Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For administrator instructions on updating Template:In the news, see Wikipedia:In the news/Admin instructions.
Shortcut:

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion in Template:In the news (ITN), a protected Main Page template, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.

Phillip Hughes

Ongoing: Ebola outbreak Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
Recent deaths: P. D. James Pat Quinn Viktor Tikhonov


How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC.
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process. Remember, we use UTC dates.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
    • Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable source. The suggested blurb should be written in simple present tense.
    • Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting. For recent deaths, please state why the person is notable enough to post - merely having a Wikipedia article is insufficient.
  • Please consider adding the blurb to Portal:Current events (the green box at the top of the date section) at the same time.

Purge this page to update the cache

There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template.

Headers[edit]

  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with [Posted] or [Pulled] in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as [Ready] when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked [Ready] you should remove the header.

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

  • Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a brief (or detailed!) rationale for your choice. Comments and other objections are welcome, but this is the basic form.
  • Be aware that RD refers to "recent deaths", a subsection of the news box which lists only the names of the recent notable deceased. Blurb refers to the full sentences that occupy most of the news box. Most eligible deaths will be listed in the recent deaths section of the ITN template. However, some deaths may be given a full listing if there is sufficient consensus to do so.
  • Be aware that the blurb of a promoted ITN item may be modified to complement the existing items on the main page.

Please do not...[edit]

  • ... add simple "support" or "oppose" !votes. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  • ... complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.
  • ... accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due a to personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  • ... comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  • ... oppose an item because it is not on WP:ITN/R.


Suggestions[edit]

November 27[edit]


[Posted] RD: P. D. James[edit]

Article: P. D. James
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Johnsemlak (give credit)

 --Johnsemlak (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Support once article references are improved. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as she seems to meet DC2; refs need improvement per TRM. 331dot (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — Widely known and appreciated. Sca (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, well known writer. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - per The Rambling Man. Miyagawa (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support There is one quote that I saw lacking a cite (I tagged it) ,but it should be relatively easy to fix as the sentence it is in narrows down the likely source very well. Rest of article in shape. DC2 seems appropriate for posting. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, got 400 page views a day before her death. Wrote The Children of Men. Abductive (reasoning) 15:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD promptly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Jehochman Talk 17:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment a pity it was posted before the orange maintenance tag was addressed. But hey, there are forces much greater than following the guidelines here. I think we should remove that requirement, as it's often ignored by certain posting and voting admins. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

November 26[edit]


Shakespeare First Folio discovered[edit]

Updated article: First Folio
Blurb: A previously unknown Shakespeare First Folio, dated to 1623, has been discovered in a library in Saint-Omer, near Calais.
News source(s): The Telegraph, BBC, CNN. Washington Post
Nominator: Martinevans123 (give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: You don't often come across these. Has a transatlantic, as well as a European, angle. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. A decently-covered story of a type that we don't usually see, involving arguably one of the best writers in the English language. 331dot (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Unopposed with Support only if this folio differs in content from other early folios. Do we have such a source? μηδείς (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't think it does and of course it would not be expected to. But it has pencil annotations with stage directions! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I suppose this is a wait for better sources. μηδείς (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
        • All c.800 had the same 36 plays, 18 for the first time? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support once the article is clear of maintenance tags. He's "one the best", he's a "bloody hero", he invented part of the Englizh languish. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Just one section needs additional sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - interesting story. and covered by media.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose although rare, there still are over 200 copies i believe in existence. That makes it much less exciting... if it was 1 of 2 then i would be all up for it. -- Ashish-g55 23:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Ashish. Another identical copy of a relatively common book (by early modern standards), even one as important or interesting, is not world news. —Brigade Piron (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. While I realize there are more than 200 known copies, I still feel this is certainly significant enough that it can be posted; it is in the news, after all. Also, we don't post a lot of cultural items. -- Calidum 03:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. An event of huge cultural significance regardless of the number of extant copies. Gamaliel (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Huge cultural significance? Why? Abductive (reasoning) 06:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
      • One, it's Shakespeare. Two, per [1], its provenance and the handwritten notes it contains have the potential to give us new insight into point one. If that's not huge culturally, then the bar is set so high for cultural stories here that none of them can get into ITN. Gamaliel (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
        • I support all sorts of scholarly ITN nominations, but I haven't seen many for cultural ones. Which cultural stories have been nominated but failed to be posted? Abductive (reasoning) 18:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I would compare this to the relatively recent Action Comics #1 auction; there might be dozens of copies remaining in existence, and thus finding any copy in good condition of such a critical cultural work is important. --MASEM (t) 05:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. We have a shortage of news items, so although this isn't the most prominent story, it is interesting and different. We ought to post it. Jehochman Talk 05:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is one out of 800 printed and brings the survivors up to 224 or so. I cannot see how a damaged copy of something already well-known to scholars is in any way important. This is a minor, minor story. As for the Action Comics #1 auction, that was for an actual sale. This book is not going to be sold anytime soon, and as it missing 30 pages from the front, is not going to sell for as much as previous copies. Abductive (reasoning) 06:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Support per Ashish and Jehochman. I'm not an expert on the subject, but this doesn't seem like a big deal. But if we have nothing else. Busy Moose (talk) 06:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose if there are still 200+ copies extant, I don't see how this is such a big deal. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I've removed the "[Ready]" label from the section heading as there is no consensus to post this at the moment. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Phillip Hughes[edit]

