위키백과:뉴스/후보/2015년 10월

Wikipedia:

이 페이지는 보관소로서 그 내용은 현재 형태로 보존되어야 한다.
이 페이지에 대한 모든 코멘트는 위키백과 토크로 향해야 한다.뉴스에서.고마워요.

10월 31일


[포스팅] 2015년 브리더스컵

기사:2015년 브리더스컵(토크 · 히스토리 · 태그)
흐림:2015 브리더스컵 우승브라이더스컵 클래식에서 아메리칸 파로아의 우승으로 미국 경마 사상 첫 '그랜드슬램'을 장식했다.(우편)
대체 블럽:2015년 브라이더스컵 우승으로 미국 경마 사상 첫 그랜드슬램을 달성했다.
대체 블러브 II:브라이더스컵 클래식에서 2015 브리더스컵 우승으로 미국 경마 사상 첫 그랜드슬램을 달성했다.
대체 블러브 III:트리플 크라운 우승자 아메리칸 파로아가 브리더스컵 클래식에서 우승한 후 은퇴하며 역사상 처음으로 달력 해 '그랜드 슬램'을 수상했다.
뉴스 출처:ESPN, 뉴욕타임스, AP통신
크레딧:

기사 업데이트됨

명명자의 의견:경주마가 이 4종 세트(트리플 크라운+클래식) 몬타나브 00(talk):06, 2015년 11월 1일(UTC)에서 우승한 것은 사상 최초다.

  • 미안함을 반대해, 의미를 보지 못했어.미국의 Pharoah는 단지 ITN에만 있었던 것이 아니라 지난 6개월 동안 세 번이나 여기에 왔다.트리플 크라운이 정말 대단한 업적이긴 했지만, 나는 뉴스 출처나 기사에서와 같은 감각을 얻고 있지 않다.게시해야 한다는 의견이 있었다고 해도, 그 기사는 주요 경기 요약을 통해 적절한 업데이트를 제공하지 못한다.푸에베이 (토크) 00:29, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
이를 관점으로 볼 때, 그는 오늘 킨랜드 트랙 기록을 5초 이상 경신했다.브리더스 컵은 나이든 말들과 겨루어진다."그랜드 슬램"은 유산을 정의하는 것으로 전례 없는 업적이다.베수비우스 독(토크) 01:27, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
  • 지원 극히 예외적인 말과 첫 번째 성취.기사 내용이 기차 사고, 비행기 사고, 시장에서 작은 할머니들을 폭파하는 것에 관한 것이 아니라는 이유만으로 ITN으로부터 불이익을 받아서는 안 된다.67.141.21.139(대화기여) 01:21, 2015년 11월 1일(UTC)에 의해 추가된 이전의 부호 없는 의견
  • DYK 재료 – "최초"는 스포츠와 관련하여 ITN에 거의 고려되지 않으며 DYK에서 더 적합하다.이벤트 자체는 WP에 포함되지 않는다.ITN/R#호스 경주 하지만 나는 경마에 대해 아는 것이 거의 없다는 것을 제출할 것이다.행사 자체에 대한 공신력이 확립된다면 어떻게 투표해야 할지 더 잘 알 수 있을 것이다.~ 사이클론비스키트() 01:27, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
    • 사이클론비스키트, ITN/R에 브리더스컵 클래식을 추가하는 것에 대해 오랜 논의를 했는데, 너무 많은 미국 경마를 만들게 된다는 불만이 제기되었고, 일반적으로 나열되는 경마가 너무 많다는 주장도 있었다.그건 그냥 FYI야.몬타나베(talk) 06:04, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
브라이더스컵 클래식은 미국 러버브레드 경주에서 가장지갑이자 세계에서 네 번째로 큰 지갑이다.미국 파로아가 2015년 말 은퇴를 앞두고 있는 상황에서, 이것은 그를 더 나이가 많고 경험이 많은 분야와 겨룰 수 있는 유일한 기회였다.그리고 그는 그들을 박살냈다.베수비우스 독(토크) 02:22, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
에서 설명한 약한 지원.~ 사이클론비스키트() 03:10, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
  • 취약한 지원:의미 있어 보인다.경마 전문가가 아니기 때문에 진정한 의미에 대한 업데이트를 더 보고 싶다. -쿠즈1 (토크) 03:07, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
  • 지지하다.의심할 여지 없이 미국의 파로아는 사무국이나 바다 비스킷처럼 수십 년 후에 기억되는 일생에 한 번 있는 천재들 중 하나가 될 것이다.그것은 그들이 여러 번 나타날 수도 있다는 것을 의미한다.브라이더스컵 우승자가 아니라면 ITN/R이 되어야 한다고 생각한다.이 경마에서 우승하면 기사 1면 자체 가치가 있다. - Tlön의 Smerdis - 2003년 이후 인간의 정신을 죽인다! 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
  • 기사는 준비되지 않았다 - 그랜드 슬램 측면에 대한 언급 이외에는 경주의 결과에 대한 어떠한 산문도 없다.이는 업데이트에 충분하지 않다. --MASEM (t) 05:38, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
방금 네 코멘트 전에 알았어.나는 지금 그것을 표시하지 않고 있다.조지 "Happy Hallowlor!" (BOO!) 05:42, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
헷갈려.미국 파로아 말하는 거야?이 특집 기사의 레드가 업데이트되었고, 오늘의 브리더스컵 우승을 다룬 새로운 "그랜드 슬램" 섹션이 있다.나머지 세 개의 트리플 크라운 레이스가 자세히 설명되어 있다.뭐가 더 필요한데?베수비우스 독(토크) 05:50, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
(아니, @Vesuvius Dogg:2015년 브리더스컵을 말하는 것 같아. 그게 바로 뻔뻔한 기사야...파로아가 3관왕을 차지했을 때 ITN으로 뽑혔다.)
만약 우리가 브라이더 컵을 타겟 기사로 삼고 있다면 (그리고 그렇지 않더라도 우리는 암과 함께 갈 것이다.파라오), 산문에는 실제 업데이트가 거의 없다. --MASEM (t) 06:01, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
@Masem: 우리는 불과 일주일 전에 만들어진 2015 브리더스 컵으로 간다. 위의 제 코멘트(각각 13개 경주, 별도 기사 포함)에 따라 무엇이 필요한지 명확히 해주시겠습니까?방금 산문을 조금 더 추가했는데, 이제 좀 나아졌나?몬타나베(talk) 07:02, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
그래.참고로 우리는 ITN 기사에서 초품질을 찾는 것이 아니라 업데이트가 있다는 것만으로 경주가 끝났기 때문에 결과표 이상의 것이 필요하고 당신이 추가한 산문의 몇 파라도 정확하게 충분하다. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
  • 약한 지지 - 나는 경마에 대해 잘 모르기 때문에 이것이 얼마나 중요한지 잘 모르겠다.하지만, 내가 읽은 것은 그것이 중요하고 ITN 자료일 가능성이 있다는 것을 암시한다.키위128 (대화) 09:15, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
  • 지지 - 이 승리는 미국 파로아를 역사상 가장 위대한 말의 아주 짧은 명단에 올려놓는다.예를 들어 이 칼럼니스트 [1]은 토요일의 승리에 이어 그를 '불굴의'와 '마운트 러시모어' 말이라고 부른다. --SubSeven (대화) 18:39, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
  • 간단한 글귀와 함께 게시되었다.The Rambling Man (talk) 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC) 19:32, 1:3일
  • WTF는 미국 경마에서 "그랜드슬램"이라고?네르가알 (대화) 20:43, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
이것은 단지 2015년에 발명된 용어인가?네르가알 (대화) 23:14, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
@Nergaal:흥미로운 질문이야.내가 알기로는 이 용어는 파로아가 트리플 크라운에서 우승한 지 하루 뒤인 2015년 6월 7일 밥 에할트가 영향력 있는 ESPN 레이싱 블로그에 올린 글에서 처음 전파됐다.돌이켜보면 '그랜드 슬램'이 브리더스컵/키엔랜드 홍보팀의 발명품이라고 주장할 수도 있다.파로아가 은퇴를 연기하라는 수사적인 유인책으로서, 그 시점에서 풀 시즌 경주를 계속할 것이라는 것은 결코 확실하지 않았기 때문에, 그것은 효과가 있었다.파라오가 몇 달 후(8월 2일) 하스켈에서 경주를 할 때쯤에는 NBC 텔레비전 해설가들에 의해 무심코 사용되고 있었는데, 그것은 앞으로 다가올 위대한 일들에 대한 약속이었다.아마도 "그랜드 슬램"은 그 나름의 냉소적인 기사를 쓸 만할지 모르지만, 그가 그렇게 쉽게 승리하고 킨랜드 코스 기록을 깨는 것을 본 지 하루 만에, 나는 충분히 냉소적이지 않다.Vesuvius Dogg (대화) 00:04, 2015년 11월 2일 (UTC
이 항목이 ITN에 포함되어야 하는 것과 상관없이 그랜드 슬램은 NEED가 설명하는 전문 용어다(즉, 어떤 종류의 위키링킹).네르가알 (대화) 01:06, 2015년 11월 2일 (UTC)
나는 그랜드 슬램(경주)을 만들자는 아이디어에 개방적이지만 (영국에는 이미 내셔널 헌트 레이싱에 대한 것이 하나 존재하기 때문에) 우리가 정의 이상의 것을 가지고 있는지는 확실하지 않다.생각?몬타나브(talk) 01:32, 2015년 11월 2일 (UTC)
우리가 어떻게든 에할트의 첫 번째 용법을 확인할 수 있다면, 어떻게 해야 할까?—우리는 fhe 기사의 배아를 가지고 있을 것이다.우리는 그가 빠르면 6월 7일에 그것을 사용했다고 확실히 믿을 수 있다.8월 초 구글링할 때 그의 용법이 처음 눈에 띄었다.우리는 그랜드 슬램의 "보행성 스포츠" 섹션에서 두 가지 다른 방법(콜트와 충수)을 정의하고 있다.베수비우스 독(토크) 02:23, 2015년 11월 2일 (UTC)
  • 코멘트 나는 이것이 게시되는 것을 지지하지만 나는 무엇이 일어났는지에 대한 간략한 설명이 되어야 한다고 생각한다.나는 "트리플 크라운 우승자 아메리칸 파로아가 브리더스 컵 클래식에서 우승하여 4개 경주에서 모두 우승한 첫 번째 말이 된다"고 제안할 수도 있다.논쟁의 여지가 있는 용어를 피하는 것 외에도, "4개, 단 4개" 경주 우승자를 명시함으로써 모호성을 제거한다. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 05:26, 2015년 11월 2일 (UTC)

[포스팅] 2015년 럭비 월드컵 결승전

기사:2015 럭비 월드컵 결승전(토크 · 역사 · 태그), 2015 럭비 월드컵(토크 · 역사 · 태그)
흐림:2015 럭비 월드컵뉴질랜드가 결승에서 호주를 34-17로 꺾고 월드컵 역사상 가장 높은 점수를 받는 것으로 막을 내린다.(우편)
대체 블럽:2015 럭비 월드컵은 결승전에서 뉴질랜드34-17로 꺾고 막을 내린다.뉴질랜드는 럭비 월드컵에서 3승으로 가장 성공한 팀이 된다.
대체 블러브 II:럭비 유니온에서는 2015 럭비 월드컵결승전에서 뉴질랜드호주를 꺾으면서 막을 내린다.
뉴스 출처:The Guardian - 라이브 스레드, BBC Sport, The Telegraph(추가될 소스)
크레딧:

지명된 하나 또는 두 개의 이벤트가 WP에 나열되어 있다.ITN/R, 따라서 각각의 발생은 게시할 수 있을 만큼 충분히 중요한 것으로 추정된다.논평은 기사와 업데이트의 품질이 WP를 충족하는지 여부에 초점을 맞추어야 한다.중요성이 아니라 ITNCRIT.

2015년 10월 31일(UTC) 17:53, SounderBruce 17:53, 31

  • 합리적인 길이의 산문 일치 시놉시스가 작성되지 않으면 반대한다.완료되는 순간, 이를 전폭적인 지원으로 간주한다. --Jayron32 18:50, 2015년 10월 31일(UTC)
  • 나는 그것이 가장 높은 점수를 받은 결승전이었다는 것을 언급할 필요가 없다고 생각한다.넬잭 (대화) 2015년 10월 31일 19:26, (UTC)
  • 실망스러운 결과에도 불구하고 지지하라.아마도 올 블랙스는 이제 월드컵 역사상 가장 성공적인 팀이라는 것을 언급해야 할 것이다.자본가 로드스터 (토크) 21:49, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • 코멘트 추가 altblurb.ITN/R에 있으니 업데이트만 하면 된다.일치 요약을 추가하면 우리가 이것을 게시할 수 있다.푸에베이 (토크) 22:04, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • 노트 기사에는 일치 요약이 있으므로 추가해야 한다.자본주의 로드스터 (대화) 06:23, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
  • 약한 지지 – 호주가 얼마나 자주 그랬는지 모르겠다.뉴질랜드 럭비 경쟁은 그렇지만 나는 다른 나라가 성공하기를 바랐다.그것은 연례 대회의 재발에 영향을 미치지 않을 것이다.조지 "Happy 할로윈! (BOO!)" 06:58, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
  • Comment Alt Blurb 2는 괜찮다.최고 득점이나 가장 성공적인 팀은 말할 필요가 없다.AIRcon(토크)
  • 지지 - 이것은 주목할 만한 스포츠 업적이다.그 컵은 TV시청자도 많기 때문에 많은 관람객들이 관심을 가질 만한 행사다. (그렇다고 하면, 나는 뉴질랜드 사람이라니까, 내 지지를 조금이나마 받아볼 수도 있겠다.)키위128 (대화) 09:13, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
  • 합리적으로 소싱된 일치 요약이 추가되었으므로 ITN/R로 지원하십시오.Alt 2 blurb는 ITN의 스포츠 토너먼트에 대한 일반적인 표준이다. --Bcp67 (토크) 09:40, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
  • 지원 alt 2.결과를 게시해, 과장님이 아니라.2015년 11월 1일 14:30(UTC)
  • 아직 참고해야 할 몇 가지 사항을 올렸으나 기말고사 업데이트는 괜찮다.The Rambling Man (talk) 2015년 11월 1일 19:15 (UTC)

[폐쇄] 최소 9년 만에 이만한 크기의 소행성들

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

Proposed image
기사:2015 TB145(대화 · 이력 · 태그)
흐림: 흐림이 지정되지 않음(우체)
뉴스 출처:http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?
크레딧:
불과 우리가 1.달 거리 이고, 이 한 불과 3주 전만 해도 우리가 몰랐던 이 물체는 1.25 달 거리 내에 도달하게 될 것이고 직접적인 타격은 "세계의 모든 핵폭탄이 한 곳에서 동시에 터지는 것"을 훨씬 넘어섰을 것이다.이 불덩어리는 270km의 원 안에 있는 나무에 불을 붙일 정도로 뜨거웠을 것이다; 45마일 떨어진 곳에서는 0.185초 만에 51개의 태양빛을 얻었을 것이고, 그 다음엔 나무가 불을 붙였을 것이고, 그 다음엔 진도 7.4의 지진이 일어났을 것이고, 그 다음엔 가벼운 볼링 공의 무게를 바위에 비가 내릴 것이다.IDK), 그러면 인간의 팔다리를 떼어낼 정도의 과압과 301mph의 바람(역대 최악의 토네이도)이 있을 것이다.


이것은 우리가 2027년에서 2006년 사이 또는 심지어 1925년 사이에 알고 있는 가장 가까운 물체다.넓이는 0.6km이고 3세기 만에 지구 '영향력의 샛길'로 진입한 물체 중 가장 빠르다.(1900~2200명 이상에 해당하는 리스트를 찾을 수 없다.AD. 1927년에서 2029년 사이에 잠재적으로 위험한 물체 중 가장 빠른 각 운동을 할 것이다.과학자들은 지구로부터 소행성의 가장 높은 해상도의 이미지를 얻을 기회를 사용할 것이다.


또 할로윈에도 있어, 죽은 혜성일 가능성이 높으며, 마치 해골Sagittarian Milky Way (토크) 12:26, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)

반대 이것은 DYK로서 훨씬 더 적합해 보이며, NASA가 어떤 잠재적 영향 측면도 흐리지만, ITN --MASEM (t) 14:05, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)에 포함되도록 정당화하기는 어렵다.
충격의 발견 후 며칠이 지나도 150 시그마(시그마)는 불가능했다.그것은 2350이나 마이너스 2150의 아이큐를 가진 사람(완벽한 종 곡선이었다면 그렇지 않다)과 같은 것일 것이다.NASA는 사다리나 행상인들이 이미 너무 많이 하고 있고 그들은 사실 CEO나 FIFA, 마케터나 정치인이나 변호사와는 달리 정확하게 말하는 정직한 사람들이기 때문에 잠재적 영향 위험을 감수할 필요가 없다.또 오차 타원은 폭 3km(레이더 덕택)로 10만분의 한 부분보다 잘 지워지는 정도를 알고 있다.앞으로 수십년 동안 100만분의 1의 영향 확률로 더 많은 데이터를 얻으면 0으로 줄어들 겁니다.만약 실제로 부딪힐 가능성이 있다면 우리는 그 위치를 지금 최악의 경우 3km까지 고정시켰을 것이고 아마도 그것에 대해 아무것도 할 시간이 없었을 것이다.궁수자리 은하수 (토크) 14:52, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • 반대 – Per Masem.대부분의 사람들에게, 비이벤트.Sca (대화) 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC) 15:24
  • 이것을 지지하라(그리고 우리가 백과사전이라는 사실)는 관련 진술이다: "이것은 우리가 2027년에서 2006년 사이 또는 심지어 1925년 사이에 알고 있는 이 정도 크기의 가장 가까운 물체다.넓이는 0.6km이고 3세기 만에 지구 '영향력의 샛길'로 진입한 물체 중 가장 빠르다.(1900~2200명 이상에 해당하는 리스트를 찾을 수 없다.AD. 1927년에서 2029년 사이에 잠재적으로 위험한 물체 중 가장 빠른 각 운동을 할 것이다.그 기사는 상태가 양호하며, 나는 솔직히 사람들이 이 물체가 지구에 부딪히지 않을 것이기 때문에 ITN이 가치가 없다고 생각하는 것에 놀랐다.μΔείςς (talk) 15:29, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • 반대 나는 왜 몇몇이 이것을 흥미롭게 생각하는지 알 수 있고, 나는 왜 다른 사람들이 미쳐가는지 알 수 있다.비교적 크지만 실제로는 그렇게 가깝지는 않다.(달의 거리 <1>을 생각해 보라.)어떤 단계에서도 AFAICT라는 물체가 토리노 스케일의 루틴 1 위에 있지 않다. -- KTC (토크) 16:08, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
    • 어떤 사람들은 계량기를 태양계 속도가 얼마나 강력한지 깨닫지 못하는 비교적 큰 원인으로 생각하지 않을 것이다. 그러나 실제로 타격과 관련된 것은 ITN에 관련되거나 필요하지 않다. 왜냐하면 그들은 매우 낮은 확률의 사건이기 때문이다.지구 물체 근처에 있는 외계 행성과 우주론 형태의 것들은 천문학에서 현재 가장 큰 연구 분야 중 하나이며, 때때로 그것들은 작고 푸른 점보다 그 이상의 것에 대한 인간 지식의 추가로서 게시된다.그리고 분해능을 두 배로 높이는 것이 나머지 것 중에서 가장 덜 중요한 것처럼 보인다(전자공학은 항상 발전한다).그래서 나는 메디스의 평가에 동의한다.달 너머에 있는 것도 아니다.달이 지구에서 멀리 있을 때 1.2배만 더 가면 된다.(지구보다 에서 0.74의 거리를 지나갔지만 언급할 만큼 중요한 것은 아니라고 생각했다.궁수자리 은하수 (토크) 17:25, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • 비 해프닝 게시 반대, DYK. 331dot (대화) 22:30, 2015년 10월 31일(UTC)
    • 그럼 우리가 망하면 '지지'만 되는 거네?야구 벅스 당근→ 00:40, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
      • 우리가 망하면 반드시 지지가 될 것이라고 말하는 것이 더 정확할 것이다.;) 상황의 다른 측면은 관측 가능성과 같이 ITN에 더 적합하게 만들 수 있었다.키위128 (대화) 09:26, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
  • 약한 지지 – 후보 지명에서 선정적인 논평을 하는 것은 차치하고라도 소행성은 우리가 흔히 볼 수 있는 것이 아니다.그것은 ITN과 DYK의 경계에 있는 어두운 지역에 있지만, 언론의 관심을 고려할 때 나는 이것을 보여 주는 데 아무런 해가 없다고 본다.~ 사이클론비스킷() 00:44, 2015년 11월 1일(UTC)
  • 반대: 위키피디아는 그 자체에 대한 언급이 아니다.그리고 이 소행성은 꽤 멀리 지나가고 있다. -쿠즈1 (토크) 00:49, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
천문학 표준에 의해 근접한 것이다(NASA의 근접 접근 목록에는 5, 10, ~20, ~40, ~80, ~120, ~200개의 달 거리 최대치(지구와 화성의 궤도는 평균 205개의 달 거리 간격)만 표시되도록 설정될 수 있으며, TB가 10년에 약 두 번 발생하는 것처럼 보이는 1.266 LD에 불과했더라도 말이다).2006년도의 밝기만이 알려져 있기 때문에 TB는 2006년 보다 확실히 더 클 가능성이 높기 때문에 그렇게 흐릿할 수는 없었다.내가 위키피디아에 필요한 별표를 가지고 비교하는 것을 제안하지 않은 것은 상대적인 빈도수를 말할 수 있는 모든 방법들 중에서, 그것은 믿을 수 없을 정도로 상상력이 부족하고 배꼽을 응시하는 것일 것이다.궁수자리 은하수 (토크) 01:58, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
  • 반대 - 이런 종류의 일은 나에게 큰 흥미가 있지만, 대부분의 방문객들에게 관련성이 없기 때문에 ITN 자료라고 생각하지 않는다.대부분의 사람들은 그것을 보지 못했을 것 같다(관찰은 분명히 상당히 어려웠으며), 그것은 전혀 위협이 되지 않았다.그러나 DYK 소재는 훌륭할 것이다.키위128 (대화) 09:23, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

[포스팅] 코갈리마비아 항공 9268편

Proposed image
기사: 코갈리마비아 항공 9268편(토크 · 역사 · 태그)
흐림: 코갈리마비아 9268편(항공기 사진)이 으로 가는 도중 시나이 반도에서 추락한다. 탑승자 224명 전원 잃은 러시아 페테르부르크.(우편)
뉴스 출처: 에어리얼 헤럴드 거울 스푸트니크
크레딧:

기사 업데이트됨

노미네이터의 논평: 아직 확실히 알려지지 않은 사상자와 불과 몇 시간 전에 발생한 사고처럼 생존자가 있는지 여부.많은 사망자가 보고되었다.최근 영화 등에 대해 많이 업데이트되었다.리하스 (대화) 08:39, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)

  • 확장 지원.BBC는 현재 탑승자 대부분이 사망했다고 보도하고 있다.[2] 자본가 로드스터 (대화) 09:17, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • 업데이트 시 지원, 대형 항공기 사고. 331도트(토크) 09:48, 2015년 10월 31일(UTC)
  • 세계 대부분의 뉴스 채널에서 지난 12시간 동안 톱 스토리가 되었기 때문에 지원하십시오. 위키백과는 왜 그렇지 않은가.보안관 (보고서) 2015년 10월 31일 11시 33분 (UTC)
그 일이 일어난지 12시간도 안됐어언론에서 누군가는 매우 예지력이 있어야 한다.리하스 (대화) 2015년 10월 31일 11시 35분 (UTC)
  • 지원, 공명은 명백하다. discusssstitute 11:50, 2015년 10월 31일(UTC)
  • 지원 - 주요 내용.주목할 만한.--BabbaQ (대화) 12:16, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • 지지 - 쉽게 눈에 띈다.디스파스 12:23, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • 지원 – 이전 버전별로.빨리 꺼내자.Sca (토크) 12:55, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • 지원 - 게시하기 좋은 형태의 기사. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • 이미 언급된 대로, 충분히 주목할 만한 지원. 카터 15:03, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • 100명의 희생자를 지원하는 것은 충분히 큰 비행기라고 생각한다.궁수자리 은하수 (토크) 15:08, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
대상 기사에는 224명(생존자 없음)의 사망자가 적혀 있다.AP통신도 마찬가지.Sca (대화) 2015년 10월 31일 15:20, (UTC)
  • 지지 - 생존자가 없다는 것이 알려지면서 나는 그 애매한 부분을 다시 작업했다.Mjroot (대화) 15:16, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • 게시 -- KTC (토크) 15:32, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • 기사에는 IS가 격추했다고 주장하는 내용이 있는가?〇 베이스볼 버그 당근 → 00:44, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
네. Sca (대화) 14:05, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)

10월 30일


[Merge-Posted] 2015년 부쿠레슈티 나이트클럽 화재 사건

기사: 콜렉티브 나이트클럽 화재(토크 · 히스토리 · 태그)
흐림: 루마니아 부쿠레슈티에서 발생한 니그클럽 화재로 최소 29명이 숨졌다.(우편)
대체 블럽: 루마니아 부쿠레슈티에서 발생한 니그클럽 화재는 최소 29명의 사망자와 184명의 부상자를 냈다.
뉴스 출처: BBC 인디펜던트 NBC 뉴스
크레딧:

아티클 업데이트 필요

명명자의 의견:우리가 자주 다루지 않는 나라에서 높은 사망률의 사건(그리고 병원에서는 155명이 증가할 수 있음)은 루마니아 대통령으로부터 반응을 얻었고 현재 BBC 뉴스에서 두 번째로 많이 읽히고 있다.하지만 그 기사가 실리기 전에 매우 중요한 작업이 필요하다.Thryduulf (대화) 02:10, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)

단지 극악무도한 죽음의 수를 반대한다고 해서 그것 자체가 주목할 만한 것은 아니다.리하스 (대화) 02:29, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • 상부에 반대하다.디에고 그레츠-카녜테 (대화) 03:15, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • 세계에 중대한 영향을 미치는 것을 금지하는 것에 반대한다. --MASEM (t) 03:18, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
    • @Masem: 지침에는 "단일 국가에만 관련된 사건에 대해 불평하지 마십시오."라고 쓰여 있다.어떻게 당신의 논평이 이것의 예가 아닌지를 설명해 주시겠습니까?Thryduulf (대화) 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
      • 내 진술은 만약 그것이 일어났다면 그 나라를 하나의 요소로 만들려는 것이 아니다.그것은 나이트클럽에서 아주 예방할 수 있는 사고였다.그것은 WP를 만나는 주목할 만한 장기 이벤트가 되지 않는다.NEVENT 또는 WP:NEWS(NEWS)는 클럽과 ppl이 관련된 장기적 영향이 없는 것으로 보이기 때문에(읽기: 전세계에 전반적으로) 아니다.--MASEM (t) 12:31, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • 업데이트 시 지원, 전 세계의 언더커버드(ITN) 지역에서 광범위하게 다뤄지는 주목할 만한 사건그 화재는 록 콘서트에서 일어났던 것처럼 주로 젊은이들에게 영향을 미쳤다.루마니아의 정부 지도자들은 이에 대해 논평하고 일정을 변경했다; 한 긴급 관리는 이것이 "전례가 없는 일"이라고 말했다. 331 도트 (대화) 09:47, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • 지명자 1인당 지원, 동유럽에서 전례 없는 대형 재난. - Eug eugnS'm'on(14) ® 09:50, 2015년 10월 31일(UTC)
  • 브라질 나이트클럽 화재 이후 가장 많은 사망자를 낸 '지원' 대형 재난기즈모코롯 (대화) 09:59, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
    • 현재 ITN 컨텍스트에서 지원 기사 게시물 철회Gizmocorot (대화) 00:14, 2015년 11월 4일 (UTC)
  • 위의 사람들에 의해 약한 반대, 슬픈 사건이지만 실제로 ITN은 아니다; 불행히도 나이트클럽 화재는 꽤 흔하다."동유럽에서 전례 없는" 이 모든 것은 어디에서 오는 것일까?루마니아에서 지난 3년 동안 전례 없는 일이었고, 동유럽에서 최근 역사적으로 상당히나쁜 사건들이 분명히 있었다.IIRC는 포모사 코스트 폭발사고와 비슷한 사건을 조사했지만 500명의 부상자와 국제적인 보도가 계속되고 있어 예외적인 경우였습니다.2015년 10월 31일 10시 5분(UTC)
  • 사망자 수가 많은 나이트클럽 화재는 언제 일어났는가?도니파크 (토크) 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • 루마니아 관리들은 이것이 전례가 없다고 말하고 있다.331dot (대화) 10:11, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • 17명의 부상자(10명 중상)가 발생한 사건은 27명이 사망하고 150명 이상이 입원한 사건으로는 전례가 거의 없다.루마니아에서는 전례가 없는 것으로, 동유럽에서는 전례가 없는 것으로 인용되고 있다.Thryduulf (대화) 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • 위의 Eugen Simon은 "동유럽"이라는 용어를 사용한다. 331dot (대화) 10:33, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • (분쟁 편집한다) @Thryduulf, 위를 보라; 누군가가 이것을 내 위에 '동유럽에서는 전례 없는' 것이라고 주장하고 있다. 분명히 그렇지 않다.@331닷, 내가 언급하는 다른 사건들(라임 호스 화재와 2012년 시게투 마르마에이 폭발)은 분명 나이트클럽 화재였다.무지개빛 10:35, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • 그래, 미안해. 하지만 더 큰 사건은 러시아에서 일어났고 다른 사건은 이번 사건보다 규모가 훨씬 작았어.중요한 것은 이것이 루마니아에서 어떻게 보여지는가이다.331dot (대화) 10:38, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
좋은 장소인 이리슨트, 정치인들은 분명 헛소리를 한다. 복음은 없다.리하스 (대화) 11시 34분, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
ITN을 확장하여 더 많은 항목을 포함하도록 요청할 수 있다.더 많은 '중요한' 사건이 같은 주에 발생했다는 유효한 주장이 아님...기즈모코롯(토크) 11:57, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
@SheriffIsInTown: 여기서 흔히 볼 수 있는 불평은 우리가 이직률이 충분하지 않다는 것이지, 너무 많지는 않다는 것이다.이직률도 나쁘지 않다.만약 '더 중요한' 이벤트가 있다면(중요한 것은 그 사람에 대한 상대적) 나는 그들을 지명해 주길 바란다.또한, 이 행사가 루마니아에서 열린다는 사실은 중요하지 않다("제발 그러지 마십시오.위의 ").331dot (대화) 22:32, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • 지원 - 상당한 수의 사망, 주목할 만한 경우.항공기 추락사고와 함께 모든 언론에서 톱뉴스…-밥바Q(토크) 12시 17분, 2015년 10월 31일(UTC)
  • 지원 - 나이트클럽 화재는 잘 알려진 사고 장르로, 종종 패턴(서명이 미흡한 출구 등)을 따르기 때문에, 다루어야 할 흥미로운 주제와 분명하게 주목할 만한 사건이다.블리스우드 (대화) 2015년 10월 31일 12시 58분 (UTC)
  • 반대 의견 – 피해자와 가족에게 비극적이지만, 나는 더 큰 의미를 보지 못한다.이번 화재보다 더 치명적인 다수의 사망자가 발생한 나이트클럽 화재는 세계적으로 꽤 흔하다.이것은 화제로 금방 사라질 것이다.(하지만 내가 소수라는 것을 알 수 있다.)Sca (대화) 13:03, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
    • Fun Coast에서 한동안 한 명만 죽었고, 그 다음엔 두 명이 죽었어. 그리고 난 그게 결국 13명이 된 줄 몰랐어.일부 치명상을 입은 사람들은 사망자 수가 증가할 수 있도록 이곳에서도 꽤 오랫동안 버틸 수 있다.궁수자리 은하수 (토크) 13:26, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
수십 년 전 기자로서 165명이 사망한 이 사건을 취재했었죠이런 비극은 꽤 많았다.Sca (대화) 13:49, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • 지원 A 비교적 많은 사상자(입국자 포함)와 이러한 종류의 화재는 전 세계적으로 조직자와 안전 관계자들에게 중요한 사례 연구를 가능하게 한다. --Pudeo' 15:04, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • 이에 반대하는 것은 경계선인데, 이는 단지 사망자수 때문이지 헤비메탈 불꽃놀이가 나이트클럽 관객들을 죽였다는 지금까지 알려지지 않은 원칙이 아니다.하지만 우리가 사망자 수를 기준으로 글을 올린다 해도, 그 기사는 이제 "코렉티브 나이트클럽 화재는 불이었다"고 시작한다.심각한 품질 개선이 필요하다.μΔείςς (talk) 15:39, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • 아직 결정할 수는 없지만, 특히 몇 달 전 지명한 대만 공원 분진폭발과 비교는 하지 않겠다.부상자 수는 엄청나고, 죽음은 비극적이고 갑작스러운 것이다.허가받지 않은 폴리테크놀러지가 이것에 책임이 있었을 것이다; 두 명의 밴드 멤버가 죽었다.ITN의 표준은 높게 설정되었다. 우리 편집자들은 이전에 다른 유사한 사건들이 있었기 때문에 이것에 대해 의견이 갈릴 수도 있다.우리는 이미 위키뉴스에 이것을 게시했다; 언론들도 마찬가지였다.그러나 ITN의 뉴스의 질은 미국(또는 중국) 주류 뉴스와 같아서는 안 된다.C'mon, ITN의 품질을 높여야 하는데, 나는 아직 결정하지 못했어.조지 "Happy 할로윈! (BOO!)" 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC) 18:01:01
여러분은 헤비메탈 밴드의 폭약으로 거의 동일한 환경에서 100명이 사망한 The Station 나이트클럽 화재 사건을 보고 싶을 것이다.끔찍한 것은 루마니아 밴드가 그 교훈을 얻지 못했다는 것이다.그러나 ITN은 원인에 관한 것이 아니다.어떤 식으로 가든지 나는 속상해하지 않을 것이다. 하지만 역사적 관점에서 보면, 사망자 수를 제외하고는, 내가 감원한 것으로 생각되지 않는다.μΔείςς (토크) 18:15, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
Confused.png Sca (토크) 23:13, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
이는 IS보코하람과는 무관해 보인다."전 세계 다른 곳에서 권장되는 정기적인 총기 난사 사건"이 무슨 뜻인지 설명해 주시겠습니까?μΔείςς (talk) 19:42, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
@Medeis: 가난하고 죽은 말을 계속 이기려고 미국에 대한 표준 불보증 잽.~ 사이클론비스키트() 01:02, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
  • 국제(미국인이 아닌) 주류 언론과는 다른 ITN을 만들기 위해 최선을 다했지만, 어찌된 일인지 사망과 부상자 통행료, 상황, 심지어 사건의 본질까지 너무 압도적이어서 더 이상 언론과 차별화되지 않는다.하지만, 나는 야외에서 일어난 올해의 대만 나이트클럽 화재는 세지 않고, 평상시의 실내 나이트클럽 화재에 대한 지나친 강조가 마음에 들지 않는다.도시나 루마니아는 나이트클럽의 안전성을 높일 수 있을까 하는 생각이 들었다.우리가 올린 다른 이야기들은 대개 이것보다 더 충격적이기 때문에 나는 "반대" 쪽으로 기울고 싶다.하지만 이 길로 가기에는 너무 벅차다.하지만 나 역시 '지지'를 기대고 있는 것은 아니다...아직. 이것은 "비정상적"이지만, 비행기 추락(비정상적), 스포츠 이벤트, 상, 선거는 "비정상적" 기준을 쓸모없고 헛되게 만든다.비극을 강조하기 위해 더 많은 모호함이 추가될 수 있다; 루마니아 헤비메탈 밴드의 개입, 스탬프, 그리고/또는 허가받지 않은 장비를 추가하는 것은 어떨까?조지 "Happy 할로윈! (BOO!)" 21:02, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • 반대 – 폭약 기술에서 잘 알려진 문제로서 사상자 수를 집계한다.~ 사이클론비스키트() 01:02, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
  • 반대 - 나는 이것이 국제적인 차원에서 주목할 만한 것이라고 생각하지 않는다.ITN을 위해 경쟁하는 모든 항목들과 함께, 잘 이해되는 (놀랍지 않은) 원인과 함께 이 정도 크기의 고립된 화재는 1면 소재 IMO가 아니다. 그리고 인과관계는 정기적으로 일어나는 많은 다른 비극적인 사건들에 비해 크지 않다.키위128 (대화) 10:07, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
  • 지원 - 그것은 3일간의 애도 기간을 가진 루마니아 근래 역사에서 큰 재앙이다. - Gsvadds (대화) 12:25, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
  • 반대 - 이 이벤트는 지역적 인지능력만 가지고 있고, 글로벌하지는 않다.많은 사람들이 매일 화재로 죽는다.남나슈아 (대화) 15:13, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
  • 댓글을 달다."국제적 공신력"의 요구사항은 없으며, 우리는 "제발 그러지 마십시오.위.우리는 항상 오직 한 나라에 영향을 미치는 사건들을 다룬다.331dot (대화) 15:15, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
    • 단일 국가에 영향을 미치는 코멘트는 단일 국가에서만 주목받는 것과 다르다.이 항목은 문맥상 발생한 곳 이외에는 눈에 띄지 않는다.남나슈아 (대화) 00:21, 2015년 11월 2일 (UTC)
      • 단일국가의 주장은 타당하지 않다는 사실이 남아 있다.나는 내가 사는 곳에 대한 뉴스 보도를 많이 읽어서 루마니아 밖에서는 어느 정도 평판이 나 있다.331도트(토크) 02:04, 2015년 11월 2일 (UTC)
        • 나는 너의 진술에 동의하지 않는다.가이드라인은 결정을 위한 권고사항이지 그 이상은 아니다.그렇지 않으면, 결정에 대한 논의는 없을 것이고, 그 결정은 단지 가이드라인을 따름으로써 내려질 것이다.의견 불일치에는 아무런 문제가 없으며, 나는 또한 이 뉴스 아이템의 공신력에 대해서도 너와 의견이 다르다.남나슈아 (대화) 04:43, 2015년 11월 2일 (UTC)
          • 나는 사람들이 가이드라인에 근거하여 결정을 내리기를 희망한다. 그렇지 않으면 별 의미가 없을 것이기 때문이다.우리가 올린 글은 대부분 한 나라(대부분의 총선, 스포츠 행사, 일부 자연재해 등)에서만 눈에 띄고, 그것 때문에 모두 올리기를 거부한다면 거의 게시되지 않을 것이다.하지만 그렇다, 당신은 그 타당성과 상관없이 당신이 원하는 어떤 주장을 할 수 있다. 331 도트 (대화) 11:24, 2015년 11월 2일 (UTC)
              • 마찬가지로.자연재해는 클럽의 화재와는 크게 다르다.그리고 다른 사람의 코멘트를 무효라고 부르는 것은 자신의 코멘트의 타당성을 높이는 데 도움이 되지 않는다.남나슈아 (대화) 14:15, 2015년 11월 2일 (UTC)
                • 나는 내 논평의 타당성을 높이려는 것이 아니다.내가 그렇게 말하는 것이 아니라, 이 페이지다. "제발 단 한 나라와 관련된 사건이나,나라와 관련되지 않은 사건에 대해 불평하지 마십시오. 이는 우리가 게시하는 콘텐츠의 높은 비율에 적용되며 비생산적이다."그럼에도 불구하고 토론에 감사한다. (대화) 14:30, 2015년 11월 2일 (UTC)
                    • 그 페이지가 무엇인지 확실하지 않고 그것이 내 관심사를 어떻게 해결하는지 확신할 수 없지만(광범위한 공신력, 그들이 있는 곳 너머에서 주목할 만한 것들이 많이 있다) 괜찮다.나 또한 이 토론에 대해 감사한다.남나슈아 (대화) 23:48, 2015년 11월 2일 (UTC)
  • 현재 가장 오래된 사건은 이집트에서 일어난 비행기 참사인데, 하루 후에 일어났다.우리 모두가 더위를 식히고 다른 곳으로 갈 시간. --이것사실 (토크) 21:45, 2015년 11월 2일 (UTC)

