무 짧음.스머라인체스터 08:55, 2013년 10월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

10월 29일

---

[그림그리기] M23 완료

[포스터드] 보스포러스 터널

--tone 09:28, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

BBC 기사에 따르면 당분간은 완전히 기능하지는 않겠지만 오늘(터키 공화국의 날) 취임식을 갖는다.그래도 ITN에 스토리를 담을 수 있는 좋은 기회 --Tone 09:28, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지지하다.두 대륙 간 인프라 연결은 드물다. 331닷(토크) 10:03, 2013년 10월 29일(UTC)[응답]
• 331 도트당 지지.Thryduulf (대화) 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC) 10시 57분[응답]

제호만이 이것을 게시할 이유로 삼기 전에, 먼저 유명한 IF를 적절히 보충하여 지지한다.

또한 blufbLihaas (talk) 12:33, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답하라]

• 331dot에 따라 지지하십시오.현재 기사는 향후의 시제에서의 오프닝에 대해 이야기하고 있다.오늘 있었던 실제 의식에 대해 두어 번 보내줄 수 있을까? --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:44, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

그것은 그러한 잉크가 많지 않기 때문이다.여기가 어딘지 난 네가 우랄을 가로지르는 철도망을 가지고 있고 그 다음에 수에즈, 파나마 운하(토크) 12:53, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]이 있다고 확신해.

• 임시 지원 소개와 "개막" 섹션에 대한 인용문을 좀 더 업데이트해야 한다.그렇지 않으면 나는 그것을 좋아한다.또한 대담하고 블러브의 문법을 고쳤다.스머라인체스터 15:03, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
• 적절히 업데이트하고 관련 자료를 참조할 경우 지원에스프레소 중독자 (토크) 15:36, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지원 나는 지금 상태로는 괜찮다.라이언 비시 20:12, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
• 게시물. 제호만 20:31, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
• 후원은 어제 나 자신에게 메모를 해서 오늘 이것을 지명했지만, 너무 바빠서 잊어버렸다.이런 거 더 부탁해! --hydrox (대화) 21:42, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답하라]
• BTW "보스포루스 해협"은 아마도 "보스포루스"일 것이다. 이것은 기사에 따라 확립된 철자법이기 때문이다! --hydrox (대화) 21:42, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
• 이 문제에 대한 거의 만장일치를 보게 되어 기쁘다.순수하게 기술적인 도전(토양! 깊이! 지진 관리!)으로서, 이것은 지금까지 21세기 C의 가장 중요한 공학적 업적 중 하나로 손꼽힌다……대중 교통을 위한 물리적 연결의 정치적 영향이 중요하지 않다는 것은 아니다. 특히 EU를 배경으로 볼 때, (보스포러스 링크는 더 이상 보행자를 위한 것이 아니라면, 자동차와 트럭에 대해 이미 존재한다.) - Tenebris 00:20, 2013년 10월 30일 (UTC)

10월 28일

---

[포스팅] 아르헨티나 선거

--Lihaas (대화) 13:08, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지원, 그러나 기사가 업데이트되고 메인 페이지에 소개될 수 있는 형태로 제공되는 경우에만 지원하십시오.2013년 아르헨티나의 국회의원 선거를 잠깐 살펴보면, 현재 선두에 "법제 선거가 2013년 10월 27일에 아르헨티나에서 열릴 예정"이라고 되어 있기 때문에, 아직 이것이 행해지지 않았음을 알 수 있다.또 빈 코너도 많다.--폭시오렌지 (토크) 13:45, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 행사가 끝나기 전에, 혹은 기사가 나기 전에 우리가 지명하지 않을 수 있을까?사실 섣부른 공천이 있을 때 글이 올라올 확률을 줄이고 있는 겁니다.제호만 14:28, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

이벤트를 조기 지정하여 게시할 수 있는 기회를 어떻게 줄일 수 있는가?오히려 더 많은 사람들이 기사를 보고 업데이트와 추가 정보를 작업할 수 있게 되면서 글이 게시될 가능성이 높아진다.Andise1 (대화) 15:49, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

아마도 "준비되지 않았다" "크라이테리아를 만날 수 있는" 방법의 물결이 각 후보 지명자들을 압도하고, 대개 잠재적으로 좋은 지명자들이 간과되는 결과를 초래하기 때문일 것이다.위키컵과 같은 대회에 참가하지 않는 한, 섣불리 어떤 것을 지명하는 "첫 번째"가 되는 것은 별로 도움이 되지 않는다.The Rambling Man (talk) 2013년 10월 28일 18:20 (UTC)[응답]

바로 그거야최신 뉴스 + 업데이트된 기사가 수록된 적절한 시기에 지명되면 5개의 빠른 지원이 제공되며, 게시된다.나는 하루종일 앉아서 게시물을 찾고 있다.대화가 길고 난해할 때, 그것은 사람들이 모든 것을 이해하려고 노력하는 것을 방해한다; 그들은 단지 다음 것을 따라 움직일 뿐이고, 필요한 지원은 실현되지 않는다.제호만^Talk 03:19, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

그리고 당신이 게시하기로 결정한 것은 대개 업데이트 되는 겁니까?"마조위키 2013년 10월 28일 바르샤바에서 사망"으로 구성된 아래 작품처럼리하스 (대화) 09:28, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

• 댓글: 몇 시간 안에 빈 코너를 마칠 수도 있지만, 마쳐도 '뉴스 속'이 될 만한 가치가 있을까?중간고사 선거(아르헨티나 국가원수는 여전히 같다)와 FFV는 양원(즉, 기본적으로 모든 것이 그대로 유지됨)에서 과반수를 유지하고 있다.캄발라체로 (대화) 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC) 10시 56분 [응답]

어딘가에서 뉴스에 나오는 한, 주권국가의 총선거(국가·정부·국회의원)는 이미 ITNR 리스트에 있어 ITN에 충분히 중요한 것으로 여겨져 왔다. 331닷(대화) 11:48, 2013년 10월 29일(UTC)[응답]

상원의원용 구획은 이미 채워졌다.이제 나는 2013년 10월 29일 17:32, 29 (토크) 의원으로 간다[응답하라].

• 완료 모든 섹션이 지금 채워졌다.그러나 그 갈고리는 FFV의 승리처럼 들리지만, FFV가 아르헨티나의 대부분의 지방에서 패배했고, 주요 도시와 가장 인구가 많은 지역에서 확실히 패배했다는 사실은 언급하지 않는다.선거에서 국민이 당을 분명히 거부했다는 얘기다.링크드 뉴스 소식통이 말하듯이, "아르헨티나 야당은 투표에서 우위를 점한다."FFV는 의회가 FFV의 패배였던 2009년 선거부터 의원들을 새롭게 하고 있고, 모든 지방에서 출마하는 단일 정당이기 때문에(다른 정당들은 지방 정당이 있거나, 또는 국력이 제한된 정당들이 있기 때문에 다수당만을 유지하고 있다.그래서 대체 훅을 제안한다: ALT1:승리를 위한 전선(Front for Victory)은 아르헨티나의 여러 지방에서 패배했지만 2013년 아르헨티나 총선, 2013년 캄발라체로(토크) 04:04, 2013년 10월 31일(UTC)[응답]에서 과반수를 유지하고 있다.

• 이 일을 계속 해줘서 고마워.결과에 대한 출처를 알려주시겠습니까?나는 어느 정도의 분석을 게시하기 전에 또한 필요할 것이라고 생각한다.네가 제안하는 Alt1은 좀 서툴다; 어때?

• Alt2: 승리를 위한 전선은 의석을 잃었지만 아르헨티나 입법 선거에서 과반수를 유지하고 있다.에스프레소 중독자 (대화) 05:51, 2013년 10월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

• 됐어. 모든 테이블이 참조되고, BBC 캄발라체로 (토크) 18:12, 2013년 10월 31일 (UTC)[응답하라]의 정보와 함께 일부 문장을 포함시켰다.

• 당신이 할 수 있다면 분석을 위한 두 번째 자료가 좋을 것이다.나는 이런 종류의 기사에서는 가능한 한 균형을 유지하는 것이 현명하다고 생각한다.에스프레소 중독자 (대화) 19:02, 2013년 10월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지원 두 단락의 업데이트가 있고 그 기사는 매우 훌륭하다 - 우리가 메인 페이지에서 보여주고 싶은 종류의 기사.넬잭(대화) 23:14, 2013년 10월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
• ITN/R 준비 완료로 표시 및 업데이트 완료. 준비 완료.넬잭(대화) 23:17, 2013년 10월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
• 내 alt2 blurb와 함께 게시되었다.에스프레소 중독자 (대화) 00:05, 2013년 11월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

【포스팅】 [RD] 타데우스 마조비에키

명명자의 의견:잘 알려진 정치인, 그의 죽음은 전 세계 언론에 기록되고 보도되었다. --Vejvanchickick (토크/기여) 10:05, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

오스트레일리아 국영 방송사에서 보도하지 않음.나는 방금 그것의 웹사이트를 검색했다."전 세계 언론이 보도하는 것"과 같은 주장에 주의해야 한다.HiLo48 (대화) 10:13, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

아직 미국 뉴스도 안 보여. 331닷(토크) 10시 17분, 2013년 10월 28일(UTC)[응답하라]

나는 거의 매일 CNN과 BBC를 시청하는데, 그들은 종종 영어권 국가나 파키스탄에서의 테러나 그와 비슷한 것에 집중한다. 그래서 미국이나 호주 뉴스의 보도는 항상 믿을만한 지표는 아니다.브랜드마이스터^talk 10:40, 2013년 10월 28일(UTC)[답글]

물론 그렇지는 않지만, 지명자는 "그의 죽음이 전 세계 언론에 의해 알려지고 보도되었다"고 말했다.그게 사실이 아니라면 그런 건 절대 도움이 안 돼.HiLo48 (대화)20:27, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

그래, 사실 확인은 여기서 도움이 돼.그의 사망은 6시간 전 호주에서 보고되었다. --Pete (토크) 20:34, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

그리고 당신의 요점은? (영원히 나를 스토킹하고 항상 실패하여 내가 틀렸다는 것을 증명하려고 노력하는 것 외에)HiLo48 (대화) 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC) 22:00[응답]

"전세계에서"는 너무 문자 그대로 받아들여지지 말아야 할 문구 중 하나이다; 항상 어딘가에 그 사건이 일어나지 않거나, 이 경우, 보고되지 않는 것이 있을 것이다.보고가 그린란드 중부나 태평양 중부에 이르지 못했다는 이유만으로 그 구절을 포기해야 하는 것은 싫다. 88.110.90.148 (대화) 07:55, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

• 역사적인 의미를 지닌 인물, 몇 초 전 폴란드 뉴스에서 이것을 보았다.브랜드마이스터^talk 10:16, 2013년 10월 28일(UTC)[답글]
• Brandmeister에 따른 지원, 동일한 주의사항. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:37, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지원 공신력은 좋지만, 좀 진지한 참고가 필요할 것이다.NPOV를 기반으로 한 자료 뭉치도 제거하거나 다시 작성했는데, POV 문제가 여전히 있을 수 있다.넬잭 (대화) 11시 28분, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 그가 제2차 세계대전 이후 중유럽과 동유럽에서 최초의 비공산주의자 총리였기 때문에 지지한다.그러나 먼저 (브랜드마이스터와 넬잭에 의한) 기사에 관한 문제는 배제되어야 한다.--폭시오렌지 (토크) 13:26, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지지 — 미국에서 그의 이름은 가정적인 단어는 아니지만, 타데우스 마조비에키는 동유럽이 서구 민주주의로 이행하는 데 중요한 인물이었다.Sca (토크) 15:17, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 참조 시 지원.공산주의 이후의 동유럽에서 중요한 인물.하지만 그 기사는 참고할 필요가 있다.에스프레소 중독자 (토크) 15:20, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지원, 포스트 공산주의 유럽 민주화 초기 매우 중요한 인물. --브루자힘 (대화) 18:34, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 게시. 제호만 03:20, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

풀: WTF?!업데이트는 "Mazowieki가 2013년 10월 28일 바르샤바에서 죽었다"로 구성된다.위에 말한 관리자로부터 업데이트될 때까지 지명하지 말라고!리하스 (대화) 09:31, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

이건 내 문제가 아니야그는 죽었다.RD 목록으로 업데이트해야 하는 또 다른 사항은?WP:BURO. 아무도 아직 기사에서 잘못된 사실을 지적하지 않았다.우리가 모든 기사를 올리기 전에 반드시 특집 기사의 질을 높여야 한다고 주장할 것인가?이 토론은 정말 바보같다.만약 여러분이 게시된 기사를 보고 싶지 않다면, "지지"에 투표하지 마십시오.내가 이 글을 올리기 전에 성원은 만장일치였다곰팡이가 슬 때까지 일주일을 기다릴까?제호만 20:27, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

• 당김 나는 업데이트 요구 사항의 일부 융통성 없는 적용 때문에가 아니라 해당 기사가 참조되지 않은 전체 섹션을 포함하기 때문에 이 문제를 해결해야 한다는 데 동의해야 한다.그것은 BLP로 볼 때 받아들여질 수 없다.넬잭 (대화) 09:50, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

그의 사망이 확인되었기 때문에 이것은 더 이상 BLP가 아니다.브랜드마이스터^talk 11:01, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

아니, 그건 옳지 않아, 브랜마이스터(Brandmeister) : "그 유일한 예외는 (사망자에게 적용되지 않는 BLP에 대해) 최근에 사망한 사람들에 대한 것일 뿐인데, 이 경우 정책은 사망일로부터 6개월, 1년, 2년이라는 불확실한 기간 동안 연장될 수 있다."[5] 넬잭 (대화) 11:39, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답하라]

• 모든 편집자가 그가 좋아하는 것을 게재하지 않는 한, 왜 어떤 파시스트나 동양의 유력자들보다 더 나쁜 공천과 행정관들을 지배하는 규칙들을 가지고 있는가?글의 빈약한 상태와 관계없이, 규칙은 RD 주체가 죽은 것을 반복하는 업데이트를 명시적으로 명시하는 것은 업데이트가 아니다.우리는 행정관들에 대한 임기 제한과, 선거보다는 행정관을 선택하는 복권이 필요하다.㎕δεες (대화) 11:14, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 규칙도, 정책도, 그것도 (다른 곳에서 말한 바와 같이) 그건 지침이다.The Rambling Man (talk) 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC) 12시 45분[응답]
• "주황색 태그가 사라지면 지원", "심각한 참조가 필요할 것", "우선 (브랜드마이스터 및 넬잭에 따라) 기사와 관련된 모든 문제는 배제되어야 한다", "참고 시"와 더불어 명명자의 주의사항 및 3개의 명시적 당김, 두 가지 무자격 지지"가 대부분이다.㎕δεες (대화) 11:23, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
• 위에 언급된 모든 이유를 보려면 당김을 누르십시오.그 글은 맹목적으로 게재되어서는 안 된다.ITNR은 매우 잘 문서화되어 있으며, 말과 정신으로 만족해야 한다.2013년 10월 29일, TigerKing 15:17 (UTC) 에 대하여 [응답]
• 댓글을 달다.태그도 안 보이고, 참고자료도 14개야.참조가 필요한 이유는 기사에 잘못된 자료가 있는 것을 피하기 위함이다.기사에 기재된 사실들에 대해 잘못된 점을 지적할 수 있는 사람이 있는가?납북(이유) 15:32, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

글쎄, 나(그리고 여기 있는 우리들 대부분은) 최근의 폴란드 역사에 대해 충분히 알지 못하기 때문에 기사의 정확성에 대해 어느 쪽이든 언급할 수 있다.나는 중립적이지 않고 논쟁의 여지가 있을 것 같은 몇몇 진술들을 삭제했다.넬잭(대화) 15:44, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

글을 올린 관리자가 태그를 제거했다.나는 비록 이 문제에 대해서는 전문가가 아니지만 몇 가지 사실을 확인/수정하고 누락된 인용구를 추가했다.사용자:넬잭은 훌륭하고 유능한 청소를 했다.여기 있는 대부분의 편집자들은 기사가 아니라 태그, 규칙, 가이드라인에 대해 논한다.이전과 같은 기사에는 특정 태그가 포함되지 않았다. --Vejvanchický (토크/기여) 16:03, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

직접 인용문 및 숫자 데이터의 경우 여전히 참조가 필요한 경우가 있다.에스프레소 중독자 (토크) 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC) 16:17 [응답]

• 참고!여기서 투표한 대부분의 사람들은 그것이 적절히 참조될 때까지 게시하지 않겠다고 말한 것이 사실이며, 그들의 의견은 무시되어서는 안 된다.언론은 보통 원로 정치인의 사망 상황을 알리지 않고 그의 생산적인 경력과 업적에 초점을 맞춘다.보통 흰색 줄무늬가 있는 파란색 파자마 차림으로 죽었다고 쓰지 않는데, 왜 그래야 하지?사망 사실은 ITN의 RD 부분에 게시하는 데 결정적으로 중요하다.기사에서 사망이 확인되고 인용된 후, 왜 게시하지 않는가?…개인적으로 나는 이 글을 올리는 것이 정보를 찾는 독자들에게 좋은 서비스였다고 생각한다.하지만 나는 다른 사람들이 동의하지 않을 수 있다는 것을 존중하고 넬잭의 참고자료에 대한 반대 의견에 동의해야 한다.메인 페이지는 우리가 얼마나 훌륭한 기사를 가지고 있는지 관객들에게 보여주는 포템킨 마을 역할을 한다.메인 페이지에 있는 기사에 주황색 태그나 비참조 섹션이 있는 것은 좋지 않다 - 그것은 우리가 현관이 아님을 보여준다. --Vejvanchickick (토크/기여) 15:39, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
• 내가 개선하는데 적어도 5분 이상을 썼다는 것을 게시해 두어라. 더 많은 일이 적용될 수 있지만, 심각하게, 너무 많은 "지금 당기는" 히스테리가 여기 있는 사람들이 그들이 시시한 문제들을 고칠 수 있었을 것이다.가짜 "규칙"이나 "정책"을 인용하는 것 보다 위키피디아를 개선하도록 노력하라.The Rambling Man (talk) 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC) 17:57 (talk)[응답]

CPI가 있다면, 당신은 우리가 당신의 규범에 "완화"를 요구하는 태그를 제거할 수 없다.리하스 (대화) 05:33, 2013년 10월 30일 (UTC) q[응답]

누구한테 말하는 거야?CPI란 무엇인가?무슨 말씀 하시는 거예요?The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 2013년 10월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:리하스, 자기 자신과 소리지르기를 시작할 시간이다.그리고 제발, 우리가 당신이 쓰고 있는 것을 이해할 수 있도록 천천히 해.The Rambling Man (talk) 2013년 10월 30일 (UTC) 20:00[응답]

• 당김표를 떼었다.문제가 해결되기 전에는 합법적인 문제가 있었을지 모르지만, 업데이트는 적절해 보이고, 실행해야 할 이유도 없어 보인다.--Johnselmak (대화) 12:51, 2013년 10월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

성 주드 폭풍

명명자의 의견:1990년 이후 서유럽을 강타한 가장 큰 폭풍. --Mjroot (대화) 08:07, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

• 피해와 파괴에 반대하는 것은 최소한의 것으로 보인다. 몇 그루 뿌리 뽑힌 나무와 운송을 취소하고 다행히 사망자는 거의 없거나 거의 없는 것으로 나타났다.유럽의 폭풍은 상당히 흔하며(연간 4-5), 보통 그렇게 심각하지는 않다.스머린체스터 09:09, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 더 잘 흐릿하게 하는 약한 지지. 유럽의 풍파에게는 여전히 특별히 나쁘지는 않았다(죽음을 하나의 불완전한 대리인으로 사용하는 것, 키릴, 구드런, 제넷, 클라우스, 신시아에 이어 지난 10년 동안 여섯 번째로 심한 폭풍이었다). 비록 이것은 충분히 미리 예측되었기 때문일지도 모른다.그래도 효과는 유럽 전체에서 어느 정도 같았고, 적어도 이것은 어느 정도 국제적인 다리 역할을 하고 있으며, 나는 이 기사에 관심을 갖는 많은 사람들을 볼 수 있다.(폭풍의 정도가 알려지기 전에 쓰여졌기 때문에) 그 흐림은 실제로 일어난 일을 전하지 않는다.아마도: "성 주드 폭풍이 15명의 사망자를 내고 북서 유럽 전역에 광범위한 피해와 혼란을 야기한다."스머라인체스터 08:51, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
• 잠깐. 우리는 이제 막 영국의 근무일정에 들어서고 있다. 앞으로 한두 시간 동안 이것이 20년 만에 가장 심한 폭풍이라는 진술을 뒷받침하거나 반박할 증거가 나와야 한다.풍속과 미리 계획한 열차 취소만으로도 현 단계에서는 버틸 수 있을 만큼 큰 의미가 있다고 생각하지는 않지만, 마찬가지로 전체적인 상황을 알지 못한 채 반대하는 것도 건설적이라고 생각하지는 않는다.—WFC—09:12, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 이 기사에 근거한 기울어진 지지자; 다수의 사망, 파괴된 부동산, 전기가 공급되지 않은 25만 가구의 주택과 수도를 드나드는 교통이 마비되었다.공개: 피해 지역에 살고 있는 사람으로서 나는 약간 편향된 것으로 여겨질 수 있지만, 적어도 내 추리를 설명했기를 바란다.—WFC—09:41, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 반대 - BBC가 불었던 국가의 비교적 작은 지역에 영향을 미치는 계절적 날씨(말장난은 의도하지 않음)는 우연히 남동쪽에 있기 때문에 모든 비율에서 벗어난다.달리기 옵티미스트 (토크) 09:52, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 일반적으로 받아들여지고 있는 남-영어를 강타하는 것을 제쳐두고, 심지어 이 폭풍이 ITN의 가치가 있는 것인지 아닌지를 제쳐놓고, 나는 이것이 "모든 것을 불어서 날려버리는" 것으로 묘사될 수 없다고 생각한다.—WFC—2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지원 이런 종류의 날씨는 영국과 북유럽에 흔치 않다.나는 여전히 그것이 아직 사라지지 않았기 때문에 무슨 일이 일어날지 기다리는 것을 제안할 것이다. E god Save the Queen! (토크) 10:23, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답하라]
• 반대 여기 이스트 잉글랜드에 있는 내 사무실에 앉아 있는 나는 꽤 쉽게 통근할 수 있었다. 폭풍은 단순히 "폭풍"만큼 심각하지 않다.더 많은 열대성 위도에서 일어나는 많은 허리케인과 폭풍은 우리에게 이런 종류의 기상 사건들에 대한 선례를 남겼고, 이것은 등급에 근접하지 않았다. --LukeSurl ^{t c}, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 반대' 두 명의 죽음은 비극적이지만, 대부분의 장소들은 사소한 피해를 입었고, 그 혼란은 폭풍의 심각성보다는 그러한 "긴급상황"을 다루지 못하는 영국의 무능과 더 관련이 있다. (현재 덴마크로 향하고 있는 것은, 한 시간쯤 전에 영국을 정리했다.)The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 세 명, 어쩌면 네 명이 죽었을지도 몰라나는 네가 집이 무너지는 것을 작은 피해라고 부를 수 있다고는 생각하지 않는다.E god Save the Queen! (토크) 10:56, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답하라]
    • 나는 "대부분의 장소들이 경미한 피해를 입었다"고 말했다.폭풍이 내가 사는 곳을 뚫고 들어왔고, 나뭇가지 몇 개가 떨어져 나갔고, 수평으로 내리는 비가 많았어, 그게 다야.지금은 화창하고 건조하다.The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
      • 그러나 손상의 규모와 일관성은 상호 배타적이다.내 길은 네 길보다 훨씬 나아나는 나뭇가지조차 손상되지 않은 것을 전혀 찾아낼 수가 없다.그러나 나의 현재 위치로부터 반경 2마일 이내에 어두운 곳에 수백 채의 집들이 있고, 나무가 쓰러져서 통행할 수 없는 A도로와 고속도로 입구가 있고, 섬에서 가장 많이 사용되는 철로 통행이 금지되어 있으며, 나무가 그의 움직이는 차를 부순 후 한 남자가 죽었다.스펙트럼의 반대편 끝에서, 알려진 다른 사망자는 런던의 반대편, 그리고 여기서 서쪽으로 수백 마일 떨어진 곳이며, 파괴 범위는 데본에서부터 에섹스와 켄트까지, 그리고 실제로 중부 런던에 있는 내각 사무실까지이다.국지적인 충격과는 거리가 멀다.—WFC—11:16, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
        • 그래, 확실히 국지적인 (영국의 의미로는) 폭풍의 길은 몇 백 마일이나 되지만, 전력절단, 메, 몇 대의 찌그러진 자동차, 메, 우리의 철도는 잘못된 나뭇잎이 궤도에 오르면 작동을 멈추기 때문에 거기엔 변화가 없고, 그래, 내가 말했듯이, 두어 명의 죽음은 비극이지만, 큰 사물의 계획에서는 큰 일이 아니다.The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
          • 글쎄, 내 생각에 우리는 동의하지 않는 것에 동의해야 할 것 같아.아까 말했듯이, 나는 아마 이것에 편견을 가지고 있을 거야.비록 남쪽의 부드러움이라는 점에서 나는 오늘 아침 웨스트 코스트 메인라인에서 일본의 기술자들과 고속열차가 얼마나 많은 차이를 보일지, 독일의 교통 기관들이 얼마나 더 많은 도로 봉쇄를 했을지, 아니면 뉴욕 긴급 구조대가 도로를 완전히 다시 개방할 것인지에 대해 의문을 품을 것이다.비계나 철거된 주택, 또는 맨하탄의 한 정부청사가 크레인에 치이는 사고가 발생했다.우리는 전성기 때는 나쁘지만, 오늘은 사정이 나쁠 수밖에 없었다.—WFC—11:28, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
            • 폭풍이 영국에만 영향을 미치는 것은 아니다.프랑스 벨기에 네덜란드 독일 등도 영향을 받는다.폭풍우가 덴마크로 향하고 있다.프랑스어, 네덜란드어, 독일어 또는 덴마크어를 읽을 수 있는 편집자들의 기사를 확장하는 데 도움이 될 것이다.Mjroot (대화) 11:38, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
              • 주폭풍은 아직 독일에 도달하지 않았지만, 지금까지 독일 뉴스는 거의 독점적인 영국 폭풍으로 취급하고 있는 것 같다(그러나 항상 "잉글랜드 IS NOW COMING FOR US"와 같은 무서운 후기를 가지고 있다). 12 슈피겔은 쾰른에서 1명이 사망했다고 보고한다(선원이 배 밖으로 씻겨 나간 것).북독일 뉴스 보도에 따르면 이 섬으로 가는 여객선은 결항되고 열차 지연이 있었다고 한다(영국인들이 영국 열차는 악천후를 다루는데 독특하게 서툴다고 불평하는 모든 것에 대해 영국 열차는 대부분의 유럽에서도 마찬가지라고 한다). 악천후에서 열차가 제시간에 운행되는 유일한 장소는 내가 흔히 볼 수 있는 곳들이다.폭풍을 방지하는 인프라를 구축하고 작은 지연에 대처하기 위한 시간표에 충분한 "충분히" 투입할 경제적 가치가 있다.)스머라인체스터 2013년 10월 28일 12시 26분(UTC)[응답]
                • 반대하는 쪽으로 바뀌면서 말 그대로 찻잔 속의 폭풍우였다.몇몇 나라에서는 많은 허둥거림과 소수의 비극적인 죽음들이 있었지만, 지난 몇 십 년 동안 우리가 경험했던 다른 기상 시스템과 비교했을 때 아무것도 없었다.거의 눈에 띄지 않는다.The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