Updated article: Phillip Hughes
Blurb: Australian test cricketer Phil Hughes dies following a blow to the head from a bouncer.
News source(s): BBC Sydney Morning Herald India Today New Zealand Herald NBC News
Nominator: The Rambling Man (give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: It was suggested that this was nominated by User:Jehochman, so here we go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Wait - IMHO, this should not be posted unless he dies. Obviously that is not a scenario I would wish for. Injuries in cricket are fairly common, albeit that this is one of the more serious. Mjroots (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    • R.I.P., Phillip.
  • Strong oppose, like the Michael Schumacher nomination at the very end of last year, we don't give ITN to people getting injured. Donnie Park (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    • We can give ITN coverage to any exceptional, unusual and widely reported story. I have no opinion on whether the Schumacher nomination was decided appropriately or not, but one distinction is that he was injured while skiing recreationally, not while driving F1 race cars, what he is notable for. Hughes, a cricketer, was injured playing cricket, one of the worst cricket injuries ever. (Has anybody ever died playing cricket?) Sadly, many people are killed or paralyzed while skiing recreationally. That injury wasn't so unusual.) Jehochman Talk 20:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Has anybody ever died playing cricket?, Has anybody died being hit by a ball? Yes, yes, yes and yes. Donnie Park (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
      • ...and what about Jules Bianchi, he was driving and that ITN/C was refused, so until something bad happens I still stand by my nomination. Donnie Park (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait - until he dies (hope not ofcourse). --BabbaQ (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Quick disclaimer it was suggested that this would be an appropriate ITN candidate by User:Jehochman, in response to the flack over the posting of the Ferguson kerfuffles. I'm sorry if I'm wasting community time with this. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    • @The Rambling Man: - any nomination made in good faith is not a waste of the community's time, regardless of the outcome of the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 06:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I think this injury is rather rare and whether he dies (I hope not) or survives, the issue is how much news coverage this story is generating. I've added links to answer that question. I believe this story is getting more news coverage than our minimum requirement, and the event is exceptionally rare. "Phillip Hughes remains in a critical condition in a Sydney hospital following scans after one of the most sickening blows in cricket history left him fighting for his life." [2] Jehochman Talk 20:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support posting whenever it is deemed proper. Reading the linked stories, I read that this sort of accident is extremely rare- and unlike the aforementioned race car driver this occurred while Hughes was playing. Further, many cricket matches were apparently abandoned after this news was made public, affecting many people. As such it seems to be getting a great deal of coverage in many nations(NZ, Aust., India, UK) and readers might want to read his article to learn about him and what happened(as I did just now). I understand both the desire to post it now due to the news coverage and to not do so unless (hopefully not) he does not survive- but I think it merits posting in some form. 331dot (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Question On the assumption that he will live the injury, I can understand the logic of posting about a mid-career-ending significant injury, but iff this is a leading player in the field, eg the likes of a LeBron James. I don't understand enough about cricket to be able to judge that from the article, so it would be helpful for someone to give a rough assessment towards that. (If he does die, hopefully not, I could see that this certainly qualifying under unusual death). --MASEM (t) 21:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Who is LeBron James? HiLo48 (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • He's a Test and ODi cricketer for Aus but a young 'un. The injury has been reported in major press all around the world, along with a staggeringly upsetting video of him collapsing some ten seconds post-impact. There seems to be an inclination at this point to post items which have large news recognition (which this certainly does) and it was suggested to me, in light of the ongoing scuffles in Ferguson, America, that this item should be considered too. The irony being this story is more likely to have a longer term and more significant impact than a bunch of looters going wild in the aisles. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait At this moment this looks more like news for a cricket-specialized magazine. I doubt we'd even post Ronaldo if he falls into a critical condition on the pitch, but ultimately survives. In the worst scenario this may pass solely due to the oddity of the event, not because of Hughes persona - obviously, he's not the same scale as Mandela or Ray Bradbury. Brandmeistertalk 21:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's nominated because of the oddity, and if you check the mainstream news sources in India, Pakistan, Australian and other countries that love cricket, you will see that this story is getting very prominent coverage. People are very interested in this news. Jehochman Talk 21:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Then why hasn't U2's lead singer been posted given his humerus was shattered into seven pieces, his scapula into three, and his collar bone and a metacarpal been broken in half? μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Bono is fine the Pope will take care of him... [3]. He's certainly not in a life-threatening position where a cricket ball struck his skull at around 90 mph. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
If a famous musician suffered a serious injury during a concert, was in a deep coma, unable to breathe on his own, and in grave danger of dying (90% according to Subarachnoid hemorrhage), and the story was all over the news, we would probably feature it, because that would be just as unusual as this story. Jehochman Talk 04:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Due to the fact that it has received significant coverage in nations where cricket is popular (i.e. Australia, the UK, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, etc.), and because a whole round of fixtures were cancelled due to his injury, with the possibility of the upcoming India-Australia Test match also being called off. 124.185.77.1 (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sports deaths? Sporting events? Sure. Sports injuries? I'm not sure this rises to the level of significance needed for ITN. Gamaliel (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I understand that this nomination is debatable. We have 4 solid supports including the nominator, 3 waits who would support if (unfortunately) he dies, 2 solid opposes and maybe some neutrals. I suggest we post this because the target article is strong, and Wikipedia will be better for featuring something a bit unusual that has a strong human interest. This will also help diversify our coverage. Sadly, it looks like he is very sick and there is a real chance that he will die. [4] If we post it and then he dies, we will of course update the blurb immediately. Jehochman Talk 04:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think the status of Hughes as a player and the unusual nature of the death means that a blurb is appropriate. The last comparable death was that of Raman Lamba in 1998, but Lamba was fielding rather batting, and was not wearing a helmet. The fact that Hughes was wearing a helmet makes his death all the more freakish, and significant in the long term as practice and possibly laws will change in response (though admittedly the last bit is crystal-balling). StAnselm (talk) 05:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd go further and say this appears to be the first top level (First-class cricket or List A cricket) fatal injury of a player wearing a helmet. (Darryn Randall was probably wearing a helmet, but suffered his fatal injury in a lower grade game). Adpete (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, with the unfortunate word of his death. --MASEM (t) 05:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support were this a professional baseball batter in the US I'd expect it to be posted, why not this? Or is Cricket regularly fatal? μηδείς (talk) 05:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support sadly, there is now little doubt that this is ITN worthy. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 06:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I found an interesting page, Category:Deaths_in_sport. We have 379 pages about racing drivers killed while racing, and 6 pages about Cricket deaths. Cricket deaths are very rare. Jehochman Talk 06:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Agree. And a small note of pedantry, Test should be with a capital T in the blurb. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Could we perhaps have a less ambiguous hook? When I read "dies following a blow to the head from a bouncer" I imagined him getting into some kind of altercation with nightclub security staff. Would it be too simplistic to say "from a blow to the head from a ball?" – filelakeshoe (t / c) 09:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Please check the blurb for consistency, the article says he was struck to the neck, not head (which rather makes sense, otherwise the injury wouldn't have been so bad due to his helmet, I think). Also, the link to cricket should be extended to Test (Test cricket). Brandmeistertalk 10:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    I've extended the link. Might it make sense to simply drop "Test" from the blurb, given that Hughes also was a One Day International cricketer? Or did his fatal injury occur in a circumstance unique to Test cricket? (Please forgive my ignorance of the sport.) —David Levy 14:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • For completeness, adding US source(where it was on the top page), where cricket is not popular; clearly significant news. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree with filelakeshoe because I too was misled - is there a real need to write "bouncer"? Can't we just write "ball"? Also, RIP. starship.paint ~ regal 14:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Please edit blurb per comments above. Its too much of a cricket talk to say blow from a bouncer and will be confusing for most readers. getting struck/hit by the ball or something similar might be better. -- Ashish-g55 14:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    Done. (Note that this issue also was raised at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors.) —David Levy 14:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pull This is not news. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    Of course it is news. Would be absurd to think it isn't. But I would disagree with your implied argument that it isn't ITN worthy. A top athlete in a major world sport dying as a result of an on-field incident; a sport that isn't particularly known for such risk? That's an ITN for me. Resolute 18:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    I'm not sure which particular point is trying to be made here, but at least we now have a baseline from which we can gauge any further "comments" from Maunus. Tragic. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose pull. There is ample evidence above that this is worldwide news. Thryduulf (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

November 25[edit]


[Attention needed] Solomon Islands general election, 2014[edit]

Updated article: Solomon Islands general election, 2014
Blurb: Solomon Islands Prime Minister Gordon Darcy Lilo loses his seat in the country's general elections
Alternative blurb: Negotiations begin to form a new Government of the Solomon Islands after Prime Minister Gordon Darcy Lilo loses his seat in the country's general elections.
News source(s): ABC, Solomon Star, Radio New Zealand
Nominator and updater: Number 57 (give credit)

Article updated

Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.

Nominator's comments: Fairly unusual for the Prime Minister to lose their seat in a national election. Never nominated anything for ITN before, so apologies if this sort of thing is unwarranted. --Number 57 12:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment The election returned so many parties (the largest has only 7 of 50 seats!) that it would silly to say "Democratic Alliance Party wins the plurality of seats" - especially since last time, it was the 3rd largest party that eventually gave the island its Prime Minister. If we do post this, I think this "decapitation" is the angle to go for. ABC does call Lilo's unseating "a shock". Smurrayinchester 15:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, political parties are fairly insignificant in the Solomon Islands compared to most other countries – 32 of the 50 MPs are independents. Number 57 15:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - a general election is a general election. doesnt matter if it is on the solomon islands or in the uk or whatever.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support It's still a general election for a national legislature. Canuck89 (talk to me) 21:34, November 25, 2014 (UTC)
  • Not adequately updated - Supporting at ITN/R item on merits (as the above 2 comments seem to be) is rather pointless. The merits are assumed; the only factor that determines posting is the quality of the update. At current, the article has one sentence on the results and very little text in general. We can do better than that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Could you help with the updating or perhaps provide some questions that you'd like to see answered? Questions can be useful as writing prompts. I wouldn't promote this until this concern is addressed. Jehochman Talk 15:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose the jurisdiction is the size of a third-class world city, not notable, and no RfC established this as ITN/R. μηδείς (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    • According to Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items elections in all sovereign states (of which the Solomon Islands is one) "are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur". The fact that it's a small country shouldn't count against it. Number 57 08:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    • This oppose as it stands now isn't going to carry much weight. A valid reason to oppose might be if the news is not actually being reported. From the looks of the links above, there's a prima facia case that it is "in the news" but you are welcome to provide reasons why you think otherwise. Jehochman Talk 15:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per BabbaQ. Busy Moose (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, although I think the article could benefit from more detail. What is the implication of independents winning a majority of seats? Will there be coalition negotiations? On what date were the results announced? Formerip (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral article needs work but it's also worth noting that we do not need an RfC to add an item to ITNR. That has never, and is not a requirement. Claiming otherwise is bogus. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd support this being posted (the election received a bit of mainstream news coverage in Australia and NZ, and is a significant element of the Solomon Islands rebuilding itself from near failed state status in the mid-2000s), but I'd suggest that the blurb be on the results of the election, and not just the PM losing his seat - according to the Australian ABC News [5] independents won two-thirds of the seats, and will now negotiate to form a coalition government. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I've updated the article to some degree; however, it seems that the process of forming a government and selecting a Prime Minister will not be quick. It seems certain that it's not going to happen before this nomination goes stale. I've marked this 'attention needed' because I'd value others' input on whether the update is now sufficient to post. I've also suggested an altblurb which gives a little more detail. GoldenRing (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose not a notable election.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    • @Maunus: The guidance at WP:ITN/R states that elections in all sovereign states meet the criteria. Number 57 18:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Common sense says otherwise. Does it also say that all events that meet the criteria must be posted?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per BabbaQ. Suggested blurb: The Democratic Alliance Party wins the plurality of seats in the Solomon Islands general election, while the majority of seats are won by independent candidates. --LukeSurl t c 18:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    • @LukeSurl: I don't think mentioning a specific party in the blurb is a good idea. Parties are relatively unimportant in Solomon politics - the DAP won fewer than 15% of the total seats. Your proposed blurb also omits the most notable aspect of the result, i.e. the PM losing his seat. Number 57 18:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

November 24[edit]


[Posted] Shooting of Michael Brown[edit]

Updated article: Shooting of Michael Brown
Blurb: Officer Darren Wilson is not indicted for the Shooting of Michael Brown.
Alternative blurb: Rioting breaks out in Ferguson, Missouri, and protests occur across the United States, after a grand jury declines to indict a police officer for the fatal shooting of Michael Brown.
alt2: Rioting breaks out in Ferguson, Missouri following a grand jury decision on the shooting of Michael Brown.
alt3: Rioting breaks out in Ferguson, Missouri after a grand jury declines to indict the police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown.
News source(s): BBC Al Jazeera Le Monde CNN El Pais

