*'''Comment'''. The person is now known as [[Chelsea Manning]] (although the official name is still the same). <b>[[User:Mohamed CJ|<span style="font-family:Segoe Script;color:#ff0000">Mohamed CJ</span>]]</b> [[User talk:Mohamed CJ|<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold;color:#07517C">(talk)</span>]] 13:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. The person is now known as [[Chelsea Manning]] (although the official name is still the same). <b>[[User:Mohamed CJ|<span style="font-family:Segoe Script;color:#ff0000">Mohamed CJ</span>]]</b> [[User talk:Mohamed CJ|<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold;color:#07517C">(talk)</span>]] 13:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
::I think that the name should be changed on the Main Page if that's what the article title is now. [[User:The Moose|<font color="red">The Moose</font>]] [[User talk:The Moose|<font color="blue">is loose</font>]]! 14:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
::I think that the name should be changed on the Main Page if that's what the article title is now. [[User:The Moose|<font color="red">The Moose</font>]] [[User talk:The Moose|<font color="blue">is loose</font>]]! 14:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
:::That the article is titled that now is irrelevant. The move wasn't a result of a consensus-building process, but of a pair of editors' moving and a move-protection keeping it in place. It may be reversed, per [[WP:RMT]]. We especially have a problem on the Main Page, where it's a bit of a mouthful to clarify that Chelsea Manning is who everyone knows as Bradley Manning. -- '''[[User:Tariqabjotu|<font color="black">tariq</font><font color="gray">abjotu</font>]]''' 14:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: The man responsible for bringing the British Invasion (via the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, etc.) to the US music scene. Not influential enough (as a producer, not musician) for a standalone blurb, but reasonably significant for an RD line. --MASEM (t) 20:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Call me annoyingly over-sceptical if you like, and please set me straight if you have facts that say I'm wrong. I'm sensing that this guy was a successful concert promoter and a great self-publicist, but I wonder if his key claims to fame really stack up. Firstly, the Beatles first visit to America consisted of their famous performances on the Ed Sullivan show, and concerts at Washington Coliseum and New York Carnegie Hall. Bernstein was responsible for booking them for Carnegie Hall, their third booking in the US. So, while he was not an unimportant figure in their career at that time, "brought the Beatles to America" seems like an exaggeration. And the Beatles performance at Shea Stadium in 1965 was not the first concert to be held in a sports stadium. Elvis Presley had certainly made a number of stadium appearances and the Beatles themselves played 6 stadium venues on their 1964 tour of North America [1]. In any event, the article needs more content and more sourcing. Formerip (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per FormerIP. He seems to be one of several promoters responsible for the Beatles success. The article doesn't do that much to assert his notability.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Such a long sentence for someone who thought of himself as a truth-teller will spur global debate over national-security issues vs. free speech and "whistle-blowing." Sca (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think(?) I may of opposed the initial nom but now he's been sentenced I think the story is suitable to go up. This is definitely news.--Somchai Sun (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That the article is titled that now is irrelevant. The move wasn't a result of a consensus-building process, but of a pair of editors' moving and a move-protection keeping it in place. It may be reversed, per WP:RMT. We especially have a problem on the Main Page, where it's a bit of a mouthful to clarify that Chelsea Manning is who everyone knows as Bradley Manning. -- tariqabjotu14:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Syrian gas attack
Article:Ghouta chemical attack (talk·history·tag) Recent deaths nomination Blurb: Opposition sources report hundreds of people were killed in a government poison-gas rocket attack that struck the Damascus suburbs of Ghouta. (Post) News source(s):BBC, Reuters, Guardian Credits:
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: If confirmed, the reports — one of which cited 1,300 deaths — probably would constitute the largest-scale use of poison gas in military operations in nearly a century (since World War I). Sca (talk) 15:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. So far this is only a claim by the opposition, and the regime has denied it. The alleged attack is definitely not the worst since WW1, see Halabja poison gas attack. The UN weapons inspectors are there in Syria and if the attack is confirmed, then I'd support. Mohamed CJ(talk)15:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comment: Updated BBC story refers to "chemical weapons" rather than poison gas, but Reuters still speaks of "gassing hundreds of people." BBC asks people on the ground to contribute info with this appeal: Are you in Ghouta or do you have any family or friends in the area? Please share your experience with us using the form below.Sca (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Poison gas and chemical weapons are almost synonymous here (a dedicated poison gas/spray is by definition a chemical weapon, but the latter is the common term I believe...), but the "who has done it", "how exactly" (and even "when") is not likely to be resolved soon. It's war out there, which means none of the information should be relied upon directly; hence my security council proposal... L.tak (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing the latest developments, it looks like efforts to try and confirm and efforts to prevent confirmation are also part of the story. August 2013 Ghouta chemical attack is shaping up to be a good article, and, if it can be kept reasonably neutral, I would support main page posting. --LukeSurltc13:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Six gunshots are fired from an AK-47 at an elementary school in Decatur, Georgia, U.S. No one was injured, and premises were evacuated. Suspected gunman, a 20-year-old man arrested. (CNN)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Hold: I sense that more would come out on the topic and i guess we can wait till then. As of now, the death is covered sufficiently, but the aftermath in politics and common public is yet to come out and be written about. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was an assassination/murder rather than a natural death. As the death itself is the story (rather than an obituary piece) we should be considering blurbs. --LukeSurltc18:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. I have been thinking for a while on how to answer this. Frankly speaking he wasn't someone who appeared daily in news; at least not in recent 2-3 years. But he started his activism in 1980s and that's when he must have created enough ripples. The fact does remain that his assassination has been covered as headline in various newspapers, both regional and national. The city of Pune remained bandh today, although not very strictly. But auto rickshaws stayed away from road from 10am to 5pm. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear 331dot, Thanks for the comment. My duty was to bring the issue to the notice of experienced editors and I guess I have done that. I leave the issue now to the wisdom of the community. He worked in his life to fight against blind faith. He was one of the most important figures in India who are working in this direction. There are very great editors and I am sure that they are reading this. I request them to take the decision as what they think is right. Thanks for listening. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose per aboe. WP does not run media campaigns to highlight POVs. He was not known and nor is his death features in international ,edia. Should be an easy oppose considering the hordes we turn down (and approve)Lihaas (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which is worse: supporting something because you personally feel it is important or opposing something because somebody else feels it is important. Formerip (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As per given references, it is very clear that he was very important person. Now the question that remains is - are we supporting him or opposing him. Though we support or we oppose, we cannot neglect him. And I would like to state that people who are opposing are trying to oppose his thoughts. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Highly influential writer. Being described by the New York Times as a "Novelist Who Elevated the Status of Crime Thrillers", and they haven't even posted an obit yet. Not much to update, and the article does a pretty good job explaining his legacy. — PublicAmpers&(main account • talk • block)14:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs work - there are many short choppy "paragraphs", several bare url citations, and the article is somewhat short in general. The update is pretty minimal. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for blurb I personally think he's one of the few deaths that is acually blurb worthy, he was one of the top authors of the 20th century especially in the crime/thriller genrue, and paved way to countless authors who are still writing today Tom Clancy, James Patterson, and so forth and won the National Book Award for Distinguished Contribution which is pretty much the top legacy award given to an author outside the Nobel Prize. Secretaccount16:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb Given the awards and tributes, seems to qualify for RD. I don't think he's close to the blurb level, though, and I would have to dispute the statement that the National Book Award for Distinguished Contribution is "the top legacy award given to an author outside the Nobel Prize." It's only open to Americans, for one thing, and I would have said that the Neustadt International Prize for Literature, to give just one example, was certainly more prestigious internationally. Neljack (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's ridiculous is that people complain about things not being posted w/o making any attempt to improve the article. At current the career section is all of two short paragraphs, one of which is uncited. The early life section is also almost completely unreferenced. The adaptations section is unreferenced and full of short choppy paragraphs. Two of his five awards are unreferenced. The article is in violation of BLP at current (which applies to recently deceased people too) as too much material is unreferenced. I stand by my assessment that the article is not up to quality standards despite Medeis removing the issue tags w/o actually addressing the problems.--ThaddeusB (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "he was 85", is weak, but the section is technically updated. If we are going to get down to aesthetics, then the people who express dissatisfaction would do well to make the improvements they want themselves. μηδείς (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While all tags have indeed been removed (and many of the citation needed tags were actually fixed instead of just removed as "unnecessary"), some were not actually addressed. For example, I hardly consider commenting out a perfect valid {{expand section}} tag in the career section with the rational "non-essential tag" to be an article improvement. I don't know why it is so hard to write more than 6 sentences (and reference more than 1 of those 6!) on a career that spanned 60 years. Apparently nothing notable happened in his career after 1960!?!? I won't edit war to restore the tag, but I consider it pathetic that much of ITN (apparently) rather try to force an article through in a so-so state because they like the guy rather than actually work on adding content to the encyclopedia. (And no it is not my job to fix the article because I object to its quality.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Torrential rain and floods in north-eastChina, together with Typhoon Utor-triggered floods in southern China, jointly result in at least 91 people dead and 111 missing. (BBC)
Weak oppose. I could understand posting this, but personally I think they're just admitting what everyone knew already. 331dot (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, notable correction of history. Been a topic of US presidential debates and influential in US foreign politics in the region. Somewhat akin to admitting there was no WMD after all. Regards, Sun Creator(talk)09:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose its been known and it has no lasting effect. (the admission). IF Iran steps up some measure based on thisS THEN we can consider postingLihaas (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We need to avoid letting POV creep in here; there is undue and misleading influence on the nomination. Some of the opposes of "everybody knew this already" cannot be proven to be true, just because we surround ourselves with people who share similar opinions. The CIA's statement should serve to remove all doubt, not to merely affirm what basically amounts to conjecture. WaltCip (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The fact that this took them 60 years to acknowledge it is noteworthy. According to the BBC Arabic radio, American historians documented all of the details of this case, but due to MI6 pressure, this publishing the results was detailed several years. Mohamed CJ(talk)15:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a 3-line paragraph at the end of "The coup and CIA records" section. I think this and the lead updates are sufficient and have marked the article updated. Mohamed CJ(talk)17:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - mostly due to the limited scope of the update (which is as it should be), but also because I agree that the admission is unlikely to have lasting consequences. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support. This is a major admission of strong symbolic importance. There are many things that 'everybody knows'.that are denied by official sources. I strongly question how anybody can assert this will have no lasting consequences. Certainly, one can only speculate about the future. But this could become the starting point of an improvement in Iran-United States relations, particularly if Iran becomes controlled by a more moderate government. --Johnsemlak (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if they were pressured it was still an admission. The source you cited says it was the 'CIA's first formal acknowledgement'; it goes on to say that "The 1953 coup remains a topic of global interest." Just about everything that article states strengthens the notability of this nomination.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The update requirement is not fulfilled; while there have been recent updates to the article as a whole, there is only a one-sentence update on the CIA story. μηδείς (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure this is longer than one sentence. In lead: In August 2013 the CIA formally admitted that it was involved in both the planning and the execution of the coup, including the bribing of Iranian politicians, security and army high-ranking officials, as well as pro-coup propaganda.[8][9] The CIA is quoted acknowledging the coup was carried out "under CIA direction" and "as an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government."[10]. In The coup and CIA records section: In August 2013, at the sixtieth anniversary of the coup, the CIA released documents showing they have been involved in staging the coup. The documents also describe the motivations behind the coup and the strategies used to stage it.[6] The documents also showed that the UK tried to censor information regarding its role in the coup. The Foreign Office said "it could neither confirm nor deny Britain's involvement in the coup". Many CIA documents about the coup were still classified.[9]. Mohamed CJ(talk)04:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Fascinating admission of interest world wide. Someone needs to do a bit of updating to get this posted. Can't be me, other matters compel my time. Jusdafax03:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Major admission, good article, encyclopaedic development. The coup itself has had major effects, and regardless of the widespread suspicions the involvement of the CIA is unlikely to be widely known to readers, at least until they read our article. Modest Geniustalk12:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Significant death toll. Worst flood in "several decades" (China) or "a century" (Russia) in the affected areas. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support, presuming corroboration from non-native media sources that these floods are as exceptional as being claimed, and presuming further development of the article, (as noted by the nominator). —WFC— FL wishlist17:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The Chinese flood we posted a few weeks ago was also reported as historical in scale. It's very sad, but it's monsoon season. Formerip (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The other one was in a completely different part of China, so both can honestly be said to be the worst in a long time for the region - if China was smaller, we would be talking about two different countries... It has been a bad year for floods globally, but IMO, that should not affect our evaluation of a given flood. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support p per precedence ...though would also support re-evaulting where these should be poste.d Weather incidetns and man-made disasters are very commonLihaas (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I dont see this article getting any better. Not much development will happen here since its just too common for people to get killed crossing tracks in India (perhaps not 37 at same time). can change my position if article improves -- Ashish-g5515:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose its not notable as anything thatn NOTNEWS. It ought not to be an encyopaedic article as it has ZERO impact on anythingLihaas (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting comment from a long-time ITN contributor. Almost all major train accidents have their own articles and they are regularly featured on ITN. -Zanhe (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose for now. The interesting factor is the aftermath which per the NYTimes involved a mob dragging the driver out and beating him up and setting fire to the train after the incident. But if that's the extent of the violence, it pretty much is a non-story, and thus not ITN-worthy (or article worthy). --MASEM (t) 16:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think these accidents are as common in Spain as they are in India which increases notability. In any case the incident as it stands falls under WP:NOTNEWS in my opinion and unless some more developments take place, should not go up on ITN -- Ashish-g5517:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remember this section is called "In the News". If we don't even post major accidents or disasters like this, we may as well cancel the ITN section altogether. -Zanhe (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remember this is an encyclopedia, and we use ITN to feature good articles of long-term interest, not the daily deathcount. μηδείς (talk) 01:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Daily death count? This is the worst train accident in India in the whole year and one of the worst in the world. IMHO major accidents like this have far more long-term interest than most of the sport events that we regularly post. -Zanhe (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I certainly think the subject is notable enough for an article (angry mob, contentious debate in congress), but our article would need significantly expanded before I can evaluate it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support subject to update As Thaddeus notes, there are circumstances beyond the number killed that makes this notable, so I hope those who complain that we focus too much on the death toll will support this. Neljack (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - He was not released from prison. Could be out in 2 days if he will be released at all. He will still be in trial for the 850+ deaths. – HonorTheKing (talk)13:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: The date of entry into force is the "newsy" event. For ILO, this event is a big one, as it is not a standard convention, as it consolidates many conventions; and as the parties cover (as flag states) over half of the big ships, which have to comply from tomorrow on... (note: I know: I am a major contributor to this article, so I might be a bit biased; I tehrefore will not take part in the discussion; except to clarify upon request...) --L.tak (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as far as I can tell this is just a codification of existing maritime law into one convention, not actually introducing any new practices. If so, I don't think there's enough news here to justify an ITN posting. Or maybe I've missed something? Modest Geniustalk12:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you are coming from and I think materially not many new norms are introduced. Grouping them in 1 convention is however for two reasons significant:
i) the membership of previous conventions was variable, with some with very high and very low membership. Getting it into one convention gets more countries to introduce the same norms; and for most extensive implementation legislation was needed for those things they didn't subscribe to yet. Especially since most of the significant flags of convenience have signed up to this, this literally means that 75% (2014) or 50% (now) have to comply. That is for a maritime labour convention a lot!
ii) The compliance mechanism is new. Every ship has to apply that comes to a harbor of a state party and every ship that flies the flag of a party has to comply. In practice, that means that virtually every ship in the word has to comply (the US is as a non state party doing MLC-inspections so its ships can show they comply)....
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: From the article about him: "Gyarmati was the most successful water polo player in the Olympic history, and is considered the greatest water polo player of all time." I suggested a blurb as well as Dezso Gyarmati "was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." Andise1 (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD pending update - The most decorated water polo player in Olympic history certainly meets the notability requirements. Article is a bit thin and doesn't have a sufficient death update yet. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD The evidence indicates that he is widely regarded as one of greatest, if not the greatest, water polo player in history. Not quite blurb level though. Neljack (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Water polo is waaaay too much of a niche sport, and I don't consider his proficiency in that sport to be an automatic free pass to the main page. Gyarmati himself is largely an unknown, and his passing would probably be of interest to only a tiny, almost insignificant percentage of our readership - his article's daily average pageviews were in the single digits before his death. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Water polo may not be a big sport where you are from, but it is in some places - it's huge in the Balkans, big in much of continental Europe and growing in the US. It's an Olympic sport too. I doubt Gyarmati is an unknown in Hungary or other countries where water polo is big and I think many people who haven't heard of him would be interested to read about his remarkable career. In any case, this is person is clearly "widely regarded as a very important figure in his field" and that is all that is required. Neljack (talk) 07:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing that he was at the top of his field, but there seems to be some sentiment that we are obligated to post this because he meets the death criteria. We can (and do) decline to post individuals whose field wasn't sufficiently important, which I believe is the case here. Quick, name the second-greatest water polo player ever. See? --Bongwarrior (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are certainly entitled to your beliefs, but others have the opposite beliefs. What you see as unimportant is seen as very important by others. We are not "obligated" to post anything that meets the criteria just for the sake of doing so, but we are obligated to post something that meets the criteria and gains sufficient support. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article is light and under-referenced at the current time. There are no references in either of the Coach career, Political career nor Family sections. --LukeSurltc07:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD only pending update. A long successful career with several medals would seem to suggest he is very important in his sport, but article needs to be expanded. 331dot (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD only per 331dot, article needs some work (only 2kb prose when I clicked on it), but five Olympic medals (three gold) plus the International Swimming HOF indicate sufficient importance in his field. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Medeis may have misspoken - notability is clear - just for 5 olympic medals. I presume he's asking if water polo is a mainstream sport - so that enough people might want to look for the article - maybe. This chap was part of the 'blood in the water' match between hungary and russia, and his article whilst only a C or maybe B class article links to some interesting politics too. The article is certainly in better shape than some that get posted - if it does get an RD nomination it will get improved. So I think a support for RD is warranted, and I think it's probably ready/close to ready. EdwardLane (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chiribiquete National Park, in Colombia, is expanded from its previous 1.2 Million Hectares to 3 Million Hectares becoming one of the largest protected zones in the Amazon. This announcement was made by the Colombian government after Ecuador decided to open up Yasuni National Park to oil drilling after a six year initiative to protect the rain forest.[citation needed]
