*'''Support''' posting to RD immediately. Deceased was highly notable and article is in acceptable condition for RD. As a sidenote, the personal comments on this page have to cease. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 18:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support''' posting to RD immediately. Deceased was highly notable and article is in acceptable condition for RD. As a sidenote, the personal comments on this page have to cease. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 18:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
*:I assume you're talking about me? Well in that case do something about it, stop using your "position" as a weapon. Pathetic. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 18:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
*:I assume you're talking about me? Well in that case do something about it, stop using your "position" as a weapon. Pathetic. (And what a surprise, NYB turns up to post yet another dead American...) [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 18:52, 20 November 2014 (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).
Thousands of protestors gather in Mexico City for a national rally in memory of the 43 missing students. Demonstrators have also called for a nationwide strike. (BBC News)
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 unless and until the article is updated with information about his death. We currently only have a death date in the parenthetical after his name at the start, and zero words of prose about the death itself (as of when I am writing this). Otherwise, the article, while it could use a few more refs here and there, is of acceptable quality for the main page, and Nichols is certainly a significant figure. If there is appropriate prose added at any time, disregard this oppose and consider it a support. --Jayron3212:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support when updated "Nichols was one of a small group of people who have won an Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, and Tony Award. His other honors included the Lincoln Center Gala Tribute in 1999, the National Medal of Arts in 2001,[1] the Kennedy Center Honors in 2003 and the AFI Life Achievement Award in 2010." That's RD#2 to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending Article Improvement - Needs many more inline cites, and some of the mid-sections could use some de-proseline improvement. Definitely qualifies as RD for importance. --MASEM (t) 16:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting to RD immediately. Deceased was highly notable and article is in acceptable condition for RD. As a sidenote, the personal comments on this page have to cease. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're talking about me? Well in that case do something about it, stop using your "position" as a weapon. Pathetic. (And what a surprise, NYB turns up to post yet another dead American...) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maria Jose Alvarado, a 19-year-old Miss World competitor, is found fatally shot and buried along with her 23-year-old sister Sofia Trinidad in Santa Barbara, Honduras. The boyfriend of Sofia Trinidad, Plutarco Ruiz and an accomplice are arrested. (Sky News)
Article:Rampal (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Indian religious leader Rampal is arrested after thousands of police clash with his supporters. Six dead bodies were found in his compound. (Post) Alternative blurb: Indian religious leader Rampal and at least 492 followers are arrested as a police raid on his ashram leaves 6 people dead. News source(s):The Guardian, New York Times Credits:
Support References need some tidying up, but the article is well cited. A police action resulting in 492 arrests and 6 deaths is certainly notable, especially if, as The Times of India suggests, 15,000 people were involved. I've suggested an alt-blurb - if it's too long, the number of other arrests can be removed. Smurrayinchester13:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This non-posting of arrests is not policy, nor does NPOV require we not mention arrests in articles, and with an undisputed six deaths and almost 500 arrests with thousands involved the story stands on its own. μηδείς (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is by no means a policy, I agree, but it is also standard practice that if we are talking about a person(s) charged for a crime, the ITN post is nearly always at sentencing/conviction. Part of this is a very weak BLP argument (but by no means required by BLP policy): they are only a suspect in the crime, they have not yet been convicted so rushing to post the arrest could be seen as prejudging them in WP's voice, which we should avoid. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Four rabbis (three American and one British) are killed, and eight other people wounded in a terrorist attack on a Jerusalemsynagogue by two men armed with meat cleavers and guns. The two attackers were killed by police who arrived at the scene. One of the policemen died from his wounds. (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: A titan in Japanese cinema, who was known for his "tough guy" roles usually involving cops or yakuza. Nicknamed the "Japanese Clint Eastwood". --Tocino10:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending article improvements. Not sure on the "tone" maintenance tag, but it is begging for inline citations, which I believe these obits will help with. RD is appropriate for importance. ("Clint Eastwood of Japanese cinema" from the BBC is pretty telling). --MASEM (t) 16:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For a "Japanese titan", it's understandable that its English article is this bad. At ~2k characters, this is good enough for a DYK, if it was expanded to this state yesterday, so calling it a "stub" is quite stretching it. –HTD17:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I only included the "Life and career" section and excluded the lead and lists, and included things such as "[1]". Would you believe that it's longer than Maya Yoshida's "Career" section, which isn't apparently a stub? Badly-referenced, yes; stub, I don't think so. –HTD18:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, now. This guy's an admin? Really? Hey at least I'm 1/1 (100%!) 