Nominator: Andise1 (give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This shooting and the subsequent trial have garnered a large amount of press. Whether this is notable enough for Wikipedia is something to discuss below. Andise1 (talk) 02:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment: Possibly wait to see if resulting protests are noteworthy? SpencerT♦C 02:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
We did wait after this comment for some time. Jehochman Talk 12:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Seriously? We've been lectured repeatedly recently that we couldn't post the Ram nom with 6 deaths and 500 arrests or the arrest of the Mayor from Guerrero state and his wife who were on the run for a month (after they ordered the murder of 43 students) as the most wanted in Mexico, or two jihadist assassins shot dead after massacring four foreign rabbis at prayer in jerusalem since in each case we lack as conviction. This is simply absurd, risible, and a farce in that context; no offense to the nominator. That is, no, Opposed. μηδείς (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Opposing an item because some other item wasn't posted is not a convincing reason. Jehochman Talk 12:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
This opinion might be convincing if it had some details. As it is, I can't verify why it doesn't rise to the level. The item is top headline news on many news sites around the world. There needs to be more explanation why an "item in the news" doesn't belong on ITN. Jehochman Talk 12:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - There are at least a dozen fires on TV right now and one officer shot, protests in Oakland, CA. We expected the worst and we got the worst. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 06:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if I believe it (I'm going there tomorrow), but Chief Belmar said about 20 mins. ago that he had personally heard about 150 shots fired, none from officers. The National Guard is finally being mobilized as of an announcement a few hours ago. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 09:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
This opinion caries weight because it has a source to back up the assertion. Jehochman Talk 12:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait to see how this develops, as Spencer has suggested. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
After seeing this comment the first time I did wait, for additional comments and additional news developments. Jehochman Talk 12:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
But nothing much did happen. A few dozen people were arrested, a few places were looted. Nothing new there. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Did the story get coverage in media outlets around the world? If so, how prominent was the coverage? Personal opinions don't carry much weight compared to an opinion that cites news sources and contains links. Jehochman Talk 13:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
It got plenty of coverage but our role is to assess whether that coverage is actually significant in the long-term. We have a few dozen protestors in a few places hurling bricks. So what? How is this going to change the world? Also across the world news we have an Australian cricketer struck in the head by a bouncer, in a critical condition. The US community would laugh that out of court if it was nominated. Yet it's headlining around the world. Just because it's prominently advertised (and the US press are doing a great job of that), it doesn't mean we should post it against community consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I saw that story about the cricketer and thought it was interesting (shocking and sad), and wish you would nominate it. No I would not laugh it off. That's a very unusual thing and it's getting a lot of press. Jehochman Talk 19:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Very well, I'll do so, and we can see how that pans out. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, a top story in the US and European media, from I've seen in the national editions of G-news. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
This opinion carries weight because I can verify the assertion by searching G-news. Some URLs would be even better. Jehochman Talk 13:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
A good suggestion, which was acted upon. Jehochman Talk 13:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Recent news from Ferguson dominate the CNN, Reuters, BBC or NYT main pages at the moment. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Good comment with specific details and policy-based reasoning. Jehochman Talk 13:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. If this is posted(and I'm not yet saying it should be) the blurb should focus on the riot in Ferguson and protests across the US and not just the lack of an indictment. 331dot (talk) 08:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
This suggestion was eventually implemented. Jehochman Talk 13:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Suggested an alt blurb. The police are describing the rioting as worse than what happened in August: [6]. 331dot (talk) 08:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the alt blurb. It's very helpful to suggest an option if you prefer something besides what's originally posted. Jehochman Talk
Suggestion was implemented, that the blurb should reference the specific article about what's in the news, not just the general article about what happened months ago. Jehochman Talk 13:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait per Spencer. I think μηδείς makes a compelling point about the sort of double standard we'd be espousing by posting this at this point, but it may yet develop into something more significant. GoldenRing (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
We did wait, but the argument about double standards carries no weight here. It might carry weight on a discussion at WP:ITN or WP:ITN/R. Perhaps this concern should be addressed there in a more considered way than is possible here on the candidates page. Jehochman Talk 13:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • In late October we posted blurb about the soldier killed at the National War Memorial in Ottawa, on 5 November we featured the news about a suicide attack at Pakistan's Wagah border, on 11 November we posted blurb about protests in Mexico City. The first wave of protests in the US Ferguson was not featured despite really massive coverage in the world media, instead of it we posted blurb about the suicide of a US actor. Now we have similar situation, the protests in the US are everywhere in the media but we are waiting for a "more significant development". So yes, I would agree that our standards are unusual. CNN, Reuters, NYT and the most improtant media reporting in multiple languages over the world apparently show systemic bias on their front pages right now :) I would accept arguments about bad coverage of the recent development of the event here on Wikipedia, but not this. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose If someone has not been indicted for something then we shouldn't be splashing their name on our front page as if they ought to have been. See trial by media. Andrew D. (talk) 13:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • At the moment, the media discuss consequences (the protests) rather than his guilt or innocence so it could hardly be called "trial by media". Moreover, we can avoid that person's name and focus more on the protests in our blurb. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
This opinion was taken into account and acted upon out of an abundance of caution, in the spirit of WP:BLP. Using the officers name added little to nothing and lengthened the blurb. Reading the sources, the issue are widespread concerns about the militarization of the police, use of excessive force, and racial profiling not the behavior of this one officer. Jehochman Talk 13:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support alt2 the protests are notable (last time such protest were in LA in 1990) not the decision itself. I proposed a shorted more neutral blurb. Nergaal (talk) 13:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Posting I see various reasons for some of the opposes and comments and have tried to accommodate them with version 3, focusing on the riots, not naming the police officer, and bold linking to the riots article. I believe with these concerns addressed, the balance is now in favor of posting. The argument that this is in the news is strong. The home page of the BBC features riots and flames, as does NYT and ABC (Australia). Jehochman Talk 13:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Er what? Three opposes, four waits/comments, and three supports is now a consensus to post? Interesting.... EDIT: Also adding my post-posting Oppose for now/Pull for the time being as nothing much has actually happened yet. 131.251.254.81 (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Consensus is not determined by numbers. In particular, consensus means taking into account all view points as reasonably well as possible, which is exactly what alt3 seeks to do. Good, bold post IMO (based only on the conversation, not my personal feeling of merit.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Now (about 12 hr after the verdict and thus seeing the scale of the riots) it is clear there was something significant, but this is a badly rushed post. We've had problems with things being posted <12 hr since the nomination in the past when the consensus was clear, but absolutely in this case, there was no clear consensus at the time to post. This needed some more time to let the impact of the verdict and the resulting riots settle in. We would have still likely posted sometime within the first 24hrs given the way events actually did turn, but we have to stop rushing on these things and wait; we are not a news ticker. --MASEM (t) 15:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense to wait until the item is out of the news before posting it. Our users will be looking for information about this topic; we should make it easy to find as soon as we (1) have a reasonable quality article, (2) events are "gelled" that we can form a blurb. Even if things change, we can always update the blurb. All around the world these riots are being reported. I see no argument to embargo our articles. Jehochman Talk 16:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
We're not a news ticker, so we can wait even if the story falls out of the news cycle. The argument readers will be looking for this info applies to tons of stories that we have not posted in the past or in a rapid timely manner (see for example Mike Nichols below), we are making sure we are not flooding WP's with poor quality articles or with topics that have (potentially) limited interest. I've said before, unless it's flat out obvious on the consensus and importance (neither the case here), ITNC show have a minimum 12hr "stew time" to get an initial rough opinion before posting. Given the !votes here and the actual news, after 12hr we likely would have still had consensus to post, definitely within 24hr. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support post-Posting. A few hours ago I was strongly opposed, but mass arson and open gunfire aren't everyday occurances in the US.128.214.185.162 (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support due to the national scale of the protesting. Resolute 15:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Rioting in Ferguson was very much expected given its been happening for a while. I agree posting seems a bit rushed and the blurb does not seem to correlate with the supports... If it is on ITN due to national protests then thats what should be mentioned. The current blurb is borderline breaking news. Also the update in the article kinda sucks -- Ashish-g55 16:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The story is big headlines but if you cut through the hype, you get a pretty small scale disruption, not a great deal of damage, no serious injuries, and we've had all this before (the blurb should reflect that the riots are happening again). Really, this utterly US-centric. We totally ignored a doctor in India who killed fifteen women in a day and put dozens of others in intensive care, yet we're suddenly a news ticker to post these scuffles which don't amount to anything in the big scheme of things. Wait was ideal, if it escalated to something truly significant we could post it. And note, over 75% of the arrests are for trespass and looting, nothing to do with the "cause".... Pathetic. Never mind, the posting is not surprising. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    • U.S.-centric? Sure. But I disagree with the idea that this doesn't "amount to anything in the big scheme of things". The issue is Racism in the United States. (Not that I expect this is actually going to advance anything to counter it.) – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
      As I said, over 75% of the arrests were people looting, taking advantage of the righteous actions of a tiny minority of people in a tiny place in the US who feel aggrieved. Advertising this as all about the racial element is disingenuous and will serve only to encourage it to take place more in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I didn't say it was all about racism. Rioting and looting certainly doesn't help that cause. But then again, nobody said an unorganized mob would ever be rational. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
      • "Protests also were staged on Monday night in New York, Chicago, Seattle, Los Angeles, Oakland, California, and Washington, D.C., over a case that has highlighted long-standing racial tensions not just in predominantly black Ferguson but across the United States." (Reuters) --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 17:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Yes, that's interesting, but to what degree did these "protests" extend? Were they just banner wavers? Were they notable in any way? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
          • For example 40 people in Oakland were arrested, according to SF Chronicle [7]. Rioting and looting say something about the society as well and I would let our readers to interpret the situation on their own. We document and provide information, we are not here to tell them what is right or wrong. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 17:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
            • Yep, a truly minor event, 40 people get arrested at feisty football matches in the UK every Saturday. This isn't a newsworthy event, it's hype, hype which Wikipedia is now stirring up. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
              • (cough) This line of opposition is starting to sound as though this kind of thing is considered business as usual in the U.S. (and maybe the UK). - Tenebris 198.91.170.20 (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – per TRM. Minor scuffles that have no relevance on the world stage. I quite like his comparison example. Significance of this "event" in context is pretty much nil, and hence it does not warrant a posting. We're not a news ticker. RGloucester 18:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Support - This is a story very much in the news, world wide and hugely in the USA. The news is important, not tabloid sensationalism (though in some venues being played that way) and I support the early posting as well. Very much disagree with the rationale offered by TRM and others objecting. This is a watershed moment in America, which is according to some a post-racial society, but clearly is not seen that way by protesters and those taking advantage of the situation to act out. Not to include the item in ITN would make us a laughingstock, as I see it. I salute Jehochman for making a gutsy call in the face of the usual tired objections, and the post-posting support clearly backs him up. Jusdafax 18:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Who has decided that this is a "watershed moment", dear fellow? I hope you're not standing on a soapbox. I believe that there hasn't been enough time for scholarly sources to be written about this event, and come to a consensus about whether it has had a historical impact. I believe that what you propose is that we endorse crystal-balling, which is antithetical to the encyclopaedia. RGloucester 18:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Yep, sadly the concept that this is a "watershed moment" is simply not true. What happened in the last set of Ferguson riots? Nothing. What changed? Nothing. Minor scuffles, but no long-term impact whatsoever. Unless I missed it, this set of looting and burglary is no different. Just opportunists out to make a quick buck and applaud Wikipedia for celebrating it on its main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
How about these comments by the Los Angeles Police Chief which compare this to the 1992 riots? If you two don't agree with that, we have very different standards of what constitutes notability for ITN, that's all. Jusdafax 18:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that bluster is one thing, but that historical significance can only be determined if one has temporal distance from the event. I also believe that historical significance can usually only be determined by scholarly sources. There are some exceptions, when it may be readily apparent that an event has historical significance, as with the 11th September attacks, however, these are few and far between. It certainly isn't the case here. Your own personal advocacy for viewing this event as "watershed" moment has no bearing on the encyclopaedia. RGloucester 18:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Yep, that's right. Everyone was worked up over the initial riots, but yet nothing has changed. These riots are a little more excited than the last lot, but again, they appear to be nothing substantive. If something changes because of them or if they escalate beyond a few tiny corners of America with minuscule arrests then we should consider it for the main page. Otherwise this is just an example of "it's happening in America so it must be important." We should be more analytical when before we post this tabloid stuff to the main page. We are not a news ticker. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The BBC, Le Monde, Times of India, and the Irish Times are posting "tabloid stuff"? That is an issue to take up with them, not us. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
No, I forgot we simply mirror the press regardless of the value of the story. The fact that a few dozen people have decided to go on a looting spree has become headline news, just as it did the first time round. Waiting to see if this ever has any impact was essential, right now we're just news tickering. A handful of folks are upset, again, and nothing else will happen. Great work Wikipedia on promoting burglars and looters. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I guess we just have very different ideas of "value". 331dot (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. You believe that value lies in a few burglars and robbers, I believe it lies in human life, and appalling care conditions, and individuals responsible for multiple deaths. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I believe when 2200 National Guard troops(essentially the military) are called out due to civil disorder, and there are nationwide protests about an issue, yes, it has value. Is the British Army(or National Guard equivalent there) called out due to 40 unruly football fans there? I don't remember if I commented on the Indian doctor posting or not- if there was a deliberate effort to murder women by a doctor or some other systemic issue, maybe it should have been posted. I don't remember the whole situation as well as you seem to. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Not at all. Troops deployed does not equate to value, it equates to reaction to not being able to control looting individuals with guns that are freely available. This has no merit, no "value" in reality. And in actuality, nothing substantive has happened at all. If you can't be bothered to look at the deaths of a score of Indian women then that's your choice. Of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Troops being deployed due to civil disorder is a very rare event in the US. Could be wrong but I think the last time on this scale was the 1992 Los Angeles riots. It clearly is more than "looting individuals with guns" if you need two thousand troops to control them in a usually stable nation. Looking at any story is not a matter of "bother". There is only so much time in the day. If you don't wish to even tell me if I am correct in saying that it was a deliberate action, that's your choice too. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I see. US politicians never over-react to situations like this, do they? There have been no serious injuries, nothing, just a bunch of broken stuff and angry people and stolen things. Just like the last time. And "there is only so much time in the day" is terribly lame. If you don't think that the deaths of over a dozen women due to malpractice is of value, more value than a bunch of looters, then I'll re-assess your comments hereafter since, as you say, we clearly have very different ideas of values. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you consider the fact that I have a life away from here "lame"; I'm sure you have other things to do every day as well. I don't recall the level of news coverage of this Indian medical malpractice issue so I can't really comment on that, and I think you would agree this isn't the proper forum for us to continue to debate something that wasn't done, rightfully or wrongly. 331dot (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
It's kind of odd that you comment on every ITN candidate but somehow missed the murder of a dozen or so Indian women. Perhaps it wasn't important enough for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Murder is not the same as malpractice, which is what my admittedly small understanding of the situation was. If you wish to debate what I do and do not comment on, you know where my talk page is. I don't think we should do so here. 331dot (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support after posting - definitely notable and needed at itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support post-posting. The blurb does a good job of balancing the many issues; this event is being covered around the world. This isn't just being covered in US media(or even just English media). Posting this isn't being a "news ticker", it reflects that this is "in the news", regardless of why. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    "...this is "in the news", regardless of why" is one of the more obtuse things I've ever read here. There are all manner of junk news stories "in the news, regardless of why". Posting items "regardless of why" is precisely what a news ticker is all about. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper. The sooner folks remember that, the better. (P.S. interesting to note the fascination with this scuffle in the US while dozens of Indian women die at the hands of a single doctor. I'm beginning to see what HiLo48 is banging on about when he continually calls systemic bias...) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
LOL. Haven't played here for a while now, but I do watch from time to time, and I just knew that this bit of highly predictable American tabloid fodder would be pushed very hard by some. Oh for a truly global perspective. HiLo48 (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't deny systemic bias issues exist, but this story is the only American one currently on the ITN box. We're not exactly flooded with them at the moment. This story is also news in Australia in at least two outlets. Are they tabloids too? If you don't like what is posted, let's see some nominations(but you decline to do so). The answer to systemic bias is not to turn it around so anything American is not discussed. Somehow I think if a nuclear bomb went off in America you would be opposed. 331dot (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
And it's bullshit like that that encourages me to leave discussion here again. Oh for mature discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Leaving a discussion you don't like is hardly a mark of maturity. Explain to me why it is bullshit. That's the honest sense I get from you. Prove me wrong. 331dot (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