• 기대어 반대하다이 폭풍은 예상한 것만큼 나쁘지는 않았다.그것은 보통의 겨울 폭풍보다 약간 이른 규모였다. 규모 5년에 한번은 (하이프된 20~30년은 아니었다.)만약 그것이 대륙에 중대한 손상이나 혼란을 일으킨다면 나는 다시 생각해 볼 준비가 되겠지만, 영국에만 미치는 영향은 ITN의 가치가 있는 임무가 아니다.Thryduulf (대화) 12:36, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  • 독일과 네덜란드의 죽음과 함께 프랑스의 권력 상실이 대륙의 붕괴로 간주될 것인가? E god Save the Queen! (토크) 13:02, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답하라]
• 반대. 꽤 과대 선전도 있었지만, 실제 결과는 그리 예사롭지 않았다.그 결과(히드로와 쉬폴의 200편 취소, 6만5000여 프랑스 가정의 정전, 10명 미만 사망)는 메인 페이지에 소개할 필요가 있는 특별한 발화물은 아니다.--폭시오렌지 (토크) 13:32, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 지원팀에서 말했듯이 아직 끝나지 않았고 2명이 더 실종되어 10명이 사망했기 때문에 기다리기만 하면 된다.보통의 폭풍우가 아니라 E god Save the Queen! (토크) 15:50, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답하라]
• 폭풍을 정말 반대하라.이 정도의 폭풍은 서유럽/북유럽에서 그리 흔하지 않다.나무 한 그루가 내 근처에 날려버렸고, 나는 꽤 남쪽이다.--솜차이 선 (토크) 14:26, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 이것은 매년 이맘때 유럽 각지의 전형적인 기상 현상이다.이런 폭풍은 겨우 5년 전에 마지막으로 발생했다.지금까지 보고된 물질적·인적 손실 수준에서는 적어도 지금은 반대하라. --hydrox (대화) 15:19, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 반대한다. 약간 나쁜 날씨는 세계적인 뉴스가 아니다.기러틀 (대화) 16:07, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 그렇다면 왜 USA 투데이와 많은 다른 유럽 국가들에서 뉴스로 보도되고 있는가?나한테는 세계적인 소식인 것 같아. E god Save the Queen! (토크) 16:15, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답하라]
• 약한 지지.이것은 영국 밖에서 보고되고 있으며(NBC는 이것이 영국을 강타한 몇 년 만에 최악의 폭풍이라고 말했다), 비록 재앙은 아니었지만 광범위한 영향을 미쳤다.그렇기는 하지만, 영국 사용자들이 이것을 게시하는 것을 좋아하지 않는다면, 그것 또한 무언가를 말하고 나는 그것을 게시하지 않는 것을 이해할 수 있었다. 331 도트 (대화) 16:21, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 영국에서는 4명의 사망자가 확인되었고, 유럽에서는 4명의 사망자가 발생했다.영국에는 전기가 들어오지 않는 60만 가구.중대한 운송 중단.기록상 가장 강한 바람이 덴마크에서 발생했다는 보도도 있다.나는 이것이 지금 충분히 주목할 만하다고 말하고 싶다.요크샤이어스키(토크) 2013년 10월 28일(UTC) 16시 48분 [응답]
• 첫번째 질문, 이것은 "뉴스에"인가, 아닌가?우리는 호감도에 대한 개인적인 감상에 근거하여 결정해서는 안 된다.빠른 확인: https://news.google.com/.이 폭풍은 톱 스토리로 기록되어 있다.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/,과 http://www.news.com.au/에도 나와 있다.두 번째 질문, 적당한 기사가 있는가?Jehchman^Talk 16:58, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 그래, "뉴스 속"이라는 맥락에서 우리는 이 지역 주변에서 바람이 많이 부는 날이 거의 없다.그런 말을 한 이상, "폭풍이 서유럽을 지나가면서 약간의 혼란과 소수의 사망을 초래한다"고 말하는 합리적인 주장이 있지만, 그것은 수억 명의 인구와 우리가 거의 항상 보는 날씨로 볼 때, 그다지 집중되지 않은 것이다.제1세계 문제, 별일 아니다.The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 응, 적당한 물건이 있어!Mjroot (대화) 22:23, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
• 반대 기울기 뉴스에 나오는 기준에는 부합하지만, 나는 우리가 이전에 이와 같이 고려했을 수 있는 모든 것을 찾아 다녔다 - 우리는 2013_유럽_홍수를 올렸지만, 지금까지 그것은 더 큰 규모의 사건인 것 같다.전반적으로 나는 지금 아마 뉴스거리가 더 많을 것이라고 생각한다.캡틴릭 (대화) 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC) 18:43 [응답]
• 과대포장된 느린 뉴스의 날 사료에 반대한다.어떤 쓰레기통들은 폭발했고 몇몇 기차는 런던으로 들어가지 못했다.다음. 러그넛 19:13, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지지하다.처음에 나는 이것에 대해 반대했지만, 커버리지가 성숙해짐에 따라, N에게는 이례적인 규모의 폭풍으로 보인다.유럽은 넓은 지역에 영향을 미친다.확인된 사망자 수는 계속 증가하고 있지만 적어도 13명은 될 것으로 보인다.덴마크에서 시속 121마일의 돌풍 속도, 그 나라의 기록이다.에스프레소 중독자 (대화) 2013년 10월 29일 03:31 (UTC)[응답]
• 어제보다 미국에서 더 많은 취재 지원, 특히 포르투갈에서 100ft 이상의 파도가 밀려온 것을 감안하면 죽음과 피해는 말할 것도 없다.㎕δεες (대화)20:15, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

10월 27일

---

메데이스 : "AGF는 미지의 것에 적용된다.나는 이블리스 백작의 사용자 페이지에 있는 고지서를 읽었다(본 적이 없다면 그렇게 하시오.) 그러나 당신은 이러한 고지 사항을 잘못 해석하기로 선택하므로 AGF도 당신이 해석해야 하는 방식에도 적용된다.네가 좋아하는 모든 것에 동의하지 마, 하지만 네가 주장하는 것과는 달라.아이블리스 카운트 (대화) 16:05, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

걱정마세요, 백작님. 아마 때가 됐을 겁니다.Martinevans123 (대화) 17:44, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[답글]

RD: 루 리드

--MASEM (t) 17:28, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지지하다.물론 RD가 의도한 종류의 사람이다.그의 죽음에 대해 현재 일어난 일 이외에는 알려진 것이 없지만, 이것은 매우 인기 있는 음악가에게 중요한 B급 기사여서 자세한 내용이 나오면 업데이트 될 것이다.Thryduulf (대화) 2013년 10월 27일 18:18 (UTC)[응답하라]
• 트리듀울프당 지지.세라V (대화) 2013년 10월 27일 18:24 (UTC)[응답]
• 지지와 나는 또한 지금까지 가장 영향력 있는 락 뮤지션들 중 한 명인 완전한 블럽을 지지할 것이다.블랙 카이트 (토크) 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC) 18:26 [응답]
  • 내가 흐릿하게 생각하는 유일한 걱정은 그의 죽음이 놀랍지 않다는 점이었다(당시 그는 71세였다). 그리고 나는 개인적으로 그가 음악에서 중요한 인물이라는 믿음은 같지만, 그 주장에 대해 어떤 경합이 있을 것이라고 생각했다.즉, 20세기 후반 록음악에 큰 영향을 미쳤다고 여겨지는 벨벳 언더그라운드의 리드 기타리스트 루 리드가 71"로 사망한다는 것이다. (RS 기사의 일부 언어를 사용함). --MASEM (t) 18:37, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• 그는 확실히 지난 세기 후반기에 가장 유명하고 주목할 만한 음악가들 중 한 명으로서, 대부분 솔로 가수로서, 그리고 또한 더 벨벳 언더그라운드에 속해 있었다.'퍼펙트 데이', 'Walk on the Wild Side'와 같은 그의 히트곡들 중 몇 곡은 많은 다른 가수들에 의해 커버되고 공연되어 폭넓은 인기와 상업적 성공을 거두었다.---키릴 시메오노프스키 (talk) 18:30, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• 그의 기사가 매일 1500페이지 이상의 페이지뷰를 기록하는 그의 중요성의 척도로 RD나 블러브를 지원한다.납북(이유) 18:32, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• 명목별 및 이전 의견별 지원.가말리엘(토크) 18:33, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

그의 팬들이 좋은 기사를 업데이트 받는 것은 그리 어렵지 않을 것이다. 왜냐하면 그것이 이 시점에서 그것을 억제하는 유일한 것이기 때문이다.㎕δεες (대화) 18:39, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

• 게시됨. - 반얀트리 18:43, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• Lugnuts 전체 지원: 19:05, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

이걸 당겨봐. 업데이트도 없이 올렸어.ITN에 따르면 "기사가 업데이트되는 시점에 대한 결정은 주관적이지만 (최소 3개의 참고문헌이 있고 중복문헌을 세지 않은) 5개의 보고서 업데이트는 일반적으로 충분하지만, 1개의 보고서 업데이트는 매우 의심스럽다.동사 시제의 변화(예: "is" → "was")나 ITN 블럽에 명시된 것 이상으로 관련 정보를 거의 또는 전혀 전달하지 않는 업데이트는 불충분하다."이 기사의 유일한 업데이트는 그가 죽었다는 한 문장이다.㎕δεες (대화) 19:16, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

5/3 업데이트 "필수"가 순전히 터무니없는 것이라는 사실을 뒷받침할 더 많은 증거.우리는 이제 이 가짜 기준을 완전히 없애기 위한 충분한 선례가 있다.그런데, 나는 다른 ref와 함께 구질구질한 "tribute" 문장을 추가함으로써 업데이트를 두 배로 늘렸다.뭘 더 추가해야 하지?The Rambling Man (talk) 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC) 19:45 [응답]

메데이스는 시체에서 구더기 발달에 대한 자세한 정보를 원한다.바보 같은 요구.HiLo48 (대화) 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC) 19:57 [응답]

정책에 따르면 허용 가능한 업데이트가 없었다.내가 아니다정책구더기에 대해 말하려고 고른 품위있는 말일세, HiLo.마지막으로 RD 명의를 업데이트한 게 언제야?㎕δεες (대화) 01:34, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

그것은 확실히 정책이 아니다.결코 아니다.다시 시도The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

• 상기 타인이 제시한 사유에 따른 지원. 331닷 (대화) 19:34, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

내 의도는 RD 상장을 지지하는 것이었다. 나는 흐릿함에 중립적이다. 331 도트 (대화) 20:47, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

• 그의 분야에서 코리 몽티스보다 훨씬 더 두드러진 지원이다.2013년 10월 27일 (UTC) 19:35 (응답)

몬테이스의 죽음은 흐릿한 일이 아니었다.--봉와리오르 (대화)20:35, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답하라]

• 범례 중 하나를 지원하십시오.솜차이 선(토크) 19:39, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지지의 완전한 모호함 이것은 오래된 규칙 하에서 의심의 여지없이 완전한 모호함으로 게시되었을 것이다. 그리고 그 이후 변호사들이 제기하는 동안, 이 사람은 지금까지 살았던 가장 위대한 음악 전설들 중 하나이다.모든 부관들은 그를 음악이나 록 아이콘이라고 부르고 있다.그는 유산을 고려할 때 여기서 완전히 애매한 몇 안 되는 예외 중 하나이다.또한 인지도가 높은 수많은 인물들이 단기간에 세상을 떠나는 시기 중 하나로, 그는 지금까지 죽은 사람들 중 가장 뉴스거리가 될 만한 인물들이다.시크릿 19:53, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지지도가 흐릿하다.소수의 살아있는 록 스타들 중 한 명인데, 그는 그것을 보증할 것이다.전립 (대화)20:06, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지지도가 흐릿하다.상기와 같은 이유로.마르티네반스123 (대화)20:38, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• RD 선호 - 전체 상장에 대한 정서를 확실히 이해하고 있고 실제로 반대하지는 않지만, 이것이 (매우 근접하긴 하지만) 충분히 중요하다고 생각하지는 않는다.--봉와리어 (대화)20:39, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• 블럽 반대, RD 지지, 당김 반대 나는 부고 블럽에 매우 높은 임계값을 적용해야 한다고 믿는다.RD목록은 그 사람이 죽었다는 것을 전달한다; 애매모호한 것은 거의 덧붙이지 않는다.그리고 그렇지 않으면 우리는 막 죽은 이 사람이 불쑥불쑥해야 하는지에 대한 끝없는 논쟁으로 끝나게 된다.리드가 내 문턱을 잘 못 맞추는 것 같아.그러나 업데이트 요구사항에 대한 지나치게 엄격한 해석에 기초하여 RD 상장을 철회하는 것은 반대한다.넬잭(대화) 23:03, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• 최소한 RD를 지원하라. 그리고 나도 완전히 허풍떠는 것에 반대하지 않을 것이다.루 리드가 모든 종류의 현대 음악가들에게 미치는 영향은 과대평가될 수 없다.그냥 한켠으로 '사후 지원'이라고 말하려던 참이었는데, 그때 이 토론이 생각나서 더 좋게 생각했어...쿠르티스 03:13, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 반대는 기사가 업데이트되었다는 것이지만, 하나의 인지할 수 있는 히트곡을 가진 예술가를 위한 완전한 모호함은 확실히 요구되지 않는다.㎕δεες (대화) 03:51, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • "하나"?사망자의 출처가 달라진다. --MASEM (t) 04:58, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

만약 당신이 그를 전혀 알 수 있을 만큼 나이가 많은 대부분의 사람들에게 그가 어떤 것을 알아낼 수 있는지 정확히 알고 있지 않다면, 나는 그것을 심각하게 받아들였을 것이다.논쟁할 필요 없어, 비록 그가 조급하게 발표하긴 했지만, 그의 글은 엉망이야.㎕δεες (talk) 05:20, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답

그는 영국 톱10 히트곡 3개를 가지고 있었는데, 내가 개인적으로 생각하는 한 모두 똑같이 "식별할 수 있는" 히트곡이었다.그 중 하나는 꽤 최근이었다.그러나 왜 "히트 수" (또는 이것이 얼마나 널리 인정되고 있는지를 주관적으로 재해석하는 것)가 영향이나 일반적인 영향을 측정하는 척도로 사용되어야 하는지는 확실하지 않다.마르티네반스123 (대화) 15:14, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

메데이스는 일부러 도발적인 행동을 하고 있다.그녀가 18살이나 70살이라는 것은 내가 아는 전부다.난 루 리드를 알고 있어. 다른 사람들은 루 리드를 다른 일로 알지도 몰라.BBC는 퍼펙트 데이를 취재했다.그리고 벨벳 언더그라운드 백 카탈로그가 있는데, 메데이스가 우리의 크랭크를 잡아당기고 있는 것 같아.잘 들어, "공모"라는 단어를 사용하는 것은 이제 농담이 아니다. 여왕의 영어가 죽었다는 건 알지만 그건 너무해.The Rambling Man (talk) 2013년 10월 29일 21:53 (UTC)[응답]

• 20세기의 가장 중요하고 영향력 있는 음악가 중 한 명인 만큼 지지도가 흐려졌다. --존(토크) 09:29, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 나는 처음에 완전히 지지한다는 것이 의심스러웠지만 그 글과 출처를 읽고 난 후 나는 흐리멍덩한 것이 괜찮다.이 사람은 상당한 영향력을 가지고 있고 그렇게 인정받은 예술가였고, 그가 죽은 후 매우 중요한 조공을 받았다.그 글은 충분히 갱신되어 있다.게시물 확인.--108.29.65.165 (대화) 14:47, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

2013년 파트나 폭탄 테러

--Batsan34 (대화) 15:11, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

• Mild는 미안함을 반대하지만 내가 보기에 이것은 뉴스거리가 아니다.여기 BBC를 뒤져서 찾았는데 별로 중요한 것 같지 않아.《람블링맨》(토크)20:52, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• TRM당 약한 반대였다. 그와 같이 주위를 둘러보면 나는 이것에 관한 많은 뉴스들을 찾을 수 없었다. 그리고 내가 찾은 뉴스들은 웹페이지에 묻혔다.331닷 (대화)20:54, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• 인도에서는 나렌드라 모디의 집회로 인해 인도 정치를 뒤흔드는 큰 사건이 발생했다.그러니 이 갈고리는 뉴스에 나와 있어야 한다.--프래텍 말비야^Talk 06:06, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답하라]

적어도 20명이 사망하는 것에 반대한다.여기에 레거시가 있다는 어떤 징후도 없다(여기서는 보밍드가 드물지 않다.그리고 기사는 그저 테러 사건 목록 페이지Lihaas (대화) 12:41, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]으로 옮겨져야 한다.

그러한 수치가 "알림성 임계값"으로 기록된 곳은 어디인가?처음 보는 얘기네. 2013년 10월 28일 (화) 12시 51분 (UTC)[응답]

아니에요.이것은 리하스 자신의 가이드라인 해석이다.The Rambling Man (talk) 12:55, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

약 30명 이하로 지명된 비서부 지역 폭탄 테러는 게시할 만한 합의점을 얻지 못했다.그 경험적 증거.(얼마전 인도에서 폭탄이 터졌을때 특출난 일이 있었다)리하스 (대화) 2013년 10월 29일 12시 46분 (UTC)[응답하라]

인도는 이라크/아프간/시리아처럼 매일 폭탄 폭발을 경험하는 곳이 아니다.폭발사고 빈도는 이웃 중동지역에 비해 낮다.이것은 분명히 1면에 나올 수 있는 뉴스가 될 수 있다. - 바탄34 (대화) 16:13, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

전에 했던 일을 진술하는 것과 어떤 종류의 정책이라고 주장하는 것은 차이가 있다. 331닷 (대화) 12:51, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

사실 ITN/R/C의 일관성 있는 정책은 없지만 ITNC가 그러한 움직임을 통과하면 기본적으로 ITNR 합의 사항이라는 것이 앞서 언급되었다.어쨌든, 나는 그저 선험자를 itnLihaas (토크) 13:04, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)라고 주장하지 않는 나의 오피니언으로 인용하고 있었다.

• 약한 지지 이 폭발의 공신력은 별로 알려져 있지 않기 때문에 쉽게 판별될 수 없다.테러일 수도 있고, 정치적 음모일 수도 있고, 총리 후보 나렌드라 모디 암살 계획일 수도 있다.이것은 인도의 주요 뉴스인데, ITN에 오를 만큼 주목할 만하다고 생각한다.♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♛13^Email:10, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지원 아직 조사가 진행 중이지만, 폭탄의 강도나 빈도는 이전 인도의 폭탄 테러와 유사하다. - 바탄34 (대화) 16:13, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

[게시] 조지아 프레즈 선거

--Lihaas (대화) 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC) 12시 31분[응답]

• 이 페이지의 지침에 따라 이 사실을 입증하는 출처는 뉴스에서 언급되지 않는다: "확인 가능하고 신뢰할 수 있는 출처의 참조를 포함하는지 확인하십시오." 331dot(토크) 13:58, 2013년 10월 27일(UTC)[응답]

이것은 in/r인데, 이 경우에 이것이 꼭 필요한가?세라V (대화) 18:28, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

그렇다, 나는 선거가 실제로 결정되지 않거나 다른 문제가 있는 경우를 많이 보아왔다.정보원은 이곳의 논평자들이 실제로 무슨 일이 일어나고 있는지 이해할 수 있게 해준다.납북(이유) 18:34, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

뉴스 출처가 없다면, ITNR이든 아니든 간에, 이 특정 선거는 뉴스에 나오지 말아야 한다. 331닷 (대화) 19:32, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 비록 아무도 이 선거에 대해 신경 쓰지 않더라도 INT/R에 따라 해야 한다. 게다가 그들이 실제로 뉴스에도 전혀 없다는 것을 의미하지 않는 영어로 말하는 미디어에 있지 않다면 말이다.그러나 나는 납북자의 말이 옳다는 것에 동의한다. 그리고 리하스는 가능하다면 이것들에 대한 뉴스 기사를 찾도록 노력해야 한다.세라V (대화) 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC) 19:45[응답]

• 2013년 10월 27일(UTC) 18:34, 지원 업데이트 필요[응답]
• 지지 iff 이 글은 개정안이 대통령의 권한을 어떻게 바꿀지 정확히 반영하기 위해 만들어졌다.그것은 여기서 가장 중요한 요소다.그 기사를 읽고 난 후, 나는 모호한 내용에서 한 것보다 더 개정안에 대한 이해가 없다.이런 모호한 표현은 올해 개정안이 표결에 부쳐진 것처럼 들리는데, 이것은 사실이 아니므로, 그것은 바뀌어야 한다.라이언 베시 20:07, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

선두에 섰다(그냥 기사로 옮겼을 뿐) + 바뀐 블러블리아스(토크) 13:18, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지지 No, 여기서 핵심 비트는 ITN/R이며, 그 비트는 대통령 선거다.넬잭(대화) 23:05, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• 보다 단순한 altblurb로 지원. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:18, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 댓글을 달다.아직 준비가 안 됐어. 그 결과는 출구조사로 소싱되고 있고 결과표는 투표소의 12% 이하를 나타내는 것으로 보인다.에스프레소 중독자 (대화) 15:07, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

• 결과는 99.68%로 100%이지만 조지아어를 읽을 수 없다면 (최소한 군소후보자의 경우) 표를 갱신하기 어렵다[6]. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:11, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

• 영어 결과 [7] --LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:24, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

• 테이블이 업데이트되었다.분석 부분에서 더 많은 것을 할 수 있다. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:39, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

• 짧은(알트) 블러브로 지지한다.나는 더 많은 분석이 흥미로울 것이라는 루크술의 말에 동의하지만, 이것은 지금 준비된 것으로 여겨질 수 있다고 생각한다.에스프레소 중독자 (토크) 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC) 18:19 [응답]

• 이제 다 된 것 같아. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:28, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

• 게시. 에스프레소 중독자(토크) 23:12, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

[포스팅] 세바스찬 베텔이 포뮬러 원 챔피언십 우승

--FoxyOrange (대화) 11:04, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지원을 아끼지 마십시오.그리고 이상하게도 나는 얼마나 더 많은 업데이트가 필요한지 잘 모르겠다. 이 모든 것이 일련의 경주 후에, 그의 기사는 그가 대부분의 경주에서 우승했다는 사실을 반영하고 있으며, 그가 이미 얻은 점수만큼 다른 어떤 드라이버도 득점할 수 없다는 사실 때문에 오늘 타이틀을 거머쥐게 되었다.The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• TRM당 지원.세계에서 가장 중요한 스포츠 대회 중 하나이다.Thryduulf (대화) 2013년 10월 27일 18:22 (UTC)[응답]
• 지지 오늘 또한 레드불의 시공사 우승도 포함되어야 하지 않을까?캡틴릭 (대화) 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC) 19:43[응답]
  • 그럴 이유가 없지, 알트 블러브를 제안했는데...The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• 나는 메인 페이지 오류마다 alt blurb의 버전을 업데이트했다. 아무도 여기에 반대하지 않는 것처럼 보였기 때문이다.에스프레소 중독자 (대화) 17:49, 2013년 10월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

10월 26일

---

[폐쇄] 대럴 월러스 주니어

10월 25일

---

RD 마르시아 월리스

명명자의 의견:현재 활동중인 에미상 수상 성우인 스토리드 코미디언은 심슨 가족 25시즌 동안 밥 뉴하트와 에드나 크라블플의 목소리로 주목했다; 죽음은 국제적으로 μΔδίςςςςς ( (토크) 19:39, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

• 반대 - 사망 기준에 맞지 않음.밥 뉴하트 쇼의 조연과 심슨 가족에 대한 조연으로는 "그나 그녀의 분야에서 매우 중요한 인물"과 같지 않다고 생각한다. --봉와리어 (토크) 19:56, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
• 봉와리오르 당 반대하라.그녀의 작업으로 잘 알려져 있지만 ITN/DC를 충족하지 못한다. 2013년 10월 26일(UTC)

모두가 기사를 읽기를 기대하기는 힘들지만, 이것은 내적으로 보도되고 있으며, 월리스는 봉와리오르가 지적하는 두 가지 역할에 거의 국한되지 않았다.There are also her appearances and roles in Merv Griffin (which go her a role specifically designed for her on Newhart, Hollywood Squares, the $25,000 Pyramid, Match Game, Family Feud, Full House, Bewitched, Murphy Brown, The Brady Bunch, Charles in Charge, Murder, She Wrote, Magnum P.I., The Young and the Restless, and Taxi, where she appeared a자신이 짐 이그니토프스키 목사의 이상적인 여성인 것이다.

는 '), ', '', '플라자 ' ' ' '이상한 커플'(여배우), '내년 같은 시간', '2번가의 죄수', '플라자 스위트', '집시', 'Born Yesterday', '스틸 매그놀리아스', '질부 모놀로그' 등에서 주연과 조연으로 무대에 올랐다.

그녀는 1985년 유방암 진단을 받은 이후 암 활동가로, 그녀는 길다 래드너와 함께 상을 받았다.