1/2 (50%) this year in ITN/C nominations and updated both myself lol. But that's ITNR so I dunno if that counts. –HTD18:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, if ITN posts is the sole metric of being an editor, then I'm not one. Too bad I'm not into cricket/spacecraft/elections in Europe/Lionel Messi/dead white dudes. –HTD18:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. The article needs a fuller lead, a better update, many citations (I labelled them individually, and removed the page tag, but it should still be considered as if page tagged) and I wonder, would anyone ever call Clint Eastwood, also a director and producer, the Ken Takakura of America? μηδείς (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article still has a totally unreferenced awards section, and two redlink appearances without citations crediting him. I had placed tags yesterday, but someone simply removed them. In any case, the article is not ready as is. μηδείς (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Dominating news cycles today worldwide. This particularly gruesome attack is the deadliest to happen in Jerusalem for a while, and getting a lot of international response. --→CrunchySkies ❅ « talk ± gawk »18:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not yet sure if I support this, but I've suggested an altblurb to remove the reference to the weapons(irrelevant to the blurb) and the date of the previous attack(not really that long a time, especially in the middle east). Also added that the suspects were shot dead. 331dot (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - not surprising that this kind of activity is taking place in the Middle East, we haven't posted the multiple beheadings of Westerners (and Syrians) and this, while depressing, is just more of the same. Plus, the article, once the hysterical "reaction" section is removed, is nothing but a couple of sentences of fact. It's also telling that I can guarantee we'll post this, but when 15 Indian women are killed in a day by a negligent doctor with dozens more critically ill, we just let it slide. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I have to come down on the oppose side for now; I think if this didn't involve foreigners(to Israel) it wouldn't be getting as much attention. Maybe if this has staying power as a story, or develops into a larger one(military response, etc.) it might be worth posting then. 331dot (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I have to agree with TRM that there's a lot of rhetoric in the reporting here, and when you get to the basic situation, two men killed 4 others and wounded several in an area of the world already strife with violence. If this leads to something larger, that might be newsworthy but this seems more sensationalism. --MASEM (t) 18:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Unfortunately the level of inter-religious violence in the Middle East has risen so dramatically that the attempted genocide of the Yazidis was not posted to ITN. This event is about 1/100 or 1/1000 times less important. Abductive (reasoning) 19:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Massacre" is a loaded term and generally not NPOV. I have restored the article to its original title: "2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack". Neutral on posting the attack at this time, but certainly opposed to any use of the term massacre to describe it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article has inappropriately been moved back. I have tagged it is being in a neutrality dispute and oppose its posting at this time as a result. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support assuming article is improved. Perpetrators were cousins of noted militant recently released from jail, attack was within place of worship, has garnered reactions from many world leaders. μηδείς (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we should resist posting sensationalistic news, especially when the purpose of the attack is to generate news coverage. Worse things happen frequently as others have noted and Middle Eastern violence is common, regretfully. JehochmanTalk22:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It is clear from the Israeli and the international reaction that the synagogue attack is a game-changer for the situation in Jerusalem and Israel, and a significant escalation of the conflict will follow. In fact, it may be appropriate to create a special sticky for the ongoing events there. Nsk92 (talk) 14:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - definite game changer. and it should be posted based on the fact that it is international news and is important both for the region and other countries.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is more likely to have an effect on international relations than all the bus and train crashes that are featured in ITN. Gamaliel (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's a gruesome terrorist attack in religious site on religious leaders. Victims from different nations, making it a news of international concern --Numancia (talk) 06:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ready? Is the orange title dispute tag a hindrance to posting this story? If so, an admin could close the RfC, given the current lopsided majority of opinion. If not, this should be posted immediately, since it is still a subject of international comment and interest. μηδείς (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the "support" comes from the idea that this is somehow more significant than all the other atrocities currently circulating around the Middle East. There's not a sniff of the beheading of Kassig, for example (nor the other Westerners or Syrians). This minor blip is nothing more than that. Some of the commentators have claimed this to be a "game changer". Where is the evidence of this? What has "changed"? Minor attacks on minority believers occur every single day. In Israel or Gaza, this happens a LOT. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Posted this in talk but creating a new section here (instead of using discussion below... since its too far below). Philae blurb needs an update as current one doesn't do justice to all that has happened since the landing. i.e Landing issues and the fact its already dead. I suggest updating the blurb with something semi close to the suggested blurb but its hard to word it within a sentence. so please go ahead and edit the blurb as you please ---- Ashish-g5518:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is the blurb necessarily "wrong"? It reached the surface, and recorded data for a few days. It wasn't probably as successful as they had hoped, but the major goal - to land a probe on a comet - was completed. --MASEM (t) 19:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its not wrong but since blurb is still up and probably will stay up for a bit, it just looks old. obviously a lot more has taken place, the mission ending in 2 days is significant in itself. -- Ashish-g5520:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps change to "completes its mission to reach P67..." instead of just "lands"? The reader can clickthrough to figure out how it was completed (perhaps earlier than expected), but the news was the "oh s*** we landed a probe on a fast moving comet!" moment, so changing it to "Completed" doesn't affect that aspect but does address your concern. --MASEM (t) 20:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The most technically correct formulation is that it entered hibernation mode, methinks. Still a solid chance that it could wake up again in some months or weeks time.
Stephan Ulamec believes it is probable that in the spring of 2015, the DLR LCC will once again communicate with Philae and receive data about how the lander is faring on Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.DLR
That's not the impression I get (I should have quoted this: "I'm very confident that Philae will resume contact with us and that we will be able to operate the instruments again," says DLR Lander Project Manager Stephan Ulamec.). Nobody really knows, that is for sure. But nobody seems particularly worried that Philae will freeze to death, so all that is required then, is that the insolation will improve adequately; which is not at all unlikely (not the least because the comet is currently moving closer to the sun). --Njardarlogar (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd strongly oppose using "completes" because whether or not the mission was completed is at the moment something of a matter of opinion. It could well be argued that the mission was completed because it landed, operated its instruments and collected data, but it could also be argued that it was not completed but failed because part of the probe's mission was to operate on the surface for several weeks (or one at minimum). This isn't the place to discuss this, however the main page, above all pages, should adhere to WP:NPOV. --W.D.Graham21:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to oppose posting an update. I don't think the likely (not certain) end of the lander's mission is as significant as the landing itself. It is also worth noting that Rosetta is still operating so the mission as a whole is ongoing. --W.D.Graham21:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the landing was significant.. 5 days ago. Updating blurb can only keep it relevant to current status of lander. Doesnt change the fact that it landed. I dont think it lowers significance in any way -- Ashish-g5522:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support the updated blurb as the relevant issue at this time, but not moved to the top of the queue, and without the !??! at the end. μηδείς (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I oppose changing the blurb. First, it is not certain the lander is dead. Second, the landing was/is the historic part of Philae's mission. Failures are pretty much expected. Abductive (reasoning) 03:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and I'll note that the original mission plan called for 3 day to 6 months of measurements. That it ended at the early part of that range is unfortunate, but forseen.128.214.53.18 (talk) 08:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The story is that humans have managed to land a battery powered washing machine on a comet, not that it did one load and conked out after the final spin. In any-case it appears to have been sold with a warranty and may come back to life in 9 months or so. --wintoniantalk16:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Authorities in the Netherlands ban the sale of poultry and eggs following the discovery of the bird flu virus at a chicken farm. Authorities in the United Kingdom have also confirmed that the virus has been discovered at a Yorkshire duck farm with the birds being culled. (AP)
Article updated 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. It is a recent notable event, though some issues like outdated info need to be fixed. Also, Iohannis is descended from a Romanian minority, so this is more noteworthy. Epicgenius (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2014 (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.
Comment. Can you provide sources indicating that this is in the news? Could you also explain what about him being the youngest captain makes him important to cricket? 331dot (talk) 12:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a cricket person but reading the article, this seems to suggest that he didn't have much of a career (having to retire at 26), thus not really being a leader in his field. --MASEM (t) 18:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As a cricket person, I have to agree with Masem. By no stretch of the imagination is Craig a very important figure in cricket. He was captain of Australia for one year, played in only 11 tests in his whole career, and had a test batting average of below 20 - absolutely terrible for a specialist batsman. As the article itself says, "Craig's career did not fulfil its early promise." I would also point out that he's not the youngest test captain ever - he is Australia's youngest, but he's only the sixth-youngest overall.[1] South Africa, India, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh have all had younger test captains. Neljack (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; doesn't seem to meet the RD criteria. Like Masem I don't know much about cricket, but reading his page he didn't seem to have a particularly notable career, and I'm not clear on how is being the youngest captain makes him 'very important' to cricket. 331dot (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2014 (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.