You dug your hole with that nuclear bomb. HiLo48 (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. Many stories are reported in BBC, Le Monde, &c. that we do not include at ITN. ITN is not a news ticker because we use editorial discretion to decide what stories have significance to the degree that they should be placed on our front page. This is an encyclopaedia front page, not a newspaper front page. We do not try to encompass every story published by BBC &c., only those with real significance in encyclopaedic terms. RGloucester 21:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I would say that a news story that has been covered by all world media is news for ITN. TRM is comparing apples and oranges claiming that they both should taste the same because they are both fruits... but that is not the reality.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • (ec)No one is proposing posting every story from any particular news outlet- this was about one story posted in many news outlets around the world about an event affecting a large nation and one of its constant issues (racism). It isn't being a tabloid or a news ticker to "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news"; it is, in fact, one of our stated purposes. If that is not desired, feel free to propose its removal. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    As you know, this will never be pulled, it's got far too much US-based traction, despite the fact that no-one is really thinking about the whole picture. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
In your opinion. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Well obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Nope, not opinion, fact. This sorry affair shows perfectly what's wrong with ITN at the moment. Fgf10 (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
You are not in my or anyone else's head to know if that is a "fact" or not. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
But Fgf10 is just saying what most of the non-US contributors are thinking, whether you like it or not. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Still an opinion, not a fact. If Fgf10 or you don't like one of the stated purposes of ITN, you know where the talk page is. 331dot (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
What stated purpose is that? The posting of minor news items for which there is no consensus to post, solely based on a certain geographical origin, and the upholding of double standards? Might as well put it in the rules. Fgf10 (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The stated purpose at WP:ITN is "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news". Do you deny that this is in the news around the world? The answer to work on correcting systemic bias is to post more stories, not restrict stories. 331dot (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
One way to fix this is to stop posting stories which have no consensus and which have no real long term impact. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
This will have effects on race relations in the United States, among other things. The posting admin explained how he arrived at his decision; if you disagree, take it up with him. 331dot (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTAL. It won't make a shred of difference. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Any "long term impact" is WP:CRYSTAL. None of us have been to the future to know what will happen. 331dot (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delayed Weak Oppose I've been watching the discussion here, and I agree with the opposition for the most part. At the moment, it doesn't seem as though there's anything especially notable about the riots or protests. The media has decided to make this their 'Civil Unrest Story of the Week,' but what makes it notable? Fires being set? As far as I can tell, the only thing that makes it notable is the fact that it's notable, via media outlets. That said, if the protests and riots continue or spread to other cities in a significant way (which I doubt is going to happen), then it might become worthy of the ITN mention. It seems to me that some of the strong opinions expressed in this discussion are politically-influenced.-RHM22 (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying that they aren't widespread, but how notable are they? If 100 people in 20 cities decide to protest something, does that make it notable? What I meant earlier was that if it continues in a significant way for a prolonged period of time, then it may be truly notable. Something like Occupy Wall Street, for example, is more along the lines of what I'm talking about.-RHM22 (talk) 03:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pull Blurb the grand jury did not "decline" to press charges. (The posting itself, with 4 supports and 7-non supports wqas a farce.) They have to act on the evidence, and they found insufficient evidence to press charges based on the evidence presented them. Not on the media hype, or the activist tripe, but on the testimony. The blurb implies they had a choice. The law does not. μηδείς (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)That's is a good point. At minimum, the blurb needs rewording. The way it's written now is pretty clearly an intentional use of suggestive language.-RHM22 (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Please suggest better wording. Jehochman Talk 14:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting suggestion: I would really prefer the first alternate blurb up above, which mentions protests happening across the United States. This is far from limited to Ferguson. The Moose is loose! 01:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
If anything, it should have been "grand jury clears" since they had the option of four charges, and not indicting, and the law is pretty clear. That's not to mention the fact that the Democratic DA could have brought charges himself, but felt uncomfortable enough about doing so that he sought a grand jury's ruling. As of now, the criminal rioting and the incitement to riot is what's notable. not that a robbery suspect charging an officer he'd already injured might be shot. μηδείς (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Please suggest a better blurb. I will gladly edit the blurb if there are suggestions to make it better. Jehochman Talk 14:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pull - This is insane. The mere fact we have three alternate blurbs to juggle is proof enough this was not ready to be posted.--WaltCip (talk) 03:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
You lost me at "this is insane". If you want to make a reasoned argument, please do so, preferably with facts, diffs, links or references to policy. Polemic arguments don't carry much if any weight. Jehochman Talk 14:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • We should not let perfect be the enemy of good. This story is widely in the news, per the links in the nomination, and per the multiple comments above, and many (but not all) concerns have been addressed. We could include something about the protests if somebody wants to put forth wording. Bear in mind that remarks not based on facts or reasonable arguments don't carry much weight when assessing consensus. Let's please raise the level of discourse to avoid insulting the work of those who update articles about current news events. Instead of arguing so much, why not update an article and nominate it? We need more nominations. Jehochman Talk 06:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    Undoubtedly true, but that should never force us to post items with no conensus with biased blurbs. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
And you won't get new nominations from me until the systemic bias problem is fixed. I won't encourage others from minority cultures to waste their time here either. HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
....both of which only guarantee nothing will change. As Jehochman said, the best way to fix it (or at least work on fixing it) is to make nominations, not complaining and doing nothing. You want changes, you need to see them through. It's really that simple. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
No, they don't guarantee nothing will change. I have made massive efforts to get things to change here. I have run out of energy watching extremely newsworthy nominations from minority cultures fail and disappear without enough attention. I dream of the day those asking for more nominations realise that THEY are the problem because they allow non-mainstream nominations to die. Part of this will be the recognition by many here that they are part of the systemic bias, and deciding they must do something about it. Don't blame me. Blame yourself and the rest of the site owners. HiLo48 (talk) 09:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
That must have been(and I take your word on it) before my time here, because I don't recall even one proposal from you (except for the 'don't post most anything from the US' sense I get from you). I am not assigning blame to you for the situation, but we are all responsible for working on it; you can't just sit back and expect everyone else to work for you. You say you have run out of energy to work for changes, but you apparently haven't run out of energy to complain. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
And there you've made it about me again, when you say "sit back and expect everyone else to work for you". It not about making it work for me. I want it to work for everybody, for all of Wikipedia. It doesn't now. The systemic bias dominates. Those who are part of that bias choose what things from those weird foreign parts of they world they will care about, and ignore the genuine good stuff. Some bloody good nominations just die, because not enough of those who are part of the systemic bias care. This is not an objective place. HiLo48 (talk) 10:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
No, it isn't about you personally. But you don't want to do any of the necessary work to address the problems. I don't care if you've tried and failed before. It takes constant effort. You have to make people care or bring other people here who care. Is that unfortunate and unfair? Possibly. But change must start somewhere; it doesn't start with someone complaining and then sitting on their hands. Don't complain about problems and then complain more when nothing is done. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Again, the above convo is why having a stewing period for a story that doesn't have clear consensus to post is probably a good thing -we would have been able to tune the blurb best for this story with all the details we now know 12-16 hr later from posting. --MASEM (t) 07:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    Arbitrary minimum times (which will invariably have exceptions anyway, as the last proposed one did) won't help. Blurbs can always be changed or fixed if needed. The blurb we started with reflected what was publicly known at the time. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
We'ver reached that point of 12-16 hours later. If you want to suggest a better blurb, please do! Jehochman Talk 14:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pull as posted against consensus. GoldenRing (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
As the posting admin stated, they considered the support and addressed many of the concerns given by those who did not express outright support. This story is at top level news around the world; posting it fulfills one of the stated purposes of ITN, as I state above. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
At the time of posting, the majority of the opposition was on grounds of notability. The posting admin did not engage with that opposition at all, merely contradicted it. If you're going to post against the numerical consensus, then you need to actually explain how you see the numerical consensus being wrong, not just say, "You're all wrong so I'm going to do what I want to do" - which is essentially what the closing admin did here. GoldenRing (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. If you have a reason to pull on the merits of the content, or lack thereof, you are welcome to put that reason forward. Jehochman Talk 14:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pull for now - while I think there is a strong case to post this, and I would support posting it, a consensus on what to post needs to be reached before posting it. In some cases where breaking news has massive worldwide significance it would be appropriate to fast-track a nomination, however this story has nowhere near that level of significance, the initial posting was rushed and inappropriate and should be taken down until a consensus forms on how it should be presented. Given that this has now spread across the United States I would support reposting once a consensus emerges. --W. D. Graham 11:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
This vote is actually a support on the merits. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; we do things on the merits. A defect in process isn't a reason to undo something if the result is proper. Jehochman Talk 14:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The result isn't though. You haven't read my comment, you've just skimmed through so you can find something to use to dismiss it. It wasn't ready when it was posted, it still wasn't ready when I made that comment and I'm not convinced that it's even ready now. Everybody seems to have a different idea of what the blurb should say which is why a discussion should have taken place rather than you making the decision unilaterally. This wasn't something that needed to be posted as soon as it happened so there would have been plenty of time for that discussion to take place. Pulling in this case would have been the right thing to do since it is essentially a case of WP:BRD; returning to the status quo after a disputed bold edit until a consensus emerges. --W. D. Graham 17:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I believe that I did read your comment, but maybe I didn't understand it correctly, which is my fault, not yours. ITN functions at a faster pace than many Wikipedia discussions, in my experience. We have a time that suggests when a new update is needed. Our ITN section is currently woefully out of date with several items that are two weeks old. Usually we want to run items for about 7 days from when they happen. We obviously can't take too many days to discuss an item or else it will be stale. I really hope you (and others) will post more nominations. The only reason I pushed this one through quickly is that there were no other ones available. If there are plenty of nominations, we can be more selective, and perhaps a bit more patient. Do you think my points are valid, or am I blathering? Jehochman Talk 18:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Today's BBC headline: http://www.bbc.com/. ...protests spread across US. This is headline news around the world. When judging consensus I don't give weight to opinions that defy reality. Nobody has presented evidence that the item isn't in the news or that the article isn't good quality. Look at the news items about Asian earthquakes and Solomon Islands elections. With more comments we might be able to post those. We need more items not fewer. Jehochman Talk 12:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
As i stated in my comment somewhere above the supports were more about national protests and thats the news around the world too but that does not get reflected in blurb at all. It says riots broke out in a town thats 6 sq km. People above have said it multiple times that consensus on the blurb is clearly not there and needs to be established. I have no problem posting this but the current blurb is stemmed out of systemic bias and does makes ITN look like a news ticker and also does not support the consensus at all. Should be fixed even if its not pulled (However i do see a note in the blurb about protests across US now). -- Ashish-g55 14:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Please provide links and specifics. Opinions with specific details are more helpful. Can you show links to news site that show the protests get coverage, and the riots are not prominent? From the evidence that's been presented in the discussion so far, the riots appear to be mentioned as prominently or more prominently than the protests, but perhaps you can show otherwise. Jehochman Talk 14:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I did not say that the riots are not getting coverage... Im saying reading this discussion the consensus supported national protests rather than the riots in Ferguson alone so the blurb should have been changed. Look i have no problem with admins posting stuff boldly to get things moving fast but when there is an active discussion you gotta go with consensus otherwise there is no point in people coming here and giving their views. Either way the blurb at least mentions the protests now so im ok -- Ashish-g55 15:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment despite the admirable rationales provided by User:Jehochman, it is clear that the item has no consensus and indeed has a consensus to now be pulled. Please ensure the community wishes are respected. It is worth taking a moment to reflect on the significance. We didn't post the original riots, rightly so, and these are no different. A bunch of people, most of whom are looting and burglarising in the name of racial equality is hardly the sort of thing an intelligent encyclopedia should be promoting. We are not a news ticker, there has been no substantive change to anything following these looters going on a rampage. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Admin attention needed: I'd like a second admin to read through this conversation and determine what should be done. Please discuss this with me before reversing the prior closing, should that be your recommendation. I will respond timely and we'll get things taken care of promptly. I'll post to WP:AN and we'll see who shows up. Jehochman Talk 19:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Question What should happen for the opposers to reconsider? Let's compare to Hong Kong: What did the Hong Kongers do to merit their ITN appearance? Would the Mizzou governor having a dialogue with them be enough? –HTD 19:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Ironic you mention the Hong Kongers, they're being arrested in dozens, as are the police who beat them up. This US story is nothing compared to that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Eh, I was asking? In context, if this happened in the UK, it would be like protests in a town the size of Gatling Gatley, with probably very small protests in cities such as London and Birmingham. Hong Kong is a big city and a financial center, so that's one of its points that makes is bigger than Ferguson.
So yeah, apparently both the cops and protesters being arrested by the dozens is a good "floor". –HTD 19:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
What you've said makes no sense at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I was saying that if this happened at UK, the best comparison would be protests in Gatley, a place as large as Ferguson, on the Greater Manchester Built-up Area, which is almost as big as Greater St. Louis. Looking at the stats:
2014 Hong Kong protests: 319 arrested and 298 injured protestors, ~38 arrested and 65 injured cops.
2014 Ferguson unrest: 205 arrested and 2 injured protestors, 0 arrested and 4 injured cops.
You have a long way to go, Ferguson. –HTD 20:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Well in that case I once again support pulling this sensationalist and biased story from ITN. It's utterly beyond belief that intelligent admins are foregoing their duty to assess items objectively and just posting them like tabloid trash. While this may be in the news, we're an encyclopedia and we should and must do better. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Please set aside your original research and analysis. Instead, please provide links to any major news outlet anywhere in the world that haven't covered the Ferguson story. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 20:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Please also consider that "global minority" protests (ie. those that happen outside the good old USA) will have less global press coverage than the looting and burglary by a few dozen idiots in America. Still you are adamant that this story is newsworthy, has longevity and will be something we will all remember in a month/year/decade... Not at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
He's evidence that contradicts what you just said: Thousands Protesting Ferguson Decision Block Traffic in New York City. Similar things are happening in other cities around the US. Jehochman Talk 21:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Not sure how that contradicts the fact this isn't having a global impact, how this won't be important in a month's time. What's difference between this and the original protests? It's no big deal, and has been hijacked by the mob of looters and burglars. And Wikipedia is helping to promote that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Post-posting support I never weighed in with an actual support, so I'm doing it now. I don't see any problem with the blurb as posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Unless one considers Michael Brown a victim (in which case he should not be named) he is a thief with a criminal record (fact) who charged a policeman (official testimony) whom he had already assaulted (photographs) and was again charging, head down, according to all sources on the grand jury decision. The homicide has been found by an official body to have been justified. That there have been protests, and that the store Brown robbed was burnt to the ground, and that his pastor set fire to his church and blamed it on white supremecists might be notable, but certainly is not ITN worthy. Encyclopediacally, this will probably land somewhere well under the Tawana Brawley case and the Freddy's in Harlem arson incited by Al Sharpton. If we are going to talk about incited riots, let's mention incited riots. This does not compare in any way to protests against mainland China abrogating its promise to respect Hong Kong autonomy. μηδείς (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support — This is a top-rank story not because of rioting and protests, which were predictable, or even because of the specific case and its legal aftermath, but because of the lingering racial polarization of U.S. society half a century after passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which was indeed a watershed event). It's a globally significant story because the U.S., due to its oft-proclaimed espousal of human rights and equality, is (and should be) measured against a higher standard than some other countries — a standard which in the eyes of many it fails to meet. Sca (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    And all of that is your own opinion. There is no neutrality in this opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah, the combative interlocutor sounds off again.
As it happens, I don't have a personal opinion on the specifics of the Michael Brown case. I wasn't there. My point concerns the significance of the whole episode against the backdrop of U.S. legal norms. Sca (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah, the hapless edits of a stirrer. Brilliantly put, but ultimately ineffective and typically pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Typical, all too typical. Sca (talk)
That's right, try to come up with something useful or original. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Try to express your opinions in a manner that does not disparage or insult others. Sca (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Just as it is your opinion that this is just some 'mob of looters and burglars'. Sca can base their opinion on whatever they want, just as you can base yours on what you want. 331dot (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    Not really, it's been reliably reported that a significant portion of those "rioting" are just there for the goods. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    That's what a riot is, typically. "Significant" portion is relative. 331dot (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment the posting admin has now advised that we should "please provide links to any major news outlet anywhere in the world that haven't covered the Ferguson story". So are those of us who object to this tabloid posting (and any others) now required to find "major news outlet(s)" that don't post ITN nominations in an attempt to prove they shouldn't be included at ITN? Surely we should be doing more than that, considering the significance, the impact etc? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