    나는 DYK가 몇 시간 안에 상대편보다 균형을 잡을 것이라고 본다. 아직토론을 마무리 짓지는 않았지만 이야기를 길게 할 수 있는 여지는 충분치 않을 이다. --여기는 조지사실 (토크) 21:52, 2015년 11월 2일 (UTC) 신경 쓰지 마, 길이를 잘못 쟀어. --조지 호 (토크) 01:35, 2015년 11월 3일 (UTC)

  • 흥, 어쨌든 게시물...The Rambling Man (talk) 13:17, 2015년 11월 4일 (UTC)

[스탈] 2015년 세계 예술 체조 선수권 대회

기사:2015년 세계 예술 체조 선수권 대회(토크 · 역사 · 태그)
흐림:우치무라 고헤이는 6번째 우승을, 시모네 빌레스2015년 세계예술체조선수권대회에서 3회 연속 종합우승을 차지했다.(우편)
대체 블럽:우치무라 고헤이는 6번째 우승을, 시모네 빌레스2015년 세계예술체조선수권대회에서 3회 연속 종합우승을 차지했다.
뉴스 출처:NBC 스포츠, 로이터, 가디언, ESPN
크레딧:
아티클 업데이트 필요

명명자의 의견:아마도 근래 최고의 체조선수일 것이고 18세의 유망주들이 세계 타이틀을 거머쥘 것이다.이번 대회가 완전히 끝난 것은 아니지만(아직 결승전이 남아 있다) 전체 타이틀은 개인 최다 타이틀이다.모호함에 따라: 주요 기사는 훨씬 더 많은 산문을 필요로 하며, 개별 기사는 약간의 추가 소싱을 할 수 있다.푸에베이 (토크) 00:49, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)

정말이지, 내 실수야.고정. 푸에베이(토크) 21:32, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • 지원 - 명당 --BabbaQ (대화) 12:25, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • 이 물건들은 아직도 많은 작업을 필요로 한다.여성 바이오에는 적절한 공급원이 부족하다고 꼬리표가 붙는다.사건 기사는 산문으로 짧게 보인다.남성 바이오는 상태가 좋은 것 같지만, 유일한 제품이다.
복사 좀 했어.앨트블러브는 가는 게 좋을 거야.푸에베이 (토크) 2015년 10월 31일 21:32, (UTC)
  • 코멘트 인라인 참조 방법은 거의 없고, 메달 집계, 개별 결과 등을 확인하려면 어디로 가야 하는가?The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
오늘 하루 더 일해야 할 것 같았어, 내가 약간 관심 있는 일에도 말이야.참, 지금 신선한 이야기가 너무 많아.푸에베이 (대화) 05:03, 2015년 11월 3일 (UTC)
  • 공신력으로는 반대한다.Gizmocorot (대화) 12:39, 2015년 11월 3일 (UTC)

[Stale] RD: 멜 대니얼스

기사: 멜 대니얼스 (토크 · 역사 · 태그)
최근 사망자 지명(우편)
뉴스 출처: 스포츠 일러스트레이티드
크레딧:

위키백과 기사와 함께 어떤 사람이나 동물 또는 유기체의 최근 죽음은 항상 게시할 수 있을 만큼 충분히 중요한 것으로 추정된다(이 RFC추가 토론 참조).논평은 기사의 질이 WP를 충족하는지 여부에 초점을 맞추어야 한다.ITNRD.

노미네이터의 논평: 농구 명예의 전당, 인디애나 페이서스에 의해 그의 번호가 은퇴될 4명의 선수 중 한 명이다.Tlön의 Smerdis - 2003년 이후 인간 정신 죽이기! 2015년 10월 30일 (UTC)

  • 약한 반대 - 이것이 최근 사망 기준 2를 충족하고 아마도 약하게만 충족될 것 같다.다니엘스는 그의 분야에서 중요한 것 같지만, IMO는 그가 ITN을 위해 충분히 주목받지 못할 수도 있다.키위128 (대화) 23:31, 2015년 10월 30일 (UTC)
  • 농구 명예의 전당 멤버인 향상된 메이저 선수가 다른 모든 영예(ABA All-Time Team, ABA MVP 2배, ABA All-Star 7배)와 마찬가지로 RD#2를 보여줄 경우 지원.무보슈구 (토크) 00:28, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • 지지하다.다니엘스는 명예의 전당이다.02:30, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • 지원 - 무보슈구 당.--BabbaQ (대화) 12:25, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • 약한 반대:기사는 꽤 짧고 우리는 역사적으로 선수들의 스포츠 명예의 전당에 있는 것보다 더 엄격한 조사를 적용해왔다. -쿠즈1 (토크) 19:42, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • 지지하다.명예의 전당은 제쳐두고 7회 올스타, 2회 MVP. DC2.331도트 (토크) 22:37, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)를 만나는 것 같다.
  • 그렇게 유명한 사람에 대한 반대는, 기사는 거의 스터브급 이상이고, 인라인에 언급되지 않은 채 약 1/3을 가지고 있으며, "멜 다니엘스 호기심 많은 y datos en spenol"이라고 불리는 것을 포함하고 있다.확장 및 참조, 그리고 우리는 가능한 경쟁자가 있다.The Rambling Man (talk) 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC) 19:34.
  • 상부에 반대하다.Wizardman 20:15, 2015년 11월 1일(UTC)

10월 29일


[포스팅] 2015년 일본 시리즈

Proposed image
기사:2015년 일본 시리즈(토크 · 히스토리 · 태그)
흐림:야구에서는 후쿠오카 소프트뱅크 호크스가 도쿄 야쿠르트 스왈로즈를 꺾고 2015 일본 시리즈에서 우승했다.(우편)
대체 블럽:야구에서는 시리즈 MVP 이대호(사진)가 이끄는 후쿠오카 소프트뱅크 호크스도쿄 야쿠르트 스왈로즈꺾고 2015년 일본 시리즈에서 우승했다.
뉴스 출처:Japan Times, USA Today, CBS 스포츠
크레딧:
기사 업데이트됨
지명된 이벤트는 WP에 열거되어 있다.ITN/R, 따라서 각각의 발생은 게시할 수 있을 만큼 충분히 중요한 것으로 추정된다.논평은 기사와 업데이트의 품질이 WP를 충족하는지 여부에 초점을 맞추어야 한다.중요성이 아니라 ITNCRIT.

명명자의 의견:내가 야구를 따르는 사람이 아님에도 불구하고 ITN/R에서 이것을 알아차렸다.아마도 다음 주에 더 유명한 사촌에 의해 가려질 것이다.경기 요약을 좀 해야겠어 야구팬이 이 문제를 해결하려고 한다면 말이야푸에베이 (토크) 04:50, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)

  • ITN/R이다.WP:야구공 타요.무보슈구 (토크) 04:56, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • 기사를 업데이트했다.2015년 월드시리즈와 비슷한 규모는 아니지만, 메인 페이지에는 이 정도면 충분할 것이다.앞으로 한 시간 정도, 그리고 내일 더 자세한 내용을 추가할 겁니다.무보슈구 (토크) 18:37, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • 나는 이것이 준비되었는지 확실하지 않다.야구 대회라 ITN/R에 등재돼 있어 강조하려는 노력에도 불구하고 '5차 게임' 섹션은 짧게 보인다. 나를 더 괴롭히는 것은 여기에 공감대가 부족하다는 것이다. 내 말은, 아직 그것에 투표하는 사람이 한 명도 없다는 거야.조지 "Happy Hallowlor!" (BOO!) 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC) 19시 32분
    • ITN/R에 있어서 아무도 "투표"할 필요가 없다.품질/업데이트 측면에서만 승인하면 된다.Muboshgu (대화) 21:07, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
그래, 요약이 거기 있어.5차전에 문제가 있었던 것 같지는 않지만 4차전은 2문장 이상으로 할 수 있었다.휴식은 짧지만 적당한 것 같다.푸에베이 (토크) 21:37, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
좋은 지적이야.4차전에 더 추가했다. – 무보슈구 (토크) 21:45, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • 약한 지원 – 반복적인 이벤트로 인해 *sigh*가 다시 발생함조지 "Happy 할로윈! (BOO!)" 23:28, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • 관리자가 이것을 오래전에 게시할 수 있을까?고마워요.무보슈구 (토크) 19:26, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
  • 게시. '람블링맨'(토크) 19:27, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
  • 감사합니다, TRM(Talk) – Muboshgu(토크) 19:30, 2015년 11월 1일(UTC)

[스탈] 탄자니아 대통령 선거

Proposed image
기사:탄자니아 총선, 2015년 (토크 · 역사 · 태그)
흐림:CCM 마구풀리(사진)가 탄자니아의 대통령으로 선출됐다.(우편)
뉴스 출처:NYT, SABC, WSJ
크레딧:
기사 업데이트됨
지명된 이벤트는 WP에 열거되어 있다.ITN/R, 따라서 각각의 발생은 게시할 수 있을 만큼 충분히 중요한 것으로 추정된다.논평은 기사와 업데이트의 품질이 WP를 충족하는지 여부에 초점을 맞추어야 한다.중요성이 아니라 ITNCRIT.

명명자의 의견:가장 가까운 사람들이 수십 년 만에 선거를 치렀다.공식 결과에 따르면 제1야당은 아직 양보하지 않고 있다.목요일에 결과가 나왔다는 점에 유의하십시오(아프리카 투표는 상대적으로 지지부진하다).확정될 때까지 글을 올리지 않기 때문에 ITN을 걷어내려고 하는 사연으로 뭉뚱그리지 말고 (사망자가 발생했을 때가 아니라 언론에 발표될 때 게시되는) 후기 RD처럼 대하고 싶다.푸에베이 (토크) 00:08, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)

  • 와, 인상적인 기사.강력한 지원을 위해 알림성과 품질을 기반으로 한 손쉬운 통화. -Kudzu1 (토크) 00:55, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
선거전이 아직 끝나지 않은 것을 기다리다나는 그 논쟁의 페이지에 몇 가지를 추가했다.아니면 최소한 CCM에 대한 논란을 언급하는 것(그리고 야권이 처음으로 후보 1명 이하로 단일화한 것)리하스 (대화) 02:31, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)

[포스팅] 라이프 바다위

Proposed image
기사:라이프 바다위(토크 · 역사 · 태그)사하로프상(토크 · 역사 · 태그)
흐림:사우디 블로거 라이프 바다위가 2015년 사하로프상을 수상한다.(우편)
대체 블럽:사우디 블로거 라이프 바다위가 사상과 인권의 자유를 수호한 공로로 2015년 사하로프상을 수상한다.
대위적 블러브 II:사우디 블로거 라이프 바다위가 인권과 근본적인 자유를 수호한 공로로 2015년 사하로프상을 수상한다.
뉴스 출처:BBC
크레딧:

기사 업데이트됨
지명된 하나 또는 두 개의 이벤트가 WP에 나열되어 있다.ITN/R, 따라서 각각의 발생은 게시할 수 있을 만큼 충분히 중요한 것으로 추정된다.논평은 기사와 업데이트의 품질이 WP를 충족하는지 여부에 초점을 맞추어야 한다.중요성이 아니라 ITNCRIT.

cyrfaw (대화) 13:38, 2015년 10월 29일 (UTC)

  • 지원 – 또 다른 프리 스피치 영웅. (사우디 블로거 뒤의 쉼표는 필요하거나 정확하지 않다.) Sca (대화) 14:18, 2015년 10월 29일 (UTC)
  • 코멘트 나는 이것이 합리적인 ITN의 애매모호하다고 생각하지만, 그것은 바다위의 기사를 훑어보면, (이름에 인용된 출처를 포함하고 있지만, 쉬워야 한다) 한 섹션이 있지만, 나는 그 기사의 후반부에 더 고려된다.나는 두번째 의견을 원한다. 왜냐하면 내가 그것을 처음 읽었을때 그것은 마치 그것이 WP인것 같았기 때문이다.바다위의 채찍질 사건이 동시에 일어났던 것과 대조적으로 찰리 헵도 사건(특히 사건 후 집회)이 얼마나 주목받았는지 코트라크(COTRACK서로 다른 반응을 설명하는 논의가 없는 것은 아니지만, 내가 잘 아는 분야가 아닌 만큼, 왜 그들이 바다위를 더 지지하지 않았는지 전 세계에 촉구하며 다양한 반응에 집중하는 표현 선택이 이루어졌다고 생각한다. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 2015년 10월 29일 (UTC)
  • 지원 - 의미심장하다, 사우디인이 이 상을 받은 것은 이번이 처음이다. --에게미 (대화) 15:46, 2015년 10월 29일 (UTC)
  • 지지하다.나는 우리가 과거에 이 상과 관련된 뉴스를 올렸던 것을 기억한다.그리고 이번에도 분명히 의미가 있다. --bender235 (대화) 17:11, 2015년 10월 29일 (UTC)
  • 지원 - 중요. --BabbaQ (대화) 18:10, 2015년 10월 29일 (UTC)
  • ITNR이기에 장점에 대한 중요성은 이미 확립되어 있다. Masem이 언급했듯이 소싱 문제가 있다. 331dot (토크) 21:38, 2015년 10월 29일 (UTC)
  • 지지 - 장기간의 유명 언론 자유 운동가가 권위 있는 상을 수여하여 그를 많은 저명한 공인들과 함께 하게 했다.키위128 (대화) 08:38, 2015년 10월 30일 (UTC)
  • Sakharov_Prize#Laureates 지지에는 수많은 주목할 만한 사람들이 있다.EU 외교정책에 시사하는 중요한 주제. -- 캘리너스 (대화) 12:33, 2015년 10월 30일 (UTC)
  • 다시 말하지만, 이것이 ITNR이기 때문에 장점에 대한 코멘트는 필요하지 않다.소싱은 포스팅 전 개선이 필요하다. 331닷(토크) 12:54, 2015년 10월 30일(UTC)
  • 소싱 추가. --cyrfaw (대화) 14:09, 2015년 10월 30일 (UTC)
  • 세 번째 단어(alt II)로 달리겠다. 우리가 할 수 있을 때 지역마다 철자가 달라지는 것을 피하는 것이 유용하기 때문이다.GRAPPLE 14:15, 2015년 10월 30일 (UTC)
  • 나는 "국제 반응" 부분을 전부 다시 포맷했지만, 여전히 인용문이 많다. 인용문 작성에 더 가깝다.조지 호 (토크) 17:03, 2015년 10월 30일 (UTC)
    • 그것은 확실히 너무 많은 인용구 작성이다.코트라킹 문제는 그렇게 나쁘지는 않지만, 나는 그 많은 인용구들로 인해 (그리고 그것들이 있는 한), 그것은 매우 구체적인 POV를 추진하고 있다고 생각한다; 그렇다, 세계의 많은 사람들은 그가 인권을 옹호하는 것에 대한 비난에 직면했다는 사실에 대해 비판적이었다, 그것은 중요하지만, ITN이 되기 위해서는 좀 더 중립성이 필요하다.우리는 모든 반응을 문서화할 필요는 없다. 세계 주요 지도자들의 몇 가지 선택 인용문을 요약하면 충분하다. --MASEM (t) 17:38, 2015년 10월 30일 (UTC)
10kB의 인용문/ref를 또 내장에 넣었다.내 생각에 그것은 다시 점검하기 위한 또 다른 시선들과 관련이 있지만, 지금은 통과될 수 있을 것 같다.푸에베이 (토크) 01:58, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
@Fuebaey: "개인생활" 섹션의 마지막 인용표를 처리하고 공사중인 템플릿이 제거되면, 나는 먼저 그것을 게시할 것이다.~ 사이클론비스키트() 02:03, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
  • 푸배이와 나는 역겨운 것으로부터 그 기사를 아주 깨끗하게 만들 수 있었다.이제 기사 준비는 다 됐어...맞지? 조지가 "Happy Hallowlay!"라고 말했어. (BOO!) 02:10, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)
  • alt blurb II – 쿠도스를 푸에배이조지 호에게 게시하여 적시에 기사를 크게 개선하였다.~ 사이클론비스키트() 02:15, 2015년 11월 1일 (UTC)

[게시] 중국은 한 자녀 정책을 폐지한다.

기사: 자녀 정책(토크 · 히스토리 · 태그)
흐림: 중화인민공화국은 1978년에 도입된 한 자녀 정책을 폐지한다.(우편)
대체 블럽: 중화인민공화국은 한 자녀 정책을 폐지하고 두 자녀 정책을 부과한다.
대체 블러브 II: 중화인민공화국은 한 자녀 정책을 폐지하고 두 자녀 정책을 도입한다.
대체 블러브 III: 중화인민공화국1자녀 정책을 폐지하여 2자녀 정책을 지지한다.
뉴스 출처: CNN
크레딧:

기사 업데이트됨

명명자의 의견:세계 굴지의 국가들 중 한 나라의 중요한 정치적 조치.또한 ITN이 좀처럼 다루지 않는 뉴스(재앙이나 스포츠 이벤트 없음)이다.Zwerg Nase (대화) 12:52, 2015년 10월 29일 (UTC)

  • 지지하다.대중국 공공정책의 주목할 만한 변화.기사와 기사에 간략한 업데이트가 추가되었다. 조금 더 있으면 좋을 것 같다. 331닷(토크) 13:00, 2015년 10월 29일(UTC)
  • 약한 지지 - 이러한 변화는 분명히 ITN에 적합하며 기사는 괜찮다. 나의 유일한 망설임은 위의 링크된 기사에서 나온 것이며, 아직 법/정책의 실제적인 취소는 아니다. 법률이 공식적으로 장부에서 삭제되었을 때 게시하는 것이 더 타당할 것이다.그러나 이것이 주요 취재의 포인트가 될 것으로 의심된다. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 2015년 10월 29일 (UTC)
  • 논평 - 중국이 비록 1자녀 정책을 폐지하고 있지만, 여전히 정부가 부과한 한계인 '2자녀 정책'으로 사실상 전환하고 있다는 점을 언급하기 위해 모호함을 분명히 해야 한다고 생각한다.--WaltCip (대화) 13:55, 2015년 10월 29일 (UTC)
사랑에서 0을 뺀/한도가 없는 을 들어본 적이 있는가?Sca (대화) 14:23, 2015년 10월 29일 (UTC)
  • 원칙적으로 지원하되 월트칩 당 더 구체적인 블럽을 제안한다. -쿠즈1 (토크) 14:56, 2015년 10월 29일 (UTC)
  • 월트킵은 "두 자녀 정책을 지지한다"고 말했다.The Rambling Man (talk) 2015년 10월 29일 (UTC) 15:04
  • 매우 주목할 만한, 흥미로운 뉴스로서의 지지.나는 또한 흐림이 정부 규제가 끝났다는 것을 암시하기보다는 두 자녀 정책을 강조해야 한다고 생각한다.마밀레스 (대화) 2015년 10월 29일 (UTC) 15:11, 29
  • 알트 블러브를 지지하십시오.주목할 만한 변화, 그리고 한 자녀 정책은 독자들이 그 주제에 대해 더 많이 배울 수 있도록 돕는 상당히 질 좋은 기사다.페드로 : 2015년 10월 29일 채팅 15:28 (UTC)
  • 지지하되, 모호한 말로 강요하는 은 반대한다.기즈모코로트 (대화) 2015년 10월 29일 15:41, (UTC)
부과: "1.권한별로 설정하거나 신청한다." 딱 맞는 것 같군.또한 어법에서 "abolish"라는 긍정적인 의미의 단어와 편리하게 대비된다.마밀레스 (대화) 2015년 10월 29일 15:50 (UTC)
2015년 10월 29일(UTC) 16:06, 29일(토크) 대신 alt blurb가 도입됨
도입은 PRC 지도부에 의해 제시된 이러한 성격의 정책에서 알려지지 않은 일종의 선택성을 내포하고 있다.소개는 그들이 제안이나 추천을 하고 있다는 것을 암시한다.강요는 정확히 여기서 일어나고 있는 것이다; PRC 지도부는 국가에 그들의 생식 시스템과 관련하여 그것이 무엇을 할 것인지 말해준다. 그것은 부과하는 것과 많이 비슷하다. --Jayron32 01:30, 2015년 10월 30일 (UTC)
  • '두 자녀 정책'을 과감하게 두 번째 기사로 만들 수 있을까.조지 호 사실 (토크) 18:06, 2015년 10월 29일 (UTC)
  • 나는 글을 올리고 싶었지만, 새로운 정책에 대해 아무런 언급도 하지 않는 업데이트가 있다는 것을 깨달았다.그리고 현재 업데이트는 매우 얇다.이것을 먼저 고치는 것이 타당하다. --Tone 18:20, 2015년 10월 29일 (UTC)
나는 두 자녀 정책과 연계된 기사에 문장을 추가했고, 중국의 생식 정책에 대한 지속적인 비판을 언급했다.여전히 큰 업데이트는 아니지만, ITN의 최소 업데이트 지침을 충족시키는 역할을 해야 한다.마밀레스 (대화) 2015년 10월 29일 18:36, (UTC)
  • 매우 두드러진 정책에 관한 주요한 정치적 발전으로서의 지원.나는 모호한 부분에 "찬성"하는 것을 선호한다.Thryduulf (대화) 22:22, 2015년 10월 29일 (UTC)
  • 지지 - 중국과 세계의 미래 인구 통계에 상당한 영향을 미칠 것 같다.Alt Blurb 3. -Zanhe (대화) 23:36, 2015년 10월 29일 (UTC)
  • 세계 주요 강대국의 주요 발전을 지원한다.Alt Blurb 3을 선호하십시오.배네돈 (대화) 01:07, 2015년 10월 30일 (UTC)
  • 지지 - 세계 초강대국의 매우 논란이 많은 정책의 실질적인 변화.키위128 (대화) 08:40, 2015년 10월 30일 (UTC)
  • Jayron32의 추리당 알트 블럽 게시.얼마든지 골라서 토론이 그렇게 진행된다면 "favo(u)r" 또는 "소개"로 바꿔라.~ 사이클론비스키트 () 08:47, 2015년 10월 30일 (UTC)

[포스팅] 비디아 데비 반다리

Proposed image
기사:비디아 데비 반다리(토크 · 역사 · 태그)
블럽:비디야 데비 반다리(사진)는 네팔의 대통령으로 선출되고 여성으로는 처음으로 취임한다.(포스트)
대체 블럽:비디아 데비 반다리는 네팔의 첫 여성 대통령으로 선출되었다.
대체 블러브 II:비디아 데비 반다리(사진)가 네팔 대통령으로 당선됐다.
뉴스 출처:(BBC 뉴스), (가디언)
크레딧:

지명된 이벤트는 WP에 열거되어 있다.ITN/R, 따라서 각각의 발생은 게시할 수 있을 만큼 충분히 중요한 것으로 추정된다.논평은 기사와 업데이트의 품질이 WP를 충족하는지 여부에 초점을 맞추어야 한다.중요성이 아니라 ITNCRIT.

