July 14, 2013 (2013-07-14) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sport
Nominator's comments: Notably covered by International media. Though not many people were using it at the time of closing it would formally mark an end to a once popular means of communication. Encyclopedic. Regards, theTigerKing 19:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nominator. Wonder how many people were using it before it closed down? --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose this doesn't seem to be the end of the last telegram service in the world, as our article and [9] [10] make clear. Hut 8.5 19:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Typhoon Soulik
Nominator's comments: First typhoon of the year and resulted in major impact. Large population affected with significant damage; however, an unusual aspect is the lack of casualties in Fujian Province where the storm made landfall (a first according to Chinese media). --Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternate option – Since there's already a blurb up in regards to a natural disaster in China, might be more reasonable to combine Soulik with the ongoing flood event. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Sudden death of one of the main actors on one of the most popular (and rather groundbreaking) television series today. Of high human interest. Secret account 05:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. This actor was internationally famous and here in the States his death is even breaking in on some of the Zimmerman trial coverage. Andrew327 06:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- RD is fine I guess he died full of glee? Nergaal (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you read the preliminary findings of his death, his battle with drug use and time spent in rehab, you might find your comment was in poor taste. Just sayin... 204.111.20.10 (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose A tragic death, but I think there is a difference between "star of a major TV series" and "widely recognised as a very important figure" in the field of television. If anyone can provide evidence that he was widely regarded as such, I will reconsider. Neljack (talk) 07:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that it is borderline. However, as evidentary information I'll point to Montieth being part of the cast that won the 2009 Screen Actors Guild award for Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Comedy Series (also nominated in 2009, 2011 and 2012) and his People's Choice Award nomination for Favourite TV Actor last year. Personally, whilst I can ignore the Ensemble ones to a great extent, it is the People's Choice Award nomination which I consider to be the breakthrough as it shows individual recognition by a major awards program. Not that I would say every nominee would qualify, but certainly I think if any from the previous year's awards died then I think they would. Not really posting to argue the point, but just adding those so that you may consider them. :) Miyagawa (talk) 07:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Of course, one of the difficulties is that "very important" is rather vague: just how important does the person need to be? I think I probably apply higher standards for RD than most people. I guess I'd regard him as important, but not very important. He hasn't won any individual awards and I'm not convinced that he will have a major enduring impact (sadly, his career was all too short). :) Neljack (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support pending update (for RD) The first section has a cite needed tag on it. That needs to be cleared up. Miyagawa (talk) 07:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for RD He was well-known, and the nature of his death is attracting news attention. Canuck89 (what's up?) 07:53, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
- Support for RD - It seems that the suddenness of this death is helping it to make headlines; but the subject was indeed very well-known. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for RD. Not watching Glee I'd never heard of him, but its clear I'm in a minority on this. It's the most read story on BBC News currently for example. Thryduulf (talk) 09:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for RD. His notability combined with the nature of his death merits posting on RD. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Not really notable enough for the frontpage. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a textbook definition of what should not go to RD; in fact, this is essentially similar to a death of the longest living person, as long as RD is concerned, where the death is the news and not the life of the dead person. Either this gets a proper full blurb, or not at all. –HTD 13:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The actor is very minor relative to the entire entertainment industry (with really only one well-established role to his name). Yes, a shame to lose him at 31 but nowhere near the level of importance that RD should be reserved for. --MASEM (t) 13:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Posted Recent deaths space is free. -- tariqabjotu 14:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for RD as per Canuk89. --LukeSurl t c 16:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose doesn't meet any of our normal criteria, death itself is unexpected but not otherwise newsworthy. μηδείς (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as Medeis says, not sure how this guy meets our RD criteria? Can anyone expand? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose RD. A sudden death like this is not what the RD section was intended for, and should only be for a full blurb, which I oppose as well. SpencerT♦C 19:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shooting of Trayvon Martin verdict
Nominator's comments: Conclusion of what has been a very high-profile trial, at least here in the United States. ----Bongwarrior (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Opppose A badly botched political trial, with a local judge incompetent to offer felony murder, and who admitted the victim's marijuana use as justifying his murder. Meanwhile the Bulger and various other murders were of far greater notability. μηδείς (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose just another media-made sensation --Երևանցի talk 05:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Good luck This story was ferociously shot down in April 2012, when Zimmerman was charged. Part of the reason for that was because it was not at the verdict stage, but that was only a small part. As you're starting to see already, a significant number of people see this whole thing purely as a media circus. Indeed, while coverage of this story was non-stop on U.S. news networks during the trial, I'd submit that the interest in this story was greater in the leadup to Zimmerman's arrest than in the leadup to Zimmerman's acquittal, and therefore we missed the boat on posting the important element of this story. The sole piece of evidence I have to suggest otherwise is the astronomical number of page views the Shooting of Trayvon Martin article got yesterday. -- tariqabjotu 05:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - While I have been watching this case and been keeping up with it, I have to agree with Yerevanci that it is just a media-made sensation. The main reason for the large amount of page views is because this case has been in the news quite a bit. A lot of innocent people are killed everyday in places like Chicago, Illinois and those shootings are ultimately no different. The only difference is the shootings in Chicago only get local coverage (excluding the Hadiya Pendleton shooting) whereas the shooting of Trayvon Martin gets national news coverage. Andise1 (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support This case wasn't an ordinary "media-made sensation" trial like a Casey Anthony or a Michael Jackson, or any missing white woman syndrome here. It was high-coverage for a reason here, with the result likely heading to the higher courts, but I'll say from a judicial standpoint one of the most important state trials so far this century. With the result, it has serious implications in the United States, especially when it comes with the controversial issues of killing or hurting someone in self-defense as there is no clear definition on where that issue stands and to a lesser extent race relations and stereotyping. Secret account 05:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The US principle of double jeopardy makes it nearly impossible for the state to appeal a not guilty verdict (generally they have to show something like jury tampering or witness coercion). As a result it is very unlikely there will be any appeal. This case is almost certainly done. The result might lead to legislative action to update the laws, but that is entirely speculative at this point. Dragons flight (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support if there's rioting on the streets, otherwise, meh. –HTD 06:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Sensational murder trials that get lots of attention in the country where they happen are quite common. They are largely of national interest and have little wider impact. It would take something highly exceptional for one to warrant posting. Neljack (talk) 07:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - This is still pretty localised domestic news. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, I really don't see how this is considered all that notable, at least outside of USA. If you really want a trial in the news, there was few days ago when Sergei Magnitski was posthumously convicted of tax evasion in Russia. I don't think there is a big controversy that Magnitsky trial is more notable out of these two. 84.248.131.49 (talk) 08:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose, just another murder case. --Njardarlogar (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In fairness, I don't think it's just another murder case. There's a whole lot of stuff there about gun control and race relations. But these all figure in localised forms specific to the state of Florida. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The blurb would have to explain its relevance for the main page. The verdict, as far as I can tell, concerns just another murder case; exactly as the blurb formulates it. Should the verdict have any consequences, then perhaps some of these could be significant enough. But this particular verdict alone isn't. --Njardarlogar (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd guess WP:NPOV rules would bar a blurb essentially saying "ZOMG AMERICANS WERE HOOKED ON THIS TRIAL" or in a widely televised criminal trial...". –HTD 12:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per the reasons given above. If there are effects resulting from this(riots, etc.) we can revisit the issue. 