That is an absurd rationale for posting! There are dozens of stories that are covered by most or all major news outlets on a daily basis that never even make it here for discussion, and others that are featured here whilst receiving little or no coverage in popular media. There are reasonable arguments for inclusion, but that's not one of them.-RHM22 (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for reposting original blurb The current blurb is a lot worse than the original one. The jury did not "clear" anyone it just decided not to indict, which simply means that they were convinced there was little chance of him being convicted. The most egregious change however is the deletion of Michael Brown's name which is dehumanizing in the extreme and a clearly political act. As for the idea of pulling, that is not even an option, this is front page news all over the world and the main topic of news discussion in the US for the past two days. Ignoring it would be a political act in itself.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Maunus re "clears." Incorrect. Suggest change to "decides not to indict." Sca (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, the current wording is much better than either. "[D]ecides not to indict" implies that they decided on a whim not to indict Wilson, when in fact they did so based on a review of the evidence and relevant laws. It's a bit like saying "the jury refused to convict him" rather than "he was acquitted." I agree that Brown's name should be included, however, as well as Wilson's. That is not for reasons of "dehumanization" (which is not something that we should concern ourselves with anyway), but simply because they are very relevant to the story and would also help to shorten the rather lengthy blurb a bit.-RHM22 (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Please cite a policy to the effect that we should notbe concerned with dehumanizing biographical subjects. Or that we should not reflect about the ethics of representation.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support. Whatever the merits of Michael Brown's case are, the story has become a major issue in the race relations in the U.S., and nationwide the protests are only growing. Nsk92 (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support keeping with minor rewording. Although the issue is not free from doubt, on balance I believe those supporting posting have the better weight of the arguments, and also that there are diminishing returns to continuing to discuss it at this point. As a quibble, "takes no action against" would probably be a better verb choice than "clears". Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. The news here isn't the lack of an indictment. The story is the widespread protests across the country. We posted a similar story from England a few years back [8]. That didn't seem to generate any controversy at ITNC [9]. (I was the only one who opposed, ironically.) -- Calidum 03:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment When I suggested several months ago that a minimum period be allowed for consensus to form, we were assured that if an item was passed too quickly and it became clear there was no consensus for the posting, it could be easily un-posted. That is the situation here; there is clearly no consensus for the posting. The concern was expressed that pulling often required a consensus to pull, rather than an emerging no-consensus-to-post, but we were assured that this was not the case. So why hasn't this been pulled yet? GoldenRing (talk) 09:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 09:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
...or it hasn't been pulled yet because there was consensus to post it. More support also has come in since the posting. Consensus is not a vote count; it is weighing of arguments. You can disagree with how the decision was arrived at, but it was validly made. Take it up with the posting admin, if his posts on this page do not satisfy you. Still awaiting nominations from HiLo.....(did they see my support of the story above?). 331dot (talk) 10:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but it bothered me that you felt a US source was needed for a sport that Americans have no connection with. THAT'S systemic bias on your part. The posting doesn't need American support, and realistically, most Americans wouldn't have a clue about how it happened. That's not a negative about Americans. American sports are a mystery to most non-Americans. Just keep the USA out of a non-American item. HiLo48 (talk) 10:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I didn't feel it was "needed", I thought it would be helpful as it demonstrated that the story is news beyond the world of cricket. Trying to help. Working to reduce systemic bias does not mean everything American is excluded from consideration or irrelevant, especially in deciding when to post non-American stories, which we need more of. There is no policy or guideline saying that Americans or any nationality are to be excluded from posting on ITN nominations. Everything posted here is valid for posting by anyone. I'm sorry Australia is not a country of 300 million people- but all views are relevant. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Silly. Silly. This is about cricket. Not Australia. Haven't looked, but I am certain that a huge proportion of the 1.2 billion people in India would be aware of and distressed by this news. The American connection stood out like someone trying to prove something. It wasn't needed. Most people who are part of the systemic bias don't recognise it, and I think you just proved it. Well-intentioned, but inappropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 11:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not trying to prove anything, nor was I making "an American connection", I was showing that this news was widespread. Whether HiLo48 considers it appropriate or not does not enter into my calculus. There is no policy or guideline preventing Americans from expressing their views on any story. My views are as valid as yours. I believe you don't want to work to reduce systemic bias, you want to turn it around. 331dot (talk) 11:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support The news are circulating on every major news channel I watch - CNN, BBC, France24 and RT. The protests have spread to LA and London now. We aren't here to assess the merits of protests and shooting, blaming the crowd or someone else (especially when another 12-year old black guy with a toy gun was shot dead by police in the US recently). Brandmeistertalk 11:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - This is not a point pro or con. I simply mention that continuity of a constant level of activity should not be a factor in whether an event is considered ITN-worthy. Extremely few crowd-scale events in history kept up the same level of activity for days or weeks on end with no breaks whatsoever. This was true even for the world wars. - Tenebris 198.91.170.20 (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support - This is, and remains, in the news worldwide, and has obvious relevance for the continuing scandal of racialised police violence in the USA. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] RD: Pat Quinn[edit]