비록 우리가 ITN에서 여성 코미디언들에게 큰 공을 세지는 않았지만, 그녀는 확실히 캐릭터 배우에서 최고의 자리를 차지하고 있다.독자들의 관심만으로도 그녀를 지금 RD의 빈자리에 앉히는 것이 정당화될 것이다.㎕δεες (대화)20:17, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 심슨 가족에서의 그녀의 역할이 이것을 흔들어야 한다고 의심한다. 그리고 결국, 만약 그 기사가 적절히 업데이트된다면, 왜 그렇지 않은가.심슨 가족은 세계적인 현상이다. 그러한 (또는 성우)의 등장인물들은 종종 여기에 게시할 수 있을 만큼 전세계적으로 중요한 것으로 여겨진다. (참고: 반대자들에게는 이것은 메인 페이지의 두 단어로 업데이트되는 것이며, 많은 독자들이 관심을 가질 수 있다.하지만 다시 말하지만, 그게 왜 중요해?!The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

"내부적으로 보고된" 것은 사망 기준의 하나가 아니다.이번 사망은 "현재 사건(DC#3)에 영향을 미치는 중대한 국제적 영향을 미칠 것 같지 않다.– 무보슈구 (대화)20:32, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

음, 그 기준은 최근에 지켜지지 않았어...선례가 정해졌다.더 램블링맨 (토크)20:35, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

그럴 경우 현직 국가원수와 사악한 국제 대기업 총수 외에는 아무도 지명되지 않을 것이다.㎕δεες (대화)20:45, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

안 따라갈 거면 왜 기준이 있는 거지?– 무보슈구 (대화) 22:17, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

앤서니 카로의 노후에 국제적인 영향이 크다는 게 자네 요점이야, 무보슈구?㎕δεες (대화) 04:51, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

내 요점은 단순히 더 잘 알려진 마르시아 월리스와는 달리 앤서니 카로가 그 분야의 리더로 보였다는 것이다.– 무보슈구 (대화) 22:18, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

• 이것은 아다미우가 이미 앞서 지명한 이중 지명이다.세라V (대화)20:34, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

고마워, 나는 그것을 닫았고 아다미오우에게 여기서 명목상의 공을 돌렸다.㎕δεες (대화)20:45, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

• 반대한다. 나는 봉와리오르와 동의한다. 그녀가 죽음의 기준을 충족시키지 못한다고.넬잭 (대화) 2013년 10월 26일 21:31 (UTC)[응답]

에드나가 말한다.μΔείςς (talk) 21:55, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[답글]

• 코멘트 RD 기준이 너무 엄격하다는 것을 상기시켜준다.그녀는 전혀 자기 분야에서 최고가 아니다.하지만, 독자들은 아마도 앤서니 카로보다 그녀에게 더 관심이 있을 것이다.최신 90페이지 보기를 확인하십시오.Taylor Trescott - + 21:42, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

그것은 단호한 반대보다는 약한 지지여야 하지 않을까, 테일러?마샤 월리스가 앤서니 카로의 평균 관심의 3배: 카로 vs.월리스.(카로의 조각도 사람들을 웃게 만들었다고 확신하지만)㎕δεες (대화) 22:13, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

방금 댓글로 바꿨어.Taylor Trescott - + 22:16, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지원군, 메데이스 당㎕δεες (대화) 03:32, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

여기 스페인어로 된 26개의 뉴스 사이트가 있는데, 페루만큼 멀리 떨어져 있으며 월리스의 죽음을 다루고 있다.여기 메트로 몬트리올 프랑스어 여기 브라질어, 여기 이탈리아어, 오스트리아어 커버리지, 러시아어 커버리지.㎕δεες (대화) 04:43, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

앤서니 카로가 1면에 이름을 올리면서 받은 6천 페이지, 즉 그가 죽은 날 6800 페이지와 비교해서 오늘 받은 10만 6천 페이지의 대박이다.㎕δεες (대화) 04:51, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

페이지 조회수를 이리저리 던지고 사과와 오렌지를 비교해도 아무 소용이 없다. --솜차이 선 (토크) 08:56, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

솜차이가 솔직히 정말 짜증난다고 말했듯이, 우리는 그것이 얼마나 인기 있는 것인지에 근거해서 어떤 것도 올리지 않으며, 우리도 정말 그래서는 안 된다.세라V (대화) 11:24, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

당연히 그래야죠.인기는 중요한 척도다.그것은 확실히 해석이 필요하지만 페이지뷰는 의미가 있다.납북(이유) 18:37, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

ITN을 갖는 이유 중 하나는 1면에 독자가 관심 있는 항목에 대한 링크를 제공하기 위함이다.(그리고 아무도 그것이 유일한 기준이 되어야 한다고 말하지 않았다.)하지만 어떻게 독자의 인기가 그것과 무관할 수 있는지는 나로서는 알 수 없다. 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)

• 중립.그녀는 상당한 경력을 가지고 있지만 나는 심슨 가족에서 반복적인 캐릭터를 연기하고 밥 뉴하트 쇼에서 조연 역할을 하는 사람을 충분히 의미 있게 볼 수 없다.TV 쇼의 게스트 출연은 그다지 유명하지 않은 것으로 간주되어서는 안 된다.나는 심슨가족이 세계적인 현상이고 그녀의 역할에서 20년 이상 계속된다는 것에 동의한다.스타트랙 TOS에서 조연 역할을 하는 배우 중 한 명이 죽었는지 자주 궁금했는데, 게시될까(조지 타카이나 월터 코에니그나 니켈레 니콜스) 이런 게 비견될 만한 내용인 것 같아.--존셀락 (토크) 08:02, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• 심슨 가족에 대한 그녀의 역할에 대한 지지.기사는 꽤 괜찮은 편이고 최근 사망자가 정확히 1면에 넘쳐나는 것도 아니다.러그넛 09:52, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• 솔직히 지지해줘.누가 RD에 포함되어야 할지를 결정하는 것은 다시 한번 어두운 사건임이 입증되었다.월래스는 심슨 가족에서 주목할 만한 인물은 말할 것도 없고, 길고 성공적인 경력을 가지고 있었다.그녀의 죽음 또한 갑작스럽고 예상치 못한 일이었다.그녀는 나를 위해 RD 등급을 통과했다.아마도 그녀는 당신을 위해 하지 않을 것이다, 하지만 그것은 당신의 의견이고 coi는 ITN/C에서 처리되지 않는다.솜차이 선 (토크) 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC) 10시 24분[응답]
• 지지하다.비록 대부분의 조연으로 제한된다 하더라도, 그녀가 그녀의 분야에서 중요한 역할을 하고 있었음을 보여주는 것 같다.한 명 또는 몇 명의 조연으로 연기하는 배우는 주목할 만한 것이 못 되겠지만, 그녀는 그녀의 연기 경력 내내 그렇게 했고 그들 중 몇몇은 눈에 띄었고, 한 명을 인정받았다(심슨즈 작품으로 에미상을 받았다).331닷 (대화) 14:04, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• Ready 5개의 명시적 지원(유명인 포함)과 TRM의 암묵적 지원, 잘 업데이트되고 큰 독자 관심.㎕δεες (대화) 16:45, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지지하다.이것은 뉴스 속이고 페이지뷰는 사람들이 관심이 있다는 것을 나타낸다.그녀는 기준의 서면을 충족시키지 못할 수도 있지만, 위키피디아에서는 확고한 규칙이 거의 적절하지 않다.Thryduulf (대화) 2013년 10월 27일 18:29 (UTC)[응답하라]
• 지원 - 위의 지원별로.내가 보기엔 RD를 하기에 충분히 중요해.Jusdafax 02:42, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지지 - 루거트당.Sjones23 경 (토크 - 기고) 02:54, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답하라]
• 나는 이것을 게시하기 위한 합의가 나타났다고 믿는다.에스프레소 중독자 (대화) 03:09, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

빌 샤먼 RD

명명자의 의견:농구 명예의 전당에서 선수와 코치로 단 3명 중 한 명.선수로서 4승을 거두었다.올스타전 8경기에 출전했다.플레이오프에서 연속 자유투 기록을 보유하고 있다.LA 레이커스를 33경기 연속 최다 연승으로 이끌었다.아침 촬영 준비운동을 만든 공로를 인정받았다.농구에서도 눈에 띄는 것 같다. --331닷 (토크) 01:42, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

• 선수로서 그리고 코치로서 그의 업적을 고려할 때, 지지는 충분히 중요한 것 같다.넬잭(대화) 02:15, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

진정한 논의는 여기서 계속된다.

• • 이 경우, WP의 DC#2는 다음과 같다.ITND; 고인은 그 분야에서 매우 중요한 인물로 널리 평가되었다. 331닷 (토크) 02:22, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
• 댓글을 달다.이것이 국제적으로 보도되고 있는가?BBC 뉴스는 아직 픽업하지 않았다.에스프레소 중독자 (대화) 03:25, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

도움이 되긴 하지만 국제 취재 요건은 없고, 다만 사망자가 뉴스에 나와 사망 기준을 충족해야 한다.331닷 (대화) 11:47, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

• 반대, RD 요건을 전혀 충족하지 않는 것 같다.그의 분야에서 그리 중요한 인물은 아니다.영화감독 할 니덤이 사망해 뉴스에 등장하고 있지만 내정자의 흔적은 없다.납북(이유) 04:53, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 다른 것도 있고, 여기서 지명자를 만나고 싶으면 지명해.그렇다고 해서 다른 후보들을 배제해야 할 이유는 아니다.어떻게 정확히 명예의 전당(두 명, 세 명 중 한 명만), 챔피언쉽 우승자, 그리고 게임의 현재 흔한 측면을 "RD 요구를 전혀 충족하지 못한다"고 만든 것으로 인정받는 사람이 있는가? 331닷 (토크) 11:25, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지지하다.96년에 NBA 역사상 가장 위대한 선수 50명 중 한 명으로 선정되었다.데이비드 스턴, 매직 존슨, 제리 웨스트, 팻 라일리, 필 잭슨 모두 그를 상당히 높이 평가한다.[9][10].농구 명예의 전당에 들어가는 것은 쉽지 않고 그는 그것을 두 번 했다.양파 테러 (대화) 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC) 12시 38분 [응답]
• 서포트는 그의 업적과 수상/명예에 의해 지적된 농구라는 분야에서 상당히 중요한 역할을 하기 위한 RD 요건을 충족한다.– 무보슈구 (대화) 14:28, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
• RD 요건에 부합하지 않는 것 같으니 반대하십시오.지명자가 내건 주장 대부분은 농구에서의 기록도 아니고, 진짜인 사람들은 운동에서 특별한 의미를 보이지 않는다.그가 플레이오프에서 연속 자유투 기록을 보유하고 있는지, 아니면 그가 아침 슈팅 어라운드 워밍업을 만든 공로를 인정받는지 누가 신경이나 쓰겠는가?만약 그가 선수나 코치로 가장 많은 타이틀을 획득한 선수였거나 NBA 역사상 가장 위대한 선수로 뽑힌 선수였다면 나는 이것을 지지하고 싶었을 것이다.NBA 역사상 가장 위대한 50명의 선수 중 한 명이 되는 것은 그의 상대적인 중요성을 약화시킬 뿐이다.또한 그는 웨스트, 자바, 요르단이 아님을 유의하십시오.--기릴 시메오노프스키 (토크) 15:18, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

• DC#2 : "고인은 자기 분야에서 매우 중요한 인물로 널리 여겨졌다."어떻게 그가 그 기준을 충족시키지 못하는가?누가 그가 최고의 농구 선수로 여겨져야 한다고 말하는가, 아니면 X, Y, Z 레코드를 가지고 있는가?그가 가지고 있는 모든 기록을 무시하다니 웃기네50위권 안에 드는 것으로는 그 리스트가 얼마나 많이 선정되었는지를 고려할 때 충분할 것이다.– 무보슈구 (대화) 15:24, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

• 한 사람이 DC의 어떤 자격을 갖추고 다른 사람은 그렇지 않다고 말하는 것은 매우 주관적이다.NBA 역사상 가장 위대한 50대 선수 중 한 명이라는 점에 대해서는 이 범주가 너무 광범위해서 설득력 있는 주장이라고 보기 어렵다.만약 우리가 NBA 역사상 가장 위대한 50명의 선수들로 충분해야 한다는 것에 동의한다면, 이것은 농구의 목록을 약 100명 정도로 넓힌다.농구가 다른 많은 스포츠 중 하나일 뿐이라면, 이 숫자는 운동선수들만을 위한 1,000개 이상으로 쉽게 부풀릴 수 있다.정치인들, 외교관들, 배우들, 작가들, 가수들, 음악가들, 다른 종류의 과학자들 중 몇몇은 스포츠인들보다 더 인기가 있다고 여겨지고 일반적으로 낮은 포함 기준을 즐기는 다른 모든 직업들에 대해 동일한 논리를 도입함으로써, 같은 수치는 15,000명 또는 2만 명에 쉽게 도달할 수 있다.동일한 시간이 RD에 포함될 수 있는 자격을 가져야 한다.그래서 나는 보통 '무엇에서 가장 위대하다'고 여겨지는 그런 광범위한 범주에 동의하지 않는다.--기릴 시메오노프스키 (토크) 16:00, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

• 약한 반대.그는 선수 생활 동안 한 시즌 최고의 선수도 아니었다.Celtics 왕조 시절 NBA 챔피언 4배에서 우승한 MVP를 받을 거야–HTD 15:40, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
• 주로 하워드에게, 또한 키릴에게, 그는 반쪽짜리 선수/코치였을지도 모르지만, 우리가 그런 "기록 보유자"를 모두 올리기 시작하면, 우리는 크리스마스까지 여기 있을 것이다.The Rambling Man (talk) 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC) 16:09 [응답]

• "역대 최고의 선수 50명"은 "반쪽짜리"와 같은가?계산하지 않는다.– 무보슈구 (대화)20:14, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

• 배꼽만 쳐다보는 거잖아, 안 그래?NBA는 NBA를 사랑한다.큰 개 거래.The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

• 다른 사람을 선택할 수도 있었어그들은 그를 선택했다.– 무보슈구 (대화)20:31, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

• 그래, 말했듯이, Naavvaalll gaazzzingggg...NBA 밖에서 누가 신경써?아무도.더 램블링맨 (토크)20:46, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

• 기준은 자기 분야 밖이 아니라 자기 분야에서 중요하다고만 돼 있다.331도트(대화) 03:31, 2013년 10월 27일(UTC)[응답]
• 에너지를 낭비하지 마라, 331개의 도트 트롤이 이성적인 반론에 관계없이 계속 트롤을 할 것이다. -- 76.117.226.66 (토크) 23:24, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

• 안녕 IP98, 언제 "contribe"으로 다시 돌아올지 궁금했다.잘 했어요!The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지지 - 그 남자에 대해 들어본 적이 없지만, 농구 명예의 전당에 두 번 당선된 사람은 단순히 무작위적인 사람이 아니며, 아마도 "반쪽짜리 선수/코치" 이상이었을 것이다. --봉와리어 (토크) 19:48, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
• 업데이트되지 않음 나는 업데이트가 그의 중요성을 설명한다면 이것을 지지할 수 있지만, 지금까지는 그의 죽음을 기록한 한 문장과 텍스트에 있는 한 문장으로 구성되어 있다.㎕δεες (대화) 22:28, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지원 그는 게시물에 대한 RD 요건을 충족하는 것 같다.그는 확실히 그의 게임에서 최고의 위치에 있었다...솜차이 선 (토크) 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC) 16:40 [응답]
• 지지하다.명예의 전당에 두 번이나 입성했다는 것은 그가 자신의 분야에서 중요했다는 충분한 증거고, 농구는 큰 분야다.Thryduulf (대화) 2013년 10월 27일 18:33 (UTC)[응답하라]
• Per Kiril SeraV (토크) 19:12, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답하라]

명예의 전당에 두 번 이름을 올린다는 것은 그가 농구에서 중요하지 않다는 것을 의미하는가?중요성에 대한 정의가 다른 것 같아. 331닷 (대화) 19:30, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

• 역사상 가장 위대한 농구 선수 중 한 명을 지지하면서, 그의 스포츠에 대한 영향은 꽤 크다, 그는 밥 쿠시와 함께 가드 포지션의 플레이 방법을 다시 개발했다.시크릿 19:56, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

NSA 모니터링

--Martinevans123 (대화) 21:34, 2013년 10월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

• 반대 NSA 첩보물은 이미 한 번 게시된 적이 있고, 정보가 새로 유출될 때마다 이런 얘기를 계속 꺼낼 필요는 없다.그리고 그래, 나는 이 많은 것들이 수치스럽다고 생각하지만, 우리는 여기서 원인을 찾지 않는다.㎕δεες (대화) 21:38, 2013년 10월 25일 (UTC)[응답]
  • (아마 그랬을 것이다.그러나 오래 전에 이런 폭로가 꿈에도 생각되지 않았다.미국과 프랑스와 독일 간의 상호 안보 협정의 일괄 재협상보다는 "원인"이 덜하다고 말할 수 있다. Martinevans123 (대화) 21:45, 2013년 10월 25일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 넌 꿈도 꾸지 못했을지 몰라도, 난 항상 그런 일이 일어날 거라고 생각해.스파이 활동은 우리가 국가를 가지고 있는 한 국제 거래의 일부였다.지금 시끄러운 반응은 모두 영구적인 게임의 일부분이다.여기선 진짜 소식이 없어나는 이것을 강력히 반대한다.HiLo48 (대화) 21:57, 2013년 10월 25일 (UTC)[응답]
      • (여기서 짓밟힌 것은 내가 아니라 안젤라의 꿈인 것 같다.나는 지금 미국 언론에서 이 이슈에 대한 많은 보도를 접하게 되어 더 흥미롭다.Martinevans123 (대화) 22:09, 2013년 10월 25일 (UTC)[답글]
        • 요점을 놓치셨군요.안젤라가 그들이 스파이 활동을 하고 있다는 것을 알았거나 최소한 추측했다고 장담할 수 있다.단지 그 중 일부가 매우 대중화되었기 때문에 그녀가 크게 항의하는 것으로 보여졌을 뿐이다.모두 대본의 일부분이다.HiLo48 (대화) 22:24, 2013년 10월 25일 (UTC)[답글]
  • 주목할 만한 폭로가 나올 때마다 왜 자꾸 꺼내면 안 되는 겁니까?이미 과학 아이템을 너무 많이 올렸기 때문에 과학 아이템 포스팅을 멈추지 않았는데, 왜 스파이 아이템에 대한 쿼터가 있어야 하는가?내 계산으로는 스노든과 관련된 이야기 3개를 올렸는데 별로 많지 않네.화요일 (토크) 23:03, 2013년 10월 25일 (UTC)[응답]
• 이와 같은 일반적인 흐림을 반대하라, 이것은 오래된 뉴스고 우리는 에드워드 스노든이나 반 NSA 티커가 아니다; 나는 정상회담의 취소나 다른 파장 같은 미국과 다른 나라들 사이의 관계에 대한 구체적인 변화에 대한 뉴스 기사를 게재하는 것을 지지한다. 331 도트 (대화) 21:55, 2013년 10월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

331 도트, 이게 오래됐다는 거야? 그게 전에 나온 거야?그렇다면 왜 이제서야 이야기가 됐을까.넬잭(대화) 04:00, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

스노든이 미국의 스파이 행위에 대해 당혹스러운 정보를 갖고 있다는 것은 오래된 소식이라는 겁니다.331닷 (대화) 11:32, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 스파이 활동이 국제 관계의 표준이 되는 것에 대한 HiLo의 언급을 두 번째로 덧붙이겠다; 여기서 문제는 미국이 단지 그것이 과거에 일어났던 일이고 이 폭로 이후에도 일어날 것처럼, 단지 그것이 발생했다는 것이 아니라, 공공장소에서 발각되었다는 것이다.331닷 (대화) 22:00, 2013년 10월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

만약 그들이 "잡히지 않았더라면" 우리는 그런 일이 일어났는지 전혀 몰랐을 것이다.Martinevans123 (대화) 22:28, 2013년 10월 25일 (UTC)[답글]

• • 그 애매모호한 말은 조정이 필요하다는 거야, 사실이야.그리고 우리는 에드워드 스노든이나 반 NSA 티커는 아니지만, 그 자체로 주목할 만한 내용이기 때문에 이 글을 올리는 것을 고려하고 있는 것이지, 반 NSA이거나 스노든과 관련된 것이 아니기 때문이다.한 나라가 다른 나라를 염탐하다 적발되는 황당한 일화가 눈에 띄는데, 이 중 35개가 하나로 굴러 들어온 것이다.화요일 (토크) 23:03, 2013년 10월 25일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 스노든과 그의 동맹국들이 그가 가지고 있는 정보를 한 번에 조금씩 (그리고 그는) 뉴스거리를 늘리기 위해 발걸음질 칠 것이라는 점만 빼면 말이다.이것은 일회성 이야기가 아니다; 그나 다른 사람들이 일주일에서 2주 후에 "새로운" 난처한 정보를 폭로할 것이다.말했듯이 우리는 스노든 티커가 아니다. 331닷 (대화) 02:13, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답하라]
      • 스노든의 폭로 내용을 실제로 올린 지 꽤 됐으니 스노든 티커로 변할 위험은 없다고 본다.그리고 그가 자신의 정보를 공개하는 방식은 게시 여부와는 관련이 없다.넬잭(대화) 04:05, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
        • 그것은 관련이 있다.스노든이 뉴스에 대한 가치를 높이기 위해 시간이 지남에 따라 정보를 공개한다면, 그것은 뉴스 가치가 떨어지게 된다.여기서 새롭고 구체적인 것(유엔 불만이나 기타 문제 등)이 나올 경우에만 여기에 어떤 것이 게시되어야 한다.331닷(대화) 11:32, 2013년 10월 26일(UTC)[응답]
          • 스노든은 홍콩에 있을 때 가지고 있던 모든 것을 건네주었었다.정보가 느리게 나오고 있는 것은 엄청난 양의 파일에 담겨 있기 때문이다. 스노든은 이에 대한 보고서를 작성하지 않았고, 그것은 모두 원시 데이터였다.또한 신문이 발행하는 어떤 것이든 먼저 그것이 국가 안보에 해를 끼치지 않도록 조사되어야 할 것이다.그러나 나오는 것이 뉴스가 가치 있는 것인지 아닌지는 현재 언론의 관심에 의해 결정된다.그리고 그것은 결국 나오는 것에 대한 세계의 반응에 의해 결정된다.세계 지도자들이 감시당했다는 것을 이미 알고 있는 많은 사람들은 이 이야기에 대한 반응이 그러한 태도와 맞지 않는다면 관련이 없다."랜스 암스트롱을 포함한 프랑스 사이클 선수들 모두가 도핑을 사용한 것을 알고 있었다"는 말과 비슷하다.그것이 사실이든 아니든(혹은 모두가 이 사실을 알 수 있었다는 것) 이 일에 대한 뉴스가 터졌을 때 그것은 큰 뉴스거리였다는 사실을 바꾸지 않는다.아이블리스 카운트 (대화) 17:48, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지지하다.뚜렷하고, 광범위하게 커버되고, 매우 주목할 만한 스파이 폭로.화요일 (토크) 23:03, 2013년 10월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

며칠에 한 번꼴로 이런 일이 나오고 있다.스노든의 주장은 미국의 모든 통화내용이 녹음돼 있어일주일 전만 해도 한 달 동안 7천만 건의 프랑스 전화가 녹음된 적이 있었다.이것이 새로운 뉴스 사이클마다 1면을 장식하기 위해 다시 활성화되고 있는 것은 분명하다.그렇긴 하지만, 만약 우리가 공식적인 유엔 불평이나 나토 정상회담 같은 어떤 실질적인 조치를 취한다면, 나는 즉시 포스팅을 지지할 것이다.그때까지만 해도 단순한 불평은 그저 최근의 주사기일 뿐이다.㎕δεες (대화) 02:13, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

나 역시 메데이스가 제안한 아이디어와 같은 이 정보에서 비롯되는 구체적인 행동에 대한 이야기를 게시하는 것을 지지할 것이라는 것을 반복할 것이다.331닷 (토크) 02:15, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

• 반대 - 만약 미국, 독일, 프랑스가 서로에 대한 스파이 활동을 중단하기로 합의한다면, 우리는 그것을 뉴스로 올릴 수 있다.현재로선 각국이 서로를 염탐한다는 사실을 알게 된 것이 그리 놀랍지도 않고 흥미롭지도 않다.미국은 영국, 캐나다, 호주를 제외한 모든 나라(우리의 특별한 친구)를 감시하고 있다.제호만 02:20, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 항상 HiLo48이 우리의 특별한 친구 중 하나라고 생각해왔다.그런데 왜 NZ를 빠뜨린 거야?μΔείςς (talk) 02:41, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[답글]

왜 NZ가 누락되었는지 모르겠다.아마도 그 나라는 호빗과 양만 있기 때문에 우리가 염탐하지 않는 나라들 중 하나일 것이다.제호만^Talk 04:05, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

좋아, 이제 네가 바보같이 굴고 있는지 물어볼 차례야. :) 나는 영국, 미국, CA, AU, 그리고 서로를 감시하지 않는 누군가를 포함한 5개 국가들 간의 전쟁 후에 상호 합의가 있었다는 것을 마지막 날이나 이틀에 읽었다.NZ가 그들 중 하나가 아니었다고 말하는거야? 아니면 내 다리를 잡아당긴거야?㎕δεες (대화) 04:45, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

옛날 호주, 뉴질랜드와 미국은 ANZUS라는 행복한 작은 조약을 맺었다.1984년 뉴질랜드는 미국의 원자력이나 무장한 군함에 대해 강경한 입장을 취했다.미국은 그것을 좋아하지 않았다.ANZUS는 사실상 AUS가 되었다.그 반목은 금세기까지 계속되었다.HiLo48 (대화) 04:54, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

그래, 그 바보 같은 짓이 기억나. 우릴 보호해줘. 우리가 그 대가로 너에게 연료를 줄 거라고 기대하지 마.하지만 그것이 실제로 관련이 있을까?비스파이 협약은 3자가 아니라 5자였던 것으로 보인다.㎕δεες (대화) 05:14, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 비스포밍이 약간 선의의 거짓말이라고 의심한다.나를 냉소적이라고 불러도 좋지만, 나는 각 플레이어가 할 수 있는 모든 사람을 상대로 최대한 많은 스파이 활동을 하고 있다고 의심한다.HiLo48 (대화) 05:30, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

파이브 아이즈를 참조하십시오.NZ도 포함되어 있다.제호만 20:52, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지원 관련되는 것은 이것이 중대한 외교 사건을 일으켰다는 것이다.정치 지도자들과 국제 언론에 의해 중요하게 취급되고 있으며, 이것이 중대한 스캔들인지에 대한 우리의 개인적인 정치적 판단에 근거하여 이것을 재평가하는 것은 우리의 역할이라고 생각하지 않는다.넬잭(대화) 03:58, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
• 전 세계적으로 보도되고 관련성이 있으며, 미국과 EU 관계에 심각한 장애물이 되는 빅 및 관련 스토리를 지원한다.그렇다, 이것은 "반복적인 사건"이다; 그리고 15년 정도 후에 나는 우리가 다시 사건이 일어날 것이라고 확신한다; 하지만 그것이 이것을 덜 가치 있는 뉴스로 만들지는 않는다.나는 지역 보안 기관에 익숙하지 않은 사람들을 위해 미국이라는 용어를 모호하게 사용할 것을 제안한다.L.탁 (토크) 07:03, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

그것은 15년이 걸리지도 않을 것이다; 그들은 아마 일주일 안에 더 많은 정보를 발표할 것이다.우리는 스노든 티커가 아니다. 331닷 (대화) 11:36, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답하라]

나는 때때로 큰 스캔들이 터질 것이라고 말하고 싶었다; 나는 스노든, 미국, EU, DE 또는 FR로부터의 정보로 이것이 확장될 것이라고 상상할 수 있다; 그리고 우리가 그것을 계속 올릴 수 없다는 것에 동의한다.하지만 이것은 많은 나라에서 1면 뉴스다. 그것이 ITN이 만들어지는 이유인 것 같다.L.탁 (대화) 12:02, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

• 미국의 주요 정치 스캔들을 지지하라. 다른 주장을 하는 것은 정말 어리석다.세라V (대화) 07:32, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

아무도 그렇지 않고 논쟁하는 사람은 없지만, 이 다소 오래된 이야기를 게시하기 위해서는 구체적인 효과가 있어야 한다; NSA와 미국의 스파이 행위에 대한 난처한 정보가 외부에 있다는 것은 알려져 있고 뉴스도 없다. 331 도트 (대화) 11:36, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

지난 번에 이것에 대한 어떤 것이 게시된 이후로 이 특정한 이야기에서 꽤 많은 일이 일어났다.그리고 nsa가 수십 명의 세계 지도자들을 염탐하다가 붙잡혔다는 것은 상당히 새로운 소식이다.세계 지도자들이 염탐할 것으로 예상한다는 주장을 할 수도 있겠지만, 이번 사건처럼 누군가가 실제로 그렇게 하다 들키면 완전히 달라진다.세라V (대화) 14:24, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

• 많은 유럽 국가들에 걸쳐 주요 뉴스를 지지하라, 누군가가 "스파이하는 것이 문제가 아니다, 걸리는 것이 문제"라고 말한 적이 있다. 그리고 빌어먹을 NSA는 여기서 그들의 바지를 내린 채 잡혔다.The Rambling Man (talk) 13:45, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

그들은 스노든이 가져간 정보를 공개하기 시작하는 순간부터 바지를 내린 채 붙잡혔다.여기서 새로 볼 만한 것은 없어. 331닷 (대화) 14:33, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

그렇다, 이것은 유럽 전역의 뉴스다. 그 갱들이 수십 명의 세계 지도자들의 휴대폰을 감시하고 있다는 것이다.그건 새로운 소식이다.운이 없다.The Rambling Man (talk) 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC) 14:40 (talk)[응답]

서로를 감시하는 나라는 뉴스가 아니라 수 세기 동안 행해져 왔다.미국에 비판적인 이 많은 나라들 또한 그것을 한다.이제 이 세계 지도자들 중 한 명이 정상회담 취소, 외교 직원 추방, 외교 관계 단절, 유엔에 대한 불만 등 그것에 대해 뭔가 조치를 취한다면, 우리는 무언가 걸어야 할 것이 있다.일주일 정도 후에 스노든과 그의 동맹국들은 NSA가 한 난처한 활동에 대해 더 많은 "정보"를 발표할 것이다.우리는 그의 정보에 대해 예민한 사람이 아니다.331닷 (대화) 14:45, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

너와 NSA 등이 좋아하든 싫어하든 그것은 뉴스다."특별한 친구"를 염탐하다 들킨다는 것은 매우 난처한 일이다.우린 뉴스에 더 관심이 많아, 기억나?그리고 제발 331 도트, 여기 있는 모든 지지자들을 욕하지 마.가장 어울리지 않는 일인데....The Rambling Man (talk) 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC) 16:06[응답]

나는 아무도 "나쁜" 사람이 아니다; 너처럼, 나는 내가 원하는 어떤 논평에도 자유롭게 대답할 수 있다.원하지 않으면 내 코멘트에 응답하지 않아도 된다. 331닷(토크) 03:34, 2013년 10월 27일(UTC)[응답]

그래, 331 도트!!... 네가 염탐당하는 기분인 적 있어?!하하.

NSA 잠복수사?

