*'''Strong oppose'''. Whilst this is undoubtedly a beautiful image, it is not a news story. There is no scientific breakthrough and no substantial impact. 'Nasa releases a pretty picture' is neither unusual nor particularly notable. I suggest you nominate the image as a [[WP:FP|Featured Picture]] and get it onto the Main Page that way. [[User:Modest Genius|<font face="Times New Roman" color="maroon"><b>Modest Genius</b></font>]] [[User_talk:Modest Genius|<sup>talk</sup>]] 13:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose'''. Whilst this is undoubtedly a beautiful image, it is not a news story. There is no scientific breakthrough and no substantial impact. 'Nasa releases a pretty picture' is neither unusual nor particularly notable. I suggest you nominate the image as a [[WP:FP|Featured Picture]] and get it onto the Main Page that way. [[User:Modest Genius|<font face="Times New Roman" color="maroon"><b>Modest Genius</b></font>]] [[User_talk:Modest Genius|<sup>talk</sup>]] 13:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
::I have just now added additional detail to the article that speaks to the newsworthiness of the image. Indeed, there was some scientific information gained from this mosaic in addition to a couple of notable imaging "firsts". [[User:Girona7|Girona7]] ([[User talk:Girona7|talk]]) 17:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
::I have just now added additional detail to the article that speaks to the newsworthiness of the image. Indeed, there was some scientific information gained from this mosaic in addition to a couple of notable imaging "firsts". [[User:Girona7|Girona7]] ([[User talk:Girona7|talk]]) 17:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as well, because there really is nothing newsworthy. I'm a fan of this kind of thing, but it's being posted in the wrong section. '''<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>''' 17:53, 15 November 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.
Hossein Amir-Abdollahian
A landslide in Papua New Guinea's Enga Province leaves thousands of people missing and presumed dead.
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).
The United Nations tallies the death toll to around 4,400. The Red Cross estimates that around 20,000 are still missing, many of whom are feared dead. This is contrary to a previous estimate by Benigno Aquino III, who put the death toll to a low 2,000. (NBC News)
Police in Ethiopia arrest dozens of people outside the Saudi Arabian embassy in the capital Addis Ababa who were protesting against attacks on Ethiopians in Saudi Arabia. (Al Jazeera)
The BrazilianSupreme Federal Court issues a long-time awaited order to arrest for bribery 12 former top officials who had served under ex-president Lula, in one of the nation's biggest corruption cases. (Bloomberg)
Nominator's comments: This summit begins amid boycott call from human rights groups over allegations of war crimes and human rights abuses. --Gfosankar (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support but change blurb Several countries have confirmed their boycott - namely, Canada, India and Mauritius (BBC source). I've added an alt-blurb that explains that something has actually happened beyond just "calls" for boycotts. Smurrayinchester 12:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb. The meeting itself probably isn't notable enough to be posted every time, but the controversy over Sri Lanka and the resulting boycotts are major news here. Modest Geniustalk 13:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ypnypn (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian police reveal that 348 people have been arrested internationally and 386 children rescued as a result of a three-year child pornography investigation called "Project Spade". (RT)(BBC)
Politics and elections
Following the heightened scrutiny from the April 2012 controversy, two U.S. Secret Service agents are relieved of duty from Barack Obama's security detail after charges of sexual harassment towards a female subordinate. (TIME)
Nominator's comments: Retirement of "the God of cricket" is a huge event in India and covered globally by all cricket fans. The planned event is followed by series of celebrations and felicitations going on since few days now. The subject Test match is scheduled from 14th to 18th November. --§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't this already nominated a month ago and rejected? μηδείς (talk) 05:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find where such discussion happened. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will Oppose this primarily because I oppose all retirement nominations as such, and secondarily as stale. But there's nothing wrong with you renominating it if it is in the news. μηδείς (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not stale. The first day of his final match is currently underway. HiLo48 (talk) 09:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Medeis, if you need some help with linking to specific page instances, just let us know, your link above is pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely someone who has performed at the highest level. The very highest level. For 24 years! (Tomorrow.) The greatest Indian player, and best of all for the time he was playing. If we ever post a sports retirement, this has to be the one. HiLo48 (talk) 07:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wide international coverage, almost every country - Ninney (talk) 07:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per previous nomination; sports retirements shouldn't be posted, and athletes do un-retire too (e.g., Michael Jordan, also in the top of his field); do we post the second time they retire too in that case? SpencerT♦C 07:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Let's clarify this once and for all. Do we post sports retirements, ever? (If we do, this is a shoe-in.) I have initiated a policy discussion at Wikipedia talk:In the news. HiLo48 (talk) 07:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It could be undone is no reason to not post. That's a bad speculation just for the sake of speculating. Why do we post world records then when they can and most probably are broken? I also don't see why "retirement" is something that you oppose. The topic here is "Sachin's retirement", not sportsman's retirement. His retirement is making big in news, has series of other events clubbed to it, is vocalizing numerous luminaries. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've just been reminded in the thread at Wikipedia talk:In the news that we posted Alex Ferguson's retirement. This is obviously bigger. That overrules any claim that we shouldn't post sporting retirements. Precedent is set. So Spencer's oppose is completely negated. HiLo48 (talk) 08:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose struck; I will discuss retirement-related noms at WT:ITN rather than clogging up this nomination. SpencerT♦C 07:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even if Geoffrey Boycott says "he's always been rubbish" (sic), he's a legend. End of. And the Test series article is coming along great too. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 09:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely. Hard to imagine a bigger figure in sport and his retirement is big news for a considerable fraction of the Earth's population. Would suggest that it come at the end of the match, though. GoldenRing (talk) 09:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as Tendulkar is one of the most famous sportsmen worldwide. But we should wait until this Test actually ends before posting. --LukeSurltc 11:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- Although he is known as God of Cricket in India, he is not notable worldwide. Athletes do un-retire too. It has not been given enough coverage in the international media. Faizan 12:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please name a sports person who is MORE notable worldwide. HiLo48 (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Usain Bolt. That being said, I support this nomination. Resolute 20:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to imagine a current sportsperson more notable worldwide.GoldenRing (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was Matthew Hayden, Australian cricketer who said "I have seen God, he bats at no. 4 for India". Sachin isn't God of cricket only in India. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And hey, Indian media is saying that Pakistani media said that "Game of cricket will be poorer without Sachin Tendulkar". Don't you read "Pakistan's oldest and most widely read English-language newspaper" Dawn back home? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Faizan, please name a sports person who is MORE notable worldwide. HiLo48 (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a significant development outside of cricket. Retirements should not be posted, unless its an abdicating monarch or resigning politician. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't the majority of news it's not significant outside of the field they relate to? The MotoGP world championship is not significant outside of motor sports, the ECB interest rate is not significant outside of finance and economics, the Bangladesh Rifles Revolt is not significant outside of Bangladesh... but they're all in the news today. GoldenRing (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't say that if you had read the article before writing. See how the "society outside of cricket" of non-professional cricketers is reacting. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't have to be a "significant development outside of cricket", as long as it is in the news- but that doesn't seem to be true anyway. This is in the New York Times, and cricket is not very popular in the US. 331dot (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the greatest cricketers of all time. Plus it is hard to think of any sports star whose fame and adulation in their home country matches that of Tendulkar in India. This is absolutely huge news in India, which (let us remember) is a country of more than a billion people. It is also big news throughout the cricketing world. Neljack (talk) 12:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support as I did when it was nominated before here. As I pointed out there, we posted Yao Ming retiring as well as Ferguson; maybe a couple others from reading this man's prior discussion. If this is the tip-top greatest player of cricket ever (which is what people seem to be saying) then I could understand posting it. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Second greatest probably. Don Bradman is almost unanimously considered the greatest cricketer of all time. --LukeSurltc 13:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, not only is Tendulkar much more than a household name in India (referred to as the "god of cricket"), he's well known as one of (if not the) greatest cricketers ever. Not only is this being reported in English-speaking cricket nations (England, Australia, Pakistan, South Africa, Kenya, New Zealand, etc etc), but it's being reported in non-English-speaking non-cricket-playing nations (e.g. Spain)... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that there's no Spanish Wikipedia article for the greatest cricketer ever... –HTD 14:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking deeper, Tendulkar is probably third if you count 19th-century master W. G. Grace. But most would probably agree he's the greatest living cricketer. --LukeSurltc 13:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@LukeSurl: I don't think that's true. I'd say that most people who know their cricket would agree that Garry Sobers is the greatest living cricketer. A surprising number of distinguished former players and other good judges consider him the greatest player ever, even ahead of Bradman, and he usually ranks second when these lists are being made. Neljack (talk) 13:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just google "greatest cricketer poll", and see how often Tendulkar comes up top. It's really neither here nor there, mind you, it's clear this is "in the news" and is of interest to millions of readers. Tendulkar's article has received over half a millions page views this month alone.... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spain? Must be some very confudsed people there./..
Sobers is definately good (6 6s), but he doesnt have as much to back hima s Bradman adn Sachin. Those 2 stand aprt by far.Lihaas (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is objective, im using that as a reason to show he is top of game other than Bradman which makes him number 1. Sobers being the best is subjective. Hes good yes, but not technically THE best.Lihaas (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Timing comment, Test matches can go on for up to five days, so Tendulkar isn't going to retire today. --LukeSurltc 13:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
agreed to wait/ post it day after tomorrow when the match will end (a this rate)...or at most day 4.Lihaas (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should have been posted the last time it was nominated... it was bigger news then, but since we have delayed it then might as well wait a couple more days for him to actually retire -- Ashish-g55 14:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The hook doesn’t say "today" or "3 hours ago". If nothing at all happened in the world for next whole week, the blurb would remain just there. With a slow week it could linger longer. (I remember seeing Thatcher like for ever. Maybe i accidently visited the main page quite often in those days.) I hate it when Wikipedia posts news after all actual newspapers have long behind left it and moved ahead. With a five day slot that we have, we actually have a good chance to catch up with the real world by not delaying till the end of match. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Statistically speaking he is the greatest cricketer of all time. Definitely ITN worth! —Vensatry(Ping me) 15:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support... but shouldn't Tendulkar be the bolded part, not his 200th test (which doesn't actually link to an article about the match any way)? That's what people are more likely to care about, that's the big new story, and his article is of better quality. Smurrayinchester 16:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind that. Let me know if Tendulkar is to be bolded and that article will then have to be updated a bit more. And the article does link to the actual match. Its in the sections under West_Indian_cricket_team_in_India_in_2013–14#Test_series. Should that section be linked rather than the article? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, it DOES link to the last match/series he is playing in. And there is prose about it too.Lihaas (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Tendulkar's article should be updated and boded, given that this is specifically about him, though I suppose if both articles are updated we can have them both bolded. Neljack (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its not about being abou thim, the update needs to be there. That is a good few sentences about it (the retirement specifically)...which by the size of the page is not worth putting there.Lihaas (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support forgot to add this. Of course, this is exactly what ITN should be about. A popular story, thousands of page views, meets the criteria, away we go! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. This is one of the very few retirements worth posting. The baseball equivalent of the retirement of Joe DiMaggio.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support – It doesn't matter to me whether it's a birth of a baby, death of a (oded?) TV actor or a retirement of big sports star, it should be "in the news". It's very surprising that there's no Spanish Wikipedia article for Sachin. Anyway, they don't even have article for the Don, so there is not much to surprise about! I should spend more time there. — Bill william comptonTalk 20:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support but agree that his bio should be the bolded article. Bolding the article for the tour is just confusing. Formerip (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as I did last time. I don't see any reason in principle why sporting retirements should not be posted, though I think we should aim to set the bar very high (no more than one or two a year on average). Agree the bolded article should be Tendulkar's biography. Normally I'd say wait till the end of the match, but progression is glacially slow here at the moment. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support and agree that his bio should be the bolded article. Black Kite (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support greatest cricket batsman of his generation. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 02:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment WHY should his article be bolded? Not for the sake of it. Its not about the article being about him or confusing, the update needs to be there. That is, a good few sentences is needed about it (the retirement specifically)...which by the size of the page is not worth putting there. The series page has plenty of an update about himLihaas (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This definitely needs to be added to the main page for all the reasons given above. Btw, how many supports do we need more? Are we going to post this once the test match is over? One day is already down and he has also made a half-century in the meantime. - Vivvt (Talk) 05:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is obviously going to be posted, but I presume we are waiting for the end of the match, or test, or whatever it's called. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That way when its no longer "news". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support He is the most notable athlete of Indian Subcontinent. This whole series was planned just to make sure that Sachin plays his last match in India. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛TalkEmail 07:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We already posted the hundred centuries record, there's no need to post him again so soon. He's a significant cricketer, but that doesn't justify an ITN blurb IMO. Besides, there's an absolute requirement for a suitable article update, which will be very difficult to do beyond a simple statement that he has retired. Modest Geniustalk 13:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whether an article update is "suitable" is relative; some articles need more of an update than others. There is no hard and fast rule that lengthy updates are required. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quoth Wikipedia:In_the_news#Updated_content: "updates that convey little or no relevant information beyond what is stated in the ITN blurb are insufficient". I cannot see how this could meet the minimum update criteria. Modest Geniustalk 13:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the series has 2 paragraphs about it (and one about the latest match). That DOES meet the update.Lihaas (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More updates in the bolded article? There is so much in it already. Are people reading or not? This is 3rd guy. If anything more goes in it, it will be ball-to-ball commentary trivia. And whats the logic with we-posted-him-just-now? If there was earthquake in a country, won't we post any unrelated happenings again for few months? And last ITN was on 16 March 2012, 517 days ago.§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The news story is Tendulkar's retirement, not the current match. Ergo, the bolded article should be Tendulkars, which is the one that needs a proper update, not the match. Modest Geniustalk 14:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please suggest what more would you like to see. I think the current info in the biography is enough. All forms of celebrations, like balloons and masks and gold coins are trivial in such a vast biography. Look at the size of the article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong SupportNotable event in the lifetime of a notable person in the world of sport He is Time's magazine Person of the Moment. Gifted a Ferrari by Micheal Schumacher and Federer meeting his idol at the Wimbledon. Definitely known outside the world of cricket. An end of a Moment. The event is covered worldwide and is notable enough. Recipient of India's second highest civilian award (his name is already doing the rounds for the highest civilian award) for the profession he is synonymous to demigod. Type in the google Sachin Tendulkar and popular english daily in your region, you would find some pointers to his retirement.Barack Obama once commented India's factory output decline to him playing cricket. I see no reason why it can't be posted now. An exception can be made to the retirement criteria of ITNR PERIOD
WWF releases a photo, taken by a camera trap in a forest in central Vietnam in September, of one of Earth's rarest mammals, the saola, which hadn’t been seen in 15 years. (The Washington Post)
Nominator's comments: An unusual but major transportation accident that embodies a broader, ongoing issue. — C M B J 18:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any more details that can be added to the article? I would like to support and think this is unusual enough and covered enough in the news to do so, but the article is slim at the moment. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Working on that at the moment. — C M B J 19:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I now support as the article has been much expanded. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in present format. The coverage needs to be expanded to put this into context and explain its importance. I'm not sure a separate article for the incident is merited; it might be better to merge it into something else, perhaps Chapramari Wildlife Sanctuary, though that is very slender and poorly referenced, or the railway line if it has an article, or some more-general article about the effect of trains on elephants/wildlife. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Poor Elephants...--Somchai Sun (talk) 11:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. stock exchanges jointly announce a plan to improve the technical functioning of their markets, in the face of recent high-profile glitches such as the trading halt in Nasdaq in August. (Reuters)
Disasters and accidents
The Philippines faces a health crisis in the aftermath of Typhoon Haiyan with the official death toll at 1,774 and expected to rise quickly. (CNN)
Nominator's comments: Record breaking price, pushing past the The Scream that sold last year for $US120 million and was featured ITN. --Helixer (hábleme) 06:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We seem to have had some kind of an edit conflict that deleted my slightly earlier nomination: [1]. I don't care who nominates, but the article creator PinkAmpersand should be acknowledged. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In case it's unclear, support with the alternative blurb in the header; I don't mind whether the Koons record is also posted or not. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a rule against a page's creator supporting it at ITN/C? If not, support. User:Espresso Addict has turned my initial stub into a more sizable article, and I've added an infobox and image. It's far from finished, but I'd humbly consider it to be of sufficient quality for the Main Page. As to suitability, I agree with Helixer and Espresso Addict that records like this are newsworthy; plus, they offer a rare opportunity for the arts to be represented on ITN. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 07:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above and the article has an image too (could this be used on the mainpage)? LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 08:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This seems to be a very interesting art news. Any record breaking price at which an art piece is sold is very significant regardless of the frequency for setting up new records.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the List of most expensive paintings, there were at least two more expensive pieces. It if posted, it should be mentioned that this is an auction record. If this type of record is enough for ITN, then ready to post, the article is in a good shape. Otherwise, DYK is also possible. --Tone 13:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added User:Espresso Addict's proposed blurb, deleted in an edit conflict as he noted above, as an alternative. I agree with your comments, and support the alt over the primary blurb, though I'd personally prefer "a work of art" to "an artwork," as a matter of style and flow. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 15:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe last year's The Scream record was also just for sale at auction; it appeared at ITN last May (with a blurb that failed to make that distinction clear). Espresso Addict (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two records were broken at same auction. Jeff Koons broke it for price paid for work by a living artist. Both should be posted together. There is a pretty decent update for it right in the prose of koons article. -- Ashish-g55 16:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First off, sorry about the edit conflict! Second, it makes sense to mention that Koons also broke the record for a living artist with his Balloon Dog (Orange). The Koons article, however, only mentions the record auction price in the introduction, not in the article itself. Helixer (hábleme) 17:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thats ok... introduction is also in the article :) i dont see the need for it to be repeated. Atleast its updated -- Ashish-g55 19:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alt2: "Francis Bacon's Three Studies of Lucian Freud sells for US$142.4 million, the highest price attained at auction for a work of art, and Jeff Koons's Balloon Dog (Orange) becomes the highest-priced work sold at auction by a living artist."