명명자의 의견:최초의 여성 대통령.Star प्रमुख.pngBiplab Anand (Talk with me) 2015년 10월 29일 07:29 (UTC)

  • 기사는 어느 정도 작업이 필요하지만 그렇지 않으면 새로운 국가원수가 ITNR이다. --Tone 07:53, 2015년 10월 29일 (UTC)
  • 코멘트 국가원수는 ITN/R이지만 의례적인 역할을 담당한다.그녀가 네팔의 첫 여성 대통령인 동안, 그녀의 전임자는 네팔의 첫 번째 대통령이었다. (이전에는 네팔은 2008년 이전까지 입헌 군주국이었다.)업데이트 와이즈, 이것은 어제 지루한 일이었고 지금은 더 이상 그렇지 않다.그러나 처음 두 구간은 인라인 구분이 부족하다.푸에베이 (토크) 08:06, 2015년 10월 29일 (UTC)
@Fuebaey:인용 추가.고마워--BiplabStar प्रमुख.png Anand (Talk with me) 09:06, 2015년 10월 29일 (UTC)
  • 이건 의식인가?네팔의 권력 좌석에 관한 우리의 기사들은 이것에 대해 매우 모호하며, 나는 그것들이 목표 기사는 아니라는 것을 알고 있지만, 대통령 직위가 의례적인지 권력자인지 분명히 하는 것이 엄청나게 도움이 될 것이라고 생각한다. --MASEM (t) 13:42, 2015년 10월 29일 (UTC)
    나는 https://asiafoundation.org/resources/pdfs/AGuidetoGovernmentinNepal.pdf을 보았다.네, 의례적인 겁니다, 대통령은 결정을 미루지만 거절하지는 않을 겁니다.나라야어(토크) 18:53, 2015년 10월 29일 (UTC)
    그럴 만도 하다.어느 정도 권력이 있는 선출직이고, ITNR뿐만 아니라 그녀의 글도 멀쩡하기 때문에 나는 여전히 지지할 것이다. --MASEM (t) 19:10, 2015년 10월 29일 (UTC)
  • ITNR별 지원.물품은 품질이 양호함. 117.221.121.244 (토크) 10:48, 2015년 10월 29일 (UTC)
  • 지원Sca (대화) 14:24, 2015년 10월 29일 (UTC)
  • ITNR로 지원 - Presidentman talk · 기여(Talkback) 16:03, 2015년 10월 29일(UTC)
  • 지지 - 카드가 프라사드 샤르마 올리가 기사 품질 문제로 게시되지 않았다.이걸 놓치지 말자.기사 상태가 양호하다. -잔허 (대화) 23:44, 2015년 10월 29일 (UTC)
  • "첫 번째 여자"를 흐릿하게 반대한다.그것은 가능한 한 잘난 체하는 것에 관한 것이다."첫 번째 여성 X"는 80년 전부터 모욕감을 주기 시작했다.그냥 그녀가 당선되었다고 말해줘, 제발.μΔείςς (talk) 00:34, 2015년 10월 30일 (UTC)
다른 ALT블러브를 추가했다.만족, μηδεί?? --George Ho (토크) 00:40, 2015년 10월 30일 (UTC)
"첫 번째 여자"가 불쑥불쑥 나오는 것은 아무 문제가 없다.네팔의 랜드마크이자 진정한 진보로, 거들떠보지도 않고 있다. -잔허(토크) 02:43, 2015년 10월 30일 (UTC)
나도 동의해.최초의 여성 대통령이라는 점도 뉴스 보도에서 눈에 띄게 부각되고 있다.넬잭 (대화) 03:57, 2015년 10월 30일 (UTC)
@잔허: Tx..메데이스- 나는 전혀 그 흐리멍덩한 것에 대해 거들먹거리는 것이 없다고 생각하는데, 심지어 보호자와 NYT조차 그녀가 최초의 여성 대통령이라고 보도했다.고마워--BiplabStar प्रमुख.png Anand (Talk with me) 04:16, 2015년 10월 30일 (UTC)
  • '대안 블럽 지지' 나는 여성이 한 나라의 대통령으로 당선되기 위해서는 충분한 이유가 있다고 생각한다. '뉴스'에는 언급할 필요가 없다. 사진이 있고 이야기에 등장하는 인물임에 틀림없기 때문에 이상하게 들린다.네팔의 두 번째 대통령이 여성인 동안 미국은 200년 이상 동안 여성 대통령을 선출할 수 없었다.성별을 언급하는 것은 이야기에 부가적인 가치를 더한다.보안관 (보고서) 04:44, 2015년 10월 30일 (UTC)
  • 강력한 지지 - 반다리가 첫 여성 대통령이 아니더라도 (선거로서) 1면 뉴스 자료가 될 것이다.키위128 (대화) 08:43, 2015년 10월 30일 (UTC)
  • 게시된 alt blurb(사진)는, 그렇지 않으면 싱거운 ITN/R 게시물이 될 것에 맛을 더한다(그리고 그것은 이야기의 주목할 만한 부분이다).~ 사이클론비스키트 () 09:07, 2015년 10월 30일 (UTC)

10월 28일


[폐쇄] 카시니 엔셀라두스 플라이바이

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

기사:엔셀라두스(토크 · 역사 · 태그)카시니–Huygens (토크 · 역사 · 태그)
흐림:카시니 탐사선은 토성의 위성 엔셀라두스의 근접 비행을 수행하며 대기를 연구한다.(우편)
크레딧:
명명자의 의견:명왕성 플라이비보다 팡파르가 훨씬 적은 이야기지만 그럼에도 불구하고 몇몇 훌륭한 과학이 있는 이야기.두 기사 모두 업데이트가 필요하다(데이터가 나오기 시작할 때 발생하는 것과 유사). --Tone 13:26, 2015년 10월 29일 (UTC) Tone 13:26, 2015년 10월 29일 (UTC)
  • 가 뭔가를 놓치는 게 아니라면, 반대는 일상적인 과학 임무처럼 보인다.특별한 발견도 없어브랜드마이스터talk 21:18, 2015년 10월 29일 (UTC)
  • 지지 - 사실, 달 옆을 지나는 이 고도는 매우 낮은 고도에 있을 것이고 표면에서 배출되는 액체의 플럼을 통과하도록 설계되었다.Jusdafax 21:53, 2015년 10월 29일 (UTC)
  • 블러브에 목표물이 하나도 없다는 만 빼면 지원.이것이 쟁점이라면 지명자는 다른 공천을 살펴봐야 한다.지지하고 싶지만, 공천이 어떻게 되어 있는지 잘 모르겠다.μΔείςς (talk) 00:30, 2015년 10월 30일 (UTC)
  • 사실 이것은 얼음, 물 등과 함께 많은 "판페어"를 가지고 있다.더욱 중요한 것은 그 혜성에서 산소가 발견되었다는 것이 우주의 형성에 대한 이론을 변화시킴으로써 더욱 두드러지게 되었다.리하스 (대화) 01:37, 2015년 10월 30일 (UTC)
  • 브랜마이스터당 반대.NASA가 엔셀라두스의 비행을 이전까지 적어도 8번 이상 했었다는 점을 고려하면 이것은 일상적인 과학적 임무로 보인다.적어도 내가 아는 바로는 관심의 중요한 발견은 없는 것 같다.Prhdbt [talk] 01:45, 2015년 10월 30일 (UTC)
  • 반대 - 다소 눈에 띄는 플라이비(flyby)는 아니지만, 그것은 1면 자료 IMO가 아니다. 만약 플라이비 때문에 획기적인 발견이 이루어진다면, 재지명이 명령일 수도 있다.키위128 (대화) 08:47, 2015년 10월 30일 (UTC)
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

[폐쇄] 계속:시리아 내전에 대한 러시아의 군사 개입

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

'시리아 내전에 대한 러시아군의 개입'이 메인페이지에 실렸다.뉴스가 자주 보도되는 상황에서도 리액션 외에 아직 사건 전개를 보지 못했다.뽑아?조지 호 (토크) 06:04, 2015년 10월 28일 (UTC)

  • 지원: 더 이상 속보를 내보내지 않고 더 이상 1면 지위에 도움이 되는 방식으로 정기적으로 업데이트되지 않는다.사우디 주도의 예멘 개입도 여전히 진행 중이고, 몇 달 전에 당겨서… -쿠즈1 (대화) 06:25, 2015년 10월 28일 (UTC)
  • 시리아 내전으로 대체한다.러시아의 개입은 현재 진행 중인 이 사건의 마지막 행동이다.만약 이것이 대안이 되지 않고 시리아 내전에 대한 러시아의 군사적 개입을 유지하는 것과 제거하는 것 사이에서만 일어난다면, 나는 유지에 찬성한다.그것은 여러 개의 세계 강대국들이 참여하는 전쟁인데, 나는 그것에 관한 많은 뉴스 기사를 본다.배네돈 (대화) 06:29, 2015년 10월 28일 (UTC)
  • 바네돈의 제안대로 시리아 내전으로 대체하는 것에 동의한다.무시무시할 정도로 큰 기사(>300 kB, 참고문헌 800개 이상)가 있지만, 주요 사건이 발생할 때마다 정기적으로 업데이트되는 것으로 나타나며, 이는 주목할 만한 공격행위에 대한 수많은 기사에 대한 링크와 함께 나타난다.아마도 이 갈등과 관련하여 우리가 제공할 수 있는 가장 유용한 연결고리일 것이다.~ 사이클론비스키트 () 06:35, 2015년 10월 28일 (UTC)
  • 위에서 제시한 바와 같이 대체한다; 러시아의 개입은 현재 다른 나라의 개입과 함께 톱뉴스가 아닌 지경에 이르렀지만, 분쟁은 여전히 일반적으로 뉴스거리가 되고 있으며, 페이지는 업데이트되고 있다.331닷(토크) 11:11, 2015년 10월 28일 (UTC)
  • 참고:우리가 그것을 대체하려면 시리아 내전과는 다른 기사가 필요하다.그 기사는 내가 "옹오잉" 섹션의 목적에 부합한다고 생각하는 속도로 업데이트되고 있지 않다.지난 9일 동안 단 두 건의 중요한 추가 사항만 있었다.가장 최근의 [3]에는 시대에 뒤떨어진 정보가 포함되어 있다. (1월부터!!!)또는 이전)과 다른 하나는 대부분 양식적이고 조직적인 변화로 [4]이며 새로운 정보를 추가하지 않았다.따라서 지난 9일(50페이지 분량 역사) 동안 시리아 내전에 대한 실질적인 업데이트는 단 한 건도 없었다.메인 ITN 섹션에 있는 기사였다면 지금쯤 회전을 했을 겁니다.좋은 교체를 위해 나는 이것을 지지할 수 없다.지금 현재, 누군가가 그 기사를 대량으로 업데이트하거나 새로운 대상을 제안할 수 없는 한, 나는 Remove에 투표해야 하고, 대체하지 말아야 한다. --Jayron32 11:19, 2015년 10월 28일 (UTC)
  • 제거는 전세계에서 일어나고 있는 수많은 갈등들 중 하나로 그것을 대체할 필요가 없다.The Rambling Man (talk) 11:31, 2015년 10월 28일 (UTC)
  • 제거 시리아 내전에 대한 중요한 업데이트는 현재 다른 분쟁보다 더 주목할 만한 것을 그 자리에서 사용할 수 없다고 본다. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 2015년 10월 28일 (UTC)
    • 한 마디로, 시리아 내전은 내가 알고 있는 다른 어떤 분쟁보다도 더 많은 뉴스 보도를 받고 있다.세계 5개 유엔 안전보장이사회 이사국 중 4명도 참여한다.이것과 견줄 만한 또 다른 현재의 갈등은 무엇인가?배네돈 (대화) 14:41, 2015년 10월 28일 (UTC)
      • 많은 갈등과 상황들이 뉴스 보도를 계속하지만 문제는 그 중 얼마나 많은 것이 백과사전적인 내용으로 이어지는가 하는 것이다.그것이 우리가 여기서 판단해야 할 가치고 나는 지금 시리아 내전에 대해서는 그렇게 보지 않는다; 그것은 일어나고 있지만 항상 중요한 사건은 아니다.(러시아가 개입을 선택했을 때처럼)--MASEM (t) 14:44, 2015년 10월 28일 (UTC)
      • 틀렸다는 말은 아니지만 시리아 내전에 대한 정보가 더 있다면 우리 기사에 추가될 수 있다면 아직 기사에 추가되지 않았다.ITN의 「옹구」 섹션의 목적은 ITN의 나머지 부분과 동일하다: 퀄리티를 강조하기 위해서, 퀄리티 있는 기사에 관한 새로운 위키백과 내용을 강조하기 위해서.시리아 내전이 여전히 새로운 뉴스를 입수하는지는 중요하지 않다. 만약 아무도 문제의 기사를 업데이트하기 위해 그 뉴스를 사용하고 있지 않다면 말이다.중요한 것은, 여기서 유일하게 중요한 것은, ITN에 이것을 포함시키고 싶다면, 그 기사가 품질 업데이트를 하고 있다는 것이다.어떤 다른 주장도 조금도 차이가 없다.게시하려면 기사를 수정하십시오.게시된다. --Jayron32 15:23, 2015년 10월 28일 (UTC)
  • 시리아 내전에 대한 러시아의 군사적 개입 제거; 그것을 시리아 내전으로 대체하는 것에 대한 논의는 조금 더 진전될 것이다.스펜서T♦C 20장 44절, 2015년 10월 28일 (UTC)
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

10월 27일


[포스팅] RD: 필립 프렌치

기사: 필립 프랑스어(토크 · 역사 · 태그)
최근 사망자 지명(우편)
뉴스 출처: 수호자
크레딧:

기사 업데이트됨
위키백과 기사와 함께 어떤 사람이나 동물 또는 유기체의 최근 죽음은 항상 게시할 수 있을 만큼 충분히 중요한 것으로 추정된다(이 RFC추가 토론 참조).논평은 기사의 질이 WP를 충족하는지 여부에 초점을 맞추어야 한다.ITNRD.

명명자의 의견:영국의 저명한 영화 비평가와 라디오 제작자들 중 한 명.그는 OBE에 임명되었고 2009년에 "올해의 비평"을 받았다.조지 호 (토크) 2015년 10월 30일 21시 40분 (UTC)

  • 그의 분야에 대한 지지가 매우 중요하다; 우리는 로저 에버트를 올렸고 이 사람은 비슷한 것 같다.그의 후임자는 "영화 평론가 세대"에게 영감을 주었고, 그의 분야와 관련된 인정을 받았다고 말했다.업데이트 내용이 인용된 것 같지만 그의 죽음에 대해 더 이상 언급할 수 있을지는 모르겠다. 331dot (대화) 21:44, 2015년 10월 30일 (UTC)
나는 그의 죽음에 대해 작은 세부사항을 하나 더 덧붙였지만, 내가 할 수 있는 것은 그것뿐이다.조지 호 (토크) 2015년 10월 30일 22시 15분 (UTC)
  • 지원: 기사는 괜찮아 보인다.대표적인 평론가로써의 평론가는 충분히 게시할 가치가 있다. -Kudzu1 (토크) 00:57, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC
  • nom당 지원. --BabbaQ (대화) 12:26, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • 주요 필자의 전문가 주제에 대한 지원.나는 그의 책 웨스턴을 읽었는데 정말 매력적이고 통찰력이 있어, 그래서 지지해.블리스우드 (대화) 2015년 10월 31일 13:00 (UTC)
  • 지지 - 위의 지지에 따라, 나는 그것이 설득력이 있다고 생각한다."준비 완료"라고 표시된 글이니 올려보라고 해.Jusdafax 17:33, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • 게시된 ~ 사이클론비스크릿() 23:46, 2015년 10월 31일(UTC)

[포스팅] RD: 란지트 로이 차우드허리

기사: 란지트 로이 처드허리(토크 · 역사 · 태그)
최근 사망자 지명(우편)
뉴스 출처: 비즈니스 스탠다드
크레딧:

기사 업데이트됨
위키백과 기사와 함께 어떤 사람이나 동물 또는 유기체의 최근 죽음은 항상 게시할 수 있을 만큼 충분히 중요한 것으로 추정된다(이 RFC추가 토론 참조).논평은 기사의 질이 WP를 충족하는지 여부에 초점을 맞추어야 한다.ITNRD.

명명자의 의견:인도의 저명한 약리학자 중 한 명.세계보건기구-인도정부 합동프로그램의 회장도 맡고 있다.그는 두 개의 상을 받았다.조지 호 (대화) 2015년 10월 30일 21:31, (UTC)

  • 지원 확실히 RD#2. – Muboshgu (대화) 00:34, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • nom당 지원. --BabbaQ (대화) 12:26, 2015년 10월 31일 (UTC)
  • 지지 나는 그가 (내 분야가 아닌) RD 바를 만나는지에 대해 전적으로 확신하지는 않지만, 나는 기사의 상태가 이것을 대충 훑어낸다고 생각한다.얼마나 많은 유명한 비서양 생물들이 죽은 후에만 쓰여지는지 슬프다.푸에베이 (토크) 2015년 10월 31일 21:54 (UTC)
  • 게시된 ~ 사이클론비스크릿() 23:46, 2015년 10월 31일(UTC)

10월 26일


[포스팅] 아프가니스탄 지진

Proposed image
기사:2015년 아프가니스탄 지진(토크 · 역사 · 태그)
흐림:규모 7.5의 지진이 아프가니스탄을 강타했다.(우편)
대체 블럽:아프가니스탄, 인도, 파키스탄을 강타한 규모 7.5의 지진으로 150명 이상이 사망했다.
뉴스 출처:(NBC 뉴스),(폭스 뉴스)
크레딧:

명명자의 의견:2015년 10월 26일 규모 7.7의 대지진 파우잔✆ talk✉ mail 11:04 (UTC)

  • 조건부 지원 - 기사 개선 보류 중. --Saqib (대화) 12:37, 2015년 10월 26일 (UTC)
기사를 조금 확대했다.메인페이지에 오를 준비가 충분히 되어 있어야 하는가?블럽을 바꿔야 한다.사상자의 대다수는 파키스탄에서 왔기 때문에 이것은 순전히 아프가니스탄 지진만은 아니다.--사키브 (대화) 13:51, 2015년 10월 26일 (UTC)
  • 개선사항에 대한 지원 - 중요성에 대한 질문 없음초기 세부 사항과 사망 추정치를 정확히 파악하고 기사를 좀 정리하기 위해 몇 시간을 주겠다. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 2015년 10월 26일 (UTC)
  • Wait Wait 뉴스 출처를 방문하여 4명의 사망과 부상자 수를 기록했는데, 이 중 현재 기사에 나와 있는 것과 일치하는 것은 하나도 없다.좀 더 자세한 정보가 나올 수 있도록 시간을 주십시요. -- KTC (대화) 14:05, 2015년 10월 26일 (UTC)
  • 반대 - 조항이 아직 준비되지 않음.--WaltCip (대화) 15:04, 2015년 10월 26일 (UTC)
  • 사망자 수가 늘어남에 따라 대체 지원...기즈모코롯 (대화) 2015년 10월 26일 16:12, 26 (UTC)
  • 지원 및 준비 상태 표시.blumb ~ Cyclonbiskit (chat) 16:45, 2015년 10월 26일 (UTC)
  • 지원 - 대체 흐림 및 기사와 함께 이름 변경(힌두 쿠시 지진) Spiderone 16:52, 2015년 10월 26일(UTC)
  • 사망자와 함께 대체 지원책이 모호하다.자본주의 로드스터 (대화) 2015년 10월 26일 (UTC) 17:17:17
  • 게시된 ~ 사이클론비스크릿() 17:20, 2015년 10월 26일(UTC)
  • 코멘트 비록 그 다음이지만, 당신은 지진이 인도에 큰 영향을 미치지 않았기 때문에 헤드라인에서 인도를 삭제해야 할 필요가 있다. 그것은 인도에서 느꼈지만, 우리가 그것을 언급하지 않는다면, 우리는 인도에 대해 언급할 필요가 없다.사상자는 아프가니스탄파키스탄에서만 보고되고 있다.보안관 (보고서) 2015년 10월 26일 17시 46분 (UTC)
  • 의견 사망자를 310명 이상 또는 300명 이상으로 업데이트하십시오.--Stemoc 07:43, 2015년 10월 27일(UTC)
    WP는 다음과 같이 말하고 있지만, 그것은 이미 완료되었다.ERRORES는 항목이 이미 의원에게 게시된 보고하기에 더 적합한 장소다. --Jayron32 00:19, 2015년 10월 28일(UTC)

10월 25일


[Stale] RD: Flip Saunders

Article: Flip Saunders (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NBA.com
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: One of prominent NBA coaches who died so suddenly. George Ho (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose Saunders was a good coach, but he was not of the transcendent level, like a Dean Smith or Jerry Tarkanian (who both deserved RD, so please don't re-litigate those postings). – Muboshgu (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Appears to have been just a regular coach who had some success. No championships, and no coach of the year honors. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

[Stale] Ivorian presidential election

Proposed image
Article:Ivorian presidential election, 2015 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Alassane Ouattara (pictured) is re-elected for a second term as President of the Ivory Coast. (Post)
News source(s):France24, Reuters, VOA
Credits:

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

Fuebaey (talk) 06:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support: ITN/R. Article could be larger, but it is adequate. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - ITN/R. -Zanhe (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Not exciting or splashy, but decent article and INT/R as noted. Jusdafax 10:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on the merits not required as this is ITNR; update and blurb are all that it is needed. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not gonna close this nomination. Unfortunately, newer stories have been posted, leaving no room for this story. I mark this as "Stale". --Georgie says "Happy Halloween!" (BOO!) 02:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support National-level election. South Nashua (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

[Stale] Omani elections

Article:Omani general election, 2015 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:In Oman, almost 612,000 voters elect a new Consultative Assembly. (Post)
News source(s):Tagesschau, Times of Oman
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Well, as a general election in a sovereign state, this is ITN/R as far as I understand. However, the election does not really make a difference and there is no winning party as parties are illegal in Oman. Feel free to discuss. Maybe someone could create a table with all the winning candidates? I don't really have time for that now... Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: At this point, the article should not be posted in my opinion. If one were to replace the dates, # of voters and names of candidates, this article could reasonably used as an article for an Oman election from a previous year. There should be text outlining what makes this election different, even though it's "fixed". Without an update like that, I wouldn't consider the article to be sufficiently updated. SpencerT♦C 15:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This falls under ITN/R, but I agree somewhat with Spencer in that the update is insufficient. It should ideally summarise the results of the election, even if the candidates all stand as independents. The final paragraph (four sentences) attempts to do this but only mentions one winning candidate, out of 85. Fuebaey (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
That was the only candidate that I could find that was picked out in the coverage of the election. For everyone else, there is just a winner's list... Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Guatemalan presidential election

Article:Guatemalan general election, 2015 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Jimmy Morales is elected President of Guatemala after winning a run-off. (Post)
News source(s):Guardian, Al Jazeera, ABC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Former comedian versus former first lady in a presidential run-off, with a landslide. Fuebaey (talk) 06:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Support – important governmental change. --Jenda H. (talk) 12:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Update odd there is no update I can see, given the actor Morales won 70% of the vote. I can't get to this for a few hours, but it should obviously be posted once it's updated. μηδείς (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
It was a late night nom, so I didn't get to it until now. I've added some prose, albeit incomparable to the seemingly comprehensive Spanish version. There's scope to expand, but I think it gets the main point across. Fuebaey (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • ASAP more than 3KB five sentence three source expansion for rather unusual landslide opposition presidential election. μηδείς (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - explanation needed on this notable election? George Ho (talk) 04:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 04:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Hamilton F1 World Champion

Proposed image
Articles:Lewis Hamilton (talk · history · tag) and 2015 Formula One season (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Lewis Hamilton (pictured) wins a third World Drivers' Championship in Formula One, after his team Mercedes secured the Constructors' Championship. (Post)
Alternative blurb:In motorsport, Lewis Hamilton (pictured) wins the Formula One World Drivers' Championship and Mercedes secures the Constructors' Championship.
News source(s):Guardian
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Notability should be a no brainer. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Highly notable. Gizmocorot (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support and sit back waiting for all the "well it's not over yet, what about the other races" brigade to demonstrate their position. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment:(edit conflict) The blurb implies the constructors' championship was only just decided when it was decided earlier in the season. The bolded article should be 2015 Formula One season rather than Hamilton or Mercedes. Newsworthiness isn't an issue as both are covered under ITNR. -- KTC (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to suggest an altblurb, I agree that it should be made clearer that the constructors' was decided earlier, but I tried to keep the blurb short. Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
If it's such a big deal, replace the word "as" with "after" before "his team". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Added Altblurb. The season (ITN/R article) is updated but not fully sourced. For those that don't follow F1, we could use the infobox picture rather than one that looks like a random driver in a car. Fuebaey (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I believe he is quite well recognizable with his helmet. Also, he is a racing driver after all, and he achieved the feat looking like that. The infobox photo is a little old, there's a newer one from two weeks ago, but he looks like a jackass in that one... Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Speaking as a person who hasn't followed F1 in years, "recognisable" assumes that everyone knows what his helmet looks like, which is similar to a football (soccer) fan describing Cristiano Ronaldo, to a layman, by the colour of his boots. Fuebaey (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, what the hell is wrong with an actual photo of Hamilton himself? This bizarre image is impenetrable to most of our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I've replaced it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. He has secured the championship. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Winning (or clinching?) the title in one of the world's largest, if not the world's largest, motorsport is an obviously huge deal. Zappa24Mati 23:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, but oppose both blurbs as is - the blurbs should make it clear that it is the 2015 Formula One season that is being referred to. So for instance in the alternative blurb, instead of "Formula One World Drivers' Championship", I'd prefer "2015 Formula One World Drivers' Championship". Banedon (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 04:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Polish elections

Article:Polish parliamentary election, 2015 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:The Law and Justice party (prime minister designate Beata Szydło pictured) wins the most seats in the Sejm. (Post)
Alternative blurb:The Law and Justice party, led by Jarosław Kaczyński, gains the largest vote share in the Polish parliamentary elections.
Alternative blurb II:Le parti Droit et Justice remporte les élections parlementaires en Pologne.
Alternative blurb III:Die nationalkonservative Partei Recht und Gerechtigkeit (PiS) um Spitzenkandidatin Beata Szydło (Bild) hat die Parlamentswahl in Polen gewonnen.
News source(s):BBC, Politico, NYT
Credits:

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

Fuebaey (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support First conservative win since collapse of communism in Poland in 1989. Gizmocorot (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment glad to see we're not itching to use "plurality" which makes little sense to most English speakers. Lead is still based around exit polls so obviously oppose until the reality dawns. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment: Actually, if the exit polls are correct, this is going to be an outright majority, so this wouldn't be an occasion to use the word "plurality". It's not really the first conservative win (Law and Justice was already in power 2005–2007), but it would be the first time since 1989 that the winning party woulnd't need to form a coalition. — Kpalion(talk) 11:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support pending article improvement. Article has quite a few unsourced sections. -Zanhe (talk) 23:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait until Monday. Official results are announced then. All we have at the moment are exit polls. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

* Strong support – Law and Justice winning 39 percent is an ominous development for the EU. (Note: I don't think Sejm, the Polish word for parliament, will be understood by most English-lang. readers.) Sca (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

"Sejm" is one of those words that for some reason is used a lot in the media (for example the Telegraph uses it without a gloss), probably because it lacks a direct English translation (similarly, articles on German politics usually use Bundestag, because the most literal translation "Federal Diet" is rather confusing). Smurrayinchester 16:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Note: nearly all english language readers have the ability to click the blue link... --Jayron32 18:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Why not make the blurb instantly intelligible to the reader? Or would that not be the Wiki way? Sca (talk)
PS: I'd never heard the word sejm 'til I lived Warsaw in the mid-'90s. It's not an English word, and its Polish orthography makes it unpronounceable to unschooled English speakers (even though it's actually easy to pronounce). Sca (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support for the alternative blurb. Important development in Europe. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait until Tuesday, The official results have been released showing Law and Justice getting 37.5 per cent of the vote but the official number of seats will not be announced until Tuesday. I would suggest that we not put anything up until we get the official results. See US News and World Report
Preceding comment posted by CapitalistroadsterSca (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – I wasn't able Tuesday to find "official" results, but I don't think we should delay posting this significant story any longer. Sca (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb mentioning Ms Szydlo, as she is the candidate to be Prime Minister, although she is not the party's overall leader '''tAD''' (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Post already. The etymology of 'sejm' "household" is clear enough that challenging it is beyond bizarre. μηδείς (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
'Sejm' old offensive blather. Sca (talk)
  • Note - As of my post, the article has been tagged for accuracy. Might be a good idea to clear that up before putting this one on the Main Page. Jusdafax 16:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – updated with official results from Reuters.Sca (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Still top-tagged with disputed factual accuracy. Could someone resolve it? Brandmeistertalk 19:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Indeed, it may be "post now" or "post already" but with a nasty maintenance tag, we need to work it out. Having said that, I'm not clear on what parts of the article need fixing, There are whole paragraphs without inline referencing and the table claiming to referenced by [38] is pure fiction. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Marking ready: Tag has been removed as Talk page indicates clear consensus for the current presentation (prime ministerial candidates instead of party leaders in infobox). -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • CommentClock simple.svgSca (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Old news. Sca (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know why altblurbs are written in Polish language. There must be a reason or a mistake. George Ho (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
George, this is the Pollish-langauge version:
W wyborach parlamentarnych w Polsce zwyciężyło Prawo i Sprawiedliwość (na zdjęciu prezes partii Jarosław Kaczyński) uzyskując 37,58 % głosów w wyborach do sejmu.Sca (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The only Polish found in the blurbs are proper nouns. I'm not sure why the second (French) and third (German) blurbs were added but perhaps you could ask the proposer. Fuebaey (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
To show how far behind we are. Sca (talk) 01:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Please read WP:POINT. Ask some questions if it doesn't make sense to you. --Jayron32 01:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Fish, vistors, and news.... Sca (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. Consensus seems to be the updates are sufficient, and maintenance issues seem to have been dealt with. --Jayron32 01:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment: Extremely disappointing to see this took three days to post, with the rationale for holding up posting being a tendentious tag that even a cursory glance at the Talk page would demonstrate shouldn't have been placed. I'm glad it's finally up, but jeez, one hopes to see more initiative from the editing community -- yes, that includes the good folks here at ITN/C -- in getting stuff like this ship-shape. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Fully agree with preceding comment by Kudzu. – Sca (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

October 24


[Posted] RD: Maureen O'Hara

Article: Maureen O'Hara (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC News
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Very legendary and successful actress --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

  • support - notable and accomplished actress.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose mostly unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support but needs improvement - As TRM points out, most of the article is unreferenced. I'm not fully sure on her meeting the RD criteria but would edge in favor of meeting that. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Obvious candidate for inclusion. Gamaliel (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. Notable, influential definitely - one of the last of her generation, but the article needs much more thorough sourcing. Challenger l (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support – Per Masem. Very famous. Sca (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Famous actress with a long career and numerous film roles with John Ford and John Wayne. The article needs some improvements, but that shouldn't stop her from an inclusion. --Clibenfoart (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. One of the last people from the Golden Age of Hollywood. Capitalistroadster (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Her filmography turned into a separate page. I need help on reinserting it to parent article. George Ho (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong or unusual about having the filmography at its own article, given its size. You might want to pick out a few works and list her first and last movies briefly below the redirect to the separate article. I'll be busy for the next several hours, or I'd do it myself now. μηδείς (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
As a comment, while we would not worry about the state of linked articles that stem from the bolded one for ITN, having that many unsourced quotes on the filmography page is a bad thing and should be remedied, though that would not hold up her main article. --MASEM (t) 19:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support article has a couple of tags need addressing, but her career and recognition obviously merit posting. μηδείς (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on importance; household name. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Clearly RD-worthy. Agree with George Ho that the filmography should be restored to the article, instead of another click away. Jusdafax 19:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I have referenced every tagged item. I don't oppose restoring the filmography per se, but doing so would be highly problematic since there are quite a few editorial statements about the works that have no references. Simply adding a selected works list with bluelinked works in which she's credited would be fine, if someone wants to do that. I see no reason not to mark this ready. μηδείς (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
    • While this clears the CNs, there's several whole paragraphs unsourced that are more than just listing film credits (that is, contain claims that needs statements). --MASEM (t) 22:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Please tag a few items then. Most of the "she appeared in" stuff does not need a ref if there's a bluelink to a work she's been credited in. It is a lot easier to look for refs for tagged items than to read peoples' minds as to what they would like reffed but haven't specified. PS< I will only be on line a few minutes at a time for the next 3 1/2 hours, so the nominator is invited to help with the article. μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
At minimum each paragraph needs an inline source, period. (And if there were unsourced quotes on the page, they would need those). I've also found that editors get very upset when you orange tag or CN tag an article that's been nominated at ITN, because they seen it as a malicious action, so it becomes counter productive. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I CN tag such nominees all the time, but if no one wants more than at least one ref per paragraph that's fine with me. μηδείς (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
A minimum of one inline per paragraph helps to make sure that readers have a good expectation where to find a source to back up material, and gives potential editors a sign that material should be sourced when they add. More sources are always appreciated and a few places (in general, not here) where sources are required like on quotes, but a minimum of one inline per paragraph is a good rule of thumb. (I'm adding this comment after its been posted and the diff Medeis links below and it's fine now). --MASEM (t) 03:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
W'll, jeez, Masem, barnstars is . . . thataway. μηδείς (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Ready the article is updated by well over 2KB with more than some two dozen sources, at worst one per paragraph, although usually well better. This should go up ASAP. μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 03:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, @Spencer:, that was quick! μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

October 23


RD: Murphy Anderson

Article: Murphy Anderson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): http://www.comicbookresources.com/article/prolific-dc-comics-artist-murphy-anderson-passes-away-at-89
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Major comic book artist, forty year career. In several comic book halls of fame. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Article is in pretty good shape, needs a few refs but not much overall. I won't vote on this since it is not a field I am intimate with, but the guy seems storied enough that I suggest editors here have a look. μηδείς (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: Don't really see how this gentleman was more significant than the average comic book artist. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

RD: Thomas G. Stemberg

Article: Thomas G. Stemberg (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Boston Globe Fortune
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Businessman who founded Staples Inc. and pioneered the office supply store. Kudzu1 (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - Criteria seems there. Article is fine save for one sentence that needs a source "Stemberg is also an ardent philanthropist in myriad of areas pertaining to education." but that should be easy to add and/or remove it until one can be found. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I doubt he's recognizable outside the US, even if Staples Inc. has branches in several countries. Brandmeistertalk 19:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending some article flow and sourcing improvements. It's not just that Stemberg founded Staples, listen to Mitt Romney talk about his significance:

Romney recalled that shortly after he was elected, Mr. Stemberg asked him why he ran for governor. Romney said he wanted to help people, and Mr. Stemberg replied that if he really wanted to help, he should give everyone access to health care, which Romney said he hadn’t really considered before. “Without Tom pushing it, I don’t think we would have had Romneycare,” Romney said. “Without Romneycare, I don’t think we would have Obamacare. So without Tom, a lot of people wouldn’t have health insurance.”[1]

References

  1. ^ Luna, Taryn (October 23, 2015). "Staples founder Thomas Stemberg dies at 66". Boston Globe. Retrieved October 23, 2015.
So that's impact. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - per criterias met.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There are thousands upon thousands of companies. Co-founding one, even a very notable one, doesn't necessarily equal ITN-level significance in one's field, and he doesn't appear to be a particularly recognizable figure, either inside the US or out. I also don't give much weight to the Obamacare angle - lots of people had suggested similar proposals, and I doubt Obamacare is what Stemberg had in mind. Having said that, I suppose he was an innovator in retail office supply, but that seems like a pretty narrow field. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as not meeting the RD criteria. As stated, founding a notable company doesn't make one very important to their field. His influence on the ACA (likely unintended) doesn't make him notable to a field. 331dot (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per previous two comments. Mr. Stemberg seems notable only within a discrete U.S. business niche. Sca (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd just like to point out that nearly all businesspeople engage in charitable giving due to the benefits in the tax code and for the approbation of their peers, and mentioning their charity in RD nominations does nothing for the chances of getting posted. Abductive (reasoning) 16:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Some people give enough to charity to earn the title "philanthropist", and it does mean something. The Walton family engages in almost zero charitable efforts. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Hurricane Patricia