마르티네반스123 (대화) 17:31, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

331 도트, 뉴스 매체가 네 말에 동의하지 않는 것 같아.당신이 다른 맥락에서 지적하는 것을 좋아하기 때문에, 이것은 뉴스에 나온다.넬잭 (대화) 21:29, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

그리고 다른 사람들이 나에게 지적했듯이, 단지 뉴스에 나오는 것만으로는 어떤 것을 게시하는 데 충분하지 않았다.그럴 때는 이를 지지하여 줄을 서겠다. 331닷 (대화) 03:34, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

음, 그거 편리하네.당신이 다음 번에 당신이 원하는 것에 대한 지원을 얻기 위해 그 라인을 사용하려고 한다는 것을 기억하기를 바란다.그리고 어쨌든 이 이야기는 준비가 되는 대로 당신의 입력 없이 게시될 수 있는 충분한 지지를 가지고 있다.세라V (대화) 2013년 10월 27일 18:39, (UTC)[응답]

So User:새라브, 다른 사람들은 "뉴스에 나왔어"라고 할 순 있지만 난 아니라고?왜 그럴까? 331도트(토크) 19:28, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답하라]

단지 뉴스에 나오는 것만으로는 매번 당신에게 충분하지 않다면, 아마도 당신은 그것을 전혀 사용하지 말아야 할 것이다.세라V (대화) 2013년 10월 27일 19:41, (UTC)[응답]

그건 내 질문에 제대로 답하지 않지만 답장은 고마워. 331닷 (대화) 19:44, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

331 도트, 나는 그것이 "뉴스가 아니다"라는 당신의 이상한 주장을 반박하는 것이 뉴스에 있다고 말했다.넬잭(대화) 23:13, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

• 잠깐, 우리가 창문을 놓쳤어. 더 이상 때맞지 않게.독일이 워싱턴에 '전문가'를 보내면서 어떤 일이 일어나는지 보자.[11]

스카 (대화) 15:37, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

• 유럽의 주요 뉴스를 지원한다.♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♛ 16^Email:23, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지지하다.이것은 벌써 며칠째 속보다.아이블리스 카운트 (대화) 17:34, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

• 준비되지 않았다 나는 이 의견에 반대하지 않는다. 그러나 그것은 업데이트에 대한 한 문장 전체를 가지고 있다: "국가안전국은 35명의 세계 지도자들의 전화 대화를 감시해왔다"는 문장으로, 이것은 심지어 단락 형태도 아니지만, 중요한 부분이다.흐림을 반복하는 한 문장은 업데이트 기준에 따라 명백한 실패다.이것은 상장이 아니라 연장된 산문 처리가 필요하다.㎕δεες (대화) 22:06, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

  [12] Martinevans123 (대화) 00:09, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

• 반대 유럽 지도자들의 소란과 성가신 일은 모두 큰 게임의 일부분이다.그들은 자신들이 염탐당하고 있다고 생각했을 것이다.뉴스는 누군가가 그것을 공개했다는 것이다.그런 일이 있었으니, 그 지도자들은 그들이 스파이 활동을 기대했음에도 불구하고 실망과 불쾌함을 고백해야 한다.실망스럽고 불쾌해 보이는 그 뉴스의 보도는 모두 그것의 일부분이다.우리가 이것을 올리면 우리도 게임의 일부가 된다.이런 종류의 일에 대해 더 알고 싶은 사람들은 "위대한 게임"을 읽어야 한다.HiLo48 (대화) 03:48, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 그게 수술실에 근거한 해석이야다른 해석이 가능하다.정보기관이 서로 협력하기 때문에 메르켈 총리는 미국이 관심을 갖고 있는 것에 대해 생각을 했을 것이다.그러나 이번 폭로는 미국과의 합의와 양립할 수 없는 것을 그녀가 몰랐던 것을 지적할 수도 있었다.예를 들어 2002년에 미국이 사담 후세인의 대량살상무기에 의한 위협을 믿도록 EU를 조종하기를 원했고 그들이 이란에 대한 제재에 대한 EU의 지지를 얻기 위해 그러한 전술을 계속했다고 상상할 수 있다.아이블리스 카운트 (대화) 14:51, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

• 업데이트? 이 BBC 보도는 슈피겔을 인용하여 이슈의 범위를 넓히고 지속 기간을 연장하는 것 같다.[13] 그러나, 현재 웨스터웰과의 슈피겔 온라인 인터뷰는 별로 도움이 되지 않는 것 같다.[14]

Sca (토크) 16:01, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

• BBC의 소식통은 좋은 소식통으로 보인다.업데이트가 얼마나 필요한지, 이미 적은 추가만으로 충분한지 판단하려고 했다.마르티네반스123 (대화) 16:11, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

오늘의 가디언은 BBC와 대체로 비슷한 것 같다.[15] 나는 지금 이 두 가지 출처(그리고 메르켈의 머그잔)와 함께 게시하는 것을 지지한다.당신은 또한 뉴요커에 있는 의견들을 인용할 수 있다.[16]

Sca (토크) 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC) 16:33[응답]

이것은 아직 업데이트되지 않았다. 35개국에 대한 한 문장이 있다.업데이트 기준은 ITN blurb 이상이라고 하는 업데이트가 불충분하다고 명시적으로 말한다.㎕δεες (대화) 16:34, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

[17]?Martinevans123 (토크) 17:17, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC) 나는 거기서 전체 5개의 문장을 세어 보았다. [답답하다]

사실, 주로 국가 원수들의 10월 감시 보고서인 esp를 다루는 별도의 훨씬 짧은 기사가 필요하다.최소한 일부 보도에 따르면, 일부 NSA의 사과론자들이 우쭐대며 주장했듯이, 적어도 일부 보도에 따르면, 메르켈은 정말, 정말로, 정말로 화가 났고, "분노극장" 또는 "지명극장"에만 관여하지 않고 있다.Sca (토크) 2013년 10월 27일 16:58 (UTC)[응답]

메르켈이 아무나 머그잔으로 해?마르티네반스123 (대화) 17:09, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

잘라내기 필요:

스카 (대화) 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC) 17:27 [응답]

이제 그녀는 약간 정치적 도도한 사람일지 모르지만 무례하게 굴 필요는 없다.나는 그녀의 영구적인 물결이 괜찮다고 생각한다.Martinevans123 (대화) 18:56, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[답글]

• 지원 - 이것은 이미 게시되어야 한다.뉴스에 나오는 엄청난 국제적인 이야기와 여러 가지 반향을 불러일으킨다.ITN에 대한 이 이야기가 없는 것은 그 기능을 기능적으로 보이게 한다.Jusdafax 02:57, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

이미 게시되었어야 한다면, 이미 업데이트 되었어야 했다.그랬어?㎕δεες (대화) 03:04, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

보아하니 "5문장"으로는 충분하지 않다. (사실, 왜 그렇게 해야 하는가.휴 기사가 필요하십니까?스페인이 이제 공식적으로 증가하는 불만의 무리들과 합류했구나.마르티네반스123 (대화) 08:49, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

• 준비된 것으로 표시하는 것은 이제 단락 업데이트가 있고, 의견 일치가 있는 것 같다.넬잭 (대화) 09:22, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 그리고 일주일도 안 되어 우리는 스노든의 정보로부터 이런 사실을 알게 되었다. [18][19] 우리도 그것을 게시할 것인가?스노든의 뉴스 티커가 될 거면 그냥 인정하자. 331닷 (대화) 10:12, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 그것은 "뉴스 속"인데, 지금 스페인 사람들은 그것에 대해 화가 나 있다.메뚜기를 붙일 시간이다.The Rambling Man (talk) 10:37, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

더 많은 배경: 베를린의 미국 대사관 옥상에서 슈피겔 르 NSA 감시.[20]

Sca (대화) 14:54, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

• 이 기사는 현재 마릴린 먼로에 대한 FBI의 스파이 활동과 1940년부터 2000년까지의 세계 스파이 활동에 관한 단락을 포함하여 최신화된 것으로 보인다.이 기사는 간단히 말해서, 언로드할 수 없고 읽을 수 없는 재앙이다.한편 스페인은 오늘 한 달 동안 6천만 명이 넘는 미국 대사를 소환하는 등 새로운 사이클이 시작됐다.그게 이 흐릿함의 일부일까?아니면 따로?끈적거릴 때가 된 것 같다.

• 나는 그것이 그 애매한 것에 대한 아주 좋은 추가/대체가 될 수 있다고 생각한다.마르티네반스123 (대화) 17:33, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

• 그러나 기다려라, 더 있다! — 로이터 통신은 "독일의회는 미국이 앙겔라 메르켈 총리의 전화를 도청했다는 보도에 대해 특별 세션을 열 것"이라며 "좌파 정당들은 전 미국 정보기관 요원 에드워드 스노든을 포함한 목격자들을 불러 공개 조사를 요구했다"고 전했다. (로이터들은 너무 숨죽였다)구두점이 없는 문장하.) [21]

내가 마지막으로 우리 기사를 보았을 때, 그것은 19,000개의 더부룩한 단어들, 즉 긴 신문 기사의 10배 정도 되는 것에 무게가 실렸다.그렇기 때문에 위키가 이 주제를 ITN에 올릴 수(믿음) 있기 전에 새롭고 별도의 기사가 필수적이다.Sca (토크) 21:02, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

아하, 그리고 그렇게 함으로써, 여기에 그것을 게시하는 데 필요한 시의성의 반칙이 될 것이다.오, 이런, 부끄러운 일이군, 유럽 정부 수장들이 염탐당하고 노출되는 것이 갑자기 중요하지 않게 되었군.그런 경솔함에 당황한 사람들은 하루를 더 염탐하기 위해 사는 것 같다.우리는 ITN에 새로운 기사가 필요하지 않다. 현재 진행 중인 이야기에는 어떤 기사가 필요했는가?그럼 여기엔 체계적 편견이 없겠군The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

아아, 우리는 확실히 뉴스 조직이 아니다.스카 (대화) 21:23, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

아아, ITN 섹션에서 "뉴스"를 증명하지 않는다면 무슨 의미가 있겠는가?음, "경영진"을 난처하게 만들지도 모르는 세계적인 뉴스는 발표하지 말자.누가 "우울한 편견"이라고 했나?누가 그랬어?손들어!!!!(난 스파르타쿠스야...) 람블링맨 (토크) 21:27, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답하라]

알락과 아아, 나도 동의해. 난 그저 내가 직접 글쓰기 작업에 도전하고 싶지 않아.그건 내 주제가 아니야.미안!

세부사항 — 이 독일 로이터 사연은 번데스타그 특별 세션이 11월 18일로 예정되어 있다고 말한다. [22] 영국 로이터는 편리하게 이 'W'를 그들의 이야기에서 벗어났다.스카 (대화) 21:42, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

우리 모두에게 바구니 포장지로 2주를 더 주다니 분데스타그가 얼마나 사랑스러운가.하지만 그 안에서 꽤 소란스러워질 수 있어마르티네반스123 (대화) 23:04, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

응? 스카 (대화) 23:24, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답하라]

직접 증거를 제시하기 위해 베를린으로 날아오는 스노든이 훨씬 더 나은 ITN 입후보자를 만들 것이라고 확신한다.그리고 분명히 우리 모두는 그 여분의 몇 주를 1달러짜리 세 개의 고관을 얻기 위해 쓸 수 있을 것이다! (... 웃기는 나는 언제나 람블러를 피에 굶주린 반란군이라기보다는 사자 사냥꾼으로 보았던 것이다.)마르티네반스123 (대화) 23:33, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

르 스노든, 그럴 가능성은 거의 없어스카 (대화) 00:45, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

• 알고리즘: 뉴스를 확인하여 "뉴스"를 확인하고, 관련 기사를 찾아 업데이트되었는지 확인하고, 새 지명을 게시하십시오.이번 지명은 대상 기사가 집중되지 않아 절망적인 난장판이 됐고, 뉴스는 더 이상 제안된 흐림과 맞지 않는다.공천은 이미 곰팡이가 피었다.다시 시도하십시오.나는 올바른 이야기와 올바른 기사를 지지할 것이다.제호만 03:15, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

당신은 이 토론에 참여했고 당신은 이 지명에 대해 편견을 가지고 있다.너는 멀리 떨어져 있어야 한다.최대한 빨리 게시해야 한다고 하셨는데, 며칠 전에 게시하셨어야 했는데.나는 우리 관리자들이 모두 편향되어 있는지 곧 궁금해지기 시작해야 한다.세라V (대화) 04:53, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

그것은 Jehchman에게 공평하지 않다.대상 기사가 1940-2013년의 기간을 다루고, FBI가 마릴린 먼로(In The News?)에 대한 스파이 행위를 언급할 때!?!?) 그리고 당신은 광섬유 인터넷 연결에 SSD를 가지고 있고, 추적 기사를 싣는 것은 여전히 당신을 추락하게 만들며, 이제 그 기사를 10조각으로 부술 시간이다.그렇다면 업데이트는 쉽다.㎕δεες (대화) 05:35, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

다시 시도하고 있어 그럴 가능성은 거의 없어마르티네반스123 (대화) 08:40, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

좋아, 그럼 새로운 기사가 필요하다는 선례가 정해졌군.흥미롭군The Rambling Man (talk) 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC) 12:49 [응답]

좋은 아침.3,800단어로 된 이 토론은 종결하자고 제안하시오.스카 (대화) 14:44, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

예, 사용자:마르티네반스123과 나는 이에 대한 결론으로 이제 특정 편집자들이 기존 기사를 갱신하기보다는 새로운 기사를 쓰도록 요구할 수 있다는 선례를 남기게 되었기 때문에 보다 "적절한" 기사로 재조명할 수 있었다.《람블링맨》(토크) 2013년 10월 29일 18시 12분 (UTC)[응답]

흠, ES가 대통령 사면을 받게 될 것 같은데 이번 사면이 보도되기 전에...Martinevans123 (대화) 18:46, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[답글]

우린 할 수 있어2013년 미국 스파이들이 깨끗하고 제대로 잡히고 미국 정부에 의해 감시당한 수억 명의 유럽인만 나열해 보자.승자가 되어야 한다.《람블링맨》(토크) 19:36, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

음, 그리고 저건 유럽이지?진짜 위협이 있는 곳.Martinevans123 (대화) 20:46, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC) [23][답글]

뉴스에 부합하는 집중적인 기사를 만들기 위해 관련 부분을 잘라내라.그것은 한 가지 문제일 뿐이다.또 다른 문제는 공천 이후 뉴스가 진행됐다는 점이다.좀 더 집중해서 새로운 지명을 고려해 보십시오.제호만^Talk 20:52, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

흠, 고마운 Jehchman, 꽤 쉬운 Martinevans123 (토크) 21:08, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC) (이탈리아 버전도 이용 가능)으로 들린다.[답답하다]

최대 2,000개의 폴백으로 1,500개의 단어를 목표로 한다.스카 (토크) 21:15, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

네 교묘한 스파이 수법은 여기서 통하지 않아, 개자식아!Martinevans123 (대화) 23:05, 2013년 10월 29일 (UTC)[답글]

그리고 사진 한 장, 두 장, 세 장은 아니다.그리고 아마도 Infobox일 것이다.하지만 또..The Rambling Man (talk) 2013년 10월 30일 (UTC) 10:56 [응답]

우리 다시 모일까?마르티네반스123 (대화) 09:05, 2013년 11월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

이 시위자들은 당신이 찾고 있는 게 아니에요... 움직여, 움직여...The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 2013년 11월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

체코 선거

--Lihaas (대화) 12:37, 2013년 10월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

• 댓글을 달다.이 페이지의 지침에 따라 뉴스에서 "확인 가능하고 신뢰할 수 있는 출처의 참조를 포함하도록 하십시오." 331 도트(토크) 14:34, 2013년 10월 26일(UTC)[응답]
• 지원. --bender235 (대화) 21:12, 2013년 10월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

• 주의를 촉구하라 이것은 단지 우리의 게시 관리자가 이런 우스꽝스러운 외국 장소에서의 일들에 대해 신경 쓰지 않는 것처럼 보이기 때문에, 불필요하게 며칠이 게시되기를 기다리거나, 게시되지 않은 페이지의 바닥에서 떨어지는 종류의 항목이다.ITN/R에 있어, 젠장.결과가 나왔어.POST IT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!HiLo48 (대화) 04:00, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• 행정부는 선거 공고를 싫어한다.올해 들어 다섯 번째 이런 일이 있었다.
  • 분명히 그 기사는 아직 업데이트되지 않았다.–HTD 04:30, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지지자들은 이것이 게시될 준비가 되었다고 말하고 싶다.세라V (대화) 11시 55분, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• 단지 기사가 갱신되지 않았다고 해서 반대하라.'결과표'가 추가됐지만 이 정도로는 부족하다.결과와 그 정치적 결과를 기술하기 위해서는 산문 텍스트가 필요하다.--폭시오렌지 (대화) 12:06, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• 댓글을 달다.나는 지금 이것을 포스팅을 위해 세 번 보았지만 제대로 업데이트되지 않았다.결과표는 있지만 결과가 무엇을 의미하는지(분명히 알 수 없음)에 대한 논의는 없고, 결과가 선두에 오르지 못했다.또한 사민당이 '원'을 가지고 있다고 본질적으로 게시하는 것은, 내가 볼 수 있는 어떤 위치에서도 정부를 구성할 수 있는 만큼 멀지 않은 시기일 수도 있다.좀 더 미묘한 흐림이 적절할 수도 있다.에스프레소 중독자 (대화) 14:14, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

그러니 고쳐! (또 누가 할래?)HiLo48 (대화)20:01, 2013년 10월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

주도를 위해 요약을 썼지만 체코가 없다는 것은 정부 구성에 대한 현재 진행 중인 논의를 보도하는 데 방해가 된다.누가 다른 블러브를 제안할 수 있을까?에스프레소 중독자 (대화) 14:51, 2013년 10월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

마르시아 월리스

October 24

---

RD ITN Nomination: Manna Dey

Nominator's comments: Legendary India playback-singer. Recipient of highest Indian cinematic award in 2007.Making headlines in India. Respected figure in music. Padma Vibhushan awardee.

• Support per BBC saying "Manna Dey: Legendary Indian Singer dies". [31] Jehochman ^Talk 15:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I've added a {{ref improve}} because the biography is very under-referenced. It is also overlong. This would be a good opportunity to see what obituary writers consider to be the most significant events of his career, and to trim and organize the article accordingly. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Jehochman has removed the {{ref improve}} tag (I disagree, and have opened a discussion at Talk:Manna Dey). Regardless of tags presence or not, this should not be posted until the biography is substantially improved with references. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec)Support. Looking at his accolades and awards, as well as his extensive body of work, it would seem he is very important in his field(Indian music). Good chance to post something from India. 331dot (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are we looking for something to post from India? 212.139.255.54 (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are always looking for something to post from India, and any other country. Jehochman^Talk 15:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Jehochman said, we are looking for stories from any country. I often see complaints about systemic or geographical bias here; this is a chance to briefly counter some of that. I'm sure some of the 1 billion plus people in India come here and might want to read about this man. 331dot (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, a kind of affirmative action for India-related articles? I'm not against posting news stories from anywhere, but to give them special consideration or promotion because they are from somewhere rarely reported on, doesn't seem right to me. 212.139.255.54 (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not giving it special consideration or saying that we should favor this at the expense of articles from other areas; I'm simply saying that this is a good chance to post an Indian story. I am not suggesting weakening the criteria or otherwise favoring this story; I believe it meets the criteria. I have stated several times that I am staunchly opposed to any sort of affirmative action program for posting articles to ITN. That's not what I've suggested doing here. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not addressing the issue of whether this nomination meets the criteria. And since ITN is not a zero sum game you obviously can't be favouring this nomination "at the expense of articles from other areas". What I'm questioning is the tactic of promoting this nomination, in part, because it "is a good chance to post an Indian story". Is posting an "Indian" story (or stories from any country) a goal of ITN? Why not sell it as the death of a popular, highly-awarded playback artist and let editors weigh in on the newsworthiness of that? Genuine ITN "news" stories should be universal and not in need of special consideration and promotion based on geography. Or so it seems to me. There; peace said; I'm out of here. 212.139.255.54 (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what the objection would be to 331. We do both want to give the readers what they want and have a variety of listings--something that was once indicated in part by the minority top field. μηδείς (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(to the anon user)I'm not "promoting" anything. Just made a comment, that's all. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Sufficiently prolific for RD. --Somchai Sun (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for RD but it needs a lot of sources. There are many sections that are completely unsourced. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for RD when referencing improved. Appears notable within genre, significant international coverage of his death. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD subject to article being improved sufficiently. Several highly reputable news sources (the Times of India, the BBC, Reuters) describe his as "legendary". That's enough for me. Neljack (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment it is updated, but its woefully short of cites. Would that be ready as the relevant section is?Lihaas (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, no. Other admins might differ. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Post it now. Citations? You think somebody just made up all that info about the guy? You're not going to get any more citations. Post it now. GroveGuy (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Some of the prose sections, ref considerations aside, need formatting and substantial copyediting, such as with Manna_Dey#1968.E2.88.921991. I'll see what I can do. Spencer^T♦C 18:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Anthony Caro

Nominator's comments: BBC: "Sir Anthony was widely regarded as the greatest British sculptor of his generation" --LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I see this death reported in the news. As we would post this one, so we should also post Tom Foley who's death was even more widely reported. Jehochman ^Talk 12:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when updated. Widely known and innovative sculptor whose death is being reported internationally. The date of death appears to be 23rd in sources I've seen. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Seems to be important in the field of sculpture. Article seems good to me as well. Getting coverage outside the UK as well. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support not my taste, but seems to be notable enough for RD.--Somchai Sun (talk) 14:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when expanded. Article at a minimum needs a suitable update and an expanded lead section, and perhaps a bit more detail on his career.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on need for update and expansion of lead and career--needs to show notability rather than asserting it. μηδείς (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support One of the most famous and acclaimed sculptors in the world. Neljack (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for RD. A very important sculptor whose work is known worldwide. I heard news of his death on NPR in the U.S. The article has been edited, and I believe it is ready for posting. --Orlady (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support since no one really opposes this, should be posted already. SeraV (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support obviously notable, update perfectly sufficient. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Spencer^T♦C 21:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] The most distant galaxy

Nominator's comments: and catchy name, too. --Zanhe (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Getting some news coverage, certainly not an area we usually post stories about. 331dot (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• inquiry What was the last holder of this record, and whne was it announced. There have been several such announcements over the last few years, haven't there? μηδείς (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, science marches forward as surely but not as regularly as who wins Wimbledon which gets posted each year without fail. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that's as helpful a non-answer as saying "it's in the stars"? When was this discovery made? The article doesn't say. What was the previous record holder? The article doesn't say. How much further back is this? 500 million years? 5 million years?

Oppose until those facts are in the article. At this point we have filler and a picture of an unrelated galaxy, but no basis upon which to jusdge the claim of this being a record. μηδείς (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative support. Not an area I know anything about but this appears possibly significant, and we're not exactly overrun with suggestions atm. The article could do with expansion to explain the significance more clearly. My (utterly uninformed) reading of the Nature abstract is that the star formation rate is the most interesting feature. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good, but shouldn't we include the name of the galaxy in the blurb? Neljack (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I've removed the image, though, as it did not depict the galaxy mentioned. Also, as always, more meat to the article would be nice - though I imagine it'll be hard to get anything to add due to the limited sources available. m.o.p 05:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the third paragraph is mere filler that is a general tutorial in astronomy--we need three paragraphs on the news itself. The question of when this was first observed and announced, and what was the previous furthest object have neither been answered here or in the article. μηδείς (talk) 05:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support newsy and topical. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support newsworthy, half-decent new article, interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Jehochman ^Talk 21:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to see this was finally posted with a whole two paragraphs of relevant text (one of them the lead) and no mention of the date of actual discovery or what the prior record holder was. Real top-notch, informative work. Almost as good as just posting a direct link to the BBC article. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Urgent comment: Please correct “30 billion light-years away” to “13 billion light-years away”. 30 cannot be correct, see Talk:Z8_GND_5296#Comment. --bender235 (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello?! Any admin around? --bender235 (talk) 00:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have read, the astronomers have estimated that it is now 30 billion light years away, but it was observed when it was 13 billion light years away.[32] So the blurb is in fact correct. Neljack (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Comoving distance. The galaxy is estimated to be 30 billion light years away now (plus or minus a small amount for its proper motion), but the light has only traveled through 13 billion light years of space to reach us, because space has been expanding over the life of the universe. Over really large distances the expansion of the universe is the dominant factor to determine red shift. That's why we can use red shift to measure cosmological distances. Jehochman ^Talk 02:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 23

---

New Scarab Beetle species

Nominator's comments: According to Sci-News, "The discovery of two new species, named Gyronotus perissinottoi and Gyronotus schuelei, brings the number of beetles in this genus to 8." and "Gyronotus beetles are regarded among the most endangered of the African scarab beetles because of their sensitivity to disturbance." Andise1 (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is there a really beautiful free picture of one? New insect species come a dime a dozen, new suborders are what's needed to be really newsworthy. Gyronotus fails as not even a new genus. μηδείς (talk) 03:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a picture of the Gyronotus perissinottoi Scarab Beetle species. Andise1 (talk) 04:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Beautiful! μηδείς (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support About time we had another new species discovery listed! Scarab beetles eat people, so this is vitally important news. I think the nom cmt sums it up nicely. Somchai Sun (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Talking about new species, there's also the world's first venomous crustacean. BBC Regarding the beetles, they need expansion beyond one-sentence stub. --Tone 11:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. "Meet the 20,000 new species we discovered in a single year". Oh, and "Scarab beetles eat people, so this is vitally important news."? I hope that was some kind of joke... Fram (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Fram. 3,485 beetles discovered in 2011, including 228 scarab beetles. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose per Fram, I'm not seeing what makes these two very special from the other numerous insect species discovered each year; am willing to revise my opinion should that be better pointed out to me. 331dot (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The sources provided are all (or nearly all) actually press releases. True independent secondary sources are lacking, as is any sign of analysis by the "secondary" sources. If it were not for the consensus that all species deserve a Wikipedia article, these articles could be deleted on grounds of lacking notability. Abductive (reasoning) 15:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And (to use an old saying) if your aunt was a man, she'd be your uncle. Consensus is that species are notable for being species, so I don't understand the point of that comment. - The Bushranger_{One ping only} 22:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because we are not debating whether there should be an article, we are debating whether these species are important enough for ITN. So, the lack of interest from science publications shows that these species aren't groundbreaking or special in any way. Abductive (reasoning) 18:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Discovery of new species is always noteworthy. - The Bushranger_{One ping only} 22:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that is profoundly untrue. Provide a single secondary source that says that, "the discovery of new species is always noteworthy". Abductive (reasoning) 18:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 22

---

October 21

---

[Posted] 2013 Harbin smog

--Jax 0677 (talk) 01:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: The amount of smog occurring in Harbin is record setting according to the sources indicated. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Update Needed the target article is a stub, at least three prose paragraphs are needed per the guidelines. Without that it's not demonstrating the encyclopedic notability expected for ITN noms. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Update needed. This is receiving coverage in the news, but the article needs expansion beyond the three lines it is now. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Whole city paralyzed by pollution is certainly huge news. However medeis and 331dot are correct in that article is not sufficient currently. SeraV (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

strognest possible oppose to the degradation of this encyclopaedia How is this encyclopaedi in the least bit? Just because there are news sources doesnt mean its for an encycloapedic. It will be an orphan when off ITN. Smacks of RECENTISM, NOTNEWS.Lihaas (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lihaas, you could be a bit nicer when voicing your opinion on a nomination. Andise1 (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism? Are you sure you are in a correct place of wikipedia? And how are you arguing exactly that this smog that affects 11 million people, halts a whole city and closes international airport is notnews? I would appreciate some reasoning here. SeraV (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How am I not being nice? Its not against the nom, its against the geernal rtrend of articles via ITN.

Well there are other rainstorms/tornadoes that close airports. It is an immeidate creation because it was in news articles. Wha tis th elasting notability of this event? I dont see anything other than the fact that this was in the news and hence created as an encyclopaedic a rticle. BUt Ill gladly change if you show me the lasting notability.

Not to mention the article is 5 lines of trivial news bits. Makes it less encyclopaedicLihaas (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An air quality reading over 300 is considered hazardous. The Guardian article states that "In Harbin, the worst-hit city, measurements of PM2.5 - the smallest particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micrometres - reached 1,000 micrograms per cubic metre in places, according to the official China News Service, surpassing the peak of 900 that shocked Beijing residents in January's "airpocalypse".