Could do with shortening, but it needs to be clear that both are only records for auction sales. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Something along the lines of "Jeff Koon's Balloon Dog (Orange) sets the auction record for a live artist's work, while Francis Bacon sets the record as a dead artist" ? μηδείς (talk) 03:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article that's been created is Three Studies of Lucian Freud; I don't believe there's an article for Balloon Dog (Orange). Neither Bacon nor Koon's articles discussed the respective works at all, when last I looked. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Were I championing this, I'd argue the artists, not the works, are the important articles. Of course either way a suitable update will be difficult--although three sources per item isn't a lot to ask. μηδείς (talk) 05:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could an uninvolved admin determine whether some formulation of this item can be posted? Espresso Addict (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted only the Bacon record, for three reasons: most of the supports were only for the Bacon painting (although nobody opposed the inclusion of the second item), most of the discussion was only about the first item, and I was having a hard time including both items without ending up with a long, awkward-sounding blurb. None of this precludes the Koons painting from being added to the blurb in the near future, but I thought this was the best course for the time being. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:09, 15 November 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: A world famous composer of classical music. --Simply south......cooking letters for just 7 years 18:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, but needs more of an update. Formerip (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should probably add that I'm not supporting a blurb. Formerip (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sufficiently prolific and influential in his field (*cough* unlike the other John *cough*) Somchai Sun (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, update is fine, top of his field. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not even in the same universe as Prokoviev, Rachmaninov, Khachaturian, John Williams, Gershwin, Miles Davis, or anyone anyone actually listens too. μηδείς (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Medeis, I am pretty tired of seeing your snarky comments here, and your total inability to judge a nomination in its right without going all apples-and-oranges. Cut it out. And actually read about this guys career. Somchai Sun (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, who are you? μηδείς (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Medeis, please assume good faith of Somchai Sun. Additionally, John Williams, George Gershwin, Miles Davis, Henry Mancini and Danny Elfman can hardly be described as composers in the same sense as Prokofiev, Rachmaninoff and Khachaturian (and, perhaps, John Tavener). 131.111.185.66 (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty tired of seeing such self-righteous comments here, and your total inability to refrain from lecturing editors on etiquette when they express themselves to a nomination, not other editors. μηδείς (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems important in his field, given his body of work and recognition. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a significant composer of the last 50 years. Bobtalk 22:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - world class composer. Jheald (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support exactly what RD is for. Black Kite (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm with Medeis here. Tavener was basically a pretty minor figure in classical music who for some reason achieved a certain popularity in some non-classical circles. His impact on classical music was negligible. Britain has produced plenty of truly important classical composers in recent times: Peter Maxwell Davies, Harrison Birtwistle, Thomas Adès and James MacMillan, to name a few. Tavener was not one of them. Neljack (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Without regard to Neljack's specific edits, BLP is held to apply to the recently dead, even up to a year or so, according to the written policy. μηδείς (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody disputes that, though - as you tacitly admit - Neljack's edits had little or no support from the policy. Never mind, Neljack has stopped making those edits since I reinforced those perfectly innocuous sentences with citations. Alfietucker (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained on Alfietucker's talk page why I believed the material to be contentious and therefore contrary to BLP. A bit of AGF would not go amiss. Neljack (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hugely well-known figure in the popular end of classical music, certainly better known than most of the composers named by Neljack and belonging to an entirely different school. To compare him as Medeis does with a group of composers/musicians most of whom died long before Wikipedia was born is utterly pointless. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I am mentioning dead composers (And I left out Orff by accident--look at Henry Mancini and Danny Elfman for more importnat recent composers) is because the self-named genre "classical music" is moribund, and its modern pretenders are usually postmodern mediocrities at best. This is Howard Goodall's opinion, not just mine. Only the scorers of film themes are writing today in a classical mode that reaches the people. To nominate Tavener, about whom I have read more than enough, as at the "top of the field" is to describe him as the least rancid fish in a very small barrel long past its sell-by date. Listen to Tavener's The Whale. It came out at the same time as the Beatles' White Album (with Ono's Revolution 9), and Pink Floyd's Ummagumma (Grooving with a Pict), both of which were far better. μηδείς (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Beatles themselves signed Tavener and released The Whale, so clearly they thought it was up to snuff... Smurrayinchester 10:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of that, which shows the Beatles were important and influenced him. μηδείς (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Medeis, please read I just don't like it. This nomination will be assessed on its own merits, and not simply your insistences about the state of classical music. I hasten to add that Mr Tavener's music does not appeal to me greatly, but I remind you that it is important to view these issues impartially (see neutral point of view). If you are unable to follow these guidelines, then perhaps this page is not for you. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering how long it would take for that to come up. Francis Bacon is someone whose work I dislike. I won't be opposing that nomination. Tavener's work simply isn't influential or at the top of its "field" in any way, and saying so is entirely valid. AS FOR THE ADVICE TO EDIT ELSEWHERE, bug off. I support and champion a lot of nominations here for subjects I don't find particularly appealing, much more so than the average IP driveby. μηδείς (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You mean this Tavener who transcended classical music and who was knighted, won a Grammy Award, whose work was recorded by The Beatles' label, twice nominated for the Mercury Music Prize, whose works were commissioned for the Proms, and used at Princess Diana's funeral, whose music ended the 20th Century in the UK's celebrations... yeah, his work "simply isn't influential ... in any way". Utter crap. Try again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the "transcended classical music" laugh. I am cognizant of consensus here, that doesn't bother me. There are still some CN tags though, and a section needing serious attention. μηδείς (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for exposing yourself, once again. You managed to ignore all the other notes which prove your assertion to be utterly false. There are no CNs and which section needs "serious attention"? By the way, as for your laughs, try reading sources like The Guardian and The Financial Times. Perhaps your personal tastes are really clouding your discussion here. Such a shame for such an eclectic editor.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Much of the article is currently unreferenced. Neljack (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it might be best to hold posting for a few hours to give editors a chance to add citations from the obituaries. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as recent death I don't think he was such a world-leading figure that he needs his own blurb, but an RD mention seems fair. WP:IDONTLIKEIT notwithstanding, most music critics seem to think his death is a big deal (The Guardian app even sent me a breaking news notification about it). Smurrayinchester 10:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. He was a very significant figure in his field. Whether you like him or not and whether you think he deserve the status he had is irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A very significant figure in classical music and his death is being widely reported in the news media. I'm not clear on why μηδείς personal opinion of his music is relevant to this discussion. GoldenRing (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The existing references indicate that Mr Tavener is both important and influential. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marking as ready, this has overwhelming support and the opposes amount to absolutely nothing beyond IDONTLIKETHIS, which is somewhat embarrassing for those editors. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's an open question whether the article is updated, since the death section has only one sentence (although, it does have almost a 33% expansion, mainly in new refs for previously unreffed statements). Leaving that aside, there are still several citation needed tags, and a section brimming in them. That should be addressed. μηδείς (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It meets the current RD criteria. It's been updated sufficiently, one sentence is now adequate. Perhaps you need to re-appraise yourself of the current guidelines. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact, TRM, I do like Tavener's music - I'm listening to Song for Athene as I write, and it's very beautiful. My vote is based on my evaluation of Tavener's critical reputation and influence. Neljack (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see the article has had its uncited claims cited or removed, so there's no reason to prevent posting on that basis. Could TRM please provide a link to where it says that a one sentence update has been approved by RfC? (I am not opposing this on update grounds, given it's gone from 15 to 20K bytes. But I don't accpet the precedent and want a linkto the formal decision TRM implies exists. μηδείς (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is ready. I've added some tributes to provide a five-sentence update on Tavener's death. Material I highlighted as needing citations has been cited or removed. I don't think there's anything else needed? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update, hopefully there will be no further delay. I would still like to see the link to where policy has changed to TRM's one sentence update. μηδείς (talk) 03:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do think we need to discuss in detail what updates are suitable for RDs and get general community agreement that is broader than ITN. (The quotations in mine have all just been removed, with an edit summary referring to "not a memorial".) But here is not the right venue for a general discussion. I'm minded to post this anyway, if no-one objects. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the comments, and was about to come here to encourage EA to post, μηδείς (talk) 03:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see why ITN has been used as a justification for this cruft, an as such the discussion belongs here. The fact that there were tributes may have some weight and more than sufficient to establish the notability as far as his death is concerned, but the quotes themselves are typical eulogising in nature, which is why I removed them from the article. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's an artifact of the existing ITN requirements. We should have an RfC to change this. There has been discussion of it, but the last RfC related to ITN/RD in Aug 2012 required that RD not have any different criteria than ITN itself--a one sentence update is unacceptable, and a five sentence update with three refs is always enough. TRM has alluded to some change in policy, but until we have a link to that RfC it remains a myth. μηδείς (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "not a memorial" applies to someone whom no-one is arguing isn't notable? They do get a bit crufty in big clumps – and in retrospect, I think we could do without Peter Maxwell Davies's not particularly elucidating words – but the others are essentially summarising Tavener's life's work and its significance. If there's ever time in all this to-ing and fro-ing on the article to actually expand it, they could potentially be moved to other sections. But perhaps we could discuss this on the article's talk page... Espresso Addict (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that what I did is contrary to the ITN requirements, which states nothing about eulogies. We merely need to demonstrate the subject's importance to his field. And if one is seriously aiming to establish his importance to his field of endeavour, the rightful place for such recognition would have been made during a person's lifetime in the relevant section of his biography, and not merely upon his death in the "Death" section. We get a lot of cruft when a person dies that is often eulogistic and seriously distorts the truth. For example, I've seen comments after Hugo Chavez's death about him being a great supporter of Bolivarian ideals. People comment because they are asked to, and they often say what's expected of them, no wishing to insult the dead. They would tend to seek to elevate a mediocre to a saint, and I believe we would be doing our readers a disservice for including such junk. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 04:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Medeis, please, please stop claiming that any update recommendations are policy. As you have been told on a number of occasions, they are simply guidelines, there's a distinct difference. And no, there is no RfC, nor does there need to be one. There was a discussion on the removal of the arbitrary numerical update guideline on the talkpage here. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I suspected, you are full of it, and won't link to where a one-sentence update became policy. Please stop telling people to please stop doing things. μηδείς (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, try again, look closely!!!! (And for the fifth time, there is no policy, it's only ever been a guideline....) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] Stuxnet aboard ISS
Story now found to be probably untrue; nominator is only supporter, and he does not seem to object to closure (Pikolas, feel free to revert me if I'm mistaken). (non-admin closure) — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 13:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Weak oppose; reading the story, this seems a little stale- the article does not state when the virus got aboard the ISS, but it does seem like that it wasn't recently. That said, it is intriguing to me that something as internationally notable as the ISS was affected by such a virus, and I could understand posting it. Perhaps this would be better as a DYK item? In any event, thanks for the nomination. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. ISS has had computer viruses before [2]. This seems more trivia than ITN material. --LukeSurltc 16:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is apparently now not true and has been retracted [3] so I suggest closing this nomination. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, thanks for the info. Pikolas (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
True, but it's the first time it was done with people being aware their picture was being taken in advance. And NASA announced yesterday that more than 20,000 people observed the taking of the pic... I do like your revised blurb - thanks! Girona7 (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support when ready. This is getting widespread coverage, and amounts to the combination of science with a great work of art. μηδείς (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In order to show this as updated we could really use a paragraph on the significance of and reaction to the image. Technically we want five sentences of update within a three paragraph article. μηδείς (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good call, μηδείς. I have added a bunch of additional info to the Day The Earth Smiled article, which I believe should be sufficient. I will also now go ahead and add NASA's "Wave at Saturn" mosaic image. Girona7 (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The (as of my writing) alt-blurb mention of "this summer" does not apply to the southern hemisphere. I would suggest it not be posted like that. -dmmaus (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have editted the altblurb per this comment, and cannot imagine any objections thereto. μηδείς (talk) 03:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This really is a spectacular photograph, which includes Saturn as well as the three inner planets and various moons. See BBC. Girona7 should be commended. Not to mention a great free picture for the front page. Some more comments would be nice. μηδείς (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, science-art collaborations are welcome in every culture. Hard to believe the quality of these long-exposure composites. I like the new blurb. – SJ + 02:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm a fan of science-related items and the image is gorgeous, but it seems to me that the trouble with this as news is that it's essentially inherently stale, as the image was taken in July, which was when the associated events happened. I also feel that the "fanfare" used in the article to describe the photo's release is accurate -- it has a bit of a feeling of a press junket for NASA. I'm not necessarily opposed, especially given how slow ITN/C is at the moment, but I'd like to see other people's views on this. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Whilst this is undoubtedly a beautiful image, it is not a news story. There is no scientific breakthrough and no substantial impact. 'Nasa releases a pretty picture' is neither unusual nor particularly notable. I suggest you nominate the image as a Featured Picture and get it onto the Main Page that way. Modest Geniustalk 13:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have just now added additional detail to the article that speaks to the newsworthiness of the image. Indeed, there was some scientific information gained from this mosaic in addition to a couple of notable imaging "firsts". Girona7 (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as well, because there really is nothing newsworthy. I'm a fan of this kind of thing, but it's being posted in the wrong section. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 17:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At least four people are killed and eight injured as a seven story building catches fire in Vikhroli, a suburb of the Indian city of Mumbai. (Zee News)