The lawyer of two Norwegians who have been imprisoned in the Congo since 2009 says one of the two, Tjostolv Moland, is found dead in his prison cell. (Business Week)(NRK)
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
I agree the death meets our notability criteria. The update is not sufficient as it contains completely unnotable aspects of his death.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Impossible to judge whether he meets the criteria without more information on his political career - the article's coverage is very limited. Neljack (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The event won't be over for another 18 hours or so. The article will need a substantial prose update - most likely a summary of the most notable happenings. (I'm willing to write the update if needed and am open to suggestions on what the update should include.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support when the championships officially end. I'd also like to propose mentioning the most successful nation of the championships instead of the total number of nations winning at least one medal.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A wildfire erupts near Yosemite National Park, growing to 25 square miles (~65 square kilometers) overnight.(KTVU)
Law and crime
While they are not yet ready to say they are reopening the case after the 2008 inquiry jury's final verdict and report (faulty driving and unlawful killing), the Metropolitan Police Authority Specialist Crime and Operations Command in London is investigating the credibility and accuracy of supposedly new information from an unspecified source regarding the August 1997 Death of Diana, Princess of Wales. (NBC)
Nominator's comments: This might be a far reach, considering that we had another Mexican drug lord posted on the Main Page about a month ago (see: Miguel Treviño Morales). Nonetheless, the arrest of this man marks another major episode in the Mexican Drug War and is a huge blow for the Gulf Cartel. The arrest section needs to be updated a little bit more, but that can be fixed as more sources start to pop up. --ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 00:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Regardless of the farce of posting a similar story every other week, Mexicans are subject to the benefit of the doubt in criminal proceedings no less than South African double amputees and former governors of New Jersey. μηδείς (talk) 01:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whether he is innocent or guilty shouldn't be the focus of supporting/opposing this nomination, I think. I nominated the article for the significance of the arrest for both the U.S. and Mexico. Just added the word "alleged" to the blurb to address your concern. Thanks for your input. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 01:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This case is likely not going to be resolved this week, this month, or even this year. It's in the news now. No judgments are being made about his guilt or innocence. Per the ITN criteria I cite below it is not unreasonable to post this. 331dot (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I'm sensitive to the concern that we might post a Mexican drug lord every week- but we do post the arrest of notable fugitives or wanted criminal suspects, and this man had a $5 million bounty on him from the US. 331dot (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We rarely post arrests, preferring to wait for convictions, and I think that is a sound practice which should be followed in this case. Neljack (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, though it would seem that the world media does not hold the same view (this is news in France, UK, US, Australia, India). The first two listed ITN criteria are "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news" and "To feature quality Wikipedia content on current events". Readers might come here wondering who this man is. 331dot (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point about the news coverage, but no doubt a conviction would also get plenty of news coverage, and I continue to think that is generally a more appropriate time to post. A conviction for serious crimes would generally seem to be more significant than an arrest based on (unproven) allegations of such crimes. Neljack (talk) 06:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it were the arrest of an extremely high profile criminal (e.g. Osama Bin Laden) then I'd support posting the arrest (I agree that generally a conviction is preferable to post). Trevino may be such an example, but looking at the BBC source, he's the 'second high profile arrest since december' and 'one of the country's most wanted drug-gang leaders'. That doesn't sound quite singularly notable enough for me.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Convictions for organized crime warlords usually take a few years because people have to gather evidences and whatnot. It's not as easy to prove that a man headed an illegal, loose network of criminals than to prove that some guy shot another. In addition, I highly doubt that his conviction will get as much press coverage as his arrest. Thank you for your input anyways. Cheers, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 18:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ComputerJA, how notable was trevino before his arrest? Was he extremely well-known in Mexico as a target of Mexican authorities and as an alleged gangster? If we were talking about a crime figure of the stature of, say, John Gotti I'd probably agree the arrest is notable. But I'm not that familiar with the Mexican situation.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm, being the top head of the Gulf Cartel certainly means something. But I surely do not think he was as important as Miguel Treviño Morales and Heriberto Lazcano Lazcano (two drug lords who were posted on the Main Page), nor close to the stature of John Gotti. Ramírez Treviño was the top leader of the cartel for 11 months after he succeeded Jorge Eduardo Costilla Sánchez, but I nominated him for the significance of the arrest for Mexico and the U.S. His absence creates a dangerous power void in northeastern Mexico, considering that Treviño Morales was arrested just a month ago. The Gulf Cartel is without a visible leader—there are just a few regional warlords I can count (just one with a Wikipedia page), but none are of his stature. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 00:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Someone please explain why a famous white athlete arrested for the admitted shooting of his girlfriend is not posted due to BLP concerns, but there's no presumption of innocence for Mexicans? μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Was Pistorius the head of a drug-based organization, and did he have a $5 million bounty on him? Regardless of guilt or innocence, these things cannot be denied. It is not impossible to post a story about an arrest without declaring the person guilty. Most legitimate media do this regularly. 331dot (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your point seems to be some accused people are lower than others. That's foreign to my thinking. I don't think Mexicans lose their human rights, the presumption of innocence, or the protections of BLP because their arrests are "important". To me that sounds like we are treating these men (one of whom was released no more than a fortnight ago) not as humans with rights and dignity, but as pests with a commercial bounty on their destruction. Who's the last European whose arrest we mentioned? μηδείς (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the arrest is notable and meets the criteria for inclusion if it gets the amount of supports needed. The blurb does not assert that he is the leader of the Gulf Cartel. It asserts that he is the alleged leader, just like the international media and the government have been handling the case. Thank you for your input. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 04:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? That's how the international media and government are handling it? It looks more like this is Medeis trying to shove the word "alleged" into this (again, just as he failed to do with the Zetas leader), even though most news sources just describe him as a Gulf Cartel leader -- since, you know, that's kind of what he does for a "living". Has he denied that title? No, and he probably never will. And our article treats it as undisputed since, well, it pretty much is. Once again, if anyone wants to play this game that he may not actually be a Gulf Cartel leader, you're going to have to drastically rework the article to say that. -- tariqabjotu04:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We really shouldn't prejudge the judgment of the court. Stating that he is the leader of this criminal organisation is effectively saying that he is guilty. There is no harm in exercising some caution and restraint by included the word "alleged" if this is posted. Neljack (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the sentiment people want to have (contrary to all seven of the sources used in this nomination), the article cannot possibly go up in its current state. Other than a lame alleged forced into the lead, the article presumes that he is, in fact, a leader of a cartel. -- tariqabjotu06:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't prejudging anything to state what he spends his time doing according to most sources, especially if he does not deny it. He doesn't spend his time knitting sweaters. 331dot (talk) 11:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it is common for people to walk up to suspected leaders of drug cartels and ask them if they are a leader of a cartel of drug dealers, no. At least not without going missing afterwards. 331dot (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point, 331 Dot. Accused drug-dealers are simply just such obvious sub-human scum that we don't bother to presume their innocence (like decent Americans and Europeans) unless they spend their time writing exculpatory screeds and getting themselves arrested on purpose so they can testify to their innocence in court. And people like Rafael Caro Quintero are never released due to prosecutorial misfeasance. Who's got the rope? Let's string'im up. μηδείς (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One can presume innocence of specific charges while still discussing what sources claim this man does for a living. If he doesn't spend his time dealing drugs what does he do all day? They wouldn't bring in the Army and Navy to arrest him if they didn't think he was a threat to them. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Australian native and East Central University (Oklahoma) Tigers senior baseball player Christopher Lane, 22, is shot and killed in Ada, Oklahoma, while jogging during a visit to his girlfriend. Two teenagers, James Francis Edwards, Jr., 15, and Chancey Allen Luna, 16, were then arrested and charged with first-degree murder with no bail; Michael Dewayne Jones, 17, was charged with being an accessory to murder after the fact. They stated they did it purely out of boredom. (NBC)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: This is perhaps not as "sexy" as finding a new living species, but scientifically much more important. This discovery answers several questions about the evolutionary history of the most successful mammal group in history, as it is the first (mostly) complete multituberculate skeleton ever found from the time period. A discovery of this magnitude is quite rare. (It's only the second prehistoric discovery this year I felt was worth nominating; the other one, Aurornis, was posted.) Results of the research were published by Science. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is an excellent, well updated article, a credit to WP, for which no reason exists that it not be posted to ITN. μηδείς (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A large part of the mainstream media is ignoring this. With the exception of the Daily Mail, but I don't know if that's a good thing. Formerip (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'll be in the minority so far and oppose this; it seems a bit esoteric for ITN. Further, as FormerIP points out it's coverage outside of mainstream news is limited at best. At least, I haven't seen it yet on news outlets. Seems better suited for DYK. 331dot (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to TIME and the Daily Mail, it has been covered non-speciality sourecs such as CSM, Times of India, Herald Sun, and Huffington Post among others. Naturally, it has also been covered by all the "science news" sources. (Coverage can also be found in most major languages, but I don't know if those are mainstream or specialty sources just by glancing.) Like I said in the nomination, its importance outweighs its interest, which is not surprising given the multituberculate family is extinct and rodents aren't all that popular. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The list of sources that haven't covered it is far more impressive than the list of those that have. You won't find it on the BBC, New York Times, Guardian, CNN etc etc. Formerip (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which can also be said about most science stories we post. The new lemur, for example, had far less coverage. I would classify this one as "average" among science stories that gain mainstream attention (which is less than 1% of the total scientific research). --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That we posted the lemur story when the news media was mostly not interested doesn't surprise me, nor does it convince me. The BBC has a subpage for science stories. There's nothing unfair in suggesting that science stories need widespread coverage just like anything else. Formerip (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I was implying anything was unfair, just providing information on the level of coverage here compared to other science stories... Coverage level is a factor, but typically it is not the main factor in any story we post (if it was ITN would look very different). I don't see why science stories should be different in that regard. I.e., we can judge them by importance (high here) and coverage (average here) just like we do with every other kind of story. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it seems to me that the story is really that Rugosodon pushes the Multituberculata lineage back in time. But given that the Multituberculata split off before the Marsupials and after the egg-laying mammals (who split off perhaps about 220 mya), this is unsurprising. Abductive (reasoning) 01:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think we've been oversaturating biological history on the main page... and I've got nothing but interest in science news. But unless someone can point out what the significance of finding the oldest member of an extinct infraclass of mammals, I would be very disappointed to see this go up. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)04:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Query are you voting and adminning at the same time, Tariq? With the nom and not including your oppose this is two-to-one in favor of posting; it's updated; and it's mature. μηδείς (talk) 06:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not oppose the nomination. But the objections by 331dot, Formerip, and Ericleb are meaningful, juxtaposed against supporting remarks that simply say "Highly significant" and "Definitely for ITN". -- tariqabjotu06:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, when the nomination was marked ready there was no opposition yet. Also, Formerip stopped short of actually opposing (of course his comment can and should still be considered as part of the consensus/lack there of). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that the tide shift after you marked it [Ready]; I wasn't saying that you were wrong to mark it ready then, just that it was no longer ready now. -- tariqabjotu20:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I'll Oppose and here's why: Every fossil find that gets published expands knowledge a little bit. In this case, as I mention above, the expansion is very limited. It seems that scientists are already well aware of the beginning and end of Multituberculata's tenure on the Earth. The lay press articles are wrong, for instance calling Rugosodon ancestor to rodents and generally missing the point. But if you read between the lines, you'll see "one of the earliest multituberculates ever" (meaning not the oldest), and "even more surprising discovery. Although its bone structure made it clear that the animal ran along the ground — a behavior that usually requires stiff ankles like our own — Rugosodon was incredibly flexible, capable of rotating 180 degrees". So, the most interesting thing about this find is its flexible ankles. I just can't see that being ITN-worthy. Finally, the lack of interest by the BBC and others suggests that those science reporters might be as unimpressed as I am. Abductive (reasoning) 18:08, 20 August 2013 (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.
