:::In what way is that not an update? It pretty much sums up what happened. Not much more to say. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 17:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
:::In what way is that not an update? It pretty much sums up what happened. Not much more to say. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 17:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
::::Noted, thanks. We seem to have a mythical update requirement that, if Lihaas is correct, this doesn't meet. Along with several other recently promoted ITN items. I'm glad to see it, all we need now is to actively remove the "three reference/five sentence" comment at [[WP:ITN]], especially as this is used as a stick to beat some when others' claim an update "doesn't meet the requirements", and we're finally getting somewhere. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 17:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
::::Noted, thanks. We seem to have a mythical update requirement that, if Lihaas is correct, this doesn't meet. Along with several other recently promoted ITN items. I'm glad to see it, all we need now is to actively remove the "three reference/five sentence" comment at [[WP:ITN]], especially as this is used as a stick to beat some when others' claim an update "doesn't meet the requirements", and we're finally getting somewhere. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 17:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
:::::I've been a regular here for three years, and the requirement is unofficial but conversely has served as a great benchmark. It's a motivation to insert more elaboration or more meaningful content (such as official reaction) and certainly isn't mythical. '''<sub><font color="#4B0000">Eric</font></sub><small><font color="#550000">Leb</font></small><sup><font color="#660000">01</font></sup> <small>([[User:Ericleb01|Page]] | [[User talk:Ericleb01|Talk]])</small>''' 21:43, 23 September 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).
A Chinese court finds former senior politician Bo Xilai guilty of bribery, embezzlement and abuse of power and sentences him to life imprisonment. (BBC)
In Gaelic football, Dublin win the Championship Final - their second in three years - by a single point (2-12 - 1-14), condemning opponents Mayo to yet another final defeat, their seventh since their last victory in 1951. (The Times)(BBC)
Both articles need updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: ITN/R Andise1 (talk) 03:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As its ITNR it doesn't need support. We can shorten up the blurb maybe. Added alt -- Ashish-g55 03:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As noted below, there was NO DISCUSSION TO ADD THIS TO ITN/R and hence there is no such consensus. μηδείς (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is going to need some prose about the actual event. Perhaps highlight some interesting parts of the ceremony or some notable wins and upsets (e.g. the fact that The Colbert Report ended The Daily Show's ten-year run as Best Variety Series, The Voice winning over The Amazing Race, Bryan Cranston not winning for acting). There's a lot that could be written here. -- tariqabjotu 05:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the blurb to remove redundancy and excess words. JehochmanTalk 09:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it matters all that much but the actual awards are called "outstanding" not best... im fine either way but would prefer keeping the award category the same -- Ashish-g55 13:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is a local vanity item with no historical import. Imagine anyone even knowing how these subjects are 25 years from now. This is a world encyclopedia, not People Magazine. μηδείς (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, this is ITN/R. Second, seriously? Did you comment on the wrong nomination? -- tariqabjotu 16:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I watched about half the ceremonies, and found it interesting and entertaining. I just don't think the subject is encyclopedic and if you'll look below you will see concerns by myself and others that this was never discussed in regards to ITN/R, so a free pass in that regard is invalid. DYK would make much more sense for this. μηδείς (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ad hominem
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You should just learn to completely ignore Medeis on ITN/C discussions- I don't pay any mind to what s/he says, whether I agree with his/her !vote or not. As it stands, literally as soon as I saw the phrase "this is a local vanity item", I knew who had posted the comment. -- Mike(Kicking222) 20:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose of such little interest to anyone outside the cliquey ents industry, purely transient, of no long-lasting impact to anyone or anything. Add to that the fact the article is simply a copy-and-past of results with no critical commentary or substantial interest. I think Medeis commented on the right nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's still ITN/R. If it gets a sufficient update -- which isn't exactly a given -- it will be posted. -- tariqabjotu 16:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certain it will, given some admin actions, it may be posted already. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If you oppose this nomination you might as well oppose the Academy Awards, the Grammy Awards, and the Tony Awards. Why? Because this award show is similar to the others I mentioned. It recognizes people from a specific field, which is television. Just like the Academy Awards recognizes people from film, and the Tony Awards recognizes people from theater. This is no different. Whether the subjects will be known in twenty five years is irrelevant. Even if it was relevant, both Modern Family and Breaking Bad are widely watched shows among many people so I highly doubt the subjects will be forgotten in twenty five years. Andise1 (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. I find it hard to believe that you'd suggest an Academy Award is on the same level as a "Primetime Emmy". Perhaps you just don't get it. Who knows? Anyway, thanks for letting me know where you stand on a bunch of B-list (usually US) TV celebs, it's highly informative going forward from here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you don't like ITN/R, then go talk about how to change it. This is the wrong place to make that sort of objection. JehochmanTalk 17:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd been around here a while, you'd know that I've objected to most, if not all, of ITN/R, it's just divisive and unhelpful. But thanks, once again, for your helpful advice on how to suck ova. Surprised you haven't already posted this.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Link Please can we have a link to the discussion that got this established at ITN/R? Not every item on that list was added after an actual discussion, and if there's opposition now the presumption of consensus is obviously false. μηδείς (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can link you to where it was added by User:DC on 4 October 2010, but the word "Emmy" appears only twice in the ITN/R talk archives, in neither case is there any evidence that there has ever been any consensus for this to be an ITN/R item. Still, it won't stop our more trigger-happy admins from posting this regardless. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing trigger happy about posting this. this was posted last year and its in ITNR... admin should post it as long as its updated. Here's last years discussion if it helps -- Ashish-g55 18:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If its on ITNR without there ever having been a discussion about it, then it should be treated as a regular nomination. Formerip (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Since there was never any consensus to add this to ITN/R, it should be removed. Regardless of that, this is not a major news item. Black Kite (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have come up with this issue before; if it was added to the list improperly, it should be easy to go to the ITNR discussion page and gain consensus for its removal if that's what people want. That said, this has been posted before and we post other award ceremonies or just awards in other areas. 331dot (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We need an article to evaluate before its posting to ITN can be properly discussed. 331dot (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since such attacks in Iraq are quite common (see Category:Terrorist_incidents_in_Iraq_in_2013), what is different about these attacks that makes them notable? The size? The group targeted? Or any other relevant information. SpencerT♦C 23:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These must be pretty common events if we have to differentiate article titles with date, month, and year and if there are numerous such pages. 331dot (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is showing 78 killed at the funeral, with 107 killed and 255 wounded in all the day's attacks. Is that enough? —rybec 03:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am very sad that bombings in Iraq are so common that they are no longer viewed as big news. All these stories fit the description "Barbaric bombing campaign continues in Iraq." What would be news is if the bombings stopped. JehochmanTalk 09:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't ITNR. –HTD 21:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not the highest level of international competition; it says in the FIBA EuroBasket that this is the qualifying tournament for the Summer Olympic Games and the FIBA Basketball World Cup (both of which are ITNR I believe). SpencerT♦C 02:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the Olympics is the highest level of basketball competitions for national teams and that's never been posted here; the FIBA Basketball World Cup is in theory in the same level as the Olympics, but several of the world'sbestplayers skipped that ever since 1989 when they allowed pros to play.
As for "highest level of international competition" argument, the UEFA European Championship is clearly not the highest in national team football, but we post that anyway. –HTD 04:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't use a Parker pic in a Spurs uniform. Neutral otherwise.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a pic of Parker on a French uniform. –HTD 04:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. High profile (enough) tournament. Got plenty of page views (more than 2012 Euro handball and even the 2013 Ashes, but less than 2013 Asian basketball) in the English Wikipedia, in a tournament that is not popular in the Anglosphere. –HTD 04:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The world cup is already ITNR... this is more of a qualifying tournament. -- Ashish-g55 13:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Without weighing the merits right now, this has been in the news for a few days; why choose this date? 331dot (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's been no change of doctrine, just a change of tone. Neljack (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
this is also a few days ol.d.Lihaas (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Neljack; no policies have been changed or even announced; just a change in tone and focus. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not really that interesting. If the Pope's comments represented an official shift in focus, it might be noteworthy. A change in doctrine could be worth posting, but there doesn't appear to be one yet. 124.148.101.244 (talk) 04:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Support, the article is in good shape.Egeymi (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but wait until the outcome is clear; only then one can decide which blurp best sums it up.--FoxyOrange (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support with alt blurb proposed above. - Nbpolitico (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The second part of ALT blurp is wrong: Unless CDU/CSU do not get the majority of the seats, there are possible scenarios in which Merkel would not lead the next government.--FoxyOrange (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please describe such a scenario. - Nbpolitico (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If CDU/CSU do not get a majority, then someone else has (for example, SPD+Left+Greens). This means that theoretically, they could form a government without Merkel. It is unlikely, though, but not impossible. So currently, the statement that Merkel "will continue to lead Germany's government" is wrong. One might say "is widely expected to", but I'd prefer to stick to the hard facts.--FoxyOrange (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The SPD has explicitly ruled out working with the Left, therefore no government can be formed without CDU/CSU. As CDU/CSU has 2 thirds more seats than runner up SPD, they would undoubtedly lead the government. - Nbpolitico (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To make my point perfectly clear, I just wanted to point out that I'd prefer to use some kind of an irrevocable fact to describe the outcome of the parliamentary election. As Wikipedia is not a real time news source, it might be best to wait a few hours until the results are totally clear.--FoxyOrange (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support; general elections are ITNR. 331dot (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support but can we please post an image like this one? Nergaal (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as this is ITNR and all over the news. If this is posted right away I'd suggest that admins be ready to adjust the blurb to reflect any possible changes in the wording, as an absolute majority for Merkel's party is not clear. If it happens, coalition negotiations are unneeded, if not, talks begin, possibly for weeks. Jusdafax 20:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Whatever happens to the FDP and the previous coalition, it's a triumph for Merkel & CDU/CSU. Negotiations for a new coalition, if necessary, probably won't be completed for some time, so there's no point in waiting. Sca (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until the results are in (we only have exit polls at the moment) and don't crystal ball-gaze about Merkel leading the next government (even though that is almost certain). Neljack (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Final results are now in and the site is updated accordingly. - Nbpolitico (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I support that.--FoxyOrange (talk) 09:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Updated support — In morning-after comments, various players reiterate that negotiations to form a new coalition will take some time. For example, Ralf Stegner, head of the left wing of the SPD, says "It will be an extremely long road"[1]