It is not clear if equipment is able to register levels over 1,000. The World Health Organisation's recommended level for daily exposure is just 25." [italics mine]

I have never heard of something like that. This is air at least 2.5 times more polluted than in Singapore 6/21 which was posted. The article is still crap, though. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• How does this compare to London's Great Smog of 1952? Abductive (reasoning) 16:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply - Like the Great Smog of 1952, I am sure that the effects will remain to be seen over the coming days and weeks ahead. The article now has five paragraphs and more than 100 words ;) --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  It's hard to say. The death toll won't be apparent until statistics are collected. This could take months or even years. If somebody does an analysis, they will have to look at usual death rates from respiratory and circulatory causes and see how many additional death occur in the aftermath of the smog. If somebody gets pneumonia, for instance, they may be sick for a while before expiring. The deaths are not necessarily going to be recorded instantly. Jehochman ^Talk 14:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply that's gazing into a crystal ball. The Great Smog lasted 4 days and reduced visibility to yards. This smog has reduced visibility to tens of meters and so far hasn't killed anyone. So far, with the exception of the word "smog" this event has absolutely nothing in common with the London event and any comparison is not accurate. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't how far can you see not scientific? Fog can be practically pollutant-free. And some of the attenuation of smog is good, clean water vapor fog. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per "almost all monitoring stations in Heilongjiang, Jilin and Liaoning provinces reported readings above 200 for PM2.5" on 23 October.[33] The three provinces have a total population of roughly 100 million people. —rybec 05:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Jehochman ^Talk 12:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of complaining about the short article, please expend your energy to expand it. There are plenty of sources. Jehochman ^Talk 12:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 20

---

Australia bushfires

Count Iblis (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Even though I'm watching the sun rise red through a thick haze of smoke as I type from my Sydney office, I think this nomination is a little premature. Any direct threat to Sydney's outer suburbs is only conjectural and still a day or two in the future. It's not quite as dramatic as the BBC report makes it sound - Sydney remains perfectly safe for now. With respect to those who have suffered the losses, so far there have only been a few hundred properties lost in small rural communities and one death - testament to the good work by firefighters in keeping this to much less of a disaster than it would be otherwise. I'd say if there is significantly increased loss of life, or a major evacuation, such as Katoomba, then this story should be considered for ITN. But not quite yet. --dmmaus (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait per Dmmaus. This has (most unfortunately) a decent chance of developing into something that could be posted, but it's not there yet. 331dot (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what scale is normal for bushfires in Australia. But I do know that in the US, when a tiny brushfire 1/1000 the size of which would make news in California happens 50 miles from NYC, the end of the world is often predicted in the next few days. μηδείς (talk) 23:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't heard about those. How often do the near-NYC fires happen? 79.75.89.208 (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unless you live in NYC there's a good reason. There are occasional summer brush fires on Long Island (Long Island Central Pine Barrens) of 500-1000 acres. These are reported as if they compared to brush fires in the west of tens and hundreds of thousands of acres. μηδείς (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose We don't post "fears", even growing ones. HiLo48 (talk) 09:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 19

---

[Withdraw] RD: Francisco Rafael Arellano Félix

[Closed] Unnao gold hunt

October 18

---

[Closed] RD: Tom Foley

Nominator's comments: Former US House of Representatives Speaker meets DC#2(reaching the speakership is rare, indicating importance) and possibly DC#1(first speaker in over 130 years to be defeated for reelection to their House seat). Article has been only updated with date of death so far. --331dot (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Was just coming to nom this. Not sure if I should support or become an updater. I think I'll update. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• For some reason this has been posted without any discussion. Espresso Addict(talk) 17:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know Y it was posted so quickly. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry peeps, apparently there are rules about this thing. Criteria even. My apologies. -- Y not? 20:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull that this has already been posted is insane. Foley was a minor character as speaker, certainly not the top of his field. He's not a sitting politician. We certainly would post ex-heads of lower houses who died of old age. This is not only wrong, it's an abuse by the posting admin. μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, yeah Medeis... Being Speaker of the United States House of Representatives means one is not "minor". On the contrary, one might call it quite the "major" office. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being the head of one of the three branches of US government is a "minor" office? I think the recent crisis demonstrates that the Speaker is not a "minor" figure; had Boehner not held a vote, we would be in default right now. 331dot (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he was a minor speaker. There are great speakers and there are poor speakers, and he is at the bottom of the list. You have either missed that point or chosen to change the topic, but you haven't come close to even addressing my argument. μηδείς (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Per WP:RDISBARERIGHTNOW. I see it as a bit of an IAR issue, if there's available real estate, we can afford to post those we wouldn't otherwise. Ryan Vesey 18:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• But it should be pulled for the time being unless the orange warning can be taken off. Ryan Vesey 18:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record I do not oppose the pulling as little discussion had occurred. 331dot (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support/Pull per nomination, but this still needs to be pulled after being posted with no discussion. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I have pulled this for now. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD Suitably updated and notable now. Teemu08 (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on notability. There are about a half dozen speakers whose names people would recognize except for recency; Clay, Polk, Blaine, Garner, Rayburn; with Polk being recognized because he was president. Tip O'Neal and Gingrich would rank up there for influence. But we are surely not going to post Dennis Hastert when he dies, and Foley is no better. Basically a caretaker who lost the house to Gingrich. Have we ever posted a former head of the lower house of any nation's parliament who died of old age or otherwise? μηδείς (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That's quite a crystal ball you have assuming we would not post Hastert. "Losing the House to Gingrich" was arguably the biggest political sea change in the last 20 years. Not some minor event. 331dot (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do I understand you correctly that Foley's being the speaker who lost to Gingrich makes him one of the top of his field? A serious reply would also explain why of 61 speakers just a handful have names even highly educated Americans would recognize, and would name chairmen of lower houses from other nations who have been listed before when dying out of office. μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a novelist up there right now. Have some perspective! Surely any speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives is a more influential person that all but a small handful of living novelists! -- Y not? 21:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's part of it, but my larger point is that anyone who attains the leadership of one of the branches of US federal government is important enough to be posted here. It's not something you fall into. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions Have we ever posted a US speaker before? What about another country's? Claims like "the biggest political sea change in the last 20 years" are one country-centric, and extremely arguable even within one country. You don't think electing a black president meant anything? HiLo48 (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• When Obama was first elected in 2008, the Democrats already had Congress (they got it back in 2006) so that was less of a political change(more of a social change). I can't speak to what was done or not done in the past, I only suggested this because in my opinion he meets the death criteria. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course this should stay. The speaker is third in line for the presidency of the United States. He is much more notable than others routinely listed. There is some illogical opposition that has no real basis. Jehochman ^Talk 21:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Foley's been out of office since 1994, and no speaker has ever ascended by that route to president. To talk about illogical, please name one speaker you know by name who hasn't been mentioned in this thread. Please also name one head of the lower house sitting or not from another nation who's ever been posted on his death. μηδείς (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of which is relevant here. Other stuff exists. Tony Blair was technically the head of the UK's lower house of parliament. Further, the lower house of San Marino and other countries is very different than the lower house of the US Congress. If you want to argue that Speaker Foley doesn't meet the death criteria, then do so(as you did above). 331dot (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you may not have read "other stuff". I was responding to the supposed point that he should be listed because he was in the line of succession, not pointing to another article, which would be relevant for the essay you invoke. Your Tony Blair analogy also fails, as Foley was never Prime Minister at the same time he was head of the majority party in the lower house. You might as well say Foley wasn't only speaker, he was a congressman from Washinton at the same time. I suspect we'd be hearing about all of Foley's brilliant legislative accomplishments if he had any (he did manage to be the first Speaker since the Civil War to fail to be re-ellected to his seat) rather than negative arguments that he shouldn't not be posted based on flawed analogies. μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement to have 'brilliant legislative accomplishments' to be posted to ITN. If you feel that running the lower House of the US Congress does not make one important, there's not really much I can do to convince you otherwise. I feel that's enough to meet the criteria I cite above; if you don't, well, there isn't much more to say. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. He was third in line for the presidency, which is almost meaningless. Not to mention this was for just six years over 20 years ago. Think about it: the only thing this guy had going for him was the fact that, if by some fluke the president and the vice-president would die within either of the two four-year presidential terms he served in, he could have been president for a little while. Highly improbable. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page Talk) 03:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• He also, oh, I don't know, ran the lower House of the US Congress and decided what went on there. If that doesn't make one important, what does? 331dot (talk) 08:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It would have been different if he had died in office, but now it is "just" a former speaker of 1 of two main parliaments in a single country. Massively important for the US, but not enough worldwide... L.tak (talk) 11:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • From above... "Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." – Muboshgu (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I wouldn't have said this was a complaint… But anyway: I agree that we shouldn't disqualify a submission because it only has relevance for a single country; but there is a relationship between the width e and its local relevance in an individual country: in other words: for something mainly notable in a single country the bar is higher than for an event or death relevant to a wider group of countries. L.tak (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Death of a former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives doesn't give any convincing evidence on notability for me. I'd have surely supported it if he were a former President of the United States or a diplomat with long-time career in the international relations who could be easily recognised worldwide.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There have been 53 Speakers of the US House, not many more than the 44 Presidents we've had. It's a position of significant impact (DC #1) and made him widely regarded as a very important figure in his field (DC #2). – Muboshgu (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but it's not a matter of numbers at all. His position is only third in line for presidency and not one that promotes him as a very important person to be regarded as such in his field. For both criteria you're referring to it's subjective to say that they're fulfilled.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm struck by "a former President of the United States or a diplomat with long-time career in the international relations". Which "diplomat with long-time career in the international relations" deserves to be in the same sentence as a U.S. president? Paul Wolfowitz? His death by old age would almost certainly be shouted down by the people here. –HTD 17:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please trace back your memories to the death of Richard Holbrooke at the end of 2010. If Foley were Holbrooke, I'd have supported this, but unfortunately he wasn't.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Six years as the speaker of the House of Representatives does mean a very important politician. It's comes as no surprise that most people don't recognize him anymore, since his last term ended over 18 years ago. But remember that he held the same office as John Boehner holds now. Even though Boehner's position is more prominent with split congress now, it's still pretty obvious that the Speaker of the House is a pretty darn important figure in the U.S. political landscape. Only more important figures to come to mind are the President and the Secretary of the State. And having held this office for six years? I don't recognize his name either, but on merits alone seems "very important". --hydrox (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I really doubt most here are willing to post say deaths of former Indian parliament speakers and such, this is just certain bias raising their heads yet again. And seriously why was Foley important person in his field, I do not see that it is enough that he was a speaker. What sort of important achievements are credited to him specifically? SeraV (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• India has a Prime Minister which leads its parliament; I would be more than willing to support posting the death of a former one(being the head of the largest lawmaking body in the world), should one be nominated. The fact that one has not been nominated should not prevent others from being posted. 331dot (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose. A relatively unremarkable congressman other than the fact he was speaker. He's not known for any particular legislation, hw wasnt associated with any change in political directions in Washington, he didn't go on to any notable offices afterwards.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Being Speaker of the House, something which only 55 men have been, and the head of one of the three branches of government in the US (all of which are, in theory, co-equal) isn't notable? If that isn't, what is? The Speaker dictates what goes on the House, setting direction in its dealings with the President. Foley got Bush to break his no-tax pledge, for example. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - many of the "oppose" votes above seem to be mislead by the title "speaker" and don't realize that speaker equals president of the house of congress and is the second in the United States presidential line of succession, ahead of the president of the senate. An enormously influential position. -Zanhe (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support many of the oppose votes here are simply misinformed about the significance of the House speaker. Hot Stop talk-contribs 19:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea from where you are making up the idea that editors here are misled by the word speaker--there's no indication whatsoever that anybody's confused as to what that office is. It's actually the hight of rudeness to say this should be posted because your opponents are confused, rather than giving reasons why the nominee stands out in his field. No has anyone yet pointed to where we post the equivalent position in any other country. Foley was a truly unremarkable speaker. He is noted for nothing other than losing the house to the opposition and being the first speaker since the civil war to loose his own seat in congress. Please, please, please, for the sake of the children, can we hear of his accomplishments as speaker, rather than that he held the title and attacks on the opposition ? μηδείς (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He was Speaker of the House. What about those few words is unclear? As a politician, this guy is clearly notable enough to be listed in recent deaths. His death was widely reported "in the news". Jehochman^Talk 19:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't just lose the House to the opposition; he lost the House to the opposition for the first time in 40 years in a massive wave election. He also lost his own seat, which is unusual in and of itself. As I stated already, he got Bush to break his no-taxes pledge. His "accomplishment" is rising to one of the highest offices in the United States; you call this "holding the title" but the position is much more than a title. As Jehochman says, this was in the news and this is the "in the news" candidates page. If holding a high office doesn't make one important in politics, what does? 331dot (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for other similar positions, I await their nomination. I can't speak to what was done in the past. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are just making this up now. Foley's article says absolutely nothing about his speakership except that he lost it. Foley didn't originate the tax increases Bush agreed to. Foley's article says absolutely nothing about his speakership except that he lost it. And if losing elections gets you on ITN, then let's see one other example. Meanwhile, Foley's article says absolutely nothing about his speakership except that he lost it. Someone has to be speaker, even though he can be a nobody. The previous speaker, Jim Wright, was ousted on ethics charges, and Foley was chosen as being the least objectionable non-entity available. But still, Foley's article says absolutely nothing about his speakership except that he lost it. μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has to be President, too. So what? I actually agree with Jehochman that most of the opposes here don't actually understand the importance of the speakership and what they do. You don't just fall into the speaker's chair nor are you chosen at random. You do it through influence among your peers and making deals. You direct what legislation is taken up in the House(as Boehner did in the last couple weeks). If you want to put something in his article that you feel is missing, then do it. I nominated it because it was in the news and this is "in the news" not "find articles that satisfy Medeis". If being the leader of the Legislative branch of one of the most powerful nations in the world (and the House itself is one of the largest legislative bodies in the world, only behind India and the UK's, I think) doesn't make one an important politician, then I don't know what does. 331dot (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's presumptive to assume that editors don't understand the role of the Speaker. Many just don't think it's important enough, in an of itself, for RD. It's the head of one of two branches of the legislature.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I again ask, if the head of one of the largest legislative bodies in the world, and frankly, one of the most influential in world affairs, isn't important enough, then who is? In the US system, the three branches of government are equal, meaning that Congress (and its leader) is just as important as the President and the Chief of the SCOTUS. I don't think it's as "presumptive" as you state. Without a reason, "it's not important enough" is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You state "it's the head of one of two branches of the legislature". That's not important?. We are also forgetting that this is "in the news" and this death was "in the news". 331dot (talk) 01:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From comments above i think opposes are more because he is no longer in office. you would see support if it was Boehner but someone who left office 18 years ago probably needs to be head of state to get more support -- Ashish-g55 05:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If someone needs to be head of state, then we should write that down. Some offices are equally as important despite the holder not having a litany of policy achievements- the process of what they do is sometimes more important than the result. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Had the speaker died unexpectedly in office the dying in office would be likely notable and worth a full blurb. It's simply silly to say this is a case of "don't Like". Newt Gingrich and Tip O'Neal were very notable as speakers. Gingrich will most likely be listed here. It's probably a lost cause to expect people to remember the history. But Foley only got the office because the very powerful (and controversial) Tip O'Neal retired due to age and was replaced by Jim Wright who was drummed out for corruption. Foley hadn't schemed for the job for years and won it on the merits. He was chosen as a moderate who wouldn't offend anybody. He didn't. μηδείς (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Per DC#1 the fact that he was Speaker would be enough if he died in office, but as he didn't the criterion is that he "had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region." The article contains a distinct lack of information on his impact, legislative/policy achievements, etc. Supporters have been unable or unwilling to provide such information. The articles/obituaries I've read (and I read about 10 of them) didn't provide much either. So unless and until this is rectified, I oppose. Neljack (talk) 07:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also 331dot, the Prime Minister is not head of the House of Commons or the Lok Sabha - they have Speakers too. See Speaker of the House of Commons and Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Neljack (talk) 07:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But you did read articles and obituaries about him. In fact, the LA Times argues that he is notable because he didn't rock the boat too much; Speakers after him were more interested in politics than actually running the body (his successor Hastert didn't bring anything to the floor unless most GOPers supported it) The focus seems to be on DC1 but there is also DC2. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. This is getting silly. You want us to rate this guy as notable because he DIDN'T do anything really notable? Oh dear. HiLo48 (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He did do something. He held a high office that is difficult to obtain. One doesn't have to change the world to be important. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zero marks for (not) reading the RD criteria! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it. Did you? If leading a branch of the US federal government does not make one important in their field per DC2, then what does? 331dot (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose not notable, even if he held a political office. This nomination is notable, only for the fact that it was posted so swiftly, then withdrawn. Save the diffs people! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Request for an admin: As the nominator I see little point in continuing this discussion, and I request that it be closed to spare this page further disagreement. If holding high political office in the US isn't considered important, then I guess that's just the way it is, however unfortunate that is. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Request I'll take over the nomination. Would an uninvolved admin please review this discussion, disregard the illogical votes, and decided if this person meets the criteria for notability. I think a few opinions here have no basis and are just anti-Americanism. If we are going to list recent deaths at all, we need to have an objective standard and try to follow it. Jehochman ^Talk 12:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As an updater, I totally agree with you. However, I worry that by now the RD is stale. Not that there's a set timeframe for determining that, last week is "recent" under some definitions. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• We should post it anyways for a few days. The death is very widely reported "in the news". https://www.google.com/#q=tom+foley&tbm=nws There are many fresh news items posted within the last 24 hours. We are not too late to do the right thing. All the oppose votes are--I want to say bullshit, but I won't--based on personal fancy rather than fact. If the guy was so unimportant, why has his death been so widely reported by so many sources? Jehochman ^Talk 12:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no particular opinion on this nomination, but the debate is immaterial now. Foley died just shy of a week ago; this nomination is now quite clearly stale. Redverton (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  "Stale" has a technical meaning here at ITN, it means it is older than the oldest item in the template. This is not the case here, so the discussion is not moot. However a bold admin closure would be desirable at this point. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  My apologies, you're quite right. Stale was the wrong word. However, his death was 6 days ago, and the debate here itself stagnated 4 days ago. Whilst I'm not particularly bothered about whether it goes up or not, I do disagree with Jehochman's view that alot of the opposes are illogical - ITN's been having a debate about the threshold for putting up politicians for years now, and with that considered I see little evidence that the opposes should be discarded. Personally, I wouldn't close this nomination as yet, as it's going to removed day after tomorrow anyway. However, I don't endorse following Jehochman's suggestion that the opposes be discarded. As far as I'm concerned, the opposes are valid, even I'm not sure I agree with their views, which means there's not a concensus to put Foley up. Unless that consensus rapidly changes over the next 24 hours, this can't go up. Redverton (talk) 14:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you LukeSurl for the definition. I didn't know "stale" had a specific cut point here (is that mentioned anywhere?) So, there are older postings currently up, meaning this isn't stale, and an admin should give this consideration based on its merits. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it is a violation of WP:POINT to argue that the Speaker of the House for 6 years is not a notable politician. The Speaker is one of the top three politicians in the United States. The death was reported very widely in the news, which qualifies it to appear here. People who stonewall and disrupt should not be rewarded by getting their way. No, no, no. Jehochman ^Talk 15:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-close. I'm not going to edit war over this, but this discussion should remain closed. The horse is dead now and it should stay that way. While I still believe it is worthy of being posted I don't feel it is worth rearguing the issue; there clearly is not consensus for posting. I disagree that Speaker of the House is not a notable position, but others validly feel that way. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please let somebody uninvolved review this. I don't want a bad precident to be set. Editors who've disrupted this thread with frivolous arguments should be given feedback so that they don't do it again, and again, and again. Jehochman^Talk 15:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I think the bad precedent here would be to keep beating this horse. I've usually found myself in the opposite position(something being posted that I don't agree with) so I see where the other side is coming from even if I don't agree with them. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-close I hadn't realised this nomination had actually been closed days ago already. Re-opening a nomination really should be reserved mostly for when the circumstances of the nomination have changed radically. This isn't so here, and from the looks of things this debate is just going to devolve into arguing and no consensus. All with just over a day left before it becomes stale anyway. I reverse my position on LukeSurl's suggestion this be closed, and I now agree with him. I see no worth in this debate carrying on. Redverton (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do tell me where the other side is coming from, because I don't get it at all. This discussion was not fairly decided. Jehochman ^Talk 17:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Saudi Arabia and UNSC

--Tone 16:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do post UNSC member election. And this year there's more going on with Saudi Arabia declining to accept the seat. Alternatively, we could go with saying that Chad, Nigeria, Chile, and Lithuania got elected. --Tone 16:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Security Council elections are ITNR; not sure how the blurb should be worded, but maybe there is a way to mention Saudi Arabia rejecting being elected(a rare event). 331dot (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Please post a blurb for the ones who were elected and will take their seats. I'm not sure we can fit all this in one blurb. We might need to have two. Jehochman ^Talk 17:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Saudi Arabia's rejection of the seat absolutely needs to be in the blurb. This is something that has never happened before and it reportedly "shocked" people inside and outside the Kingdom. See NYTimes. --Orlady (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait. "UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says he has received no notification from Saudi Arabia that it will turn down a seat on the UN Security Council." Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Blurbs I have removed "to accept" from the blurbs as redundant. One declines an invitation. One doesn't decline the acceptance of an invitation. μηδείς (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Jehochman^Talk 13:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I've gone ahead and boldly added the other electees to the blurb. It is awkward to talk about Saudi Arabia and ignore the others, and it would be yet more awkward to have two blurbs about the same election. Please discuss and I'm happy to make changes if better ideas are presented. Jehochman ^Talk 13:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 17

---

[Posted] End of US federal government shutdown

Nominator's comments: This is headline/front page news around the world. Open to blurb changes. I dated it today as Obama signed the bills just after midnight. --331dot (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The emphasis is on the wrong thing here. What's important globally is that the US will now pay its bills, not that the government shutdown will cease. The rest of the world isn't bothered by a few American national parks being closed. But it would be if international financial obligations weren't met. HiLo48 (talk) 10:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - That is an uninformed view. The shutdown involved far more than national parks, and its impacts extended to virtually every agency in the federal government. Those federal employees still on the job were technically working without pay. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not uninformed at all. Of course I knew that there were more impacts within the US, but to the rest of the world (Does that matter to you? China anyone?) the debt issue as far more important. The posts immediately below support my position. HiLo48 (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Major news event with worldwide impacts. I would support adding a mention that the debt ceiling was lifted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Huge news. Agree with NorthBySouthBaranof that Debt ceiling should also be mentioned. -Zanhe (talk) 10:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

its certainly in the news, but link to the WP article on teh actual law that was passed yesterday.President Ted Cruz for 2016Lihaas (talk) 11:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm posting this, and will tweak the blurb per comments. Jehochman^Talk 11:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  What I posted is now the altblurb. Please make any suggestions for improvement. Jehochman ^Talk 12:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JC, 2 supprots in 3 hours is not consensus whatsoever!"Lihaas (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Belated support I like the alt blurb that was posted. Ryan Vesey 16:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose/Pull Except for policeman blocking access to public monuments and land at the White House's request, the government was in full swing, and there was no chance of default. Editors shouldn't be taking it upon themselves to post political items after two supports when it takes a hurricane that kills 100 people days to get posted. μηδείς (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is partisan sore-loser nonsense, to put it politely. Your side shut down the government for two weeks, saw public opinion turn radically against you, lost the political showdown and now are pretending it didn't happen or was insignificant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My side? Does that mean your side wins, nyah, nyah, nyah? Do you even realize how ironically childish your comment is? This political theater should never have been posted either way. μηδείς (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The US not paying its bills is not "political theater", it was a very real possibility. Even if it was such, it is still front page news, and this is "in the news". Further, "blocking access to public monuments and land at the White House's request" is just a political statement, it was the OMB that gave the order. They could not guarantee the safety of the monuments themselves and visitors without personnel. 331dot (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, yeah, the local politics are fascinating, but we all knew this would be resolved after the ransom period elapsed. Sadly it's just demonstrated that US politics are currently in a worse state than that of Italy, which is quite astonishing. Otherwise, the "deal" was 100% inevitable. Not one of the US politicians would have wanted to be responsible for it getting worse. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your crystal ball is quite excellent. Mind helping me choose some lottery numbers? We didn't know anything of the sort. If Boehner hadn't decided to push forward without the majority of his caucus, or if Ted Cruz had tried to delay the vote last night, either of which conceivably could've happened, we'd be posting about the U.S. default right now. Lots of Tea Party politicians did want to default, we're just lucky none of them in the Senate used their power to make it happen. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure we did. Anyway, it's irrelevant now. There are many millions who view this intensely childish behaviour from the US politicians as sabre-rattling. It's pathetic, embarrassing and something even Berlusconi wouldn't have encouraged. Good news, Wikipedia posted the failure to agree, then the agreement, two for the price of one. Systemic bias is alive and kicking! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should we not post news from the U.S. just because systemic bias exists? That makes no sense. This is major news, free from systemic bias, that impacts the world economy. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The shutdown was front page news worldwide; the end of the shutdown was front page news worldwide(what's the name of this page again?)- and it's not like it was a short amount of time between them (a few hours or a couple days). The effect also was not limited to US territory (US overseas military cemeteries were closed, as one example) and potentially it would have affected the entire global economy had it gone on longer. There is no reason this shouldn't be posted, systemic bias or not. As for that, countering systemic bias should not be done by preventing valid stories from being posted. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It should include the capitulation of the Tea Party on their demand that Obamacare be defunded. Count Iblis (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull per Medeis and Lihaas. Premature posting of "the bleeding obvious". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting support This is big news for financial markets, especially as the U.S. could've defaulted, despite Medeis' interpretation. Also, plenty more than just tha National Park Service closed, I suggest you read the article, and List of US federal government agencies and operations affected by the shutdown of 2013. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - An event that's in the news all over the world, and which has significant economical and political ramifications. --GoldenMew (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting support, has long-term, worldwide ramifications. Abductive (reasoning) 20:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - big news. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This isn't big news. It's part of a recurring pattern, all throughout Obama's Presidency. We'll another budget showdown next January. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 23:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that why it was the #1 headline around the world? Because it isn't big news? 331dot (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We post recurring patterns as well. Might i direct you to WP:ITN/R :) -- Ashish-g55 01:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Numerous international leaders had commented on the potential international ramifications of a US default.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 16

---

[Posted] Lao Airlines Flight 301

Nominator's comments: Deadliest aircrash of 2013 to date. Laos is a minority topic. --Mjroots (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. As stated by the nominator, deadliest crash so far this year; receiving much coverage. 331dot (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - According to this the plane was delayed due to a storm, which i would assume is Typhoon Nari since Nari has been affecting Thailand, Vietnam and Laos within the last 48 hours.Jason Rees (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support worst crash for at least ten months. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - we always post fatal commercial airline crashes. -Zanhe (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • not always, but thanks for your support. Mjroots (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nominator. SeraV (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Looks nearly ready, but a citation has been requested for the nationality of the remaining passengers. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I provided a citation for the nationality of the remaining passengers. GroveGuy (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. World wide coverage, and commercial airline accidents are notable and rare in nature. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 04:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Needs Expansion article has two-sentence lead and two section of one sentence each. μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lede is of an appropriate length for the size of the article. There are no one sentence sections. Mjroots (talk) 07:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Women's World Draughts Championship

Nominator's comments: I created the article on the 2013 Women's Draughts World Championship. I think if that article receives some more updating, and the article on the winner has more information added (the Russian Wikipedia article has some more information) then this can be posted. I know there is not a lot of information about the championship but since Draughts (Checkers) is not represented at all in ITN, I think this deserves some recognition on the Main Page. I will try to add more information to both articles but if anyone finds any information or feels like working on the articles feel free to do so. The more people who work on the articles the better chance this item has of being posted to ITN. Andise1 (talk) 06:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Not ITN/R, both articles in the hook are stubs, significance/importance seems low. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Can you propose this for WP:DYK? Jehochman ^Talk 14:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, the article in its present form is too short, DYK is a good option but it is a bit short for there as well. --Tone 16:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral a real shame. It would have been nice to have something to stir up the dull-hearted and dull-headed regulars at ITN, but sadly both target articles are nowhere near good enough to feature on the main page. Better luck next time. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Scientific evidence that Yasser Arafat may have been poisoned