Both articles updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Has becomed a worldwide known manifestation by Green Tragro in support of the Gay community, mostly by Isibayevas first insulting comments and then her apology. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't think this is that big of an issue, and certainly not significant enough for ITN to take notice. Celebrities say dumb things and later apologize for them all the time. This doesn't look like anything that will have any lasting ramifications. Also, the current blurb is a bit too long, but that can easily be fixed if this gains consensus. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First off, that would be the longest blurb in ITN history. Regardless, as Bongwarrior said, I see absolutely no real significance here- just an instance of someone newsworthy saying something offensive, then apologizing for saying it. -- Mike(Kicking222)00:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No significance here- just someone apologizing for an offensive remark. If countries try to boycott the Olympics over the Russian anti-gay legislation, that might be ITN worthy. 331dot (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree this isn't important enough, and note that she hasn't actually apologised: "However, she stopped short of issuing an apology or withdrawing her support for Russia's now notorious "gay propaganda" law." [18]Neljack (talk) 03:16, 18 August 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.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Comment - When this is posted, please consider replacing olinguito and going w/o a picture. That story has been up the longest except for Egypt and Egypt is still very much at the top of the headlines. It is only at the top of the template because of the picture. (The other 3 stories have been featured only about an hour so far.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Decision will bring an estimated 800 million barrels of crude oil to the market while (potentially) threatening "some of the planet's most diverse wildlife" and the livelihoods of indigenous people. This is a done deal (executive order) - exploration is expected to start very shortly. Outside of the occasional natural disaster, we post very little from South America, so here is a good chance to get an under represented area on the mainpage. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support wonderful to hear a leftist darling sing the praises of economic development and call out developed-world hypocrisy. The blurb should say "aimed at protecting" instead of the awkward "aiming to protect". μηδείς (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could not understand the meaning of the blurb "Ecuador announces it will reopen Yasuni National Park, ending a six-year initiative aimed at protecting the rainforest from oil drilling." I read it as "previously closed to visitors, or delisted as a national park, or something along those lines". It would be a lot clearer if stated as "will reopen Yasuni National Park to oil drilling..." -dmmaus (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose Being super rich doesn't necessarily qualify as "significant contribution/impact". Article quality is too poor at this time to convince me otherwise. I'll revisit this if Johnsemlak or someone else improves the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If she simply inherited her super-wealth, then I would agree, but this person founded and owned several large businesses; she worked for her wealth and it is an indication of her success and notability. 331dot (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Change !vote to support pending article improvement. I did some of my own searching and now see Forbes calling her the "World's Richest Self-Made Woman". When I opposed earlier, the article did not make that clear to me. The article is much better now, and should be postable with a bit more work. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no prohibition on businesspeople from RD; the only question is if she was notable in the field of business. Forbes certainly thought so, enough to include her in the list of the wealthiest women in business. 331dot (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support if article is significantly improved. This is a good example of how systematic bias works. Here we have someone that co-founded a company that grosses nearly $20 billion a year and operates over 6000 stores spanning dozens of countries, but who isn't a celebrity and isn't from an English speaking country. Thus the article is not great. However, I would say she certainly very important to her field. (And yes wealth is a strong indicator of importance in the field of business, as that is how success is primary measured.) --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been expanded a bit, with a full paragraph for the lead summarizing her notability and 3-4 paragraphs describing her career.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Brazilian Chamber of Deputies passes a controversial bill regulating the allocation of royalties derived from that country´s oil exploration, when 75% of the money will only go to education and the other 25% only for health. (R7)(BBC)
Article:Winnemucca Lake (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Petroglyphs at Winnemucca Lake are dated between 10,500 and 14,800 years ago, making them the oldest petroglyphs ever found in North America. (Post) Alternative blurb: Petroglyphs at Winnemucca Lake are dated to at least 10,500 years ago, making them the oldest petroglyphs ever found in North America. News source(s):Nat Geo Credits:
Nominator's comments: It is not very often we have a chance to feature a story form archeology or anthropology, but here is an excellent chance. It is not very often a legitimately important "oldest ever" is announced. These carvings date to around the time people are thought to have first migrated to the Americas, potentially increasing their importance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see if I can spell out my concerns a little better. I would need to see their article to see how they address the problems associated with dating carbonate. Even dating actual shells is fraught with difficulty since the organisms may be taking up recently re-dissolved carbonate from the environment. Here they are dating a carbonate film from a rock. Winnemucca Lake is stated to be active, growing and shrinking and consequently re-dissolving sediments. As far as I can read, there is no independent method provided for dating the rises and falls of the lake at that location, just the radiocarbon dating of the carbonate. Abductive (reasoning) 05:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have access to the research paper. I haven't read it yet (it is pretty long), but there is extensive information about how they obtained the date range - it is not simply form carbon dating. email me and I'll send you a copy if you like. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to support this - but - the above "issues" should be resolved/clarified and the article updated some more if needs be. Obviously not a field of study I'm knowledgeable in! --Somchai Sun (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is notable even if we're looking at the lower range of ages. If there's a published challenge to the dates a link would be helpful. μηδείς (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I read the paper now. The researchers used three indirect methods to date the waterline level rises and falls in addition to the direct method of carbon dating. All methods were largely consistent. Additionally, the younger date range is consistent with human artifacts previous found in the region (and in one case at the lake itself). (In the paper, the author argue for the younger date range, but "cannot rule out" the older one.) While I am not qualified to say the evidence is conclusive it certainly looks like a solid piece of science to me. I have expanded the article to explain all the dating stuff as best as I could. Hopefully this is sufficient for people to form an opinion about the story now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: A sure sign that the spring tensions/posturing by North Korea is coming to an end. The two sides did say they wanted to reopen the region a month ago, but there was no actual agreement until today. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support-I personally consider a notable-enough news item to be presented on the ticker, but this particular category of nomination does not occur frequently. It is best if we achieve a finite consensus before posting. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 03:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose obviously good faith, and better to read about than a bus crash, but too much like a 12-page insert in Scientific American. μηδείς (talk) 03:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Significant that they have managed to reach agreement; it certainly seems to indicate a thaw in relations. I also really don't see how this is "like a 12-page insert in Scientific American". I wasn't aware that Scientific American ran 12-page stories on diplomatic developments on the Korean peninsula. Neljack (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You put me in the very awkward position of advising you to read the SciAm more often, which is not a place I want to be. μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article:Kepler (spacecraft) (talk·history·tag) Blurb: The Kepler space telescope is declared unfixable by NASA, ending its four-year-long planet-hunting mission. (Post) Alternative blurb: The Kepler space telescope is declared unfixable by NASA, officialy ending its primary mission. News source(s):NYT Credits:
Nominator's comments: When Kepler broke back in May, the consensus was to wait to see if it could be fixed. NASA has now declared it can't be fixed, effectively ending its planet hunting days --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the blurb as currently written as being misleading. Yes they have given up trying to fix the wheels, and yes that means the current mission needs to be modified, but it does not necessarily mean the end of planet-hunting because they have asked the community to propose alternative mission plans "potentially including an exoplanet search, using the remaining two good reaction wheels and thrusters" as mentioned in the NASA press release. One of the proposals that has come back is to modify the software on Kepler to compensate. Instead of the stars being fixed and stable in Kepler's field of view, they will drift. However software could track this drift and more or less completely recover the mission goals despite being unable to hold the stars in a fixed view. For details of this proposal see KeSeF - Kepler Self Follow-up Mission. Astredita (talk) 10:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The final paragraph of the lead states there are options open and that Kepler is not a dead-loss. What has really happened isn't important news. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think everyone is missing the point. Yes, Kepler may still be used to do some scientific research in the future, but this is the official end of its primary mission. When the wheel failure was previously nominated, this is precisely the point that people said we should wait for. Arguably, the first announcement was the more important news, but ITN likes to wait until things are official. Well, they are official now. To say "What has really happened isn't important news" is flat out wrong. There is a huge difference between hunting for exoplanets and tracking comets within our solar system (one of the proposed future uses), for example. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see the point fine- it is still usable but cannot carry out its intended mission- but was this the only means humanity has to search for exoplanets? 331dot (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was certainly the best way, and was responsible for finding most of the exoplanets we know of, but that's not really the point. The point is that this is the end of a highly notable 4+ year mission. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The end of the hugely successful primary mission of a very important telescope. The exoplanet hunt has been all the rage in astronomy lately, and Kepler's primary mission has been front and center of that. (also, I can't believe I am agreeing with Medeis). Thue (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think story is quite a bit encyclopedic, article looks updated, mid-mission failure are decently rare... last one that was this high profile was probably the mars rover getting stuck (i dont remember if we put that on main page...). However i suggest changing blurb to "ending its primary mission" or something similar as im sure there will be more secondary missions to come -- Ashish-g5517:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support this story is about as big as when the Hubble was announced to require fixing to be used. Kepler won't be fixed, but considering that THIS SPACECRAFT ALONE has more than quadrupled the number of exoplanets we know of, and has done so much more for our knowledge, even a "retirement" announcement is worth being posted. Continuing the sports analogy, even if the goals will be extended (like coming back from retirement) that mission will likely be quite different the one it had. Nergaal (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per last discussion on this topic, the mission's impact, and the high encyclopedic value of the article. Kepler's secondary mission is still workable with two wheels, but what made it notable is its huge impact on exoplanet hunting. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)01:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marked Ready this is updated and has 60/40 support, much higher if we count the three support/waits from May that haven't voted yet. μηδείς (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2013 (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: A car bomb exploded in Beirut, Lebanon killing twenty people. This event has been covered by many news sources. It appears to be a pretty significant event in Beirut. Andise1 (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support-The death toll for this occurrence is not quite high enough for inclusion, however, bombings in a national capital are far and few between. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I actually agree with QSL, except that Beirut is no stranger to bombings. Article is also pretty skinny at the moment. 331dot (talk)
The bombers are the vandals and the decision to post needs to take into consideration whether this merits encyclopedic treatment. I think a policy of WP:DENY fits perfectly here. μηδείς (talk) 03:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think potential terrorists are going to decide it isn't worth it because we deny them coverage here. Heaps of media sources that are a lot more prominent than our little section of WP have already covered it. In any case, I don't think it is our role to censor what we post based on whether it is desirable to deny recognition to terrorists. That is a political judgment that would be inappropriate for us to make. Neljack (talk) 03:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DENY applies to malicious on-wiki editing and regards non-mainspace Wikipedia content. Cataloguing the horrors of the world is part of the encyclopaedic remit. --LukeSurltc12:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now - article needs to be adequately updated. Blurb needs fixing. Just because it's a criminal act doesn't mean it doesn't go on ITN – DENY is a poor argument; if it was a good one, no terrorist act would ever be posted. – Shuddetalk09:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This story has had a full 194 views on its own. Our putting it on the front page would be a huge donation in free publicity to the cause of the otherwise unnotable bombers. μηδείς (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As per LukeSurl said above, your argument has no basis in policy. The idea that bombers are motivated by whether or not an article is posted at ITN is absurd. – Shuddetalk03:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is being covered nowhere, we haven't even got a stub on it. Putting it on the front page would be a ridiculous amount of publicity for a crime designed to elicit publicity. I am sure that is beyond clear. But if you want to mention a fourth time that denying these killers our site as a forum is not technically the literal meaning of WP:DENY, feel free. μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I came here to support but after seeing such a short article that is scant on details surrounding the bombing, I have to oppose.--Giants27(T|C)14:44, 17 August 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.
Nominator's comments: First carnivorous mammal to be discovered in Western Hemisphere in 35 years, according to article. Starting to get major traction in media. Tombo7791 (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the "first new species of carnivore to be identified in the Western hemisphere in 35 years" is certainly worth posting. Article needs some work. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What was the last mammal that was posted? As the nomination said, this is the first new one found in the Western Hemisphere in the last 35 years. New insects, I agree, are not once-in-a-lifetime, but this comes pretty close. 331dot (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your initial comment made it sound like this sort of thing happens every day; I was merely saying that it does not, and that the most recent posting that you brought up was not from the Western Hemisphere so that's a different situation. That's all. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it happens literally every day, but you can make anything sound a lot rarer than it really is by sticking a few qualifiers on. Marion Bartoli is the first female winner of Wimbledon born in the Eastern hemisphere to retire while wearing a hat, but no-one seems to have taken account of those factors. Formerip (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We live in a world of qualifiers and technicalities, but the question here is whether or not it is notable. If it was headline news that Bartoli was the first female winner of Wimbledon born in the Eastern Hemisphere to retire while wearing a hat, then it might be notable. In this situation, we are talking about the discovery of a new mammal in the Western Hemisphere (half the world geographically) and how that is a rare event; we aren't talking about one country or even one city. 331dot (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
People retiring with hats is not a notable category, and neither is one-time Wimbledon winners. I've made my point above, and I won't further stray from the topic on this page. 331dot (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posted however I need another administrator for the image to be placed in the main page, as I'm not fully familiar with cascading protection and I don't want to screw up anything. Thanks Secretaccount20:12, 15 August 2013 (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 she has not lasting legacy in tennis. Looks like she trying to go on a high knowing it was a fluke. This would set precedence for a whole bunch of mid-ranked retirees in other sports too.Lihaas (talk) 09:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7th in the world is not "mid ranked" and the retirement is due to injury, if she wanted to go out on a high she'd have retired straight after Wimbledon not after losing in the second round of a minor tournament a month and a half later. If this sets a precedent for covering other sports professionals who make international news for unexpectedly retiring young while ranked in the top 10 and being the reigning champion of one of their sport's major tournaments, then I'd say that's a good precedent to have. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We generally don't post retirements, especially from sports, unless they were at the tip-top of their field usually with a long career. Even then, we do so only rarely; the last one we posted was Alex Ferguson (which I opposed) who was regarded as the top of his field (soccer managing). I'm not convinced this tennis player is (she only won one major and is retiring at only 28 due to injury). 331dot (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I too opposed Alex Fergusson as an old person retiring after the second or third time he said he would didn't strike me as news. It turns out that I was wrong on that and it was a massive news story. This is a young professional and reigning champion unexpectedly retiring young due and not the same thing. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
She is still not at the tip-top of her field, which seems to be the unwritten criteria for a posting of someone's retirement. It sounds like this would be a better Did You Know item (Did you know Marion Bartoli retired at just 28 due to injuries sustained over her career?) 331dot (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He was 85 at the time and had not published a book for 8 years. His 2012 "retirement" isn't even mentioned in his article Gabriel García Márquez. I don't think his case deserves being viewed as any kind of precedent for not posting retirements. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks 331dot for both the link and your last remark which I tried to say. I did not want to show Marquez's case as precedent for not posting retirements. Egeymi (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose The article has been reasonably updaed, and as the current Wimbeldon Ladies Champion she's fairly high profile. Also, as the nominator ponts out retirement at 28 is quite young so newsworthy. However she's ranked 7 in the world and can hardly be regarded as at the absolute top of her sport so I don't think this cuts it for me. Pedro : Chat 10:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Her career high rank is 7 and she only has one title in the 14 largest tournaments. Female tennis players often retire relatively young. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this specific retirement. It's mildly interesting, but people retire from injury early every single day. People, like Alex Ferguson, who aren't one-hit wonders, far from it, don't retire every day. That's the difference. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For me, the minimum bar for posting sporting retirements is not being a great. It is not even being exceptional. It is being peerless in your field for the vast majority of your career. —WFC— FL wishlist23:21, 15 August 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.
Nominator's comments: The protests were highly anticipated since early July and the government severe reaction only added more anticipation (and media coverage). While protesters failed yesterday to form large gatherings (mainly due to the heavy deployment of security forces and overuse of barbed wire), the protests proved to be "an upsurge of a two-and-a-half-year-old campaign"[19]. Mohamed CJ(talk)01:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Update is definitely sufficient, but the blurb is somewhat unclear. What where the protests about: were they religious? political? etc. SpencerT♦C05:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, maybe significant if it took place in other regions but it is not so significant in a region where events in Egypt and Lebanon are much more violent, unfortunately. Egeymi (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - event has not attracted all that much attention (probably due at least in part to Egypt), but article quality is exceptional and the event is clearly highly important locally. Article is DYK eligible, so I urge you to submit it there as well in case this nomination fails. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This seems like a classic case where an exceptional update should tip a marginal story over the line in favour of posting. This is just the sort of article we want to showcase through linking it on the Main Page. It certainly fulfils the ITN purpose of "featur[ing] quality Wikipedia content on current events", and also that of "point[ing] readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them" - I found the article a very interesting and lucid explanation of what was going on in Bahrain. The protests and crackdown have also got a fair bit of international media attention - more that I expected. The blurb could perhaps mention the injuries too. Neljack (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2013 (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:
In the news toolbox.jpg)