Once again, there's no point in waiting. Sca (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the all-purpose wording in the proposed blurb and agree with the sentiment that we should post it now. Let's get this ITN item into the feature without further delay. Jusdafax 16:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Big news in big China. Very high profile trial comes to a conclusion. Major incident in Chinese politics. The extent of the "show" level of this trial is up for debate, we should be satistied this is adequately covered in the article before posting. --LukeSurltc 13:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not because it is not newsworthy but because the trial is 100% political and a complete circus from the Chinese regime that we should not recognise in my opinion. I do understand if others says Support but I will always oppose these kind of politically motivated trials and circus sentences.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So by your own admission, you and Vejvančický are voting based on whether you personally condone the actions of China's political elite, and not whether the item is newsworthy? That is completely unacceptable in the context of an ITN discussion, and your "votes" should be summarly discounted. Thue (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point, Thue, and it is good that it was posted, but it's also good that voices like BabbaQ's are here. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 21:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Whether it is a politically motivated trial or not is not relevant to its status as a news story; this is being widely covered and is significant whether it is politically motivated or not; in fact, posting it on ITN will allow readers to make that determination for themselves. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree that there is a massive political element to the trial. However the machinations of the Chinese political system, for good or ill, is big news in the most populous nation and the world at large. As I said in the nomination, the article should (in an NPOV way) cover the criticism of the trial. I've tweaked the blurb slightly to avoid wording that would imply true guilt or innocence, only reporting that the Chinese court has made the decisions. --LukeSurltc 14:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a show trial of course, but an insanely significant show trial. Thue (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. This is a show trial, but one that is hugely significant. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per Thue and Patar knight. Nsk92 (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, his trial was mentioned and now its verdict should be given whether or not it was politically driven.Egeymi (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --Jayron32 18:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And did you see the article before posting. Where is the update? All it says is: "On 22 September the court found him guilty on all counts, stripped him of all his assets, and sentenced him to life imprisonment.[118]"Lihaas (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is that not an update? It pretty much sums up what happened. Not much more to say. JehochmanTalk 17:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, thanks. We seem to have a mythical update requirement that, if Lihaas is correct, this doesn't meet. Along with several other recently promoted ITN items. I'm glad to see it, all we need now is to actively remove the "three reference/five sentence" comment at WP:ITN, especially as this is used as a stick to beat some when others' claim an update "doesn't meet the requirements", and we're finally getting somewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been a regular here for three years, and the requirement is unofficial but conversely has served as a great benchmark. It's a motivation to insert more elaboration or more meaningful content (such as official reaction) and certainly isn't mythical. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: major attack on christian community in Pakistan. --Gfosankar (talk) 09:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Significant attack being widely covered. I've changed the blurb as the casualties have increased. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question. How often does an attack of this magnitude happen in Pakistan? JehochmanTalk 09:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Against Christians? Not often. Against Shiites? Frequently...--Somchai Sun (talk) 11:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mass shooting in the US is frequent as well, and we usually cover it on the main page (Washington Navy Yard shooting was there five days ago). Of course I know this is English not Pakistani Wikipedia. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added the clarifying word "Christian" in front of "church" because this is one of the facts that makes the bombing so notable. Also updated the death toll to "at least 75".[2]JehochmanTalk 14:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PULL there is a giant under construction tag on this, and other pertinent articles are pulled for lesser tagsLihaas (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the tag. Stephen 23:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Article is not updated with the results, now I'm working on that. --Gfosankar (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dodgy, we don't post local elections but there is some precedent on landmark elections as we posted the West Bengal election when the lognest serving democratically elected commie govt were ousted. This is arguably more notableLihaas (talk) 05:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Could someone explain the "landmark" aspect of this election for the uninitiated? 331dot (talk) 09:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first provincial council election in the Northern Province in 25 years. Northern Province is the affected place in the civil war. Gfosankar (talk) 09:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support based on Gfosankar's explanation, though I'm not seeing a great deal of coverage about this; it does seem to be a noteworthy step in that country. 331dot (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose While I get Gfosankar's point, it's still just a regional election. The civil war has been over for four years, as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose of little notability compared to recent world events. μηδείς (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Over 100 people are killed in a series of attacks across Iraq, most of them in a twin suicide bombing at a Shiite funeral in Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood. (BBC)
Exxon Mobil, BP and BG decline to take part in the upcoming international bidding for rights to explore Brazil's deep-water Libra oil field, one of the largest pre-salt fields yet to be explored in that country. (GloboNews)
Disasters and accidents
Typhoon Usagi hits the northern Philippines causing flooding and landslides and disrupting transport, communications and power supplies. (Reuters)
This is not yet a major story, but I think I might as well open the bidding, because it is sure to become one. This is a massive storm that passed between Taiwan and the Philippines, producing enormous rainfall in both places that will cause damage that will emerge over the next couple of days. It is taking dead aim at Hong Kong, where it is sure to cause havoc even if it weakens as expected -- at the moment it appears to be strengthening. Looie496 (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is a major story now, it has been for at least 24 hours. There's no reason to wait till it hits Hong Kong, people are looking for it now. This should be posted ASAP. μηδείς (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Likely to cause substantial damage and deaths. The story is notable enough to be posted now. --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It seems likely to be a major story and something people will look for information on. 331dot (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marked Ready two dead already in Taiwan and being covered as top story versus Islamist massacre, well updated, story not going away any time soon. μηδείς (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't see how this article can be marked as ready (check the lead), AND I fail to see the importance (the article says it is the THIRD typhoon of the season, and does not even mention fatalities - supposedly only 3 until now). Nergaal (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Hasn't caused enough death and destruction yet, but may well do so in Hong Kong. Neljack (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose not significant dmage and at this rate we could post all hurricanes.Lihaas (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW closes are for when an article has no chance of being posted, not because one user feels it is too early. There is clearly some support for posting now, so it has a chance. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re-updated the storm is a category five cyclone, the worst in 34 years for Hong Kong. I have updated the lead. Readers want this information now, the story is hugely notable, and there is no reason to wait to post it. μηδείς (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Until it makes final landfall. The proposed blurb isn't the one we will use. JehochmanTalk 09:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The storm weakened and veered away from Hong Kong. JehochmanTalk 14:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I updated the article and changed the blurb, causalities increased to 33. Gfosankar (talk) 05:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The new blurb is much better. It's a shame this discussion started prematurely, because it's become muddled. JehochmanTalk 09:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This should have gone up when nominated and when it was an active story. To call the nomination premature, as if all people would want to know was a death count after the fact, is an odd focus to say the least. μηδείς (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: We posted DC's 14 deaths and these types of things are far more rare in Kenya thatn the USA.. ---- Lihaas (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course an article would need to exist. --LukeSurltc 12:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I could support based on how the article comes along. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Patience, the article is in existence. I added quite a bit immediately but I'm off now. Will be back in a few hours. Feel free to add.
Incidentlly, its got a potentially bigger dimension now.Lihaas (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rare IS a criteria we go on. Otherwise wed post a lot more bombings in Iraq and Pakistan. (with bigger casualties)Lihaas (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's more of a "don't post every death in a war" sort of thing (did you mean Afghanistan?) Lots of rare stuff isn't newsworthy. In this case, though, it's front page everywhere I've looked, and you gave the article a good start, so I'll support pending more expansion. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support regarding notability, this is top of the news bulletins. Appears to be an ongoing incident, we should wait till it has concluded and the article reflects the overall picture before any posting. --LukeSurltc 13:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is fine, the update is sufficient and I have no doubt that the article will grow, although the sourcing is a bit sparse to post just yet. —WFC— FL wishlist 14:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment someone should go through that article and clean out stuff I put. I just put in a bunch of details, not all of which maybe notable.Lihaas (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Major civilian incident in an area otherwise not currently experiencing daily violence, with large death toll. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Major shooting with international news coverage. --Somchai Sun (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment 1. Is the pic a copyvio? Seems so. 2. The death is universally reported as at least 22, wso we can up that.Lihaas (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it look like a copyright violation? Because it's a high-quality photo? All evidence suggests it's not a copyright violation; it has its EXIF data included, and the uploader has several other photos taken with the same camera from Kenya. The confirmed death toll is only eleven, which some reliable sources have chosen to change their reporting to indicate (BBC, CNN, LA Times). -- tariqabjotu 17:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True on hthe first point. Too goodto be tru so quick i guess ;)
The majority of sources have now updated tp 22. I read ibtimes.co.uk that says upto 100 with 50 bodies they affirmed. Red Cross which is on the ground and credible sasy at l;east 20 (see your cnn link). Many sayibng over 22 [3]Lihaas (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Al Shabaab have claimed it. We could add it to the blurbLihaas (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have suggested an altblurb for the update. Note the attackers used grenades, not just guns. I am not certain what the actual name of the mall is--sources are just calling it the Westgate mall. μηδείς (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
removed al Qaeda part. its on the wikilinkLihaas (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Restoring the Al-Qaeda part, or maybe it should say Islamist, which is in all the sources. (The deletion is also ungrammatical, BTW>) It's odd why we would remove this essential information while comparing the story to an American schizophrenic. μηδείς (talk) 03:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Islmist as more npovLihaas (talk) 05:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This story is ongoing and should therefore be at the top of the template. Also, replace "masked gunmen" with "Al-Shabbab". --09:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
[Posted] Grand Theft Auto 5
Article:Grand Theft Auto V (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Grand Theft Auto V posts 800 Million US$ in first day sales setting a new record for all forms of entertainment media (Post) Alternative blurb: The video game Grand Theft Auto V sets a three-day $1 billion world sales record for all entertainment media News source(s):Retuers, Reuters Credits:
Nominator's comments: 800 Million $ is just unprecedented number that may not be broken for quite a while to come. We posted Call of Duty Black ops for sales record as well. This entire week has clearly been dominated by news for this game... it is definitely worth posting as games Do not get any bigger. this has a strong support from me. It should also be noted that it was projected to make half that amount, these kind of numbers dont get posted by games every day. Please discuss and change blurb... ---- Ashish-g55 03:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support when updated. An incredible number compared to movie openings. Watch out Hollywood. μηδείς (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This should probably be dated September 18, the day after the first day of sales. -- tariqabjotu 04:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
i thought of that but proper numbers were only released on friday i believe. can mention day of release though -- Ashish-g55 04:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The $800M came Thursday, as I recall, with the $1B out Friday. (For the record the game was released on Tuesday). --MASEM (t) 14:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support when updated, a major record broken. However, which record do you think is more effective, sales amount in one day (as proposed) or shortest amount of time (3 days) to USD 1 billion? -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The blurb needs rewritten, though I can't quite come up with how to phrase it myself right now. I think something along the lines of "Grand Theft Auto V sets a new one day sales record with over $800 million in sales", but with less redundancy. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 06:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
altblurb I have added a tight but comprehensive blurb--I think we should stick to the one-day record. μηδείς (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support record breaking sales figure for all entertainment media - that's notable and front page to me! doktorbwordsdeeds 07:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support with a different alt blurb: There are two possibilities:
The video gameGrand Theft Auto V sets a single-day sales record for all entertainment media with US$800 million.