At least 100 people are killed in a tropical cyclone in Somalia's semi-autonomous Puntland region. (Reuters)
Nominator's comments: Unanimous international court rulign over a long-dispute (ibelieve we posted earlier). JUST happened so not that many sources yet. Lihaas (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reasonably notable internationally: there's nothing higher than the ICJ, and the dispute has led to clashes between Thai and Cambodian forces. If we want to have a picture, I think this one of the temple looks best at low resolutions. BBC and ABC (via AP) are also covering the story. I've changed the blurb slightly - the temple itself was not disputed (it was assigned to Cambodia in 1962), but the land around it was. Smurrayinchester 12:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Notable step in a long border dispute. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. This seems to be a conclusion of a story that has been going on for a long time. Making the blurb a bit shorter, though. --Tone 14:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The posting was rather premature. The interpretation of the 1962 ruling was explicitly worded to point out that it covered only the promontory of Preah Vihear, and not the rest of the disputed 4.6 square kilometres. Analysts have pointed out that the ruling in a way falls in the favour of both parties. (It clarifies the extent of the promontory and reaffirms Cambodia's sovereignty there, but leaves the rest of the disputed area for both parties to bilaterally settle.) the The full consequences of the ruling are yet to be known, but it by itself in no ways ends the dispute. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cross-posting from Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Preah Vihear ruling: The currently worded blurb is inaccurate. The ruling (that the land around Preah Vihear Temple is a part of Cambodia and that Thai forces must withdraw from the location) was made back in 1962. The news is that the court made an interpretation of the 1962 ruling, which reaffirms Cambodia's sovereignty over the Preah Vihear promontory and clarifies the extent of the promontory itself. (Some news reports oversimplify the issue; the official verdict is available here. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pull this was posted in 2 1/2 with two supports, and it is still unclear how accurate the blurb is. (Compare Haiyan, which was delayed in posting by 13 hours after landfall.) I am not opposed, but I don't think I have my hands on whether a ruling on a prominence is accurately reflected by the blurb. Also, since the total issue is not resolved, this seems less notable than would be a full resolution. μηδείς (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pull per Medeis and Paul 012. Bold posting is one thing, but posting in a couple of hours with barely any discussion is another. Disappointing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled Primarily due to issues regarding the accuracy, although the speedy posting doesn't help matters. Stephen 21:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not Opposed what would be really helpful at this point would be a really good, detailed source from the nominator or a supporter giving facts upon which we can judge both the importance of the ruling and the exact territorial details. From what I read, it seems like only a promontory (of possible military significance?) was judged on? I don't even know if that's an accurate assessment. μηδείς (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just finished reading the judgment, and I agree the blurb is problematic. The Court's decision was expressed in the second paragraph of the dispositif (para 108):
Declares, by way of interpretation, that the Judgment of 15 June 1962 decided that Cambodia had sovereignty over the whole territory of the promontory of Preah Vihear, as defined in paragraph 98 of the present Judgment, and that, in consequence, Thailand was under an obligation to withdraw from that territory the Thai military or police forces, or other guards or keepers, that were stationed there.
However, the Court rejected Cambodia's argument that the hill of Phnom Trap was also covered by the judgment (it made clear that it was not making any pronouncement on whom it belonged to). So it was a mixed bag, really.
I'm not sure how the judgment could be accurately explained within the confines of a blurb. I suppose we could say: "The International Court of the Justice unanimously rules that all of the promontory of Preah Vihear is Cambodian territory, but declines to rule on who has sovereignty over the hill of Phnom Trap." But that's rather long. Neljack (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to state I'm not opposed to the pulling. 331dot (talk) 01:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm fine with the pulling now that the additional issues have arised. Still, it is a rare story and would fit on the ITN (and we're slow with news these days, that contributed to a rather speedy posting). Any better suggestions about the blurb then? --Tone 12:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Simple way to solve the crisis is to state the fact:
"The International Court of Justice unanimously rules that the promontory at Preah Vihear Temple is a part of Cambodia and that Thai forces must withraw from the location."Lihaas (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting with Lihaas' suggestion, have added with minor changes as the altblurb. μηδείς (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any more feedback here? --Tone 13:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The altblurb looks good and seems to match with the sources. Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The revised blurb seems good enough for me, given the space constraints. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there are any standing objections, so this should go back up with the altblurb if that's the case. μηδείς (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per Medeis dozens of unreferenced sentences as a result of dead or dubious links. Presumably she'll be asking for these to be resolved before supporting the re-posting of this item. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then tag them already. They are not tagged now, and following every link is not a prerequisite of an ITN nomination, nor is clairvoyance on the part of editors. μηδείς (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marked Ready the updated section is fully referenced, the blurb issue is addressed, pointy objections aimed at one editor and beyond the actual ITN criteria are irrelevant. μηδείς (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there's consensus to repost this. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Doesn't look like there are many candidates for ITN currently, so I'm adding this one to have more to choose from. Even though it isn't one of the "major" association football league, I believe the 43 years wait-time is something that is noteworthy, and we don't have many of the football blurb at this time of year. I believe I've updated the article to a standard that is good enough for ITN, but it might need some copyediting, as I'm no native-English speaker. --Mentoz86 (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, just because it's slow doesn't mean we should start posting low-quality stories, nor setting bad precedents. Not a major league, and even posting the English Premier League has been controversial in the past. Modest Geniustalk 13:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Despite escalating violence in Iran, the NYT states this is "the first reported assassination of a senior national official in Iran in years". --Espresso Addict (talk) 09:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, political assassinations in such an environment are notable. Article needs work. Possibly should be renamed Assassination of Safdar Rahmatabadi, as most of the article is going to be about his death. --LukeSurltc 09:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We usually use "death of" formulations for people who would not have merited an article aside from the manner of their death, which is not the case here. Presumably sources exist, though perhaps not in English, for his political & ministerial career. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As regards the spelling, my understanding is that transliteration is quite often ambiguous. Al Jazeera seem to be going with Rahmatabadi, and I would consider them one of the most reliable sources for this region. --LukeSurltc 09:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I went with the split name is that I saw a correction to it [5]; it also has higher Google hits and appeared more common in the more recent news stories. I agree Al Jazeera is a reliable source in this context. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose there are a whole host of political assassination in Af-Pak that are not alwys posted here. Though depending on who carried it out it may be notable in the light of iti happening the same day as a nuclear agreement came about