October 15

---

[Posted] Man Booker Prize

Nominator's comments: I'm not quite sure whether Man Booker or Catton should be bolded, so please feel free to change/tweak the blurb. --JuneGloom Talk 20:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless there's some longstanding precedence I'm unaware of it, I feel like The Luminaries should be bold. With that in mind, the article isn't close to main page material. Ryan Vesey 21:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking back, we linked to the author in 2011. In 2012, we linked to 2012 Man Booker Prize. I think we should follow the 2012 format with "Eleanor Catton wins the 2013 Man Booker Prize for her novel, The Luminaries" possibly followed with "becoming the youngest winner of the prize". Ryan Vesey 21:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether or not it's bolded, I don't think we should run this until The Luminaries is improved beyond the current microstub. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, it would be a bit embarrassing. Ryan Vesey 00:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree, only the bolded link is held to ITN quality standards. The alternative opens up a whole new way to force the template to stagnate. - BanyanTree 19:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think all links should be held to a particularly high standard, but a few-sentence microstub linked in a way that many people will click on it is an embarrassment. If it were something unimportant it could just be unlinked, but in this case that's not a possibility. I'm opposed to it being eliminated altogether, as the prize is for the book, not the author. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with alt-blurb by Ryan Vesey above, with link to 2013 Man Booker Prize. - BanyanTree 19:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt-blurb – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've updated 2013 Man Booker Prize with a winner's section. - JuneGloom Talk 17:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either blurb, with a bold link to 2013 Man Booker Prize. The article Eleanor Catton is still weak. --Orlady (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with bolded link to 2013 Man Booker Prize. Neljack (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support tagged as [Ready], needs posting quickly, alt blurb provided, not ideal, but better than not posting the world's most renown literary prize outside the Nobel.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Spencer^T♦C 06:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Philippines earthquake

--Küñall (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be widespread damage; will be expanding the article. Küñall (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Patience Nothing I've seen yet indicates that this is ITN-worthy, but I'd like to see more news reports come in before supports and opposes start rolling in. Sources are mentioning a possible Tsunami to follow, and it appears like major news sources like the New York Times and the BBC are waiting before they report. The blurb appears inaccurate, everything I've seen says 7.2. Ryan Vesey 01:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Scratch that, I misread. Sources are saying there is no risk of tsunami. With that in mind, if some of the major sources don't start mentioning this and the death count doesn't rise, this can be considered an oppose. Ryan Vesey 01:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, early reports I saw on Twitter said it was of 7.0 magnitude, but it was later revised. Sources say there is a death toll (as of now) of four people, and several buildings suffered structural damage. Küñall (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The death toll now stands at 20[34], which I believe is at the lower end of what we would normally post for an earthquake. As usual, the magnitude means next to nothing. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BBC says over 30 dead (and then lists 32) - added the link into sources above. Support article in a decent shape - but could obviously be improved just from that source. EdwardLane (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Heh. Let's see if this gets to be posted at this state. There's a bigger disaster a month ago (300 deaths) but that was again ignored at ITN despite having an extensive article. Boohoo. Screw American+British bias. ITN now has American+British+Indian bias. lol. –HTD 10:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Death toll at 60+ plus now. Plus, it's the most powerful earthquake to strike the Philippines (and probably Southeast Asia) in a while. Might as well improve the article and list it at ITN, if only to combat systemic bias. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when article improved. The BBC are now giving 73 deaths and considerable damage to historic buildings. The odd listing of aftershocks which appeared since I last looked needs summarising. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support due to increased death toll and damage to historic buildings. This shouldn't be posted with the current aftershocks format. The article also has no lead. Ryan Vesey 15:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• comment 93+ people reported killed and 167+ injured according to the article now. EdwardLane (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - significant earthquake, article seems in good enough shape to post. Mjroots (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Blurb comment: When the blurb mentions "magnitude" it isn't clear what scale is being used. In the past I think we've used the Moment magnitude scale? Spencer^T♦C 20:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Ready this is quite well updated now, and unopposed--it should go up ASAP. μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Medeis. -Zanhe (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted -- tariqabjotu 00:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 14

---

Edward Snowden receives the Sam Adams Award in Moscow

¬ laonikoss ^(talk) 20:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, I find no precedent for the posting of the receipt of this award. He received the award four days ago, so you can also say it is a bit stale. This is the first I'm hearing of it, so it seems that major news organizations don't think it important, and it's certainly not "in the news". The NYT buried it in a short paragraph on an article about Snowden's father's arrival in Moscow. Ryan Vesey 20:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Ryan Vesey. I'm barely seeing any mentions of it at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I saw it mentioned when i happened, but it is far too much attention to a small award. Almost funny he didn't get the Nobel. μηδείς (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I have seen some coverage of this, but this is an award with a specific niche and some political undertones. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The award occurred on the 10 October. This is the same date as the Alice Munroe item, which is currently the last item on the template. This item is stale. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

support if it wasnt stale. We dont need blatant eurocentric bais to post what is sdeemed okey by them in the Skharov prize. If thats ITN (without dsicssion?),. then this should be too!Lihaas (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly stale. We just have a surfeit of petty posts regarding non-notable prize winners. The prize recipients should all mature off the board faster than any of the serious news. μηδείς (talk) 04:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose target article is in piss-poor condition. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences

Nominator's comments: In the same fashion as the other Nobel Prizes, this is also listed as ITNR.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC) --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: This should be posted 100-percent.HotHat (talk) 11:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I would post this now, except Hansen's article is a mess. It needs copy editing, fact checking, and some references. Please work on that and post here when you think it may be ready. Jehochman ^Talk 12:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there an article we could wikilink to that relates to their research? "Empirical analysis of asset prices" means very little to me. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's difficult to find a suitable article to link to since there are different articles on Wikipedia pointing to some of the seminal works of these authors. However, most of their contributions are only extensions of the traditional CAPM, which appears to be the most appropriate solution for the wording in the blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting with link to CAPM, instead of the bios which will match what we did for the other Nobel's and sidestep the problem of bios that are not in particularly good condition. Jehochman ^Talk 15:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I removed the link to CAPM. Fama and French even had a famous paper in the early 1990s that took CAPM to task with regards to explaining stock valuations, and it isn't like Shiller's work was really just extensions of CAPM either. We really don't have a good article to link to, so let's just point people to the biographies and let them go from there if they are interested. NW (Talk) 04:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 13

---

[Posted] Madhya Pradesh stampede

Nominator's comments: Major disaster, worldwide coverage --Zanhe (talk) 03:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - We have posted stampedes with fewer casualties in the past, and the article looks like it's in pretty good shape. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Large death toll and coverage in several notable media outlets. Article is in great shape. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 07:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support received more coverage than the "big storm hits big country" damp squib which we posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting. --Tone 08:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vo Nguyen Giap

October 12

---

LGBT-Nationalist clash in Russia

Nominator's comments: Looks like an interesting (and probably a newsworthy) event in Putin's efforts to distract the Russian society from more important issues, such as corruption. I started an article, but it defensibly some expansion. --Երևանցի ^talk 20:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose very difficult to say anything generous about this. Two groups looking for a fight. μηδείς (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not notable and no significant coverage and impact. Egeymi (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "... a demonstration of 15 to 20 activists." Just two posses fighting, no real significance so far, apparently. I do not know if we posted the homosexual propaganda law when it was adopted on the federal level, but it's something that could've been posted realistically at least. --hydrox (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compare 380 arrested in Moscow rioting. μηδείς (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indented line

[Posted] Oscar Hijuelos dies

--GroveGuy (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose a blurb, Weak support for RD, once the article is improved somewhat. This seems to be getting some coverage, even outside the US. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a small expansion. Espresso Addict(talk) 13:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's sufficient for me. Thanks 331dot (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD. The article is brief but has no major problems I noted. His death has received international coverage. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD article is updated. μηδείς (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for RD Award-winning and untimely death. Also set a benchmark. --Somchai Sun (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Marked Ready has unopposed support for RD and is updated. μηδείς (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Medeis, I could tag it, the lead is {{leadtooshort}}, but otherwise it's good to go. I haven't got time, have you? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. μηδείς (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Any further objection to posting this? Espresso Addict (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I have posted this, as no-one else has. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 11

---

[Posted] Cyclone Phailin

Count Iblis (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Latest news: "As of 8 p.m. Friday, India time, Phailin had indeed officially reached Category 5 status, with an intensity of 918mb and sustained winds of 160 mph (260 kph). That ties the wind speed record set by the 1999 cyclone at its peak, currently the most intense storm ever to make landfall in India." According the latest news on CNN (as reported on t.v. not yet online), sustained wind speeds are expected to increase to 270 km/h before landfall. Count Iblis (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait Too premature to know. If it causes serious damage, then we can post. If it misses landfall, or weakens significantly and does little damage, we probably won't. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt blurb. This is in the news. We can update the blurb every 12 or 24 hours. It's very unusual to have such a large and powerful storm. Jehochman ^Talk 20:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't believe the Saffir-Simpson Scale is used in the Indian Ocean, so while it's achieved the equivalence of Category 5 status, it's a bit odd to use "Category 5" in the blurb (as the alternative blurb currently does). -- tariqabjotu 20:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - We could always call it a Very Severe cyclonic storm per the IMD which is the WMO warning agency for the region.Jason Rees (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait until there is significant damage to report (I hope there won't be, but that doesn't seem likely). --MASEM (t) 21:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support there's no question this will make landfall, and the article is well updated. People are looking for information now, not just death tolls afterward. The nomination for the last cyclone (that hit China killing 500) was ready the day before it hit but didn't go up till over half a week later. We don't need to botch this one. μηδείς (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait for it to make landfall. Hurricanes/cyclones can dramatically change course without warning and also change in intensity. There is no harm in waiting until this storm hits. 331dot (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• No Brainer but let it hit Its a category 5 cyclone which is rare and dangerous but lets wait till it hits. Changed alt blurb to say Super as that is the term used to classify Cat 5 storm -- Ashish-g55 02:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hate to be picky here but the word "super" is wrongly applied in this case. We call Category 5 typhoons super because they are called such by the JTWC who only use the term cyclone outside the Westenr PAcific. it is also worth noting that while the WMO warning agency for the region the IMD has a "Super Cyclonic Storm" category they have failed to use it to describe Phailyn instead opting for the more PR friendly "Very Severe cyclonic storm".Jason Rees (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see no problem with the objection. It's probably best to refer to verified air speeds, since rating numbers are largely meaningless to laymen anyway. They are to me. μηδείς (talk) 03:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Super is used for storms with wind speeds > 258 km/h. this storm has reached that speed so i see no reason not to call it super (as the storm stands right now) -- Ashish-g55 04:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The reason we shouldnt be using is it hasnt been called a Super Cyclone or a Super Cyclonic Storm by either the US Joint Typhoon Warning Center or the WMO RSMC the Indian Meteorological Department to describe Phalin. While it is true that storms above 130 knots are called Super by the JTWC it is just the Western Pacific basin that label is applied too. Feel free to take a look through the logs we have kept for this system if you require further proof that this has not been reffered to as a Super Cyclone.Jason Rees (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong wait: if it causes a massive amount of deaths, post if; if it doesn't, don't. –HTD 03:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section is called In The News, not Last Week's News. This article got 45,000 hits yesterday--people are interested in reading it now. μηδείς (talk) 04:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

News is when something happens. Nothing has happened yet. This is like posting a blurb about the Super Bowl the moment the pre-game show (which is like half-a-day long) starts. –HTD 10:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In short, you are successfully arguing that it doesn't need to be on the main page for people to find it? Resolute 04:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ITN is not to reiterate a news ticker but to highlight articles of reasonably good quality about topics that are in the news, in hopes readers will read and possibly add to that. --MASEM (t) 06:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ Howard the Duck - damage has already occurred with this system within Thailand, Myanmar and the Andaman Islands - so while i dont mind waiting until the final landfall and the main impact zone it is not like posting the Super Bowl the moment the pre-game show starts.Jason Rees (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what any of the proposed blurbs are saying. Also, the article isn't saying any damages in Thailand or Myanmar; it just said it was an unnamed tropical depression when it passed through there, so you're right, it's not posting the Super Bowl when the pre-game show starts, it is posting the Super Bowl during the NFC Championship Game. –HTD 13:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Im trying to add the stuff on Thailand etc but i am having problems finding the bits, since there has been a lot of flooding there recently.Jason Rees (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a source. This includes hit counts. Let's wait until landfall. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're not seriously saying that hit counts from grok.se do not indictae reader interest, are you? μηδείς (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait per WP:CRYSTAL. Resolute 04:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It has made landfall if I read [40] right, with lots of people evacuated (and a few killed) as result so far, Narayanese (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• per BBC cyclone has been classified as "Very Severe", changed alt blurb again -- Ashish-g55 16:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The Landfall of Cyclone Phalin is occurring right now. Officially it made landfall at its peak intensity as a very severe cyclonic storm however unoffically per the JTWC it had started to weaken over the last few hours after it went underwent an eyewall replacement cycle but was not able to complete it.Jason Rees (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Marked Ready the "wait" until landfall criterion expressed above has been met and deaths are being reported. The article is updated. See http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/phailin-on-course-to-devastate-1/18611884 for report of landfall and deaths. μηδείς (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blurb--as the original blurb is now obsolete, I have replaced it with "Cyclone Phailin makes landfall in Gopalpur, India as a category 3 storm" (The highest sustained winds being 124mph per UPI). μηδείς (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose big storm hits big country, we should wait for the consequences rather than post speculative "news". Wikipedia is not a primary news source. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That contradicts the entire notion of ITN, which is to feature good articles (which this is) that are in the news (which this is). This is the worst storm to hit the world's second largest country in 14 years. That's far more than enough to justify posting when just about every storm (Sandy wasn't even a Hurricane when it hit) that hits gets posted. You are also ignoring the fact there's a strong consensus above, even among the "waits" to post this when it makes land fall. μηδείς (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The vote counts for the waits are: 3 "wait until there is massive damage", 2 "wait until landfall" and Resolute's "Wait per WP:CRYSTAL" vote. Those 3 stipulations are quite different from each other. –HTD 19:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, I think it's pretty bleeding obvious that if this turns into something more than "big storm hits big country" then I'll re-assess my position, as I'm sure many others suggesting "wait" will do. Also, I'm entirely entitled to "ignore ... the [fact] there's a strong consensus above..." (even though that's tenuous at best, outright false at worst), this is my opinion, not a collation of those before me.

Actually, TRM, if I recall the RfC on the topic properly, it was decided quite lopsidedly that you, among all editors, are not entitled to your opinion. I may be wrong, but I am fairly certain of that. μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Everyone above is positing their opinion here. I did the same. Your suggestion that my opinion should somehow be governed by a consensus (imagined by you alone) is quite bizarre, back to the drawing board I think! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm neutral on this. The storm is much weaker than was initially estimated, but at the same time, it resulted in the evacuation of 800,000 people. This might be a a significantly high number to post it without a significantly high death toll. Ryan Vesey 20:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support posting with the blurb focused on the large evacuation; virtually any movement of such a large number of people due to a single event is noteworthy. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose large evacuations are notable, but in India doesn't seem to be that unusual. We already post too many storms. Ps, 7 fatalities from a monsoon in India??? Nergaal (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is not posted then really Systemic bias could not get any worse... the storm is being called perhaps one of the strongest (if not the strongest) in the recorded history (NP). Deaths alone dont make things notable... We posted Hurricane Sandy, Colorado flooding, Calgary flooding and we dont want to post a Cyclone covering size of half the India. And if anyone wants to say this happens regularly then its been 14 years since a storm this large hit this part of India. Also nobody is saying post right away but after once the widespread damage has been confirmed then we should post it...-- Ashish-g55 22:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Half a million people evacuated is good enough for me--whatever the (likely massive) effects ultimately are.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOT ready with that blurb. and consensus without a casualty count that's whigh is dubious.

oppose UNTIL damage/casualties are reported...and with a "significant" number. And "very severe is ague and sensational and category 3 is wrong per abjotuLihaas (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support due to evacuation. Damage/casualties have been reported FYI. BTW, I'd consider this even to not common at all, not the strongest storm in recorded history, but still pretty darn rare. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blurb has nothing to do with if this is ready--feel free to suggest another if you like. Consensus is to post when this hits, which it has. Body count won't be know for days. μηδείς (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm posting a fixed up blurb. The evacuation was massive, which is good grounds to post. The fatalities stand at 5, and that number can (sadly) be increased as the news reports come in. If we wait for final figures, this will be stale news. Jehochman ^Talk 02:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Huge storm, huge damage, big evacuation...deaths currently at around 5 but likely to rise higher. This is unquestionably news. Somchai Sun (talk) 08:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Peace Nobel

--Tone 09:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Usually we have special articles for this prize, like 2012 Nobel Peace Prize. If 2013 article is written, we can feature it. --Tone 09:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we do have 2013 Nobel Peace Prize, but it is just a starter. --Tone 09:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Uncalmness redacted] Perhaps good excuse to link to UNSC 2118? Which wasn't posted DESPITE consensus.Lihaas (talk) 10:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down Lihaas doktorb_words^deeds 11:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little ranting. People do mentions such reactions here. ;) (Sports, death of bin laden, etc)Lihaas (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 2012 Nobel Peace Prize is mostly the sort of information that emerges in the days after the announcement. I think we'd be best to post the blurb as written now. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Jehochman ^Talk 12:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Maria De Villota

Torqueing (talk) 09:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I am not knowledgeable in auto racing, but from reading the article she doesn't seem to have been very important in her field. If this is being nominated because she died due to her injuries from her accident or otherwise died suddenly, then a blurb should be proposed(which I would probably oppose as well). 331dot (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I don't know much about the topic either, but this is the third-from-top story on the BBC at the moment, which I think cuts it. It seems like she was the top of here field if her field is restricted to women (that's not insignificant) and a major celebrity in Spain. Formerip (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Reserve and test drivers (unless they have significant achievement in other series which she haven't) are nowhere as notable as those who compete regularly in the series as she only came into media attention last year because of her accident and I don't see anything that suggest that she is a major celebrity in her home country, compared to her compatriots Alonso, Contador and Nadal. Donnie Park (talk) 12:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much of her fame is down to her accident, but fame is fame. You could say the same thing about Malala Yousafzai, for example. Formerip (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least one of those tried to make a difference to help others, almost paid her life for trying and since then got nominated for a Nobel Prize and as with the former; at the age of 32, was she going to make a difference by just driving a F1 car in straight line. Donnie Park (talk) 01:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose What a terribly tragic death. However, she was not a sufficiently notable as F1 driver for ITN. Per WP:ITND it is required that "[t]he deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." De Villota did not have before or after her accident enough top-class (F1) experience to be regarded as "very important figure" in top-class motor racing. --hydrox (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unfortunately she and her death were not notable. Egeymi (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Almost half of the article's text (based on eyeballing) is about the accident that led to her death. Insufficient importance in her field for RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Info This is a recent death nomination, not a blurb in ITN. The current two up are Scott Carpenter and Ovadia Yosef who are both as notable as this lady. She was important in her field because she stood the best chance of becoming the first female F1 driver. Torqueing (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stood the chance" of something vs. an original seven astronaut and the Chief Rabbi? Not in the same ballpark. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • An astronaut who was about the 7th person in space (4th American)? Where is the notability in that? And the chief rabbi of a *sect* of jews in a *country*? Please... If he was the chief rabbi of the world then that would be notable but he's not even the only chief rabbi in Israel. Torqueing (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you don't understand the significance of the Mercury 7, I can't help you. Not to make light of her death, but she didn't do anything. Being a "potential" something means you didn't do it. --12.41.124.5 (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough about Maria but the "Mercury 7" was nothing. The Russians did everything in space first apart from land a man on the moon. On top of that this guy was nothing apart from an astronaut of which there have been thousands. Even the Mercury 7 page is tiny with no mention of any significance whatsoever. Torqueing (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I can't speak much about all other stuff that exists, I would've been indeed happy to support the nomination if she had started even one F1 grand prix during her career. But as far as I can tell, she never entered an F1 grand prix. Although I agree that she was on the track to becoming one of the scarce breed of female F1 drivers (not the first one, though), I don't think we should equate potential to achieve with actually achieving it. And anyway, we still have Susie Wolff. Also, exactly the same WP:ITND criteria apply to Recent Deaths as to full blurbs, so Recent Deaths is not a way around those. --hydrox (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - not a notable death to the extent that it is of worldwide interest.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - She is #5 in trending news items for The Washington Times, behind "NFL", "Republican Party", "Barack Obama" and "Senate". While her career was nothing to write home about her death has attracted sufficient attention. - The Bushranger_{One ping only} 19:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which of the Recent Deaths criteria does she meet? 331dot (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:IAR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of those items you listed were posted to ITN recently, either. Spencer^T♦C 22:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not arguing WP:OTHERSTUFF, I'm pointing out that this isn't some "buried on page five" event in the regular news, but is considered by the searching public more important than, say, "Nobel Prize", and also refuting the "not of worldwide interest" argument above. - The Bushranger_{One ping only} 07:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Using IAR to justify that means that you need to explain how it is beneficial to ignore the rules in this situation. This person was trying to be an F1 driver; she was not actually one. There are many deaths covered in the news that many people read about that we don't post for various reasons. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 10

---

[Posted] RD - Scott Carpenter

Nominator's comments: NASA astronaut, one of the original Mercury Seven. --W. D. Graham 22:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for RD, was important in his field for sure. --Somchai Sun (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Clearly important in his field. 331dot (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Obvious. Article is in good shape, with no CN tags in sight. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - No brainer. Jusdafax 23:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Spencer^T♦C 00:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Doctor Who Episodes recovered

Nominator's comments: I think this is a good opportunity to feature the series Doctor Who and its history on the year of its fiftieth anniversary. And we have quite a good article. ---- HektorHektor 21:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The acquiring of lost episodes gets more arduous every year, so this is in that way a remarkable feat. Also, this is biggest single find of the DW missing episodes. 101090ABC (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd need to see a lot wider coverage of this in order to support it. The last Doctor Who story we considered(with controversy) was the casting of the new one, which was significant news in many places. 331dot (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as this is not terribly remarkable unless you're a fan of the series, and even if you are, you've gotta admit it's not really worldwide. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose First as apparently there's a moratorium on this news for another hour (when the BBC gives a press conference on it). But more really on the oppose we're also only talking about 2 serials out of 27 that are missing. Now, if it turns out the BBC has nearly all of them, and these 9 episodes (two serials) are just the first they fixed up, that might be something, but as 331dot suggests, it would need more coverage beyond UK papers and sci-fi fans sites. (as a fan, its great news, but just not ITN). --MASEM (t) 22:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would hope to read serious arguments here, not joke ones. Do you seriously want us to believe that BBC gives a press conference at midnight ? Furthermore it is in The Times so there clearly is no such moratorium. Hektor (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given what others are saying on the talk page of Doctor Who missing episodes, yes, in part that DW is not just limited to the UK and this would hit the US night news cycle. (Also consider that two sources have posted and then quickly pulled). Irregardless, the BBC is the authority here on exactly what was found so we should wait until they report. --MASEM (t) 22:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - at best national story in the UK. no international interest.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Sources let's get a link that's not behind a paywall. μηδείς (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I have a subscription, I did not realize it was protected. Hektor (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hektor is not obligated to provide a non-paywall link. 331dot (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neither are you obligated to make pointless hostile remarks. No one yelled at Hektor. The rest of us would like a source we can access, thanks. μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • My comment was in no way hostile or pointless, nor did I say you or anyone yelled at him. Please don't assume negative things about my actions. 331dot (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's just a TV show, people. The significance of this development is minor. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lost works of art are notable, and just because something aired on TV doesn't disqualify it from being a work of art. (Neither is the point this is a British show a relevant objection.) In fact, TV shows even win awards. μηδείς (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, we should not be ignoring TV stories just because they are TV. Doctor Who is clearly an international show even though it is produced locally to the UK. The primarily reason here to oppose is that this is just not much of a story if it is only 2 serials/9 episodes out of 27/106 missing. Cool and all, but a drop in the bucket. But if the BBC reveal it's something more, I suspect we'll get better coverage from mainstream sources on that, but right now this news is just not ITN-worthy yet. --MASEM (t) 22:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So now we're comparing a Rembrandt or a Picasso to a TV show? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? --MASEM (t) 23:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A TV show can be a drama, no different from a play or a film, which are considered hight art. Not that these episodes are necessarily high art, of course. But Simply saying "TV show" is not a disqualifier. μηδείς (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the official BBC source, but as expected, it's not as great a find to warrant ITN. --MASEM (t) 23:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Just send me 9 blank pieces of paper with your signature, and I will send you the 9 episodes that were accidentally deposited in my safe deposit box. Your commission for this service will be 37%. Please send me your bank details so I can effectuate a transfer of your fee. Jehochman ^Talk 23:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Significant news for a show with a worldwide audience. Gamaliel(talk) 00:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you give a reason for your support? Per the instructions above, "Do not add simple "support" or "oppose" !votes". 331dot (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your talk page message. I have added a note explaining my reasoning above. Gamaliel (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. A interesting bit of trivia for a notable TV show. Not ITN material.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per Medeis; although, this is a bit belated now. The comment "Lost works of art are notable" is correct. Television is just a different avenue for art. Ryan Vesey 17:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support If you remember I strongly opposed the Dr. Who casting decision because it did not represent any actual achievement. In this case, yes, I can support because they are lost works of art that have been recovered. Worthwhile. You could probably trim off the distracting "one month before the fiftieth anniversary of the series" irrelevant to the discovery of the lost episodes. Teply (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Get a grip, people. This is trivia, not news. And to call them "lost works of art" is nonsense - they were crap. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Yeah...no. This really is, as has been pointed out already, trivia. Interesting? A notable find? Sure, but ITN-worthy? Hell no. Most of the notability here comes from them being lost...they really were "crap" ;) --Somchai Sun (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sachin Tendulkar retirement