Support any alt blurb that mentions US$1 billion dollars. The round number makes a better blurb. JehochmanTalk 13:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Caution. Does the 800 million represent sales to consumers, or does it include sales to retailers? I think we should be careful per WP:NOTADVERTISING. I notice that, for example, the BBC have not picked this story up.
Also, if it is posted, it should reflect that it is a record for video games. Because of the difference in unit price, you can't really compare it to CDs, cinema tickets etc. Formerip (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its always sales to consumers. However retailer stock is usually very close too since this things is basically sold out. Issue with getting number for a game vs movie is that the number of retailers are much much more. So i believe and correct me if i am wrong.. only major retailers will be able to provide the sales figures and smaller ones might be taken as retailer figures. Thats why it takes them couple of days to even get these numbers. I get that its different media form but its still money one is willing to pay for entertainment. This can include stuff like broadway shows, books (Harry potter i believe did break similar record by the way)... So i think its OK to compare when it beats all forms altogether. Only works for records -- Ashish-g55 13:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know I updated the article on the sales #s and records within the VG industry when they were announced but was not aware this was for any media form. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - notable game.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Altblurb here's an altblurb that's actually grammatical English: "The video game Grand Theft Auto V sets a one-day $800 million world sales record for all entertainment media" and mentions this is a world record. μηδείς (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworded the altblurb for grammar and to include the billion dollar figure and the world media record. μηδείς (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marked Ready well-supported and the reception section exceeds the update requirement. μηδείς (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the alternative blurb: a more recognisable milestone, and a more recently passed one. —WFC— FL wishlist 19:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alternative Per WFC's reasoning above. Regards SoWhy 20:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting the record. Nergaal (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb, oppose altblurb The opening day figure of US$800 million seems more notable and amazing (and less arbitrary) than a three day figure of a billion. Neljack (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I lean towards the altblurb but support either. Not our usual ITN item but undeniably in the news and noteworthy. Surprised this hasn't been posted already given the support. Jusdafax 17:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Went back and forth about which record to post. Frankly, I think the one-day record might be a bit easier to word, but several people expressed that the $1 billion record was both more interesting and more recent, so I went with that. (I know someone is going to say "in history" sounds a bit overdramatic, but I felt omitting those words resulted in a bit of ambiguity.) -- tariqabjotu 18:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Another try to get the Pacific island nations to the main page haha. I love those countries. And I think that Declaration is important. -- Kiplimo Kenya (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If this was a treaty being agreed to(along the lines of the Montreal Protocol), I might support, but this is only an agreement between a few countries to pursue a shared goal, without any sort of binding targets or actions required. 331dot (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Philippines evacuates coastal villages, suspends ferry services and calls in fishing boats as category 5 Typhoon Usagi approaches. (Reuters)
International relations
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani calls for "constructive dialogue" and an end to "unhealthy rivalries". (CNN)
The Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise, which was protesting against Gazprom drilling in the Arctic area 60km north of the Russian coast, is boarded by the Russian military. The activists claim that oil exploitation would risk three nature reserves protected by Russian law. (The Guardian)
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 Article has been fully protected as there are yet to be reliable sources that show she has died. Even if she has died, I don't think she is top of her field (author). So yeah. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article is unprotected now. Source is the Washington Post. Seems reliable. JehochmanTalk 10:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, article is now unprotected, death has been sourced from multiple reliable sources. Carolyn Cassady was a notable member of "the Beat Generation", a published author, the widow of Neal Cassady, important associate of Cassady, Allen Ginsburg, Jack Kerouac, the subject of histories, novels, integral/main character in multiple movies including On the Road (film) & Heart Beat (film). Shearonink (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, whatever, somehow I thought I had to vote. Anyway, I have now adjusted my Vote so it will now only be a comment and simply provide more information for anyone who cares. Cripes, I swear, this is the last time I try to fix something that was started for me by a misplaced post from an IP on Main Page/Errors. Shearonink (talk) 06:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A tangential figure. Gamaliel (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Important development getting lots of international attention. Neljack (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support We could have announced the agreement formation, but the first step of activation is also a good milestone. JehochmanTalk 22:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For diplomatic reasons there aren't that many details emerging regarding this, so Framework for Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons is pretty much updated now (I found the Telegraph to be a particularly good source). I think a bit of expansion in some of the earlier sections would be good. I'm afraid it's quite late in my timezone so I'd best be sleeping myself now. --LukeSurltc 23:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support important.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Getting much attention as a means to avoid a conflict. 331dot (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — A step forward in an increasingly complicated situation. Sca (talk) 01:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I think this is about ready now. --LukeSurltc 10:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. A notable step in the conflict. Egeymi (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support main link THE framework is more important than just one step in the process.Lihaas (talk) 12:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could one of the admins who complained about my last posting please look at this one and post it? JehochmanTalk 13:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — It's time to get this aspect of the chemical-weapons story into ITN. Sca (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: United States vs. Imperial Petroleum is the largest instance of tax and securities fraud in [Indiana] state history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as of now. Subnational issue; how is the largest tax fraud case in Indiana significant on a global scale? (or even nationally) If this story gets reported on a wider scale or has wider effects, I would be willing to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not that anyone doubts the sources. It's just very oddly parochial. Can we have an explicit link to a list of biggest such fraud cases in world history. Also, we usually wait for convictions, not indictments. μηδείς (talk) 04:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Federal charges were filed and the story was covered by one news company from New York and another news company from Texas. If there is a better story for the Main Page, I am all eyes ;) --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm not seeing how this is suitable. Is this the largest state-level case ever, and it just happens to be in Indiana, or is it only a record for Indiana? Because, you know, if we took that approach to every US state, Canadian province, Russian federal subject, and so on, we'd post nothing but stories with sub-national records in. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry but this hasn't struck any chords. It's sub-country-specific and really hasn't made it "in the news" as far as I can tell. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: $920m is a lot of money. Would welcome better blurb suggestions, this is all a bit too complicated for me to work out what has actually occurred. -- Altblurb now links to section of JPMorgan rather than 2012 JPMorgan Chase trading loss, which is unlikely to be ready soon. --LukeSurltc 21:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed "fines" like this are basically post-facto negotiated bribes to regulators--had there been a criminal trial it would be fifferent. Also very much doubt there will be any readership interest. μηδείς (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place to opine about when a bribe is a fine. The story is all over the front page of every major publication, which is the definition of "in the news". JehochmanTalk 21:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Is that why all the listed media sources published the story? Because they thought no one would be interested in it? 331dot (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The stats show this peaked at just over 3000 views on its own, that is low for even the average RD posting, let alone full blurb. There are all sorts of things that people read in other sources with great avidity, like weather and cartoons, that simply don't cut it here. μηδείς (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I ask again, is that why the listed sources (and others) are publishing this story? We aren't talking about a cartoon or a weather report. 331dot (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are the financial sections of those institutions, not the front page. Compare the interest in Phyllis Diller when she died, which we did not post either, 250,000 reads for two days, or even the current interest in her. I agree this is the big government fine story of the week. I simply don't see it merit pushing, say, the Colorado floods (which I also opposed, but grant are of great interest) off the front page. μηδείς (talk) 01:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's been two days since we've posted an update. I or somebody else will post this as soon as the article is updated and presentable. The current article has ugly top template, lacks even basic info about the punishments in the lede, and is a bloated mess. Please fix it. JehochmanTalk 21:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Support. Large fine of a large, well known company. The nature of how the fine was arrived as is immaterial(as is one person's opinion of the nature of negotiated settlements). 331dot (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A $920 million bribe would be very newsworthy, simply because it's a large amount of money (for most of us). This story involves the United Kingdom and United States, to which a large proportion of the English Wikipedia's readers have an affinity. Although there hasn't been a trial, there have been indictments from a grand jury. —rybec 21:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A criminal trial would be a different issue. Black Kite (talk) 00:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This fine came with an admission of guilt according to the BBC ("As part of the deal JP Morgan admitted violating US federal securities laws"), unlike many fines where the fined party does not admit wrongdoing. 331dot (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but it's still not an admission of criminality. These things happen in the financial world every day, this is just a larger sum of money than usual. Black Kite (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that we don't need to wait for a trial, as they have already admitted to government officials that they violated the law, we don't have to wait for an adjudication of a legal case. I also don't recall any other recent $920 million fines in the financial world recently. 331dot (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, have they? It does appear that they're trying to shift the blame onto their subsiduaries, and indeed individual dealers ... Black Kite (talk) 00:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NBC states that "In a statement, Dimon said his bank has "accepted responsibility". 331dot (talk) 01:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, which means, we are going to accept this as the cost of doing business, and take our bonuses to the bank. An actual jury trial and conviction would be a much bigger story. There's nohing wrong with using our knowledge of the world to make judgment on story notability--it's not like whatever is at the top of some "in the news list" (say the top story at google financial news) goes up without input.μηδείς (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to your opinion about what the fine is, accurate or not, but that doesn't alter its existence and the fact it is being widely reported(and not just on business news sites). 331dot (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need original research. Do you agree that the item is "in the news" or do you think that it's not "in the news"? Do you think this is the peak coverage, or are we waiting for something else to happen? JehochmanTalk 01:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is that directed at me? 331dot (talk) 01:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. As a former LISP programmer, I am cool with deep nesting. I was answering Black Kite. JehochmanTalk 12:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think so, but just wanted to make sure. Thanks 331dot (talk) 12:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would be in support but for the sorry fact that neither article is suitable for an ITN Main page blurb. The "trading loss" article is a hopeless mess of lists and seemingly unrelated facts, and I hesitate to try and read through it, much less edit the thing. The main bank article is also massive and while a somewhat easier read, the update is swallowed up in it and the subsection directs readers on to the tangled "trading loss" article. It would take more time than I have to fix this, which is unfortunate... the nearly one billion dollar fine is a huge story. If anyone was to improve either or both articles, a consensus might form up. Jusdafax 06:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As issues with the article have been resolved, and there are a bunch of contingent supports, I will post this. JehochmanTalk 12:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support (post posting) per nominator. 900 mil is a bigass fine even in nyc.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