Note hes a minor ministerLihaas (talk) 11:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff exists. If you want to see other political assassinations similar to this one posted, you need to nominate them. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Assassinations of national political figures such as cabinet officials ("minor" or not) is notable. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait this article is a stub, newly created, and not meeting the three full-paragraph requirement. This seems to have been a very monir official. It is being called an assassination only on the basis of his holding office--we have no motive and no identified suspect or claim of responsibility. As far as we know this could be someone's jealous husband or to deal with some private dispute over money, etc. We need a fuller aricle, and without motive and suspect there is no proof of notability. μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "deputy industry minister"? Not all that I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; I missed the "deputy" part of the title in the article; not the actual head of the department. 331dot (talk) 12:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Close there's been no updation of the article, no motive, no suspect, no claim of responsibility, and insufficient support for a post. μηδείς (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think it's a shame that Wikipedia's systematic bias has led to the death of this nomination; if a similar-level person had been assassinated in many other countries of the world, I suspect it would have been posted very swiftly. News searches come up with much material that is translated from Middle-Eastern sources, but I do not have the expertise to ascertain whether these sources are sufficiently reliable and therefore have not added them. I have appealed for assistance to the relevant WikiProject but it does not seem to be active. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But that's just the point--we don't know he was actually assassinated, just shot. Could have been a boyfriend or a loanshark or a random serial killer. We could post this if it weren't a stub and if we had a suspect or a motive or a party claiming responsibility. We don't. All that leaves is "minor official shot". Not posting "minor official shot" has nothing to do with bias, systematic or otherwise. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One or both nominated events are 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 Genuinely impressive, international achievment. This guy was in his first season at the top level and is only 20 years old! HiLo48 (talk) 09:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, Marc Marquez has a bit of a "fan writes a huge amount of prose without citing anything" problem at the current time. --LukeSurltc 14:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So fix it. It's a world championship. I'm sure there is plenty of material. I'm off to work. HiLo48 (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support the bold-linked article is appropriately updated, and the item is ITN/R, so this should be posted as soon as possible. If someone would like to update the other linked articles in all the ITN articles, that'd be sweet. If someone would like to make it part of the posting criteria, I'm all for it. If none of the above, get over it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support the season article is ok - too bad the Marquez is still in a poor state. Nergaal (talk) 09:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WHY HASN'T THIS BEEN POSTED? HiLo48 (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Partly because the Marquez article is an embarrassing mess, I suspect. Also, pushing Haiyan off the top spot for a motorcycle race feels a little disrespectful. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't just "a motorcycle race". It was THE world championship, comprising 18 races, in 18 different countries. It's in ITN/R. And we had two articles linked, not just the usual one. One was already great. This posting can trigger improvements to the other. Disrespect is not an issue. HiLo48 (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing a motorcycle race (or any kind) atop Haiyan looks lopsided and awkward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.18.215 (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What a moronic post. See my post above re "a motorcycle race". And if you want to change the rules, take it to Wikipedia talk:In the news. (And for those concerned about the word "moronic", I reserve the right to so classify any post that totally ignores the one immediately before it.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And another question: Can anyone explain the date/time stamp on LukeSurl's nomination of this item? HiLo48 (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ah, I copied and pasted a template I keep in my sandbox. I must have forgotten to erase the old signature and put in a new one. --LukeSurltc 20:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. That'll do it. HiLo48 (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vietnam: The government mobilizes over 453,000 soldiers and militia members, and thousands of means of transport to cope with Typhoon Haiyan that is forecast to hit central region early Sunday. Roughly 20,000 people are evacuated from Da Nang. (The New York Times)(Tuoi Tre News)
International relations
British foreign secretary William Hague urged negotiatiors to "seize the moment" on talks about Iran's nuclear program. (BBC)
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: Probably the most notable British political journalist of the 1980s-90s, chief political editor at the BBC, Journalist of the year 1991 --Thryduulf (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hard in the UK to get a sense of the international notability, if any, of the BBC's political editor. Are any non-UK sources available? There are a lot of tributes available to fulfil the update criteria if need be, but with such a short article they'd be a bit overwhelming... Espresso Addict (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If being top of UK journalism is sufficient, then certainly. The article has been improved by myself & others. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support International notability is not required. A person may only really be well-known in their own country and still meet the criterion that they are "widely recognised as a very important figure" in their field. I believe that criterion is met here. The Guardian obituary says that he "revolutionised the routine broadcast reporting of politics."[6] The briefness of the update is not an issue, per the recent consensus that for RD listings we should focus on whether the article covers the person's life and significance well, rather than how long the update about the death is. Neljack (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the Guardian can be regarded as an independent source for the importance of their former deputy editor. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, The Independent's obituary describes him as "the most recognisable and respected broadcast political journalist since World War II" and says that he "not only did more than any single figure to create popular understanding of the turbulent 1980s, but pioneered the best in modern political broadcast journalism."[7]Neljack (talk) 07:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In a remarkable display of synchronicity, I've just been working through that one! Espresso Addict (talk) 08:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Neljack. I found this source which lists quite a few tributes. Probably could be used to update the article. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Right now I'm just seeing UK sources, nothing beyond that. We post enough UK deaths as is. Wizardman 23:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is not updated, although someone had marked it so. There is absolutely nothing in the article to indicate his importance like David Frost or Bob Woodward. No awards, no great achievements. Fully update the article to show his topofthefieldness or influence on others and I'll swiftly reverse my stand and fight for the listing. μηδείς (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Medeis; also willing to change my opinion should notability be demonstrated. 331dot (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to hold on a !vote for now but I'd echo the concern of Medeis that the article itself does little to suggest that Cole is particularly notable.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per Neljack, international notability is not a requirement (and would never even be raised as an issue in the case of an equivalent American). Within UK journalism, he was about as notable and recognisable as it is possible to be. Formerip (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support now that awards have been posted(and the fact he turned down a CBE). 331dot (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marking as ready I think consensus to post has emerged (more than 2 to 1 in favour). The article is in really good shape now, and there is a sufficiently large update by anyone's standards. Neljack (talk) 08:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is certainly updated as of this. μηδείς (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Doesn't seem that important to me, at a global level - and I'm one of the people who has been updating the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Global significance isn't a criterion, being at the top of one's field is. Political journalism is by its very nature a very national rather than international field. Thryduulf (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"National" significance in any country? Or just those where most editors happen to live? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support millions of BBC viewers over the past 30 years know who he is. And for two words, or nine characters (including the space) on the main page, which is currently bereft of RDs, it seems absurd to disallow this nom which has also had a good update. Posting this would encourage more people to update RDs. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The secondary sources are not reliable in this case since they are his friends and coworkers. They cannot be expected to be unbiased. No evidence has been presented by the nominator that people outside of Britain and outside of the field find his death at age 85 particularly noteworthy. Abductive (reasoning) 19:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, whether his death is noteworthy outside the United Kingdom is explicitly irrelevant (although sources have been provided by others above). Secondly, see the sources provided by others above - he retired in the early 1990s so the journalists of today are hardly coworkers and tributes have been coming in from senior political figures who were most certainly not his coworkers. Anyway, the criteria is that somebody is at the top of their profession (which he very much was) not that he was notable outside it. By your standards, no journalist could ever make it to RD which is a systematic bias I really do not want to introduce. Thryduulf (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nothing really new to add apart from what's been offered above by Rambling Man, Thryduulf and FormerIP; save that anyone with their own Spitting Image puppet surely passes the notability bar. GRAPPLEX 19:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI am not rescinding my oppose, but the consensus is 7 to 4 in favor, and the article is updated. I do think Ghmyrtle's concern should be addressed by an admin considering posting this. μηδείς (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to recent deaths. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsed side discussion completely unrelated to this nomination.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment and Question It's good that this has been posted. Why was Keith Dunstan's death two month's ago not posted ? HiLo48 (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No idea whether it should or shouldn't have been, but it looks like the reason was basically article quality. Formerip (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't rejected. It just wasn't posted. HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's not. It died through nobody caring enough. Anybody could have fixed the article, and nobody did. It was our systemic bias that caused it to not be posted. I was incredibly busy at the time, and didn't have the time myself. Postings here must NEVER depend on whether people care enough about items that are not about their own country or area of interest. I'll openly admit to being on a campaign to draw the attention of as many editors as possible to this problem. I'll stop now (unless somebody says anything constructive or silly to continue this conversation). HiLo48 (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I routinely update (1) articles I myself nominate or would have nominated, and (2) minority topics with few English sources, like last year's Vietnamese folk singer listing, Pham Duy. I'll be damned if I am going to work on some anglophone mediocrity nominated or championed by a regular here who insists SOFIXIT when he's told the article needs a little work. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame you didn't properly read what I just posted. Oh, and who was the last Australian posted to RD? HiLo48 (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I pretty much lump all youse guys and the Irish together as "Brits", so I am not sure. The number should be about 1/15th the rate of us Norte Americanos. The solution would seem to be nominating more? It's no shame Australia is only just larger than New York, and has a shorter period of modern development. μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not even important within UK. Note they no Wikiproject even rates the importance of this journalist above mid level. Are we going to post every BBC reporter or news reader as they die? I hope not. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 23:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't push anyone else off the ticker, but I think it should definitely be taken as an indication the bar has been lowered. μηδείς (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it obviously doesn't mean we'll post every BBC journalist - that's a straw man. We'll only be posting the really important ones. Neljack (talk) 04:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was a newsreader whose awards were an honorary degree, and winner Journalist of the Year in the year he retired from the BBC from the Royal Broadcasting Something. He's a darling of a certain set who loved his sticking it to Queen and Country, even though he didn't turn down any awards with the word "royal" in their title. Other than that he was an influenceless international-unknown. So I do indeed suspect the next journalist we publish will be a real, I mean "importanter" one. μηδείς (talk) 04:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Get over it, all of you. This place has become an insipid pit of systemic bias and consequential backlash. For nine characters on the main page, this is a decent shout. As mentioned above, the article was well updated, millions of English speaking readers will understand why he's an RD. Honestly, this is why RD has become a complete waste of time. If we updated RD three times a day it'd be a good thing, but we twat about for days on end arguing the toss over trivial crap. And usually it's "he was big in the US" vs "he was big in the UK" vs "he was big [somewhere most people in the US have never heard of]". Come on folks, get with the programme, let's just encourage editing, encourage turnover, encourage actual interest. If John Cole's entry disappeared in a day because two or three other entries passed through, so what, at least we're still trying to be "in the news". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You'll notice I said above that at least posting this would not be pushing any actually worthy nominations off the front page. HiLo can take comfort in the fact that when notable Australians like Robert Hughes finally die they will get a chance at posting. μηδείς (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. That's if the nomination doesn't just fall off the bottom of this page, as usual, through a systemic bias driven, lack of interest in a non-American or Brit. PS: I have no problems with this posting. HiLo48 (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Articles that fall off the bottom of the page do so for two reasons: lack of advocacy and update. That is for the supporters to provide. You will note that although I oppose this nomination I was happy to verify its supporters had updated it. μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Our systemic bias guarantees that there will often be insufficient supporters for non-Americans or Brits at RD. HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo, you are more than capable of advocating for a nomination, as I have seen you do so on numerous occasions. It's up to supporters of an article to make other people care and support it. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. that's not good enough. When I nominated Keith Dunstan and Chopper Read for RD, I was incredibly busy in my off web life. (I didn't choose the times they died!) I didn't have the time to do all that. Systemic bias meant that not enough others cared. If you cannot see that, you're part of the systemic bias. Such items either deserve to be here or they don't, irrespective of what I'm doing. Their posting must NEVER depend on the availability of a local person to push their case. That IS systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Post posting support. Per TRM and FormerIP.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose Seems an issue of mostly local concern, not appearing on international news sites as a top story, from what I can see. --Jayron32 15:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Failing to see the signficance. I think the potential demolition of the Astrodome would have greater reach. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If this does get posted, the demolition (Nov 21) would make more sense than the announcement of the demolition. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as above. That said, demolition is expensive, boggles the mind that they wouldn't just mothball the stadium until things brighten up fiscally. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Probably more suitable for the England portal (tho' I don't know how you add news manually to a portal that uses the Wikinews importer bot). Espresso Addict (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Local interest story only. Less than 6,000 people could be bothered to sign a petition to stop it from happening, so I doubt the world in general care about it being knocked down. And it's a terrible venue too. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 19:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Local issue; don't see anything significant or notable about this stadium (built in 1991, not too old) unlike the Astrodome which is looking like it might be demolished(the first domed stadium). 331dot (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