Updated article: Pat Quinn (ice hockey)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): TSN, CBC
Nominator: Scorpion0422 (give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I was going to nominate this before I realized Tikhonov was up. Quinn wasn't to Canada what Tikhonov was to Russia, but he was still one of the top coaches in the NHL with 1400 games and 2 coach of the year awards to his name. In the NHL, he's fifth all-time in both games and wins, fourth in playoff games and sixth in wins (and #1 in both among coaches without a cup). And he spent a good chunk of his career with the Toronto Maple Leafs, so he had a lot more visibility and notoriety than most of his contemporaries. Internationally, he coached teams to gold at four major tournaments (including the 2002 Olympics and 2004 World Cup), so he's a pretty well-known coach across Canada. I can see this going either way, it depends on how you view coaches, but he's certainly worth considering and I think being one of the greatest NHL coaches qualifies him for RD. -- Scorpion0422 20:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

  • It is well worth noting that Quinn's article is more complete and of higher quality than Tikhonov's article was even after it was cleaned up and posted. I'd support this as Quinn was certainly one of the best coaches of his generation, and for anyone arguing that he's not Tikhonov, ITN has always had the principle that both article quality and significance matter, and that it is the sum of the two factors that matter; less significant subjects with superior articles should be considered alongside more significant subjects with lower quality articles. The fact that two legendary hockey coaches died on the same day will strike people as "systemic bias" I am sure, but random coincidences do happen, and I have no qualms of posting the two names along side of each other. Quinn is significant enough within hockey to post, and the article is solid. I say post it. --Jayron32 21:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Being a Leafs fan especially during the time Pat Quinn coached the team my support is more or less biased. But ill just say he coached the winning 2002 Olympic team, which was one of the biggest wins for Canada in 50 years. In the Ice Hockey world he is definitely noteworthy, but ya sucky co-incidence of having two coaches pass away the same day. -- Ashish-g55 21:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I was on the fence about this, but the article, of decent quality, does a pretty good job of describing Quinn's life and importance. SpencerT♦C 03:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose not nearly as notable as Tikhonov, who also should not have been posted. μηδείς (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - top of his field during the period he was active. 2 time coach of the year, and Olympic Gold in 2002. Connormah (talk) 06:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support clearly meets RD criteria and article is in good shape. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Such an unfortunate coincidence that we had two of hockey's greatest coaches die so close to each other. Canuck89 (talk to me) 08:22, November 25, 2014 (UTC)
Posted. m.o.p 10:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Viktor Tikhonov[edit]