Article:Hurricane Patricia (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Hurricane Patricia, the strongest ever recorded in the Western Hemisphere, makes landfall in Mexico. (Post)
Alternative blurb:Hurricane Patricia, on the Pacific coast of Mexico becomes the strongest ever recorded in the Western Hemisphere.
News source(s):weather.com, CNN 'the most dangerous storm in history', BBC Hurricane Patricia: Mexico awaits 'strongest ever' storm
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article in good shape, storm is monstrous record breaker, should be ready to post on landfall μηδείς (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support I'd say a major hurricane, especially with a qualifier like "strongest ever recorded in the Western Hemisphere", is worth posting. It helps that the article is in nice shape. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Wait until landfall actually occurs before posting, of course. Still offshore at the moment. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I was surprised this wasn't up yet, so the blurb is prenature by a few hours. I see no reason we can't post with an appropriate blurb, then update is as needed. There is no question whether it will make landfall. μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait Per my comments on the talkpage, wait until landfall and until there's a clearer picture of what damage it's causing. We already have Typhoon Koppu in ITN—if this runs now, we'll have the perverse situation of "storm uproots a few trees and is possibly linked to a landslide" running above "storm kills 50 people and leaves 100,000 homeless". ‑ iridescent 18:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree this should wait till landfall, which will be by this evening (the next 6 hours or so), but the hurricane is being compared to Typhoon Haiyan which killed 6,300, and has sustained winds of 200mph 350 kmph.
I mostly agree, except that 200+ mph and a record 879 mbar is by itself more a piece of news than uprooting a few trees. Cato censor (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. While we can't post a "makes landfall" blurb yet, we can definitely post a blurb about it being the strongest hurricane on record. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, on that basis I have added an altblurb. μηδείς (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, You can also give some figures in the blurb as "strongest ever" may not convey that much information anymore in this day and age where such records get broken almost every year. E.g. one can mention the 325 km/h sustained wind speeds and the 400 km/h wind gusts. Count Iblis (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Strongest ever, eh? Yeah that's notable and ITN-worthy. Jusdafax 19:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - As per above. It is already causing heavy weather on coastal towns. See The wheather channel. Cato censor (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Marking ready on the basis it is the strongest hurricane ever, that altblurb can be used now. The storm already killed six as it was forming, if that matters, but most importantly our readers will be looking for this, given the coverage. μηδείς (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I posted a cut-down alt blurb. The "on the Pacific coast of Mexico" part of the original altblurb sounded ungrammatical to me, so I left it out for now. Perhaps someone can suggest a better formulation if people feel we need the "near Mexico" part. In any case, the blurb should be updated once it makes landfall. Thue (talk) 22:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Very much agree with posting it now. The blurb can be updated as necessary when there are new updates. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
      • It has also made landfall, but I appreciate the effort made in shortening blurbs. μηδείς (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I was surprised by posting without much effect...but good job on tweaking it. IOfcourse we can update if, lord forbid, its so bad.Lihaas (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - The blurb currently sounds like a fragment. Should it not say "Hurricane Patricia (satellite image pictured) becomes the strongest hurricane ever recorded in the Western Hemisphere."? Andise1 (talk) 03:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Done.SpencerT♦C 06:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
      • @Spencer: I think you should replace the word "hurricane" with the word "tropical cyclone" because technically, since only tropical cyclones in the North Pacific east of the International Date Line and the North Atlantic are called hurricanes, Hurricane Patricia is the most intense "hurricane" ever recorded. Dustin(talk) 04:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
        • @Dustin V. S.: I'm admittedly not very experienced in storm nomenclature and I see both terms used seemingly interchangeably in the article; this is probably best brought up at WP:ERRORS. SpencerT♦C 23:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Puisseguin road crash

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

Article:2015 Puisseguin road crash (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:More than 40 people are killed in a road crash near Puisseguin, France. (Post)
News source(s):Der Spiegel, BBC
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Major incident. Article still needs some work. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending article expansion Oppose per below ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose article in current state, would support if the article was in a better state. It's too short, the article contains little more text than would be in the blurb above. --Jayron32 12:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is an unfortunate traffic accident, but there's presently no evidence of any purposeful misdoings here. This would likely fail WP:NEVENT. --MASEM (t) 13:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
oppose tis mere counting of casualties dotes not notability make. Also per Masem.Lihaas (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on improvements it is a worst France road accident in more than 30 years. Number of causalities is also significant. --Jenda H. (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Horrific mass-casualty event and something highly unusual in a developed country. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Not thatunusual. Germanwings went down ad there have been other road/bus accidents involving tourists etc(in Switzerland a year or so ago if memory serves).Lihaas (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This would of been posted if it had taken place in...--109.149.136.178 (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
    • No, there's nothing about the nation where this happened to consider. It was a unfortunate traffic accident: a truck driver (with no evidence they were doing anything outside of proper driving) lost control of his truck, tried to but failed to avoid hitting a bus carrying a number of senior passengers, and when the bus crashed and caught fire, they couldn't get most of them out in time. Tragic regardless where in the world it happened, but it is not going to make any significant impact on the world at large being a random traffic accident. This is why it fails WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NEVENT. Perfect story for Wikinews, but not ITN. --MASEM (t) 18:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
      • If it happened in Times Square with the same outcome? Well would it be the same outcome. No doubt it would get 10x the media coverage, even if it was a tragic accident. --109.149.136.178 (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
        • If the exact same situation occurred in Times Square, it would still not be appropriate for WP or ITN, even if it got 10x the coverage. It's a very short-tailed news story because it was simply a tragic traffic accident. --MASEM (t) 21:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree with the IP above.--WaltCip (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose A bad accident, but (a) we should not be using the number of fatalities to decide to post or not, and (b) we should only be promoting solid content. This article is 617 B of prose at the moment of my typing this. That's not the kind of article we should be showcasing. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Just to note, it's been four hours since I posted my oppose, and the article is still 617 bytes of prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
    • It's now been more than 24 hours since I opposed and the article is 839 bytes. Still not postable even if there was consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Contrary to the implication that this would have been posted had it taken place in the US or UK, no it wouldn't. Take a look through List of traffic collisions (2010–present) and you'll see that comparable incidents in the Anglosphere generally don't even have articles. (2014 Glasgow bin lorry crash is an exception, but that's probably owing to the major legal case still going on about it.) The closest recent equivalent, 2015 Karachi traffic accident, wasn't even suggested for ITN; Acayucan bus crash was suggested but overwhelmingly opposed. ‑ iridescent 18:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support iff improved - significant road accident with high death toll. But the article cannot be posted in its current condition. Mjroots (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per international covarage. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 19:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is just an isolated traffic accident with no deeper meaning, consequence, or connection. Thue (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Very tragic accident indeed. Still a lot of overemphasis in attempt to prove that media are interested in French local news. Coverage in the article is limited at best. And I don't give a damn about whether bus and lorry accidents are rare in France. Bus crashes are... newsworthy, but they do not reach to the Wikipedic standards of ITN, especially when nominations on past bus crashes (as said by someone else) resulted in "no consensus". Now as I realize, consensus are editors-in-chief (or editors in charge)... sorta. George Ho (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support If an aeroplane accident killed 40 people, it would undoubtedly be posted. No-one has ever given a persuasive explanation of why an aeroplane accident that kills lots of people is far more notable than a road accident that kills the same number. Neljack (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Because no one asked that question. Airplane accidents are rare, and car accidents are common. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
      • And I really think we should reconsider posting every air accident, even the smaller ones. Some of them are just not that important. Thue (talk) 11:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
        • A key thing to remember about accidents involving any type of public or large commercial transportation service (Airplanes, trains, and water-going vessels) is that these industries are generally highly regulated and any accident is going to be explored in depth by authorities and potentially many others. That draws attention to them and gives them some type of long-tail story if a number of deaths are involved. Traffic accidents like this will have some exploration by local authorities but there is nowhere close to the level of scrutiny that the larger accidents would get, hence why they tend to not be articles on WP much less ITN. --MASEM (t) 13:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
          • Sure. But sometimes a 40-casulties air crash is just "low-standards third-world aircraft company doesn't follow good practice, makes obvious mistake", which isn't really that interesting. Thue (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
            • Yes, agreed - just that I'd consider it a rule of thumb to consider the differences between commercial air/rail/sea transport accidents and traffic accidents, not a hard line as implied. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think fatality count absolutely can be a factor in some cases, but the List of traffic collisions (2010–present) shows this is the fourth traffic accident to claim over 40 lives this year alone, and a quick survey of the list as a whole shows most such incidents don't even get articles, making it a safe bet they didn't get posted ITN either. Granted, this is an exceptionally large accident for France, and most such accidents take place in countries with considerably more dangerous roads, but I think that's a bit too fine of a line to draw for ITN purposes. This is another case where my gut reaction was "of course it should get posted" but due diligence convinces me otherwise. - OldManNeptune 02:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I do not find this interesting. In fact, I'll go further to say that I think the article is worthy for deletion per WP:NOTNEWS. It is just a simple traffic accident, nothing more. Banedon (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – While tragic for the numerous victims and their families, and widely carried Friday by Eng.-lang. media, the event lacks wider significance or ramifications, and will fade fast as a topic. Sca (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - tragic and high number of deaths. beyond the usual crash. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose from nominator. I nominated this in the hope that the article would be updated, which I don't have the time for. Since that didn't happen, I don't see the quality anywhere near main page status. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 22


[Closed] Sweden school attack

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

Article:Trollhättan school attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:A masked man attacks students at Kronan School in Trollhättan, Sweden, killing two people and injuring two more students. (Post)
News source(s):[5], [6], [7]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: A unique event in Sweden, has received attention world wide. BabbaQ (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sad, but not an extraordinary occurrence among school attacks worldwide. Brandmeistertalk 15:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • OpposeWeak support Per Brandmeister; a tragedy but not significant on the larger scale of things. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    Compared to American school mass killings I suppose? "the deadliest attack on a school in Swedish history." The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    As details of this become clearer, the reason this story is notable is the apparent motive (what looks to be strong anti-immigrant beliefs) and the method (the fact he used the Halloween time of year to disguise himself and enter the school with a bladed weapon). It's not the numbers though that makes this ITN. --MASEM (t) 21:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - This would not be an extraordinary occurrence in the United States. Let's be clear about that. The last time there was a school attack in Sweden was when Khrushchev was the leader of the Soviet Union.--WaltCip (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak OpposeSmall-event with very localized effects. Loss of life is sad, but aside from taking place in a school it's nothing different from any other daily homicide/double homicide that happen en masse across the globe. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    Small event with very localized effect = swedish and not american.. when it happens in America is happens to the world, when it happens in Sweden it is "local". Just pointing it out.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    That's not the case. Umpqua Community College shooting got dismissed as "parochial". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    Actually, it didn't; it got dismissed as not being unusual for the country in which it happened. I would have supported such a major event in Sweden. Having said that, I am opposing this as well. Black Kite (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    Indeed, it was dismissed as "business as usual" in America, where nothing changes every time children and teachers get murdered thanks to the amendment. Muboshgu, you have been informed countless times that mass murders occur on US soil daily, so why are complaining about this incredibly rare and unusual event? How can you compare this to the daily slaughter of Americans through gun crime? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    For me personally, it hearkens back to the Vietnam War when Walter Cronkite would close out every broadcast by announcing the number of Americans that had died fighting in Vietnam that day. Entirely different realm from this story.--WaltCip (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I don't appreciate the accusation of bias here in the least and suggest you refrain from doing so again in the future. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Small incident, even by Scandinavian standards. Abductive (reasoning) 16:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    Nice save.. lol.. but not true though.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    2011 Norway attacks. Abductive (reasoning) 17:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, which was the worst atrocity since the Second World War. This is super-rare, just because the rest of the world has become accustomed to mass slaughter of teachers and children almost daily, you need to consider the context, e.g. "the deadliest attack on a school in Swedish history.".... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose I would be a hypocrite if I supported this after opposing pretty much all of the parade of US school murders. I'm actually surprised this is getting international coverage; I suspect this is due to the sensational nature (armed with a sword?). I understand this is a very rare event in most countries, let alone Sweden, but I am wary of allowing us to post any attack on a school that results in fatalities. Black Kite (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support extraordinarily rare event, unlike all the US mass shootings we see daily, this will have a long term impact as the authorities change things in light of what happened, unlike in the US where mass shootings and murders of teachers and children are now accepted as commonplace. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Remember that it wasn't a shooting here. It was a guy with a sword (he was shot during apprehension). It's crystal balling to assume this will have an impact. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
      • It is crystal balling to assume it will not. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
        • And the fact that it is not a shooting but stabbings are further evidence towards it being an unusual event in this part of the world.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
          • On the other hand stabbings are not so rare in Sweden at lest this year. --Jenda H. (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
        • It's crystal balling either way. Presently, we have a case of this being a spot of violence that has left 3 people (including the attacker) dead. That on the larger scope of things is negligible when many many more people die from violence in areas like the Middle East each day. That could change (see Almighty Drill's comment about potentially a larger story here), but right now it's a story that happened. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Same here. Let's not overemphasize this as media have been doing lately. George Ho (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    Odd point George: " "the deadliest attack on a school in Swedish history." hardly over-emphasising stuff is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now – I created this article, and I see what people are saying for and against. However, there is circulation on the perpetrator which I won't go into here, but if true, would have a profound effect on this case's importance '''tAD''' (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    Well it sounds like you should go into it. Why be so nebulous? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    Unsure why TAD is being coy about this, since it's appeared in at least one reliable source; there's an allegation (unconfirmed) that this was an attempted Breivik-style terrorist attack by a far-right extremist. I personally wouldn't consider that as having any effect either way on notability, unless he turns out to be part of a broader conspiracy. ‑ iridescent 18:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • When I wrote that comment, I had only seen Anonymous' doxing on Twitter. They could well have doxed an unrelated person. It is quite clear now that they had not '''tAD''' (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Now support: Likely political motive and first attack on a Swedish school since JFK was in the White House. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Violent crime is not as common in Scandinavia as it is in many other places, but this is still far too low level of an event to warrant attention on ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    Ironic: "the deadliest attack on a school in Swedish history." - if this was the case in the US, we'd be posting yesterday. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    Indeed ironic. When a similar thing happens in America it is of "world interest" when it happens in Sweden it is "a local story of little importance". How ironic :)--BabbaQ (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    I find it ironic that TRM is pushing for a single isolated attack that as far as I can tell has no greater significance, while opposing any gun violence in the U.S. that demonstrates our inherent and ongoing gun problem, which is resulting in attempts at legislation. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    Speculation on your part. You are not here to weigh this against an American gun violence issue. So, you can do better.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    Just trying to make sense of a perceived inconsistency. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    I find it ironic that you make that claim. The US is completely blind to its internal problem of mass slaughter of children on a daily basis. More advanced societies find this to be abhorrent, hence why this news item is so significant. I'm sure I don't need to repeat the statement "the deadliest attack on a school in Swedish history" to make it clear how significant this is. To cover all the mass murders in America, we'd need a ticker which would update more than once per day. This is absolutely different, and important because of that difference. If the Americans here think it's just "meh" then more fool them. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    You mischaracterize the situation by saying we're "completely blind" to it. We're not. Gun control activists are at a weakened state while the National Rifle Association has demonstrated it has more power than we ever thought. This comment just shows me you don't understand the issue of gun violence in the U.S. And since it doesn't relate to this nom, I'm done on it. I already supported this nomination. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Unless VIPs were involved, I cannot recall any criminal violence being posted here with only two victims. On a side note I must ask, yet again, that people refrain from commentary that clearly violates WP:FORUM. This is and has been for some time an ongoing problem whenever these kinds of stories come up. I honestly don't care what anyone's views of American gun laws are. THIS IS NOT THE PLACE FOR POLITICAL EDITORIALIZING. To all concerned, please stop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
No, but it is a place for some parts of the world to recognise that the murder of children in schools isn't a daily occurrence. Clearly this is a significant news story (otherwise why would it be headlining around the world?) and it's odd to try to suppress it simply because it doesn't meet some arbitrary death count, which is exceeded daily by mass murders in the US. We're talking about an attack in a first world country who value the lives of their citizens and especially their children. Your shouting is noted, but not required. If it helps you focus, I'll repeat: "the deadliest attack on a school in Swedish history." If you switch out Swedish for American, would you expect to post the new item? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind this being posted but if you switch out Michigander or North Carolinian or Georgian (not the country) for Swedish would you still have supported their worst school attack? Nine and a half million live in Sweden and about ten million in each state. Sweden is awesome though, they go decades between school attacks, I'm jealous. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, we're talking about a country here that isn't America. Perhaps that's not clear. It's not about the population, the proportions, the numbers, it's about the fact it's Sweden, and this stuff doesn't happen there ever. Unlike the US where it happens every single day. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Each and every story is unique and should be treated that way. This story shouldn't get preference because there's less violence in Sweden, likewise shootings in the U.S. shouldn't be dismissed just because there are so many of them. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's absurd, this story is fundamentally more important simply because it is so rare. Mass shootings in the US happen every day, attacks on schools in Sweden happen every other decade. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
It is not political editorializing to say that school shootings at every level have become routine in the United States, because that is something that every person on both side of the political spectrum in the U.S., when pressed, will admit. There is just no comparison. America is letting their kids die on a near-monthly basis due in no small part to horrendously lax gun laws. This does not happen in any other developed country, and certainly not Scandinavia.--WaltCip (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I held off until now on deciding one way or the other. The possible motive of right-wing anti-immigration is sufficient for me to post, as opposed to a random attack. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Did you mean "oppose", Muboshgu. "As opposed" would imply that you oppose posting this. This isGeorge Hoactually (Talk) 00:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I meant that I support "as opposed" to if this was a random attack, in which case I would oppose. But after reading some of the opposers below, I'll change to weak support. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per WaltCip. It wouldn't definitely have been an extraordinary occurrence had this happened in the United States. Unfortunately, this happened in Sweden, a European country where many would surely not remember the last such school attack.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support in proportional terms with respect to population, attack more grave and tragic than Umpqua Community College shooting. Gizmocorot (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    • We should never use relative numbers based on country population to determine if something is more tragic than another event. (3 ppl in a 10M country like Sweden would then be equated to 300 ppl in a place like China, which seems far too high to determine if something is tragic or not). There are other reasons to consider the nation of the event, no question, but not number of people relative to the country. --MASEM (t) 20:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Indeed, since it's "the deadliest attack on a school in Swedish history", even you Masem should be moved to agree with yourself and support this. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Using superlative language like "deadliest" when only 2 innocents died is really pushing importance. (And arguably the previous one in 1961 had more wounded than this one, so that still is begging on the language issue). The fact that Sweden generally does not have such incidents, and now what is being reported as the motive and methods used in the killings, are the salient points, not the fact that this questionably the deadliest one. We particularly should not be using the anti-nationalistic "school shootings happen all the time in the US, we just ignore those" thought process. Case by case treatment is required. --MASEM (t) 21:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
      Scale is definitely important, not necessarily 1:1 ratio, partially logarithmic.. with due weight to motive/type, past similar events.... Gizmocorot (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. What really matters is whether or not this is notable in Sweden, which it certainly is, and this is getting coverage worldwide from what I can see. The attack seems unusual additionally because it was with a sword(from what I read). 331dot (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Can't recall us ever posting an ITN incident with such a small death toll. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    Can't recall us not posting "the deadliest attack on a school in [insert your country here] history." The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    @Kudzu1: There is no death toll requirement; each nomination is evaluated on its own merits. We post some things with zero deaths and things with many deaths; we also do not post some events with zero deaths and with many deaths. It all depends. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support deadliest school attack in Sweden. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The section is "In the News", not "What we think ought to be in the news", and whether right or wrong this is getting significantly more coverage—and not just in Sweden—than comparable incidents elsewhere. ‑ iridescent 20:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Except that we don't just mirror the news, otherwise we just might as well shut down ITN and replace it with an RSS feed from the BBC. We are selective based on the encyclopedic quality of the news story. Coverage is not always a strong indication of encyclopedic worthiness (such as would be the case for most celebrity news). --MASEM (t) 21:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose A double homicide of non-notable persons should rarely be in the section, I think, despite the yellow press' obsession with school related attacks akin to the missing white girl syndrome. The possible political motive can't be used as a supporative argument either given that the police has simply stated they will not comment at this point but will study it, at this point it is based on the tabloids checking Facebook and Youtube likes. --Pudeo' 21:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose As discussed repeatedly here before, a double-homicide of non-notable individuals does not meet the importance criterion of ITN. I am not persuaded by logic that this is a "record" school attack in Sweden - there are records occurring every day that we don't post. Unconfirmed rumors of political motivations are also not persuasive. I do, however, offer condolences to the Swedish community in dealing with this loss. Us not posting this event does not diminish its tragic nature. Mamyles (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Very well said. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Mamyles and others. Calidum 22:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Mamyles and Puedo, among others. Highly tragic but not an ITN-level subject, in my view.Jusdafax 04:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as essentially a non-record. This guy killed a single person, which makes it the most deadly school attack in Sweden since year X. If the guy had not killed anybody, but still harmed the others, it still would have been the most vicious school attack since year X. Had he merely threatened the students, he still would have set a record for the most threatening school threat since year X. The only facet of this that gives it any hope on ITN is the fact that it happened in Sweden. In the Anglosphere, this would be non-notable. If the Swedes want to post this, then let them post it on their version of ITN.128.214.53.18 (talk) 07:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
    Nonsense. It makes it the deadliest school attack ever. It absolutely is notable in the "Anglosphere", that's why it's all over English language news sites. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
It is the deadliest school attack in Swedish history, not counting deaths due to war or civil upheaval. That's already quite a bit pigeonholing already. I just checked the NYTimes, WashPost and Guardian. This story is on the frontpage of Guardian, has a tiny snippet at the bottom of the page in the Times, and is not mentioned at all on the Post's frontpage. That's a pretty mixed result for supposedly being "all over" the news.128.214.53.18 (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, when it happens in America it is a World event story, when it happens in Sweden it is local. It is the way the world works sadly. Not only on Wikipedia. It is however strange that Wikipedians apply a "American standard" on a crime that happens in Sweden, the US is now used to these kind of school attacks but you can not apply the American standard to Sweden. I also suspect that several users here are from countries "used to violence" of this sort and are a bit numb. Just being real. --BabbaQ (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
It is almost as if, people who speak different languages take notice of events differently for some reason, and this is inexplicably reflected in the language-specific frontpages of Wikipedia.128.214.53.18 (talk) 08:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 21


[Posted] Chelonoidis donfaustoi

Article:Chelonoidis donfaustoi (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Scientists describe a new species of giant tortoise, Chelonoidis donfaustoi. (Post)
News source(s):PLOS ONE, Washington Post
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Even though a reclassification, the elevation to the full species status of such big animals seems significant. Article is open to further expansion. Brandmeistertalk 11:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support truly a giant news, it is a type of stories which should be promoted on wikipedia front page. It's sad that we have no image. --Jenda H. (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - of course. important and interesting.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I like turtles. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per BabbaQ. Banedon (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted, although the article is a little short. Stephen 03:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Typhoon Koppu

Proposed image
Article:Typhoon Koppu (2015) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Typhoon Koppu (satellite image pictured) kills at least 50 people and displaces more than 100,000 others across the Philippines. (Post)
News source(s):TWC, BBC, AlJazeera
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Deadliest typhoon of the year (specific to the 2015 Pacific typhoon season) with widespread and long lasting effects across Luzon. Nearly 1 million people have been directly affected by the storm, of whom more than 100,000 are displaced according to the latest Sit Rep from the NDRRMC. Also worth noting that at one point, 9 million people—approximately 9% of the entire country—were without power. I've been hesitant on nominating this since by Philippine standards it's not exceptionally bad but it's still a major natural disaster that's worth posting on ITN. Impact section could use some expansion, which I'm currently working on, but the pressing details are up-to-date and should meet ITN standards. Wasn't sure what day to place the nomination on since the storm struck on October 17 but effects are still ongoing (more fatalities occurred yesterday, fwiw). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Significant death toll and large number of displaced persons. Neljack (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Significant storm and human impact, article is well-sourced from the start. --MASEM (t) 00:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Prhdbt [talk] 00:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Well updated and although not unusual for the area, still worthy of mention to our Pacific readers. The next editor with a justified support should consider marking this ready. μηδείς (talk) 02:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Significant weather event with widespread impact. Would mark as ready if I knew how. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Seong-Jin Cho wins the XVII International Chopin Piano Competition

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

Articles:Seong-Jin Cho (talk · history · tag) and XVII International Chopin Piano Competition (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Seong-Jin Cho is named the winner of the 17th International Chopin Piano Competition (Post)
News source(s):BBCABC NewsBusiness Insider
Nominator's comments: Advanced apologies if I'm doing the nomination incorrectly, as this is my first time to do an ITN nomination :) The South Korean Seong-Jin Cho was named the winner of the 17th Chopin competition in Poland, and I think that this one deserves a mention as the Chopin is a prestigious competition in classical music that happens every five years only. I've created a stub with some minimal information, will try to get back to editing it further during my lunch break. --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thanks for the nomination. Part of determining the consensus to post this depends on its coverage in the news; can you provide some links to news stories about this event indicating it is 'in the news'? 331dot (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
How many news items would be needed for this? Here are some of the English-language news items I've picked up so far:
There also seem to be others in Polish, [https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=dAxGwzfmkkZPbaMD5O8Om3VfaGjXM&q=seong+jin+cho&lr=English&hl=es&sa=X&ved=0CCcQqgIwAmoVChMIw6fI2MfSyAIVjgmOCh1BCgKp Spanish and German [12] news websites, but I'm not well-versed in those languages to check the contents. There also appears to be a couple of news items in Korean, too. --- Tito Pao (talk) 02:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose on article quality - The links above do show the competition appears notable but the articles needs more prose and the like to be a suitable ITN entry - just a list of competition results is not sufficient. I don't know how much can be added for that, however. --MASEM (t) 03:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Looks like an important competition in the world of music. I believe the article is in adequate shape and decently sourced. Could it be expanded? Probably. But I am not seeing any issues that would bar linking it on the front page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
    • There are only 103 words in the prose of the article, or about 600b of text. That is nowhere sufficient, even if sourced, for a front page item. We have rejected ITNRs that lack such prose (such as the recent US tennis Open). --MASEM (t) 06:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on notability. Haven't seen this in the press, and while the nom itself mentions the XVIIIth competition, the target article is the XVIIth competition. I think that speaks volumes. μηδείς (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I am fairly confident that XVIII is a typo. A cursory reading of the XVII article clearly indicates it is the correct one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose both articles are way below the quality we want to see on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Like sports, this is not really important in a world history context. So IMO the only argument to post it would be if it was prominently covered in the news - which it is not. Thue (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose on quality. While this does seem to be covered in the news, and seems a notable competition in an area not often covered here, as stated by others the article quality is just not there(mostly lacking in prose). If that changed I would be willing to revisit my opinion, and either way I thank the nominator Tito Pao for the nomination. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on importance, but this may be one of those cases where sources just aren't there to write an in depth article on either the competition or the performer. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality per TRM. Ping me when this meats the normal standards. μηδείς (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
siupport different topic and in RS media of note. (pending quality of course)Lihaas (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 20


RD: Sir John Scott

Article: John Scott (medical researcher) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Decorated medical researcher. Not a great deal on the subjects of his research, but the subject was a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire and former president of the Royal Society of New Zealand. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

  • I have not found any news coverage of Sir John's death (I do find it a bit surprising that it hasn't made the news here in New Zealand, so please say if I'm missing something). Some degree of news coverage is obviously a prerequisite for featuring on In the News. As for whether he was a very significant figure in his field, I don't think a knighthood and the presidency of the Royal Society of New Zealand establish that by themselves. I would want to see an explanation of the significance of his research before deciding whether he meets the threshold. Neljack (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This fails on quality and RD Notability. I have seen this nowhere in the news, and the article is basically at stub level, with a one-sentence lead. If it is greatly improved, ping me and I might say otherwise. But at this point it is a no. μηδείς (talk) 02:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose While it looks like he did good research, there's no indication that he was at the top of his field. SpencerT♦C 07:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

[Pulled] Remove "2015 Southeast Asian haze" from ongoing?

Other than table updates, which is disputed and discussed at Talk:2015 Southeast Asian haze, I do not see any substantial prose updates within last five days about "2015 Southeast Asian haze". And I mean prose. --George Ho (talk) 08:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support removal. This has relatively mellowed out, and the article hasn't had substantial updates for days. Mamyles (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - This has gone stale, time to pull it. Jusdafax 14:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I really believe this hasn't been newsworthy for some weeks, so glad to see it being suggested for removal again. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Pulled. --Jayron32 14:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Of course I have no personal knowledge of this topic, but I noticed that Deutsche Welle's English-language TV news show today (Tues.) carried a segment on the Indonesia haze that said, among other things, that it remains severe and could continue for the rest of the year. Sca (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The issue in this case isn't whether or not news stories are still being written about the topic, except tangentially. The main issue is whether the highlighted Wikipedia article is being continuously updated with appropriate new material. Directing readers to articles on "ongoing" stories which are not being updated with quality new information on said stories is not keeping in line with the stated mission of ITN. --Jayron32 03:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
So it remains severe and lasts all year, is that really something we need to persist on Wikipedia's Ongoing ticker? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
R U asking me to decide? I thought it was based on consensus. Sca (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
No, definitely not. Decision has already been made. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I see. Sca (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

October 19


[Posted] Swiss federal election, 2015

Proposed image
Article: Swiss federal election, 2015 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: The Swiss People's Party, led by Toni Brunner, retains its plurality in the Swiss National Council. (Post)
News source(s): Time
Credits:
Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

'''tAD''' (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Ready the article is well updated, over 5.8kb since the 15th and meets the prose requirements. The overall outcom,e is clear, even if a few races are not yet called. The English language press is probably a good 6-24 hours behind the Swiss media. I won't mark this ready yet, in case there's some odd factor that I am unaware of that someone wants to bring up. But my opinion is an admin should feel free to post it now. μηδείς (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Consider waiting as the composition of the executive could change. (unique system that Switzerland has)Lihaas (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The update consisted of one sentence to the lead, two about the migrant crisis and a results table. It could do with more campaign issues and/or, at the bare minimum, prose to the body about the result. Fuebaey (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Given this is a new article, what is necessary is three paragraphs of prose with five sources. This isn't an old article. The winning plurality is not in doubt. μηδείς (talk) 05:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Not sure about your definition of new, but I doubt an article first created back in February 2014 fits that bill. I'm going to oppose based on the quality issues I've outlined above. Fuebaey (talk) 07:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support clearly covers the major issues, sufficiently long, no major quality issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I added a bit to the lede, regarding Swiss voter concerns re: immigration as a driving force in the rightward shift. Still could use expansion in the "Results" section of the article, but it's ready to post per TRM. Jusdafax 14:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 20:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • This should say gains a record plurality given that is what our article says. That's a bit different from simply winning reelection. μηδείς (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
    • That claim isn't currently cited in the article; I can update if this can be confirmed. SpencerT♦C 06:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Per the report at WP:ERRORS (which seems to duplicate this comment), the party won 11 more seats than the previous election. Let's just keep some perspective and stick to reporting the absolute facts, and let our readers determine if such a feat is impressive. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - notable event. major issue.BabbaQ (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Canadian federal election, 2015

Proposed image
Article:Canadian federal election, 2015 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:In the Canadian federal election, the Liberal Party wins an absolute majority in the House of Commons as Justin Trudeau (pictured) is elected Prime Minister of Canada. (Post)
Alternative blurb:The Liberal Party, led by Justin Trudeau (pictured), wins the most seats in the Canadian federal election.
Alternative blurb II:The Liberal Party, led by Justin Trudeau (pictured), wins an absolute majority in the Canadian federal election.
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Preemptive nomination for an election of a G7 country. Pretty big deal regardless of whoever wins. No sources given yet since the results haven't come in yet. (They will come in around (9:30pm EST) Aerospeed (Talk) 00:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

  • The blurb should follow our usual form for parliamentary elections - "X, led by Y, wins the most seats in the Canadian federal election" - rather than saying so-and-so is elected PM. The proposed blurb would be particular misleading if - as seems very likely - no party wins an overall majority. Neljack (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Seems like a good idea. An alt blurb has been added. Thanks! Aerospeed (Talk) 02:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Polls close in, what, 19 hours? We might not know the result for about 24 hours. Why nominate so early? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Support Notable election. The early nomination has the advantage that when the result is known the blurb can be added quickly to the main page. It's good to have something quick on the main page so it looks that WP is verry up-to-date (and there were so less new items the last week.) Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 09:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support – Interesting candidates reinforce this obvious ITN choice. Sca (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • As this is ITNR support on the merits is not necessary; being on the ITNR list presumes such support. Only a blurb needs discussion and article quality assessed once the election results are announced. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Is support on the merits prohibited? Sca (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Posting support on the merits for an ITNR item contributes nothing to the discussion, since that has already been decided. One can certainly post whatever they wish if they want to put the effort into doing something that isn't needed. 331dot (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has called the election as a Liberal majority government. According to their live tracker, the Liberals have the lead in 184 ridings, with 110 seats confirmed (170 seats needed for a majority). —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb Original blurb is misleading, as Canadians don't elect a Prime Minister, per se. That job usually just falls to the leader of the party with the most seats in the House. Canuck89 (talk to me) 04:16, October 20, 2015 (UTC)
  • Added second alt blurb, which I support now that more than 170 ridings have been claimed by the Liberals. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb for accuracy in a parliamentary democracy. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Alt blurb is more compact. -- Callinus (talk) 05:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, but what's the advantage of the phrase "absolute majority' over the word "majority"?79.76.126.240 (talk) 06:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support alt 2, but echo the questioning of the need for the word "absolute". Citobun (talk) 07:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support with a blurb like this - The Liberal Party, led by Justin Trudeau (pictured), wins a majority in the Canadian federal election by winning 184 of 338 seats in Parliament. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 08:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The "absolute" in "absolute majority" is redundant. --LukeSurl t c 12:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - and suggest we post. Jusdafax 12:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Yes. Agree that "absolute" is redundant, though. Time to post this – tops all the main Eng.-lang. news sites. Sca (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted -- KTC (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

October 18


RD: Gamal El-Ghitani

Article: Gamal El-Ghitani (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): International Business Times Associated Press BBC News
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Award-winning Egyptian author and journalist with international recognition and acclaim. Kudzu1 (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose per Smerdis on quality. The article hasn't even been updted for tense, given his passing. It has an entirety of two (2) sources, and as stated, the bibliography is solely in transcibed arabic. μηδείς (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Guinean presidential election, 2015

Proposed image
Article:Guinean presidential election, 2015 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Alpha Condé is reelected President of Guinea. (Post)
News source(s):Reuters, BBC News
Credits:

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

Ali Fazal (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak support not the greatest article I've ever seen but at least it's supported by decent referencing and clearly meets the criteria for ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support There were some uncited quotes in the article that I found references for; looks good to go. SpencerT♦C 22:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Reasonable-looking article. Should be posted. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose No, this is not a particularly important election result. We need to cut down on these auto-postings and post stuff that matters. Any putative significance of this election is the fact that the first freely elected president was reelected, in what is described as a fair election. Unless the blurb and the article states why this election is particularly significant as elections go we shouldnt even consider it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
This election is included in WP:ITN/R, as as such has already satisfied the "importance" criterion to post. If you would like to change that, feel free to post on ITN/R's talk page. Mamyles (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I realize that ITN has absurd criteria for inclusion, and no I dont care to try and change those except by pointing out when they lead to absurd editorial decisions such as for example automaticall posting the reelection of a president of tiny country and the automatic exclusion of a significant act of politically motivated violence in a major nation that has not experienced this kind of event for decades.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I generally agree with Maunus, the Lukashenko re-election is about as much news as the fact that Generalisimo Francisco Franco is still dead. But the problem is we'll end up with a stale or empty queue otherwise. If there were a lot of good nominations, we could argue whether A should push Z off the front page. At this point we're not looking at the prospect of still-fresh news being eliminated by a less important matter. μηδείς (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Being ITNR, even if the article is in good shape, is not a guarantee of posting if consensus thinks that on that specific recurring event, it really isn't as notable as other occurrences. This allows for easy-to-write-and-understand ITNR allowances that can be debated for the exceptional cases (as this one might be). --MASEM (t) 01:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Nothing else has been posted at ITN in the past five days; this is hardly crowding out "stuff that matters", but if you feel that other potential items are being overlooked, please nominate them here at WP:ITN/C. Best, SpencerT♦C 01:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Article quality looks good. Marking as ready. Mamyles (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Good article shape for an election. --MASEM (t) 00:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

October 17


[Closed] RD: Howard Kendall

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

Article: Howard Kendall (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Eurosport BBC UEFA
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Notable football player and manager throughout his career. George Ho (talk) 07:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The sourcing on this article seems very thin, absent in some sections - the statistics section relies on a sub-only service as a source, or no source at all. In addition - I am not seeing how he meets the bar, for notability or influence - the lead of the article does not do the job of outlining who he was, or what his influence was, aside from a few bullet points in his career, which started young. Challenger l (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on sourcing / article quality. In particular, the honours section is unreferenced. A two-time manager of the year and national hall of fame member would be arguable for RD. The "manager of the year" award for English football is a bit confusing - the article on this site about manager of the year awards only go back to 1992/93 (LMA Manager of the Year) or 1993/94 (Premier League Manager of the Season). This may have something to do with the restructure in English football around that time (the Premier League clubs broke away from the Football League in 1992). Biographies of various managers (Kendall, Bob Paisley, Bill Shankly) claim that they won "manager of the year" awards before then, but there doesn't seem to be any supporting evidence (either in their articles or in other wiki pages). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on notability provided that the quality issues are resolved. Just about a support on notability - he was a notable player, famously youthful FA Cup finalist and a significant part of a championship-winning team, but never played at the highest level for England; his fame as a manager rests principally on his first spell at Everton where he a built a team which is one of the best seen in the English game in my living memory. On the point raised above, I think the manager of the year award at the time pretty much went to the league champions' manager regardless, so its probably not a key piece of supporting evidence. But he was certainly regarded as an important figure in the English game, so I'll support the nomination.--Bcp67 (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose a sad loss to the British game, and a truly great manager (probably Everton's finest ever) but not quite making it to RD level. We'd struggle to claim he was at the top of his field when we have contemporaries such as Ferguson and Wenger, and although being Everton's top manager, a couple of league titles, one European trophy and some other bits and pieces don't quite cut it. Article also needs a lot of referencing work, should consensus be in favour of his notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose mainly based on sourcing. Clearly known to Everton fans and anybody who watched English football in the 1980s, and gone too soon, but he wasn't as groundbreaking and internationally known as Ferguson, Wenger, Mourinho et al. '''tAD''' (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] Henriette Reker stabbing

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

Article:Henriette Reker (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Henriette Reker, a candidate in Cologne's mayoral race, is stabbed in the neck by a man claiming to be angry over the Germany's refugee policies. (Post)
News source(s):(BBC), (DW), (The Independent), (Euronews)
Credits:
An independent candidate for mayor of the German city of Cologne, who is supported by Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU party, has been stabbed by a man while campaigning in the city. Henriette Reker and an aide were seriously injured. Mrs. Reker is in a critical condition. Three other people were injured when they intervened to help. Police say they arrested a 44-year-old man, who said he was motivated by Reker’s support for refugees. Reker is also backed by the FDP and Greens, and has been involved in supporting and helping house refugees in the city. The election takes place on Sunday. (Euronews) Jenda H. (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There is already "European migrant crisis". And I doubt that, even with possibly mayoral changes, this would impact Germany's policies on migrants. George Ho (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Horribly sad, but not ITN. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sadly minor acts of political violence occur daily all over the world. We can't put them all on ITN. IMHO this sort of thing should only be posted if a very high level official is the target. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: As above, not ITN. And there's much more violence going on that we should cover first (if at all) before this one. --MASEM (t) 02:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 16


[Closed] RD: Mikhail Burtsev

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

Article: Mikhail Burtsev (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): TASS obituary
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: RD blurb says he's a six time world champion in fencing (saber). Olympic career of two golds, two silvers from 1976 to 1988. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not on RD/importance merit, but I don't think this won't have a chance of being improved for RD posting. --MASEM (t) 04:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The article is little more than a stub, but it is adequately sourced and the subject undoubtedly meets ITNDC #2. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose until article is expanded significantly. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Seems questionable re DC2 due to passage of time. Sca (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
How does the passage of time detract from the multiple medals he won? 331dot (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't, but I think it makes it less likely that today he would be "widely regarded as a very important figure in his field." (But that's just a thought, hence a comment.) Sca (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough; thanks 331dot (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality, and as stated by Masem it seems unlikely to be improved, but if it is, I would support as a multiple medal winner. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • FYI I put an ITN Nom tag on the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose As most of the medals were won in team competitions. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once more than a stub: the notability, unlike Lugnuts, winning serious medals over a long timespan, regardless of team or otherwise, is notable. However, the article really is nothing more than a stub. We can do better, and don't forget, we're supposed to be promoting "quality" to the main page here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality given the lead restates the body of the text, the article does not meet the three pros-paragraph minimum for new articles. If Russophile users JackofOz or Любослов Езыкин or Ihcoyc want to update it, it may be worth posting. μηδείς (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 15


[Posted] RD: Kenneth D. Taylor

Article: Kenneth D. Taylor (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News Los Angeles Times Sydney Morning Herald The Atlantic
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: The Canadian ambassador to Iran during the 1979 Iran hostage crisis who helped six American envoys escape in the "Canadian Caper" operation. Bloom6132 (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support: Article should be brought up to code before posting, but a very notable figure in his field and an important player in world history. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Arguably the hostage rescue was not a single "event" - as sources suggest, it took some time of planning with Taylor's help to figure out how to do it and enact it. Add that he was also an ambassador from one country to another, which is not something to sneeze at by itself (it's not a line for automatic notability/importance but it is a position that requires some degree of recognition) --MASEM (t) 15:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "ambassador from one country to another", do you know how many of those there are and how many there have been on planet Earth?! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Roughly 200 squared at any current time. Which is why I said it wasn't an automatic pass at notability or importance, but it is an additional bit of merit that clearly doesn't make the person a BLP1E problem. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Not on an RD level. It's almost inconsequential. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Alone, no, of course not. Just being an ambassador doesn't even assure meeting notability here. The reason this person's being nominated is because of his role in freeing the Iran hostages, major even of the late 20th century. The point about noting that he was an ambassador is that WP:BLP1E would not apply here even if you took the hostage crisis as a "single" event, because beyond being involved in that, he was also an ambassador. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • No, not at all, being an ambassador is hardly relevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on article improvements: While there is an unsourced paragraph, it is about the history of the Iran hostage situation and is not controversial. That said, I feel this articles doesn't do a sufficient job at explaining Taylor's role in the rescue, and the fact there is more about Argo than the actual event is a weakness to this article. I recognize we have other articles that cover the rescue effort in full but more can definitely be brought into this one. --MASEM (t) 05:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose like Abductive, this appears that he's notable for just one event, indeed there are probably hundreds if not thousands of people who have done similar things, who just don't get the publicity via Hollywood. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Or maybe he got the attention of Hollywood because his actions far exceed those of a typical diplomat? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as meeting DC2. A notable historic figure and important to his field(ambassadors). Article does need improvement as stated but not many ambassadors become notable in the way he did. Death being covered in many places. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support notable historic figure. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support An ambassadorship alone isn't RD material, but his role in the Iranian hostage crisis demonstrates his significant importance in his field of ambassadoring. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: There's very little about the person or his career. The lead and main body of the article is about the hostage event, but that section is mostly about the films, not the person, and reads like a movie review. And what's not about the films, includes contradictory statements such as "CIA organized the rescue" and "let Taylor take the credit for political purposes." But as a bio it's missing too much. --Light show (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. What he did made no real difference at all. Suppose he hadn't been there: Then there would have been 58 hostages instead of 52. The course of history would not have been altered. Abductive (reasoning) 01:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Ask the six people who got out if it made a real difference. Aside from the personal aspect, it greatly solidified US-Canada relations. 331dot (talk) 02:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
And harmed Canada–Iran relations. They didn't talk for years afterwards. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Point taken, but either way, he was notable as an ambassador for his role. 331dot (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Very very famous Canadian and significant figure in on of the most significant foreign relations crises of the later 20th century. The subject of several movies.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support A very famous figure in the 1980s diplomacy. cyrfaw (talk) 07:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Though the article might be ready, I doubt this has any real chance of being posted.--WaltCip (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    Can you explain the purpose of your comment? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    Why?--WaltCip (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    Because it appears to add absolutely nothing to the decision-making process. While I'm used to this with you, I'd like you to explain to the rest of us why you would make such a comment. Of course, you don't need to, that would be typical too. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment while, unlike WaltCip, I believe this will just get the free pass, it's worth commenting on some of the above. I'm reading "very very famous", but that doesn't equate to anything encyclopedic. I'm reading "field of ambassadoring", what is that? So an ambassador was ambassadorial? Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands have been ambassadorial. Subject of movies? Not true, included in movies about a very specific political issue. Anyway, I'll put my hat, cat and mat on this being main page within 12 hours, so big dog deal, it's no longer important that this is English-language Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - While Geoffrey Howe did not do any real significance during his role as Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister (until his resignation in protest), Taylor did something more heroic. And it's just an honorable mention. His obituary won't become a blurb or anything like that, right? George Ho (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

October 14


[Closed] Ongoing? Intifada 3.0

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

Article:Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Since Rosh Hashanah, clashes between Palestinians and Israeli security forces and settlers has been ongoing almost daily. (Post)
News source(s):RTRT2 From Sept: Israel national newsIsrael national news2
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Surprised it hasn't been nominated here, but the practicall y daily stabbings and counter violence (Arson, etc) are a big escalation in a region about to blow (it has, I would say?). Lihaas (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Currently has an AFD. SpencerT♦C 23:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
That AFD is going to close as the article has had a massive revamp since that was created (could be speedy close as we're notw working towards resolution). At any rate, its not going to end before the 7 days are up (if it does then we can close it)...I the interim we can discuss the merits of it and see if its worth posting to ITN when ready.Lihaas (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose until the AfD is resolved. Predictions as to how that will end are neither here nor there and I do not think the nom should have been reopened until that issue is settled. If the article survives then I will reexamine this proposal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose minor (such as this) and not-so-minor scuffles (e.g. Saudi bombing Yemen daily) are going on around the world on a day to day basis, we don't need to list them all, this one in particular seems trivial on the face of it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose right now. Still seems like a relatively minor situation at the moment. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose while POV issues and AFD is on the target, and given the death toll in other middle east conflicts, it's a bad idea to list this target on the front page. -- Callinus (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] RD: Mathieu Kérékou

Article: Mathieu Kérékou (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Bloomberg Le Monde Globo
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Former Beninese president known as one of few African dictators to leave office and then later be elected by popular vote. Death is receiving international attention, as the sources show. Kudzu1 (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Subject meets ITNDC. Article could use a little touching up but is not in bad shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. However he first came to power, he was a long-term national leader. Article seems good enough to me but what do I know? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 01:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Notable leader. Beats out "Geoffrey Howe" to me. However, I'm checking its sources and fixing problems. George Ho (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Sources seem all right. George Ho (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Sourcing looks good for posting. --MASEM (t) 02:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Interesting head of state, unusual for relinquishing power after a coup, then returning after a popular vote, and a well-written article. μηδείς (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

October 13


2015 Man Booker Prize

Article: 2015 Man Booker Prize (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: A Brief History of Seven Killings by Marlon James wins the 2015 Man Booker Prize. (Post)
News source(s): New York Times BBC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: ITN/R award. Andise1 (talk) 04:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

  • 2015 Man Booker Prize, which I believe is the article to be judged, has 431 bytes of prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
    • 2014 Man Booker Prize was ITN last year, and it almost has the same amount of prose and referencing. I don't think this means this years is good to go, I think it needs improvement (a brief summary of what the award is, etc.) --MASEM (t) 04:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
      • The mistakes of the past should not bind us to make equally bad mistakes in perpetuity. --Jayron32 09:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
        • I agree on that. There needs to be serious improvement on the 2015 Man Booker prize article before it can be posted. --MASEM (t) 21:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The article needs at least three full prose paragraphs to be posted, and is nowhere near that. Perhaps the item should be removed from ITN/R given the total lack of interest? μηδείς (talk) 05:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] AB InBev and SABMiller

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

Articles:Anheuser-Busch InBev (talk · history · tag) and SABMiller (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Anheuser-Busch InBev agrees to purchase SABMiller for £68 billion ($104 billion). (Post)
News source(s):The GuardianBBCWall Street Journal
Credits:

Both articles updated
Nominator's comments: If this goes through it would create the world's largest brewer, with a 30 percent market share. There are some regulatory hurdles to clear, but better to post now while it's actually news. Calidum 12:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Notable development in the beer industry. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
As the op said there are regulatory issues. with nearly 50% of the industry's profits the monopoly regulatubions which are harder in Europe are a strong factor.Lihaas (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Both major players in the beer industry. While the articles aren't in poor shape in terms of sourcing, I think a bit of help to clean them up and flesh out a few places where non-contentious statements are made to add additional sources (eg the international activities for each brewer) --MASEM (t) 13:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support A big deal. The size of the acquisition is reason enough for me to support this. Banedon (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Not usually one for business stories but the figure is quite significant—that's a lot of money for watery beer. GRAPPLE X 14:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose yet another mere corporate consolidation. Some bottling plants will close, there will be buy-outs and early retirements. They won't be bringing back Zima. We should feature mergers that promise some sort of innovative synergy, not just downsizing of middle management. μηδείς (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – This isn't just any old corporate merger, it's the world's two biggest megabuck purveyors of panther p---. Sca (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Though a merger would still never convince me to drink any of their swill.--WaltCip (talk)
Stella on tap is not bad if you're in Fosters on tap country...bloody rip off though ;)Lihaas (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - big merger. notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support major deal – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not seeing sufficient updates in both bold articles for this to be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
This back-and-forth sniping is ALSO not a !vote. --Jayron32 15:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Technically that is a "support pending article improvements" !vote.--WaltCip (talk) 02:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes it is. You aren't judging the merits of the story's newsworthiness. A flat "oppose" !vote makes no sense in this context.--WaltCip (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Something more useful than your strange "oppose" !vote? Sure. Will do.--WaltCip (talk) 11:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support when updated. Huge merger for the beverage industry. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. If the Dell/EMC merger was posted then this should be too. Abductive (reasoning) 01:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support major business deal. -Zanhe (talk) 02:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It's just beer, y'all. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support US 104 billion is a big deal, both companies have well known brands all though the Anglophone world. -- Callinus (talk) 07:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support biggest beer deal ever according to CNN Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 07:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Why does Dell buying EMC get posted and this substantially bigger deal doesn't? Sca (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Insufficient update, apparently.--WaltCip (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • As noted numerous times in this forum, and in the rules, the purpose of ITN is to highlight quality Wikipedia content. If the articles in question don't have quality updates (or the articles themselves have major issues) then we don't post. It has nothing to do with anything else. That is the first, last, and only reason why this has not yet been posted, and will continue to be the first, last, and only reason why it will not be posted, up until someone fixes it. If you want it posted, you're the person most responsible for fixing the problem, and then demonstrating to us it is fixed, so we know it's time to post. "But MOM, Jimmy gets to stay up late tonight! Why don't I get to stay up late!" doesn't really apply here as an argument type for posting. That another article was posted has no relation to why this one has not been. If you want this one posted, fix it and then let us know you fixed it. --Jayron32 15:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
No need to condescend. I wasn't aware the article was substandard. Sca (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Jayron, hopefully WaltCip will now have more of a clue. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully TRM will make his positions more clear.--WaltCip (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I've already asked you to go and do something more useful than this, please consider that carefully and try improving something rather than just being a pest. P.S. If you don't understand " I'm not seeing sufficient updates in both bold articles for this to be posted." then there's no hope for you I'm afraid. Go and pester someone else who cares about your odd opinions. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This is literally a big deal. The state of the articles is a minor consideration because people will be reading them regardless. What matters is the content which we have on the main page. Andrew D. (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
    Incorrect. Articles have to be quality and their update has to be sufficient. If you wish to ignore that, or propose a different set of criteria for ITN, please do so, but in the meantime you assertion is completely erroneous. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
    I am well aware of your view but do not share it. We should be encouraging readers to pitch in rather than giving them the false impression that our topics are always polished and presentable. Andrew D. (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
    Then please advocate a change to the criterion which states we should be promoting "quality" articles to the main page. Otherwise your vote(s) are in direct violation of the criteria, and are therefore pointless. Of course, you can stick to DYK if that's your approach, most of the stuff there is far from polished or presentable, seems a perfect playground for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
    Per WP:IAR, it is a core principle of Wikipedia that we use common sense rather than formal rules. WP:NOTLAW tells us that policy follows actual practice. The place to get changes made is therefore in the front line or coal face where the detailed decisions are made. The key argument in this case is that, having just posted one big deal, it would be inconsistent not to post an even bigger deal. The state of the various articles is a comparatively minor consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 07:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, very good, it's so easy to IAR. If you want to continue to advocate posting poor quality items to ITN then please address it correctly by raising an RFC against the extant criteria. Or stick to DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
    If you don't like IAR, then you can take it up with Jimbo. In the meantime, the articles in question have been posted even though they still have ITN banner tags. That's good enough for me so I'm moving on. I now see another interesting item in the news and will indeed promote it via DYK which doesn't have this silly voting process. Andrew D. (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, go for it!! That's a brilliant idea, keep focused on good old DYKs. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
    Are you quite through with your badgering, good sir? And apparently I'm the pest.--WaltCip (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Update – OK, added three grafs of detail re market shares, brands. Others are welcome to pitch in! Sca (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Also CXd prospective U.S. market share. Sca (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Updates to the Anheuser Busch InBev article are sufficient, consensus to post on significance is clear. --Jayron32 20:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

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

Article: Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: The Dutch Safety Board releases their final report into the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 disaster that concludes that the flight was shot-down by a Russian-made Buk missile system in July 2014. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The Dutch Safety Board releases their final report into the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 disaster.
News source(s): (Sky News) (BBC) (Al Jazeera) (9News)
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: We need a disaster-related event. (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This was already known information, and we don't "need" a disaster related event. --Bongwarrior (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    It was not known, it was assumed. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 08:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is barely an important news with nothing outstanding revealed. Buk missiles are widely used in the part of the world where the aircraft was shot down and it still doesn't say too much on the perpetrators.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Support posting that the report was published but oppose posting a blurb that indicates to a single finding. It seems that there are other important findings than the country of origin of the missile, which is something already known and nothing outstanding for that part of the world.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This only formalizes what was already known; the report also make no finding of fault(which would likely be worth posting) 331dot (talk) 12:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - This basically is the formal report that everyone of authority had already assumed. It would have been different if the result was not this. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Support – Yeah, well it's topping most mainstream news sites Tuesday. Sca (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
True, but mention the controversiy from the other side as notable and NPOV.Lihaas (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The other side? Like the egregious destruction of a precious Russian missile, that was minding its own business in mid-air, by a reckless Malaysian Airlines pilot? GRAPPLE X 09:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
There is no need to do that, per WP:DUE and WP:GEVAL. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support per Sca, this is news, unlike Playboy, and it was pretty bloody obvious that the nominator was joking when he mentioned the need for a disaster-related event at ITN, irony fail. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Nergaal (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless Malaysia declares war on Russia or at least something of consequence happens as a result of the report. μηδείς (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Important conclusion to an international investigation that has grabbed headlines worldwide. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Important report, with large impact. It implies that Russia is guilty. Worldwide in the news. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 07:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The report makes no finding of fault; it only says a Russian missile was responsible(which we already knew), and both sides in the conflict have such missiles. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The report seems to reveal other findings of, at least, equal significance as the country of origin of the missile (five key findings reported here). Shall we not post a blurb documenting that the final report was published with no indication to a specific finding if this gets consensus for posting?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
It's the putative smoking gun. Have you noticed how the Russians are doing everything they can to discredit it? Sca (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry but here we deal with news and facts. It's not our job to judge what the Russians or Ukrainians do.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Kiril, please note that I said putative, not proven. Anyhow, to some extent it's ITN's job to reflect media coverage.
Alas, this story is another that's fast becoming a stale fish. Sca (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Sca. Not a groundbreaking report, but it's getting a lot of coverage. Banedon (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - per significant update on a very media covered plane crash/bombing. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, coverage was limited and faded quickly. Abductive (reasoning) 00:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This airplane disaster was featured once due to media's overemphasis and ITN's commitment to be global. But Dutch report won't make the topic newsworthy anymore. Sad that the man researching AIDS met his demise, but the attack as a whole lost newsworthy luster over time. At least "On This Day" can make this encyclopedic. Either blurb doesn't help much. Also, if we post the main blurb, Russia would be scapegoated, and readers would jump to conclusions and be misled. Russian-made doesn't make Russia responsible. George Ho (talk) 03:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Notable report with a lot of media attention. MFriedman (talk) 07:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 12


[Closed] Playboy discontinues full nudity

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

Article:Playboy (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:American men's magazine Playboy announces plans to discontinue featuring full nudity starting from March 2016 issue. (Post)
News source(s):The Guardian, New York Times, Boston Globe
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Not the end of the world, but looks like the first such a decision in the magazine's 62-year history. This is what happens when you try to compete with free web porn. Brandmeistertalk 09:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Quite an unusual nomination, but I like it. Printed porn has been a huge industry, with Playboy being the standard-bearer. Playboy leaving print porn is the symbolic end of the industry. Thue (talk) 10:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Notable change by a forerunner of an industry. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Not earth-shattering, but interesting and unusual news from a well-known entity. I thought it was some sort of early April Fools joke at first. --Bongwarrior (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While I'll admit it is a curious change, at the end of the day this is a business story in fairly small industry, and as such this strikes me as not significant enough of a story to warrant inclusion at ITN. Dragons flight (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    According to our article porn is a $13 billion industry just in the US. Hardly a small industry. 331dot (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    Porn might be considered big business, but porn magazines are not. Porn mags are the least successful market segment of the current porn industry. Playboy Enterprises total revenue was only $135 million (as of 2012) and only a few tens of millions of that came directly from Playboy the magazine. Dragons flight (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    Porn magazines were big business, which is kinda the point with Playboy's decision here. They are getting out of the industry they helped popularize and create. 331dot (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    They certainly did not help "create" the industry. That happened decades before. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Try centuries. Sca (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
MillenniaGRAPPLEX 15:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, but they were a big part of its recent history. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Even if this were of enough significance to post, which I don't feel that it is (Playboy was always a mix of pictures and articles anyway or so I hear; get back to me when Brazzers goes fully-clothed), this is a pretty premature story given that it's not due to happen for at least five months. GRAPPLE X 11:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I assume they have to wait to make the change due to contracts or the next five issues already being in the pipeline. 331dot (talk) 12:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
per request of both disputants, I'm closing this --Jayron32 18:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • The most well known brand in an industry(essentially creating it) having decided to get out of the industry is a triviality? If GM decided to stop making cars or Microsoft decided to stop making operating systems, would that be trivial? 331dot (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Bad examples, and as Grapple X notes, Playboy has always been more than just a bunch of pictures of naked girls, and this is an announcement, not the actual event. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
        • So you read it for the articles, huh? You and I both know this will not be news when the first non-nude issue is released; ITN is stacked against business stories(announcements are not posted because they are announcements but the actual event is almost always in the news less). 331dot (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
          • Sorry 331dot, but this isn't really that interesting at all. And may well not happen. So I'm afraid I'm not interested in continuing this discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
            • Have it your way, and I seek no further reply from you if that is what you wish, but "not interesting" is a poor argument. 331dot (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
              • You linked to arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion, not arguments to avoid at ITN. If an item is not interesting, and not actually happening, it shouldn't be considered for ITN. Period. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
                • A poor argument is a poor argument wherever it is made. Everything is not interesting to someone. Please provide sources which even just speculate this will not happen. 331dot (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
                  • I think you're entirely missing the point. If something is not interesting, not happening, not particularly newsworthy for a global encyclopedia, it shouldn't be at ITN. Now please stop badgering the opposers, you've made your point, we've made ours. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
                    • I am not 'badgering' anyone; simply responding to poor arguments, as you do all the time. I am not forcing you to reply(and specifically state you didn't have to above); it is factually incorrect that this is "not happening"(again, please provide sources). I don't think I'm the one missing the point. But to each their own. 331dot (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
                      • Please stop badgering me, and unless you have a crystal ball, I suggest you wait until this does happen, then we can go through this whole sorry saga one more time, once again declaring it to be trivial, of no real significance, of no real interest and of no long-term impact on anything anywhere. We all get it that you support it, you can now stop responding to each and every person who disagrees with you. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
                      • "Interest" is a completely different animal for ITN than it is for the site as a whole. If we posted everything someone felt was "interesting" at ITN, we'd clog up the ticker every time Kate Middleton farted. A significant portion of why these nominations are discussed like this is gauge a consensus on what is merely interesting versus what is noteworthy. GRAPPLEX 14:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
                        • But by the same token, we shouldn't not post something because some find it "not interesting". Everything is not interesting to someone. If people want to argue this isn't a big industry, or some other actual argument, fine- but "not interesting" is a poor argument in and of itself, just as "interesting" is. I just think we need to keep in mind what the actual purpose of ITN is here and this is one occasion where we are taking our eye off the ball. I appreciate your constructive comment. 331dot (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
                          • Enough, 331dot, enough. It's my opinion that this is not of interest to a global encyclopedia's main page. That's why we are allowed to give opinion here. Now please, do something else. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I will no longer reply to your comments on this matter, but you cannot tell me who I can and cannot reply to. 331dot (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I asked you nicely about four times to stop badgering me. Now stop badgering me. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Could an uninvolved admin please collapse this pointless badgering so we can focus on the topic in hand please? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
      • I consent to collapsing; If you don't like how I did it, you may do so as you wish. 331dot (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Please stop continuing this. Allow someone uninvolved to deal with it, as I asked. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait for march 2016 issue. Nothing has happend yet. --Jenda H. (talk) 13:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    • @Jenda H.: As with most business announcements, the announcement gets more attention than the actual event. This also seems unlikely to be reversed. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Interesting trivia, but not ITN significant; what a business opts to do without pressure from others is rarely important. --MASEM (t) 13:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Even if it's an iconic magazine it's not that big a magazine - based on its page for example the circulation isn't even one million. This is in contrast to companies like GM and Microsoft. There are close to a billion PCs in the world most of which run Microsoft operating systems, while GM not only makes almost 10 million cars a year, it's a company with market capitalization of $50 billion. I can understand the reasons for supporting (hence I only weakly oppose this) but Playboy is not comparable. Banedon (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think this meets the bar for ITN, as a content change of a rather low-circulation magazine. Mamyles (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly a significant change to a central cultural institution of the past 50 years. Also we need some variety - this should get points for not being either a catastrophe, and election or a sporting event.•maunussnunɐɯ• 14:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – If Playboy started running nude pix of men, that would be news (of a sort). This is a snooze. Sca (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – per historic significance and the fact that Playboy probably is one of the worlds most recognizable magazines.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
But is this history wie es eigentlich gewesen ist?? Sca (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Of real significance, of real interest, and of long-term encyclopedic impact.--WaltCip (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Nudity is not mentioned as being part of its notability or stated anywhere in the lead. It's mentioned only once in the 3500-word article. Plus the blurb is too long. "Playboy announces plans to discontinue featuring full nudity" could be tightened to "Playboy surrenders..." to competitors and the less inhibited sources. Anyway, most of us only cared about the interviews.--Light show (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    • The article is not that good (the lead mentions cartoonists it published but not a single celebrity to pose for it?), but Playboy really changed the porno game back in the day. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support Playboy was a game changer back in the day, so for the cultural impact of Playboy, and what it says about the prevalence of Internet porn, I'll lean support. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this is just an announcement on what they'll change in their product. It's not as if they're gonna discontinue the magazine or something. 117.192.162.88 (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's entertainment trivia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD "The Playboy Centerfold". Of course, we should have to wait for the last issue. μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is not thaaaat important... Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Playboy's circulation has been going down for years, and they ran a disastrous strategy of allowing porn behemoth MindGeek run their online site until 2014. With Mindgeek sites making it nearly impossible to convince customers to pay for erotic images, Playboy is desperately trying to reinvent itself as a second rate male lifestyle/fashion brand. -- Callinus (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not much lasting impact in the field because of this change. SpencerT♦C 18:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment probably worth closing this now and moving onto something which is actually newsworthy and interesting to our global encyclopedia audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Dell acquires EMC

Proposed image
Article:EMC Corporation (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Dell Inc. announces acquisition of EMC Corporation (logo pictured) for US$67 billion. (Post)
News source(s):NY TimesBBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Why the hell not? Highly publicized, but I'm nominating this as filler. George Ho (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Dell is on the NASDAQ-100 and SNP 500, and is well known as a household brand across the Anglophone world.-- Callinus (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Just to note, Dell is no longer on the NASDAQ or SNP 500. It went private not so long ago. Banedon (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Dell maybe a household name but my issue is that EMC is not a company the mainstream public identify themselves with. Donnie Park (talk) 10:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. EMC may not be a household name (though I'd say they are), but this would be the largest acquisition of a tech company at history. Calidum 12:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support It's a deal worth $67 billion. Banedon (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose While it is a major business deal and a lot of money involved, the relative obscurity of EMC (I had to look them up) and what type of impact will be rather low here; this is, for example, not like the AT&T/Direct TV merger that will readily affect millions of people immediately. --MASEM (t) 13:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    • No offense, but your ignorance of EMC (a company Dell values at $67 billion, with a 'b') should not count as a reason to not feature this. Your not having heard of this company doesn't make its net worth any weaker, nor should it affect whether we feature the acquisition or not. Banedon (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Even considering the nature of EMC's value and reputation, the net result here does not seem to be a major shift in the computer and technology sector - it is Dell making sure they remain important by having a strong computer storage company under their belt. The articles provided as sources both indicate that the importance of the deal is for Dell to stay relevant as cloud computing becomes more common. It is not going to affect most of the population otherwise. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
        • I don't think your personal analysis is important in assessing this globally significant business deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, a 67-billion deal that's the largest tech company acquisition ever. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support major business deal is size and scope – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - this is a major business deal involving two large companies in the computer field. 117.192.162.88 (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support assuming we have a decent enough update. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Nepal PM

Article: Khadga Prasad Oli (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Khadga Prasad Oli is elected prime minister of Nepal following the enactment of a controversial constitution. (Post)
News source(s): First Post
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Not sure if this is ITNR as its not a popular election nor that of head of state. Nevertheless, the controversial constitution and a pm that is not "interim" following the civil war and removal of the monarchy is notable in that it is far from everyday. Lihaas (talk) 00:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

  • I think it should be considered ITN/R, but I have zero background on what's happening in Nepali politics, so I don't understand why there isn't an election article if Mr Oli was elected. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    • From what I am reading, it looks like the President has the seat of power, the PM someone that is elected by the legislative branch (not a public election) to serve under the President. So that might not be equivalent to, say, PM for England. But someone with more expertise in this area should comment. --MASEM (t) 06:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Sounds like the French system then, where there's a democratic president and an appointed prime minister; we would cover the election of Francois Hollande but not Manuel Valls. GRAPPLE X 09:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Just a heads up: The PM was elected popularly. This is unusual under the circumstance as the constituent assemtnbly was elected and the constitution just passed after about 3-4 years and hence this PM was ot popularly elected. He's not an "interim" PM presiding over the constitutional dsicussions for the first time since the end of the monarchy/civil war/constitutional convention. (as a note, the only Hindu country in the world now has a communist PM too which is notable a move away from religious grounding (India has been constitutionally secular since 1947))Lihaas (talk) 11:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Our articles say he was elected by a parliamentary vote, not popular, which is why it is confusing. The President is definitely a public vote, but doesn't look like the PM is. --MASEM (t) 13:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Yep, he was elected this way but the position is same as a parliamentary system. THATS why I queried it.Lihaas (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support - important change of government leader, but article needs improvement. -Zanhe (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Enactment? Like a civil war battle? Constitutions are ratified or propagated. They are not played out as military re-enactments. μηδείς (talk) 05:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences

Article:Angus Deaton (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Angus Deaton is awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences for his analysis of consumption, poverty, and welfare. (Post)
News source(s):(The Guardian), (The Washington Journal)
Credits:

Jenda H. (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support – It's that time again. Article could be expanded. Sca (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per ITNR when ready... which it is not. Article require serious work, especially in referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending improvements - Needs better referencing overall. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks all three of you, of course "support per ITNR" is pointless. Come back when you've updated the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose wording. It's not a Nobel Prize and it's not officially called that either. Bjerrebæk (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
The term "Nobel Prize" is by far the most widely used in reliable sources and it is the term that most ordinary readers use. See WP:COMMONNAME. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
It also is a Nobel Prize, and is awarded under the auspices of, and fully equal to the other prizes awarded by, the Nobel Foundation, at least according to their official website: [13] The only way it differs is chronologically (being created later than the other five) and in official name (largely due to the first difference). Otherwise, however, it is not "unofficial" nor "lesser" nor "not a Nobel Prize". It is officially, fully, and completely equally a Nobel Prize as much as Peace and Chemistry and all the rest. The fact that the formulation of the official name is slightly different than the earlier created prizes is an inconsequential difference, and as reliable sources report it using the "Nobel Prize in Economics" formulation, we do that as well. --Jayron32 00:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I think it's either called "Nobel Prize in Economics" or "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences". The former, as noted by Jayron, seems preferable here. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
No, the latter is preferable, as the former is incorrect. Fgf10 (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I guess it depends if you use common name or not. Certainly the former is used by reliable sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Of all the names in this nomination to raise an eyebrow I thought it would be another one. GRAPPLE X 09:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Not sure why this has been posted. The sourcing remains well below our usual standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The sourcing seems fine, but I have hidden what look like remarks about poverty that are actually remarks about wellbeing, which is referenced. In any case, I
Support the current posting as is. μηδείς (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I just now went through and removed and/or cn'ed, any uncited stuff. There really wasn't much. There were 2 uncited paragraphs that were in the entire article. One I removed as it was beyond rescue, the other I added a cn tag because it seems easily fixable. Otherwise, I can't find anything which should keep it off the main page. It's short, but not unreasonably so, and reasonably well sourced. --Jayron32 20:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Ach! See above. μηδείς (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Belarusian presidential election

Articles:Belarusian presidential election, 2015 (talk · history · tag) and Alexander Lukashenko (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Alexander Lukashenko is re-elected for a fifth term in the Belarusian presidential election. (Post)
News source(s):The Guardian
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Simply put: fifth term for another five years. Needs an update. Brandmeistertalk 08:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support head of state...no-brainerCas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose why we spam front page with countries where actually nothing has changed? --Jenda H. (talk) 09:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    In this case, because it's ITNR, and once it's been suitably updated, it will be posted. Are you suggesting we shouldn't run results of a US Presedential Election or a UK General Election if the incumbent was re-elected? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    I think it's more a case of not periodically posting that Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead; your examples are of actual elections held in democracies. GRAPPLEX 10:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    Right great wrongs, etc etc. If you want to include a list of non-democratically elected leaders over at ITNR to be excluded, then please feel free to do so. And we all know about Chadgate. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    I know it'll get posted, I'm just explaining the sentiment. GRAPPLEX 10:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    I understood the sentiment, I wanted to know where Jenda H. draws the line. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    There are countries which didn't experienced governmental change since their independence 25 years ago, despite official election. So, the line is there. --Jenda H. (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per ITN/R. Yes, nothing has changed but other candidates were allowed to run for a presidential term, meaning that it wasn't completely certain what the outcome from this election would be. In case he were the only candidate in the election, it'd have made more sense to question the significance of such presidential election.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per ITN/R. If not for anything else I think it is good that we highlight dictatorships false elections.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Normally this should be posted but I am reaaaaly weary of bumping off Nobel laureates in exchange for such bogus elections. Nergaal (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in principle per previous comments. Article might be a bit thin. (Nergaal: It's Chinatown.) Sca (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on the merits or "support per ITNR" is unnecessary and not required; ITNR presumes support on the merits. ITNR discussions are only for assessing quality and discussing a blurb. Opposing on the merits or wanting to somehow limit election postings should be done at the ITNR talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support when ready per ITNR. I had planned to call for a qualifier in the blurb, taking note of international criticism of a bogus election. However, to my intense surprise the report of the international observers was rather muted in its criticism. Not to say there was none, but they did not call this a farce, which I was honestly expecting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

October 11


[Posted] RD: Richard F. Heck

Article: Richard F. Heck (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Nobel Prize winning chemist. Article in good enough condition. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support I think there's a few paragraphs that could have a few more sources but they're far from controversial claims. But Nobel-winning person is definitely RD material. --MASEM (t) 05:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Heck was clearly a notable chemist whose discovery presents a stepping point towards future research. He was also awarded with Nobel Prize in Chemistry.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - clearly notable enough for mention at RD,--BabbaQ (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support with a minor quibble – The first para under 'Palladium-catalyzed coupling reactions' section is unsourced. Vensatry (ping) 14:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Simply winning a Nobel Prize in and of itself has never been considered sufficient reason for posting at RD, and neither does "clearly notable enough for mention at RD" explain why the nominee actually is clearly notable enough for mention at RD. The Heck reaction is apparently quite important, but from reading our article on it, only the synthesis of Naproxen stands out as an example. It would be helpful if we had some sort of mention of important compounds that can now be synthesized due to the Heck reaction. Otherwise we are simply left with an article that says he won a prize for doing some thing in chemistry. μηδείς (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Given that the Nobel is pretty much the only major broadly notable achievement in excellent in research in the chemical field, that's a pretty strong sign that Heck was important to the field. --MASEM (t) 17:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
    • It's not winning the Nobel, it's the work that won them the Nobel. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I don't think anyone can question that a Nobel winner is important to their field. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • If everybody who won a Nobel is unquestionable, then why isn't it in ITN/R? Abductive (reasoning) 20:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
The issue of does a Nobel mean an automatic listing at RD was discussed at length at the time of the death and posting (soon after RD was instituted in late 2012) of Rita Levi-Montalcini who was a Nobelist, but also accomplished on other fronts. The consensus was that a Nobel alone didn't merit posting at RD.
Of course I am not saying that a Nobel is unimportant, or that Heck is not important. But the problem is as I stated; at least Heck or Heck Reaction should make clear to the reader the actual concrete impact of his work. Something like, the Heck Reaction made possible these classes of compounds, which include such important medicines as Naproxen, and several other examples. In other words, if ""It's not winning the Nobel, it's the work that won them the Nobel", then what was the concrete result of that work? At this point, we really aren't telling the readership much beyond he got the Nobel along with a few others for inventing some mysterious process with a very expensive metal. μηδείς (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - Medais had me good this time. Whilst a Nobel Prize winner is honorably mentioned, quality while improving is left to be desired. Also, we cannot know how much work he has done that earned him the Prize. George Ho (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, although at this point my oppose is really technical. With a real update of five sentences with three sources saying what his palladium process has actually made possible, my assumption is that I would support this. When I took Organic Chem in the 80's he was not even mentioned, and we certainly never used palladium as a catalyst in lab. But I was a bio and philosophy major. So I am hoping we have a chemist who can give some lay-friendly information on what sorts of modern compounds we can attribute to his innovation. I suspect Naproxen is just a toe dipped in the swimming pool. μηδείς (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that the Heck reaction is an intermediate - an important one but not a final one - in making complicated organic molecules, so we're primarily talking in areas of things like drug synthesis or the like. It is not like, say, the Haber process for making a commodity chemical like ammonia; it is a specialized reaction that is made for speciality chemicals so you're not likely going to find a good example.
What is important about it is that it allows for highly selective addition of one type of hydrocarbon to an existing one at a very specific site. Normally such additions are not very selective which means you have to spend extra time and resources to purify your end product. While Heck reactions are not 100% selective, they are tons better than alternatives, assuring a reasonable yield for a desired product, which helps to reduce costs of chemical processing at large scale. Very importantly where one can possibly make cis or trans products (which when you talk interactions with the human body can make a huge difference), the Heck mechanism favors trans over cis. --MASEM (t) 05:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - The chemistry pioneered by him is absolutely crucial for modern organic chemistry. Fgf10 (talk) 07:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

October 10


[Withdrawn] RD: Manorama (Tamil actress)

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

Article:Manorama (Tamil actress) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s):BBC, The Hindu, The Economic Times
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: A legendary actress in Tamil cinema. Made into the Guinness World Records when she completed 1,000 films Vensatry (ping) 07:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Absoultely "top of her field", meets the RD criteria.90.55.229.188 (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Several BLP issues with the article, including quotes without citations. Once those are addressed, I'm inclined to support the nomination based on her notability as an actress and status as a world record-holder. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to support too, but Kudzu1 is right that it needs some work. I see a lot of the refs are YouTube videos. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose too much unreferenced material. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. Highly popular actress, but referencing issues need to be addressed before posting. -Zanhe (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I withdraw my nomination – Looking at the enthusiasm (from IPs and newbies) I don't think I can improve the article; the article underwent a two-fold expansion over the last two days through unattributed quotes, personal analysis, fan POVs, etc., It's a shame that we couldn't get this to the main page. Vensatry (ping) 15:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] 2015 Ankara bombings

Article: 2015 Ankara bombings (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: At least 80 people are killed and more than 180 injured in twin bombings at a peace rally in Ankara, Turkey. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support High death toll and politically significant. This bombings can potentially lead to major developments just before the November elections. Also, the latest reports say more than 50 people have been killed by the bombs [14] [15] --Երևանցի talk 12:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support but wait Heavy variations in death toll and injuries at the moment, plus article is fast being developed. Maybe adjust the blurb as soon as an official death toll becomes clear (some say 30, some 47, some 52, some 57). Nub Cake (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, major event prior to important elections in Turkey.--Joseph (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, major unprecedented attack. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 13:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, major and significant. At least 86 people now known to have died. Black Kite (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – Per Blackie. – Sca (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted, the article seems adequate, though obviously still being updated. Thue (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Landslide in Guatemala

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

Article: 2015 Guatemala landslide (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: A landslide in Guatemala triggered by heavy rainfall has killed at least 253 people and left 386 others missing. (Post)
Alternative blurb: A landslide in Guatemala triggered by heavy rainfall has killed at least 253 people and left several hundred others missing.
News source(s): Yahoo! News
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: High death count Decentman12 (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Note – This event was already featured on ITN earlier in the week. It just got pushed off the ticker because of the flood of Nobel Prizes. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 12:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 9


[Posted] RD: Geoffrey Howe

Article: Geoffrey Howe (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: British politician, former Chancellor of the Exchequer and Foreign Secretary. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I supported Denis Healey, but that was because for much of the 1970s he was effectively co-PM owing to Harold Wilson's drinking and Alzheimer's. Howe wasn't in the same league; the important Chancellor of the Thatcher era was Nigel Lawson, while his time as Foreign Secretary included nothing memorable, given Thatcher's habit of going over his head and dealing with the important negotiations with Reagan, Gorbachev and the EEC/EC directly. ‑ iridescent 16:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. While for sure not as charismatic as Denis Healey, Howe's time as shadow-chancellor and then chancellor for Thatcher was nevertheless highly significant, in particular the outright rejection of Keynesian demand management which had been the economic orthodoxy in the UK since the 1940s. Howe was Thatcher's right hand in this, against the considerable protestations of more traditionally-minded elements in her party. In particular, the decision in his 1981 budget to squeeze the economy hard even at the very lowest depths of recession, following two years of uncompromisingly high interest rates, has since been estimated to have added an extra 1 million to unemployment, over and beyond what would have achieved the falling inflation profile they were looking for. Had it not been for the Falklands War, this would have been the defining feature of a one-term Thatcher premiership, and it is likely she would not have been re-elected in 1983. Some of Lawson's later actions may have had more sparkle, but it was Howe's term as Chancellor that set the economic tone for the Thatcher administration -- a radical break with what had gone before. Jheald (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Was a strategically significant person to Thatcher's government, but one that has not managed to keep his legacy in the public spotlight. It may have received a good amount of media attention, but he isn't important enough to be on RD unfortunately. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 17:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: Not as significant as Healey, who was a borderline case anyway, per the comments above. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose No accomplishments that I see beyond being a Thatcher lieutenant. Not RD material. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
    • It seems a strange thing to put a tv chef on RD, or perhaps a bodyguard, ahead of a finance minister whose decisions had a real and direct effect on millions of people's lives -- and arguably still do, given the UK's stubbornly high rate of unemployment ever since. Jheald (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Another case of a clear ignorance over the achievements of the person in question. Bring on the college basketball coaches. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
        • The chef had impact in bringing his cuisine to popularity. The lackey was a lackey. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
          • Wow, when I said "ignorant" I thought I was being generous. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
            • Dismissing Howe as a lackey fails to understand the history, or really even the UK political system. Thatcher's position before 1983 was far from secure -- she needed to keep her party following her. Having a like-minded chancellor, who had been one of the major architects of the party's new economic agenda, was critical to her political stability in that period. And it was very much Howe that was leading on the economic policy detail -- even Thatcher was surprised by how far his 1979 budget went. "Very well, but on your head be it" was her response. As well as huge shifts in taxation, the bonfire of economic controls in that budget, and in particular at a single stroke the complete abolition of exchange controls, was essentially the step that paved the path to today's globalised control-free neoliberal financial reality (especially when later taken up across the whole of Europe as part of the 1986 agreement for the single market, for which Howe, by then Foreign Secretary, was a lead UK negotiator). Howe's style was very low-key, but he was no lackey. Jheald (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
          • Muboshgu, do you realise that the man you are describing as one of Thatcher's lackeys actually precipitated her demise as Prime Minister? Neljack (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
            • Yes, I read that. That's a RD-level accomplishment? The article didn't present any beyond that. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
              • Helping to bring down Thatcher has to be considered a major achievement. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
                • She was already on her way down. Though I certainly would have applauded that speech at the time, that one speech is all that got this posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. He's really best remembered for his resignation speech, which helped bring about Thatcher's downfall. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Significance seems largely limited to UK politics. Sca (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Which would be an acceptable reason to oppose a blurb (which has not been proposed here), but is irrelevant for RD. Thryduulf (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The criteria for RD is being top of one's field. While Howe never had the top job, dismissing him because of that is to seriously misunderstand UK politics. Chancellors of the exchequer have almost absolute control over the purse strings of the entire government and, as explained above far more eloquently than I could, Howe had a very significant impact during his time in the role. He absolutely was top of his field - and politics in the United Kingdom is no small field. Thryduulf (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Reading the page, he seems important to UK politics in several ways. 331dot (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - His resignation was part of British politics, but his role wasn't mostly foreign. His duty as "Deputy Prime Minister" lasted one year until resignation. I don't see his any other major accomplishments as "Deputy Prime Minister", but he would have been "Prime Minister" if Thatcher resigned beforehand or was brave enough to fight for poll taxes. George Ho (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Oppose for not necessarily being the top of his field, but "weak" because of decent article quality. SpencerT♦C 04:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose I do agree that Howe does meet the standards for notability (awhile ago we posted a Lebanese singer who no one heard of) but the article needs more sourcing. Support' --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Andrew Rawnsley sums up Howe's importance best: "He was both the author of much of what became known as Thatcherism and the man who played the biggest part in bringing her down."[16] If that doesn't make him someone who had a "significant impact" on Britain (per Death Criterion #2), then I don't know what is required. Neljack (talk) 05:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Unless there's a rule that only Prime Ministers are allowed on RD, then Howe surely qualifies. Thatcher's longest serving cabinet minister, held several extremely important roles - I find it hard to think of a more significant figure in British politics who wasn't PM. 146.198.45.110 (talk) 09:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. Very senior politician in UK for long period. Endorse comments by Jheald, Thryduulf and Neljack. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Geoffrey Howe is credited as the man who brought down Margaret Thatcher, he has a substantial and lasting political legacy. Actually we should probably have a blurb noting the deaths, in the same week, of Howe and Denis Healey, two of the elder statesmen of British politics. Guy (Help!) 10:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support One of the most important Tory politicians of the second half of the 20th century.--The Traditionalist (talk) 11:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Posted BencherliteTalk 21:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Pull - Telling from the arguments, I don't see consensus agreeing to post the guy's name to RD. And I haven't seen a rationale for posting his name. --George Ho (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
    • @George Ho: You mean you haven't seen any rationale other than all the comments above explaining how he meets two RD criteria (1 - he had a significant impact on the United Kingdom; 2 - he was at the top of his field) when only one is required? Have you actually read anything other than the bolded words? Thryduulf (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I read them all. Supporters said that he was significant to UK politics due to his role as Secretary of State and short-lived Deputy Prime Minister and his resignation under protest against Thatcher, making him important. However, major statements are unsourced. I see other opposition saying that he is not on top of field or not important enough. George Ho (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Pull There wasn't consensus for this to post, full paragraphs are unsourced, but Britopedia strikes again, I see. Ridiculous. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I sympathise with this opinion. We seem to be heading towards a situation where anybody who holds one of the Great Offices of State in the UK (PM, Chancellor, Foreign Sec and Home Sec) is posted on RD - that's four people at any one time. Meanwhile, Speakers of the House in the US, which is arguably the second most powerful position (constitutionally third) are not being posted. That is totally out of whack when you consider the relative power of the US compared to UK. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Bingo, but the Brits run this place. 17:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Funniest thing I read all day, bring on the next college basketball coach! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support - You know, I wasn't going to get involved in this, but the absolutely ludicrous arguments in some of the oppose votes made me change my mind. Ignorance is not a reason to oppose, but it seems like this is being forgotten on a regular basis. Also, some users, and I won't name names seem to have a personal vendetta against British RD nominations, which are pretty rare to start with anyway. Fgf10 (talk) 07:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
What makes you determine that they have personal vendetta against UK politics? Did they argue the sources and article quality well, or did they trivially mention them without depth? George Ho (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
His accomplishments have been summed up as "a powerful PM was already on her way out and this guy gave a resignation speech that might or might not have had anything to do with her continuing downfall". And Speakers of the House, who dictate what bills become law in the U.S., is "parochial". Seriously. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm really surprised to see that twelve hours later, the orange tagged article is still up. Putting aside the BS about the consensus, this article is not front page quality and it's a joke that it was posted with so many unsourced paragraphs, and a bigger one that it hasn't been pulled yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Pulled - I make no comment about importance or opposition consensus above, but even if you ignore the tags placed in the last day, there are several unsourced claims of importance that are not sourced at all, and needs better referencing. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: While Howe remains out of the RD line, Lucena should be restored. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. --MASEM (t) 18:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I assume you (Masem) let Bencherlite know that you have decided to wheel war? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
That isn't wheel warring. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I guess you have a doctrine to follow without thought once again; not interested. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Sure, whatever that means. But it's not wheel warring. I've helpfully linked that page for you in case you'd like to read it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Yep, there are several pages about common sense and not being a dick, but I guess you're more than familiar with those. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Again, I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean, but if random outbursts of boorishness make you feel better about being wrong, who am I to judge? --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I saw a statement that the article was full of CN tags and an orange tag, which Muboshgu placed on the page themselves. This arguably could be a valid tactic to pull an ITN they disagreed with, but in assuming good faith I reviewed the article before Muboshgu's CN/Orange tag edits, and it was in terrible shape, and that was a point that none of the above !votes really focused on; Muboshgu's concerns were legit. Items linked from the front page can't be in that bad of a shape, particularly BLP, so the one-time pull (and secondary followup to restore the last RD per Kudzu1) was reasonable. Jheald got it in shape, so that issue is resolved. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Re-post. Pulling this was a bad idea, both on the merits of the posting, and also because the nature of this page is that at some point we need to make decisions and stick with them. ITN is unlike almost every other page on wiki because the content is temporary by definition, so it doesn't make sense to have days of back-and-forth decision-changing on routine RD postings. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Posting/pulling cycles based on anything beyond sourcing is an issue, that I agree with; sometimes we do post the wrong ITN thing and we need to live with that decision. But this was about sourcing pure and simple, it clearly failed BLP policy at the state it was pulled, and not in a manner that one or two inlines would fix. That's unacceptable for a front page item. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
@Masem:. I think I've dealt with all the {{cn}} tags now. Nothing very controversial -- all found pretty unanimously in all the major obituaries. The Independent one might even have taken a look at our article before filing -- though now of course it'll look like the other way round :-) So I hope that now clears that up. Jheald (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, the improvements in sourcing clear out the obvious problems that were there when I pulled. No reason to reconsider pulling on the sourcing aspect alone. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - He was certainly a highly influential politician and diplomat. We're making the threshold too high for politicians, and too low for sportspeople and entertainers who, no matter how well known, make far less impact on history and society than policymakers. -Zanhe (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Keep pulled. This isn't a memorial page for British politicians. Calidum 04:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I mistakenly assumed it was pulled out. --George Ho (talk) 04:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD Jerry Parr

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

Article: Jerry Parr (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Jerry Parr was one of two Secret Service agents whose heroism and split second reactions saved the life of President Ronald Reagan on March 30 1981. In the bodyguard profession you don't get more important than that. Nominating per ITNDC #2. The article needs improvement in sourcing which I will work on. Ad Orientem (talk) 06:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - I don't really see his actions that day as some extraordinary achievement. He reacted well, and he did his job, but Secret Service agents are largely a faceless, interchangeable group, and I suspect any number of them would have gotten the job done if they were in Parr's place. Heroism aside - and he certainly was a hero on that day - he was more of a minor figure within the larger event. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
It is also worth noting that Parr was not just any agent. He rose through the ranks to become the head of both the Vice-Presidential and then the Presidential protection details. Before retiring he had gained the rank of Assistant Director of the Secret Service. I'm not sure what more one can do to be considered important in that field. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems to meet DC2 as important to his field(policemen/SS agents). 331dot (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The dexterity of his reaction to help Ronald Reagan survive is perhaps a great act of humanity but definitely not sufficient to make him notable in his field as noted above. There are people in the world who saved hundreds or even thousands of lives and deserve much more credit than someone who used to save a single life. I've also noticed that the highest rank he achieved in his entire career was Assistant Director of Protective Research, which is relatively low in the hierarchy of the United States Secret Service. Finally, his obituary doesn't seem to appear on the front page of the media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
One action can make someone important, as his honors would seem to indicate. One does not have to be highly ranked to be important(many low-ranked people received a Medal of Honor, for example). Other things exist; if there are people who have saved hundreds of lives who meet the RD criteria, I await their nomination. 331dot (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Bongwarrior/Kiril - performing one heroic act is not necessarily enough to elevate one to top of their field. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. He has many more honors than the typical person in his field. There is no requirement for front-page coverage in the RD criteria; what matters is if they meet the criteria. I'm not sure in what other way a person in his field could be posted. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Only notable for a single action. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Parr did his job well that day, but shoving Reagan into a limo is really it for him, and that's not RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I have to agree with 331dot's observation above. When you consider all of the professional bodyguards in the world, if being entrusted with command of the protection detail for the President of the United States, and then saving his life in an assassination attempt, does not make one important in that field, then what does? The implication of the oppose votes seems to be that they do not believe this field is one where it is possible to become important per ITNDC. And that is a proposition with which I very strongly disagree. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose He might have saved President Reagan's life, but that's all he seemed to do that was significant. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 19:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Nobel Peace Prize

Proposed image
Article: Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: The Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet is awarded the 2015 Nobel Peace Prize. (Post)
News source(s): [17]
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: This is usually the most talked about Nobel Prize and she has been a candidate for a long time. Csisc (talk) 09:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment The article would benefit from some expansion, currently looks stubbish. Brandmeistertalk 10:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Stubbish is putting it kindly. Unpostable in its current state but no doubt it will improve. BencherliteTalk 10:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
      • The alternative would be to bold-link the prize article instead, if the current subject remains too piddly to highlight. GRAPPLEX 10:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I have translated the background section from the French article and added it, so the article is now considerably longer. But I'm stuck on a reference tag error I can't locate. Can anyone who is watching this nomination help? Thanks. 184.147.131.85 (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC) Ha, never mind, someone found it while I was writing this. 184.147.131.85 (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

October 8


[Posted] RD: Paul Prudhomme

Article: Paul Prudhomme (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NPR
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Celebrity chef, "the internationally renowned Louisiana chef who popularized Cajun and Creole cuisine around the world". And yes, he's in the Culinary Hall of Fame. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak Support I am not really sure what the criteria is on which to judge a cook. But I am noting a lot of front page coverage of his passing and he did get into the Culinary Hall of Fame (standards?). The article looks to be in decent shape and adequately referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Details from USA Today are convincing enough for me that Prudhomme warrants inclusion. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I too was on the fence before I saw all the coverage his passing received. Article appears to be in pretty good shape. Calidum 04:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Article does a decent job of explaining his career and importance. SpencerT♦C 05:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Blatter suspended

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

Article:Sepp Blatter (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:The adjudicatory chamber of FIFA Ethics Committee suspends Sepp Blatter as the FIFA President for 90 days, the interim President becomes Issa Hayatou. (Post)
News source(s):CNN, BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Looks like this development in FIFA case is significant. Brandmeistertalk 13:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, minor facet of a rather minor story though one with "fans". LjL (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Just another chapter in a long-winded legal battle.--WaltCip (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now; if he's fired/resigns, might be worth chucking up on the MP. Otherwise this is just part of the god awful mess that is FIFA. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat)
  • Oppose; if he is fired or is arrested, it would be notable, but this isn't. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Blatter is the president of FIFA, which is in turn one of the biggest sporting bodies in the world. Being suspended like this is a big deal. I would however consider linking to 2015 FIFA corruption case instead of to Blatter's page. Banedon (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's more interesting that Platini has been suspended. Blatter's just another step on the route to his eventual demise. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, we posted his "resignation" in June. Now anything less than his resignation/removal/conviction isn't getting on ITN. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • SNOW Oppose Not every step in this story is worth posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Nobel Prize in literature

Proposed image
Article: Svetlana Alexievich (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Svetlana Alexievich is awarded the 2015 Nobel Prize in Literature. (Post)
News source(s): SvD
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: This is usually the most talked about Nobel Prize and she has been a candidate for a long time. w.carter-Talk 11:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support notable. Period.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
    • It is ITN/R, so saying you support it as notable is pointless. Only comments discussing the specific blurb and article readiness are helpful. Thue (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
      • To be fair it was not labeled as ITNR when he made that comment. 331dot (talk) 12:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
        • It was not ITNR when I !voted. Period.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
          • Well, it is ITNR whether someone actually labels it or not. 331dot (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on improvements. One paragraph specifically about some of her works, sales, and reception lack sources but this should be easy to fix. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Paragraph about works sourced with pre-prize ref. When improving the article, please steer clear of recent sources, they all cite the WP. w.carter-Talk 14:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I know that para is still lacking sources discussing the themes of two of her books, but that itself should not be a problem if the Nobel prize writeup discusses those books to a degree. As both books appear to have originally been published in Russian, English sources are weak on it and we'll likely need some editors fluent in Russian to help otherwise find pre-Nobel source materials, which is why just to identify the themes of the books, post-Nobel sources can be used. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Refs for all the books added now. Plus a bit more. All done with pre-prize sources and in English. w.carter-Talk 15:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks all good to me now. And just a quick note: we don't require English-only sources, just that if we take from foreign language we should be reasonably sure of the translation, and if the claim is potentially contentious, should have an expert (eg not Google translate) help out. That's not the case here that I can see, but just a friendly reminder. --MASEM (t) 15:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Masem: I certainly know about the language/source policy, Face-smile.svg I could have provided a heap of sources in Swedish (this being a Swedish prize an all), I was just being polite.15:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Babba, re English-language sources, NYT looks to be the most complete (800 words). (Oddly enough, Ukrainian and Russian WP articles appear to be quite brief.) Sca (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
PS: This story now appears in the ITN sections of the following WPs — F, D, I, CZ, N, PL, RU, UA.
(I know some users find the practices of other WPs irrelevant. I don't.) Sca (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posting. Looks fine to me, the basics are there. Sure, there is always room for improvement. --Tone 16:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – The article says she's "a Belarusian ... prose writer," but from the Bibliography it appears she writes in Russian. Granted, the two are fairly closely related, but for clarity the blurb should either say she's a Belusian writer or a Russian-language writer from Belarus. (Also posted at Main Page errors).Sca (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Look at the blurbs for the other Nobel prizes on the Main Page, none of those have the nationality stated in the blurb, only the name is important, the rest is in the article(s). Keep blurbs as short as possible. w.carter-Talk 17:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Move to ongoing: Hurricane or storm complex?

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

Right now, combo blurb of "Hurricane Joaquin" and "October 2015 North American storm complex" are at the bottom of the window. The hurricane has been reported within last 24 hours. So is the storm complex. Move either one or both to ongoing ticker? --George Ho (talk) 10:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Joaquin has transitioned into an extratropical cyclone and its effects are diminishing; however, flooding from the storm complex remains a major issue in South Carolina. If anything, only the storm complex warrants being moved to ongoing but even then, the floods should subside within a few days and South Carolina will be in full recovery mode. Activity on the page is disappointingly limited as well. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 11:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Focusing only on the weather front, while it will still be a story for days because of the impact of the flooding; with similar natural disasters we don't keep those in ongoing, so I don't think we need to here. Unless we're talking something very long term (like the current haze), we shouldn't keep such in ongoing. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 7


[Closed] RD: Harry Gallatin

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

Article: Harry Gallatin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times ABC News
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Hall of Fame basketball player. Article is in good shape. Kudzu1 (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It seems like his career achievements are very unconvincing. He has never won the NBA Championship either as player or coach and hasn't ever been part of any national team of the United States that won a gold medal at the Olympics. The largest achievements of his career are apparently some trivial records of playing in the All-Star Game or having been selected as member of the All-NBA First Team or NBA Coach of the Year. As for his induction to the Basketball Hall of Fame, the article indicates that there are 345 persons who have become members since its inception, making it barely something extraordinary to achieve and thereby definitely not a decisive criterion for inclusion. Also, the news of his death doesn't seem to receive much attention even in the media in North America.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I have to agree that being in the HoF of any sport doesn't add too much weight if other major achievements like Championships, outstanding career numbers, overwhelming individual records, etc are lacking. Rhodesisland (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't believe he meets the RD criteria. While an above average player, I don't think he was "very important" to his field. As noted, Halls of Fame are not automatic tickets to RD; other things are needed. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I generally think a Hall of Fame induction should mean RD 99% of the time, since that's the ultimate determination of importance by the field itself. The Naismith Hall of Fame, in this case, not the SIU Edwardsville Athletic Hall of Fame. Then again, his accomplishments don't seem that big, his impact on the game seems negligable (as opposed to Moses Malone), and the AP story from his election in 1991, which I looked for to see what significance they attribute to him, gives him the last paragraph, and a weak one. Plus, I'm a Knicks fan and I've never heard of him until now. Sadly have to oppose. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose classic attempt via a "hall of fame" claim, but upon light analysis, an above-average basketball player. Of which there are thousands. Not making the grade for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] RD: Elena Lucena

Article: Elena Lucena (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): La Nacion Telam
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Award-winning Argentine actress. Article is developed and thoroughly referenced. Kudzu1 (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Seems significant to Argentine cinema. Decently sourced month-old article - even though her career petered out 50+ years ago (woo for systemic bias). Kudos to SusunW for writing this up. Fuebaey (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support very significant in Argentine and that area of the worlds cinema history. sources are OK. good enough for RD,--BabbaQ (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Notable actress from Argentina. Well-sourced. Needs attraction soon. George Ho (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Looking to decide on posting this, I found "2011 Nominated for Best Supporting Actress for Dos hermanos" and similar material in the lead and body of the article - nominated for what series of awards? BencherliteTalk 21:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I added name, Bencherlite, to replace "by whom". George Ho (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that makes sense now. Posting BencherliteTalk 21:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Remove 2015 Southeast Asian haze from ongoing?

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

Since we have 3 rather long items in ongoing at the moment, I wonder if we should keep this one. Looking at the article, the situation is better than it used to be 2 weeks ago, though still far from idea. Any comments from locals? --Tone 18:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support removal it's not really newsworthy right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal I don't think "the situation is better". It continues to be on the news. For example, just news from the past 24 hours: Al Jazeera BBC Bloomberg The Guardian Jakarta Globe Bangkok Post The Straits Times HaEr48 (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal per HaEr48. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It was still going strong a few days ago, with coverage in BBC, SMH and ABC News - including 7,000 school closures, the cancellation of the Kuala Lumpur Marathon and half the events at the 2015 FINA Swimming World Cup meet. The haze now seems to be spreading north, to southern Thailand and Vietnam. Fuebaey (talk) 01:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Ambivalent It may still be in the news, and it may still be hazy, but there really isn't that much "news". One can almost guess what the headlines will be tomorrow: some combination of Malaysia and Singapore complaining about the forest fires, Indonesia saying certain things that don't actually mean anything since the forest fires are still happening, countries discussing whether they should offer aid to fight the fires, and so on. The haze may be omnipresent for the (millions of) people affected, but for the international community I don't see much potential for interesting new developments. The news stories can almost write themselves. Keep the entry for now, but first candidate to replace should a better ongoing event happen. Banedon (talk) 05:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Nobel Prize for Chemistry

Articles:Tomas Lindahl (talk · history · tag) and Paul Modrich (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Tomas Lindahl, Paul Modrich and Aziz Sancar are awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their work in the field of DNA repair. (Post)
News source(s):BBC
Credits:

Both articles need updating

Nominator's comments: Articles of people in question badly need improving to bring this up to par. WaltCip (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment Here we go again... atl blurb provided per this diff. w.carter-Talk 11:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
    • My bad. I went ahead and swapped out the blurb I have with the one agreed upon by consensus.--WaltCip (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ITNR. Articles are a bit on the short side, but well referenced. -Zanhe (talk) 06:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ITNR. Well sourced and overall ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support with same caveat as the previous days - they are on the short side but the Nobel prize will likely draw attention to them. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Why hasn't this been posted yet, but the more recent Literature prize has been updated ? 146.198.166.182 (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Articles are well referenced. --Logom (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 08:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Move "Russian intervention on Syria" to ongoing?