331dot (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Top news in English language media, not only from the US but also BBC, Independent, Irish Times, CBC, ... Therefore the "only domestic, only national interest" claims are not true. ITN is designed to help users find articles whose subjects actually are in the news. It is unimportant if Wikipedia editors agree that this should be in the news or not. --RJFF (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- According to this list it is one of the purposes of ITN. It's not our job to mindlessly reflect various publications, we make our own evalutations on what we choose to put in our news section. --Njardarlogar (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that media empires and ulterior agendas do exist, we cannot simply post every headline news that's in the papers. Wikipedia is an independent force and is under no obligation to report on the main page everything that's making headlines nor should it. Last thing we need is another website subjected to sensationalisation created by the media for financial purposes. YuMaNuMa Contrib 12:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - per RJFF. There are a lot of wider implications here: the "Stand Your Ground" law, Florida and US race relations, the nature of gun laws, the irregularities of the trial, the ongoing repercussions and the overwhelming news coverage. I usually ignore items I feel are tabloid in nature, but this story is iconic, and ITN-worthy. Jusdafax 12:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Then these things need to be implicated by the blurb, and any impact this verdict is thought to have must not be mere speculation; but generally accepted to be real. If it is not thought to change anything or reinforce status quo beyond what is normal for a verdict of similar sort, it is just another murder case. --Njardarlogar (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose at present time. The case, regardless of how the verdict was to be handed down, was certain to face additional legal challenges, and it looks like there will be, at least as a civil case. It is an importance case about race and stereotyping but the impact is unclear yet. (And while fortunate we didn't have riots like the 1992 Los Angeles riots, the fact there wasn't any makes the impact of this case for ITN less likely.). --MASEM (t) 13:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Secret said it well. Anyone in here who claims this was just another murder, or it's just a media hyped story, really doesn't know anything at all about American society. The reasons why this case has been followed with such interest, and generated so much controversy, are beyond obvious. Some people have already listed them, but it's frankly disgraceful people even need to do that to counter such obviously false grounds for opposition, such as this completely made up claim that it's only been a domestic story (and even if it had been, right at the top of the page it clearly states, "do not complain about an event only relating to a single country"). Mission Twelve (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, because kids don't get killed in other countries, right? Media made it a huge deal from nothing. The US is a country if 300 million and I'm sure racially controversial murders take place every week and media happens to choose the "best" ones. --Երևանցի talk 18:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. We really need to stop refusing to put obviously notable stuff on the main page. Was it a media-made sensation? Maybe, but who cares if it was? It was definitely a major news story, and every news outlet in the country considered this to be very very newsworthy. We're an encyclopedia; we're a tertiary source. The secondary sources' opinions are already in. Just like they were with DOMA, just like they were with countless other huge stories that either didn't make it onto the main page, or barely got enough !votes to. Let's stop second-guessing the media to support whatever biases we have about what warrants news coverage (I forgot that The New York Times is a "sensationalistic" source), and do our fucking jobs. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 17:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not so much that this is a notable story, but its consistency with other trial cases at ITN. Everyone fully expects more court efforts to come about so there will be more legal challenges and thus this isn't the end of the story. The acquittal doesn't change anything about common law nor change anything about race in the US (since it was limited to Florida). It didn't cause the riots that some had suspected with the acquittal. Ergo, it's not as a major a trial result as we would normally want to see before ITN posting. --MASEM (t) 17:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "More court efforts"? Huh? Under double jeopardy rules, this is almost definitely the end of any criminal charges against Zimmerman. And I don't think it has to be a major trial result. It's a major trial, and it's as relevant now as it'll ever be. If there are Constitutional challenges against Stand Your Ground, or legislative efforts, then we can cover those separately. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 18:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The killer can be sued civilly for wrongful death and under federal civil rights charges as he killed his victim acting as a town watchman with tacit approval of the government. μηδείς (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional support since this is the final verdict on a very high profile case, but only if this leads to a large public reaction or some sort of protests. SpencerT♦C 18:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Sadly the media is taking this and running a muck with it. It's become far more notable than it really should and has taken a spot as major news. People want to know about this and everything behind it. Just look at social media outlets, they exploded last night when the verdict was announced. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This has become international news. It was on the national news in Australia this morning. Elements that make it notable internationally are the carrying of handguns (something about America that's seen as weird elsewhere) and the race issue (seen as an American thing too, though Australia hasn't been too kind to its original citizens). Protest marches are being reported. It seems from some of the posts above that some would just like it to go away. It hasn't. It's big. And I doubt if it will be the end of this matter. HiLo48 (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - The story is definitely "In the News".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose. I didn't post when this originally came up because I expected this to be thrown down, as per conventional opinion re: overly sensational trials. This is, of course, no different. It is a relatively basic murder trial blown up by the American media to turn into a racial frenzy bloated with misinformation and conjecture. The only reason I see why we would post this is due to mass protest, which was the reasoning behind other trial outcomes, something that did not occur here. With that said, it would be foolish to entertain this. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
World's largest building opens in China
--HiLo48 (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if we've covered this before, but it has just opened according to the article I have referenced. HiLo48 (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Something more than the current stub would help establish notability. Otherwise it is basically a bunch of smaller projects within one curtain. μηδείς (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support if sufficiently updated & expanded. While not as high-profile as world's tallest building, world's largest building is still a pretty important record. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Stale Article states building opened June 28. 3142 (talk) 04:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per ThaddeusB, with same if too. 84.248.131.49 (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose stale, our own article says it opened on 1 July. Not "in the news" then, is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, yes it is. It was in my daily paper yesterday. HiLo48 (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure you know what I mean. It's not "in the news" here if it occurred 12+ days ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
July 13, 2013 (2013-07-13) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
UN peacekeepers killed
Nominator's comments: According to ABC News, the attack was "the deadliest ever single attack on the international force in the country." Andise1 (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Article would need a substantial section of prose on this particular attack. --LukeSurl t c 16:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
China uranium plant
Nominator's comments: An ITN-worthy example of the role of public discourse in China nowadays. Work is needed on the article update. Formerip (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. This has only been cancelled by the "local government", leading to fears it may only be a postponement. It's pretty obvious that if this plant was deemed necessary to the Chinese economy (and if as is claimed it would fuel half the countries nuclear power stations, it seems they might), then the national Communist Party will pretty obviously think nothing of overriding the local government, protests or no protests. As the article states, public protesting is not unheard of in China. It is yet to be seen if this is a watershed moment thought. Mission Twelve (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I'm not seeing the significance here. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
July 12, 2013 (2013-07-12) (Friday)
Armed conflict and attacks
Business and economics
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
RD Pran
Regards, theTigerKing 17:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The veteran Bollywood actor had featured unanimously in ITN this year for receiving the highest Indian cinema award. He was a respected name in the Indian cinematic space.Regards, theTigerKing 17:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for RD. Clearly a significant person in Indian cinema, but I'm not seeing anything that suggests suitability for a blurb. Thryduulf (talk)
- Obviously support on notability (for RD) - however, the orange tag needs addressed and the death section needs more than just one sentence (e.g. reactions) before it can be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose article has a single sentence about his death, no reactions, and numerous style issues like dead links, is this what we want to feature on the main page? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support RD if article is cleaned up. --LukeSurl t c 17:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- support RD but after cleaning up and updating article..-Nizil (talk)