Updated article: Viktor Tikhonov (ice hockey, born 1930)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): TSN, NBC Sports
Nominator: Vejvančický (give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: One of the most successful coaches in the ice hockey history, a legend of the sport. 8 gold medals from world championships, 3 gold medals from Olympic games. The article is updated with the news about his death. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. Meets DC2; numerous championships, awards, and in a hall of fame. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Truly a legendary hockey coach. --Bruzaholm (talk) 10:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support As nominator notes, this guy was one of the most decorated hockey coaches of all time. Canuck89 (have words with me) 11:41, November 24, 2014 (UTC)
  • Note I would have posted this if there weren't an orange tag and other referencing issues. If anyone fixes these problems, we can go ahead and post it immediately. But the orange tag will have to be resolved, per ITN rules. --Jayron32 13:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support pending article improvements - Clearly meets conditions of RD, but the main prose of the article has exactly one inline cite - that won't cut it - and that's above and beyond the tagged section. Additionally, that title ... understanding that his grandson, with the exact same name and in the field is creating the disambig hit, is there a better solution here for that? --MASEM (t) 15:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Teemu08's additions fix up the major article quality problems I spotted. Should be fine now. (The naming thing is something that might need larger discussion and should not be a ITN posting issue). --MASEM (t) 16:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I added several citations and clarifications. Clearly among the all-time coaching greats. Teemu08 (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as article has been improved. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted per recent improvements. --Jayron32 17:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks to all for your comments and special thanks to Teemu08 for improvements to the article. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

November 23[edit]


Davis Cup[edit]

Article: 2014 Davis Cup
Blurb: Switzerland wins the 2014 Davis Cup.
Alternative blurb: In tennis, the Davis Cup concludes with Switzerland as the winners.
News source(s): BBC Bleacher report
Nominator: Hektor (give credit)

Nominator's comments: Major international tennis competition, first victory for Switzerland, another major achievement for Federer Hektor (talk) 10:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Would support on significance, but oppose based on overall article quality. There's very little prose in the article at all; it's just a bunch of charts and flags and numbers. There's nothing to read here. --Jayron32 10:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Alt blurb added to name the sport and to try and avoid the "win/wins" issue - not quite sure if I've got the standard wording, though. BencherliteTalk 18:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Marion Barry[edit]

Consensus against. BencherliteTalk 18:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Article: Marion Barry
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC CNN
Nominator: Muboshgu (give credit)

Nominator's comments: He was a highly influential politician in Washington DC, so much so that they even elected him to his second mayoralty after his conviction on drug charges. He was a crack smoking mayor before it was cool --– Muboshgu (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose and the wording of the rationale should make it clear why. We are not National Lampoon or the KKK. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    The KKK? Are you calling Muboshgu a racist? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    I don't think he did. My rationale was not the most serious, but he was an influential figure in Washington DC. That's why I nominated him. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
No, I respect Muboshgu. I just expect this will be lowbrow latenight fodder we don't need to reflect. Nihil nisi bonum. μηδείς (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, a person of local importance. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose not seeing how he was top of his field. Barely in the news. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Doesn't meet any of the RD criteria. Doesn't meet DC1 as local government in DC only exists at the pleasure of Congress(thus his office isn't that powerful really) and doesn't meet DC2 as a local mayor. If Thomas Menino didn't meet it(which I agreed with), Barry doesn't either. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Opppse. Mayor of DC is not a significant position of leadership (nothing in the federal line at all), and given his reputation, definitely not a level of importance to be RD. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 24 November 2014 (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] World Chess Championship[edit]

Proposed image
Article: World Chess Championship 2014

Blurb: Magnus Carlsen (pictured) successfully defends his World Chess Championship title against the challenger Viswanathan Anand.
News source(s): Sochi G11: In dramatic finale, Carlsen retains title (Chessbase.com)
Nominator: Carcharoth (give credit)

Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.

 --Carcharoth (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - Interesting and ITN news.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - minor correction: against the challenger Viswanathan Anand.--LoveToLondon (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • image is there good precedent for posting the same portrait of an ITN listing? μηδείς (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    No idea. Other images available if you want to post them. BTW, if this one seems a bit soon after the previous one (November 2013 last time, and November 2014 this time), the schedule is reverting to every two years now, so the next one won't be before 2016 at the earliest. Carcharoth (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
My point was more that I can't remember the same person being pictured twice so quickly, and this time it was a retention of the title, not a new winner. Iprefer having an image and am not particularly against this. But I think we made a mistake in not blurbing Mike Nichols, and posting his image if we had one. μηδείς (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Sebastian Vettel was pictured after his win 2010, and then again after each of his 2011, 2012 and 2013 title retentions.[10][11][12][13]--LoveToLondon (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
So, if I want my kids pictured on ITN multiple times... hehe. Thanks for the info. I won't express an opinion, not being an expert. μηδείς (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per inclusion on ITN/R. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Mild support it's notable yes, but other trivialities aside, the article is a bit of an enthusiast minefield, could use a non-chess expert's lead to help set the scene a little better. The article also contains a few cosmetic issues (bare URLs for instance) which could be improved upon. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per ITN/R. World Chess Championship matches have always received much attention in the media and present a very nice material for inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support notable world championship per ITN/R. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support very notable. --Bruzaholm (talk) 10:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Ready the article is untagged, and has had 14kB worth of updating over the last week, and meets untagged and size requirements. If no one objects, this should go up ASAP. μηδείς (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, post it already. Nsk92 (talk) 10:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted, will need @David Levy: or other similarly knowledgeable person to post the picture. --Jayron32 12:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    Done. —David Levy 15:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

November 22[edit]


2014 Kangding earthquake[edit]

Article: 2014 Kangding earthquake
Blurb: An earthquake in the Chinese county of Kangding kills at least 5 people.
News source(s): Wall Street Journal
Nominator: Everymorning (give credit)

Nominator's comments: In addition to the deaths, according to the WSJ, 54 people were injured. Not sure if that makes it more significant (given the relatively low death toll). --Everymorning talk to me 13:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Wait as right now this seems like a reasonably common occurrence and this instance appears relatively mild. Should things develop further we could reconsider. Article itself is a little weak and needs a copyedit to remove the poor grammar. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Combined blurb that mentions Japanese earthquake as well, not huge quakes for the area, but people will come looking and our articles on quakes are usually quickly brought up to snuff. μηδείς (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • We need more comments here. Can the nominator or somebody else provide links to additional news stories? Jehochman Talk 15:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Sure, here's a few: [14] [15] Everymorning talk to me 00:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] F1 title[edit]

Article: 2014 Formula One season
Blurb: Lewis Hamilton wins the Formula One championship.
Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.

Nominator's comments: Top motorsports event. Nergaal (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose no point in this at all until the race/season has concluded and we know the winner. Then we can update all pertinent articles accordingly. What is the purpose of such a premature suggestion? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Wow, so much venom over a non-issue. Nergaal (talk) 11:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Not at all. Just don't understand why anyone would nominate an ITNR item which simply cannot be ready. What's the rush? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
If you didn't notice, ITNC has been incredibly slow lately, and especially over the weekend. If for nothing else, putting this up for ITNC encourages people over here to give the articles a final look at the relevant articles. Also, in about 30 mins, likely Hamilton will get the trophy. Nergaal (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
There's no need to rush, yet even now, hours after the race end, the race update is incomplete. Oppose stands. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Support now, that we actually have something to post. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - that the nom was a day premature.. who cares. Today is the day. It is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Posting. I'll add some more text to the blurb. --Tone 21:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Would be good to replace the image if possible User:David Levy? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Done. —David Levy 22:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Phew. One doesn't often see a tie in Formula 1. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

November 21[edit]


Madagascar plague[edit]

Updated article: 2014 Madagascar plague outbreak
Blurb: An outbreak of plague in Madagascar kills forty people.
News source(s): WHO, BBC
Nominator: Brandmeister (give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The number of deaths looks significant, with at least 119 confirmed cases, and the disease itself is notorious. --Brandmeistertalk 00:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Support A significant outbreak. Neljack (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As shown by the map of worldwide plague outbreaks between 2000 and 2009 on this page from the CDC, outbreaks of plague are fairly common in Madagascar and nearby parts of Africa. While tragic, there is unfortunately nothing unusual about this event and it currently appears to be on the small side when compared to regional norms. --Allen3 talk 01:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Allen3's source. μηδείς (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - per Neljack reasoning. significant outbreak.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The article is a stub, it would need to be about twice the size it is to fit the expected requirements. If you follow the link Allen3 has given, you'll see there have been between 1,001 and 10,000 cases of the plague over the last measured decade. If we take the geometrical mean of 3,333 deaths, that means 333 are expected per year on average, and this outbreak consists of 40. However unfortunate it's just a blip on the normal scale. μηδείς (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait I believe there's no need to synthesise/extrapolate/compare data here, we simply need to assess the newsworthiness and quality of the article, neither of which hit the bar, yet. Should the outbreak reach significant levels (e.g. the current Ebola outbreak), then we can consider listing at "Ongoing". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

November 20[edit]


[Posted] RD: Mike Nichols[edit]

Article: Mike Nichols
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: The Rambling Man (give credit)

Nominator's comments: Oscar winning director. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose unless and until the article is updated with information about his death. We currently only have a death date in the parenthetical after his name at the start, and zero words of prose about the death itself (as of when I am writing this). Otherwise, the article, while it could use a few more refs here and there, is of acceptable quality for the main page, and Nichols is certainly a significant figure. If there is appropriate prose added at any time, disregard this oppose and consider it a support. --Jayron32 12:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Amending my vote to support based on the excellent work done by @Medeis: in cleaning up the article. --Jayron32 14:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
    • There is (and was) a sentence in #Personal life. —Cryptic 13:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Yep, once again you clearly didn't look. It wasn't perfect, but it was there. Perhaps you should take a break from ITN Jayron? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support when updated "Nichols was one of a small group of people who have won an Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, and Tony Award. His other honors included the Lincoln Center Gala Tribute in 1999, the National Medal of Arts in 2001,[1] the Kennedy Center Honors in 2003 and the AFI Life Achievement Award in 2010." That's RD#2 to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support pending Article Improvement - Needs many more inline cites, and some of the mid-sections could use some de-proseline improvement. Definitely qualifies as RD for importance. --MASEM (t) 16:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Adding that I believe the referencing and improvements in the decades section is now sufficient for posting. It could use more in time, but no reason to hold up ITN RD posting. --MASEM (t) 01:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support highly influential and top of his field in standup, comedy writing, and as a movie director. A shoe in. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support "God bless you, please Mr. Nichols." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support posting to RD immediately. Deceased was highly notable and article is in acceptable condition for RD. As a sidenote, the personal comments on this page have to cease. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    I assume you're talking about me? Well in that case do something about it, stop using your "position" as a weapon. Pathetic. (And what a surprise, NYB turns up to post yet another dead American...) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    My observation that you should stop sullying this page with gratuitous personal comments is independent of any other position that I might happen to hold on the project for another few weeks. Other than again asking you to restrain yourself, I'm not sure what else you suggest that I do? With RfC/U being abolished, my theoretical next steps would be to open either an ANI thread or a request for arbitration, and you would certainly assert that my doing either of those things is a "misuse of [my] position" as well. As for your criticism of the merits of the posting—I am supporting your nomination. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    My observation is that you need to stop popping by to ensure your pet subjects get the main page treatment you want. You can do any of the things you threaten me with, and it's so telling that you want to resort to this to silence someone who has the balls to stand up to your ownership of Wikipedia. Get over yourself. It may be my nomination but your lack of integrity with your "posting ... immediately" undermines the process, undermines quality control, undermines the consensus. Take a look at yourself before you start telling me what your theoretical moves are next. You're the pest here, not me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    If he isn't the one going to post it, I don't see a problem. He can say what he likes. Doesn't mean you have to listen. Admins don't get a special vote here...--Somchai Sun (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    Oh yeah! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    The article needs some more inline cites. The proseline stuff, I can accept for posting, but there's paragraphs that lack any citation and that's an issue.--MASEM (t) 18:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    No, Brad has said post it immediately. Do not disobey. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    You do realize that Brad's vote counts as much as anyone elses. His does not get more weight. And he's never claimed that it did either. He's quite allowed to express an opinion about the article, and you are also allowed to express an opinion about the article. His does not have to match yours to be valid. --Jayron32 19:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    You do realise that Brad pops up here with his Arbcom flag and his insistence and his headmaster attitude whenever he wants his own pet items posted? Of course, he's entitled to register an opinion, but he would be well advised to stop caveating it with a bollocking. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    So, you're saying that because he's on arbcom, he doesn't get to express his opinion? Because that's all he's done here. He's expressed what he believes should be done, nothing more than you've done. --Jayron32 20:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Perhaps once you've read what I've actually said, you can formulate a more coherent comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support There's only one quote that I see in there that isn't cited: "a leap into extremes of behavior and last resorts. It's about people so innocent that they don't know when you kill someone she dies. It's like kids playing bang-bang". And it can just be removed. It's not crucial at all. EChastain (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support Once the orange tag issue is cleaned up. Definitely meets the bar for notability. Seeing reverberations from most of the English-speaking world. Challenger l (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Either we can live with posting it with one tag, or we can just delete the tag (more citations are always nice, but there is no requirement of a cite for every sentence in an uncontroversial section). Delaying this posting is unjustified. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
      • It would seem that there is, considering I had to reference almost every sentence of the Alexander Grothendieck article. (A few paragraphs and sentences have been added since then.) Cenarium (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Incentivizing people to improve articles is nice (although it's never helpful to have an article read like footnote salad), but it's counterproductive if it consistently delays posting recent deaths until they are no longer recent any more. I strongly urge an uninvolved admin to post this immediately. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Not ready. As an uninvolved admin I've taken a look at this as requested, and the article still contains an orange tag. The tag is still relevant - particularly most of the 1970s and 1980s sub-sections remain unreferenced and there are gaps in referencing through the rest. I would not personally have put the tag on the article in its current state (I'd have used inline tags in a few places) but as the improvements the tag notes as needed are still needed, removing it would be inappropriate. My current status as an arbcom candidate is entirely irrelevant this decision. Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I respect your opinion but continue to disagree and would invite further views. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
      • As noted above, there have been further references added, so this needs to be looked at again. If this hasn't been posted in the morning I am considering IAR here. RD is one of the few places on Wikipedia where timing matters. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Ready I have referenced all the plays in the 70's and 80's section that weren't already sourced. The movies, as primary sources, stand as their own sources for credited roles, and don't need separate references. Hence I have removed the orange tag and marked the nom ready — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talkcontribs)
        • I'm starting the think TRM has a point, here. IAR is not Ignore All Consensus. So far, there are seven supports - two on notability only, one on notability and article quality, and three on notability but contingent on resolving the article quality problems. Then an uninvolved admin has reviewed the item and also concluded that it's not ready for posting. That looks a lot like a consensus against posting until the maintenance tag is sorted out. But you're ready to ignore all that. Why? Is your opinion special in some way, that it should override a consensus to wait until the article quality is to a certain standard?
Good work by User:Medeis sorting the referencing out. With that done, I'll add my support. GoldenRing (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree it's Ready. Nothing in the article that isn't cited is "controversial". EChastain (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment — I haven't participated because I don't have a definite opinion on Nichols, though it's evident he was widely (and internationally) respected. However, regarding "popping by" — It's natural for users/eds to follow subjects/persons in which/whom they have a particular interest (and perhaps even expertise). We can't all vote on everything — that would be chaos.
(For what it's worth, Nichols has been on French, German and Dutch Wikis' versions of recent deaths for several days.) Sca (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
If he'd only made one film, he'd still get my vote. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • At this point it appears that the maintenance issue has been resolved. In fact, the overall quality of this article is clearly superior. Is there anything that anyone believes prevents posting at this time? Unwarranted delays in posting "recent deaths" detract from the usefulness of the feature. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

References[edit]

Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.

For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents: