Three Americans are missing, feared kidnapped, in Baghdad. Several unconfirmed reports claim that they were kidnapped by a shi'ite militant group. (Washington Examiner)
Nominator's comments: Even in the midst of a civil war (and we proposed it on ongoing but a lack of updates), this is one of, if not the biggest massacres. Some media are calling ths the worse single-day massacre since the war started. Lihaas (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've offered a pithier altblurb trying to avoid the "amidst" construction. "Scores" can obviously be changed to meet confirmed facts. μηδείς (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on improvements - The event is clearly ITN, but there's a number of unsourced statements and a lingering CN. It might take half-a-days news cycle to solidify the facts. --MASEM (t) 05:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've sourced everything on the page. (even to the point of "ref name" in there to clarify ever aspect and where it comes from) There is the one tag because TV said it was overnight and I didn't get it from the online sources. We can alwas hide it till then?Lihaas (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I'm saying, give it a few hrs for details to solidify to be assured of numbers killed/kidnapped, and the like. --MASEM (t) 05:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, the Background section should be sourced even if it is relatively obvious. There's a few claims that can be read as OR without knowing the history of the Syrian Civil War in full. --MASEM (t) 05:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Please triple-check the sources for everything the nominator claims in the nomination and the article before voicing an opinion.
The BBC source also says However the activists told the BBC there had been no killings or abductions on a large scale. The nominator failed to mention this important information in his source.
The nominator also does not seem to know the differences between a massacre, soldiers killed in a battle, and civilian casualties in a battle. Based on the sources, it is completely unclear if there have been any intentional killings of civilians at all, and if yes, how many.
The nominator claim Some media are calling ths the worse single-day massacre since the war started. seems to be the opposite of the truth. None of the media he uses in the article make any single-day claim. His sources cite unnamed Syrian sources or the Syrian government when using the term massacre - making it clear that this is just a claim that might or might not be true.
A few hundred civilians killed in a battle wouldn't be newsworthy - happens all the time and by all sides in this civil war. A few dozen enemy soldiers murdered after the battle would also not be newsworthy - happens all the time and by all sides in this civil war. Nothing extraordinary is confirmed based on the sources.
Hundreds of civilians are reportedly killed by Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant militants throughout the city of Deir ez-Zor. Syria's state news agency SANA, quoting residents, said "around 300 civilians" were killed. If confirmed it would be one of the deadliest days in Syria's nearly five-year war. (AFP via Yahoo!)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Dubbed the dansband queen of Sweden this singer has had success both in Sweden and internationally with an album with Elvis Prestleys musicians. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC) --BabbaQ (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm seeing no particular significance here, or any evidence of the claimed international success; dansband is a relatively minor genre even in its Scandanavian heartland, and she isn't even among the notable performers named on that article. Even the Swedish article—where those with an interest in her might be expected to be active—is a tiny substub. ‑ Iridescent16:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems to clearly miss RD.
Dubbed the dansband queen of Sweden - by whom?
Your article is the only Google hit for Jaarnek "dansband queen" - what is the original Swedish term (source is not freely available).
Looking at the en and sv articles for Dansband, she is not even mentioned.
has had success in Sweden - what chart positions?
has had success internationally - what chart positions in which countries?
Oppose the two above have most of it covered. Perhaps popular or of mild interest to certain Swedes of a certain age and inclination, but very far from meeting the RD criterion of importance. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] Iran completes dismantling of nuclear weapons program
I figured that it wasn't something you made up- but even if the NYT is saying that, as an encyclopedia we have to square their view with the other side. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
support came here to nominate it as its in the news all over at the moment. (needs a teeny bit more of an update, although its about the same as the RD just posted).
SupportThis is what everyone was expecting based on the prisoner exchange in the nom below, and this is big news. --MASEM (t) 23:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree but it might be synthesis. Maybe combine the two?
also comment without prejudice we dint post the completion of the removal of Syria's chemical weapons as verified by the UN's OPCW.Lihaas (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not really: the articles I read on the prisoner exchange all said it was in anticipating of sanctions being released/loosened. That said, I disagree combining the blurbs. The prison exchange is a minor thing relative to the nuclear program dismantling and the sanction release. --MASEM (t) 00:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support and altblurb2 added to describe that the sanctions have already been lifted. The prisoner swap is technically completely unrelated, and also minor in comparison. LoveToLondon (talk) 06:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I generally like your blurb, but it does not seem to be entirely accurate. Your blurb says "All nuclear sanction by UN, EU and US have been lifted", but according to the CNN article: "President Barack Obama signed an executive order lifting some of the U.S. economic sanctions on Iran, the White House announced." and "But not all nuclear-related sanctions will be rescinded immediately -- that won't happen for about 10 years, should the deal hold." Thue (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posted I went with a version of Lihaas' blurb, since it is short. though I spelled out IAEA, since we need to say "nuclear" somewhere in the blurb to give the reader a chance to know the context without knowing any of the acronyms. Also changed the "paving the way" formulation to a formulating indicating that sanctions had in fact already been lifted, and that the lifting were directly triggered by IAEA's statement (as NBC news says it was). Thue (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The news story here is if sanctions are lifted against Iran, which this seems to be greasing the wheel for. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Why are they being called "hostages"? Sources seem to be calling them "prisoners"[3], "being held for charges"[4], "in Iranian custody" and "detained"[5]. 331dot (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected. They were convicted by Iran on espionage and related charges ('undermining national security' in the case of Christian pastor Saeed Abedini). However trumped up and secretive the proceedings, 'hostages' is a misnomer here. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While this is a huge development in terms of relations between the two countries, I don't really see this being worthy of mention here, as these are two minor people who are notable for being captured by Iran. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, Jason Rezaian has been detained in Evin prison since July 2014, Saeed Abedini since summer 2012, and Amir Hekmati for 1,601 days since August 2011. I don't know what counts in your book as "posturing" but these are at least the facts. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posturing, in this case, is where two entities make overt and public decisions that are designed to improve their own profile, nothing more. Of course it will assist Iran in their goals. But it's a "so what" really. Will anyone look back on this in a year's time and cite it as a landmark moment? Nope. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Not everyday Burkina Faso is attacked (and by Taqfiris at that). And its not even Boko Haram despite being in the West African theatre. Casualtiy count is higher than the 10 in the Turkish civil war. Lihaas (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support though it would be good to know how this gets resolved before posting, though at the present the article is large enough for posting. --MASEM (t) 03:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
commentreports are indicating a second hotel nearby is under attack. We'll have to move the title to attacks if that's confirmed. For now, this should be good. Its confirmed that a second hotel is unde attack. Ivem oved the page and tweaked both blurbs.Lihaas (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support we can unbold Tsai Ing-wen for the time being, the election article is just about sufficient to carry this story until such a time her article is updated better. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Election article is good to go, Tsai Ing-Wen's article is nearly there with only one or two statements that really need sourcing, but otherwise close. --MASEM (t) 14:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Doesn't require much debate since national election results are automatically qualified/required to be posted on front page. But, make sure to mention the KMT losing its majority since it's a first since the country's founding in 1911. --AsianHippie (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is completely true, but I have to note that having a majority is quite something in Taiwanese politics (or politics in general). Otherwise, the infoboxes wouldn't indicate "XX seats needed for a majority" for every election. --AsianHippie (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support and agree with the above comment, Kuomintang losing their majority is historic and should be included. As is the fact that she is the first female president. Then again, the blurb cannot get too long... Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. I know that "Taiwan" is not the official name, but went with a version of the blurb using that name anyway, since few people would know which China the "Republic of China" is. Thue (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Thue:. Arguably, both issues could have been resolved with one stone by writing "In Taiwan...first President of the Republic of China". But I will not lose sleep over overlooking this simple fix. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Thue's call. 'Republic of China' could be confused with 'People's Republic of China', but I'm baffled as to how 'President of Taiwan' is "ambiguous". Is the concern that readers will interpret it as a reference to a presidency of the geographic island? —David Levy15:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, it's the presidency of the government of the Republic of China, rather than just the island of Taiwan. It seems more complicated than England, Britain, UK.... I doubt the President would call himself or herself "President of Taiwan". I find it rude to give them a title that we find convenient to use. Sleep? I don't lose sleep over mistakes in some website, but I'd rather not see them.--PFHLai (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, she is the president of Taiwan. So what is the problem? Should Wikipedia follow Chinese propaganda? or be Chinese politically correct? Taiwan is Taiwan and China is China... Its 2016... get over it.BabbaQ (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What does 2016 have to do with this? What propaganda? Which side? Taiwan is Taiwan and China is China, and the Republic of China is the Republic of China. Why not use the official title used in Taiwan when speaking in English? --PFHLai (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because our goal is clarity, not pedantry. Using the country's official name instead of the one by which it's commonly known in the English language makes the blurb more difficult to understand. Combining both names is confusing, though I now realize that you actually did expect people to interpret "Taiwan" as a reference to the island. This is even sillier, especially given that the Taiwan page contains our article about the country. —David Levy01:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, it's the presidency of the government of the Republic of China, rather than just the island of Taiwan. I understand your argument as to why "President of Taiwan" is technicality inaccurate, but how is it "ambiguous"? Are you suggesting that "president of the geographic island" is a likely interpretation? I doubt the President would call himself or herself "President of Taiwan". "As the popularly elected President of Taiwan, it is my duty to express to the world the earnest will of the 23 million people of Taiwan to join the United Nations." —Chen Shui-bian, in a 2007 letter I find it rude to give them a title that we find convenient to use. I don't recall "politeness" (or the perception thereof) replacing "common usage among reliable sources" in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —David Levy01:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I'm aware of it being posted previously when the bank was initially formed while some countries were not fully committed. This is the bank officially launched with all 57 member countries committed. STSC (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's nonsense. Full commitment means ratification, and nearly half of these 57 countries (27 out of 57) have not yet ratified. We posted when the charter went into force due to sufficient ratifications, and even if some random countrly like for example Iceland would decide to not ratify at all it won't make a difference. LoveToLondon (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all nonsense. These are two different events; there's nothing unusual that the same topic can be in the news more than once. STSC (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense is your claim with all 57 member countries committed - as of today, nearly half of them are not. The attempt to post the same event a second times is another problem with this nomination. LoveToLondon (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in that case the number of fully committed countries rose from 56 to 57 in the last 3 weeks... Ratification is btw also relevant to show commitment. It is not only a domestic process, but ends with deposit of the instrument of ratification, which is the only formal way used until now of becoming a member of the bank... L.tak (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
oppose We already posted the birth day of the bank with entry into force of its constituting charter 3 weeks ago; this is a bit overdone... L.tak (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Already posted the christening, no need for an incremental update like this especially since nothing significant changed (read: we knew this was coming at the time of the previous blurb). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - One of the purposes of ITN is "to help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news". An ITN item is for the benefit of the general readers of today, and any past appearance in the ITN is irrelevant. STSC (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Gunmen armed with heavy weapons attack a restaurant called Cappuccino and the Splendid Hotel, taking hostages, in the heart of Burkino Faso's capital, Ouagadougou. At least 20 people are reportedly killed. (BBC)(The Guardian)
Three men are arrested in the outskirts of Jakarta in connection with the attacks. Police have identified the attackers killed in the raid with two of the men having been imprisoned for terrorism related offences. (AP via Newser)
A trial of the facts regarding allegations of child abuse against 12 former residents of children's homes in Leicester by British lord Greville Janner ends due to his death. (BBC)
American rapper Mos Def is banned from South Africa for five years, having been living illegally in the country since 2013 on a tourist visa. (BBC)
A special court is set up at The Hague to try Kosovo Liberation Army suspects for alleged war crimes against ethnic minorities and political opponents. (BBC)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The individual in question is clearly notable, yet the referencing (mostly to Arthur R. Chidlovski's personal tribute site) has dubious reliability. Alternative sources should be sought for everything referenced by that personal website. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This may be "twenty times brighter than all Milky Way" were one standing next to it, but it's actually 4 billion light years away and completely invisible to the naked eye. Plus, the article is a substub. If it's genuinely anomalous enough to cause astronomical theorems to be rewritten, that's potentially newsworthy (although the source for that appears to be New Scientist, whom I wouldn't trust to tell me the sky was blue given their "publish first and verify later" reputation), but at the moment it's not in the news by any stretch of the imagination. ‑ Iridescent21:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The 20 times brighter than the Milky Way is not changed by distance. It's like calling a lamp "100 candlepower". If you actually were right next to it (let's say 25 thousand billion miles) it'd look like a point of light as bright as the sunlight is halfway between Venus and Mercury. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support upon improvement The idea that an observation outside our solar system would be stale due to age is, frankly, absurd, given the closest know star system is four light-years away. This is apparently an unsurpassed record. If the article can be improved it certainly surpasses sports scores in importance. μηδείς (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support upon improvement, if it's indeed the most luminous supernova ever detected. Whether it's in the news or not isn't that important. We write encyclopedia and shouldn't always blindly follow the editorial picks of news folks. Brandmeistertalk22:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support upon improvement - Not sure where the oppose votes are coming from. It's invisible, so it's not news? There are plenty of sources linked, so saying it's not in the news is a bit odd as well. Having said that, it's one sentence at the moment, so expansion is certainly required. Might have a go at that later. Fgf10 (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support upon improvement - It's not yet ITN-worthy, but I've added a couple paragraphs and would remind editors that supernova really are the most significant phenomena astronomers get to study. As this particular event cannot yet be explained by available theories, it's no wonder scientists are so excited. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support upon improvement Appears to be an important finding. ITN should feature science-related news too, not just deaths and destruction headlines. 117.192.170.58 (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on expansion. Interesting, encyclopedic news (I don't know why the absence of coverage is noted above, as it's being covered eg by the BBC). It would be good to get a more appropriate ref than the Christian Science Monitor for the material in the final paragraph before posting. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, now that Brandmeister has satisfactorily addressed my concerns (was previously a 'Provisionally oppose, at least until the following points are addressed'):
1) 'The current proposed blurb is misleading' (Not anymore). It was already reported as the brightest-ever Supernova 6 months ago, as anybody can check from the first citation given in our article (The most Luminous Supernova, by Monica Young, Sky and Telescope, July 12 2015). So 'brightest Supernova' is NOT news, even if it is currently being headlined as if it were news in many mainstream news outlets.
2) (No longer relevant) That July 2015 citation also said: "But hydrogen-poor superluminous supernovae (SLSN Class I in astronomer-speak) fade too rapidly for the luminosity to come entirely from nickel-56 — some unknown mechanism powers their extreme luminosity. Whether that remains true for this new supernova remains to be seen. Stay tuned..." So the fact that some scientists argue that it may require new physics (and note the word may, NOT will) is also seemingly not exactly news either. So an accurate blurb might read something like "According to some scientists, the latest data on ASASSN-15lh, the brightest known superluminous supernova, which was discovered in June 2015, may require new physics to explain it, though some previous ultra-bright Supernovae have also long been thought to require some unknown explanatory mechanism." I find this interesting, and it's actually news to me, but my past personal ignorance is hardly grounds for including something in ITN. However I'm sticking the above text in as an altblurb, if only to try to ensure that the problems with the current proposed blurb don't get overlooked.
3) (No longer relevant) And words like 'may require new physics' are (rightly or wrongly) not currently included in our article, despite being found in some of the citations, especially those that quote the published paper's lead author Subo Dong. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4) (No longer relevant) I've now added an altblurb2 with the extra words 'by some scientists', since I'm not sure what proportion of scientists in this discipline already thought that an unknown mechanism had to be involved to explain earlier hypernovae.Tlhslobus (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, George Ho, as indicated above, the altblurbs were added to try to ensure that the so-called 'news' was correctly described, in contrast to the short but incorrect original blurb. Shortening it would have defeated that objective. I pretty much took it for granted that it was probably never going to make it onto the main page. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tlhslobus: I've corrected the original blurb to address your first concern. It's the time when the scientific description was published, as in the case of new animal species, that's why news sources report it now. Brandmeistertalk09:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Nominator's comments: Prima facie unusual weather occurrence. The storm isn't expected to impact land, but a hurricane forming in January in the Atlantic basin seems to be a once-in-a-century type of phenomenon. Getting quite a bit of news attention, too. Kudzu1 (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Not being too familiar with hurricanes, how big a deal is this? How much earlier than usual is this? I would support a particularly rare meteorological event for ITN, but the significance isn't clear to me. If not for ITN, then this definitely would be a nice DYN addition. Fgf10 (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Support, nicely explained below. Fgf10 (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricane season in the Atlantic officially starts on June 1. May hurricanes are not unusual, but January hurricanes certainly are. shoy (reactions) 17:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per List of off-season Atlantic hurricanes, it appears to be the second-earliest Hurricane on record. (There was one a week earlier in January 1938). I think earliest hurricane in 78 years is ITN worthy in and of itself. It's also the earliest named storm. For the record, the third earliest hurricane on record occurred March 6-9, 1908.
Oppose it's a bit more DYK than ITN right now. Unless it goes on to actually do something significant, like create damage or death, it's just a quaint story about a "last time we had this weather it was [xxxx]". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support although the lead should be at least three sentences, the article as of this edit doesn't match the three prose paragraph requirement. μηδείς (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I was going to ask you to expand on your oppose, TRM. Basically, a weather event that hasn't occurred since the eldest of my nibling's relatives was born, and of a piece with the extremely bizarre weather of this Nothern-Hemisphere winter, with bees foraging a few days past from flowers that bloomed three months early in the US NE and historic foods in the US and the UK. I'm not a weatherwonk, but surely something reasonable should be posted; hopefuly in a broader context. The only problem with that article when I last posted was a technicality. μηδείς (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose given that this seems all connected to the topsy-turvy weather in the Northern hemisphere seemingly due to El Nino. If it makes landfall and causes major injury/damage, that would be a different reason, but its mere existence outside of the normal season is not sufficient for ITN. As others said, this is more a perfect DYK. --MASEM (t) 21:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. January hurricanes are very unusual. We don't usually have meteorological news outside of disasters, so this will be a good change.331dot (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Most of a century has passed since the world last saw this, and weather is both an objective phenomenon and a universal human interest - hence of relatively high priority to us, I would think. - OldManNeptune⚓03:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not opposing the posting but I would suggest saying "the month of January" to make it generic to the year, the present blurb implies this January. --MASEM (t) 05:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Since 1938" doesn't seem like much of a weather record. It comes across as bizarrely arbitrary and fannish, like the silly FA we have up at the moment – "History of Liverpool F.C. (1892–1959)". Andrew D. (talk) 08:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside the numerous statements from meteorologists describing just how unusual this event is...with Atlantic hurricane records extending back to 1851, and the satellite era when records are considered most accurate starting in the 1960s (since which only one other storm of a much lower intensity was observed forming in January), what arbitrary year would you consider worthwhile for weather records? ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support - nearly 80 years since something like this last happened, which is in my mind sufficiently significant / encyclopaedic to merit comment. If it was happening every few years, probably not. And the blurb is fine - "since 1938" makes it perfectly clear that we are talking about more than just the present month. Andrew, if you have issues about the TFA selection process or the FA promotion process, please take them elsewhere. BencherliteTalk08:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support - An extreme weather phenomenon and a timely reminder of what impact we humans can have on the climate.--WaltCip (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a technicality that changes depending on how you word it. The last hurricane to form in January (as presently worded) was indeed the 1938 storm; however, the last hurricane to exist in January was Alice 1954–55. I focused on the latter in the article—though both are noted—since Alice became a hurricane a mere 12 hours before the New Year, but most sources are focusing on the "formed in" aspect. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Alice didn't form in January. You may think it's a pedantic distinction but that's how meteorological record-keeping works.
Incidentally, I'm not entirely thrilled with this particular blurb having been posted. A well-defined hurricane in January is an extreme rarity, one that weather geeks will no doubt reminisce on for years to come... but the same can be said of just-dissipated Hurricane Pali in the Pacific. It's especially concerning that the recent ITN nomination of deadly, record-setting flooding was rabidly opposed because it didn't offer enough of a world-view (or something?), while an enigmatic but ultimately insignificant weather statistic is posted with gusto. Now that Alex has impacted land (to some extent), I'd prefer something along the lines of Hurricane Alex, a rare wintertime Atlantic hurricane, affects the Azores. That gives the storm something of a real-world tie-in and avoids the "forming"/"existing" distinction that people seem to be overlooking. – Juliancolton | Talk16:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support RD without question. I wouldn't oppose a blurb either, given that we're at a slow point in the news cycle and some of the items in the ITN box are decidedly stale; the man was an absolute giant of the theatre, and although he never won an Oscar he won pretty much every other theatre and film award in existence. ‑ Iridescent13:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD without question. I also support the suggestion of a blurb. Agree with WaltCip's observation indeed, always three in a row isn't it? regards.Twobells (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that a RD entry conveys as much info as a blurb. This is about being efficient, not about not liking it. For the record, I loved his Snape in Harry Potter. Thue (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really convinced of the need of a blurb here. He doesn't seem like he was tops in his field, even if he was very important to it. 331dot (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