- Support for RD: I sense that one of the socks of User:Shrik88music has been on the article. Hence the mess and unnecessary statistics. I have reverted the article to possibly best version of past. But dead links still remain. Have added one comment on death by PM. Will add more. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support upon article cleanup. Clearly notable in his field. 331dot (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Marked as Ready All the dead links have been removed. The artcile has a small section on his death. Tributes would definitely pour in today as he had died last night IST. I guess we don't have to make the article a tributary of sort. Lets do justice with his body of work Period.Regards, theTigerKing 02:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support this is definitely updated. μηδείς (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The career sections are largely unreferenced (and orange tagged). Fixing dead links is nice and all, but unreferenced material is a much more serious problem than a link no longer working. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for RD Pending citations being added - there is a lot of uncited information in the article currently. Miyagawa (talk) 07:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT The website in the cite section is under construction (as suggested in the home page). Hence, the dead links. The article had the same links while it was posted in the ITN (when Pran was awarded with the Dada Saheb award). I believe we can post the article in RD for now. Could not find a replacement of the dead links in the web. AFAIK.Regards, theTigerKing 19:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- tags Technically, the movies that are linked to in the career section serve as primary sources, as long as he was credited in them, which seems highly likely. Tagging the whole sections is neither helpful for the article or here, individual claims that need support should be tagged. If the full ITN blurb was justified, it seems pointy to oppose the ticker at this point. I am going to remove the section tags, and ask that specific claims be tagged instead. μηδείς (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As you like. Some tags added. Also, this article is very poorly written and very poorly formatted. "Various celebrities have congratulated him on this occasion...", "Amitabh was going through a bad patch in his career", "continued to cast him in pivotal roles", "Pran's performance as the negative character was very much appreciated in Dilip Kumar starrers"... do those who support this actually read the article? It's appalling. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] Brétigny-sur-Orge train crash
EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 16:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment you are supposed to include references in the nomination, the BBC are currently stating seven dead with numerous injuries. In any case, we'll need to see how this develops, but it's a mild support right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose six fatalities, just one of those things, unless someone finds out it was a bomb or something, this isn't particularly notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support subject to article expansion. I came here to nominate this. It's still very early days so there isn't much to the article yet, but it's clear this is a major incident (although the BBC are presently saying 7 rather than 10 dead) and more details will emerge. Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose unless this develops greatly in notability (crime suspect, death toll exceeds 20, notable victim, edifice harmed) it just amounts to a sad, but routine accident, not worthy of featuring, if even encyclopedic recognition. μηδείς (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean "routine"? This is the first significant railway accident in France since the Zoufftgen train collision in 2006. Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My position is quite clear, there is no point in us detailing every 7-death transportation accident. Why do you not instead explain what is encyclopedic about this, since the burden lies entirely on the nominator to show actual notability? μηδείς (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your position is clear, but your reasoning is not. We indeed do not write encyclopaedia articles about every 7-death transportation accident because there are thousands of such road accidents each year. This isn't a road accident though, it's a high-speed derailment of a passenger train at a busy station (which is very rare), also rare are fatal railway accidents in not just France (first since 2006, deadliest since 1998) but most of the rest of the world too - the Fairfield train crash in Connecticut resulted in 0 deaths for example. Thryduulf (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Medeis has made her position clear, no point in chasing it. Six deaths in an accident in France with nothing more to report isn't that notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support once article is ready. Mjroots (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Disasters with this sort of death toll are pretty common, and we certainly don't post most of them. I'm not seeing anything sufficiently special about it to warrant posting. Neljack (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Most people are not going to know how to pronounce "Brétigny-sur-Orge" and this has caused no traffic jams in the San Francisco area. Formerip (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose unless there is something else notable about this (terrorism, criminal act, etc.). 331dot (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Query. What is the history of posting similar train accidents on ITN? Have such accidents been regularly posted, or rarely posted? Abductive (reasoning) 03:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Just like the Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214 crash which was covered ITN, this is a rare and therefore notable event. The number of dead and critically injured people is similar. Cochonfou (talk) 07:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Plane crashes are rarer events than train crashes; we just posted the Lac-Megantic wreck. This was the first fatal plane crash of a large airliner in the US since 2001 and only the second accident involving a 777(which first flew in 1995). 331dot (talk) 08:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And this is the first fatal train wreck in France since 2006. Again, these events look very comparable in magnitude to me. It is not every day that a Boeing airliner crashes, and it is not every day that a train from SNCF wrecks. Both have excellent safety records. Cochonfou (talk) 09:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comparing Template:Aviation_accidents_and_incidents_in_2013 to Template:2013_railway_accidents, it looks like train accidents may be rarer that plane accidents (assuming both templates are reasonably well maintained). Formerip (talk) 11:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable train accidents arerarer than notable plane accidents, especially as it seems that articles about borderline notable (and frankly non-notable) air accidents are created more frequently than articles about similar rail accidents. The Lac-Megantic disaster and this accident happening so close together is completely coincidental and is no more relevant to the notability of either any more than the Asiana crash has any bearing on the notability of either. Thryduulf (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: rare major disaster, worst train accident in France in 25 years. -Zanhe (talk) 08:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This is very similar to Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214 which was posted, I will find it extremely odd if this is now decided to not be worthy of posting. 84.248.131.49 (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. It shouldn't even need explaining really. If an air crash like Flight 214 is the bar for inclusion for disasters, then a multiple fataility train crash in an advanced western European country like France easily has the same level of significance. The intensity of media coverage is the same, that's for sure. Anyone who thinks these sort of rail disasters are just a routine part of life in that part of the world, but fatal plane crashes for modern airlines/ers in modern airspaces are extremely rare, is just completely delusional. I am amazed people even have to think about it. But there you go. This is apparently a place where a human powered helicopter is a huge achievement, but landing a drone on a carrier is no big deal, and where Wimbledon is an awesome spectacle of top level sport, but the Lions are just a bunch of exhibitionists just playing sport for a laugh. Mission Twelve (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Notable rail accidents are actually rarer than notable air accidents; the only difference being that we have an active number of editors at enwiki who believe that every incident that doesn't result in a plane landing normally is worthy of an article. They're wrong. Black Kite (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Fatal train crashes in developed countries such as France are rare. –Randor1980 (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Posted -- tariqabjotu 18:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rare F1 Mercedes Sells For Record £19.6m ($26.4m)
Nominator's comments: World record. Noteworthy car. Noteworthy price. Noteworthy user(s). Nice change from all the death and despair that is in ITN (that is not ITN/R) currently. Broke records for: Most valuable motor car ever sold at auction, Most valuable Formula 1 racing car ever sold, Most valuable Mercedes-Benz --Torqueing (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt more than a one line update can be made for this... so oppose -- Ashish-g55 16:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like DYK. μηδείς (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Medeis, would make a fine DYK, but not really ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Apart from the fact it's in the news? :) It's broken 3 world records, it's newsworthy for as long as people drive cars and auctions sell things Torqueing (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree selling an historic car for a large sum is newsworthy, but then again, so is the highest 10th wicket partnership in Test cricket which was a world record broken yesterday (along with another world record for highest score by a number 11 on his debut). It's all about how this would appeal to our global audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We have posted other auction records (on art, for example). However, I have to agree with Ashish that the inability for an extensive update is a concern. If the article was substantial improved in some way (either general expansion or finding a way to write about the auction in a meaningful way [how did it come up for sale, for example?]) I would support. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, if it's broken some record for auction, then that should be included in the blurb, otherwise it's "car sells for loads of money". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose – aside from being a complete waste of money (end bias opinion), what makes this ITN material? Sure it may be something rather notable within the realm of racing and auctions, but that's about it. There's nothing outside a line of X car sold for X cash and no real world repercussions, positive or negative. As stated before, it's something more worthy of DYK than ITN. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The same could be said for sculptures (4 February 2010) and photographs (15 November 2011), these made it for ITN because people paid "silly" money for them and you saying these are more significant to cars. Donnie Park (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Had I noticed them then, I would have given a similar oppose. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support – We had records for arts, sculptures and photographs appearing on ITN, so why can't record for cars appear or do I smell double standards, or the works of several people is insignificant to the so called expressive work of one man. Not forgetting car auction records have always been big news and these record breakers are never forgotten, thats by the public and motoring press; example Bugatti Royale (1987), James Coburn's Ferrari 250 GT Spider California SWB (2008) and Ferrari 250 Testa Rossa (2009 and 2011). Donnie Park (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "car auction records have always been big news these record breakers are never forgotten" – That's all fine and dandy, but what's so important about it? It's a car that's really expensive that has no major impact aside from that guy's bank account. I don't see any notability outside of the the car and auction world. I don't consider something that pertains to such a small and specific realm of the media as "big news," but I could just be ignorant since I don't care much for cars. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "I could just be ignorant since I don't care much for cars" - you made your claim there, the same there as I couldn't care less much for art and sculptures either, I'm not a supporter of giving lottery and government grants to keep these arts to public hands and very very few cars received handouts. "I don't consider something that pertains to such a small and specific realm of the media as "big news,"", it may not be as big as people rioting, dying in plane crashes, people winning some big event, what about that Coburn's California, it managed to appear in Top Gear (link below), my point is to a car person, people remember these cars for a long period of time. Donnie Park (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Donnie Park. 331dot (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose in case that's not clear. Get back to me about double standards when they hang this in the Louvre. μηδείς (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-
- It's simply offensive when you accuse people of a double standard. I know a lot of people I often disagree with here who go out of their way not to have one. You'd have been much better off making an objective case in favor first, rather than throwing accusations. μηδείς (talk) 01:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I think there are two differences between this car and an artwork. First, there have been artworks that sold for more than it. Examples include the Guennol Lioness, an 8 cm tall ancient statue, for $57.2 million, and the The Card Players for a quarter of a billion dollars. Second, art has more depth of meaning to humanity than a vehicle designed to improve a company's image. Abductive (reasoning) 03:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you have no understanding of the word "art" Torqueing (talk) 06:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, thus "art" is a highly subjective subject. What people consider "modern art" I consider messes half of the time. People also consider cars a form of art, I see them as modes of transportation. Conversely, people see anime as plain cartoons, I see it as a form of art. Perception of art differs greatly from person to person so criticizing someone for having no understanding of what "art" is basically amounts to telling them they're not entitled to their opinions. Not that I'm claiming such were your intentions, however. That's just how it appears to me. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You made the same argument as I did. Artistic merit is in the eye of the beholder Torqueing (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Blurb at present says 20 pounds. Order of magnitude is missing. 64.201.173.145 (talk) 12:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland approves life-saving abortion
Nominator's comments: Seems like a major development. Even though not passed as a law, its one of those incredibly controversial topics where this kind of progression is a big news in itself IMO. Either article can be used... ---- Ashish-g55 13:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lean oppose. While significant for Ireland, legalized abortion in any form is not a unique thing in the world. Many US States have taken the opposite route (passing more restrictions on abortion). 331dot (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article makes it seem as though this is not yet a final decision, as the Seanad still needs to pass it and the President needs to sign it into law. SpencerT♦C 15:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it's certainly newsworthy, it's incredibly significant if it passes in law. We need to wait until that happens, I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What is actually meant by this? An abortion where the mother is not in immediate danger? Even the Catholic church allows surgery that might kill the baby if the mother is in immediate life-threatening danger. μηδείς (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe its not so much about health but suicide. So if mother is deemed suicidal Ireland will allow abortion. A bit weird but major development for ireland since they got much tougher rules against abortion -- Ashish-g55 18:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I suspected that might be the case, in which case I oppose as written. μηδείς (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This needs a much better blurb. What is obviously of interest here to everybody is whether abortions will be harder or easier to get. The blurb doesn't tell me. (And I, like most readers, am not going to go clicking on random links in the hope of finding out.) We must summarise the significant change(s) in the blurb. HiLo48 (talk) 04:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted to RD] RD: Alan Whicker
Nominator's comments: Television broadcaster whose career spanned nearly six decades, and whose award-winning show Whicker's World ran for 29 years. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Long career and recognized with some awards and a CBE. 331dot (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per 331dot. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - article is pretty short right now. I would hope more could be said about someone notable enough to post on RD after a 60 year career. Death update is sufficient.--ThaddeusB (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, he did spend 29 of those years hosting the same show. Can you pinpoint the omissions please, and I'll do my best to fill them in. Otherwise I think we're well over the line for RD inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I would have opposed on importance, but this documentary, which I always thought was about David Attenborough, makes me withhold opposition. μηδείς (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A neutral is about as good as you can expect from an American who has thought he was Attenborough for five decades. μηδείς (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Shame really. Some Americans may take the opportunity to re-educate themselves as to his impact and legacy. Others may not I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How? It's not our fault he wasn't big enough to break into the American market. :) I'll gladly watch his best-of, if the BBC hosts it on line and doesn't put a blackout on American viewing. Until then, let me know what you Brits think of John Facenda or Charles Kuralt. I didn't think so. μηδείς (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Between "let me know" and "I didn't think so", you didn't give us much of a chance, did you? ;) (And they're both well beyond ITN inclusion)... (And I suspect a BBC blackout on "real" news broadcast to America is to prevent mass panic.....) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL at last bit :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You proved my point, TRM. While I am willing to be neutral about this chap, you are happy to put down Facenda who was perhaps the most recognized voice in radio and TV at the time of his death, known as "the voice of god" and of the NFL. So, I didn't think so, and I was right. As for real news, do you mean Chinese birds flying into Scottish windmills? μηδείς (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not really, the two fellows you noted died a decade or so beyond this nomination (I didn't "put them down", just noted that they weren't eligible for ITN/C). You know they died years ago, don't you?). How is that helpful to this nomination? And no, I didn't mean birds flying into windmills, I meant massive offshore windfarms providing vital renewable power to hundreds of thousands of people. Perhaps you missed the London Array? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I assumed you were making some comment beyond staleness, which I thought was too obvious to mention. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to apologise. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Notable travel writer & reporter, 70-year career. Mjroots (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Neither having a long career nor winning awards establishes that he was "widely recognised as a very important figure" in the field of television. I will oppose unless further evidence is provided about his impact and reputation. Neljack (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So the Queen made him a CBE just for the heck of it? I don't think she gives those out to anyone that comes along. How many broadcasters have worked 70 years? (How many people in any industry have worked 70 years?) In order to make it 70 years he couldn't have been too ordinary. 331dot (talk) 00:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are rather over-estimating the significance of a CBE. By my count 107 people were given CBEs in the Queen's Birthday Honours List last month. With two honours lists a year, we can estimate than about 2000 people have been awarded the CBE just in the last decade. We're certainly not going to post all their deaths; I would think that only a very small minority of them would qualify for RD. Even most knights or dames (who are above a CBE in the honours system) would not qualify. Incidentally, the Queen does not actually decide who gets CBEs. Neljack (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure she doesn't pick each and every person on the list, but I'm sure if there was someone on it that she felt did not meet the criteria, they wouldn't get one. It's still recognition from the government that someone was notable enough to be recognized. 331dot (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true: she didn't think Mick Jagger should be knighted, but he was - she was constitutionally bound to accept Tony Blair's advice to knight him. Neljack (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, no evidence presented that he was "widely recognized as a very important figure" inside his home country, and certainly not anywhere else. Abductive (reasoning) 03:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense, at least the first assertion. People aren't referred to as "legends" without being widely recognised as important. Please read the sources provided and the reaction to his death before making erroneous statements. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Jesus Christ. His obituary in the Telegraph is titled "Alan Whicker: One of television's defining figures", and the by-line is "Television has lost one of the defining figures of its early golden age with the passing of Alan Whicker". It goes on to say he was "instantly recognisable to a generation" with a "presenting style that has influenced every maker of a travelogue since" which "every significant presenter post-Whicker owes something to". Why is nonsense like this Abductive person's clearly totally ignorant comment even allowed in here? Mission Twelve (talk) 13:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Spoken like a true provincial. Nobody outside of your country has ever heard of this Whicker. Abductive (reasoning) 15:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you determine that by asking every human on the Earth outside of the UK? You have no way of knowing if that is true. Further, "Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive."331dot (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and which Whicker have they all heard of, I'd like to know. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Jesus H. Christ, One of the most important TV figures of the last 60 years. Black Kite (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support, although obviously immortalized, many years ago, in Whicker Island. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment looks ready to go, a single unsubstantiated oppose, and plenty of support. Plus a lot of work done on the article. Should be enough for two words on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Posted to RD --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First-ever drone landing on a carrier
Nominator's comments: The landing has always been the hard part of operating a plane from a carrier. It has also successfully taken off from the carrier. Drones are the future of aerial warfare, and carriers are a central part of aerial warfare, so this is a significant first. Thue (talk) 08:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Thue (talk) 08:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - The future is here, all right. Jusdafax 09:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Notable technological advance being covered by news sources. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. This doesn't seem to have involved any significant technological barrier, just getting a machine that can land itself to land itself on something new. Formerip (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's new when the landing site is moving in all directions as a ship is. Computers could not account for that until recently. It's not as easy as it sounds. This is also likely the future of aerial warfare. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I'm always sceptical of publicly announced advances in military technology. What we really have here is the first publicly announced landing of a drone on a carrier. What makes any of you think that they haven't been doing it for quite some time? And that far more dramatic advances aren't happening on other fronts. This is managed, manufactured news. It's not real. HiLo48 (talk) 12:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The world press would seem to disagree, given it's news in most places. All technology is practiced, designed and tested before formal attempts at accomplishing its function. The fact that it's military technology we're talking about here shouldn't disqualify it. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- By that line of argument, almost any first would no longer be news, since somebody might have potentially have done it in secret. I have seen no hints that the US have been operating drones from carriers before now. Giving that thousands of people work on each carrier, it would also have been very hard to keep secret for long. Thue (talk) 13:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- An aircraft carrier is also kind of hard to hide. 331dot (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 331dot - The world press gets excited about Hollywood romances and the subsequent babies. We don't record them here. So simply saying the media is excited is never enough to justify posting something. Thue - I'm talking about what is obviously a managed news release. The real audience of this sort of stuff is the US's enemies, and perhaps it's own citizens if they somehow feel some ownership of this. It's propaganda. Maybe we could describe it as "US military announces that it has successfully landed...". We will never know the real truth and details about military advances. This is an incremental advance, not a revolutionary step. HiLo48 (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is "in the news" so "excitement" of the world press is a consideration.331dot (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, no need to parrot military PR. Abductive (reasoning) 16:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The public landing of a drone on a carrier, whether or not it has been done in private before, sets the world on notice that the U.S. may not be requiring airbases in neighboring countries to launch certain surveillance, attacks, and covert actions. It should also warn kids dreaming of growing up to be fighter pilots that they need a new dream. Wnt (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said above, it's propaganda, and it has obviously worked on you. HiLo48 (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not "propaganda" if it is true on its face. 331dot (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All military press releases are propaganda, if only by the selective nature of what they choose to release. When did you last see a military press release about something costing billions that didn't work? HiLo48 (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I read about the last failed test of the US missile defense system in the news. 331dot (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain "propaganda" in this context. Are you saying a drone can't land on a carrier? I recognize there is an incremental commercialism here in that the hook links to an article which names the company making the drone, rather than linking to a general article on drone aircraft which might also fairly be updated based on such news. I would welcome such a change in focus, but I don't see that point rising to the level of "propaganda". Wnt (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose infinitely more important than a bunch of fans in the Thames estuary, but still, incremental only. μηδείς (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose far less important than providing electricity for half a million homes, and still just something that's not actually that impressive or newsworthy. Despite what vox populi think, drones can fly (and land) autonomously just as well as civilian aircraft. This is no big deal at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Not convinced this is a sufficiently important step to warrant posting. The previous inability to land on carriers doesn't seem to stopped drones being widely used. Neljack (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest that those who oppose this create a drone, its avionics, and program it to land on a carrier before they state this is "not revolutionary" or "not a big deal". If it was easy, it would have been done decades ago. Their use will greatly increase in the future once drones' range is no longer limited by requirement of land-based air bases. 331dot (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll do that if you agree to crash a train and have an abortion. Formerip (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Train crashes and abortions are not unique and first-time events, as they have been done for numerous decades. 331dot (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. But, if it's reasonable to ask editors to perform any feat they oppose for ITN, then I am surely not being unreasonable. Formerip (talk) 01:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I was using rhetoric to make a point; that this isn't as easy or unimportant a feat as people claim it is. I didn't expect anyone to go out and start designing their own drones. 331dot (talk) 07:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I was also using rhetoric. I don't believe anyone has said "I could do that". But the fact that something requires specialist skills and knowledge is not enough to make it suitable for posting. Formerip (talk) 11:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true, if it wasn't "in the news", which this is. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In actual fact, reusable UASs are designed to be able to land entirely autonomously should they go off-tether. This is simply getting it to land on a very slowly moving object. No big deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. This is quite obviously both a major advance in a cutting edge technical field, and something that will be of huge strategic significance, a step change in the military capability of any nation that currently uses drones. The fact that it is 'military news' is precisely because no civilian organisation has anywhere near the kind of money it took to acheive this advance. It's really really depressing that these discussions seem to be allowed to happen in an environment where displaying total ignorance of basic facts like this is something to be celebrated. It is doubly depressing when you see an item like 'First human-powered helicopter' going up in a flash. I mean WTF? Sure it's a major achievement and deserves recognition on the main page maybe on the trivia angle and yes as a technological advance, but compared to this advance, it's nothing, and has no wider implications at all (I cannot see civilian helicopter manufacturers moving to this new power source, and neither can I see it having any impact on military strategy, except maybe by allowing microstates like Sealand to finally have an air force). Mission Twelve (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't give Sealand any ideas. ;) 331dot (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, especially with the human-powered helicoper comparison - that was (interesting) trivia, this has real consequences! The whole "how hard can landing on a carrier be" angle of some of the opposes had me going WTF. Doesn't everybody know that landing on a carrier is one of the hardest tasks in aviation? Thue (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, it's hard for a human. A computer just does the math(s) and the arrestor hook does the rest of the work. Besides, these drones can fly a lot slower than, say, an F-14, so the whole task is that much easier. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You clearly don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. Mission Twelve (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NSA backdoors
Nominator's comments: The fact that the USA has been giving access to such massive amounts of secret information, and lying about it, is surely ITN-worthy. Thue (talk) 08:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Should raise eyebrows, even jaded ones, worldwide. Jusdafax 08:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Snowden is likely going to be doing this sort of thing (releasing information) for a little while and I don't think we need to post every bit of information he releases. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The alternative is posting nothing, which is what we have been doing, even though it has been all over the front pages. I choose to suggest this item as standing out a bit from all the other revelations - I am not suggesting to post every little bit, but we should post just a few of the bigger stories. Thue (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion if most of his information was "little" the US Government wouldn't be pursuing him so vigorously. Everything he has is likely to be on this scale and we are not a Snowden ticker nor should we help him do what he wants to do (whether it is criminal or not). 331dot (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If everything he reveals is newsworthy, then I have no problem with being a Snowden news ticker. I don't see why we should stop posting noteworthy news just because it is coming from the same source, or because there is a lot of it. Thue (talk) 10:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowden himself is newsworthy, not each piece of information he chooses to release. We know he is going to be leaking information, just not what it is. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Opppose - As much as I personally wish to promote this, it's unreasonable to post every single leak that has emerged. In Australia, the same leaks have revealed that Australia's largest telco, Telstra along with its Hong Kong subsidiary have been hoarding information for the US government for the past 10 years. Either sticky or don't post anything at all. YuMaNuMa Contrib 09:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I could see a sticky for Snowden news. Count me as a supporter of that too. Jusdafax 10:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Telstra thing sounds insanely notable. If it is notable then it should be posted; it would be unreasonable not to. Post all the notable things. Thue (talk) 10:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the Telstra thing is not notable, as it is just the standard NSA tapping of all fibres coming into the US, which we have know of for some time. Thue (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose It's debatable how much he "reveals" is true (or at least provable). Microsoft deny his revelation ([13]) so until the facts are clear, I can't support this for ITN. CaptRik (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment his allegations are getting enough press that we at least could (and should IMO) post it as a "alleges" new items. Thue (talk) 10:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support but rework. With something this political, "reveals" is not going to cut it. That's a loaded term straight out of WP:WTA. Say that Snowden released documents that indicate... and be sure you're going exactly with what they say. Wnt (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose or sticky, we shouldn't keep giving prominence to this one story in English-language Wikipedia. A sticky would suffice. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Significant revelation. I agree with Thue that the fact we have posted previous stories about Snowden should not stop us from posting new ones that are sufficiently important. As I understand it, Microsoft does not deny that they cooperating with the US; it just claims that they were legally required to do so. The blurb does need to be made clearer though; I found it difficult to understand. Neljack (talk) 23:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] First human-powered helicopter
Nominator's comments: The historical overtones of such a "first flight" record makes it well suited for an encyclopedia. Thue (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Great item for an ITN blurb. International interest and quite different. Jusdafax 08:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Interesting, and different. CaptRik (talk) 10:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support First such flight, and won a prize established over 30 years ago, an interesting and historical story. --Bcp67 (talk) 11:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, but can we tweak the blurb to ... creating a working human-powered helicopter, or similar, as unsuccessful designs have been around for some time. An optimist on the run! 13:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If it isn't "working", then it isn't a human-powered helicopter, any more than my chair is a non-working human-powered helicopter. The word "working" is implicit and therefore unneeded. Thue (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support original blurb. Successful human-powered aircraft are rare, and winning a prize after 33 years is a significant achievement. Thryduulf (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Glad to learn about this here. Congratulations. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Needs a more thorough update. Right now it is just a couple sentences basically saying it was achieved. Surely there is more information about it than that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, since it was viewed as a challenge for 33 years. Abductive (reasoning) 16:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support My mother just told my nephew this weekend she'd fly up to Boston to see him if only she had wings. Now there's no excuse. μηδείς (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ready - I have updated human-powered helicopter with the details and adjusted the bolding accordingly. (It seems to be the better place to put the history of the project/technical details.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Target article looks like total trash. Maybe someone who voted "support" could have fixed it before we featured it on our main page. Perhaps we accept sub-stub articles these days. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It has a [citation needed], I've tried to fix up the crap prose and piss-poor referencing, more to do, but I'm surprised this suddenly became "main page quality". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, the target (bold) article was changed to human-powered helicopter. In that article, things are referenced, the prose is fine, and while it may not be super long it isn't "sub-stub" either. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Aha, I missed that. The new "target article" is also totally piss poor. Why are we linking these from our main page? Some people spend months trying to create great quality articles (FAs, FLs, FPs etc) and yet we seem happy to link totally crap articles from ITN/C. Bizarre. (Mildly embarrassing that so many supports for such a sub-standard article came about from ITN regulars who I thought could spot a poor article from a 100 yards..) Don't get me wrong, [14] is charming but I thought WP:V, NP:N, WP:RS were part of our thinking before we posted to the main page? I'm sure all those editors above who supported this for main page inclusion are aware of these and took them into account before supporting the "article" for main page inclusion........ The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We do not require FA quality or anything close to it (neither does OTD or DYK incidentally). The article certainly meets verifiability, meets notability, and uses reliable sources, so I have no idea what you are objecting to exactly. To my eye, it is roughly of the same quality as most articles we post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Bingo. To your "eye" it's ok. To my eye it's far from good. Perhaps we have different quality thresholds. Right now it's worse than a poor GA. You're happy with it on the main page? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we appear to have different standards. I feel we should be roughly on the same level as DYK for minimum quality, which would mean this article passes. If the standard was GA or higher, we wouldn't be posting much of anything: <1% of Wikipedia meets that standard. (Are any of the currently posted ITN articles at GA level?) --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the currently posted articles, excluding this one, the Asiana crash is rated "C" the others are rated "Start". So, we would have no news articles at all if we used GA or even B class threshold. ITN is a different beast to TFA - the former showcases our timeliness without claim to be our best work, TFA showcases our best work without claim about timeliness (yesterday's article was about a car that ceased production in 1967, the day before was about a 2004 hurricane). Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Pull article is appalling and an embarrassment to Wikipedia's homepage. I'm shocked we're happy to publicise this rubbish on our main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
July 11, 2013 (2013-07-11) (Thursday)
Armed conflict and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
[Closed] Earliest alphabetical text found
Nominator's comments: The earliest/oldest alphabetical text written was found in Jerusalem. Andise1 ( talk) 20:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]
- Wait We need a better source or more accurate scholarly reporting. The discovery only mentions the use of consonants, which is not an alphabetic script, which combines vowels and consonants. μηδείς (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The two cited sources only appear to say that this is the earliest alphabetic text found in Jerusalem, not the earliest in an absolute sense. Are there other stories that say it differently? Looie496 (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- According to our article alphabet there are earlier known Canaanite abjad samples from Egypt, and again, this is apparently an abjad without vowels, not a true alphabet. What is the original paper describing this find? μηδείς (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't think Jerusalem should be the article updated; probably a new article about the script itself, no? SpencerT♦C 02:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. What article is being nominated? I think Jerusalem is an FA and probably way too long already to encompass this story. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. It's a former FA and there is no need to burden it further with this story. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, a fragment of old writing being found in a given city is not what archeology is about. Abductive (reasoning) 16:27, 12 July 2013 (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.
[Posted] Luxembourg PM
Nominator's comments: Resignation of longest-serving European head of government. Will probably result in a snap election. --LukeSurl t c 09:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't seem to find out though whether he's stepping down right now, or whether he's resigning his government and he stays on as a caretaker PM until the next election, as happens so often with other European countries. I'd rather be clear on what's happening before I lend my support. Redverton (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the whole government who fall with him, [15] this seems to mean that there will be new elections (which is the prerogative of the Grand Duke, something which is more than just nominal power in this country). The legislature is effectively suspended at the current time, no new laws can be passed. I've changed the blurb to "government falls" rather than "PM resigns" because I'm not sure whether the PM's office is technically vacant or not in this inter-election period. There's certainly someone watching Jean-Claude Juncker who won't let the infobox be changed as such. --LukeSurl t c 21:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is his statement about the affair here. Unfortunately neither me nor Google can read Luxembourgish. Thryduulf (talk)
- Well the two 109 IP edits are mine. I forgot to log in. :P But other people have been reverting changes to the infobox as well. It certainly does seem like Juncker himself is stepping down right now, as opposed to the government in general, but I'm getting no indication at all on who'll succeed him. The PMship surely can't remain vacant until the elections, because it looks like they'll be in October. But whatever, the blurb change suggested is right, because at least then we know we're on solid ground. I've suggested an alternative blurb highlighting the huge length of service - it's perhaps one of the more interesting things about him that he's the longest serving head of gov in the world right now. Redverton (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Government falling in controversial circumstances is sufficiently significant. Juncker has also been a figure of importance on the European stage beyond what one would expect from the size of his country. Neljack (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Posting Secret account 06:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
July 10, 2013 (2013-07-10) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics
Sports
Science
- With still two years until its closest approach, NASA's New Horizons team releases the spacecraft's first high resolution view of the Pluto/Charon dwarf planet system. (JHUAPL)
[Posted] China floods
Nominator's comments: Heaviest rain/worst flooding in last 50+ years --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Clearly a major disaster. Neljack (talk) 04:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Neljack and our posting of the Alberta floods. Thryduulf (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Posted. Normally I would prefer to wait for a bit more discussion, but we're overdue for an update, the article looks good, and I don't anticipate much opposition to posting this. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as per above. --LukeSurl t c 08:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above comments. CaptRik (talk) 10:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] World's most obese country
| WP:SNOW
|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
|
Nominator's comments: This might not be worthy enough to be on ITN, but I decided to nominate it to get opinions from others. Andise1 (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support as long as an appropriate article is created/updated. Nergaal (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose silly social-science nanny-state busy-body-ism and borderline racist. We don't post which countries have the highest alcoholism or demographic extinction rates. μηδείς (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- would be really odd to post there are more fat people in mexico than US. will come out sounding like an achievement lol -- Ashish-g55 19:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - This story would not be up for consideration were it not for the fact that the U.S. was the former recordholder. Ergo, U.S. centric.--WaltCip (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Medeis. There are plenty of similar records broken every year, and I don't see why this one is particularly important for inclusion. Even if we agree on its importance that sets it apart from the numerous other records omitted, the fact this is appropriate nomination for ITN is challenging since, at first glance, it suits better for DYK.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- not DYK obviously not a new article, nor significantly expanded, but yes not ITN either. EdwardLane (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose and tomorrow, Liechtenstein? And next week Western Samoa? Not newsworthy at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Liechtenstein not a even country according to the CIA's World Fat Book. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose As per Medeis et. al.. Trivia, not highlighting Wikipedia content of particularly high quality Pedro : Chat 20:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose Is this a joke? WTF? !!!!!Nottruelosa (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nottruelosa - Erm, the nominator stated "This might not be worthy enough to be on ITN, but I decided to nominate it to get opinions from others". That's right up in Wikipedia philosophy of being bold yet seeking consensus. I personally oppose it, but there's no reason whatsoever to respond with "WTF is this a joke" sarcasm that helps no-one and disparages a good faith nomination. Pedro : Chat 21:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I don't think this is a US-centric issue, nor a joke nomination, but ITN isn't really for that sort of trivia. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fat chance. It seems that's only for the world's largest countries. lol. The jolly old CIA, who seem to be behind this lovely league table claims that American Samoa gets the prize. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Tabloid fodder. Not proper science. And where's Australia anyway? HiLo48 (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ... slouching along, just behind UK, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]
- Closing. The OP made a good faith nomination, but is taking enough abuse. I'm closing this per WP:SNOW. --Jayron32 22:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
[Closed] Big iceberg
| No consensus to post --Stephen 01:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
Nominator's comments: The blatant anti-Antarctic bias at ITN/C has gone on for far too long. Formerip (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You have every right to oppose, but don't make yourself seem so ignorant. Try to come up with a real reason. HiLo48 (talk) 07:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am fairly certain I am the only one who has. Can you explain yourself without the personal criticisms? μηδείς (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure there's a direct personal attack here. Suggest HiLo48 retracts it please. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No retraction is needed. μηδείς (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support-It seems B-15 was gargantuan, but this iceberg is nonetheless big. It makes an interesting news feature, however, general notability will be what precludes this from being posted (if that happens). QatarStarsLeague (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this a record size? SpencerT♦C 02:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, there are known to have been at least five larger naturally occurring icebergs, including one 15 times larger, but I think this is the largest to form for about a decade. Dragons flight (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - It's a chunk of ice. It isn't any kind of record, and I'm not seeing much news coverage or evidence of any real-world impact. If it does anything besides float around and melt, I'll reconsider. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Yes, It's big, but not the biggest. If it sticks around long enough to sink Clive Palmer's Titanic, I'll change my position. HiLo48 (talk) 07:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Not a record size. Not seeing widespread coverage yet, either. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely we have more interesting stories in the news this week than some big chunk of ice.--WaltCip (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose big bits of ice are falling off the ice caps every day. Perhaps we need a sticky to say the end of the world is nigh. Or that global warming is definitively real. Or that we need to stop destroying the planet. Or that we need to focus on step-change environmental issues which won't get laughed out of ITN. I'm not laughing, but we need something with massive impact to get past tennis and minor air crashes etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
July 9
|
|
July 9, 2013 (2013-07-09) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
|
July 8, 2013 (2013-07-08) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Religion
[Posted] Egyptian Republican Guard clashes
| Posted, no consensus on a sticky which should be raised as a separate discussion given a few days have passed. --Stephen 01:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