there are 2 supportsd and 2 opposes adn this was posted without knote. Jehochman maybe a new admin but even the recent other posting he made was awith dubious consensus!Lihaas (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He's been an admin for nearly six years. Having said that, it's an odd way to judge consensus, I would agree with that. In any case, please take more care when writing here, your comment is full of errors. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I ignore !votes that are tantamount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The valid reasons to oppose a listing are (1) not very significant news coverage, (2) article isn't in good shape, (3) it's not a "final" disposition or not the peak of the issue (e.g. Obama and Iranian president exchange letters about a possible nuke deal). A bunch of people said they would support if the article improved (which happened). A couple opposed because of their own opinion that this story shouldn't be in the news. Anyhoo, I now count 5 editors in support, and 2 opposed. You have to read the comments and judge their tone, not just look for the bolded votes. JehochmanTalk 15:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem, I think most of us know that, but it's a push to come to the numbers you've arrived at, particularly as we've done a switcheroo with the main article, and cheated our way to an ITN by avoiding the real main article (the proposed main article is still in a hell of a state, and that's the one most people commented on...) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm removing the 'attention needed tag. There's certainly no consensus that there's any attention needed here, and it's not one of the standard tags we use anyway.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Post posting support because I agree with the intent but I completely agree with TRM that this is hardly a straight and narrow ITN post. The trading loss article really should be dealt with, and I suggest as much as half of that article be trimmed out as unencyclopedic. Yes, it is true that we don't directly point to it in the blurb, but anyone attempting to get more information is going to wind up in the bloated trading loss article. Someone put up a notice on the article talk page and then start chopping away at it to make it readable. Jusdafax 17:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have a real shortage of good nominations right now. In addition to cleaning up as Jusdafax points out, would editors please consider nominating other news items? JehochmanTalk 18:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its ok posting is fine. Next time just mention the word bold :) -- Ashish-g55 19:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no rush to update ITN, in fact the worst thing to do is to update it against consensus and with poorly formed articles (or by cheating and avoiding the proper articles, as in this case). Plenty of news items get nominated, we don't have to crash into something just to satisfy an urge to update ITN. Please remain calm. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mea culpa. I should never have included 2012 JPMorgan Chase trading loss in the nomination. The article is clearly an unready draft, (to which the main author reverts any input that isn't his own). Perhaps this should be userified until it is ready? Anyway, de-linking this from the main JPMorgan Chase article should make this point moot as regards this nomination. --LukeSurltc 19:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Rjlabs has linked it back. I'm not sure that was a good move... --LukeSurltc 19:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a joke. The nomination was posted with a whole one support vote beside the nominator? Describing the opposes as "I don't like it" is, frankly, bee ess. I like the fact JPMorgan was fined. I think they are a bunch of pirates, having dealt with and followed them for years. Opposes based on the fact there was no criminal trial, but a settlement, are reasoned opposes that have nothing to do with liking or not liking JPM at all. Once again, why are editors who are not admins even invited to comment if such comments will be misconstrued and ignored? μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see the list of sources? This was indisputably front page news all around the world, we needed a news item, and there's nothing else available at the moment. It had been over two days since the last update. JehochmanTalk 22:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't dispute it was probably on some front pages and was on many business pages. Neither mine nor Black Kite's objections have anything to do with that. Under normal circusmtances this would have stood unposted until there were some more opinions voiced. With two argued opposes and only one support besides the nominator this should not have gone up so quickly. Saying that the opposes were mere "I don't likes" was insulting to the editors and a false statement to the community. μηδείς (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pull per Medeis/μηδείς and Black Kite. 184.146.122.95 (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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: Heaven must be in need of Japanese businessmen. Formerip (talk) 10:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support clearly notable and article is in good shape. I've added the Nintendo statement/tribute about his death. I'm sure more tributes (in English) will roll in over the next few hours, but I would consider this ready to post now. --LukeSurltc 11:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Clearly important to the video game industry. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose no source and no reason by nominator (or first supporter)Lihaas (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There certainly was a source. 331dot (talk) 12:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not when I chcked, theone BBC referenced linked to a general page. That has since changes, don't know who changed.Lihaas (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the BBC homepage which linked to the article about Yamauchi's death. Your opposition was somewhat pointy. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support obviously notable, sufficiently so for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Driving force behind Nintendo. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we have formally given up on updates, can we please have the guidelines formally changed? μηδείς (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who has called for (or otherwise implied) removing the update guideline? Since this is not germane to this nomination I would suggest you take this more general issue to an ITN talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant to point out here, 331Dot, that this was posted in less than three hours with what is essentially a one-sentence update: he died while in hospital and was survived by his family. I actually think the RD guidelines should be relaxed. But without making a serious accusation, it looks here like someone was in a hurry to get to bed or to work when this was posted. We shouldn't have guidelines that call for a certain standard, then ignore that standard at the posting admins sole discretion. Amalthea, I am confused by your point. μηδείς (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of bluster for two words to appear on the main page. Moreover, once those two words appear, people are drawn to it, to improve it, to enhance the "death" section which was added (with three sentences and two refs, *shock* *gasp* *horror*, not five sentences and three refs).... Can we now get on with something useful? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore what I said, Medeis, I missed the parenthesized "in accordance with ITN updating criteria" when I read the RD guideline. Amalthea 18:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: I think it's worth publishing since Pacific nations never get attention. Kiplimo Kenya (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With all due respect comments such as "X and Y subject doesn't get any attention" are generally poor platforms to argue for a stories inclusion. As far as I can see, this is another "reparations" demand - (basically trying to make people who had no responsibility for those events cough up!) and ones like these in the not-so-distant past haven't even resulted in a penny being dropped. I can't see this passing for ITN unless something meaningful happens. --Somchai Sun (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think you'll find that the US government did have responsibility for these events. Neljack (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely doubt that any current member of the US government did, or indeed anyone who isn't either retired or close to it. MChesterMC (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. And I never even remotley suggested that the US gov at the time were not responsible for the nuclear testing, so please retract your comment. --Somchai Sun (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Stories should not be posted from a particular region simply for the sake of doing so; if the US actually paid up that might be notable. 331dot (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually it is more notable that the blurb makes it sound, since the entire Pacific Nations Forum endorsed the claim for compensation. If the blurb is changed to reflect that and there is a good update, I might be inclined to support. Neljack (talk) 03:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, they're only asking for compensation at the moment. If the United States agrees to pay, that would be a better time to post it, if not then it's a non-story. --W.D.Graham 07:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Based on the New Zealand source provided, the "big two" are throwing their weight behind a bilateral discussion (in effect merely saying that the US should listen), rather than showing outright support for the Marshall Islands' calls for $2billion+ in reparations. If I have misunderstood, and Australia and New Zealand are going a lot further than that, then that might be a big enough story for me to support, given the combination of strains in US-AUS/NZ relations being unusual and the pacific nations as a whole being underrepresented. —WFC— FL wishlist 15:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More than 2,000 tourists have been airlifted by the Mexican Army after floods caused by Hurricane Manuel isolate the resort city of Acapulco with many tourists and residents stranded. (BBC)
At least 58 people are missing after a mudslide caused by Hurricane Manuel buries approximately 70 people in the Mexican town of Atoyac de Alvarez. (CNN)
At least 6 people are dead in Ottawa after a collision between a Via Rail train and a double-decker OC Transpo bus. (CTV)
Teen Graciela Martinez is found dead after school from possible heat stroke in a locked BMW in which the doors would not open. (Los Angeles Times)
The French parliament moves to ban children's beauty contests in an attempt to halt what one former minister called the hyper-sexualization of young girls. (The Guardian)
In Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Antonio Feliu fatally shot his ex-girlfriend and her adult daughter, and killed another woman in a head-on crash during a police chase. He shot himself as police approached his stopped car. (Epoch Times)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: "A planet in Ali's solar system". Big figure in boxing. --LukeSurltc 21:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well, since no-one else has, this is a major boxing figure. Deserves an RD, certainly. Black Kite (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ready article's updated, and can't say better of a man than he broke Ali's jaw. μηδείς (talk) 03:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When you marked it as ready, it hadn't had a five-sentence update. How curious. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible I miscunted; I am not a boxing fan. μηδείς (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware "cunting" was part of being a boxing fan. I thought anyone competent could count five sentences, especially if that's a standard they continually demand? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems important in the field of boxing, having done something significant. 331dot (talk) 12:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support a decent article in decent shape, called a "legend" by the BBC, worthy of 10 characters (including a space) on the main page for a few days. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. It seems to me he's mainly notable for a few brief moments vis a vie Muhammad Ali and some nostalgia for a perceived glorious age of boxing around then. Still, it's getting some high profile coverage.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
posted. --Jayron32 17:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop hatting the discussion above. It's important that Medeis answers the fact that she happily supports an item without meeting her own demanding criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have the discussion at WT:ITN or User talk:Medeis. The discussion is important to have. Just not here. Here it's just stupid, irrelevant, useless sniping and does not help us achieve consensus on what to do with nominated items. Instead, have the stupid, irrelevant, useless sniping out of view of the public so we can get on with non-stupid, relevant, and useful discussions over what to post on the main page. --Jayron32 21:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sixty-eighth session of the United Nations General Assembly
Nominator's comments: Its not ITNR (but it should be), but its akin to oher high-profile annual global summits. Lihaas (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we don't post when any other congress merely goes into session. μηδείς (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's a regular meeting. This nomination also lacks news sources which would demonstrate news coverage. 331dot (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose so what, it happens. If something incredible comes from it, post that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment since we post the END of summits how abiut the en dof the 67th session yesterday? It passed the Palestine resolution..(Lihaas (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)).[reply]
If you nominate something specific about this event, including a blurb that says why it is important and sources to demonstrate news coverage, then I (and I suspect others too) will evaluate it on its merits. This nomination does none of that. Thryduulf (talk) 04:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on that, it is not our job to seek out evidence to support your nomination. It is up to you to submit all necessary materials to support your own nomination, just as every other regular user here does with their nominations. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
wwell when we post most summits closing we do so just that it happened. (the ITNR ones)Lihaas (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This isn't an international summit, it's the routine sitting of an established body. We don't carry the risings and sittings of the UK parliament or the EU parliament, or of the US Congress. I don't see a compelling reason why the UN should get this treatment. And I really don't think this should be ITNR, and I'd call on Lihaas to withdraw the proposal until such time as a couple of these have actually been posted. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All summits are routine.annual meetings of established bodies. Conversely ever'y country has a say here in the annual "state of the world" topics.Lihaas (talk) 10
18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Most summits are not "established bodies", but simply annual gatherings that only exist at the pleasure of those in the meeting. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
University of Alabama ends segregation
Article:University of Alabama (talk·history·tag) Blurb: The University of Alabama announces measures to end segregation in the sorority system (Post) Credits:
Nominator's comments: This is a fairly important, even shocking bit of news for the UofA, for the South, and for the US university system--one reason being that for many it probably comes as a shock that such segregation still existed. Another is that the university finally recognizes that this type of segregation (enforced by alumnae more than by students) actually exists, and is prepared, after at least three decades of controversy, to do something about it. Note: it's serendipitous that only a few days ago I wrote John P. Hermann, a biography of one of the system's most vocal critics. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
News source, please. Formerip (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a little too local. Unless this causes some change in universities all across US... even then not sure if its notable enough for ITN -- Ashish-g55 15:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that TIME puts it under the "Civil Rights" heading: this is a big deal, and news sources have remarked on the irony that we just commemorated the 50th anniversary of the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it might be a big deal but it still only affects or interests small group of people. ITN items usually focus on wider population or atleast high notability. Please see WP:ITN to get more familiar. thanks -- Ashish-g55 16:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The connection with the 16th Street bombing is made, directly or indirectly, in the TIME pieces and in many other articles, and that makes it a civil rights issue (not just according to Jesse Jackson), if it wasn't one before. For an outsider, it may not be plain to see to which extent something like UA's Greek system is one of the last bastions of old-time segregation. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Ashishg55, too local. --LukeSurltc 15:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Is Alabama the last bastion of this sort of thing, or does it happen at other US universities? Formerip (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what shall I say. OF COURSE it doesn't happen anywhere, not even at Alabama, since we ended racism. That is, it doesn't exist until controversy forces a university into acknowledging that it did. There is plenty of scholarship on de facto segregation on US college campuses, though, but I don't think one can ever say that something was the last time--it's the last time until the next last time. But go to Ole Miss or any other old state school during Rush and you see what it means; it may well be that the next days and weeks bring more clarity on the broader issue. BTW, thanks for the question. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For some information of the Alabama Greek system's role in the racist "New Right Wing" in the South, see this article by Diane Roberts (English prof at U of A). Drmies (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment readers outside the US or unfamiliar with the black fraternity and sorority system need to understand that these are basically secret societies with rather harsh internal practices including brutal hazing and brown bagging whereby candidates are excluded if they have skin darker than a brown paper sack chosen as a standard. I have witnessed disfiguring scars from beatings, and heard tell of people being allowed to become pledges whom the upperclassmen knew would be refused entry due to their skin color for the sadistic pleasure of putting them through the pledging process. The entire fraternity and sorority system regardless of race consists of self-perpetuating bullying cliques. Racism is rampant, but it is only one small evil among many others. What would be news, rather than window dressing in one school regarding what is a (multi-)national disgrace, would be the total removal of sororities and fraternities from campus property and banning of their events. μηδείς (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Medeis, welcome back. I agree, that would be news (I'll not say "good news", since I'm totally objective). You can find some references and numbers on the economic value of the freebies they're given in John P. Hermann. There's no evidence that I know of of brown bagging at UA, and I think you underestimate the perks the Greeks get from being in those clubs. But I'll leave it at that. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My objection here is that we have one school addressing one side of the problem (all frats discriminate, not just "white" ones) with an intrusive and paternalistic, yet half-assed "consciousness raising" type "solution". I agree that fraternities have every right to exist as private clubs off campus, and that they may offer nepotistic or other benefits; secret societies go back to when all humans lived in hunter-gatherer tribes. But the grand issue is the incestuous relationship between these societies and school administrations. Fraternities often possess residences on or integrated into the campuses, and school administrators are often themselves fraternity alumni. The conflicts of interest are incredible, comparable only to the lucrative and corrupt US college sports system. The interests of students who are on campus simply for education, often at tax-payer expense, not sports or frat life, suffer in comparison. The problem is vast, and posting this unradical and local "reform" would, with all due respect, be like saying "In the War on Cancer, John Doe has decided to have only his left testicle removed." μηδείς (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I would support this if it went beyond the University of Alabama, but it seems too local an issue. There are many local civil rights issues across the US; being a civil rights issue doesn't mean it is ITN worthy. 331dot (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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: Currently, the death of the "Pope of Literature" is in breaking news mode all over the German speaking media; I'm pretty sure it will soon be picked up by others as well. by now, it has also been covered by the Washington Post. FoxyOrange (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The orange tags would need to be dealt with before this could be posted. --LukeSurltc 16:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD He was considered the most influential German literary critic of his generation. Given his magnum opus and recognition, his name should be mentioned in the bottom of the ITN box.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A nice chance to get a non-English speaker on RD; has received much recognition and has a large body of work which suggests he is important in his field. 331dot (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone link us to some English-language obituaries? These may be useful for references for the article.--LukeSurltc 19:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done, see nomination box above.--FoxyOrange (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've combed those obits for references for the article and added several. The facts I cannot find references for I have labelled [citation needed] and these will need to either be referenced from other sources or removed from the article (By someone else I'm afraid, I have work in the morning). --LukeSurltc 22:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added cites for most of the remaining unsourced statements and allowed myself to remove the tag. If the two-and-a-half sentences need to be addressed before linking it on the Main Page they can be removed without taking much from the article, but I think it should be fine. Amalthea 00:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Quite notable and award-winning. Fine ITN RD candidate. Of international interest. Article "has issues" as noted but will be improved and is sufficient for now. Jusdafax 23:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posted per above consensus (LukeSurl's initial concern was addressed I believe, mainly due to his work on the article) and criteria from WP:ITND. If I made a mistake please get someone to revert me. :) Amalthea 00:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This seems like a notable story for ITN if the relevant articles are adequately updated. Aside from the articles mentioned above that need to be updated, Snow leopard also needs to be updated. Andise1 (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if you look at the list of sequenced species it is already quite long. It is even more old hat than gay marriage decisions. μηδείς (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is our quite incomplete list of sequenced animal genomes, which doesn't even include sequenced genomes of plants, fungi, protists, or bacteria or other organisms. μηδείς (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb doesn't fully do justice to this: they sequenced the genomes of five species, not three: the Siberian tiger, African lion, white African lion, snow leopard, and Bengal tiger. —rybec 00:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
White lions are just a coat color difference. Bengal and Siberian tigers are just subspecies. So three. Abductive (reasoning) 00:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At this point sequencing is simply a matter of having the grant money to turn on the machines. It's not like rocket launches or space probes that can fail spectacularly. The information is academically of great interest, but it's not a field of firsts anymore. μηδείς (talk) 02:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think is is even of great interest academically anymore. Especially in well-studied taxa such as mammals. Abductive (reasoning) 00:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's of great interest to taxonomy and hence evolutionary biology, of which this is the golden age. μηδείς (talk) 03:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And if the taxonomy has been worked out for a particular group? Then it is not interesting. Mammalia? Not interesting. Tunicates? Interesting. Sipuncula? Interesting. Abductive (reasoning) 14:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The taxonomy of the cats has been hugely in flux in the last decades. Sequencings like this allow for definitive answers. Of course these are only a few of the species and limited to the Old World. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to Abductive's comment of 14:45: for a general audience, large mammals are the most interesting organisms. Should this part of the main page panda pander to that, or take a scholarly tone? —rybec 16:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A standoff between Austrian police and a poacher suspected of killing three police officers and an ambulance driver in a shooting near Annaberg ends with the suspect likely to be dead. (ABC)
Comment. If this is posted, the blurb needs to be much shorter, probably only the first sentence would be enough. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative, short one now added. —rybec 09:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This doesn't reveal anything that isn't already known, both the existence of the prison camps/what goes on there and the North's characterization of them. 331dot (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A scientific paper (abstract) about Voyager I had been published in March, but an argument was made that "The news is the announcement" (from NASA). Abuses in these camps have been reported before [5][6] but a UN report is a significant development IMO. —rybec 19:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that the UN puts out numerous reports over the course of a year; rarely does anything significant arise from them. If the report revealed something previously unknown, then we might have something here, but it doesn't. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 18 September 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: Toyoda is unarguably the man most responsible for Toyota's rise to the top rank of global automakers. A blurb would not be unreasonable, but I hesitate to launch a time wasting debate over that: let's settle for a fast RD posting. His international honors speak for themselves; he is well-known around the world. Jusdafax 20:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD. Clearly recognized for work in (and is important in) his field. 331dot (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Significant impact on the automotive industry and lives of millions of drivers. -Zanhe (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD. Passes the criteria set by RD2 for his contributions.--Somchai Sun (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. For RD. Clearly a very significant figure in business and industry. Given how reliable his cars are, it's pretty fitting that he died just after his 100th birthday. Formerip (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD per given reasons. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PULL that is is certainly not updated, there is only ONE line.