Right now "Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War" is at the bottom(currently) pushed out of the ITN window. There have been updates. MoveReinsert it to "ongoing" ticker? --George Ho (talk) 10:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support as it's clearly an ongoing event with series of news published on a daily basis.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Russian warships just launched rockets into Syria. This is serious.--WaltCip (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support A solid candidate for ongoing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Makes sense as stated above. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Question Why is it "Russian intervention in Syria" that is ongoing instead of Syrian Civil War? The Russian intervention is but the latest twist in this ongoing event. Banedon (talk) 05:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

October 6


HKU pro-vice-chancellor selection controversy

Nominator's comments: The event is a significant development toward the curtailing of academic freedoms in Hong Kong, contradictory to the autonomy and freedoms afforded to the territory under one country, two systems and the Hong Kong Basic Law. Protests are ongoing; there was a protest on Tuesday and another planned for Friday night that is likely to be more significant. Citobun (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose Signing it with "alleged" did it for me (hint: not neutral). The original event is stale - his appointment was rejected at the end of September - and looks like your standard political manoeuvring. I wouldn't consider the reaction, i.e. the small-scale walkouts (1-2,000; HKU has over 30,000 students and faculty members), to be significant enough for ITN. No prejudice against renomination if this does end up like last year's protests. Fuebaey (talk) 02:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I used the word "alleged" because I figured that was the most NPOV way to put it. But I and others have included a multitude of reliable international sources that conclude that this whole affair represents government meddling in academic freedom. Numerous leading international scholars have also affirmed this (as outlined in the article). The news isn't stale, the protests are ongoing. I don't oppose an alt blurb, but there is no problem with WP:ALLEGED here – the allegations are widespread, come from countless reliable international sources, and the article is very well-cited in this regard.
"Standard political manoeuvring" – HKU is one of the world's top-ranked universities. How is this "standard"? It is certainly unprecedented in Hong Kong. Can you name a similar case to this at another well-regarded school in the developed world?
You consider the size of the protests a criterion for whether or not this is notable enough for ITN – but also consider the news stale because the vote itself happened a week ago. This is kind of a catch-22 because the protests are ongoing. This remains huge news locally and has received continuing widespread international coverage - the Time Magazine piece was only published yesterday. The Wall Street Journal piece was published mere hours ago. Citobun (talk) 02:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Political nominations tend to get a hard time here at ITN. From an uninformed perspective: the blurb mentions protests, the news sources detail someone failing to gain an administrative post and the nom comment goes on about politics. We don't judge significance solely on how many column inches a story takes up, else we'd be seeing quite a bit of gossip/sport/trivia on ITN. The only thing we can look at here is the impact of the original event (rejection), of which there appears to be little (speculation and walkouts). Like I said earlier, if those protests grow and start being widely disruptive - think of the Arab Spring, we didn't cover the catalyst but we did the aftermath - I'd reconsider my !vote. Fuebaey (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The significance of this news is that it represents a significant milestone in Beijing's accelerating curtailment of freedoms in Hong Kong, contrary to the autonomy afforded to the territory under the agreement between the Chinese and the British prior to the handover of sovereignty in 1997. The protests are just the "hook" and not really the meaningful impact of this event. The impact is continuously deteriorating freedom in Hong Kong – a trend that is unique and significant among the world's top developed economies and thus has international implications. Authoritarian interference in democratic development (the spark that ignited the 2014 Hong Kong protests) and in local media has been well-established, but academic freedom has been hitherto mostly untouched – until this watershed event.
I believe that the other oppose votes (not yours) are being disingenuous in dismissing this event as some kind of minor school dispute, possibly for political reasons. Important news relating to Hong Kong's decline, which may reflect badly on China, tends to be voted down here by the same users with intense interest in China while other users from places like the U.S. avoid chiming for fear of not being informed enough. The net effect is that important news relating to Hong Kong's decline is censored from ITN – the exact same thing happened with the ITN nomination for the voting down of the Hong Kong government's electoral reform package and the same users were involved.
The Sino-British Joint Declaration that ultimately was meant to (in part) ensure academic freedom in Hong Kong was registered with the United Nations. Hong Kong is a leading economy due to the freedoms in the city that are not available in Mainland China. To reiterate: this has international impact as part of a greater curtailing of freedoms and it is totally absurd for certain users here to dismiss this as nothing more than a local university squabble. Citobun (talk) 04:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The machinery of the Government of China making an unprecedented and decisive move against arguably the last bastion of "two systems". An alt blurb would be good. zzz (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Note – I added an alt blurb. Edit: I have removed entirely the word "alleged" which an editor had a problem with. Many reliable sources, including a Wall Street Journal article published today, describe in very certain terms the rejection of Chan as "revenge against pro-democracy voices". Citobun (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Controversy about vice-chancellor of a university? Not ITN stuff. We don't even post anything about subnational heads of government. -Zanhe (talk) 06:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
This issue very obviously holds serious ramifications that extend beyond the university. I know we're not meant to throw around COI accusations here but I feel you are either being purposefully disingenuous because this reflects badly on the Chinese government – or didn't actually read the article! The issue has been covered by every reputable international news outlet in recent days – what does that tell you? To dismiss this as a minor flap at a local university is absurd and seriously misleading. Unfortunately, it seems that people simply glance over these nominations and won't consider a story with "oppose" votes even if the rationale for the votes is total nonsense. Citobun (talk) 06:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes. It's being very widely reported, not surprisingly. zzz (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
FIFA's suspension of Sepp Blatter has been much more widely reported, but the ITN nomination was summarily rejected. -Zanhe (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Even if the highest reputable university of the US would follow the same fate as the University of HK, I don't think that would have been newsworthy unless foreign involvement is part of it. Anyway, if not for the manipulations in the name of "one country, two systems", this would not have been nominated. As bad as Chinese politics is, emphasizing about the appointments of a vice-chancellor would be media's dirty doing. ITN already has overly emphasized less impactful stories posted recently, but many (including Kim Davis controversy and Umpqua Community College shooting) have become a collection of rejects this year. Let's add this to a collection of rejects then. George Ho (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose, and I have no connection of any kind with China, Hong Kong, or anyone else to whom the OP is accusing the opposers of being connected. Yes, I get that it marks political interference in educational affairs is controversial, but it still doesn't make it ITN-worthy unless something more comes of it (mass protests, an academic boycott, etc). As a direct analogy, when the British government directly overruled Parliament with the appointment of Les Ebdon to OFFA, we wouldn't have dreamed of putting it on ITN. I can see grounds for including this to counter the general systemic bias against Chinese stories featuring in ITN, but I really don't think this is strong enough to justify posting, since ITN is meant to highlight stories that are in the news, not that we think ought to be in the news, and outside the local news in Hong Kong this has made no impact at all as far as I can tell. ‑ iridescent 09:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the independent input. However, I don't think the UK analogy is appropriate because the UK is not in the same unique position as HK, i.e. being semi-autonomous within an unfree single-party state. This incident validates a fear of the past 30 years – that China would not respect the spirit of one country, two systems. This is the same fear that has continually diminished Hong Kong's competitiveness and sent waves of Hong Kong people migrating to other countries. This particular incident also sends a message to all academics at all Hong Kong institutions: stay in line or risk jeopardising your future. There is no more academic freedom. Hence I don't think the UK example holds the same gravity and significance. I also doubt pro-government media conducted a concerted smear campaign against whomever Ebdon was up against.
As for the statement "ITN is meant to highlight stories that are in the news, not that we think ought to be in the news" – I did post many examples of international coverage above. The Forbes piece was just published yesterday and a new wave of stories (i.e. Reuters) is beginning to come out as another rally took place at the school tonight. Of course in terms of quantity most coverage comes from local media, but the incident has also been covered repeatedly by all major international media outlets. Citobun (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Sadly, this won't get any support because it's not in the UK or USA. If the head of a Cambridge or Oxford or Ivy League university got kicked out by the UK or US government for political reasons, it would stand a far greater chance of getting posted, despite the fact that this is a far bigger deal, as explained in all the international media coverage. zzz (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Yup. ITN has been dominated by Nobel Prize award winners all week in a celebration of academic achievement. I would argue that the blatant suppression of academic freedom in one of the world's top global cities is equally or more newsworthy and has more serious ramifications. Citobun (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The depth and quality of the article pushes this to a "support" from me. SpencerT♦C 21:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: Blurb doesn't articulate why this is big news. Student protests happen all the time in many countries, and Hong Kong has been a hotbed of student protests in recent years. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
The notability of events like bombings and Nobel Prize awards is immediately evident to most people. But to recognize the newsworthiness of this HKU controversy requires a little more prior knowledge of Hong Kong's unique political position. It may sound trivial to some overseas readers at first glance. But I don't think that's a valid reason to reject this nomination, particularly when the story has been picked up by major international media and subject to editorials in Forbes and Wall Street Journal.
"News worthiness immediately apparent to all" is not a criterion for inclusion in ITN. I have explained the significance of this event elsewhere in this discussion and it should also be made apparent by reading the article and the multitude of stories published by international media. But if you can suggest an alternate blurb that is more than welcome.
That Hong Kong has been a hotbed of protests in recent years also does not diminish the significance of this event. There were numerous Nobel Award winners this year and they all got posted. This controversy should similarly be judged on its individual merit, not ditched just because Hong Kong students also protested last year over something else. Plus, as I mentioned, the protests are simply the "hook" in this case – they are just a small part of the bigger picture. Citobun (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

International Safe Harbor Privacy Principles

Article:International Safe Harbor Privacy Principles (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:The European Court of Justice invalidates the Safe Harbor Principles that allow personal data to be sent from the EU to the US. (Post)
News source(s):New Scientist, The Guardian, USA Today
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Opens up American firms (most immediately, Facebook) to litigation for their role in US government surveillance, and more broadly, marks a big step for data protection and throws a spanner in the works of pretty much every large online company. More updates to the article would be nice, of course. Smurrayinchester 08:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose. From the Guardian source quoted above, Tech giants such as Facebook, Apple and Google have long planned for a loss and are likely to fall back on their own user agreements to allow them to transmit data overseas or use their own legal status within Europe to circumnavigate the ruling—that is, although this is potentially going to have significant behind-the-curtain impact on some companies as to where their servers are based and how they process the data used to serve up ads, it's not something that the average web user will even notice other than that their Adsense ads may become a little less personalised. We didn't post it when Russia introduced an even stricter version of the same measures, albeit because an EU judgement covers the UK and Ireland it will be more noticeable to en-wiki readers. ‑ iridescent 08:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality. The subject seems ITN worthy however as far as I can tell there is only a single sentence on the subject in the target article, which is also very poorly sourced. It would require an extreme makeover to meet ITN standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Árpád Göncz

Article: Árpád Göncz (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC News The Telegraph Reuters
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Former Hungarian president (first in the post-communist era). Death receiving international attention, as you would expect. Kudzu1 (talk) 02:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Conditional support – Article needs improved sourcing as the orange tag of doom implies. Once that's resolved it should be good to go. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Oppose on article quality. It is almost entirely unsourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Support when ready. Major improvements have been made and more appear to be in progress. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now: Clearly an influential figure, but the majority of the article is unsourced '''tAD''' (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on notability, oppose for now on quality. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Agree with Ad Orientem that major improvements have happened. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Major figure of modern Hungarian politics, perhaps the most known modern Hungarian statesman, internationally.--The Traditionalist (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Major figure in Hungarian politics. First democratically elected president. Article is in good enough shape and more progress is being made. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
While improvement has been dramatic, there are still a few too many gaps in sourcing to post this. But we are getting closer. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article now appears to be fully referenced. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 18:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Nobel Prize for Physics 2015

Articles:Takaaki Kajita (talk · history · tag) and Arthur B. McDonald (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Takaaki Kajita and Arthur B. McDonald win the Nobel Prize in Physics for their discovery of neutrino oscillations. (Post)
Alternative blurb:Takaaki Kajita and Arthur B. McDonald are awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for their discovery of neutrino oscillations.
News source(s):BBC
Credits:

Jenda H. (talk) 10:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Conditional supportNeutrino oscillation currently doesn't seem to mention Kajita and McDonald. Kajita's article also has one orange tag, will support once these are fixed.Brandmeistertalk 11:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
    To some extent, that's because they're not actually that important to the theory itself. Kajita and McDonald led the teams that operated neutrino detectors (atmospheric neutrino research at Super-Kamiokande and solar neutrino research at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory respectively) which proved oscillation happened, but they didn't invent the idea of neutrino oscillation or develop the theory. It's a bit like if the Higgs Nobel had been given to the leaders of the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN – the prize would make sense, but there would be no reason to mention the people on the Higgs Boson page. Smurrayinchester 11:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
    I think that should be clarified a bit in neutrino oscillation, as blurb implies that they were the discoverers. There were previous instances when Physics Nobels were awarded to direct discoverers. Brandmeistertalk 13:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Neutrino oscillation mentions SuperK and SNO, which are the projects lead by these co-recipients of the 2015 Nobel prize in physics. Neutrino oscillations had been proposed previously, but were proved to exist by these experiments. This is a very important scientific result, with a significant impact in the science world. Boardhead (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on one article improvement - Kajita's article has all of two sources, one being about the Nobel. Like the medicine issue yesterday, it should be expanded a bit more before posting. McDonald's is in good shape. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I expanded Kajita's article with the flood of sources that came out with the Nobel win, but there's very little on his previous work. If it's others think it's sufficient, than it can be posted. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Please tweak the blurb. As I wrote in the ITN candidacy for the medicine prize: You never "win" a Nobel Prize, it is awarded to you for an achievement. (Would anyone ever say that someone "won" a Purple Heart?) It's not an international lottery. And the prize is "awarded jointly to...". w.carter-Talk 08:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Article quality is certainly an issue. I can see three options:
    1. Improve the articles on the winners. Unfortunately that may be hard to do, as neither attracted much attention before they won the prize. Edit: actually they're now better than when I looked yesterday - start class anyway. Seems borderline.
    2. Add a paragraph to Neutrino oscillation#Observed values of oscillation parameters detailing the measurements made by these teams and the subsequent Nobel
    3. Update Super-Kamiokande and Sudbury Neutrino Observatory to reflect the Nobel win

Modest Genius talk 11:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Added altblurb to your pleasure. George Ho (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ITNR, and articles are decent. Please post ASAP. -Zanhe (talk) 06:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Remove "European migrant crisis" from ongoing?

WITHDRAWN:

George Ho (talk) 10:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Looking at history logs of European migrant crisis, there hasn't been newer key events related to this crisis. There are future schedules this month, but it is nothing that big. The crisis is still ongoing, but reports have steadily declined. We can re-propose this to become part of the ticker again when key events will occur. --George Ho (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I would like to see this remain in Ongoing remain a few more days, until article activity has slowed. From looking at the article history, there have been some rather large updates over the past three days. While widespread media reports have slowed in number, there are still a few new sources being used. Mamyles (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I searched "October" in the article. Nothing new except scheduled meetings and data. --George Ho (talk) 01:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose, I continue to see news articles that are related to the crisis. Banedon (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose very much still ongoing and the article is receiving attention. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose still in the news (possible deal with Turkey discussed yesterday; numbers increased; protests and support in the Netherlands). L.tak (talk) 09:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Still the most major news topic in Germany as well, with right wing demonstrations gaining support over the last couple of days... Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

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

October 5


[Closed] RD Chantal Akerman

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

Article: Chantal Akerman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Guardian
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: A very distinguished film director (see, for example, Theyshootpictures, ranking her among the 100 most critically acclaimed film directors of all time), and a pioneer of feminist film-making. 93.215.71.30 (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on at least article quality, which references Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.148.249 (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Trans-Pacific Partnership

Article: Trans-Pacific Partnership (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Twelve Pacific Rim states, amounting to about 40% of world's GDP, reach an agreement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. (Post)
News source(s): New York Times Bloomberg
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Major treaty affecting multiple countries, described as 'historic', and 'largest in world's history' HaEr48 (talk) 06:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose The treaty goes to the respective gov'ts to ratify and it is fully expected in the States to have strong opposition. This does not make it a done deal and thus a thing to wait on. --MASEM (t) 06:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
    • There is opposition to it in the U.S. from the left (Bernie Sanders) and the right (tea party nihilists who try to stop Obama from accomplishing anything) but it isn't likely to prevent the deal, much like Obama has been able to get the Iran treaty through. I'd say if the U.S. (or any other country) kills it despite this announcement, that would be a separate postable story. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support when ready. The treaty is hugely significant and is likely to be ratified by most of the signatory states irrespective of what the US does. Article quality is decent though it could stand some improvement in sourcing and one section has been tagged for expansion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The referencing has been improved a little now. Nurg (talk) 08:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The fact that there will be significant opposition to the agreement in some of the countries involved does not diminish its notability - in some ways, the fact there will be vigorous political debate about it increases the case for featuring it on ITN. Neljack (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • support of course there are many occasions when this is notable (signing in 2016, entry into force), the this is probably the most significant news event as agreement is reached... L.tak (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait until it's ratified. μηδείς (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Ratified by which country? HaEr48 (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This deal is major. Opposition to it is fairly major too. It's a major story. Major. Post when there are no problems on the article, no need to wait for "ratification" or the agreement to take effect. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Big story and ITN-worthy. At first glance the article is solid, though I see a request for expansion tag on one section. Jusdafax 21:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. Dragons flight (talk) 11:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for the gif! I don't think I've seen a gif in the ITN section before. Dismas (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Grace Lee Boggs

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

Article: Grace Lee Boggs (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Detroit Free Press
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Why?--WaltCip (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. The article needs more inline citations and doesn't have a source for her death, and doesn't explain which of her several fields (social activism, feminism, philospher, author) she was top of. The closest I can see is "She founded Detroit Summer, a multicultural intergenerational youth program, in 1992 and has also been the recipient of numerous awards." which is unsourced and not specific about which awards they are so I can't see how prestigious they are or are not. If the nominator or anyone else can explain why she meets the RD criteria then I'll reconsider, but I'm not seeing it at the moment. Thryduulf (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Problems with the nomination aside, I'll support upon some final article improvements. Influence in a number of fields and a pretty good article sway my !vote in favor. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. I am not seeing where Ms.Boggs meets the standards for RD. In what way was she very important or influential in her field? Beyond which the article is in poor shape with glaring deficiencies in sourcing. It would require an extreme makeover to meet ITN standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Walt and AO. No rationale given, no awards, pretty run-of-the-mill academic. μηδείς (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I saw her obits come up on my social media accounts, but can't quite put my finger on enough to say she was truly that important in the field, or at least considered that before her death. I want to support, but I haven't been given a good enough reason. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted to RD] RD: Henning Mankell

Article: Henning Mankell (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Wallender and all that, one of Sweden's top authors. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support given his recognition and body of work, he seems to be important to his field. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support, granted, he is big in Sweden and maybe in Germany, but is he really notable enough in the rest of the world? w.carter-Talk 10:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Being notable to the entire world is not one of the RD criteria; the relevant one here is that they need to be very important to their field. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I have to say that there is nothing plausible here to make me think he was notable in whatever field. The prizes he was awarded with have earned him a recognition to a very limited area of readership, while he doesn't appear to have won any major literary prize such as the Man Booker Prize or the Goethe Prize. The creation of Kurt Wallander, albeit more notable, didn't bring him exceptional international acclamation either.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Source needed Neither this nom or article has one on the death. --MASEM (t) 11:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Death has been sourced know. He was widely known in Europe (very popular in the UK and Netherlands as well), not just Sweden, and his works have been adapted into successful TV series in multiple languages. Also known for political activism. Nobility is more than clear enough I would say. Fgf10 (talk) 12:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Was unaware of this writer but his death is getting a lot of news space, including the top article on the NYT website as of this posting. Clearly an international force. Jusdafax 13:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Quite an amazing and exceptional individual, really, with a global influence that extends beyond his books.--WaltCip (talk) 13:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - His Wallander books has been successful in Europe and the Wallander series has also becomed a television series both in Sweden and the UK.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 14:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

Article: No article specified
Blurb: William C. Campbell, Satoshi Ōmura, and Tu Youyou are awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their discoveries of novel treatments against parasites. (Post)
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: The Nobel Prize week has begun! Articles need to be updated of course. Tone 09:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed that. I've moved the golfer to his full name. Perhaps the Nobel laureate does not yet have an article (the other two have been created only today as well). --Tone 09:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • None of the articles currently describe the discoveries which they won the Prize for, except in the most vague general term like "for his research on therapies against infections caused by roundworm parasites". While I personally think that the front page would be better with than without the news item even in this state, a better description in the articles would be much appreciated. Thue (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support but biografies nedds an improvements. --Jenda H. (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Question Do we / can we somehow make it clear that the prized wasn't equally shared? Half of the prize was won for "Malaria" by Tu solely, and the other half for "roundworm parasites" which was spilt between Campbell and Ōmura. -- KTC (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
    The prize money is split like that but nobody else cares. You either get a Nobel Prize or you don't. The diseases could be mentioned but the prize fractions shouldn't be in a brief blurb. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
    Clarify You never "win" a Nobel Prize, it is awarded to you. It's not an international lottery. Plus second PrimeHunter's comment. The prize is "awarded jointly to...". w.carter-Talk 18:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
    "awarded with one half jointly to William C. Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura ... and the other half to Youyou Tu". -- KTC (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support - Ok so the articles are not in the best of shapes but this is really notable events and subjects so I say post.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support with one article improvement Tu's article has a few unsourced points (Family section and one para about malaria) that need to be sourced per BLP. Others could use improvement but they aren't in bad shape for posting. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose two of the three articles need work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM.--WaltCip (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support articles look much better now. They are ready to be shown to the general public I think, after some work was done. Swordman97 talk to me 03:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. First ever scientific Nobel Prize to China. --Bruzaholm (talk) 06:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. Admittedly two of the three articles are still pretty weak (in part because they were created yesterday), but given that this is ITNR and enough had been done that none of the articles are terrible I decided to go ahead now. Dragons flight (talk) 10:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

October 4


[Closed] United Arab Emirates parliamentary election, 2015

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

Proposed image
Article: United Arab Emirates parliamentary election, 2015 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: In the United Arab Emirates, elections to the Federal National Council are held. (Post)
Alternative blurb: In the United Arab Emirates, nonpartisan elections to the Federal National Council are held.
News source(s): GulfNews
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Elections held in a fairly important country. Candidates are non-partisan so you can't say a certain party won, but I think the election should be noted even if the parliament isn't very powerful. ("The percentage of those with the right to vote increases progressively at every election. The authorities claim that these are the first steps toward a more representative political system.” - 1) EamonnPKeane (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm no expert on this, but is there a reason not to hold off until after the results come out and we have some sourced comments from politics experts on who the candidates elected are and what the results could mean? I realise that we can't quote their opinions in the blurb, but I think people will be most interested in seeing the article after some sources discussing the results come in. Blythwood (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. General elections are ITNR, so no notability issues here. The blurb, though, needs to somehow reference the winners; usually we put "X party led by John Public, won the UAE parliamentary election" or something like that. If these elections are historic as stated, that could be noted as well. Article will need to be updated adequately. 331dot (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment. Political parties are illegal in UAE, candidates stand as individuals. EamonnPKeane (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the correction; the blurb may want to clarify that. I've made a suggestion. 331dot (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
    • It's the UAE, so probably it would be "John al-Public". -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not without results. It doesn't have to be "X party led by Y wins the elections"; something like "20 new members are elected to the FNC" works as well. But that is still a result, and until there are results to the elections, I would oppose posting. Banedon (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as nominated per Banedon. Let's wait for results, if they're not available, and post when it's ready with a descriptive blurb. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] South Carolina flash floods (Nor'easter)

Proposed image
Article:October 2015 nor'easter (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:A large Eastern United States weather system (satellite image pictured) causes historic flooding in South Carolina. (Post)
Alternative blurb:Over 40 people are missing or dead as Hurricane Joaquin batters the Bahamas and the ship El Faro is lost, while the October 2015 nor'easter brings once-in-1000 year rains to the US East Coast.
Alternative blurb II:Hurricane Joaquin and the October 2015 nor'easter bring exceptional rain and flooding to the Bahamas and US East Coast.
Alternative blurb III:Hurricane Joaquin and a nor'easter bring flooding to the Bahamas and southeastern U.S. coastal areas, claiming an estimated 40 lives.
News source(s):CNN, AP
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Crippling flash flood event that has been building over the past several days. Incessant rainfall over nearly the entirety of South Carolina reached the tipping point this morning and tremendous floods have ensued. The entire state is essentially shut down as the emergency management department has urged everyone to remain put unless it's a life or death situation. The situation will continue to go downhill as rains continue through tonight into tomorrow. The overall system has cause moderate damage elsewhere, namely New England and New Brunswick, Canada. At least 5 people are known to have been killed in relation to the storm, possibly more, but the disruptive effects are beyond extreme. The article definitely needs some work, but this event is notable enough in my opinion to push it early. There's a lot going on and way too much to keep track of, but doing what I can. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now - In the grande scheme of things not really worth posting now unless it does get worse. This is only causing major disruption to one state. Stories should not be posted on the back of a "maybe" (even if it is a strong "maybe") Meanwhile, 16 people are confirmed dead on the French Riviera [18]. --109.149.136.105 (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    • So nominate a story about the French Riviera. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support It's being called a "once in 500 years" event. If that's not "rare" enough for ITN I don't know what is. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I suppose this should be merged with the Joaquin blurb, since it is causing this rain. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
      • See below discussion with Masem & Juliancolton as to why this shouldn't be done. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Hmm. I'll go along with whatever decision prevails, then. Aside from not posting something. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I think a satellite image would be instructive. Abductive (reasoning) 18:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The disruption of the lives of millions in a single state due to a 500-year rain event seems notable; damage will likely be extensive and widespread. 331dot (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge with Hurricane Joaquin, this two are connected phenomenons. --Jenda H. (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Meteorologically they are separate events, albeit partially intertwined. Although the nor'easter tapped into moisture from Joaquin, the floods would not have taken place without the East Coast low. Joaquin's effects are limited to moisture transport and merging them gives undue weight to the hurricane's influence. NOAA does not attribute the event to Joaquin and the WPC focuses on the coastal low in their summaries. Only ones tying Joaquin into this beyond the moisture transport is the media. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
      • While separate events, to highlight the flash floods and ignore the damage that Joaquin's caused is rather poor form. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Joaquin caused no damage in the United States, there's no need to mention it here. I nominated Joaquin as a separate event yesterday with its notability stemming from widespread damage in the Bahamas and the disappearance (and likely sinking) of El Faro. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
          • Joaquin has not yet hit the States, it's expected to drop its rain tonight, which atop the existing flooding will make things works. A blurb like "A combination of Hurricane Joaquin and a weather front in the southeast US cause flash flooding in SC, the disappearance of one ship, and at least (40) deaths". --MASEM (t) 20:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
            • Joaquin is currently lashing Bermuda and continuing northeast out to sea after that (expected to bring gales to the UK in ~6 days). It's not touching the US. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
              • This storm is drawing moisture from the Hurricane; that's the connection, as the rain would not be as bad if not for the hurricane. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
                • The most significant factor in the event is the non-tropical low over the Southeast. Without that system, it would be sunny in South Carolina today. Large quantities of moisture were already in place with this event and widespread flooding was going to happen with or without Joaquin. Even a week back when models initially dissipated Joaquin, the frontal system was shown producing widespread torrential rain. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
                  • No, Joaquin had a much more deadly impact, but we sometimes forget that when the states aren't hit as bad. The news is focusing on the eastern-moving front that is dropping rain, but even still, most reports fear that Joaquin's storm edge will drop yet more rain on that same area, up through NJ, even if the eye doesn't make landfall in the states. It is best to treat this as a combined story because it is difficult to separate which part is which in terms of the affect on human life. --MASEM (t) 20:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
                    • No credible meteorological agency is concerned that Joaquin's "storm edge", whatever that is, is going to influence the weather in the United States. I'll direct you to the Weather Prediction Center's short-range public discussion, which doesn't so much as mention the hurricane, but discusses the heavy rain threat from a non-tropical upper-level low (the system in question). The same is true of their more technical QPF discussion, which says "The intense low level easterly to east-northeasterly inflow with very high PWATs within this axis will continue on the northeast side of the closed low, impacting at least eastern and central portions of the Carolinas. This will again support continued training of areas of rainfall in this inflow axis of above average PW values." Tropical moisture contributed to the extreme precipitation totals, but the link to Joaquin itself is tenuous at best, and if you need to see it with your own eyes, here's a current WV loop showing two distinct synoptic-scale systems... the ULL over the southeast which produced flooding rains, and the tropical cyclone nearing Bermuda. I'm not sure where you learned that rain was expected as far north as NJ, but the WPC predicts virtually no precipitation north of the Outer Banks for the next several days, and in fact the weather looks quite sunny for most of the northeast. I think you need a more reliable source for forecasts. :) – JuliancoltonTalk 20:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
                      • At least when I was watching CNN this morning (no sound but going by on screen visuals) they were still implying that Carolinas up through NJ were preparing for Joaquin rainfall. Clearly since then the path has shifted to be more NE-ish. But there is still indications that the two systems are affecting each other, and because of their geographical proximity and similar effects, we should treat them as a common story. --MASEM (t) 21:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
                        • What indications might those be? A hurricane and a cold-core upper-level low are about as dissimilar as large-scale cyclones can get. They have different origins, wildly different mechanisms for intensification, and different real-world effects. That Joaquin and the nor'easter-like storm are relatively close to each other make them no more "common" than for two individuals to die in the same country. As a rule of thumb, CNN has never and will never override NOAA. Essentially you're dismissing a source that's as reliable as you can get in regards to meteorology because of something you saw on TV while it was muted. The information Julian provided should be more than enough to dispel the thought of merging these two events together. Meteorology is what the two of us excel in, and it's my profession. It would be remiss of me to completely overlook this event in the way you seem to be suggesting. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – What about flash floods that have taken at least 16 lives in the French Riviera?Sca (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    • What about it? Does the presence of a smaller-scale, albeit deadlier, flood nullify the notability of this event? Both are notable in their own rights and on different levels. I have my hands full with Joaquin and this nor'easter so if you wish to create the article and nominate it please do so by all means. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
      Perhaps it's symptomatic that there's no massive rush to create a French Riveria disaster article... Bloody systemic bias.... ! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I was just about to say that a) the nominated storm doesn't strike me as particularly notable on the global scale, and b) it would be odd and seemingly U.S.-centric to run this one but not the French one. Sca (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Then create an article for the French one and nominate it. I've already nominated two non-US related natural disasters, one of which was just posted, and the other is rotting without attention. Any claims of a U.S. bias here are insulting. This "global scale" aspect is ridiculous at times and haphazardly handed out, namely against U.S.-related topics simply to squash them. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Er, I happen to be an American. Sca (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Unless there is a significant death toll we tend to shy away from weather related events. Yes, there are some exceptions, but I am not convinced the level of damage, at least so far, makes this ITN material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Switching to Support following a closer examination of the news sources including updated reports. This does in fact look like a pretty epic flood. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
South Carolina's capital (almost 1 million metro population) will have 15 inches in 2 1/4 days if the forecast holds true. I can't tell if I've found the most shocking point on this curve (can't find past hourly numbers) but this is at least an almost 2,000 year rainfall event for this city of 900,000 (extrapolate from the other curves). Gills Creek in the capital went from not flooded to twice the record flood in 5 hours and then the flood gauge broke (while it was still shooting up like a rocket). The flood gauge hasn't given a reading since then (destroyed?). Mandatory city-wide curfew of 6pm (!) in the capital. That's an hour and 4 minutes before sunset. Charleston, pop. 700K (where the Civil War started) had 98% of it's rainiest October ever fall this Saturday alone and broke it's 1 day rainfall record. This is a subtropical place that gets frequent hurricanes remember. some parts near Charleston got 0.6 meters of rain in 3 days and that was by 7am today. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait – Having scanned at a Washington Post roundup featuring numerous photos, I must admit this looks pretty big. However, I suggest waiting until the weather system subsides and more details emerge about its effects. Sca (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. The Governor of South Carolina has described this as a '1000-year' event and is asking all people to stay where they are and not leave, even on foot. [19]. 331dot (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Sarcastic oppose: This is happening in the United States and therefore it doesn't matter. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that was a good one. μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support looks like a pretty major event to me. That said, I'd suggest using the phrase "nor'easter" in the blurb, because although 'weather system' is an established technical phrase, when I read the blurb my first thoughts were that some kind of man-made weather control or early warning system had malfunctioned and caused the flooding. Support merge with Hurricane Joaquin. They may be different meteorological events but they're both meteorological events in the same part of the globe. Some kind of blurb that talks about chaotic weather in the Bahamas and South Carolina seems most natural to me. Banedon (talk) 01:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support and Support Merge Something along the lines Hurricane Joaquin causes floods in the Bahamas and the loss of the cargo ship El Faro while South Carolina suffers record floods, with separate targets for Joaquin and SC. μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Marked Ready with combined blurb as both articles are relevant and well supported and updated. μηδείς (talk) 05:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment happy to post this but the first blurb seems insufficient, the second is far too long. Can we find a suitable compromise? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Alt 3 offered above. Sca (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Either alt version looks good to me, The Rambling Man, but I personally would be inclined to mention a combined total of at least 40 lives lost. The important thing, however, is really to get the target articles up there, so if short is better then short is good. μηδείς (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - definitely for itn. it is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Note – The U.S. Coast Guard has announced that the El Farois believed to have sunk during Joaquin and recovered one body; 32 remain missing. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Update – Based on above, Alt3 updated to "claiming an estimated 40 lives." Sca (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment: do Hurricane Joaquin and the nor'easter actually produce flooding? Perhaps "Hurricane Joaquin and a nor'easter cause extensive flooding in the Bahamas and Southeast U.S. coastal areas, resulting in an estimated 40 deaths" would be better? Banedon (talk) 02:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
    Reliable sources commonly use the word "produce" (and derivatives thereof) in this context (referring to various effects of a storm). See this Google News search for "produced flooding". —David Levy 05:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 2015 NRL Grand Final