Nominator's comments: A big incident in its own right, and sadly very indicative of the present state of Egypt. --LukeSurl t c 11:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It would certainy be appropriate to have a blurb about Egypt on ITN. The Coup's article was removed due to an orange tag. I don't know if it will get fixed any time soon. However, maybe it would be better to use a sticky or something. --Tone 11:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But if we can't link to the article, we also can't link to it with a sticky. Formerip (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I support this in principle, but it needs a high-quality controversy-free article, which I think will be a big ask. Formerip (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I was gonna nominate this also :) The article needs a background section and some expansion I'll help as much as I can as this has significant ramification with the only islamic party that supported the coup stepping down from negotiations. There is some info that is in the 2013_Egyptian_coup_d'état#Aftermath section and the responses section that should be merged in the article too.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sticky? I would rather support a sticky for a week. this thing is going to go on for a while and posting a new blurb every other day isnt going to work out that well. We can re-evaluate when it starts to die down? -- Ashish-g55 13:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Blurb, Support Sticky agreed, too much going on to discuss separately. μηδείς (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Clashes of the army with Morsi forces are not a separate phenomenon, just a convenient number for journalists to hang their hat on while, say, Christians and women being killed are not included in the total. μηδείς (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- support blurb - even if a sticky was already up, this would be a big enough development (51 deaths now) to warrant a blurb. No objection to also posting a sticky to the Aftermath of the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- support blurb and sticky - Largest violent response to the coup d'état. Ongoing event that warrants a sticky. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support blurb per Luke and Thaddeus. I suggest we wait for a bit before deciding about a sticky - it's not really clear yet how often there will be major news stories from Egypt. Neljack (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support blurb per above. Neutral about sticky, I haven't been following the story closely enough to have a useful opinion at this point. Thryduulf (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Posted at least the blurb. No comment on the sticky. The Aftermath of the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état is not all that exciting at the moment, but perhaps it will see a flurry of updates. Maybe once the current coup-related story drops of ITN? -- tariqabjotu 22:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Video Available:File:احداث الحرس الجمهوري , اطلاق النيران من تجاه المؤيدين.webm--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ITN image sizes are too small to feasibly include video as the corresponding image. SpencerT♦C 02:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Change blurb the blur has misleading information. There is no evidence that the reported killed people are morsi supporters. Please change the blurb to be just people. I suggest "Over 50 people are killed in clashes at the Egyptian Republican guard headquarters"--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Many news outlets say that the people who got shot were demanding the return of Morsi. (It was not said very often that they were members of the Muslim Brotherhood.) That is the evidence that Wikipedia uses, and seems NPOV to me. Abductive (reasoning) 01:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
[Posted] Bodh Gaya Explosions
| Posted. --Tone 10:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
Nominator's comments: (Terrorist) attacks/blasts on a place of Very High importance. UNESCO World Heritage site and one of the holiest shrines of the world's fourth largest religion. --TheOriginalSoni (talk) 03:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Maybe we can add "a UNESCO World heritage site" in the blurb, if its not very crowded. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose No serious damage and no fatalities. Neljack (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wording seems strange. "Serial blasts", used in our blurb and in the article needs explanation, or different wording. And are we sure it was terrorism? (And not just some guy grumpy about something?) HiLo48 (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Article's lead edited now. I suppose we can wait for main page release till more clarity is available in the matter. Many suspects and motives are speculated as of now and waiting would be good. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The blurb should start with "A series of bombings" etc. "Nine serial blasts" implies there were nine series of bombings that took place, which is not the case. –Randor1980 (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I think that bombings of or at World Heritage Sites are notable, especially one related to one of the world's major religions. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, World heritage sites are notable, bombings there are not common. --Tone 11:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support i think the quantity of bombs sort of makes this notable regardless of the site. Being Bodh Gaya only adds to it. Article looks like its in decent shape as well. -- Ashish-g55 13:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support-One of the most-recognizable religious loci in the world. Very notable. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Support – This is a bit like blasts going off at St. Peter's Basilica, the London Synagogue, or Mecca. Definitely needs included.--Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 15:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't know what a "serial blast" is and I doubt many readers would instantly understand the sentence. Please use the standard "a series of blasts" or if necessary "Nine blasts". Also the use of lists in the main section of the article is strange. It should be in prose. See WP:PROSE. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- support but rewording of blurb needed. "Nine serial blasts" is not right "nine blasts" is ok. All blasts were not in temple premises. Unesco w h site should be mentioned. Please rewrite blurb.-Nizil (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have provided alternate blurb. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ready I have cleaned up some of the the grammar and commented out a few items whose meaning is too unclear to guess. I suggest we go with "Nine bombs explode at the Mahabodhi Temple, Buddhist site of the original Bodhi tree, injuring five." μηδείς (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Posted I've used a blurb somewhere between all the ones proposed. I also felt it was important to provide some geographic context (i.e. that the complex is in India). -- tariqabjotu 01:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with little correction "Nine explosions in the holy town of Mahabodhi Temple". It should have word Town and Temple.----- Bhooshan NPY (talk) 09:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
[Closed] Longest ever Semifinal at Wimbledon
| Nominated too late; no consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 23:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
Nominator's comments: World record in Tennis. Nottruelosa (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - This is pure sports trivia. Longest Wimbledon semifinal, but not the longest Wimbledon match ever. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - It is both the longest semifinal and beats the longest final which are the top two, therefore it is not simply trivia. Nottruelosa (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ?? Am i missing something here? Even if we ignore the fact that this is a stat about a semifinal, what's the point in putting anything about a semifinal after the final has happened. Close per SNOW -- Ashish-g55 19:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The only thing wrong with this nomination is that I waited too long, I should have put it here before the Wimbledon was over Nottruelosa (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- SNOW close. While this nomination was made in good faith, we already posted Wimbledon per ITNR. This story is just sports trivia and not a news story; I'm not seeing coverage by news outlets, just the tennis website listed here. This also is just about a semifinal; if it was the final, that could be included in the blurb; or if it was the longest tennis match of all time, then maybe. 331dot (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunate very late line call. Doesn't look that impressive against (or even appear in): Longest tennis match records#Men 4. Maybe next year? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose/Close as per 331dot. --LukeSurl t c 21:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I could have supported posting it when it happened with the understanding it would be replaced by the final results, but that ship has sailed obviously. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
July 7
|
|
July 7, 2013 (2013-07-07) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents,
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sport
References
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:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the news toolbox_(cropped).jpg)