Is there any requirement for RD articles to have more than one-line updates? If the death was uneventful (and RD deaths are per definition uneventful), then writing more than one line would be recentism. Thue (talk) 09:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The death is fully reported in the article. There's not much more to say. JehochmanTalk 11:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"One line?" Hm. The article gives when and where he died, as well as why and his remarkable age. Lihaas, what more would you like to see, aside from possibly some reactions and tributes, which can be added as they happen? By the way Lihaas, allow me to suggest that you sign your pull !votes, especially when they could be interpreted, rightly or wrongly, as deliberately unsigned retaliation for my recent "tough love" comments on your sketchy nominations. Now, seeing no other request to pull, and a couple outright disagreements with the notion, could someone please remove the mooted 'attention needed' flag? I would do it but it's a conflict of interest, or could be taken that way. Thanks. Jusdafax 17:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As has been discussed endlessly, RD follows the same update rules as the rest of ITN. This was made explicit in the RfC used to create the subsection. Five sentences with three sources is standard. We have a recent trend of nominations for ITN that have been supported and updated not being posted and of nominations with little support and a perfunctory "John Doe died on 30 February" "update" being posted. The admin who posts is supposed to confirm the criteria before posting, and should be willing to pull his own work or fix it if he makes a mistake. I agree just adding stuff to meet the update requirement technically is not very helpful. In a case like this three sentences with three sources would be reasonable, given the otherwise unquestionable merits of the nomination. μηδείς (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If "five sentences with three sources" is standard, then it should be written down somewhere(if it is, please link). 331dot (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Five sentences and three sources is Medeis own personal standard. There's no consensus that that is required, merely that the update is sufficient and that sufficiency is judged against the nature of the event being reported; there are no numerical or length-based standards in any guidelines written down anywhere. Medeis has been pushing for arbitrary numerical standards in this vein for years, though despite the singular effort on her part to insist on such a standard, it has never been agreed upon or documented anywhere as such. --Jayron32 19:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the kind of bullshit I would just make up. I am surprised you post here without knowing this. "The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable. Changes in verb tense (e.g. "is" → "was") or updates that convey little or no relevant information beyond what is stated in the ITN blurb are insufficient." updated content. As long as I have been here we have aimed for five/three and posted once that is met--not just one sentence. Not even Amy Winehouse. I am not for pulling, just for the nominator and the posting admin to do their jobs. μηδείς (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's our pathetic two-phrase, two-source "update" which says he died while under treatment in a hospital, applicable to half the people in the developed world. diff
Medeis, it says "generally sufficient", not "always sufficient" or "required". That's just inventing criteria. 331dot (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And what does it say about one-sentence updates that give no more information than is in the blurb, here, namely, that the subject is dead? Admins here have far too much power and little accountability. The last thing we need is throwing out the rules and letting admins do as they please, or don't please. Admins should be certifying the rules have been met, not deciding when they apply. μηδείς (talk) 23:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one objected to the update until the unsigned poster did above. Users are free to object at any time, which is what was done. There's no reason to be on an anti-admin power soapbox. Further, there is no "rule" to be met here, there is a guideline which specifically says it applies "generally", not in every instance. 331dot (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one's calling for the blood of the firstborn over this and there's no need for the excuse making. Mistakes and oversights happen. That's obviously what happened here, an oversight. Before it was posted no one argued that this was the nomination for which we would finally abandon standard practice. μηδείς (talk) 02:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No standard practice was abandoned. The article was updated; there is no length requirement written in stone, just a "general" guideline. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added two tributes to the death section. Should be adequate now. --LukeSurltc 20:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Luke, that should do it. Jusdafax 20:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me, and please, if it is User:Lihaas posting all these unsigned comments, stop it, do better, sign posts etc etc. As for the "x sentences, y refs" update nonsense, move along, there's no such requirement. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: A new species of snail was discovered in Croatia. This seems like a good story to post if the relevant articles are adequately updated. Andise1 (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'm not an expert on such matters, but I gather new species of insects and suchlike are discovered quite regularly. Is there anything particularly newsworthy about this snail? The article is rather short on information. Bobtalk 17:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support We must post all new species discoveries. For the greater good of Wikipedia. All hail Lugo. --Somchai Sun (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now based on the length of the article. The item is newsworthy, but we really can't post an article that stubby on the main page. If this is expanded to a more reasonable length, you can consider this a support. --Jayron32 18:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, at lest. While I think it's ridiculous to post every new species found (half the nominations say how rare it is to find a new species, but there's a new nomination every week), this one seems to have far more news coverage than most new species do, and unlike many others that are nominated, this one actually WAS just found. However, 1) the article is three sentences. No three-sentence article will ever nor should ever be posted on ITN. And 2) the snail's shell is transparent, which is the only interesting thing about it- almost every headline on Google News mentions it. If that's not in the blurb, there's no point, because if not for that fact, finding the new type of snail wouldn't be noteworthy at all. -- Mike(Kicking222) 19:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are no good sources for this yet. We have a paper in the journal Subterranean Biology, which I've never heard of, and a dozen press stories that clearly are entirely press release-based, except for one post in the LA Times Science blog. We should not report this if it is not covered by a reliable source that exercises independent critical judgement. Looie496 (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: How frequent are new snail findings? 168.7.237.212 (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite common, but they're difficult to document because you have to catch the snail, which can be quite tricky. Formerip (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Surely catching the snail is the easy bit? (Unless these are new super-fast snails... in which case it's an obvious strong support!) BencherliteTalk 00:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, most snails are really fast, which makes them really hard to catch. It's just that you only tend to see the slow ones since the others are moving so quickly that they redshift out of the visible spectrum. 91.208.124.126 (talk) 09:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a perfect nomination for DYK. μηδείς (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cardinal Donald Wuerl joins "people of all faiths across our community in praying for the people killed and wounded in the attack at the Navy Yard in Washington, D.C." A shooting at the Navy Yard in southeast Washington left 13 dead and about a dozen more injured. (Catholic News Agency)
Naegleria fowleri is found in tap water near New Orleans, marking the first time the pathogenic amoeba has been detected in U.S. public water supply. (NBC)
support, reasonably sourced good news of a record that isn't broken often. No systemic bias here. Teply (talk) 04:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Teply; seems to be a 'first' that will be hard to break, as there are only so many high places to build airports. 331dot (talk) 07:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Airports get built frequently enough so that new ones are not very exciting, but infrequently enough so that records of some kind are going to apply in a lot of cases. Highest, lowest, tallest, biggest, smallest, most expensive, longest, most passengers, slowest baggage handling - take your pick. I don't see what's so impressive about building something high up in any case. Unless the actual terrain is at sea-level. Then I'd be impressed. Formerip (talk) 10:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme altitude makes it hard for planes to land and take off. Thin air reduces the lift. This airport probably has to have unusually long runways and possibly even different glideslopes to account for the differences in aircraft performance. JehochmanTalk 12:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hardly any newly-built airport breaks any kind of record. I don't recall ever seeing any airport make ITN (except when mentioned in passing in plane crashes or terrorist attacks). -Zanhe (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Does not seem like a record worth posting. Previous highest airport was about 100m below this one... Is there anything here besides the airport being at high altitude? Also article is not in best of shape -- Ashish-g55 13:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose minor "feat", if you can call it that. There isn't any special significance or benefit for an airport being at a higher elevation, as far as I can tell. This seems more like an item for DYK if it can be expanded properly. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At 4,411 meters (144,72 ft) above sea level, even breathing is a challenge for most of us, not to mention building an airport. -Zanhe (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support famous first.Lihaas (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, as the very first airport would be the "first highest" /pedant. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 18:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. I don't think there's anything particularly notable about a one-runway airport that is at a slightly higher altitude than another airport. However, I am somewhat swayed by Jehochman's observations about the potential difficulty of constructing such an facility. If the article could be updated to reflect the challenges of this construction, showcasing why this is notable in the field, then I could see supporting the nomination. Teemu08 (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is about the highest airport in the world, not the longest runway. Although at 4.2 km, Daocheng's runway is longer than most of the largest airport in the world including Atlanta, Beijing, and London Heathrow. This is because the very thin air at such high altitude poses challenges for planes to take off and land. -Zanhe (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a new superlative, sure, but this doesn't appear to be a particularly remarkable engineering feat. Sure, it might need runways longer than normal, but it's not like this airport is designed for A380s. -- tariqabjotu 18:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Most oppositions so far seem to be based on questions about whether its a "remarkable engineering feat" to build an airport at the extreme altitude. That is debatable. But I think the new superlative alone is ITN-worthy. We certainly didn't apply the "remarkable engineering feat" test to The Shard last year, but it passed simply on the superlative that it's the tallest building in the EU (though only the 73rd tallest in the world). Systemic bias, possibly? -Zanhe (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, possibly not. But I'm not sure this story would provide a great antidote. Formerip (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At least a good antidote for Costa Concordia that is featured right now, which received near unanimous support without anyone questioning whether it's a "remarkable engineering feat". I don't know about others, but to me the "world's highest civilian airport" is more impressive a superlative than the "world's most expensive marine salvage operation". -Zanhe (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is I see a engineering challenge associated with height of a building and expense of a salvage operation. (Whether we have appropriately drawn the line with those two criteria is another story.) However, I don't see an engineering challenge with altitude for an airport, particularly when the airport is such a minor one. -- tariqabjotu 23:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I fail to see the engineering challenge associated with erecting the world's 73rd tallest building. The thing is we never applied that test to The Shard. -Zanhe (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, "whether we have appropriately drawn the line with those two criteria is another story". You may believe The Shard wasn't tall enough, but my point is height of a structure can be associated with engineering difficulty or innovation. I don't see altitude of an airport associated with difficulty or innovation; it's virtually the same airport, but higher. We probably wouldn't post the highest altitude high-rise building either. -- tariqabjotu 00:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support If that not-actually-biggest-in-any-way library could be posted this can too.75.73.114.111 (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For those who don't follow ITN closely, he/she is referring to the Library of Birmingham, posted earlier this month for being the "the largest municipal public library of the UK". -Zanhe (talk) 04:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was a bad post, but it's too late now. Or, if we are going to start a compensation scheme for that sort of thing, I would rather do it by giving the next British story a hard time than giving a free pass to a random Chinese story. Formerip (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Despite the accomplishment of building this airport, and the significance of connecting a city with a one hour jet flight to replace a two day bus ride, this news does not appear to have been widely reported. The target article is not particularly engaging. It's just a compilation of basic facts. I think this would be a great item for WP:DYK. "Did you know that the newly constructed Daocheng Yading Airport is the highest in the world?" JehochmanTalk 12:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tariq. SpencerT♦C 07:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: These first flights are "one in many years" event. New aircraft are quite rare nowadays and the last narrowbody aircraft prior to this one was launched a long time ago (1986). Plus we have a freely licensed image to accompany this blurb. ---- OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support, although some of the language in the article could do with tightening (e.g. "On September 16, 2013, the CS100 took its maiden flight for the first time, making the inaugural flight of the CSeries"). Thryduulf (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you intend to mean. CSeries has 2 types: CS100 and CS300. CS100 was the one doing the test flight today but it represents the CSeries lineup. Media says CS300 test flight won't happen until further down the road. I revised that sentence slightly and provided an alternate blurb as a second option. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's nice that there's an image, but the aspect ratio is kind of awkward for a thumbnail. Even if you cropped the left and right edges, it would still be sort of elongated. Teply (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there anything different or revolutionary about this aircraft? The Boeing 787 and Airbus A380 each had something new about them. 331dot (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've swapped the image. This aircraft competes with the 737, and is claimed to burn 20% less fuel. It's interesting that Canada's aviation industry is competing successfully with Boeing and Airbus. JehochmanTalk 12:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Usually you will see variations in current models but this is a brand new aircraft series altogether. Not sure if we posted Dreamliner's first test flight.. First commercial flight is usually more significant though. -- Ashish-g55 13:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both the maiden flight and the first commercial flight were listed as ITN items. See the dates on Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner. I see no reason to treat this aircraft type differently. JehochmanTalk 13:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Supports - Seems to be a notable launch in the aviation industry. --Somchai Sun (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the minority here but I will oppose this; Firstlu, I'm not seeing widespread coverage of this. I also do not see what is particularly notable about this aircraft; its fuel efficiency is achieved through the use of composite materials; The 787 already did that. Airbus also claims its A319 planes can match this plane's fuel efficiency simply by adopting the same engines. Lastly, I might be more willing to support the first commercial flight, but test flights are no guarantee that the plane will be produced anytime soon. 331dot (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: I was not going to nominate this but when the sources use the term "Historic Flooding" and two major storm hitting from each side at same time kill 34 people we have to post this. Especially since we posted Colorado floods... even if its just to avoid systemic bias. These storms have clearly caused more problems and obviously Colorado floods will get more attention in media but ITN should give equal. Please change blurb as required -- Ashish-g55 22:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC) ---- Ashish-g55 22:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Though this nomination seems a little pointy to me I do support posting this significant disaster. 331dot (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
well i said below i would be ok for posting both... but since nobody nominated it i had no choice (infact you yourself encouraged others to nominate). Lowering bias isnt about making a point... if we start thinking like that then we would be too afraid to nominate anything that goes against systemic bias. -- Ashish-g55 23:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, you said you weren't going to nominate this but did in part because "we posted Colorado floods". There certainly are other reasons to nominate this and support this but the way this nom was worded seemed pointy to me. I accept that wasn't your intent, but that is just how it seemed to me. 331dot (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to think that Ashish is trying to discredit anything (which is what pointyness is about); he just wants it applied without systemic bias. Neljack (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Major disaster, substantial death toll, getting international coverage. Neljack (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ingrid and Manuel are two separate weather events on different sides of a large country. They should not be combined as is done in the current blurb. --LukeSurltc 23:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider Manuel to be below ITN-posting threshold. Ingrid is still ongoing, so we can 'wait and see, though it looks likely to be similar. --LukeSurltc 23:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support While two seperate events, I would support combining these into a single blurb, with both storms bolded. --Jayron32 23:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think combining is appropriate. They are been widely reported together in the same story by international media. Neljack (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support a combined blurb. 331dot (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deaths due to flooding are the most common form of death due to Acts of God in the tropics, and these are small numbers compared to events like Hurricane Mitch. μηδείς (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, according to you, we shouldn't post death events unless they reach 10,000 deaths? Why there is a bizarre obsesion wiht people in ITN, always requesting several thousands of deaths to claim notability? Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!See terms and conditions. 02:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't say that, did I. μηδείς (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"[the deaths] are small numbers compared to events like Hurricane Mitch". If you didn't say that, your comment is ambiguous enough. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!See terms and conditions. 04:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. first time in recorded history of Mexico two cyclones arrive to the country at the same time. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!See terms and conditions. 02:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for that claim? It sounds extremely unlikely. μηδείς (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
pick your ref, do you need more? Because simple common sense indicates that is "extremely unlikely" these events happen. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!See terms and conditions. 04:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Without wishing to take sides in what feels like an argument rather than a discussion - there has been at least one instance of 3 named storms making landfall on Mexico within a 5 day stretch before now.Jason Rees (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why it would be "common sense". Mexico is bordered by two oceans and September is the height of the hurricane season, at least in the Atlantic. Sure, I can easily see it being uncommon, but I'm surprised it's the first time ever. -- tariqabjotu 18:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its the first time in the Satellite Era that 2 tropical storms have hit, within a day or so of each other. However Larry, Olaf 2003 made landfall on Mexico as tropical storms on October 5 and 7 while Nora struck as a tropical depression on October 9, 2003.Jason Rees (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - major disasters with high death tolls. -Zanhe (talk) 06:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:: Tweaked the blurb for formatting and based upon [7]. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 17:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Will clearly need updates and blurb refinement when details become clearer. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support major news anywhere in the world, I presume. In the UK, it still have been covered. Donnie Park (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for more details- such as the casualty count or evidence of terrorism(which it doesn't seem to be as of now). 331dot (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait seems to be another moron gone nuts. i will probably oppose if it deems to be random without any motive, since this is just becoming a common way in the US to commit suicide. i.e take out as many as you can... its sad. -- Ashish-g55 17:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) oppose per article quality and the frequency of these shootings in USA dont make it notable. As in bombings in some places, if some 30-40 people die then yes (and macabre thought that)Lihaas (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Frequency of assaults on military bases? Name two not involving Jihadists. (PS, wait for details as of the moment, rather than judging ahead of the facts, pro or con.) μηδείς (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't fair. He is referring to general mass shootings, and not those specifically by muslims. Sandy Hook is a prime and very recent example of what he is talking about, and I'm sort of remembering a smaller shooting a few months ago... EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 17:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not referring to shootings by Muslims, but to plots against military targets. The incidents I can think of since 9/11 happen to involve jihadis, the Fort Dix terrorist plot, the Fort Hood shootings and the 2009 Little Rock recruiting office shooting. I suggest we not confuse Muslims with jihadis, and wait for the facts here before expressing support or opposition. μηδείς (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Slight oppose. While the news coverage is certainly there, the US has become a breeding ground of sorts for this kind of event in the past few years, and therefore it really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Considering we turn down other shootings / bombings worldwide because of their frequency in said area, I don't think this story should be spared that criticism. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 17:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Might I also add that when Giffords was shot a few years ago, we were mostly opposed to the posting if had she not been involved. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 17:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, we already do. We dont bombings in Iraq/Pakistan that kill dozens..Lihaas (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moot point. Spree shootings in the U.S. aren't nearly as common as bombings in Iraq and Pakistan.--NortyNort(Holla) 19:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Reports are confused. Claims of three shooters are probably wrong. If there were more than one shooter I would be inclined to support posting. Abductive (reasoning) 17:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until the Second Amendment finally gets repealed over this.128.227.14.241 (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support when article is in good enough shape. This is certainly more notable than your regular mass-shooting due to its location...--Somchai Sun (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yet another mass shooting in America, the bar has to be very, very, high for those these days - this one isn't. Black Kite (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Struck - the death toll was four when I posted, it's now twelve. Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Another week, another US shooting. Not notable as of yet. Fgf10 (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support highly notable for the number of victims alone, suggest we wait to post until we have a motive. μηδείς (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support due to the location combined with the number of victims. 331dot (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support this seems to be more than your "run of the mill U.S. shooting", whatever that is anyway. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. There's no reason to rush. Formerip (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This was on a 'secure facility' and particularly if related to terrorism it is definitely noteworthy.--NortyNort(Holla) 19:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - death toll of 12, significant for a US shooting all things considered. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - 12 dead in a mass shooting at a US Navy "complex" for lack of a better word, article seems to be in good enough quality. ~Charmlet-talk- 21:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, it is notable whether or not the US has frequently witnessed such events.Egeymi (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support once updated. The last time this many people died from one act of violence in D.C. was... I'm not even sure. The War of 1812? So yeah, definitely passes criteria. But the article needs a lot of work still. There's clearly no shortage of information to cite, yet this is less than 400 words. — PublicAmpers&(main account • talk • block) 21:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Neljack: None of the 9|11 attacks were in Washington, D.C. -- tariqabjotu 23:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I forgot the Pentagon is in Virginia. It's still in the metropolitan area though. Neljack (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - highly notable. -Zanhe (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Eric says, we turn down bombings etc that kill more people than this on the basis that they are common in the country where they occur. I don't see why the same reasoning shouldn't apply to shootings in the US. The unfortunately reality is that that the mass murder of a dozen people is quite common in the world. Being in the US does not mean that it is more important that it would be in Iraq or Nigeria. If the death toll rises to 20 or so, I would be inclined to change my mind. Neljack (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is between a country/region where there current exists political unrest with open and daily violence that unfortunately often hurts innocents (our stickies), and in a country where there's no open violence and there is a large attack against civilians. The US may have gun problems and people die every day from them, but a mass gun attack like this is rare, and thus why it gets covered. --MASEM (t) 23:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Certainly prominent in the news, and the article is not terrible. --Jayron32 00:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mass shootings in the US are too common. It seems like one every month or two. In the news should be for unusual or notable events, not another US mass shooting.Martin451 (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is in the top dozen shootings in the last century. Every other month is sloppy math. Can we base our votes here on something a little more secure than a vague opinion of America, please. μηδείς (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Martin is in fact correct. There has been more than a mass shooting every month in the US over the past four years.[8]. Note that he did not say a shooting that kills this many people, he said a mass shooting. Neljack (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some actual relevant point to that? This is apparently the eleventh or twelfth worst shooting in US history, regardless of undefined claims that other shootings have occurred. You'll note above various people, including myself, suggesting we wait for the facts. We certainly have enough now. μηδείς (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is the 17th mass shooting (4 or more victims) in the US this year, that's 2 a month.Martin451 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ready well updated and good consensus to post. μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, this is more than your run-of-the-mill mass shooting (a necessary oxymoron in the context of ITN), even when factors such as the frequency of mass shootings in the country and the fact that this took place on a military facility are taken into account. Those are relevant factors though, hence "weak". I would however strongly suggest that the posting admin review the redacted material before posting. In my opinion what has been removed at the time of this post does not affect the consensus, but the final determination is yours to make. —WFC— FL wishlist 02:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Why post? This is just another spree shooting in the USA. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 04:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, don't even waste your breath. It's a US topic, therefore it will always get through ITN. It's the unwritten rule. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 06:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of just criticizing widely covered 'in the news' topics because they are from the US ("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.") why don't you search for non-US related events to nominate? 331dot (talk) 07:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not criticising but making the observation (as above) that these shootings are a monthly occurrence and thus they do not justify FP prominence. Those that take place on military bases are no special case as firearms aren't exactly out of place. ;-) It's not our job to "find" non-USA news items as what happens in the world is largely beyond anyone's control. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Flooding disaster in an area not typically known for flooding; large helicopter rescue operation, thousands of displaced people, significant infrastructure damage. Making news outside the US as well. 331dot (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this wouldn't be news in 99.9999% of other locations. There's no great article or really anything encyclopedic to say, other than that people died due to rains. μηδείς (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just that a few have died; 1200 people are missing, thousands are displaced, 19,000 homes damaged or destroyed, significant infrastructure damage, second largest helicopter rescue operation in US history(first being Katrina) This is being covered outside of the US, including the UK, France, even in the Times of India. I certainly do hear about other similar floods in other areas; if you want to see them nominated, do so. 331dot (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I most certainly do not want to see other floods nominated. This is an encyclopedia, not a daily disaster blog. μηδείς (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a disaster blog, but this is "in the news", which this flooding clearly is, around the world. As Jayron states below, part of the role of ITN is to direct readers to articles or information they might be coming here to learn about. 331dot (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite aware there are dozens of stories "in the news" every day. This is simply not a story that will be of interest to encyclopedia readers of the future, as compared to historical firsts. The story is not encyclopedic. I will grant if any significant portion of those 1200 is dead, it will be bigger news. But this is certainly a total based on a number reported to police because cell phone service is out, or based on estimates. When a hundred dozen or even four dozen bodies are found this can be revisited. As it is it pales in comparison to the Mexico story, which should also not be posted. μηδείς (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of where it says this page is to post news stories that will be of interest in the future; it is for posting news stories of interest to people now. Even if that is true, how do you know what will be of interest to people in the future? 331dot (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further, the WP:ITN page's first line states "The In the news (ITN) section on the main page serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest", not mentioning potential interest in the distant future. 331dot (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the hurricane and tropical storm hitting mexico at same time has killed mroe and has done more damage. I was going to nominate that but didnt since the scale did not seem to be big enough. In interest of neutrality i will oppose this as well. Or we can put both up? -- Ashish-g55 16:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support A major story prominently in the news that people would come to Wikipedia to find more information about. --Jayron32 16:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Anyone who wants to nominate the TS/hurricane in Mexico is free to do so. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Of course, the reason why this is a big news story (and being a big news story is the only relevant thing to consider here), is precisely because this is an unusual event. I've read that this is not a once in a hundred year flood but more like a once in a millenium event (ignoring that climate change may have changed the probabilities here). Count Iblis (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per 331dot and Count Iblis. Colorado is an unlikely place for such severe flooding, and it is quite clearly in the news internationally.--Chaser (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. I was thinking it was about time to nominate this. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is getting significant international coverage, it's exactly the sort of thing ITN is supposed to feature. Thryduulf (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - significant damage and disruption caused, with a death toll that is likely to rise much higher than it currently stands. --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posted a tweaked version of the blurb. As a meteorology student, I can say that flooding from a stalled cold front != monsoonal flooding, even if the atmospheric moisture is a result of a monsoon (true "monsoonal flooding" would not involve fronts). Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 21:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Completely agree with Medeis. Hard to believe it would be posted if it occurred anywhere else. Neljack (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have there been similar instances of floods in atypical areas not being posted? With thousands of displaced, millions in infrastructure damage, and thousands of damaged homes? 331dot (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not this particular item would have been posted if it had occurred elsewhere is not a reason for or against this particular item being posted. Are you saying that you do not think this item of this significance in general rises to the level of posting, regardless of where it occurs? Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 21:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I thought was obvious from what Medeis said, I wouldn't support it being posted if it occurred elsewhere either. And whether it would be posted if it occurred elsewhere is a relevant consideration, given the importance of addressing systemic bias. If I believe that the posting of an item would be an example of systemic bias, I am entitled to point that out. Despite the complaints about such arguments, there has never been any consensus here to disallow them. Neljack (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
2013 China-Russia floods Worst flood in "several decades" (China) or "a century" (Russia) in the affected areas.
2013 Central European FloodsWidespread and serious flooding event. At least 8 fatalities. Seems to be higher water levels than the 2002 European floods.
I had planned to go back a whole year, but I only had to go back a few months to find all these. 99.999% seems inaccurate, in fact 100% of these were posted when they happened elsewhere. I don't think it's surprising that highly organized and wealthy countries like Canada, the USA and Europe would have fewer fatalities, and since WP:MINIMUMDEATHS remains elusive, body count alone means precisely nothing. Thanks. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This operation is costing something like $800,000,000 and is called "unprecedented". I am just mentioning it here in case somebody wants to update the article, which sorely needs it. Also, I imagine there will be people taking pictures and uploading them to WikiMedia. --Abductive (reasoning) 06:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lets be pedantic...there is @NO" news source proivided ;)Lihaas (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support when a result is known. This is the top story (or near the top) in many outlets; largest operation of its kind ever attempted. 331dot (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The blrubs are slightly odd. The story here is really that "World's most expensive salvage operation has begun" or something similar. The full procedure will likely take lots of time. i'll Support none the less as it does seem to interest a lot of people -- Ashish-g55 14:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The salvage operation will be ongoing for months. First they right the vessel, then float it, then tow it to Sicily, and break it up for scrap. What's the major milestone? Currently the parbuckling of the vessel is "in the news". I think we should report this, as the subsequent developments will probably be less dramatic. This is probably the peak coverage. I've tweaked the blurb so that it pretty closely matches the BBC report. JehochmanTalk 15:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, the sources say that getting it into the cradle is the clincher. Follow the money; €520,000,000 spent on building the cradle and other systems involved in righting the ship into the cradle. Abductive (reasoning) 15:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I agree that this is the notable moment, and not the actual towing or scrapping of the vessel. They can't move it unless they refloat it, and a failure to do so would result in a large environmental disaster. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support certainly a newsworthy story, even though it's not going to be complete immediately. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the comments above that this is likely the most significant state of the process. Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is a massive undertaking & very news-worthy. Post when it's finished...--Somchai Sun (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per above. Note that the salvage will not be complete till tomorrow, we should wait until then. [13] --LukeSurltc 21:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I understand the point about this being the most expensive salvaging operation, but to me that point is additional trivia when the important part is the original wreck itself (posted). We didn't post manslaughter convictions related to this story when they occurred either. This was originally going to be a full oppose, but given the update to the section describing the salvage effort (Costa_Concordia_disaster#Salvage), this is only a "weak oppose". SpencerT♦C 22:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We didn't post the manslaughter convictions because even the prosecutors said they were minor, they and the media are all saying that the outcome of the captain's trial will be the significant legal moment. Whether we post anything on the legal side though doesn't affect the notability of this event as the largest ever marine salvage operation, which is what it is being nominated for. Thryduulf (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this is the largest vessel ever salvaged (at least in one piece.) Abductive (reasoning) 05:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upright, the wreck is now uprighted, should any admin have actually been waiting for that to post. I don't know if it should be posted to Sept 16th or Sept 17th. Abductive (reasoning) 05:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. --Tone 07:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: I know four days have passed but this is important for my country Kenya, even the President has been indicted. -- Kiplimo Kenya (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait we usually post verdicts, not the beginnings of trials. This should be renominated when the trial ends. Also, a five sentence update on the trial would be needed to mark the article as updated--that should best be done when the trial is over and sentencing is passed, not now. μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I have no problem with waiting for the end of the trial, but in this case we have a sitting Deputy President (essentially a Vice President) on trial at the ICC, which is a rare event indeed(and would be even if it was a national trial) and as such I would support posting now. 331dot (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arrests, perhaps, and verdicts, but I can't think of a single "trial begins" that's ever been posted. Given both the verdict and the arrest are more notable than the opening of arguments posting this would imply all criminal prosecutions should be posted three times, at least. μηδείς (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree, but what is notable here is that (quoting The Telegraph) this is the "first sitting deputy head of state to go on trial at the International Criminal Court". This isn't just an average trial. 331dot (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moot. Chronologically, this trial-start item would be below the Thomas Bach item on the template, meaning it would be too old to appear at all. Waiting till the trial's conclusion is our only option (Kenya withdrawing from the ICC, if that bill passes, might also be a story). --LukeSurltc 21:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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: world's oldest man died --Gfosankar (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - oldest living man, but quite far off the oldest living person. Far from the all-time longevity record for men. Not ITN-levels of noteworthy in terms of longevity. --LukeSurltc 14:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's been a rather odd inconsistency to this, with other nominations shoed in. I am not sure why we would even nominate these in the first place unless they are an absolute record-breaker. μηδείς (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A man who was rather unremarkable died. The only reason he was notable was because he lived to be pretty old. If I recall correctly, James McCoubrey was not listed here either. (Quick summary: McCoubrey was thought to be the oldest man alive at his death, until Sanchez was verified.) Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I must agree with what other people have said here. If we were talking about the death of the oldest person ever, I'd be arguing for a full blurb. However, this person doesn't even hold the record for the longest-living man. If we posted him, we'd have to post every single time the next holder of oldest man dies, and the turnover is rather frequent as you can imagine. Redverton (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is being covered in the news, but precedent here seems to be that only the death of the documented longest-lived human of all time would warrant posting on ITN. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Not sure if this is ITNR but sich a long range missile test is notable Lihaas (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - fairly routine suborbital test. No major firsts. --W.D.Graham 13:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This was test fired once before as well. First test firing is the only one notable for such things -- Ashish-g55 17:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Test fired before, no notable firsts. Lastly, only the first/last launch of rockets intended for spaceflight are ITNR, not ICBMs. 331dot (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I cannot support or oppose this nomination as there are NO news sources provided. Andise1 (talk) 04:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd support this, but the article needs to be updated and expanded. Mentoz86 (talk) 07:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support only because Horner broke the record for being the oldest winner of a Grand Tour, which is evidently supported by most of the news reporting his win by primarily focusing on his age.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support because of his age, and I would even go ahead and add "at 41" to the blurb. Nergaal (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support but only if the article is updated a little. This is arguably the second-most prominent cycle tour in the world after Tour de France. As such, it would be great if cycling fans could get behind this and update it to make it worthy of main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A notable cycling/sport event. The age of the winner is also fairly eye-catching... --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.jpg)
.jpg)