Nominator's comments: I think there has been a long time general consensus that last time Tendulkar will appear on ITN is when he retires from cricket altogether. Well that day has finally come. By far biggest retirement story in cricket for years to come. change the blurb as needed ---- Ashish-g55 18:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for the same reason I opposed the posting of that English football coach. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

which was what exactly? Tendulkar is biggest name in cricket by far and we have posted retirements of sport figures at his level many times -- Ashish-g55 18:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have we? Resolute 18:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Athletes retire. Every single one of them. It's not a "significant development". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every athlete is not the same obviously. Some dominate certain sports and retirement for them is a "significant development". In some cases more so than posting the large number of sporting results as we do every year -- Ashish-g55 21:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from that English football coach (not even an athlete) what other retirees have been posted to ITN? Abductive (reasoning) 21:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We posted Yao Ming retiring(first one I could find searching the archives) 331dot (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We posted the Ethiopian Marathon runner Haile Gebrselassie as well.. there were more, this is no exception by any means -- Ashish-g55 23:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which English football coach did we post?78.105.54.33 (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

support per precedence of Alex Ferguson. And hes the all-time leading scorere EVER. We would post Babe Ruth, id imagine.Lihaas (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That "precedent" was horrendously contentious. Abductive (reasoning) 21:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but it was stil a precedenceLihaas (talk) 10:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. We generally don't post retirements; in the case of the coach we posted, soccer is one of the most popular sports in the world and he was the coach of one of the most well known teams. Cricket, while popular in many countries, doesn't rise to the level of soccer. I don't think I would support posting Ruth (or, to be more modern, A-Rod or Derek Jeter) either as baseball has a similar reach as cricket(popular in some countries but not most). I would be open to changing my mind if extensive news coverage of this is demonstrated. 331dot (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. There's a heck of a lot of coverage on this [43]. This article, showing all the tributes that have came in, seems worthwhile: [44] Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm going to change my !vote to weak support. From the stories I read this man seems to be regarded as the best cricket player in the world, or at least in India(which does have 1/7 of the world's population), which may warrant an exception to our general policy of not posting retirements. Personally I am not going to fight hard for this, but I think it is worth posting and is a chance to post a story from India. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A retirement is not front page news, no matter how "important" they were considered in their sport.--Somchai Sun (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll just say that this is front page news in India, and is on the front of the BBC's page(though not at the top). 331dot (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also front page item today on The Sydney Morning Herald, The Melbourne Age, The Australian, and ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation). --dmmaus (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose there's a standing consensus against posting retirements, and unless this is for a notable reason there's no reason for an exception here. μηδείς (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is valid to feel otherwise, but the assertion here is that this man is probably the top player in the world. Not near the top, the top. 331dot (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont remember any such consensus as we have clearly posted retirements bunch of times before. if you really care then i can pull them from archive -- Ashish-g55 23:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that there is, if not a consensus, a strong tendency to avoid posting retirements; the ones we do post have to meet a very high bar(and are often controversial even if posted). 331dot (talk) 23:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure i would agree that we look at it per case basis but any argument that says we dont post them totally invalid (there is no such consensus). 3 are mentioned above -- Ashish-g55 23:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As an Australian, I honestly don't think there is any serious argument even outside India that Tendulkar is easily considered the greatest cricket player since WWII. He is certainly the very top of his field by a comfortable margin. I don't have a strong opinion on posting sporting retirements, but if any were to qualify, then this one should. --dmmaus (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say Garry Sobers is widely regarded as the greatest cricketer since WWII. Muttiah Muralitharan and Shane Warne would be up there with Tendulkar too. Neljack (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Considered" vs. actualy stats/data held record holders at THE top is different. the 3 you cite are only considered (though bowler vs. batsman, I concede, is different)Lihaas (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose A retirement is a non-event. Should he come back from retirement we could post it. If he was required to retire early for some reason, we could post it. The fact that his career is done isn't unexpected. Ryan Vesey 00:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Someone considered one of the greatest players in the history of a sport, especially one with such a long and glorious history like cricket, a retirement is a big deal. Only for consensus "greatest" players though. Secret ^account 02:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on notability grounds. Posting retirements should be rare, but I think this is one of the more exceptional sporting retirements that will happen for many years. Tendular is not only one of the greatest cricketers of all time, he is easily the most famous athlete in India and a near god there--based on his fame in India alone he is arguably one of the most famous men on the planet. There are few figures in the world of such extreme notability. It's a shame the article isn't a bit better--if it was a GA or FA this would be a shoe in for me but as is it's just over the line (Yao Ming's retirement was posted in part because his article was an FA).--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the posting of sports retirements. Furthermore, as seen in cases like Michael Jordan (someone, if anyone, whose retirement we would consider posting since he was unarguably the top in his field), athletes sometimes un-retire too. Spencer^T♦C 05:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So was Sachin "unarguably the top of his field". And at any rate the personal opinions of not posting retirements are personal opinion. One thing not in question is tha this is in the news. (for the record, I was awary of positing it first but there is no doubt this is int he news)Lihaas (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I don't usually support sports items, but the BBC cricket correspondent is calling him the greatest of his generation. If we post sports retirements at all, we ought to post this one. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support as per 331dot, Tendulkar is exceptional. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 06:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I found this a difficult decision, but (1) Tendulkar is widely regarded as one of the greatest players in the history of a major international sport; (2) he is absolutely huge in India - "national hero" would be a major understatement; (3) I think we ought to be more willing to post sporting retirements - we can't be declining to post them on the basis that sports aren't ITN-worthy given that we post lots of sporting events, and retirements of very top sportspeople can be at least as big a story as some of events we post (Tendulkar's retirement is undoubtedly a bigger cricketing story than the final of the Indian Premier League, for instance). Neljack (talk) 06:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have taken the liberty of altering the blurb to say "announces his retirement" rather than "retires", since he will play two more tests.[45] Neljack (talk) 07:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

wait came here to say that but also per above. Till he actually retires is more notable (and ittll be in the news for sure). In accord with other consensus on the ITNC page to wait till the event occursLihaas (talk) 11:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support For notability and career achievements. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sports retirement. I oppose all sports retirement ITN postings. Why? First, because they are always contentious. Second, because they are of limited impact. "What?", you might ask. Yes, limited impact because sports greats rarely retire when they are at their peak. No, they retire when they are a liability to their team or their sport, or they just aren't winning anymore. I rather like the postings when some athlete breaks some record, because they are making history. Retiring players aren't making history any more. I don't want to see "athlete can't keep up with the younger SOBs, quits" on the front page. Abductive (reasoning) 17:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree that a retiring player isnt making history. Why do we post deaths? do deaths make history? its what they did during their life that matters and for sport figures its their career. In exceptional cases like Tendulkar who is basically worshiped by a billion people in India it matters -- Ashish-g55 17:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths are objective facts. Retirements are statements of policy. There's a huge difference--although as mentioned above, if there were something else notable about the retirement, say it was for legal reasons, or because he'd been clubbed across the knees at a skating competition, that might be different. μηδείς (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He will make a record 200 appearances (and unassailable for at least quite a while) when he finishes.Lihaas (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support- Since last year the consensus has been that when Sachin Tendulkar retires, he will be posted. He has come up in virtually every retirement debate as an example of one that would be posted. Less notable retirements have a strong precedent, Niklas Lidstrom for one I believe. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Recent deaths - Wilfried Martens

Former Prime Minister of Belgium and President of the European People's Party. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 15:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support for RD The fact he was a former prime minister, and by his death the incumbent president of the largest party in the European Parliament. Redverton (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for RD per Redverton. 331dot (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Template? can we have a template for this, especially a source and whether it's updated? μηδείς (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle. He is certainly sufficiently notable for RD. I have updated with three tributes and a BBC News reference.[46] However, most of the article lacks references. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Played an important role in the decentralisation of the Belgian state, as well as at the European level. Easily meets DC#1. Neljack (talk) 07:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support He was the Belgian PM for more than a decade and the President of the EPP for 2 decades. I think that's very significant. --Երևանցի ^talk 14:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Marked Ready --updated and well supported. Article is extremely light on what he stood for, but it is updated and isn't tagged. μηδείς (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prion disease treatment

Nominator's comments: BBC say "Alzheimer's breakthrough hailed as 'turning point'". --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I thought about nominating this but decided against because the interest is in treating other degenerative conditions, which is purely speculative at the moment. A minor point: it's not published in Science but in Science Translational Medicine, a relatively new journal which is not (yet) in the top rank of preclinical medical journals. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Literature Nobel

--Tone 11:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The blurb would benefit from a full prize citation, i.e. the reason why she was awarded. Brandmeister^talk 12:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - It's a Nobel; that's reason enough. The blurb can add 'for her work as a "master of the contemporary short story"'. Nigellwh (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Arrrgh, please not that picture. It's pretty awful and looks even worse at 100px. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And "master of the contemporary short story" should be in quotes, (or preferably not there at all), unless we want the Main Page to have a POV on her status. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I was busy fixing the picture. It's much better now. If you have a better picture, please do point it out. Jehochman ^Talk 13:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we just leave out the 'master ... story' bit entirely. The WP main page is not for anyone's POV.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support nom obviously but strong oppose current blurb and pic. It's not conventional to use a drawing when we say 'pictured'--if there's no free pic, leave one for another story. The blurb is POV, even if it's a quote from the Nobel committee.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have contradictory requests here. Please discuss, and once a consensus appears the blurb can be edited. What we have now mirrors what the vast majority of reliable sources are reporting. Rather than "pictured", what word would be accurate? I see nothing wrong with using a lifelike drawing of the subject. It's the best we have. Jehochman^Talk 13:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saying Alice Munroe is master of the contemporary short story is a POV statement (and I'm sure Nigellwh intended for it to be in quotes) which should be fixed immediately. At the very least it should be in quotation marks to show it as a statement from the Nobel committee, not an undisputed fact. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's in quotes. All facts can be disputed, and frequently are. We report what reliable sources say. Huge numbers of reliable sources today are reporting that she is a master of the contemporary short story, with and without quotes. Jehochman^Talk 13:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 'vast majority' of RSs are not using the 'master of contemporary short story' line in their headline--they are reporting this line in their stories, as WP does in relevant articles. I support the first blurb. I support using a photo or leaving out the picture entirely.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding the POV issue, there few WP tenets more important that WP:NPOV. Many RSs do not have the same standard of NPOV that WP does. In fact, many explicitly push a POV. WP has a different editorial policy, most especially on the main page. IT is absolutely essential, not some minor issue editors quibble about, that the POV line in question be in quotes or left out entirely. I strongly suggest we remove it. The blurb does not say who said it. And I've checked the NY Times, the BBC and Al Jazeera--all have a headline without the 'master...' wording.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale for awarding the Nobel is inherently subjective. If the Nobel committee presents it as their reason for the award, then objectively speaking, that is the reason (theirs'). The use of quotes is good enough as an indication of perspective. Nigellwh (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine in a WP article where we can add context to such a quote. The blurb in quotes doesn't say who said it. We can leave the rationale in the article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a rather glaring omission, considering the other Nobel blurbs provide it. Nigellwh (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can refer to her body of work or we can refer to her as an author of short stories. The other blurbs to not praise the scientists for their 'mastery' of their fields, nor do they quote anyone else saying so.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with those suggestions, but there is a difference between the Literature and Science Nobels worth noting: the Science prizes are based on specific achievements, while the Literature prize is based on an author's entire oeuvre of work. Nigellwh (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out a good quality free-license photo, and I will gladly place it there. For the moment we are quoting the Nobel Committee to explain why she won the prize. On each of these announcements we say who won, which prize, and we briefly state what their work was about. Another possible blurb: "Short story author Alice Munro wins the Nobel Prize in Literature." Jehochman^Talk 13:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it's in quotes I think whether we keep "master of..." is a style rather than policy question. Similarly I don't see a policy violation with the picture, (and I can't find a free photo), but I would, to a moderate extent, prefer a photo from a different blurb. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been changed again and the quotes are removed.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Argh! That's even worse! --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Books/Pix/authors/2005/02/07/munro3.jpg is a public domain image. Nigellwh (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2005/aug/24/edinburghfestival2005.edinburghfestival was where the above image was found. Nigellwh (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support simple blurb, but don't use that very poor drawing with no encyclopaedic value. --ELEKHH^T 13:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't think the current wording is at all appropriate. How about "for her body of short stories"? Espresso Addict (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm going to drink beer and eat popcorn while this blurb gets kicked around for no real benefit to the encyclopedia. Jehochman ^Talk 14:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — for just a simple statement without value judgments about her work.

For what it's worth, German Wiki does this today in its version of ITN, and instead of the above-mentioned drawing uses the Nobel Foundation logo. [47] Sca (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Updated blurb Taking on board the recent comments, blurb now says, "Canadian author Alice Munro wins the Nobel Prize in Literature for her short stories." Thank you for pointing out the picture, Nigellwh. The aspect ratio is odd; I don't think we can use that one. Jehochman ^Talk 15:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Malala Yousafzai awarded Sakharov Prize

Nominator's comments: ITNR award. Working on brief update, may need more. --331dot (talk) 10:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's quite probable that Malala Yousafzai will win the Nobel Peace prize tomorrow which will eclipse this, however I guess we could combine the blurbs. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait a day and see. DGtal (talk) 10:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• As the nominator I don't object to waiting for the Nobel prize to be announced. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't wait, post now. The Sakharov Prize is a renown ITNR award, she has been awarded it, there is a short update to the (otherwise already at GA level) article. There is simply no reason why this should not be posted right away. That she might get another award is pure speculation; if necessary, the blurp can be changed.--FoxyOrange (talk) 10:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Waiting would be silly - we can always merge the blurbs if she also wins the Nobel prize. Thue (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Ready to post now, however, a better blur is needed. Either we start Pakistani activist Malala Yousafzai ... or we add why she received the prize. Not sure which one is better. --Tone 11:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Pakistani activist...' seems good. Malala Yousafzai is a GA, and covers all the reasons why she won the award. Support posting now. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support posting now, update later if necessary – Muboshgu (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - for itn. important.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding the potential picture, please note that File:Malala.jpg is almost certainly on Commons under an incorrect license, and is likely to be deleted. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support posting now; notable and ITNR, and article quality is at GA. If she does win the Nobel tomorrow, this can be updated. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting. --Tone 15:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Zeidan

--Abductive (reasoning) 05:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Definitely not everyday when the leader of a government is kidnapped. I'd replaced kidnapped with "abducted" in the blurb but that's purely word-choice. — dainomite 06:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Head of Government kidnapped. big deal. although, the update is small. Too small? Just one sentence...75.73.114.111 (talk) 06:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle, but it's probably best to wait a few hours to see what information emerges about the abductors and their motivations. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

support per others (though weakly as it came to nothing),. but importantly tie it in with the capture of the al-Liby chap as thats what they cited in saying Kerry said Libya connived in the matter. (denials and all that njotwithstanidng, a la Pakistan)Lihaas (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Head of government being kidnapped; it seems to have been in response to allegations the Libyan government assisted the US in their raid to capture the al-Libi. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose he's been released already. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still support; still a heavily covered news story, even if it was brief. Doesn't happen every day. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, with updated hook. The fact that he was kidnapped makes the event notable. But we should still wait a bit before posting, because it is a developing story. It is likely that more details will be published which would allow for a more concise blurp.--FoxyOrange (talk) 09:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, although he has been freed.Egeymi (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, a lot of militia crazy stories are happening in Libya and this is just one of the most notable. --Tachfin (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This seems to be over before it began. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, thus changing my earlier opinion. Now, this episode seems to be quite a non-event, more a symbolic act than an actual kidnapping.--FoxyOrange (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We cant support/oppose on what we decide. Its certainly in the news and a leading stody.Lihaas (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 9

---

[Posted] Azerbaijani election

--Երևանցի ^talk 22:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support given the allegations noted in the updtae from the Telegraph, this is actually notable. A better blurb like "Azerbaijani Election Committee announce Aliyev wins a day before polls open" might be good. μηδείς (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Joke election but still a election.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but completely rephrase - should be "Results of Azerbaijani presidential election are mistakenly announced a day before elections take place". (source: Washington post). DGtal (talk) 05:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait. There is no rush to report anything before the final results have been published and the Wikipedia article has been updated accordingly. Allegations of manipulations or election fraud might indeed be included in the blurp, but such a mention must adhere to WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V policies. The story "results posted a day early" is less suitable, because the reason is not known. The news stories are essentially speculating or pushing a "Azerbaidjan = bad" prejudice (still, this could be just a case of "testing the system").--FoxyOrange (talk) 10:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Ready this is well updated per this edit. The only thing necessary is settling on the blurb. μηδείς (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just suggested an alternative blurp. I would oppose of using this photo to accompany the blurp, though: To me, it seems quite unfavorable (he looks somewhat silly).--FoxyOrange (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support original blurb, unfortunately rigged elections aren't something new in the world, but his third term says it all. Brandmeister^talk 18:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt Blurb I'll come down in favor of the altblurb, since the publishing of the results the day before the vote was held seems to be what is drawing attention. I am going to mark this ready above. An admin should use his or her judgment and get this posted one blurb or the other. μηδείς (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting altblurb. Spencer^T♦C 17:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Chemistry Nobel

--LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The articles are so-so, therefore I guess we should go with highlighling the laureates list article. Regarding the blurb, "for the development of multiscale models for complex chemical systems" seems a bit technical compared to the other two Nobel blurbs. Is there a good article we can wikilink? Molecular dynamics? --Tone 11:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the articles are so-so, we should go with improving them or not posting. Formerip (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would somebody please post a proper nomination? We need to see a blurb and all. Jehochman^Talk 11:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the biographies, I see that these guys have a focus on computational biology. They aren't cited even once in computational chemistry. I'm not sure either of these articles is the right one to link. Jehochman ^Talk 11:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upon review, I think we need to link computational biology. See this paper. Note that there is no Nobel for biology, so somebody who studies biochemistry would get a chemistry Nobel. Jehochman^Talk 11:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Physiology and medicine sohould ocover thatLihaas (talk) 13:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest Protein structure prediction as the target article? That's what they essentially did, and led to what most would know as Folding@home. --MASEM (t) 13:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(The article would have to be updated to list these three as the groundbreakers on that, but it's a rather decent article otherwise). --MASEM (t) 13:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• For the moment I've posted the item with a link to computational chemistry. There's clearly overlapping areas of study. Rather than discuss this at great length, why don't we touch up the relevant articles, and if one of them appears to have more content about the Nobel winners, we can change the link to that one. Computational chemistry is a B-class, former Good article. It's not a bad place to send people and it cross references the other articles that might also be used in the blurb. I'm not sure we can find the perfect solution. Jehochman ^Talk 15:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent deaths - Chopper Read

Nominator's comments: Chopper was well known to most Australians. He was played by Eric Bana in the film Chopper based on his life. His crimes were mostly against other criminals, so he had some sort of respect from non-criminals. Claimed to have killed 19 men. Reformed after being released from prison, and wrote books, including one for children titled Hooky the Cripple, becoming Australia's best selling crime author. --HiLo48 (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for RD, if the citations orange tag is taken care of. Formerip (talk) 10:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The uniqueness of this guys notability means he could be considered as being in the "top of his field"...and the only one.--Somchai Sun (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD (oppose blurb) Notable person for multiple reasons. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for RD. From what I have read, he does seem to be a very notable criminal/author, though I don't think he rises to the high level of a blurb. 331dot (talk) 11:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Not Updated one sentence, that he died, is not an update. Hardly seeing how this guy is the top of any field, there are plenty of killers with more under their belt. μηδείς (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is "hardly seeing how this guy is the top of any field" an oppose vote? If you know of other recently deceased criminals, feel free to nominate them. 331dot (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You tell me, 331, did I vote oppose? μηδείς (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of answering my question with a question, why not answer the question? 331dot (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is content saying he had a fatal illness, then he died. Seriously, what else does one add? How long it took for the maggots to appear? As for "top of his field" (a weird term for a criminal, surely), this is Australia, not the USA. Murders are much less common here. HiLo48 (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• One sentence should always be enough for RD. RD highlights a person who recently died, there's not much more you can write about that. Ryan Vesey 20:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, this was discussed at length when the RfC to set up RD was proposed, and the single major objection was the fear that adding RD would mean lowering the bar. It was explicitly stated that the current guidelines would still apply. I am curious whether you've read the guidelines, since they explicitly say a one sentence update that mirrors the fat noted in the ITN listing is not acceptable.

The guidelines are wrong. Expecting 5 sentences of prose on the death of someone is unreasonable and in many cases causes undue weight to be placed on the death in the article. What more is there to write about Read? RyanVesey 20:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! So, "We don't need no stinking guidelines"? There is a discussion about this--but it should be an RfC, since we've had an RfC explicitly establishing ITN applied in full. μηδείς (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, guidelines are guidelines, not commandments written in stone. What exactly is missing from the article that you feel should be added before posting? 331dot (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The one-sentence-is-not-enough guideline is solid, and not a suggestion. What would be needed are a cartload of citations, given almost every paragraph has a CN tag, and some sort of recognition from historians, peers, or critics upon his death that he's a respected or world-champion murderer, not just one who got caught in a middling jurisdiction and then wrote children's books. μηδείς (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed side discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(Personal attack removed)HiLo48 (talk) 06:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] Was that really necessary? Medeis is the only oppose thus far- who has even implied it, even- hasn't outright said it. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] Yes, it was very necessary. And I'm contemplating putting it back. If idiotic editors here aren't occasionally told the truth about the rudeness and incompetence they display, nothing will ever change. And I mean rudeness. My blatant form of "rudeness" is nothing when compared with the absolute bullshit perpetuated on pages like this by super controlling editors who think they own the fucking place. THAT'S the REAL incivility here. Fucking arrogant editors who want ITN to contain nothing more than gap filling trivia from America and England, making absolutely certain that our systemic bias if fully on display at all times. No fucking idea. And if you think I give a fuck any more, I don't. I've tried my best to improve the quality and tone of discussion here, to point out that non-mainstream items need more support, all to no fucking avail. Do your darnedest. I don't fucking care any more. And please don't delete this post. That will just prove that the truth hurts, and won't improve the quality of discussion here, or remove the systemic bias. And you're wrong that it's just Medeis. Medeis' crap has been stuffing up ITN and Ref Desks for years, and nobody does anything effective about it. You're ALL responsible. You all obviously prefer perpetual disruptive bullshit from editors like Medeis to an occasion fuck appearing here. I give up. A ban from this page will make no difference. I was temporarily blocked once before (for no crime I feel any guilt about), and came back hoping things might have improved, because I actually care about this place. But no, things have got worse. So, hide this criticism again if you must, and pretend that all is sweetness and light. But blissful ignorance is not a really great state. HiLo48 (talk) 10:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Article needs a better lead and needs citation tag removed and update fixed.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SO FIX IT YOURSELF!!!!!!!!!!!!! Who else do you think is going to do it? HiLo48 (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to yell; he was just pointing something out. If you cannot or will not control yourself with your editing I would suggest that a Wikibreak is in order. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is responding to my fucks all you can do? How about this nomination? Nobody has effectively opposed this, but it hasn't been posted. If the article needs fixing, somebody should fix it, and it shouldn't have to be me. I DON'T HAVE THE TIME!!!!!! Maybe it should be you 331dot!!! A posting must NEVER depend on whether one particular editor has the time to fix an article. What the hell is really happening here? I'll tell you what's happening here. A massive display of systemic bias is happening here!!!!!! I know it's not a pathetic minor American TV star, but I thought we were a global encyclopaedia? It's not being posted without my swearing. At least when I do that it gets a little bit of attention. So seriously, is this going to be posted, or will it miss out because nobody actually cares? (If anyone now says the article needs fixing, but isn't willing to fix it themselves, that really is a sad look for Wikipedia!) HiLo48 (talk) 11:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, still no practical solution to our systemic bias? This place is pathetic. HiLo48 (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post this, now - One editor citing guidelines doesn't overturn the obvious majority consensus that this exception is postable. Can an admin please post it to ITN? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)`[reply]

Also, as an addendum, ITN is not DYK. We don't expect articles on current or recent events to be Good articles. If anything, the increased number of eyes towards it makes it much more likely that someone with the available resources will be able to cite the details related to other points in his life. The article looks acceptable as it stands for this purpose. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, instead of requesting others to do things, do something yourself. There are currently 12 [citation needed] tags, we mostly never post items with one [citation needed] tag, let alone twelve. Sort that lot out and we'll post it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I usually do a shitload of work on here. Right now I'm incredibly busy. A look at my contributions will show you how little editing I have had time to do lately. I'm only calling in here to see how bad this place still is. Obviously even you didn't actually read my post above where I said "If the article needs fixing, somebody should fix it, and it shouldn't have to be me. I DON'T HAVE THE TIME!!!!!! ...A posting must NEVER depend on whether one particular editor has the time to fix an article." All of you are responsible for fixing articles, especially those of you who find fault with them. Throwing absolutely everything back at the nominator is just plain pathetic. HiLo48 (talk) 04:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell this to the people at WP:FAC, WP:FLC and the like. We need as many WP:FAs and WP:FLs as possible. –HTD 05:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All completely irrelevant to the matter on the table here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still see at least 6 editors supporting as is, and two holding up the show with claims of "We normally don't". Who are "we" and why do they overturn the consensus to post? WP:ITND doesn't seem to indicate that citation needed tags are a deal-breaker; merely that the article be comprehensive enough to garner a B-class rating. I can delete the citation needed tags, but the fact remains that more eyes are more likely to validate those facts. Beate Eriksen is a stellar example of the power of this. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SO, IS THIS ABOUT TO DIE A SYSTEMIC BIAS DEATH? HiLo48 (talk) 06:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OBVIOUSLY YES. HOW SAD. HiLo48 (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to cool down, man. 331dot (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am totally relaxed. Just trying to attract attention to this item. It's probably going to die through lack of interest anyway (didn't think that was one of our criteria!), but I continue to do my best to tackle our massive systemic bias. Part of the systemic bias is the fact that hardly anybody cares about non-mainstream nominations. Or our systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, good ol' Chopper was a major contributor to Australia's war on drugs. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 8

---

Violence in Egypt

Nominator's comments: Recent developments in Egypt after two months of relative calm --Tachfin (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Nobel physics

So, if we go for the featured list as a highlighted article, any objections in posting the award now? --Tone 11:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the updates are there. Posting, highlighting the laureates. --Tone 11:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The laureate articles for medicine have some issues, so we chose not to highlight them. To avoid spontaneously breaking the symmetry of Wikipedia, I've changed the highlighting on both blurbs to be the topics of research. These are nice articles that have updates at least as good as the biographies. Unlike other media, we excel at answering the questions, "What did these laureates discover and why was it important?" Jehochman^Talk 12:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the change. When writing the blurb, I wanted to mention the Higgs boson but at the same time wanted to avoid double Higgs in the blurb or an easter-eggish link. This is fine now. --Tone 12:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 7

---

[Closed] Nobel Prizes sticky

Ethiopian presidential election

Nominator's comments: He is only the third person to be elected president in Ethiopia. Andise1 (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom (WP:ITN/R#Elections & Heads of State), pending update. ← DJ → 00:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Despite ITN/R, I don't think non-royal figureheads should be featured. This is a "largely symbolic and ceremonial post" with no real power. This was not the result of a general election. This is not a weak oppose, but I'm open to persuasion. Ryan Vesey 01:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The ITNR entry for elections is quite clear, and it does not state that 'figurehead' Presidents should be excluded; changes in heads of state for all sovereign states are ITNR. 331dot (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Further, the elections of the figurhead President of Ireland and President of Germany were posted; even the monarch of the United Kingdom is largely a figurehead and I think there is little doubt that would be posted. 331dot (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that I said "despite ITN/R" any explanation related to it will do nothing to persuade me. What confuses me is why ITN/R automatically places the election for Ethiopian President in ITN, but leaves the election for the Prime Minister to discussion. Ryan Vesey 02:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• We post the results of general elections to national legislative bodies, during which the PM is typically chosen (as they are generally already the leader of the party that wins) and as such they are usually mentioned in general elections blurbs. Further, heads of government often change much more frequently and often without a general election(such as Kevin Rudd briefly resuming being PM of Australia) and are also much more political offices than heads of state, which represent the entire nation. My larger point is that, if you have an issue with this ITNR item, such as believing it should have stricter criteria, you should take it to the ITNR talk page, not here. 331dot (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• So you waste no more effort, this is on ITNR, so it will be posted. I don't think this should be posted, so I am noting my opposition knowing that my opposition means nothing. I cannot be bothered to discuss the significance of the elections of figurehead heads of states in Ireland or Germany, or the absence of significance of elections for various heads of governments. I said I am open to persuasion, but only if there is someone who cares to try to persuade me that the election of the Ethiopian head of state is particularly important. Anything less is a waste of your time (trying to persuade me of the importance of this specific election is probably a waste of time as well, not because I won't change my vote, but because getting me to change my mind won't affect the outcome). Ryan Vesey 02:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Have it your way; you said you were confused, so I was attempting to clear up your confusion. 331dot (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted RD] Recent Deaths: Ovadia Yosef

Nominator's comments: Very influential rabbi. --Ypnypn (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• A few comments from the press and world authorities on his importance and this will be ready to go. μηδείς (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when updated.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when updated – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - reports claim 850,000-1,000,000 people in his funeral. Largest by far in Israel. DGtal (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The article was updated with the passing of the Rabbi. Almost a million people attended in his funural, more than 10% of the country and almost 17% of the Jewish pupulation in Israel. (Only men were in the funural, so 34% of the Men Jewish pupulation, third of the country)
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article has some CN tags that should be taken care of, but other than that it's all fine. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I posted this yesterday. Jehochman ^Talk 16:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't some citations have been added first? Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Nobels #1

--Lihaas (talk) 10:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ready to post when the articles are updated beyond one sentence. As we had in the previous years, the Nobel laureates usually don't get several paragraphs of update but 3-4 sentences should be a minimum. --Tone 11:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The blurb should really include a link to Vesicle (biology and chemistry), which readers are much more likely to be interested in than the articles on the scientists themselves. In past years we've got around update issues that way, although it doesn't seem viable in this case. I recommend posting as soon as one article has a decent update, and we can bold the others if/when they're brought up to scratch. Surely there's a quote or two from one of them that could be used to expand the update(s)? Modest Genius ^talk 11:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Altblub suggested. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted will tweak blurb to match altblurb which is even better. Jehochman^Talk 12:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Sigh, where is the update? This and this are not sufficient for a bold article. One sentence and one reference are not enough. Modest Genius ^talk 13:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-Posting Comment: Why is the name spelled Sudhof rather than Südhof? Why are we following an anglized form of his name rather than the spelling at either the Wiki article or the Nobel Prize announcement?--FoxyOrange (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Südhof, in accordance with the above links. Not sure what to do with C., though. --Tone 13:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• A serial comma after "Schekman" would be nice. --bender235 (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it is unnecessary in this case. It does not prevent ambiguity. Jehochman ^Talk 14:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Sudhof had a decent article until a massive amount of text was removed, for a reason which is still unclear to me. Spencer^T♦C 15:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull. Following up on my comments above, the situation has actually got worse. Why is this on the Main Page with three bold links, none of which have an adequate update, and two of which have orange-level BLP tags on them? Sorry, I think we have to pull until there's a suitable article to bold-link. Modest Genius ^talk 16:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull! Indeed, BLP concerns need to be addressed first.--FoxyOrange (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Reword blurb frankly the idea of bold-linking these guys is plain stupid given the current hysteria over updates. Suggest we bold-link the award. Better still, link the List of Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine featured list. And get on with it as soon as possible. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Please suggest any further wording changes that might be helpful. Jehochman^Talk 17:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I've made a brief update to the featured list, I'll look for a couple more sentences (and sources, just to placate the starving nation) in due course. Good swap. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• All the crazy tagging and editing was done after the post. I will reword the blurb and link to the list. Seems like a great solution. Jehochman ^Talk 17:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Fitow

obvious oppose until this proves to be of significant/notable calamity.Lihaas (talk) 10:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- mass evacuation, in itself, is not notable. However, if the storm ends up causing significant damage or casualties, I will be open to reconsider. ← DJ → 00:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. I would disagree that the movement of such a large number of people due to a single event is 'not notable', but I too would like to see the level of damage and casualties it causes before supporting it. 331dot (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 6

---

[Posted] 2013 NRL Grand Final

--Genericchimera (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I added a few more refs, but the update looks solid. Spencer^T♦C 04:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support altblurb - more informative to say "rugby league" than "National Rugby League" when we also say "NRL". Neljack (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who is we? HiLo48 (talk) 11:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The non-definite "we", clearly, an abstract "we", which can also be understood as "Wikipedia" or "the encyclopedia. Neljack's right, repeating National Rugby League as NRL is redundant. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed with Crisco and Neljack.--WaltCip (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted Stephen 05:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mysore Dasara

Nominator's comments: This my first nomination. Please correct it if I have made some errors. Nvvchar (Talk)

• Oppose: As you say, it surely is your first nom at ITN. The ITN blurbs have to be something that make to news globally or at least reach a very large audience. This event will hardly be a big news within all parts of India. Also i doubt the notability of this article i.e. Mysore Dasara 2013. Why do we even have this article? Whats so special of the event than that happened last year or the 400th one that happened in 2010? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you for the nomination. This probably isn't in the news globally. We do need more nominations. Could you look for an event of interest that is appearing in the news in several (or more) countries and nominate it here? Jehochman ^Talk 19:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• This would be good for DYK if it is eligible. μηδείς (talk) 23:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• It might also be of interest to the India Portal, or the appropriate subportal if there is one. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Shouldn't this also go on On This Day? I don't know how that works. Very pretty image, too. μηδείς (talk) 02:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTDs have been always historic events of what has happened on that day. I don't remember seeing anything of what is happening on this day. But i too am not aware of how it works and one might try there. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen plenty of holidays listed there. μηδείς (talk) 03:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes! But for holidays Mysore Dasara, the general one or Vijayadashami, the more general one that is celebrated throughout India would go; not Mysore Dasara 2013. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to forgive me, I am painfully, shamefully, and woefully ignorant of India. μηδείς (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's no big deal. This way you got a extra Did You Know today. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 5

---

[Posted] Anas al-Liby captured

• Support, this is breaking news. Count Iblis (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Capture of a notable al-Qaeda leader.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose We generally don't post arrests, preferring to wait for convictions, and I see no reason to depart from that sound practice here. The altblurb in particular would raise BLP issues, since it could be taken to imply that al-Liby is in fact a terrorist, something our article quite properly refrains from calling him since he hasn't been convicted. Neljack (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this is not a domestic arrest, Al-Liby doesn't deny his role, and this was the biggest attack by al-qaeda prior to 9-11. BLP concerns are satisfied by strict factuality in the blurb. μηδείς (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is not a simple arrest; it was a military operation. I believe we do occasionally post the capture of notable fugitives(he had a $5 million bounty on him) as long as we stick to the facts. 331dot (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Could editors please have a look at the article and the arrest source and beef up that section? The current update is just one sentence. I'm sure we can do better. Jehochman ^Talk 03:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, I remain concerned about the blurb from a BLP standpoint. Could it not be changed to the other blurb, which is also more informative since it specifies what he's been indicted for (I'm sure many people, like me, will be unfamiliar with him and what he's wanted for)? Neljack (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is on the Most Wanted Terrorists list; that's a fact properly sourced. Any reputation problem he's got is caused by that, not by Wikipedia. "Terrorist" is a loaded word, to some degree. If you want to suggest a better alternative, please do! I could post another blurb, but we would need one that is no longer than the alt blurb. The first blurb was just too wordy. Jehochman^Talk 03:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to the fact that he's on the FBI Most Wanted Terrorists List being included in the article, provided it is made clear that this merely means that he has been accused of terrorism, not that he is one. The problem here is that there isn't enough space in the blurb to clarify that. Neljack (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This blurb: "Anas al-Liby, indicted in the 1998 United States embassy bombings, is captured by United States special operations forces near Tripoli, Libya." is concise and avoids terrorist. "Special operations" could probably be left out as well. μηδείς (talk) 04:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that makes this especially notable is that he's on the Most Wanted Terrorists list. If he was just some indited guy being nabbed, that wouldn't really qualify. I don't understand how we can leave out the salient fact and still convey the meaning. Let the discussion continue and I'm sure this particular issue will resolve. For the moment there's sufficient supports to keep it posted until a new consensus develops. Jehochman^Talk 04:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support Medeis's proposed blurb, which addresses the concern about being too wordy. I am mystified about why the Most Wanted List is so notable. Surely his main notability is that he's been indicted in relation to the embassy bombing (a major and high-profile terrorist attack). He's on the Most Wanted List because of that, so his notability in that regard is essentially parasitic on that. I would have thought what he was indicted about was the most important and relevant info to put in the blurb. Neljack (talk) 04:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like Medeis's proposed alternative blurb, trimming "Special operations". To a non-American, the Most Wanted Terrorist list conveys little information and uses a loaded word that I think it would be best to avoid, while indited for a particular bombing is informative and has a more neutral tone. Espresso Addict(talk) 04:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As another non-American, I concur with everything Espresso Addict says - they put it better than I could. Neljack (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have changed the blurb per this discussion. I think "indicted in the 1998 United States embassy bombings" is precise, neutral, and makes clear why the event is so notable. Jehochman ^Talk 13:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Neljack (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Alien life found living in Earth's atmosphere, claims scientist

October 4

---

Recent Deaths: Sergei Belov

Nominator's comments: He was a member of the 1972 Soviet Union basketball team which won gold at the 1972 Summer Olympics over the United States. Also, according to the article about him, "Belov is considered to be one of the best non-American basketball players of all time. He was given the honor of lighting the Olympic Cauldron with the Olympic flame, during the 1980 Summer Olympics opening ceremony, in Moscow. In 1991, FIBA named him the Best FIBA Player Ever." AND "He became the first international player to be inducted into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame on May 11, 1992. He was inducted into the FIBA Hall of Fame in 2007. He was named of the 50 Greatest Euroleague Contributors in 2008." Andise1 (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD pending update and sourcing All sources in this article are in the lead, none are in the body. I do believe the individual's recognitions put him as an important enough member of his profession to post as RD though. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD The intro of the article states that he was named the greatest FIBA player of all time, which along with his gold medal in the most remembered Olympic final puts him in a very small group of notable players who deserve attention.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose RD There are hundreds of men who have been inducted in the Basketball Hall of Fame (including some of the TRUE greats of the game). Are all of them eligible for RD notice? 81.153.74.102 (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • DC#2: "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." Hall of Fame induction would indicate he's important in his field. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, yes then. All of the hundreds of men in the Basketball Hall of Fame (and the thousands of of other athletes in the dozens of other sports halls of fame - not to mention the porn stars in the XRCO Hall of Fame) are eligible for RD notice. That's good to know. 81.153.74.102 (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not really a matter of "eligible". Technically everybody with a biography on Wikipedia is eligible. It's a matter of determining whether there is consensus on a case by case basis. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, professional players were excluded from the Olympics at that time. Being called "one of the best non-American" players means that he is behind some other non-American players, and of course behind hundreds or thousands of North American players. Also, his is not a household name, unlike, say, Nadia Comăneci. Abductive (reasoning) 00:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Comaneci is setting the bar a bit high--she'd deserve a full blurb and then some. μηδείς (talk) 03:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is fallacious reasoning. "X is one of the best Y" is entirely consistent with X being the best Y - it says that X is a member of a class (the other members of which are not specified), but says nothing about which member of the class is the best. Neljack (talk) 04:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my house we say "Nadia Comăneci" all the time, but only very rarely does anybody say "Sergei Belov". Seriously, most RD's are rather obscure. This one doesn't stand out as particularly obscure. If they have a well developed Wikipedia article, that's notability enough to convince me. Jehochman ^Talk 12:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Abductive. 331dot (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Clearly meets DC#2 - named as the greatest FIBA player of all time; was the first non-American to be inducted into the Naismith Hall of Fame. Some people seem to think that only American basketball counts. Neljack (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the opposite argument applies. Would we be describing the greatest amateur American soccer player of the 70's as at the top of the soccer field? Narrowing down the category does not make the nomination any more notable. μηδείς (talk) 04:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• You gotta be impressed in that 1972 Summer Olympics where the Soviets finally beat a team of American college kids after three tries... –HTD 07:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Neljack. Re Medeis, there is a big difference between "best American" and "best non-American" in terms of field - Being the best among ~4.5% of the worlds population or being the best among ~95.5% (present day figures based on List of countries by population). Thryduulf (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The population argument is somewhat off when the US has such a huge proportion of the Basketball playing population--just like it does not have in soccer. μηδείς (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD. The guy is quite notable and was not just a player on the Olympic team, but their leading player. He was chosen to light the cauldron at the 1980 Olympics in Moscow. How many people have been given such an honor? Jehochman ^Talk 21:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not opposed but it should be noted that this claim of the 'best non-American basketball player' is extremely subjective, debatable, and poorly sourced. The main evidence seems to be a FIBA award given in 1991 before a number of European players entered the NBA, some of whom led their teams to NBA championships. Many people would argue that Hakeem Olajuwon (who became a US citizen and represented the US), Patrick Ewing (similar story), Dirk Nowitsky, Oscar Schmitt, and/or Arvidas Sabonis were more notable to name a few. Belov is a relic of sports in a very different era when amateur athletes could be rather notable in their field without playing at the highest professional level. It's very hard to compare his notability to present day athletes. In any case, the article needs work.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Natural death of an athlete is not ITN-worthy. -Zanhe (talk) 04:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted to RD] Vo Nguyen Giap

--Kevin Rutherford (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - notable person.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per BabbaQ.--Paris 16 (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - notable person.--Namnguyenvn (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for RD. The circumstances of the death were not unusual(he was 102) so I am not convinced a blurb is warranted but he clearly is notable enough for RD. (meets the latter half of DC #1). 331dot (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD Only death due to old age -- Ashish-g55 14:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD Dying at age 102 doesn't seem to be worth a full blurb. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD. This is an obituary item. I think full blurbs are for cases where Death and Funeral of... type articles are written (or there are unusual circumstances regarding the death). As regards this article, it looks good, and as long as we trust the unfootnoted references cover the facts of the article we should be OK. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that although the government hasn't officially acknowledged his death yet(!), once they do they will likely announce a state funeral for him. DHN (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD. I would have nominated this if it wasn't already here. Looie496 (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD when better sourced I agree he's notable enough for RD, but not for a blurb. The article is undersourced, though, especially the "Early life" section. I felt I had to orange tag it. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD, per consensus. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Update? I see one line... -- Ashish-g55 16:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull Premature posting. This article doesn't meet quality standards we should be upholding. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • His death is covered here on Wikipedia similarly as in the news articles. The media summarize mainly his career in the Vietnamese military, rather than his long-term stay in a hospital and details about his death. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • And all the unsourced text? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not only FA's are allowed to be placed on the main page. Wikipedia is a work in progress, feel free to improve the article. Up to this moment, you notified others about your opinion by adding {{refimprove}} tag. 9 editors supported posting of the article. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Supports are for inclusion in ITN but they are all technically "Support pending update". Its implied in all supports since there is no point mentioning that over and over again. Please check article before posting. Thanks -- Ashish-g55 17:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict)x2 There is (or should be?) a minimum standard that articles that have or merit orange tags shouldn't be on the front page. This article is woefully undersourced and you could have used your discretion on that. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull and Desysop the "admin" who posted this with no update. If admins can't read the guidelines they don't need to be throwing their weight around. μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing side discussion. SpencerT♦C 06:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It looks to me like you are complaining about the lack of an update and as evidence linking to the update. Huh? Looie496 (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] Calm down Medeis, if you want to desysop an admin, actually do something about it rather than bitch here. Don't make hollow threats. Worse still is your utter lie that "no update" was made. It was clearly updated, per your own diff, to reflect the death. Sure, a single-sentence update is poor, but this guy has been borderline for years, there's not much more to report. More importantly is the maintenance tag added, that's a genuine issue that really should be fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] My apologies, that was premature of me. Kind of like posting this in four hours. But somebody does need to read "updates that convey little or no relevant information beyond what is stated in the ITN blurb are insufficient." That someone has died is an explicitly insufficient update for someone whom we are going to list as having died. μηδείς (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] About time we started judging every nomination on its merits rather than apply some arbitrary "update". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] if the news only required one liner then perhaps its not for ITN as that makes it a news item which isnt really the goal of wikipedia or ITN -- Ashish-g55 19:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] Perhaps you're unaware of RD. You'd probably prefer two or three lines of inconsequential guff to meet the current nonsense arbitrary criteria for an update. I'm not surprised. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] I dont agree with current criteria and have supported small updates for nobel prizes. However if person was important enough then almost always their death would cause enough of a reaction to have a decent sized update. I dont even like RD and have fought for lower death items on ITN for many many years now. But since we have RD now i would rather not make it worse by lowering even the update criteria. I dont necessarily appreciate your tone but being here forever i know when to drop the stick -- Ashish-g55 20:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] Yep, time to move along. You and I have been here plenty long enough to realise that you need to step away from this. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've replaced the orange {{ref improve}} tag with the yellow {{More footnotes}} which better reflects the problem with the refs. (the latter was hiding down in the references section) --LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've made an update to this article myself but there's more to be done which I don't have the time or inclination to do, but I've mentioned some of the things that need doing in the Talk page, in case anybody is interested in doing them. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for useful observations. I have verified some claims and added missing citations. Further discussions about the article's content belong on its talk page. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• post-posting support. He was a clearly notable person, but his death wasn't noteworthy beyond the fact that it happened so a more significant addition would have been UNDUE. Thryduulf (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 3

---

[Posted] 2013 Mediterranean Sea migrant shipwreck

Nominator's comments: Believed to be over 500 on-board, around 120 survivors so far... another immigration tragedy. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Large ship sinkings are uncommon events; significant casualties, getting decent coverage. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per TRM and 331dot. Neljack (talk) 10:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle. Large tragedy which is related to illegal immigration/asylum, a hot political theme. But the article needs expansion. Iselilja (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per 331dot. Quite an unusual event with significantly large death toll. I'm not sure if the article can be accepted on its actual size, however. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 14:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose until article is expanded beyond stub state, only after that point could you consider this a support. --Jayron32 15:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, we've said pretty much all that can be said. What's missing? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The cause of the sinking is very vague right now. "The boat caught fire and sank." basically summarizes what happened in the article. Furthermore, the article doesn't really have a lot of information about the migrants themselves. It says they were all from Libya, which contradicts a BBC story that says most of them are from Eritrea and Somalia. I'll see if I can add this information to the article. Spencer^T♦C 18:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes it's vague, there's not much information still. Many ships that catch fire sink. Finally, no, the article says the ship sailed from Libya, not the immigrants were from Libya. Please read more carefully. Having said all that, don't worry, let's wait a few days for to be Not In The News. The facts, as known, are all there, the claims are sourced, your claim is false, there's not much more to add. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • According to Radio 4, the people on board lit a fire draw the attention of other ships, which got out of control and just made things worse. Formerip (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sounds likely, but we'd need to be able to reference it here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I already included that in the article, and it's confirmed in the BBC and NYT sources linked there. Spencer^T♦C 20:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well done you and your lengthy signature! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Article is way too small with not too much information to be linked to main page right now and it may not get any better. So Support iff the article improves -- Ashish-g55 19:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, "may not get any better", please link me to your shiny ball... Alternatively, suggest improvements. Over 130 people have died in a shipwreck off the coast of Italy, are you kidding that this isn't ITN?!! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jeez Do you even read the comments? i supported it. -- Ashish-g55 19:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No you didn't, you supported it "iff the article improves". Jeez! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • After the hoopla you created over Emmy's about article quality are you seriously saying we should post things before article is upto standard? -- Ashish-g55 19:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would first ask for correct English, secondly I'd suggest the arbitrary updates are nonsense (particularly lists of winners) and thirdly, get over it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - unusal event. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, although, the blurb should be updated so that it makes grammatical sense: "At least 134 migrants a (sic) killed". I know that instances in 2009 and 2011 were named similarly, but is it possible to get the name of the ship or the international identification number so that the title can be less vague? ← DJ → 20:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Unusual event, and certainly in the news. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Migrants? is rather vague, can we get a more specific description for the blurb? μηδείς (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As vague as your previous comment? No, migrants is the term used in all reliable sources. If you can suggest a better term, please do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Previous comment? μηδείς (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, you failed to complete your previous sentence, we had a tiny edit conflict, people may talk. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I have offered a much more informative altblurp for our non-EU readers. μηδείς (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • What is a blurp? Is like an agitated blurb? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Anyway I don't think refugee is correct word here, refugee is someone who was persecuted in their country of origin or fleeing war. Most articles about this accident don't make that definition, so I think migrant is better. SeraV (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • The dead are described as women and children fleeing Somalia and Eritrea and asylum seekers from Libya. That's the definition of refugee. Migrants are people crossing the border temporarily for work or herding or such. Frankly, migrant here is a despicable euphemism meant to make stomachable a very ugly situation, and it's a disservice to our readers to euphemise. μηδείς (talk) 00:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Ready this is updated and supported. μηδείς (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think article is not ready for front page. Perhaps it can be merged into another article or something but as a standalone article it does not look good. However i wont remove the ready mark and let admin decide -- Ashish-g55 00:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand specific objections, but there is an explicit requirement that new articles have at least three full paragraphs, which this one meets. Of course three small paragraphs is not a "great article". But the criterion is, actually, three paragraphs. μηδείς (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - In the news, could use some work, but still an unusual event. ZappaOMati 22:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. I used "migrants" because that's the word the sources used. Jehochman ^Talk 01:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (a) "migrant" is the term used in reliable sources so that's what we use here, it's far from "despicable", it's accurate. (b) many people here saying "the article needs work" or expansion, but no-one suggesting how that's supposed to happen (or doing it themselves). Very helpful people, very helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Traveller and passenger, or people, or untrained swimmers would also not be false, but they are far from informative. The word is a despicable euphemism, meant to avoid the fact they are both helpless refugees and illegal aliens, neither of which reality make some very uncomfortable. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Ignore the Bomb Throwers Jehochman ^Talk 12:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] The Gambia withdraws from the Commonwealth

Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. A nation leaving any international organization seems to be noteworthy. Receiving coverage in many nations. It has been slow in ITN recently(not a reason to post in and of itself, but...) 331dot (talk) 09:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when updated. Formerip (talk) 09:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Pretty rare for a country to leave a major international organisation. Neljack (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - a country leaving or being banned from an organisation such as the British Commonwealth should probably be ITN/R territory. Mjroots (talk) 11:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As this is of special interest to most of our readers (most of the world's native English-speaking population live in countries of the former British empire, heritage of which the Commonwealth represents.) --hydrox (talk) 11:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Is this withdrawal effective immediately? --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Apparently so. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The link should go to Commonwealth of Nations, and perhaps some more context can be added to the blurb so that those of us not in the Commonwealth are aware of what it means without having to click on the link. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And a blurb to explain what "The Gambia" is too, so those of us not in The Gambia are aware of what it means without having to click on the link...? Lugnuts^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page itself is "Commonwealth of Nations", so the link should go there as opposed to the redirect. It's a vague term, all I'm saying. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes! Less competition for Canada at the 2015 Commonwealth Games! Resolute 18:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per almost everyone who has supported this above. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support—with further clarification about the status of The Gambia and the Commonwealth of Nations per Lugnuts and Muboshgu; perhaps, also a further clarification about the reasoning as to why The Gambia decided to leave the Commonwealth. ← DJ → 20:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both linked articles have a single sentence update. This is a reasonably big deal, so I'd expect a little more than just that, in both cases. Support the story. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it! HiLo48 (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Country leaving the Commonwealth is significant. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• What happens if a country leaves the Commonwealth, aside from Canadians no longer have to compete with them at the Commonwealth games? No more financial aid? No more ice hockey exchange programs? What? Is that mentioned anywhere in the linked articles? –HTD 03:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Commonwealth page states "Member states have no legal obligation one to another, instead they are united by language, history and culture, and their shared values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. These values are enshrined in the Commonwealth Charter and promoted by the quadrennial Commonwealth Games." Some nations also want to establish European-Union like policies such as a free trade area. So basically, aside from not participating in the Games the effect is largely not participating in any decisions made by the group, which can include attempts to influence The Gambia's behavior(such as suspending them for not being Democratic or certain policies). 331dot (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Inquiry Is this a long-term decision taken by al factions, or is it a temporary partisan arrangement like Senegambia? μηδείς (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Why hasn't this been posted? HiLo48 (talk) 09:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Jehochman ^Talk 12:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting support - Despite the thin update as of this writing, I'm supporting the inclusion of the blurb on the ITN box on the front page. The article is in fine shape itself but I'd like to see a bit more added to the update as to why Gambia's leaders took the stance that the Commonwealth is "neo-colonialist." I would look into it myself but this is the first time in days I have had a chance to even glance at Wikipedia, and time constraints rule my life at present. To sum up: Good ITN candidate, please expand update, do not pull now that it is up. Jusdafax 17:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2

---

[Posted to RD] Tom Clancy

Nominator's comments: Someone clearly notable in the field of writing. Well-known best seller and recognized for his work. Article has been updated with basic death info but might need more details. --331dot (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support One of the most well-known in his field. Ryan Vesey 14:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, along with John le Carré and Ian Fleming, one of the biggest names in spy novelists. Also, died at 66, which is rather young. Abductive (reasoning) 15:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but think he should get an actual blurb. Best selling novel of the 1980s, one of the authors to have first print of book exceed 2 millions, 4 box off successes based on his numerous books, tv series, co-owner of the Baltimore Orioles Major League Baseball team.50.201.228.200 (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point we don't even know what he died from. Abductive (reasoning) 15:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why would knowing cause of death be needed? The blurb could be something along the lines of "Tom Clancy the author of numerous books, movies, and co-owner of the Baltimore Orioles dies at the age of 66" Or "Tom Clancy the author of numerous books and movies including 'The Hunt For Red October,' 'Patriot Games,' 'Clear and Present Danger' died at a Baltimore area hospital."38.100.76.235 (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC){Full disclosure: I am the author of both comments by the IPs, it seems to change from moment to moment.}50.201.228.200 (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very important in his field. Might even deserve a full blurb. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• support blurb One of the few writers that deserve it. Known worldwide and made more famous by the chain of video games like Ghost recon and Splinter Cell and many movies as well. I would put him up there with Stan Lee (ok maybe a step below) but i think he deserves a blurb. -- Ashish-g55 15:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD (only) as above, but the bar for blurbs (blurps?) is very high - this is an obituary item. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel like this is slightly more than an obituary item. It was featured on the front page of the New York Times. With that in mind, I'd like a full blurb, but am neutral on it. Ryan Vesey 18:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD, oppose blurb ('blurp' isn't a word). Significant and well-known author, so suitable for an RD listing, but the death itself does not have the impact required for a full blurb. Modest Genius ^talk 16:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD obviously notable enough for RD. As for a blurb, as much as I personally would like to see it happen, my wiki- conscious is saying no...--Somchai Sun (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD Per others; only really because the bar for the a blurb is high. Miyagawa (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose full blurp, that's only necessary if he means of death itself was notable, like a ricin poisoning--otherwise obvious top of field for RD. μηδείς (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a rationale for a full blurb, rather than just a support vote? μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD but oppose blurb. I support this only because of the distinctiveness in his works that sets him apart of numerous other writers and puts him in place alongside very few others mastering in spy novels. However, the claims that he was one of the greatest contemporary writers or one who was extremely popular at the time of his death are false. Frankly, he's simply not comparable to Márquez, Eco, Murakami or Rushdie, and his time has already gone in the 1990s. Since then, his works do not enjoy the same level of popularity at the time of his peak.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be applying some odd elitist criterion, Kiril. Of what relevance is the fact that Clancy's biggest hits were in the 80's? To say that matters is WP:RECENTISM. Rushdie's work is simply unreadable, and has never sold well. By Ecco, do you mean Eco? μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why an elitist criterion? It's nothing else than only a reflection of my own opinion. I can easily recognise some of his works from the 1980s and early 1990s but almost none of those published later on. The same, of course, ought not to apply for others.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD Read the books, seen the films and played the video games. One of the best known writers of recent times. Donnie Park (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I would humbly submit that there is a clear consensus to post this to RD, and kindly ask that it be done. Personally I don't support a blurb, but discussion of that can continue if desired. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Ready I think the two-line update is sufficient to mark this ready.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It will obviously be posted but thee is no update YET other than the fact that he died on X and without reason and where. Thats 1 line. (and its not an obituary that needs mention of who is survivng and what is th e age (its on the infobox))Lihaas (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I won't repeat my concern that if we are going to lower the bar we should do so officially rather than cheat when it appeals to us to do so. But that he died of unknown causes is in no way an actual update, which requires more than is said in the blurb per the actual guidelines. Surely we can have two quotes frm other writers about how he influenced them, or how the major sources reacted on his death. μηδείς (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few details I found in the NYTimes obit - specifically his best-selling status, and how Hunt launched his career. --MASEM (t) 20:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD; Oppose blurb Bar for a blurb should be higher than mere sales and popularity, even on this scale. Jheald (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD Oppose blurb. Gamaliel (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Marked Ready only two sentences in the death section, but quite a bit of actual update as of here, and no one cares much about the written guidelines any more. μηδείς (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What are the guidelines for RD anyways? Ryan Vesey 21:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Poorly defined, mostly. Modest Genius ^talk 21:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly; and I think he wants a link. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines are just that, guidelines, not commandments written in stone. 331dot (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• support RD--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb, support RD I have to agree with Kiril that Clancy's importance is being overstated. He never won a major literary award. I see no evidence that he had much impact on literature outside of his narrow genre of spy thrillers. He was one of the most popular authors of recent times, but that's not the same thing at being one of the most important and influential. Neljack (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hint: major literary awards have not been for authors people actually read since well over a century ago. μηδείς (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you don't read them, but others do. Neljack (talk) 03:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite as many as read Clancy. (I've read Eco, but not Ecco.) In any case, we both think RD is good enough or him, no? μηδείς (talk) 04:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read "Eco" as well and The Name of the Rose in a language different than English is on my desk. Your sneaky offence on the grounds of the typos that others make is not welcome here.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted to RD Stephen 23:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 1

---