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

Article: 2015 NRL Grand Final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: In rugby league, the North Queensland Cowboys defeat the Brisbane Broncos to win their first ever premiership. (Post)
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Jonny Nixon (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on current state. No references whatsoever and very little prose. Significant improvements need to be made for this to be posted. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat)
  • Support Once updated. Clearly not ready to be posted right now. --109.149.136.105 (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's ITNR, so "support once updated" is somewhat redundant. It's way off the quality we need for main page inclusion, please add a bunch of references, and an enhanced description of the final, which I'm led to believe was one of the better ones. Do it justice. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 3


[Posted] AFL Grand Final

Article: 2015 AFL Grand Final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: In Australian rules football, the AFL season concludes with Hawthorn defeating West Coast in the Grand Final. (Post)
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Only ITNR Australian football item we have. Match report and the rest of the article seems detailed enough and I've added some refs recently so I think everything should be OK on that front. I realise I'm nominating several days after the event, but it is ITNR and I think it's in good enough nick to go up or at least close enough that work can be done on it to get it up. I think the blurb is how we usually structure these types of stories to avoid the defeat/defeats issue. Jenks24 (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support article is of sufficient standard to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Seeing as no one has objected and this is ITNR, I'm marking this as ready. Jenks24 (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support and suggest posting. Per TRM's assertion that the article is good to go. Rhodesisland (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Handful of unsourced pieces of prose scattered about the article, once those are handled I'll be happy to post. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Added more refs, pretty sure everything is covered now – every paragraph has at least one ref. Marking ready again. Jenks24 (talk) 08:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Bombing of Médecins Sans Frontières hospital

Article:2015 bombing of Médecins Sans Frontières hospital (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:An airstrike conducted by the United States hits a Médecins Sans Frontières facility, killing at least 22 people. (Post)
Alternative blurb:An airstrike conducted by the United States hits a Médecins Sans Frontières facility, killing at least 22 people and causing the organisation to leave Kunduz.
News source(s):Wall Street Journal, [20], CNN, The Washington Post
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Major airstrike on a building that was not the intended target, causing Doctors Without Borders to leave Afghanistan as a result. Andise1 (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support once the article is improved. This seems to be a major news pertaining to the killing of innocent people and the departure of one of the most famous humanitarian organisations as result.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: If the article on the bombing, and the one on the organisation, use "Médecins Sans Frontières", then the blurb should too. GRAPPLEX 08:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I have changed it in the blurb and have also proposed an alternative one mentioning their departure from the country.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Did they really left country? So far herd that they left just Kunduz. Are there any reilabele sources to support that? --Jenda H. (talk) 10:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
        • I found something mentioning it in a news article in my country but cannot find anything in English. I will change then the wording of the blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support mayor war crime, sgnificant dead-toll --Jenda H. (talk) 10:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I've given the article a bit of reordering and chapter structure, but more work is obviously needed. The notability of the incident seems clear. Jusdafax 12:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support article is in decent enough shape for posting, a couple of POV tweaks wouldn't go amiss, but it summarises the situation well and is good to go, marking as such. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
    • There's one unsourced quote in the article (John F Campbell), which needs to be fixed for sure. Otherwise looks fine for ITN. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Major news, decent quality article (aside from that unsourced quote Masem noticed). – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This story is already off the front pages. Posting this would be anti-American, pr0-Taliban propaganda. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support if nothing else, just so we have fewer people who think like Baseball Bugs in the future. LjL (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support prompt posting. Story remains current. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. I've edited this myself, but only to copyedit and throw out sources like Twitter. Since there isn't any opposition that is actually related to the guidelines at ITN, posting. Black Kite (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Denis Healey

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

Proposed image
Article: Denis Healey (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Alternative blurb: Former Chancellor of the Exchequer and Labour Party figure, Denis Healey dies at 98
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Healey is by far one of the most iconic Labour figures and possibly in British politics. I might see a blurb being proper but for now let's focus on a RD tag. I WITHDRAW BLURB NOMINATION, BUT SUPPORT RD TAG --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Major figure in 1970s UK politics. Mjroots (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD, and I wouldn't oppose a blurb. Not just a major figure in UK and European politics in the 1970s, but one of the last survivors among the original architects of the post-war consensus. For such a divisive figure, his article is in surprisingly good shape. ‑ iridescent 16:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I just don't know how to write a blurb summing up Healey's importance. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on article improvements for RD only, oppose blurb. The article is missing a lot of citations throughout with some unsourced paragraphs, and some about his importance resting on one or two. The RD criteria is clearly there, but while I accept he played a major role in British politics, the influence on the rest of the world doesn't seem to be there to where a blurb would be appropriate. We're talking a Cabinet level position, and there, I would expect someone as influential as , say, Winston Churchill, was to be a blurb. --MASEM (t) 16:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD conditional on improved sourcing. Oppose blurb He was 98 so his passing is not a surprise and while he certainly meets ITND criteria, his notability is not great enough to justify a blurb. The Queen will almost certainly get one when she passes and Margaret Thatcher should have gotten one (I don't remember if she did). But we are talking about a cabinet level figure here. He needs to have done something really over the top to warrant a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD when article is of sufficient quality. Weak oppose blurb largely per Ad Orientem. Thryduulf (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Okay, he held one of the Great Offices of State. Yet when U.S. Speakers of the House die (1, 2), it isn't posted. It wouldn't be posted if he was in a comparable office of any other nation either. There's a systemic bias here with British non-heads of state getting support where top non-heads of state from other countries get dismissed and I'm pointing that out whether you Brits like it or not. Go ahead, flame me for it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
You make a fair point with regards to inconsistency in the application of RD guidelines (though I think your point would have been stronger if you had avoided accusing an entire group of editors of bias based on nationality). That said I am standing by my Support !vote because he clearly meets the guidelines. So, for that matter, do Speakers of the House of Representatives. I have consistently opined that they meet ITND criteria and I believe that arguments to the contrary can only be made by ignoring the plain language of the guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I count a grand total of one (or possibly two) Brits among the supports. Not everyone disagreeing with you has to be part of a conspiracy. ‑ iridescent 19:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't have everyone's nationality memorized, but I see at least 3 of the 5 supports are British, Ad Orientem's page indicates interest in British history but doesn't list nationality, and one of the five I don't know. The one I don't know, Masem, says this guy played a "major role in British poltiics", but called Jim Wright a "Mid-level US politician". I find that baffling. Believe me, I don't want to call out editors, and I don't want to restart a U.S. vs. U.K. thing (especially not looking forward to when TRM logs on and reads this), but I'm calling it like I see it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I am American. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
American here too. But to the point, this appears to be the equivalent of the Secretary of Defense in the US, and there, not every one that is named is necessarily material for RD to start. I'm judging the contributions as listed on the bio page and its clearly more than average so RD is completely fair. --MASEM (t) 20:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Noted. Speaker is above Sec Def in the U.S. presidential succession, though. I still don't understand the opposition to those two deceased speakers, while this will clearly pass. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Succession to the seat of power is one thing, actual actions and activities is another. For example, Donald Rumsfeld has far more important a play on world politics than Dennis Hastert, Speaker at the same time. That's what I'm judging here is what the person's larger impact was and it seems significant enough to qualify for RD but certainly not for a blurb. --MASEM (t) 21:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The Hastert Rule rears it's head quite frequently. That's his impact. Otherwise I'd agree Rumsfeld probably had a greater impact than Hastert. Still, these are top level officials if they reach those offices. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Great to see such an insightful analysis of British politics here as part of the discussion on Healey. 81.152.16.52 (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
As I said below, it would be nice if the nominator or any of the people supporting this nomination would analyze Healey's impact, but noone has. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll take a stab at it. During the period of chaos in European economies in the 1970s following the 1973 oil crisis, the British government was uniquely disadvantaged. Prime Minister Harold Wilson was in the early stages of Alzheimer's disease and was drinking heavily, and both major political parties were in open civil war between various ideological factions; thus, the Chancellor in this period was actually a more significant figure than any of the succession of Prime Ministers. Healey pretty much single-handedly stabilised the economy, which in turn prevented what was then the EEC from disintegrating and made the modern EU possible, and provided a stable basis for the Thatcher government's reforms (no private investor would have invested in an economy that was in the state Britain had been in in 1973) which in turn provided the economic template for the western world for the next 30 years. In addition to this, he was also the man responsible for the forced depopulation of the Chagos Archipelago, making him the single most important figure in the history of the Chagossians. ‑ iridescent 06:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose a blurb but support RD. I don't think he rises to the level of people like Thatcher but reading his page he does seem to be very important to his field. I also think we could use an update of some kind(there is nothing in the RD line currently) 331dot (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Iridescent who makes a good summary of the contributions of Healy. No need for a blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb but support RD – His name rings a bell even for a vulgar American like – Sca (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Iconic for what? Simply saying that he was iconic is like saying he was notable. We need a rationale, not a reassertion of the obvious in exaggerated terms. What did he do that others haven't or wouldn't have done? μηδείς (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
    • That's a great point I forgot to raise. It's a long article, with systemic bias playing a factor in why it's of strong quality in the first place, but skimming it and the posts above don't tell me why he was so important, other than the office he rose to, which still wasn't enough for two Speakers of the House. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not really ITN material. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for RD - Pretty obviously. Very influential chancellor in office through some of Britain's most turbulent post-war years. Fgf10 (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm sure it seems obvious to you, but those of us with no prior knowledge of him are still looking for a rationale other than that he was "influential" or a "major figure", because that's vague and others who could claim that have been rejected here. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose RD (full oppose for blurb) – per Moboshgu and Medeis. If someone can quantify why Healey was "iconic" for me, I'd be more inclined to support. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    • And maybe I'd reconsider, too. I am after all making the case that a politician who didn't serve as head of state can be posted depending on the case. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Support RD per Iridescent's explanation of importance. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Medeis and Muboshgu. Calidum 01:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, weakly, for RD, and simple oppose for blurb, on article quality grounds. The minor problem is that there are a fair number of unreferenced assertions in the article; some but not all have been tagged. The major problem is that the article's text establishes that he was an important politician; but it doesn't really establish that he had a "significant impact" on the country. He may well have, but it isn't in the text. He was elected to Parliament. He negotiated loans and proposed budgets, the sort of things you'd expect the head of a treasury to do. Then his party lost, and he was not chosen to lead it. Add a couple referenced testimonials to his significant impact from historians, and I might change my mind. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. He is 98 years old, his death is natural. sst 05:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose RD (full oppose blurb). Never a party leader (well, not permanently anyway), let alone PM. Got to draw the line somewhere. I think there may be some nostalgia for Healey given the pathetic state of the Labour Party today. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Seems significant enough. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This is hilarious, the American editors are so transparent. "You don't support posting this years umpteenth school shooting, we're just going to oppose all British noms." ITN is such a joke. There have been plenty of explanations why this is ITN material, and all the opposes are just ignoring that, or complaining Americans weren't posted. Nobody has yet given a valid oppose. Oh and Support for RD if that wasn't obvious yet. 82.8.32.177 (talk) 09:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    • "[O]ppose all British noms." Yes, we're opposing all one of them because our feelings are hurt and we're annoyed that the "homeland" doesn't care about us.</irritated sarcasm> The reasons for opposing were quite clear and reasonable; no one explained why Healey was "iconic" at first. He's a figure that naturally wouldn't garner much attention outside of Britain so how are we supposed to inherently know about him? It's up to the nominator (or anyone who wishes to do so in the stead) to explain why the topic they're nominating is notable. This was not done properly and the nomination received opposition by basic comparison accordingly since that's what we had to work with. My concerns have since been resolved by Iridescent's explanation which gives me a better idea of his importance and I would imagine others have a better idea how to adjust their votes if they see fit. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, quite transparent. Like being "savaged by a dead sheep". 217.38.154.231 (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
      • "so how are we supposed to inherently know about him?" - Jesus tap dancing Christ - this is an encyclopedia! Look at the article and judge for yourself. --109.149.136.105 (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Sure, let me just spend my time reading up on a subject (person) I care next to nothing about when the nominator, who would likely have a better understanding of the subject, can easily explain the importance for everyone, not just myself, to understand. It streamlines the process of ITN/C and allows more people to take part. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
            • Yikes. You make it seem as if it's an impossible task - only a very brief scan of the page in question (you know...the lead? Which summarizes the article?) would be enough to get yourself informed. If you didn't know all the facts, why did you even bother voting? Asking people (especially an admin) if they could take an active interest in the article subject they're discussing is not too much to ask, is it? How much of your time would it take to just read the opening few sentences of an article? The nominator may as well just copy/paste segments of the lead here (with sources) - which is fine, and something that they probably should do for the sake of convenience. "a better understanding of the subject," - Most of the time I doubt it. And if they feel passionate about the subject, then you might be inclined to believe that they would provide more detailed info here. Sheesh. And your comment about IP editors is noted - hardly befitting of an Admin, and hardly befitting the spirit of the project. --109.149.136.105 (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
              • At the time of my comment, the lede did nothing to properly convey Healey's importance. There's no mention of the economic improvements that Iridescent explained, nothing about setting the stage for the modern EU, but there is a piece about his bushy eyebrows. I got no sense of importance and voted accordingly. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - significant enough to justify inclusion at ITN. --BabbaQ (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on account of this nom being disrupted by tendentious editors and IPs. We can readdress this when cooler heads have prevailed.--WaltCip (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Effectively the second-most powerful figure in British politics during one of its darkest hours since the War. Blythwood (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD by Black Kite ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, sorry about that - my PC crashed just as I posted it. Rationale: Pretty much 2:1 support for this, article is reasonably well sourced (though the section which would cement Healey's importance as noted by Iridescent above could be expanded), and RD was currently empty. Black Kite (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The lead of this article still doesn't suggest to me why this guy is significant, if Speakers of the U.S. House aren't. I'll look forward to referencing this thread the next time an American non-head of state politician of great importance dies and the users who supported this nom start opposing it. Congratulations on reinforcing the U.K. systemic bias! – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • As we should know by now, precedence on ITN really doesn't mean anything. Never forget that an amateur provincial collegiate sport got posted to ITN after years of non-posting. Just lie back and think of England.--WaltCip (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • You mean one of the most significant sporting events in the U.S.? That Brits dismiss as an "amateur provincial" event out of a lack of understanding and lack of a desire to understand that its impact in the U.S. overrides its lack of impact in the U.K.? I'm taking this to WT:ITN, no sense in getting off the topic of this thread that can close now that the inevitable posting has been made. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Hurricane Joaquin (updated)

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

Proposed image
Article:Hurricane Joaquin (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Hurricane Joaquin causes extensive damage across the Bahamas after battering the islands for two days and leaves 33 people missing. (Post)
Alternative blurb:Hurricane Joaquin causes extensive damage across the Bahamas and leaves 33 people missing after likely sinking the M/V El Faro.
News source(s):Numerous in article
Credits:
Nominator's comments: I'm somewhat hesitant with this nomination as there's a potentially greater meteorological event about to unfold. Hurricane Joaquin, while not a historic event, has caused widespread damage across the Bahamas. It sat over the eastern islands for two days as a major hurricane, wrecking havoc all the while. Some islands are still isolated so the full-scale of impact is yet to be known, but the entire country has basically been forced to hunker down. Additionally, contact was lost with the American cargo ship M/V El Faro with 33 crew on board; search efforts came up empty handed yesterday and are likely starting back up as I type. Overall, this has been the most disruptive, and potentially damaging, hurricane in the Bahamas since Hurricane Frances in 2004. I can't make a definitive claim on the latter due to a lack of reports...

However, as I alluded to at the start, there is a "potentially historic" flood event looming for the Southeastern United States along with damage coastal flooding across almost the entire Eastern Seaboard. If this event pans out, it will likely far overshadow Joaquin and I know how much topic saturation is loved here. Face-wink.svg I had an idea that if Joaquin were to be added to ITN, and the flood event did pan out, that the flood event should replace Joaquin's position on the ticker. This would allow both to receive their due attention, but avoid flooding the feed with meteorological events (pun intended). Truthfully, this nomination is partly my desire to gauge how ITN-worthy certain events are so I can better tune my nominations. I've noticed a particular focus on statistics and a need for death and destruction from tropical cyclones for people to support them, with a blind eye being turned to their other, non-fatal disruptive effects. Sorry for rambling post (as well as temporarily stealing your namesake, TRM). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 12:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

  • support - widespread damage, potentially many deaths. etc. this is ITN material.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I am weary of putting out a natural disaster with absolutely no deaths. Nergaal (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Noteunconfirmed reports of deaths in the Bahamas. Although the nation hit by hurricanes every few years, seldom are there fatalities, let alone multiple fatalities. To anyone hesitant over supporting because of an upfront lack of statistics, the scale of damage should be more than enough to warrant posting in my opinion. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Devastating category 4 hurricane that had a significant impact on the Bahamas. Dough4872 11:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. If deaths are needed to make the storm worthy of a blurb, the likely loss of the El Faro with 33 crew members counts. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 2


[Posted] RD: Brian Friel

Article: Brian Friel (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Appears to have been a significant English language Irish playwright. Best play Tony Award for Dancing at Lughnasa, Drama Critics Circle Award, other nominations and awards. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: Contra nominator, referencing is not good for this article at all, including unreferenced quotes. Looks to be notable as a Tony Award-winner, but article is not currently postable. Happy to support once it is. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: nominating an article under BLP and updating it with a single cited sentence is not a sufficient update if the majority of the article remains unsourced. While the lead is packed with inline cites, the last few sections have very few references. But otherwise, would support for RD as a three-time Tony Award nominee (with one win) and one of a handful of artists elected to the title Saoi. Fuebaey (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support conditional on significant improvement in sourcing. Subject appears to meet ITNDC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - as per ad orientem.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The entire "Career" section—which is most of the article—is virtually unreferenced. ‑ iridescent 09:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Article needs a lot of editing. Personally, I'm not interested in doing that (and incidentally, despite the nomination above, don't wish to be credited for the one sentence I did add). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC) .
  • Oppose on article quality. Massive chunks of prose are entirely unsourced and it seems like it would take a considerable amount of effort to fix this article. Certainly will be happy to support if someone spends the time to fix the article, but I certainly can't do so considering its current state. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending improvements There are still unsourced paragraphs, but the subject meets importance criteria. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - definitely notable enough for front page. EamonnPKeane (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - The more I read the more I am left with the impression of a rare and important writer. I have spent a few hours working on this and it should be improved now. --Benchwarming (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Much appreciated. Should this be marked ready, or is more work needed? I still see a few unreferenced grafs. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
      • I have marked it ready if that helps. --Benchwarming (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 05:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Yemen cuts relations with Iran

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

Article:Iran–Yemen relations (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Yemen ceases diplomatic relations with Iran due to alleged Iranian support of the Shiite Houthi group to overthrow President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi. (Post)
News source(s):Reuters, Xinhua
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Needs some work, but AFAIK, end of diplomatic relations between countries is usually postable. Brandmeistertalk 13:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once the article is expanded. The cease of diplomatic relations between two countries is very significant and can also have major implications on the relations in other spheres (e.g. economic relations).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: There are currently two entities claiming to represent the government of Yemen. Perhaps the blurb should make it clear which one is cutting off relations? -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - updated and ready, then post. not before.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 1


[Posted] El Cambray Dos landslide

Article: 2015 El Cambray Dos landslide (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: A landslide near Guatemala City, Guatemala, kills at least 130 people. (Post)
Alternative blurb: A landslide near Guatemala City, Guatemala, kills at least 70 people and leaves 350 others unaccounted for.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Major landslide disaster in Guatemala and "one of the worst in recent memory" according to Reuters. Occurred during the overnight hours of October 1–2, with many people caught off-guard. At least 30 are confirmed dead and and estimated 450 are unaccounted for (toll is unlikely to be that high, but means its expected to rise). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 08:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

  • support - notable and important enough. considerable number of deaths.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per BabbaQ. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Note – Updated blurb to reflect increased death toll and missing. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - notable, article is short but seems well-referenced. starship.paint ~ KO 02:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - This is a mayor natural disaster which death-toll is already far higher than Hurricane Joaquin, October 2015 nor'easter or anything that happen in near past. --Jenda H. (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Marked as ready; not sure if I can go so far as to post my own nomination though so I'll wait for another admin to chime in. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment For now more that 130 bodies were recovered from landslide. [21][22]--Jenda H. (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Umpqua Community College shooting

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

Article:Umpqua Community College shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:A school shooting kills ten and wounds seven at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon. (Post)
News source(s):BBC, RT, USA Today, Reuters, NY Times, Telegraph, CNN
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Yes, another school shooting in the U.S. I know how these are generally received here, but I'm still nominating it because this is significant news. The idea that these shootings are so "commonplace" in the U.S. as to not merit posting is incomprehensible to me, as spree shootings are not "normal" anywhere. Comparisons to attacks in other countries (I often see Afghanistan comparisons) where attacks result in greater numbers of casualties that don't get posted (or sometimes nominated) are not relevant to this discussion, since what makes these so shocking, even after all the previous ones, is that Oregon is not a war zone. The fact that other industrialized nations have fewer gun deaths is all the more reason that shootings in the U.S. remain newsworthy, getting constant coverage even in the absence of shootings, making this suitable for ITN. Reports from this shooting say that there are 10 dead and 20 injured. I haven't seen details on the perpetrator or motives, as it's still early. The article is a stub that was just created, but more information will become available in time. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose with apologies to the nom who makes an obviously sincere argument for why we should be covering all of these shootings. Unfortunately they are far too common in the United States to keep posting them all. If something turns up that makes this one different (perhaps evidence of a terrorist motive?) I will reconsider. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Support It is becoming increasingly clear that this is NOT the usual random mass shooting we have become so used to. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Well, I appreciate your appreciation of my argument. To me the motive isn't so important. It could be a jilted lover, or someone who feels they were unfairly fired, or it could be a terrorist. The mass shooting, to me, meets the "significance" criteria of ITN as part of the crisis we have with guns in this country. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
      • I agree with Muboshgu that motive means little in the story, compared to destruction. Adam Lanza worried that his mother would send him away, Klebold and Harris felt bullied – neither of those motives is out of the ordinary with modern American life, but the destruction they wrought clearly is '''tAD''' (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • support - considerable number of deaths. had it been 1-2 deaths or no deaths I would have agreed with Ad orientem, but here we have a major story.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - And, I literally came onto WP because I assumed that someone would propose this, and so I could oppose it. I don't feel particularly good about being right about it. I'm afraid this is just NEWS and not an opportunity to showcase our articles. Sad news, but, even sadder, barely news. Pedro : Chat 19:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
You are definitely wrong in your assessment about this bing "barely news". That is just simply wrong.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
How fascinating. You'll no doubt explain to me what my own standard is for "barely news". Don't be so presumptive. My argument is that this does not support further learning or show case quality. Your opinion on what my opinions are... Well. 86.163.163.210 (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC) 86.163.163.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment Just to note there's a massive edit-war going on at the moment. I've warned both users (see article talkpage for more). Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ad Orientem, although I feel we will be lone voices. The ongoing gunlust and solution (more guns!!) means that this stuff happens all the time in the US, and hardly ever elsewhere in the "developed world". Sure, it's a tragic event, those folks shouldn't have been killed, but that shooter shouldn't have had free-and-easy access to guns. It will be "yet another" mass murder this year in the US, we can safely move on unless something significant beyond "kid shoots up school". Unlike the nominator's claim, spree shootings are normal in the US, just like market bombings are common in Iraq and traffic accidents are common in India. I'm sorry about that, but somehow a lot of the US seems happy to facilitate this, or worse, encourage it. All that notwithstanding, this will 100% be posted as this is American Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reason that the article is practically a stub, due to the lack of information around. Ten deaths by one person is extremely shocking, but there is little on the article to inform the reader right now. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Major shooting event, big story. News is news, even if it happens in America. This isn't a difficult decision. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - even by American standards for massacres, the body count is high. Article needs a massive amount of improvement before it could be posted though. Resolute 20:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this point anything on this subject should be posted IFF something is done about the legislation. Nergaal (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Oppose – per Ad Orientem and TRM ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Weak support after rethinking things. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose until the page is available to edit I'm frankly tired of trying to encourage new editors when everything linked from the main page is locked. It's an invitation with a door slam. So, I think we need to be sensitive to the newbies. There are lots of eyes on the page and vandalism, as there will be, will be reverted quickly - we have tools, they don't. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • If this kind of thing happened "all the time", it wouldn't be in the news. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait. We don't know enough about the identity of the shooter or the motive to make an informed decision about the relative significance of this tragedy or create a front page worthy article about it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, mass shootings in the US are commonplace. There have been 264 shootings in 274 days this year. There is nothing that makes this one stand out from the rest. Thryduulf (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, 142nd school shooting in the last 3 years, and 45th mass shooting in US this year. These are no longer news. Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Really? "No longer news"? I guess the news reporters covering it should be told to go home, then. Their job is to cover news. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Let me rephrase that then. Such events are no longer so unusual that they qualify for ITN. Black Kite (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Okay. I don't see it that way. I think, if anything, the frequency of these events elevates the newsworthiness of each one, as the lack of action on the part of the U.S. becomes more and more galling. I'm aware that I'm treading close to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, but this is a newsworthy event regardless of how many we've had. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
          • Do you not think that Wikipedia ignoring such an event is actually sending a more powerful message? Black Kite (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
            • I think, paraphrasing what Obama said, that most of us have become too numb to these shootings, leading to apathy. Somehow this has become routine when it is anything but. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
              • Yes, well said and I can see your point. I'm still, however, going to stick with my oppose unless this turns out to be different from "random wingnut with a gun shoots people". Black Kite (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
                • We shall see what the motive is. We have reports that the shooter asked people to state their religion before shooting. The feds are apparently investigating a threat made on 4chan. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Ad Orientem, TRM , Black Kite. Obama made much the same point in his statement today. (Click on video.) Sca (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support a shooter singling out Christians to be shot in the head, killing well over a dozen people on a school campus with no armed guard is certainly as big a news incident as Charlie Hebdo. μηδείς (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Medeis: Charlie Hebdo was internationally noted as provocative - it had a long history of provocation by printing the Jyllands-Posten cartoons in 2007, had their offices firebombed in 2011 and the murders in 2015 were instigated by Al-Qaeda putting them on a hit list - this school has no political context. -- Callinus (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The opposes are dumb. How about we make the "it happens all the time" argument for typhoons striking Asia, disease in third world countries or European countries going bankrupt? Calidum 00:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
One of the criteria for newsworthiness is: the unusual. (Obviously, such events shouldn't be usual in an ostensibly advanced country – which is what President Obama argued today.) Sca (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
If anything, the point he was trying to make is that how numb we've become to these shootings is unusual. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Agreed; alas, that doesn't make such events unusual. Sca (talk)
  • Support. Assuming we believe the USA Today backed Behind the Bloodshed project [23], this is only the 8th US mass killing since 2006 to have more than 10 victims, and the largest mass shooting since the Washington Navy Yard shooting of 2013. For me that is sufficient evidence that this is not a routine shooting event, but instead a sufficiently unusual one to qualify for ITN. That said, I agree that we should wait for a bit more information and article development before posting. Dragons flight (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I allow that it tops U.S. media Thursday, but alas I expect it to fade quickly from the public consciousness – as just another crazy shooting spree. The gun laws won't change in Amerika. Sca (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As unusual it was in Oregon or community colleges, we have already posted Charleston church shooting this year. Let the media do their dirty work (media is plural of medium). In the meantime, the reactions about "numbness" is overstated. In fact, the more newsworthy than this is repealing or amending the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution or signing a bill restricting gun use or sales or something. The media focus on this shooting because... the shooting happened in peaceful Oregon. "Unusualness" as one of criteria? We have already posted annual sports events and award ceremonies. The UK has been restricting gun use without written Constitution (but instead uncodified), while the US... struggles to restrict with the Amendment in place. ----George Ho (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose The school has not done anything political above any other soft target in the area - the Dylan Roof Charleston church shooting had obvious political/racial issues at play. I'd be willing to re-consider in 24 hours if there are any actual political ramifications beyond the usual school shootings in the U.S. -- Callinus (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. TOP number one story right now on both Google News, and Yahoo! News. — Cirt (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I feel these are just too common now to highlight each and every one. Blythwood (talk) 05:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Cirt. Opposers fail to convince. Each time one of these shootings happen is a separate event involving different people acting for different reasons, which is a fundamental difference over things like the daily battles in the Syrian Civil War that result in deaths. Banedon (talk) 06:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose yet another shooting. The impact only extends to those directly harmed by this. Unless there's serious connection to the IRA stuff that he had been supporting, this is yet another lonely malcontent speading misery.128.214.53.18 (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Blythwood, unless this is the catalyst that causes the US to finally wake up and see sense. We can but hope... — An optimist on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 07:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Another week, another shooting. Rapidly losing newsworthiness. Fgf10 (talk) 07:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The anti-American bias is quite strong here. What a complete joke. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
    It's more a reminder that the rest of the world are sick and tired of seeing these events, sick and tired of the "shock" and "upset" that is portrayed, only for nothing to change. Go buy a burger, get a gun while you're there, etc etc. These events are no longer uncommon, they are not ITN newsworthy, nearly 150 school shootings in three years? Perhaps suggest a school shooting ticker instead. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
How many of those 150 were nominated or posted? No one is suggesting posting every school shooting, or every earthquake, or every airplane crash. As (I think) the deadliest school shooting since Sandy Hook, this one seems significant enough to post. If reasonable people objectively disagree, that's fine. If this gets buried underneath a bunch of "It's Amerika, happens all the time, they need moar gun laws" hyperbole, that's pretty lame. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid it's not lame at all. That's what happens, that's why we don't post suicide bombings in markets any longer, or traffic accidents in India. They are commonplace. As for your quote, well it's abosultely spot on, isn't it, not hyperbole at all, unless you and your countryfolk are content to keep seeing children shot to death every week while you do nothing about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but it's garbage. At least try to give the illusion of objectivity. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Nope, not garbage. I'm afraid it's the US that lacks objectivity. If something happens on a regular basis, it's not news any more. Simple as that. What needs to be done to stop these is an entirely different discussion for a different place. (Well not really a discussion, it's blatantly obvious, but I digress) Fgf10 (talk) 08:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
It's garbage? And that's why the rest of look on incredulously while your children are murdered every day and you do nothing (apart from encourage moar gunz in schools). What a bizarre approach to life and what an offhand and dismissive attitude to children being murdered. One mass shooting per day, well played. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you feel the need to mention dead children in every post in order to try to win an internet argument, but it's the level of class we've come to expect from you, and I guess that's oddly comforting in its own way. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
What a bizarre response. This is a proposed post about a school shooting? Perhaps you misunderstood. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps not. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support if major news organizations worldwide consider it major news, then opposing it seems like sour grapes. The world's news organizations consider it major news. As to those saying that it happens all the time it should not be noted, well, we should stop noting natural disasters then, since they happen all the time, and with much the same effects, and much the same lack of preparation. If the news headlines or frontpage news outside the region of origin, then it should be a simple decision that it qualifies for ITN. This currently headlines DW.com (Germany), BBC News (UK) ; is front page news for SCMP (Hong Kong), ABC News (Australia) -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Routine, medium-low death count, no lasting impact. 109.149.137.78 (talk) 09:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Although, it is newsworthy about just how blind America is to its own glaring gun problem.--WaltCip (talk) 11:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support because the shooter was apparently asking about his victims' religion. If not for that, I would not support. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • What exactly does this change about this routine, senseless, essentially legalized massacre?--WaltCip (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • That makes it a hate crime. But the 'routine' aspect you cite is the reason I don't support this more strongly. If it isn't posted it won't bother me. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Note that this was not a church, and that any other "soft" target could have been attacked and the same thing done - the target was not chosen specifically for political purposes (unlike the Charleston church shooting) -- Callinus (talk) 12:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per The Rambling Man's reasoning. The nominator has apparently tried to explain how the United States are different than Afghanistan and how each shooting is sui generis but there is nothing compelling beyond this tragic event that makes me think something would change in the future. Shooting incidents in countries like the United States, Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan are fairly common, meaning that these countries are similar in it regardless of the different incentives for all these incidenents. School shootings, which constitute the largest portion of all shooting incidents in the country over the last couple of years, are even less significant than other shootings, as they occur on recurrent basis and the incentives for each of them remain very unclear, implying that they don't have the potential to trigger other subsequent incidents. For example, the Charleston church shooting was a shooting incident with almost the same casualities but it was an unusual shooting of racial character that lead to multiple subsequent events and harsh community response. Sociologically, school shootings as example of a social deviance in the American society should have already been brought to resolution on a highest level by the authorities but, unfortunately, the authorities haven't done anything yet to tackle this deviance. That said, they either: 1) don't prioritise the problem with shooting incidents and thereby consider them as routine acts in the society or 2) don't want to restrict the freedom on the market of weapons because of the extremely high potential losses in the industry. In conclusion, a news regarding the school shootings in the United States that is worth posting is definitely not a shooting with a high death toll but a law or regulation (e.g. restrictions in the possession of weapons) that would prevent them in the future.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Exactly. As it is, the obsolete Second Amendment almost always backfires by not protecting those whom it's supposed to protect: whenever a shooting occurs, it turns out no one around is armed to respond. Either some strict gun control legislation or the repeal of the Second Amendment would be newsworthy. Brandmeistertalk 12:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
      • I misread "newsworthy" as "necessary". But I think both applies in this case. Why is taking so bloody long?--WaltCip (talk) 12:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.