Well, actually an Oppose should not be automatic. Especially considering the fact that it was an historic win for Italy. On its first attempt it won, Junior Eurovision is also not just a minor event anymore. It gets press in Europe these days and is a large event.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- Agree with Bzweebl. It may be 'historic' for Italy, but countless things may win on their first attempt, it certainly is not to the same scale as the main Eurovision. -- [[axg//✉ ]]00:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With your reasoning we should not post next years winner of ESC as countless acts have won it :) And I have never claimed that JESC is as big as ESC but it is not a small event anymore aither. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. People would've tripped over each other in nominating this if instead of Italy, this was the UK or Ireland. –HTD01:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Though nominated before(I think), I don't recall this being posted before, regardless of the nationality of the winner. It doesn't really seem relevant- and I would oppose it regardless. 331dot (talk) 03:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
inquiry can someone equally familiar with American and British/European culture give an analogy for what the adult Eurovision song contest is comparable to in American culture? E.g., is this like the World Series, the New Year's eve ball dropping, or the Miss USA contest? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this statement (as an American); there is really nothing comparable in the States or Canada to something that sees the individual states or provincences coming together to support a single group. Arguably there is Miss USA, but that is such a low impact event in that nature. American Idol, while in terms of function, is similar, it lacks the "national" connection that Eurovision has. (I do agree the youth version of EV is not ITN) --MASEM (t) 05:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Miss America is more prestigious, but still there's no inter-state rivalry or really any consciousness of the contest by the general pubic until the night it is aired, and even then it's a curiosity, and no one I know would be upset their state didn't win. A few winners of the Miss America pageant have had notable careers, Bess Myerson, Lee Meriwether, Mary Ann Mobley, Phyllis George, Vanessa Williams, but these seem to have been otherwise talented people for whom the Miss America pageant was a feather in their bonnet, not a big break. μηδείς (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's sorta what I mean. There is the local to state to national level of competition there, but the awareness is only at the final show, and it's not like people get very charged up to see their personal "Miss State" win the Miss America pageant as there is for the people of a given European country to see their selected song/group get top honors at EV. And the fact that the EV contest doesn't have an elimination format means everyone is invested to the end, unlike sports here in the states that, if certain teams make it to the final championship, viewership will drop off badly. It's very difficult to compare EV to anything American. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of viewership, the Super Bowl is probably the nearest comparison. Eurovision gets over 170 million viewers across Europe, whereas the Super Bowl gets about 110 million in the US. By comparison, Game 7 of the World Series got 24m viewers. In terms of cultural impact, people are aware and it gets a lot of viewers (9m in the UK) but people don't take it especially seriously. -86.161.67.105 (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~170 million out of ~750 million people in Europe= 4%
~110 million out of ~318 million people in the US= 34%
Also, I heard that the actual votes in American Idol dwarf those of the adult Eurovision contest. (Actual number of votes aren't used to determine the winner on the latter.) –HTD12:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops. I dunno where 4% came from. I was right on the other lol. So Eurovision is like the twice the appeal of the World Series, but not quite Super Bowl level. –HTD20:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, regarding the World Series, my father won't watch it and many people don't if his home town team is not in it, but he watches all regular-season Phillies games religiously. The Superbowl, however is much more of an event in itself, with a huge audience, close to a national holiday. He's never missed one regardless of whether the Eagles were in it. μηδείς (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't understand why any of these competitions exist, let alone why Eurovision gets posted. Beyond that, I see no reason to ever post a "junior" competition for anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not really a major event. Most countries don't even participate (16 participants in 2014 versus 37 in the adult version, and EBU has members in 56 countries). 3 of 16 made their debut and one of them winning doesn't seem special. It's not like team sports where you need time to build a high-level team. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Comment While ITNR, it's not clear which side of the summit the ITN should be posted. I would think for article quality it should be on the back end (completion) so that the article can reflect any major agreements that came out of it. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per Masem. The article can only improve if we have information about the events of the summit, so if we're going to post an article about it, let's at least have something worthwhile to write about. --Jayron3202:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support now the summit is over. I've suggested an altblurb, but it might be considered WP:OVERLINKed. I've also added a bit on the outcomes of the summit to the article, but it's just sourced directly to the leaders' communique, so if anyone feels like expanding it and improving the sources then it'd help the article. GoldenRing (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sweden releases a sonar image it says is proof that a foreign submarine entered its waters in October. The grainy image shows underwater tracks allegedly left by the vessel. (BBC)
Support RD only. He was a significant figure in his field (mathematics) but he's been a recluse since retirement in the late 1980s. "Old man dies of natural causes" is not a blurb-worthy event, but exactly what RD was intended for. Thryduulf (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. The article is full of dense jargon: "Within algebraic geometry itself, his theory of schemes is used in technical work. His generalization of the classical Riemann-Roch theorem started the study of algebraic and topological K-theory. His construction of new cohomology theories has left consequences for algebraic number theory, algebraic topology, and representation theory. His creation of topos theory has appeared in set theory and logic" and largely unreferenced. Nor are we given a rationale or sources in the nomination template. I don't see any awards, although this may be a result of his asociality and life as a recluse, rather than lack of merit. So work would need to be done give WP:ATTRIBUTE attributed sources saying how influential he was. μηδείς (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but is this not a section in the text? a sentence or two about the awards, explaining their significance and his reaction belongs in the influence section, does it not? μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Definite support for RD once the article has been tidied up and the maintenance tag addressed. You're pretty much not gonna getta more prominent mathmo than a Fields medallist. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, Oppose blurb, pending article cleanup ("Mathematical work" and down need more in-lines, and there's a few broken refs). No question on RD posting but not seeing, given death by old age, a significantly important figure equivalent to Thatcher or Mandela. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, Oppose blurb pending article improvements. Clearly notable in his field, which meets the RD criteria, but this doesn't warrant a blurb. If a blurb is supported, it should not include the unquantifiable "greatest mathematician" statement. 331dot (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mainly on article quality grounds, would support for RD if it were fixed up. Most of the important text is entirely unreferenced; entire sections are either unreferenced, or very poorly so. Needs a major overhaul with someone putting a whole lot of work into referencing it before I could support highlighting this on the main page. --Jayron3201:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD, and possibly for a stand-alone blurb. A major figure in 20-th century mathematics, much bigger than a run-of-the-mill Fields medalist. Nsk92 (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jargon and Citation the article has large swathes of unsourced material, including entire sections. Worse for the reader, unless you've got a BA in mathematics you've probably never heard of many of the terms and none of them are defined in the text, so there are literally dozens of technical phrases you'd have to open the link for and read, rather than just being given a basic in-article definition that allows continuous reading by the layman. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"rather than just being given a basic in-article definition that allows continuous reading by the layman" — you seem very certain that the mathematics can be summarized in a "basic" way that allows a layman to understand it. The mathematics that Grothendieck worked on was very deep and very hard, even for experts with PhDs in mathematics. If you have some concrete way of making this accessible to someone with no knowledge of mathematics, I would love to hear it. But just observing that it's too technical for laymen to grasp is not terribly constructive. This is, after all, a mathematician whose life work was among some of the most technical and hard-to-understand in history, not some footballer. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments are getting personal, emotional, and on the article talk page, contrary, Sławomir. According to MOS:JARGON an article at a graduate level of expertise should be written down one level so a reader at undergraduate level can get the gist of it. Brief explanations and definitions as well as examples should be given in lieu of bare links where complex ideas are discussed, I've already show how that can be done on the article's talk page, and you've ignored it. There's also the issue of references. No one is attacking your idol personally, just suggesting the article has problems that someone with the proper understanding can address. μηδείς (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion that Grothendieck is my "idol" is not true, and I suggest that it is you that are here becoming personal. What I do take issue with is your apparently arrogant attitude that, by adding a few words here or there, the ideas of the Langlands program, Scheme (mathematics), or Weil cohomology can be made accessible to someone with zero mathematical knowledge. That's simply not true. For instance, the Langlands program itself is a sort of glue that holds together many very difficult branches of mathematics, such as representation theory, local field theory, and automorphic forms. And that's kind of the "point" of Grothendieck's whole perspective, to weave this sort of glue. There's just no sound-bite for that, no matter how hard you try. Even the concept of "cohomology", which is "elementary mathematics" from the Grothendieck point of view, would be nearly impossible to explain in a brief inline form. (And then, is it topology? is it algebra? is it geometry? Not easy questions to answer.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At this point you are just outright lying, no one has said anything about making the article "accessible to someone with zero mathematical knowledge", I have mentioned a familiarity with calculus on the article's talk page and the MOS again says, write one level down. I suggest you stop addressing me (especially here), and do what you can, if you are interested, in making the article more accessible to those like hard science majors who might actually be interested in this article. μηδείς (talk) 02:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, your assumption that there can be nothing in mathematics that is deep enough to be difficult to explain to non-mathematicians comes across as anti-intellectualism. Is that an appropriate attitude for a Wikipedian? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A towering figure in 20th century mathematics. And despite the seeming mundanity of "old man does of old age" as a headline, this is actually an important development for mathematics and not just a human interest story, because it could lead to a resolution of the embargo he made on translating and re-releasing his publications, which are still valuable today. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
David, I do see User:Cenarium has been adding references, but I do not see you on the edit history. I have quoted from write one level down in bold on the article's talk page, and given an example of how I would do that with the concept pleiotropy, which is undergrad level biology at best, but can be explained to any secondary schooler who knows what a gene is. I'd be adding references myself, but it's our mathematics wizards who should be doing this, in order to get it right. μηδείς (talk) 04:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, do we need credentials to post here? Or is that only a requirement of supporters? I have not done much editing on the main Grothendieck article, but I wrote most of dessin d'enfant, one of Grothendieck's contributions (but far from the biggest of those). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Grothendieck's work is notoriously abstract and hard to grasp, even among professional mathematicians. I doubt that there are any comparable examples in biology; can you think of any idea in biology which is so difficult to understand that it intimidates even professionals? But Grothendieck's major work does, and he didn't introduce just one intimidating idea, he introduced several (nuclear spaces, stacks, topoi, motives, and others). Not because he was intentionally obscure (he took pains to write carefully, building up his foundations slowly and methodically), but because the ideas are so different than anything you've ever encountered before.
At one point I wrote one of his ideas one level down. This became the article Grothendieck topology. It's appropriate for a mathematics graduate student. Quite frankly, I don't know how to express it more simply without betraying the technical content. I invite you to look at it, but you won't understand it. Without knowing what a category and a topological space are, it will be incomprehensible, and without some understanding of algebraic number theory it will be appear to be abstract for abstraction's sake rather than the profound advance that it was. These prerequisite subjects are beyond the scope of most undergraduate mathematics studies; they're usually studied in graduate school.
I don't mean to say that the article Alexander Grothendieck is perfect (it's not). But I do feel that your specific complaint about his mathematical work being made too difficult to understand is unjustified. It just is difficult to understand. Ozob (talk) 05:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated claims of I can't explain it don't help, I see no attempt at clarification of any terms on the page. Frankly, it's a plea of incompetence. Apparently a topological space is a set of points and an area in which they can move while still following certain rules. Those might not be the technical words, but are they wrong or misleading? μηδείς (talk) 05:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good job to whoever did the referencing work. It's nice, for once, to see the article quality take precedence over other concerns. Thanks to whoever took care of it. --Jayron3202:06, 17 November 2014 (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. How does this relate to the same statistic for Cricket World Cup, which is more than double at 673? Is runs the critical metric for Cricket? Why would any of the other records on this list page not be the critical metric? Is this event/league the defining one for Cricket, and not Twenty20 or Cricket World Cup or any of the others? I remember that a certain American football record did not get posted because it wasn't clear that the record being set was the critical metric of the sport. I think that same principle applies here.128.214.53.18 (talk) 05:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The 673 figure is an aggregate for the entire tournament, while this one is for a single innings. And, yes 'run' is by far the most crucial metric in cricket. Event/league doesn't matter here because this is a world record set for one particular format of the game. —Vensatry(ping)08:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Highest Individual ODI score is by far most prestigious and arguably hardest record to beat (apart from the total career runs that's not going down any time soon). 264 wow and wth -- Ashish-g5505:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose now I like this kind of "good news" story but sadly this record has been broken five times in the last five years, so it's not uncommon. Nor is it inconceivable that it could be broken tomorrow (or whenever the next ODI is played) so we'd have to post it again and again and again.... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The record may have been broken 5 times in 5 years, but this time it has been broken by 45 runs, and it seems highly unlikely that anyone will better it, for quite some time. It is also the 2nd highest List A score in history - the highest, Ali Brown's 268, has stood for over 10 years - so we're nearly entering the 'it may not be possible to score any higher' range. 101.162.201.229 (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"... it seems highly unlikely that anyone will better it ..." what evidence do you have to support this claim? Why couldn't Rohit beat it in his next innings? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To use an analogy, suppose a golfer broke the record for the lowest 4 round score by a significant margin - the score was 20% lower than the previous record - would it be logical to believe the same record could be beaten again anytime soon, seeing as the old record was bested by an unusually large margin. In other words, Rohit's record is an outlier (just as the golf record would be), as it is 20% larger than the previous record; his 264 is not a normal record progression - it would be akin to the 100m world record dropping from 9.7 seconds to 9.5.101.162.201.229 (talk) 12:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The golf record is a bad analogy, because golf is limited in its scoring by the number of holes. You cannot score an infinitely lower score; you literally cannot score lower than 18. In cricket, there is no practical limit to how high the score can rise. A sufficiently skilled batsman playing against a sufficiently bad, uninterested, or demoralized team could score forever. --Jayron3212:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So basically this also eliminates from comparison sports that are timed (basketball and any code of football), while only allowing sports that could literally go on forever like baseball, tennis and volleyball? –HTD13:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't eliminated anything, with regards to posting, nor have I opposed this posting. I've merely pointed out the inappropriateness of an analogy. I'm officially undecided on this one. I just don't like letting bad logic go without correction. --Jayron3213:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not. It's also difficult to compare to baseball, as a single batter in baseball doesn't face consecutive pitches once they have hit the ball, the way that it happens in cricket. FWIW, if I recall correctly, we did post an ITN item for that ridiculously long tennis match a few years back. Talk:Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships confirms that. --Jayron3213:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A baseball batter can still face the same pitcher if the pitcher is not replaced after the entire order was finished in one inning... that's not very common. So basically, this can't be compared to anything, which means we'd rely on cricket people to assess how important this is. This is a single match record, right? ITN doesn't usually post single-match records in team sports, preferring career records in a very select sports. –HTD13:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cricket matches cannot go on for ever. In this case it was a ODI where each team is limited to 50 overs, so the theoretical maximum score for a single batsman would be 50 (overs) × 6 (balls per over) × 6 (runs per ball) = 1800 (extras don't get added to the batsman's score). However the batsman would need to change ends on the last ball of the over to retain the strike (which doesn't happen when a boundary is scored) they would have to run an odd number of runs (running more than 3 is uncommon, so we'll say 5 for practical purposes) which means 50 x 5 x 6 + 50 x 1 x 5 = 1750. Scoring 6 sixes in an over has only been achieved 7 times in professional cricket (Boundary (cricket)#6 Sixes in an over) and never more than once by any one player. No player has ever (afaict) faced every ball of an innings (201/300 is the record [4]), and the highest ever team score in an ODI innings is 443 [5]. Test matches are also time limited (5 days), but there are restrictions on the number of overs in each session and at least three innings (usually 4) need to have been completed to get a result (and once you've won you stop playing) so for practical purposes the number of runs scoreable is finite. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, 1800 is theoretically possible, but it would require the batsman's team mate to score an odd number of runs off a no ball bowled as the first ball of every over (except the first over) - this would basically require the cooperation of the opposition to achieve. Thryduulf (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being extremely pedantic I'd say 1800 is more likely than your scenario as it doesn't require the non-applying of rules. In any other scenario than extreme pedantry though they are as equally far fetched as each other! Thryduulf (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I like cricket, but this record doesn't really seem that significant. Our readers are likely to be underwhelmed by the story, which just isn't that interesting. If this was a Test record then I would support, but ODIs aren't even the top form of the game. Modest Geniustalk11:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An astonishing innings, but while this is a important record it is by no means the most significant one in cricket. Test cricket remains the most prestigious form of the game - and, if anything, one-day cricket is losing ground to 20/20. Records such as the highest test innings, most career test runs, or most wickets in a career or a test are all more significant. Neljack (talk) 11:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because we forgot Peyton Manning ... In all seriousness, while this is by all accounts an impressive record, ITN has historically been loathe to post individual sports records, with very few exceptions.--WaltCip (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2014 (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.
A doctor is arrested, believed responsible for the deaths of 13 women in a state-run sterilization clinic in Chhattisgarh, India. (BBC)
A spokeswoman for the public prosecutor in Switzerland confirms existence of open criminal investigations regarding several people who may have taken part in manipulation of the currency exchange markets; such investigations are also underway in the United States and Britain. (Reuters)
The Philae landing craft is now "stable" after bouncing hundreds of metres from its initial touchdown, and is sending pictures from the surface of the comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko. (BBC)
Oppose no rationale is given, but the article consists of a large list of red links that seems to be an unreferenced attack page disguised as a description of web shaming. There's a POV that businesses should pay as much tax as possible. The article should probably be afd'ed and this certainly doesn't belong on ITN. Neu dabei shouldn't be discouraged from future nominations, but we don't even have an event or a blurb in sentence form. μηδείς (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AfD the article consists of vague syntheses accusing a former PM of having been "in office" and naming a non-notable individual and dozens of corporations, most of which are redlinks, implying some sort of misdealing while an explicit source says that none of the countries violated the laws of Luxembourg. Without specific sources saying the specific companies have actually been charged with criminal activity, the whole exercise amounts to defaming private persons and businesses that would have every right to sue for the implications as the article is written. I have deleted the list of companies, since the website itself is the source, and deleted the non-notable private individual, we shouldn't be using WP to encourage personal attacks against him. μηδείς (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not oppose and nominate an AfD at the same time as that's a conflict of interest. Now you have effectively blocked this item from going up till Afd has been taken care of. this is more of an unwritten rule as we specifically created a rule to avoid this happening once item is on main page. I guess we should have done that for ITN/C as well. -- Ashish-g5504:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
support – smaller luxLeaks are four years old, but four years ago the released documents were few, and the term luxembourg leaks didn't exist. now all luxLeak papers have been published by several media, and the scandal is putting a shock wave through the european parliament. the article has a few issues but is pretty solid for a current affairs topic. i recommend a bit of copy editing to streamline the sentences. the deletion request looks a bit odd to me and might irritate visitors/readers. [ntw: what does AfD mean, dear friend?] Maximilian (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I have closed the AfD as a Snow keep. No reason for deletion was actually given, and no support for the deletion was forthcoming (naturally, as this is a huge story in Europe). Fram (talk) 08:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not only a huge story in Europe: Global enterprises and global media organizations are involved. (E.g. Amazon, Caterpillar are headquartered in the US.) Plus money travells fast with very little travel expenses. -- Neudabei (talk) 09:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This certainly seems important enough to post. I'm not a fan of the proposed blurb, though. I'd rather we use the one proposed by Neudabei above. -- Calidum17:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This edit is a great improvement compared to the previous outright defamation and implications of negligence. But the whole issue still amounts to soapboxing and the shaming of companies against which no criminal or civil charges have been filed. (If I am wrong, let's have the refs and nominate the individual stories when we have a verdict.) So we would basically be promoting a stub on the assumption that companies should want to pay more taxes than they have to when loopholes exist. We are not a mirror site for wikileaks and nor should we be a portal for this POV-based stub. Until there's a verdict and a good, neutral article, this belongs nowhere near the front page. μηδείς (talk) 05:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed, from neutral pov: "soapboxing... promoting on the assumption that companies should want to pay more taxes than they have to...not a mirror site for wikileaks and nor should we be a portal for this POV-based stub." Noted that stub now improved by removal of unsuitable content. [6] --Qexigator (talk) 08:06, 15 November 2014 (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 The only person in the world who believes that no bribery occurred is the FIFA mouthpiece, and that's only because he's paid to. The WP front page is not FIFA's mouthpiece. WinterWall (talk) 10:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Headlines that read "People who were bribed to say they weren't bribed do what they were bribed to do" aren't news. They're the expected course of business. --Jayron3211:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Corrupt organization remains corrupt, and yet people will still tune in and the corrupt organization will make more money." – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2014 (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