support RD he has a large body of work and some awards. There is a compelling case for a possible blurb but I'd rather err on the side of caution.Johnsemlak (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. Was winning awards for his film work over a span of twenty years, rather than reaching a singular peak; all this from someone who was by all accounts a late arrival to his vocation. Plus he's a global Christmas tradition. GRAPPLEX14:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD but Oppose Blurb - While beloved by many film fanatics, we're not talking about a big influence on the media field in general as compared to Christopher Lee or David Bowie (to music in this case). RD is perfectly suited here. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb - While obviously popular, Rickman mostly played secondary characters and thus didn't hold an elite status in his field, i.e. David Bowie in rock and roll. --Tocino 15:26 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose blurb - While definitely appropriate for RD, I don't think a blurb is warranted. A blurb is appropriate when, as Wikipedia:In the news#Recent deaths section puts it, the subject was a "major transformative world leader" in their field. While Rickman was obviously popular and well known, I don't think he rises to that level. Calathan (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb The RD posting was totally sufficient. I'm definitely a Rickman fan, but his career was not sufficiently vital, nor was his death sufficiently shocking, to warrant a blurb. -- Mike(Kicking222)17:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb a highly talented and popular actor, of course, but he was never even nominated for an Oscar and didn't reach the very, very top of his profession such as to warrant a blurb. BencherliteTalk21:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The article seems ready enough to post, but I am not sure about the death count in the blurb. Also, it was not just Sarinah Mall which was attacked. From the article, the death count is actually only 2 (plus attackers). Any objections if I post the blurb "Militants with links to ISILattack targets in Jakarta, Indonesia, killing two.". Note that I am not counting the attackers here. Thue (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "Attack" section doesn't seem up-to-date. For example, it currently says "several blasts followed by gunfire were reported to have occurred in two separate areas of the Jakarta". From e.g. the New York Times article, it doesn't seem like the attacks occured in separate areas, but rather very close to each others. Thue (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Yes, the attacks were more or less right next to each other. Whoever added the NY Times source appears to have been influenced by its re-reporting of the TVOne misinformation (why they reported it is beyond me... this is the TV station that reported Prabowo winning the election...) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Militant attacks – Militant who? How about Jihadist attacks? "Militant" can apply to almost anything (ex.: "militant suffragist"). "Jihadist" is more specific. Sca (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting Support - This is clearly the most significant endpoint for the entire Ebola issue in West Africa, compared to previous noms for country-specific declarations. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, though, I'm wondering where a single case (or small number of cases) would qualify as an epidemic. The epidemic being over does not mean, and should imply to no one, that the disease organism has been made extinct. Merely that the conditions that qualify as an epidemic are no longer in effect. Millions of infections concurrently and thousands of deaths would be an epidemic. Isolated and individual infections are not. --Jayron3217:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Three winning Powerball lottery tickets are sold in the U.S. states of California, Florida, and Tennessee. Each will share the estimated jackpot of US $1.6 billion dollars, the largest lottery jackpot in world history. (ABC News)
Subtropical Storm Alex is located 785 miles (1,260 km) south-southwest of the Azores. Alex is one of just four tropical or subtropical storms to occur in January since 1851, the first year records were kept. The hurricane season begins on June 1 of each year. Alex is expected to hit the Azores on Friday with average rain accumulations of 3 to 5 inches. (The Washington Post)(NHC)
Israel says Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallström is no longer welcome in the country after she called for investigations into "suspected extrajudicial executions" of Palestinians by the Israeli army. Sweden has for many years financed NGOs such as B'Tselem and Breaking the Silence operating in Israel. (Breaking Israel News)
A major indication that relations between Cuba and the U.S. are increasingly normalized will be the island nation’s participation later this month at an annual Caribbean security conference in Jamaica, according to the outgoing head of the United States Southern Command, General John F. Kelly. (Military Times)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article:Powerball (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Three winning tickets were sold in the US$ 1.6 billion Powerball drawing, each worth $529 million, while an additional 76 parties earned at least $1 million. (Post) News source(s):Yahoo Credits:
Oppose - I'm not sure either but overall I don't think it's very interesting. First, someone is bound to win eventually. Second, winning is entirely a matter of luck (compare e.g. the Nobel Prize: while someone is bound to win, that's because that someone has done very important work). Finally, there isn't even an article associated with this. Powerball is the article of the lottery; there is not '2016 $1.6 billion powerball lottery' article or anything like that. I do not, therefore, think this is worth posting (especially given the recent rash of new ITN stories). Banedon (talk) 06:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because of recent rule changes, these large lotteries will become more and more common. While of popular interest, no lasting noteworthiness. SpencerT♦C06:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Thanks for the nomination, but as stated, this will likely be more common given the rule changes to decrease the odds of winning further. As pointed out by Bandedon, there is no article about this winning of the lottery itself. 331dot (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
OPPOSE Solely to spite the nominator. The comment about the football player is unnecessary and irrelevant. Nominations should be based on the merit of the individual and not negatively compared to something entirely different.Correctron (talk) 07:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on principle per Correctron. Tendentious nomination. Strike the comment in question and we can start talking seriously about the merits of the deceased. --WaltCip (talk) 08:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Don't know the guy, not sure which way to go on nom, but the incredibly childish personal attacks in the 'votes' above are deeply sad. Grow up, people. Fgf10 (talk) 08:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the tributes from current politicians imply that he was a significant figure in Indian history and in Pakistan and Bangladesh as well. The article seems thorough and referenced. MurielMary (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To the IP: If you are dissatisfied with what is posted, please make your own nominations that you believe meet the criteria for posting. 331dot (talk) 12:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MurielMary; seems to be important to the Indian military (DC2) and possibly significant impact(latter part of DC1) Article seems OK. 331dot (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality, neutral on notability. Regardless of the above supports, the article is unpostable in its current condition - many paragraphs are completely uncited. The sentence about his death is ungrammatical as well. BencherliteTalk13:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for quality reasons only, article has numerous gaps in referencing, which is unacceptable for a biographical article we wish to post on the main page. I would never block this otherwise, but clearly we can't claim this is a quality product to ask others to read. If anyone does fully reference the article, consider my objections nullified, and consider this a full support at that point. --Jayron3217:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Marked Ready an author, general, and governor, and a major player in "subcontinental" geopolitics for the 20th century. I see no reaon this eminently notable person should not be noted in RD on his passing. μηδείς (talk)
Article needs updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Comment I've adjusted the blurb to the right name of the award, and bolded the list of winners too (it's a featured list, so no reason why not to highlight it as well). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose target architect article is poor and needs some work (I'll see what I can do), target list article will be easy to update (I'll see what I can do). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Oppose - Indictment is not newsworthy by ITN standards; the story fits well at Wikinews. Until she is convicted or acquitted, we should avoid overemphasis and lowering standards to allow room for such hype. Of course, the "El Chapo" drug dealer is featured in Main Page as newsworthy, but his escape and recapture excited the consensus. Human rights concerns in Saudi Arabia aren't new compared to ones in Mexico. George Ho (talk) 06:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is sufficient quality and lacking any major problems (a few sentences have a cn tag, but mostly solid referencing), update is well referenced and extensive, event is current. I can't come up with any reason to block this from being posted. --Jayron3211:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose According to the New York Times article cited, the Saudi government says that she has not been arrested. Detainment for questioning is not unusual in the East. Though, if this escalates and she is convicted this may merit posting. Mamyles (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: He won several notable events, including Russia Cup 2015, and was ranked in the top 100 globally. A totally unexpected and shocking death. EternalNomad (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Given the number of grandmasters, it's hard to judge how much he represents the top of his field. But I would further have problems with the lack of any details outside of his chess victories. I realize it is a short life, but there's still more I'd expect to see if this person was that important. Granted, I would expect the likely sources to be in Russian and may be more difficult to get but that really should be done here if this is to be on the main page. --MASEM (t) 03:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentHere are his rankings. At his peak, he was Russia's 21st best player, Europe's 66th and the world's 92nd. Here is news from around the world, including mainstream Spanish sources El Pais, ABC and El Mundo. Quite logically, most sources are in Russian. I do not know Russian so I can not gage if this is widely covered by their main outlets and how much attention his tragic passing is getting '''tAD''' (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – unexpected death, but doesn't appear to be an important figure in chess, especially given the rankings (though maybe he just didn't have the time to climb up high enough?). International news coverage appears relatively limited too. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as doesn't seem to meet the RD criteria of "important/significant in their field". Assume would need a high ranking (top 10?) and influence (introduced a new style of play etc) to meet that standard. MurielMary (talk) 07:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Support Worldwide covered recognition of a sportsman considered the best of his generation in the probably most international team sports. --PanchoS (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest of weak supports Essentially only because it's a record fifth time. Oppose mentioning player of the year in the same line; we had a similar discussion recently and practically everyone, including me, strongly agreed that we do not typically post individual awards in group sports. If it's true for LPGA, it's true for FIFA. This is also pending appropriate updates, if there's no more to write than "he won it for a record fifth time" then I don't think that cuts it. - OldManNeptune⚓16:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. I cannot locate a substantial update to the article discussing this particular award. If someone could add it and/or link to it directly via a # link in the nomination, so readers can find out about it and its significance, I would consider fully supporting this. The article is really good, and we should be proud to post it, the only thing holding this up for me is the lack of (or the difficulty in finding) a paragraph or so explaining this specific news item. --Jayron3217:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose FIFA navel gazing and nothing more. Who cares? An annual publicity stunt where Messi votes for his team mates, Ronaldo votes for his team mates, Belgian coaches vote for Belgian players, it's a little too much like the Eurovision Song Contest to be taken seriously. Seemingly only really important to Ronaldo who gets sniffy every year he gets beaten by Messi. Certainly not worthy of ITN, a trivial "popular voted for" award. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral comment: As far as I can tell: (a) we posted this in 2013 as "In association football, Lionel Messi wins the FIFA Ballon d'Or" (linking to 2012 FIFA Ballon d'Or); (b) we posted this in 2014 with the blurb "In association football, Cristiano Ronaldo (pictured) wins the FIFA Ballon d'Or and Nadine Angerer wins the Women's World Player of the Year award" with a bold link to 2013 FIFA Ballon d'Or for "wins" in each case; (d) it was not nominated in 2015. I have added alt-blurbs along those lines. BencherliteTalk20:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on consistency. As noted above, a few months ago a nom for a similar individual award (Player of the Year in LPGA) was not posted as the consensus was that ITN does not post about individual player awards. MurielMary (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing an MVP award of a continental competition (LPGA MVP) in a sports with limited popularity (women's golf) with the award for the best player in the most popular sports in the world does not make sense. The logic behind If it's true for LPGA, it's true for FIFA. could equally be used to say If it's true that we don't post the result of the Austrian Bowl to ITN, we cannot post the result of the Super Bowl - after all these are both national championships in the same sports in different countries. In reality, I assume that none of the oppose voters would have any doubt that in American Football even the US college championship is far more important than the national championship of Austria.
Opposing based on FIFA bashing also misses the point. The winner is not picked by the FIFA, it is chosen by vote by players, coaches and journalists. Messi votes for his team mates, Ronaldo votes for his team mates misses the fact that Messi got over 40% of the votes. While some sympathy votes might be going to fringe candidates from the same country or team, the vast majority of voters is not affiliated with any of the top choices.
No, they differ by an order of magnitude. Literally, when it comes to the number of people who care - the number of people watch them play is 10 times the number of people who watched the college final. And even though the events were on the same day, I would be curious if you are able to find a single non-US media where the college football final is covered more prominently than the Ballon d'Or. Even now, two days after the event, you can still find articles with pictures of Messi on the sports pages of sites like BBC, Le Monde or The Australian. LoveToLondon (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The LPGA comparison is not about the caliber of the sports, it's about not posting individual sport awards, which you conveniently left out of your quote from Neptune. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I omitted the LPGA part since it might sound like a PA when I just describe the truth.
The person on whom you base your opposition with that rationale is not Neptune, it is Mary.
The LPGA discussion was about an MVP in a relatively unknown sports, and the first Oppose vote (by Bongwarrior) actually mentioned FIFA Ballon d'Or as one that usually gets posted.
Neptune did neither here (weak support) nor in the LPGA discussion say that no individual sports award should ever be posted.
Mary tries to give the impression of consensus by making an incorrect claim.
Not a single Oppose vote in the LPGA discussion said explicitely that no individual award should ever be posted, with one even stating he might have supported the LPGA posting in a time with less ITN-worthy items.
The Close statement in the LPGA discussion is the first time where it is suggested (by Mary) that there was an agreement to exclude individual sporting awards - which is a clever way to prevent anyone else from raising disagreement with her incorrect claim that this was the consensus. Closing was without a doubt consensus, and arguing about details in the rationale is pointless.
But now she claims about that discussion that the the consensus was that ITN does not post about individual player awards.
As was already mentioned, two years ago the Ballon d'Or was posted.
And we do not typically post individual awards in group sports by Neptune (as well as Marys agreement to exclude individual sporting awards claim in the Close statement) is also not correct. I am counting four individual awards in team sports that should be posted every year according to ITNR - e.g. Super Bowl MVP is clearly an individual award in a team sports.
Comment I would be appreciative if my comments would not be chopped into fragments, I don't think anyone really likes that being done to them and mine are right there at the top to be read in full. I gave weak support based on the trivia value of winning this five times, and I increasingly regret even bothering with that, as I have zero stake in posting an award that, as far as I can tell, actually impacts nobody (except Messi, who I'm sure is pleased as punch) and will have no further effects at all. I'm just an old man with an opinion, I don't think I quite merit a line-by-line rebuttal of a casual comment (which was perfectly accurate in its full context). Thanks. - OldManNeptune⚓06:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to LovetoLondon - it's both unnecessary and unwelcome for you to assign motives to my statements, such as "a clever way to ..." or to hash out my statements line by line e.g. "she claims that...". The facts in the LPGA discussion are clear, and I'm unsure why you can't read them yourself - five experienced ITN editors/admins stated that individual sporting awards are not generally posted. That makes a consensus. That's why the discussion was closed. Simple. MurielMary (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reasons the experienced ITN editors stated in the discussion do not match what you newbie editor (1 month after your first edit) wrote in the Close statement.
The first of these five editors you mention stated We virtually never post individual sporting awards in any sport - the only one I can think of right now is the FIFA Ballon d'Or.
Another one of these five editors you mention even stated about LPGA on another day I might have supported this, but with the quantity of ITN-worthy items right now I think there is no space for this.
There was consensus that LPGA is not posted, and several editors correctly mentioned that posting such awards is rare. There was no consensus that no individual awards should ever be posted, that was not part of the discussion.
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.
Armed militiamen, also known as the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom, who are occupying the USFWS administered Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Harney County, Oregon, tear down a part of a fence that they claim was erected by the federal government in order to allow privately owned cattle to graze on the adjacent public land. USFWS condemns the actions through a written statement which states that, "Removing fences, damaging any refuge property, or unauthorized use of equipment would be additional unlawful actions by the illegal occupiers. Any movement of cattle onto the refuge or other activities that are not specifically authorized by [the Fish and Wildlife Service] constitutes trespassing." (The Guardian)(The Oregonian)
Thousands of protesters in Leipzig demonstrate against a record refugee influx they blame for mass sexual violence at New Year's Eve events in Cologne and other German cities. Many chanted 'We are the people', 'Resistance!' and 'Deport them!'. The rally was organized by a local chapter of PEGIDA (Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the Occident). Six Pakistani men and one Syrian man were also attacked by so-called vigilantes in Cologne, following calls on social media for "revenge" in the wake of the New Year's Eve assaults. (Daily Mail)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Strong support I missed that completely, must've been buried by the Bowie news. As the nominator says, he was a truly excellent ballplayer who is in the Hall of Fame, had a long career split between the Negro Leagues and Major League Baseball, after integration. Deserving of RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] 2016 College Football Playoff National Championship
Closing for the third time already (apparently I forgot to sign the first time and someone else closed the second time). In any case, while both sides present relevant arguments, we aren't getting any closer to a consensus. Sorry guys ... --Tone14:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Oppose - if it's the second highest level of American Football play in the United States, then there's a tier above it and it's not even a national championship (which are themselves hard to justify for ITN). Hard to see this as sufficiently noteworthy for ITN then. Banedon (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support because of it's significance in the U.S. Various non-Americans who don't understand this will now pile on opposes. My support is pending expansion though. The article isn't ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support on notability but oppose article quality – College football is big news in the States, but still second highest level. No other US-centric stories up at present either. In regards to the quality of the article, there's very little prose at present, and almost none about the game itself. 2014 BCS National Championship Game shows that there's a lot to be desired. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I may be wrong, but this doesn't evidence such, only that professionals may compete. The Olympics are, and to the best of my knowledge remain, an amateur competition - or has that changed? But to get right to the point, are you arguing that the Olympics were non-notable prior to more broadly permitting professionals to compete? If not, then this is a pointless sidebar of semantics, as you would then agree that amateur competitions suffer no particular notability handicap if other conditions are met, no? - OldManNeptune⚓08:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The best of your knowledge is outdated by a quarter century. You did argue in favour of posting that the Olympics would be an amateur competition like college sports, and that argument of yours is complete nonsense. LoveToLondon (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is twice now you have told me what I have said - and incorrectly, though I have attempted to clarify. Perhaps we are merely separated by a common language, but I find putting words in my mouth rude. Good day. - OldManNeptune⚓13:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The highest tournament of pro football is Super Bowl, but it doesn't reach the same level as Olympics, which is very global and international. College football playoffs ... is just American and not in the same league as Super Bowl. Of course, Olympics was supposed to be for only amateurs, but IOC decided to allow pro athletes into such tournaments. Actually, the athletics, including track and field, is the onlyanother amateur-only sport on Olympics. --George Ho (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support Per Cyclonebiskit. It is ignorant to push the highest echelon of college football down to the level of youth league sports; the athletes competing will likely be among the next professionals to enter the highest tier of the sport, and college football (and basketball, for that matter) enjoys popularity comparable to professional sports, to the point that even if it were mere youth league sports, it would merit attention for the sheer number of people invested in it (this applies outside the US - by all means, if you know of a non-US youth league generating NCAA levels of revenue, nominate it and I would likely support it). However, the article is not fit for the front page at this time, so support is pending updates. - OldManNeptune⚓08:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For most American sports, the majority of professional athletes are recruited from college. I don't know that it's a fair metric to ask what percentage of college athletes go on to professional sports; "college athletes" covers everyone from these guys (of whom many will play professionally) to those who take fencing as an elective and who have no sports ambitions. It may as well be mentioned that it is an ongoing controversy in the US that college football and basketball players generate millions upon millions in revenue yet do not get paid - meaning many people feel they are roughly equivalent to professional atheletes in what they do, they merely do not collect a check for it. - OldManNeptune⚓08:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"the athletes competing will likely be among the next professionals to enter the highest tier of the sport" - As you say yourself, they are not now, so oppose remains valid. And yes indeed, parochial. Fgf10 (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for showing your ignorance once again. It is nowhere near as popular as the Boat Race, nor is it anywhere near as global as the Boat Race. But you keep thinking that we're all interested in college "football", good old USA, USA, USA, eh? P.S. if you're game for substantiating your hysterical position, tell me how many people watch the Boat Race live, versus this ball game. Then tell me how many watch the Boat Race on television around the globe, versus this ball game.... I dare you..... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have 2.5 billion people in ex-colonies to help you beat 30 million viewers (1.7 billion in the Subcontinent). And you have what at least 4 km of Thames shore to watch the race live (for free!) instead of a stadium. How is that an apples to apples comparison? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make the original comparison. I simply added the facts, something which most fail to do when making such naive and and incompetent statements. As for ex-colonies, I seem to recall that the US is one of those....! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it implied that our popular sports have almost no overlap? Do you like basketball? No. Do you like baseball? No. Do you like ice hockey? No. NASCAR? No. Lacrosse? No. Do we even know the rules of cricket? No. Rugby? No. Field hockey? No. Rounders? No. Netball? No. Do we like European-style motorsports? No. UEFA Champions League? No. Rowing? Only at the Olympics. Cycling? Only at the Olympics. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What a curious response. I like a lot of those sports, I just don't think they belong on the main page. Your rant is indicative of desperation. I'm not sure why. Probably best to walk away for a while now, before you do or say something regretful. Take some time to re-appraise how to engage in these debates. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the other countries' colonial days are much less distant (~mid 20th century vs. 1776) and often didn't end by revolution, all the loyalists fleeing, and decades of cold relations and we have had time to invent our own sports and culture. Therefore we are not ex-colonies to the same degree as everyone else (Parts of France are ex-British too, not quite the same as India is it?) Why are you even comparing live viewership when you have miles of buildings and shore to watch from? At least you have a point with TV viewers but it's so easy to be in that position when USA barely had enough population to colonize 50 states by the time the rest of the Earth was already taken. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reiterate, as you seem incapable of reading, I made no comparison to the Boat Race, your esteemed countryman did. I simply expanded on it to state that the comparison was false, and went on to explain why. If you now wish to continue to embarrass yourself with this sad litany of excuses, that's fine, I'm not interested, nor, I doubt, is anyone else. Keep looking up the stats, if it makes you feel better. The bottom line is that this event is not newsworthy, it's not "in the news" in the same way the Superbowl is, we have no need for another "American football" story, so that's it. Of course, you are entitled to continue with your diatribe, but I doubt anyone's reading it by now. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That post was wondering if this would be opposed as much if the US had split into many sovereign nations but after football was entrenched and we now had an international college football competition (like UEFA Champions maybe). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Amateur sport, not the highest level of play, negligible global impact, clear oppose. This is not a US sports new service, it's a world wide encyclopedia. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 10:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Global impact is not required, and we discourage objections based on an event being from a single country above(under "Please do not"}. Very little would be posted if global impact was required. 331dot (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And Home Depot sponsors the Games by letting Olympic athletes sell drills and stuff whenever they have the timebecause they're so poor. How does not making a living from the sport necessarily prevent the competition from being high quality? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. As I see it, this is to the Super Bowl what association football's Europa League is to the Champion's League—it's not nothing, it's just far from being as important as the next level up. That said, if it turns out we've posted the Europa League final recently then strike my opposition here. GRAPPLEX11:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we don't post the winners of the second tier of British/Spanish/Italian football, why we would make that exception for American Football is unclear. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's not accurate to say this is "second tier"; it's just a different 'league'. Many college stadiums are larger in capacity than professional team stadiums(such as Michigan Stadium) and the games get as much attention as the NFL. This is not a "youth tournament" as some call it; if you are 45 years old, attend college, and qualify for their football team, you can play. I think this gets the attention to be posted, and many readers will be interested in it. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even the nominator called it the second level of the game. We don't post, for example, the 2015 Football League Championship play-off Final, despite the fact the club that wins it will be £120 million better off and despite the fact its referred to as "the richest game in football". This is not America's top-tier American Football final, so it doesn't need to be posted at ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like this competition gets nominated on a yearly basis in the hopes that it will eventually be posted by whomever is present at ITN on that particular day. However, as is similar with most recurring events, this championship is never going to change. A team is always going to win, a team is always going to lose, this will always be an amateur provincial sport concerning regions in the U.S. that international readers know next to nothing about, and this will always be second-tier to the NFL. None of this will ever change (maybe the athletes might be paid at some point in time, but that's neither here nor there). Yet year after year this is nominated, over and over again, and we have the same discussions each time and we return to the same conclusion. Not only do I strongly oppose posting this heavily U.S.-centric event, but I also believe we need to salt the earth and set up a "recurring items" list for nominations that will never have a chance of making it onto ITN. That's where this needs to go. We retread the same ground constantly and generate more heat than light talking about this silly parochial game.--98.180.123.57 (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, "Please do not oppose an item because the event is 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." Last year the NCAA March Madness made it so I don't see why this should be forbidden from being discussed just because you don't like it or understand what it actually is. What you consider "silly" may be considered important by others. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
National sports always only relates to a single country, but international relevance measured by number of non-domestic people watching live does matter. Super Bowl is being watched live all over the world. El Clásico (happens several times each season) is every time watched by nearly half a billion people. LoveToLondon (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and salt the earth per IP 98. Note we're not "complaining about this event relating to a single country"; we are pointing out that this story has very limited, if any, international impact. That in turn is affecting its notability.--WaltCip (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If international impact is required, very little will qualify for posting here. If you're saying it's not notable, fair enough, as that's a matter of opinion. I oppose salting any subject from discussion as WP:CREEP; users already have the right to SNOW close discussions that have no support for posting. as I point out above, last year the NCAA Baskeball tournament made it. We don't know what will happen in the future. 331dot (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose College, youth and amateur sport all do not belong to ITN, no matter if it is football, American football or something else. The Youth Olympics are perhaps the most important event of that sort in the world but we have been even reluctant to posting it so far. @Baseball Bugs: It is not the end of the world if this does not get posted; otherwise, we would have not been here since this was nominated for the first time.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
College sports, even if the players aren't getting specifically paid to play(they get money other ways, though) is a large business in the US which draws as much attention as the NFL and as large audiences- with many stadiums larger than pro stadiums(as I note above). 331dot (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Americans build big things. Big deal. There's a lot of money and a lot of space, it's easily done. It doesn't meant there's any impact because of it. Obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support we had this argument last year, and the consensus was to post; college basketball and football leauges in the US are in no way "junior" or "amateur" sports. They are dealing with legal adults who are often recruited to a school and given a full scholraship on that basis, and they constitute multi-billion dollar industries followed very widely and passionately across the US. μηδείς (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Support per Muboshgu, Old Man Neptune, Correctron, Baseball Bugs, 331dot and Medeis. Americans are weird, okay. We do things in sports that seem bizarre to the rest of the world. No need to use the standards you're used to (college/amateur = causal/low standard of play) against this unique system where 10% of the population watches this college game every year [9] and where half a dozen home games per year causes us to go crazy and build the 8 biggest non-North Korean stadiums on Earth (The Super Bowl was indirectly named after the colleges' bowl shaped stadia). Maybe the second league of England football is not popular (IDK) but remember that America's huge. It's bigger than the continent of Australia, almost has the population of the Eurozone (1/3rd billion) and is 2-3 thousand miles wide. One league cannot satisfy all the demand for football like it can in England. So we have a second league with 128 colleges (if you're wondering this doesn't mean the top teams are weaker by talent dilution, au contraire the powerhouses would just beat the minnows by 80 points to 10 or so similar to Man U playing a team in a lower league) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'll just quote the comment I made last year:[10]
Sports events don't have inherent significance; their significance is cultural. So what that this is a university event? Who cares that it is nominally amateur? It is still an event with huge cultural significance and massive public interest in the US. It may seem strange to us that they care so much about a university tournament, but that's irrelevant. The fact that it is mainly of interest in one country is not disqualifying - we post the Gaelic football championship, which is ITN/R, despite it only being of much interest in Ireland. We do it because of its cultural significance and popularity in that country, and we should post this for the same reason. And frankly this is far more culturally significant and popular that the Boat Race, the one university sporting event that is on ITN/R - that certainly doesn't generate the same level of passion and interest that this does.
I will only add that it seems to me that this is not a second-tier league (like the English Championship), but a completely different sort of tournament. It's not like these are teams that could be in the NFL, but just aren't good enough. This is no more a second-tier tournament than the Champions League is a second tier tournament to the World Cup. Neljack (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
False analogy, there is no "world cup" for American Football, and if there was, it'd be the Superbowl. This is not the top level of American Football, and as such it's not suitable for inclusion at ITN when we always post Superbowl. One American Football story per year is sufficient since it is a sport limited to a small proportion of the world. The World Cup draws billions of viewers, as does the Champions League. This, on the other hand, does not. Yes it has impressive stadia, yes it's clearly important to Americans, but otherwise it's trivial. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Not a great analogy, really. The World Cup is for national teams only; the Champions League is for European club teams only. The Superbowl and this competition are both for club teams, one group competing through city-based franchises and the other competing through educational institutions. In any event, and not wanting to get involved in the rights and wrongs of the above arguments, the article is of poor quality and is probably only intelligible to American football fans in the first place. Perhaps some extra attention to prose, sources, explanations etc would help? Parts of it were still written in the future tense until I changed them just now! BencherliteTalk20:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But why is that difference relevant, Bencherlite? The point is that this tournament is not a second-tier of the same sort of league. It is a completely different tournament. To consider another case, are we going to stop posting the Premier League on the basis that it is a second-tier tournament of the Champions League? Neljack (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on article quality only, would support on significance. I understand the argument "The world should be the kind of place where this kind of amateur sport doesn't matter to people at the level that it does". It's also an invalid argument when deciding if this is significant enough. This event DOES matter to a large proportion of our audience, if we have a quality article about the event. I can think of no reason why we wouldn't want to direct readers to the information about this recent event, given the level of likely attention to it by our readership, except to make ourselves feel morally superior to that readership simply because we're good enough to not find it important to ourselves. Unfortunately, we don't as yet have a quality article about it. If we get one, as in someone writes it and adds some prose to the current article, we should post this. --Jayron3219:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Please do not oppose an item because the event is 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." I don't particularly care about Gaelic football or Australian rules football,(both of which have a much smaller percentage of the world population as fans) either, but I don't oppose posting them. 331dot (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that you already have the Superbowl. Why should we post yet another American Football story which clearly doesn't rise to the ITN level of the Superbowl? We don't post minor results in other sports across the globe, why should we make an exception for this? Just because Americans like it? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you arguing? The person opposes, and then as usual the bickering starts over statements. Please get out of the sandbox.... --BabbaQ (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't "have" anything. The Super Bowl is posted through consensus, not my call or Americans' call to do so. If you consider this a "minor result", it is your right to do so, but there are others who, with good reason, do not. If you wish to propose some sort of limitation on the posting of different competitions in the same sport per country, or even just in general, you know how to do so. 331dot (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, putting it another way, it's not as important as the Superbowl, is it? So as such, it's second (or, if you prefer, "lower") tier. Or are you going to argue against that too? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say it clearer, you can think what you wish, and I'll think what I wish. You can think what you wish about me. I've probably said too much in this already. 331dot (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do we post, for example, the NCAA (US collegiate) men's and women's basketball championships each spring? That would be a direct analogy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding notability. College football in the US is the most notable and significant of our amateur sports. Historically, the college football season ended with a series of 20 or more "bowl games" between teams that had done well in the regular season, but there was no mechanism for making sure that the best teams played off against each other. Thus, there was no national championship game; the selection of the season's best team was made by a poll of sportswriters and was often debatable and controversial. There were (and are) too many individual bowl games for the result of any one to be ITN'worthy (I candidly don't recall whether we posted the poll results but I doubt it). After many, many years of discussion, the system was changed so that there is now a single national championship game and a process for getting there. This has not by any means eliminated controversy over selecting the teams to play in that game, but it has at least created a system for determining which team is the national champion. While I won't claim that this championship is as important as the Super Bowl winner, it is now comparable to several other events that we usually list in ITN, and since there is now a unique national championship game and outcome, such a listing would be a single annual item at most and therefore would at least be reasonable to post. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC
Yet we would never even consider posting the highest level of amateur football in the United Kingdom. That there are a proliferation of "bowl games" is simply a money-making exercise, nothing more. Why would the rest of the English-speaking world care about college football? The sport is played in a limited number of countries (unlike association football, for instance) and we always post Superbowl within an hour or so of its completion. Adding this college sport is just another foot in the door to the proliferation of further American college sports and sports people at ITN. We don't need to do that, nor should we. We are an international English-speaking encyclopaedia, not a sports ticker for American events. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond the March Madness basketball tournament(for the men) and this, I don't seek any other collegiate sports, as no others get the attention of these two. 331dot (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thin end of the wedge. This is becoming a joke now, what with college basketball coaches who win nothing listed at RD, it's as if there's some kind of horrific American college systemic bias at work... Who knew? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by the way, regardless of the pathetic bitching, this article isn't actually in a fit state to be featured on the main page in any case. If someone did a good job on writing up some prose on the event, including its impact, significance, etc, then it may help sway some of the opposition. Who knows? In the meantime, we can just slag each other off about the significance of US college sport. Which we all know that inside the US is massive, and outside the US is absolutely meaningless. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ITNC votes (ok, ok, "discussions") are usually lacking in hard data; and even if we had hard data, it wouldn't help too much, because frankly, we're trying to maximize more than one variable, and that is usually not possible. We want to choose items that maximize: (a) being in the news (i.e. something in particular is happening now, and hasn't become stale; usually this boils down to "is it one of the top headlines on BBC/New York Times); (b) interesting to our readers (who come from a lot of different places and have a lot of different interests, none of which is really measurable but that doesn't stop us from guessing); (c) educate our readers (yes, elitist though it may be, we often put stuff in ITN that not many readers care about, but that we think they should care about); (d) reduce systematic bias (not just the claimed "pro-US" or "anti-US" bias, but also Young White Male bias, and Anglosphere bias; (e) feeling like an encyclopedia, not a tabloid or Sports Illustrated or the politics section of the Economist; all the while (f) showcasing decent articles. You can see how several of these conflict with each other.
And each of these isn't really measurable in concrete ways. I did some back of the envelope calcs here, for example, comparing the 2015 Boat Race to the 2015 Superbowl to the 2015 College Football championship, just to get an idea. Grabbed first numbers I saw, no idea if they're very accurate (doesn't really matter if they're accurate). But they give very different measures to "level of interest":
2015 Boat Race:
9 million TV viewers (UK) (14% of population)
400 million TV/radio (worldwide) annoyingly, I didn't get this broken down between TV and radio
peak traffic to article last year: 10,000/day
2015 Superbowl:
115 million TV viewers (US) (36% of population)
170 million TV viewers (worldwide) just *guessing* but Id assume radio is negligible, it's 4 hours long
peak traffic to article last year: 275,000/day
2015 College Football Championship (not yesterday, last year):
35 million TV viewers (US) (11% of population)
no worldwide figures, but I have to believe TV viewership is really small compared to Superbowl
peak traffic to article last year: 13,000/day
So even for that one idea (popularity) with 3 measurements, it's unclear how you compare them; it depends on how you choose to measure.
Personally, I'd Support based on notability (and on the fact that I personally wish we posted more items with quicker turnover, because no one cares what happened 7 days ago), but Oppose on article quality, but that's based on a gut instinct weighting of all of these unknowable factors, not some scientific analysis. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Boat Race is a notable rowing event between two universities that draws wide attention, large crowds, and much interest.(and rightfully is ITNR) This is a large tournament between many colleges, many games of which draw upwards of 100,000 people, and receives wide interest. College sports is not really "amateur", as they probably get more money than you or I do, in scholarships and other money. 331dot (talk) 03:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What money are you talking about in your claim they probably get more money than you or I do? If an athlete receives more than the cost of his education, that's a violation of the NCAA amateur rules and makes him ineligible to play. LoveToLondon (talk) 07:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? ... Sorry, I couldn't resist. Support if this claim can be backed up by other reliable sources.--WaltCip (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd need a bit more evidence that this is a significant change. According to our article, "荼" (tu, bitter vegetable) appears in records as early as the 10th century BC and seems to refer to tea. This discovery just seems to be backing up what archives already told us. Smurrayinchester15:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per article, "the first unambiguous textual reference to the consumption of tea as a beverage can be dated to 59 BCE during the Western Han Dynasty". So that 荼 seems to be ambiguous, unless some reliable source states otherwise. PS: Since The Independent broke the story several hours ago, I placed it here, but wouldn't mind moving it to January 7, when Nature published the related article. Brandmeistertalk16:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, marginally pushes the unequivocal date of tea use back from 59 BCE to 2100 BP which means either 84 BCE or 150 BCE depending on how the authors mean BP. Abductive (reasoning) 18:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Not really in the news (solid scientific research picked up by one newspaper) and an expected result. Even the researchers don't consider the (expected) finding in China a huge discovery, and their paper instead emphasizes the finding in Tibet and makes conclusions on the history of the silk road based on that. LoveToLondon (talk) 04:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the arguments given by LoveToLondon, Abductive and BabbaQ. Though the latter interestingly saw it as an argument in favor of an ITN post, "readers will find it interesting" is the prototype argument for a Did you know feature. ITN however is about breaking news that is already widely covered in mainstream media. That doesn't seem to be the case here. --PanchoS (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the steeping and brewing of plant material has been going on for tens of thousands of years, no doubt. Words like wine, mead, hemp, and soma have very old provenances. μηδείς (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kudzu. This is trivial. So we knew tea was consumed long ago, and now we know it was consumed a little longer ago. Not earth shattering, not especially significant. I'll stick with coffee. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Panchos - in the ITN purpose statement, the following is listed as a reason for posting: "To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them." I take that to mean that "reader interest" is a valid criteria to judge nominations on. MurielMary (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
[Removed] Remove Syrian Civil War from Ongoing?
Syrian Civil War is still on the news and ongoing. However, I have yet to see substantial updates of key events from this month. Also, the section that was linked in the Main Page hasn't had one update since 18 December 2015. George Ho (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal of this article, or replacement with a different suitable target article. Target article, if this or otherwise, needs to be receiving consistent updates. SpencerT♦C01:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because the war is clearly still ongoing, and it has had a history of generating news, many of which have international consequences (e.g. the Sukhoi shootdown incident). I do not consider the article not being updated consistently to be an important factor. Banedon (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing is not meant for slow-moving but continuing stories. If it does change that suddenly there's day-to-day violence we can readd it but it should not languish in a slow period. --MASEM (t) 01:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:In_the_news#Ongoing_section: "The purpose of the ongoing section is to maintain a link to a continuously updated Wikipedia article...". Therefore, "I do not consider the article not being updated consistently to be an important factor." doesn't make much sense. If you prefer Ongoing items don't have this requirement, that's something that you should probably bring up at WT:ITN. SpencerT♦C07:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did that before but it didn't gain consensus. Which is fine - consensus after all does not mean every editor agrees with the consensus. With that said, first half of what I wrote is not related to this. Banedon (talk) 08:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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:
