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).
In a first, India has offered a $100-million credit line to Vietnam to purchase military equipment. It will be used for purchasing four patrol boats. (The Hindu)
Nominator's comments: This is a confederation championship like the UEFA European Championship, African Cup of Nations, Asian Cup, and Copa America all of which are included in WP:ITNR. In the past have suggested that this be included to small, but positive support. --CWY2190(talk • contributions) 23:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Italy bus crash
Article:No article specified Blurb: Thirty people die when a bus came off a flyover and fell down a slope. (Post) News source(s):The Local Credits:
Nominator's comments: Major bus crash in a country where accidents are not common. More news sources are covering this event but I am nominating this somewhere where service is really slow. there is no article on the crash yet. Andise1 (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A lot of people, but nothing terribly newsworthy happened to report. Lots of people turning up to see and hear the Pope isn't exactly anything new. Neljack (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. While I'm sympathetic to the idea of posting an event involving a immensely large gathering of people(in the millions), this was a gathering of Catholics in a heavily Catholic country to see their spiritual leader. It would be news if such an event didn't draw such a large crowd. 331dot (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: While this was announced four days earlier, I think it's still fresh news. 100k death toll is a significant milestone for the civil war. Mohamed CJ(talk)15:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's a horrible war and a horrible milestone, but ultimately these sorts of non-events are arbitrary milestones and are not themselves meaningful. The 99,999th death is no less notable than the 100,000th. We should report notable events from wars, not meaningless, symbolic, and arbitrary events that coincide with round numbers. --Jayron3217:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The number of casualties shows how deep and devastating the war has become. If we'd report territory changes such as army X took over Y strategic city/town/neighborhood, then we'd have to report back when the other party takes it back as well (the situation is fluid). At least, this is the argument offered to me here. Mohamed CJ(talk)18:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The article is updated, but there is very little "updated content" for us to showcase. Since this milestone is not connected to any particular event, there is not much more to say about this outside of what is already stated in the blurb. -- Black Falcon(talk)18:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Support - major business story. I remain of the opinion that the correct time to post is the announcement as that is the phase of the merger process that generates the most press coverage. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I'm torn between a desire to pander to occasional complaints that we don't post enough business news and an inability to see very much that is interesting about the story. Formerip (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The number of fatalities varies from source to source. CNN says 6, Reuters talks about 3, while some report only one dead. --Երևանցիtalk03:51, 28 July 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.
There's a difference between "not significant, especially in comparison to other shootings". It's another thing to say "Perhaps we could have a ticker for US shooting murders....", which is obviously a ridiculous suggestion meant to jab at American society. One might argue that it's not that egregious, but I'm particularly sensitive to it given your overt soapboxing about the same topic back in in February 2013. And you didn't help matters with your subsequent statement below. -- tariqabjotu23:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose TRM is basically right (and I cannot stand the usual crap about Americans being gun happy). This sort of crime is all too common. TRM mentions only schools, but this happens with fired officeworkers, in domestic disputes, and with drug dealers on about a biweekly basis. This case is certainly not encyclopedic in nature. μηδείς (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, Medeis said she "couldn't stand the usual crap about Americans being gun happy". I disagree with her on that, there are 88 guns per 100 people in America (like mobile phones), so this kind of incident should be expected. That's why it's not ITN material really. How will this impact the future of America, or the world? It won't. Is it widely reported outside the US? It was, but it's yesterday's news already. In other words, it's de rigeur I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any incident of mass murder is shocking, and always worthy of serious discussion. Furthermore, there is no hard-and-fast rule for the posting of mass murders, nor should there be. But if we're talking about incidents of this scale (regardless of whether guns are legal in that country or not), the bar for extraordinary circumstances is generally quite high. The random murder of schoolchildren by someone who was not legally entitled to bear arms is one that we posted not too long ago. Following a family half way across the continent to murder them on a family holiday (with a then unknown motive) was another. I'll leave it to others to draw comparisons between those cases and this one, but it's a disgraceful fact of life that mass murder is too common on this dangerous planet for us to indiscriminately post each instance. —WFC— FL wishlist19:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with WFC. Every instance is worth discussion. It doesn't mean to say that most instances are just commonplace and not "in the news". Facts are facts, and if some editors feel that stating them is "soap boxing" then perhaps they should take a break. It's true that for every 100 people in the US, there are 88 weapons, it's true that there have been twelve school shootings in the US in 2013, it' true that 900 Americans are shot to death every month. That's why a story like this, while entirely tragic, is not newsworthy, it's a common occurrence. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We don't post (or shouldn't, at any rate) every train crash and lorry pile up. Ditto gun crime in the US. Simply too many people are dying, too often, for Wiki to allow front page prominence to each and every event. This is a little local difficulty, and as stated above, ITN can't allow every gun-happy American to have their time in the sun. For a country with such lax and liberal gun legislation, front page attention for every incident involving guns is simply illogical.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doktorbuk (talk • contribs)
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.
Article is a tad light. Most everything is about his death, and the presentation he didn't get to make because of said death. If the facts of his life which made him noteworthy can be expanded some, I'd support this, but right now I feel the article is a tad light. --Jayron3214:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Even if he was among the top of his field, I don't think he is notable enough for RD. He appears to have been largely unknown outside of the hacker community before his death; in fact, he was so little-known that nobody felt like creating an article about him until the day after he died. --Bongwarrior (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was ready to vote no as not recognizing the guy's name until I realized who he was from reading the sources. I suggest editors read this article at the daily beast. Jack was basically the Frank Abignail of hackers, a huge influence on the electronic security field. The fact that there was no article on him until recently is absolutely irrelevant to the nomination and speaks more about us than about him. His death at 35 of unknown causes is also notable. μηδείς (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support made headline news in the UK, and as Medeis notes, unusual circumstances surround the death. Article could use a bit more girth, but no issues with just posting two words on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Due respect to the guy, but he was working in the tech field and didn't get a Wikipedia article during his lifetime. That actually doesn't say more about us than it does about him. Formerip (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Medeis. I don't think it matters if he was largely unknown outside of hacker community, if he was top of his field, which he seemed to be. SeraV (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. He's just not notable enough or known as a significant individual in the hacking world. There's a lack of constant coverage covering him. I'd never even heard of him. While he is notable, he's not known enough. Beerest355Talk18:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose for RD, content to go along with a full blurb. If the sources can be taken at face value then he was clearly at the top of his field, but does not seem to have been particularly well known within it (let alone outside of it). That limits the value of an RD posting without an accompanying blurb. —WFC— FL wishlist19:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree a blurb is called for since we don't have foul play as a known factor in the death, and he's not a sitting megastar, but I have suggested an altblurb anyway. μηδείς (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Medeis though the article seems a bit thin. Still, this is a good call for ITN RD, in my view, and not a candidate for a full blurb, which is for really major recent deaths, the way it has evolved. Jusdafax19:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the article is technically well updated as new, and I have added two new sections while condensing some headers. μηδείς (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could quote two sentences from the beast as reaction, maybe later tonight, have family flying in and an uncomfortable dinner with the inlaws pendiing. μηδείς (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update I have updated the death section to five sentences as well.
"Not a Hacker"? some of the oppose votes here seem to be based on Jack's being a hacker of wireless devices, not of old time networks per se. Given his testimony is credited with having the FDA change its regulations of wireless medical devices, his fame within the industry, and given we have sources from the Wall Street Journal, the Guardian, the Daily Mail, NPR, huffington post, the Australian, PC World, Popular Science, etc., calling him famed, celebrated, etc., I think the "I never heard of him" comments are beside the point. μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters:
Jack was one of the world's most prominent "white hat" hackers - those who use their technical skills to find security holes before criminals can exploit them.
His genius was finding bugs in the tiny computers embedded in equipment, such as medical devices and cash machines. He often received standing ovations at conferences for his creativity and showmanship while his research forced equipment makers to fix bugs in their software.
I think we can dispense with the notion that someone needs to be a most wanted criminal like Kevin Mitnick to be a hacker. μηδείς (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I must say I was sceptical, particularly since I'm a New Zealander and had never heard of him. But the sources provided do seem to indicate that he was widely regarded as a very important figure in his field. And his death is getting a lot of attention - it's the second most viewed story on the BBC News website. Neljack (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It seems reasonable to suppose that if a individual is so highly notable as to justify ITN inclusion we would know what his real name is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.82.208 (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. As far as I can understand from article and the quote above, this guy was notable enough. Not having a Wikipedia article previously isn't that convincing to me. Mohamed CJ(talk)08:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marking Ready we have majority support, a well-updtaed article, and broad world-wide support and coverage in the sources. The quality of many oppose rationales is lacking; personal unfamiliarity, newness of article, different definition of hacker, "not knowing his real name"; none of these refute he was the top of the fields of device and wireless hacking. μηδείς (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, Medeis has done nothing wrong - it is common for users who have supported an item marking it as "ready" if they believe it has been updated and has consensus. This is perfectly proper: marking as "ready" is effectively just a tag to indicate that an (uninvolved) admin is needed to evaluated whether there is consensus (and a sufficient update) to post. There still has to be that independent evaluation of consensus and update by an uninvolved admin. See this from the instruction as the top of this page: "Items can also be marked as [Ready] when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves."[4]Neljack (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: According to the BBC, the death toll is between 38 and 100+ after security forces clashed (or attacked) Mosri supporters. Mohamed CJ(talk)11:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sticky? The problem with protest outbreaks is the next day they might be bigger or gone. And has Morsi not been charged with kidnapping and murder, or did I misread something? μηδείς (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support sticky. The situation is relatively fast-paced, and there have been multiple newsworthy flashpoints in the past month or so. If the sticky proved unwarranted, it would probably be removed in a week or so, which is roughly how long this story would run for anyway. —WFC— FL wishlist20:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb, oppose sticky I think we should be sparing with stickies, and we haven't posted that many blurbs on the recent events in Egypt. A sticky is not very informative - most readers will probably not click on it, whereas a blurb would inform of this major development. Neljack (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article is now updated and alternative blurb suggested. I'd recommend having the sticky suggestion again when we have more nominations from Egypt, otherwise I think the blurb is much better for the time being. I understand that those supporting the sticky also support the blurb (or at least don't oppose it). Should be ready to post. Mohamed CJ(talk)08:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is (and so are Friday's mass rival rallies), but obviously the killing of protesters is more significant. How do you suggest we incorporate it into the blurb? Mohamed CJ(talk)15:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Landslides caused by heavy rain kill at least nine people and trap eight others south of Dingxi, China. (AP via Fox News)
A state of emergency is declared in Ireland as torrential rain floods a hospital in the north-west of the country and shuts roads and other transport links in the east. (RTÉ)
Qatar Airways grounds one of its Boeing 787 Dreamliners following a "minor" technical issue, as pressure mounts on Boeing over possible new electrical problems with the newly released jet. (Reuters)
Large storm causing 97 mph winds and heavy rain hit Albuquerque NM. This storm cut power to large portions of the city and causes heavy flooding for the area [6]
Swiss bank UBS AG pays $885m in a settlement with American regulators over allegations that the bank misrepresented mortgage-backed bonds during the pre-2007 housing bubble, paving the way for billions more to be paid by other banks. (Reuters)
China begins a major effort to boost its economic growth with business tax breaks and export liberalization, amid an increasing industrial slowdown. (BBC)
Mariano Rajoy, the Prime Minister of Spain, declares three days of national mourning for the 78 people killed in the derailment, Spain's worst train accident since 1944. (RTE)
The driver of the Alvia high-speed train involved in the accident is arrested, as investigations show that the train was travelling at more than double the local speed limit at the time of the crash. (Reuters)
Voters in Togo go to the polls for a parliamentary election, which was delayed from October 2012 due to mass protests. (BBC)
Science
British scientists discover the mechanism which causes human allergy to cats, and state that a general cure for the condition could become available within five years. (Daily Mail)
Support. Second opposition leader of the same coalition killed this year in Tunisia, so I think this story will unfold into something big. It's too early for me to see if this will get lots of coverage in the Spanish-speaking world, but some of the US-European media is picking up on this story quickly. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 08:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interior minister Lotfi Ben Jeddou told a news conference in Tunis: "The same 9mm automatic weapon that killed Belaid also killed Brahmi." He named the main suspect as hardline Salafist Boubacar Hakim, already being sought on suspicion of smuggling weapons from Libya.
Fair enough it should be in the article, but also I thought it might have a significant impact on the support/oppose 'votes' given that it did now seem linked very tangibly to the chokri belaid story that was previously posted. Incidentally is this nomination/article ready ?EdwardLane (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10 thousand people attended the funeral according the xinhua news source - to give it a scale of some sort. And though it's not easy to pin down there is also a good chunk of political fallout too, with thousands calling for the goverment to resign. EdwardLane (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posted The article is still not stellar, but it's good enough and generally what we'd request for a new article. Support seems sufficient with no objection after two days. -- tariqabjotu09:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Noted person in the World Music scene. Probably a bigger story in Africa than in the places where most of us live, but I think we need to make a concious effort to make sure RD isn't just Western celebrities. --LukeSurltc16:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above two posts simply exemplify our systemic bias. If nobody here is a fan, the article will be crap, so it fails. There's something fundamentally wrong with this approach. I nominated something a few weeks ago. The article was crap. Thought I could improve it a bit. Wife broke her ankle. I got busy. Nomination failed because of crap article. Or, more correctly, the nomination failed because my wife broke her ankle. Is that really how we want things to work here? HiLo48 (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We all have things in life which might prevent us from doing things here that we might want to do; it's just the way it is. As we both said, we would like to support, but it's hard to support an article with limited information that doesn't allow us to decide. Articles in poor condition (about Westerners and non-Westerners) generally are not posted until they are improved, as well. I have a feeling that this person does merit being posted, but I need to see more information in the article. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. I don't think it's anyone in particular's fault, but I think for whatever reason RD is a lot more susceptible to general systemic bias than the blurbs. LukeSurltc10:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't agree with your reasoning on systematic bias HL, I do extend my condolences, as a broken ankle is a serious wheelchair injury, and being a caregiver is a tough, time consuming thing to do. My best wishes for rapid healing to you both. Jusdafax10:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for those thoughts. The systemic bias, however, comes from the fact that it will inevitably be the articles on people not from the cultures from which the editors here come that will be of a poorer quality. If we reject people because of that quality problem, and the poorer quality is because those people are from "foreign" cultures, that's virtually the definition of a systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't support this the way the article currently is. There's only one sentence about the death and the article as a whole is very short, and it does little to indicate why this singer is important. If this article is updated to satisfy RD criteria I may change my !vote. But for now, oppose.Beerest355Talk16:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on article quality, lack of update, and no indication of significance beyond the nominators claim that she's famous in Africa. Even the BBC article is very short and simply says she was popular in Zimbabwe. Yes, this is an example of systematic bias, but reducing the ITN criteria is not the way to fix that (which would effectively be positive discrimination). Modest Geniustalk16:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see some progress, in that we are getting more nominations for non-Western stories, although we're nowhere near matching the reality that 90% of the world's population of not white and western. But how do we make our mostly western editors improve the non-western articles? HiLo48 (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Require an editor contribute to getting one non-Western themed article up to GA status per year, or they are not permitted to edit pages of things they are interested in. 97.81.161.12 (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one desperate to see the article on the main page. Your last question applies as well to you as it does to anyone else. --Jayron3212:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does, and like you, I have neither the time, background knowledge or driving interest. That we don't should not be good enough reason for not posting this. While our rules remain as they are, we are both part of the problem. And probably shouldn't be. One day I'll get enough people to realise how blatant our systemic bias really is. HiLo48 (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This topic is certainly important enough for the main page. Yes, the article could use some work, and perhaps by posting it, others actually will work on it. There is a circular problem with not posting an important article that is sub-par when the reason it is sub-par is simply because the majority of current Wikipedia editors are not familiar with the topic. By continuing to keep such articles off the main page, Wikipedia is unlikely to attract new (or current) editors who can help improve them (and indeed, it likely alienates people who perceive Wikipedia as keeping such articles away from the main page as a sign that we simply doesn't care about topics important to them). –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Current Wikipedia users can only discuss subjects that current Wikipedia users are familiar with; no one person here has the sum knowledge of all current human civilization. If users who care about underrepresented topics want us to care about them enough to support their posting to ITN or RD, they need to be here to convince us. It is something of a chicken-or-the-egg problem; but it's up to the people who care and are knowledgeable about the subject to get us to care. This discussion is now drifting away from the merits of posting this subject to the broader subject about systemic issues; I would suggest those discussions take place in the proper forum. 331dot (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're just proving the systemic bias. And I am not aware of any other "proper" forum where there would be enough interest. That too is part of the problem. We have a systemic bias that even prevents us discussing the systemic bias effectively. HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So I should support subjects that I have no knowledge of, or an article that does not give me enough information to gain said knowledge? As suggested at the countering systemic bias page, you should go out and recruit users in underrepresented areas to contribute here. That's the only thing we can do without some sort of affirmative action program (which would simply reverse the problem). 331dot (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't say that you "should support subjects that I have no knowledge of, or an article that does not give me enough information to gain said knowledge". That's unhelpful misrepresentation. But you should care about fixing the problem too. Do you? HiLo48 (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you didn't say that, but that seems to me to be what you are suggesting; that I should accept a wink and a "trust me" to nominations of subjects that I don't know anything about. I do care about "fixing the problem", but whether I care or not is irrelevant; I can't contribute information I have no knowledge of, or support subjects that I don't know anything about without a decent article to reference. I can't fly to Zimbabwe, India, or other countries to recruit users from those nations. I can only contribute what I know and endorse subjects that I know. As this is drifting off topic, I will have no further comment here; I would be happy to do so in the proper forum. 331dot (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until verdict. This is a significant case, but the indictment has been expected since his arrest months ago. -Zanhe (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We usually post indictments and convictions, expected or otherwise. This is being widely covered and as such readers might come here looking for more information. 331dot (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support since we have already posted installments of this story (two, I think). The blurb should end at "abuse of office" with the wikilink located elesewhere - blurbs should not proclaim their own significance. Formerip (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clashes between the Knights Templar Cartel and the Mexican federal police leave 22 dead in the state of Michoacán. According to government press reports, two of the dead were law enforcement officials, while the rest were cartel gunmen. (BBC)
Following up... I've started to work on the hero shrew article. The text was indeed a (likely) copyright violation via close paraphrase. --ThaddeusB (talk)
Comment the (non-existent) species article would be the best one to update presumably. Also blurbs should always be in the present tense. I have modified the blurb accordingly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - new (living) mammal species are very rare. This one is especially notable as it may rewrite evolutionary history (the hero shrew was long thought to be an excellent example of punctuated equilibrium, but this species suggests it may have evolved slowly after all). People not involved w/the study are calling it a significant find. See also the analysis provided by Nature, the BBC, and National Geographic (all used in the article). Article is now updated; I have suggested an altblurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Discovering a living mammal is a rare event and is certainly newsworthy. This is even more true with this particular discovery, given the seeming consequences on evolutionary science. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had not heard of a shrew before and didn't know (and still don't, really) what a "sister species" is. The linked articles are bare-bones (sofixit, I'm not complaining) and I had to come here to really understand that this is about the discovery of a new mammal species, which is uncommon. Can the blurb be rewritten to something like "A new mammal species, Thor's hero shrew, is found in Africa". 69.165.207.197 (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no transportation accidents unless something beyond death count is notable. {remove opposition, 35 is more than 12]. μηδείς (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support We posted the Brétigny-sur-Orge train derailment with lower death toll. If we posted it, it is logical to post this one too. Also, these events are quite rare in developed countries. Jeanluc20 (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per Jeanluc and established precedent for train crashes in developed countries. Death toll now 20, wouldn't be surprised to see it rise. Mjroots (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support given the death toll, but strongly oppose the suggestion that there should be one rule for train crashes in developed countries and another for ones in developing countries, which would be a blatant example of systemic bias. Neljack (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That kind of rule is often applied here. White western deaths count for a lot more than others. Obviously I don't support that approach. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The converse problem exists, that infrastructure is poor in third-world countries, and death tolls much higher. The journalistic rule of thumb used to be 1 Dead Englishamna equals 10 dead Frenchman, equals 100 Dead... and that is certainly still the case, say, for tropical strorms in the Americas, see Hurricane Mitch. μηδείς (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Medeis is correct - death tolls are higher in the developing world than the first world for the same storm/disaster. It is not about the importance of the lives lost, but rather the rarity of the disaster. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the relevance of that. Terrorist attacks are more common in the US than they are here in New Zealand, but that doesn't mean I would oppose a terrorist attack in the US but support one with the same number of casualties in New Zealand. It's still the same number of dead, and therefore the same importance. This isn't DYK: we're not here to post surprising and unusual things, we're here to post important things. Neljack (talk) 02:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Death toll now 35 according to the BBC (I've updated the blurb) and it's being described as the worst rail accident in Spain for 40 years. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending update, significant train crash. However, the blurb should say 'dozens' so we don't have issues with keeping the number up to date. The article is currently only two paragraphs, so needs some expansion first. Modest Geniustalk22:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ready - article meets minimum requirements and is reasonably complete for this early stage. I fixed the tense of the blurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Major security breach which compounds the troubles Iraq is in and is likely to lead to wider repercussions. Some sources are reporting 25 deaths of members of the security forcesand up to 800 escaping . --yorkshiresky (talk) 07:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stale. By the time this gets posted it will be 24/25/26 July depending on where you are in the world. This nom was made way too late. The encyclopedic value of the event is not enough to allow for such a late posting. ★★King•Retrolord★★09:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not stale. If it were posted now, it would be the second or third item (the event happened overnight between July 21 and July 22). -- tariqabjotu09:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yes, every story is staler than it was when it was nominated. How much staler is dependent on how quickly the article is updated and how quickly people comment. -- tariqabjotu10:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well back to my original point. I think its too stale already. And there isn't enough encyclopedic value here to negate that fact. ★★King•Retrolord★★10:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stale, for the purposes of ITN, is not subjective. Stale is when the event occurred before the last item on ITN. That is not the case here, being newer than all but the first one, or maybe two, items. So it's not stale. Whether a story is significant enough for ITN should be time-independent. -- tariqabjotu10:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending update - Notable attack/jailbreak from an infamous prison that was and is a symbol of torture. Argument about event being stale is unconvincing. I believe the alt blurb may be the best one. My concern is the update in the target article on the prison which is currently way too thin. Jusdafax10:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No opinion on the merits of the story, but the article needs some attention. The update is adequate, but the rest of the article is a bit of a mess. Although the tags are only yellow-level, I do think the other sections and structure of the article need tidying up before this should go on the Main Page. Modest Geniustalk16:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think I sympathize with king blinking lord's concerns, but I find I can't read the bit's near his signature. μηδείς (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Djalma Santos was "a Brazilian footballer who started for the Brazil national team in four World Cups, winning two, in 1958 and 1962." "Santos is considered to be one of the greatest right-backs of all time. While primarily known for his defensive skills." "Along with Franz Beckenbauer, he is one of only two players to be included into three FIFA World Cup All Star teams (in 1954, 1958 and 1962). He was named by Pelé as one of the top 125 greatest living footballers in March 2004." I added a blurb even though (if this ends up being posted) it will probably go to Recent Deaths. Andise1 (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD but only if article is significantly expanded. For as notable of a career as Santos had, his article is shamefully lacking. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose unless he was also a decorated war veteran or something else to make him more notable than a good ball player. μηδείς (talk) 04:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - 'One of the top 125' (in the opinion of a single, albeit well-informed, person) doesn't sound so outstanding. If he was the leading exponent in his day of some particular position or skill, I'd reconsider. AlexTiefling (talk) 06:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments below for evidence that he was not only the leading right-back of his time (and an innovative one in developing a more attacking role for fullbacks), but one of the leading right-backs of all time. Neljack (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. The "top 125" player statement is from a single person. "Best right-back of all time" statement is uncited and just an opinion without something to back it up(awards, tops in statistics, etc.) Would reconsider upon expansion of article making his notability clearer and less about one person's opinion. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on my name appearing in the above table: I neither opposed nor supported the Trautmann nomination. I simply sought a better standard of discussion. Such efforts often meet resistance and misinterpretation here. And that's all part of the problem. At least this time the nomination has helpfully mentioned the sport this guy played. That's all I was seeking last time. (Don't really care whether or not this is posted either. There is so much pointless soccer content in Wikipedia anyway that another 0.0000001% makes little difference.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of the article and exceptional story probably swung it for Trautmann. Looking at the arguments above, a well developed bio which makes clear that Santos is a credible contender for the greatest full back ever would probably convince Alex and 331dot. —WFC— FL wishlist14:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support – this nom should not be opposed on the grounds of calibre in my opinion, but the article and update are mediocre. —WFC— FL wishlist14:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, Santos is a better card to have in Top Trumps. But since Trautmann was unable to play international football because of his residency, and didn't start playing until he was 25, because of the war, none of your comparisons really mean much. Oh, and because "trophies won" would not normally be understood to include individual domestic matches. However, joint fifth most capped player for Brazil is not to be sniffed at, so support. Agree that the article could do with some expansion, though. Formerip (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Change to support once the article is expanded and it is clearer that his notability is not based on just one person's opinion. 331dot (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Trautmann was posted because of his post-WWII Anglo-German relations work, not his footy career (I hope). Santos is just a footy player. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Regarded by many as the best right-back ever to have played the game", according to FIFA [8]; "widely regarded as one of the greatest right-backs ever" [9]; "rated in many international surveys as the best right-back of all-time" [10]. Being one of only two players ever to make three World Cup All-Star teams should also be a pretty good indication that he was regarded as the greatest right-back of his time. He was a pioneer of attacking fullback play: "Brazilians credit him and his contemporary Nilton Santos with helping create the overlap. Both players got forward when possible, which was a rarity among defenders of the time." [11] The two oppose votes saying he's just a footballer should be disregarded: footballers, like those in other fields, are eligible to be posted if they were "widely regarded as a very important figure in their field" (which, as the sources linked to indicate, he clearly was). The fact that some people don't like the field (and I'm not a soccer fan either) is irrelevant. Neljack (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Cyclospora parasite sickens more than 250 people in the Midwestern United States as the result of contamination of fresh produce shipped across state lines. The CDC report that eight people have been hospitalized with cyclosporiasis. (NBC)
Eighteen Britons are arrested on the Greek island of Crete, following the murder of a male tourist and a violent confrontation between tourists and local police. (BBC)
China announces a five-year ban on the construction of new government buildings, as part of a major effort to curtail state corruption and overspending. (The Guardian)
A New Yorknuclear power plant supervisor is charged with falsifying test results involving emergency generators to prevent the plant from being shut down. (NBC)
Nominator's comments: First national government changeds sicne independence. Its the closest to democracy in South Ssudan. Lihaas (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We generally don't post cabinet changes; cabinets usually serve at the pleasure of the President/Prime Minister. If this was a general election, it would be ITNR. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately, the nominator rather poorly worded the importance of this story. If this was any regular cabinet shuffle, it would not be news - cabinet reshuffles happen all the time. In this case, however, every single minister has been sacked, but most crucially so has the Vice President. Now, going by our article on the VPship, it's an appointed position by the PM as well, so it may not be notable enough even then, but still. The fact the Vice President's been dismissed is the important thing here, which makes this no ordinary reshuffle. I've suggested a possible alternative blurb. Redverton (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to pile on to what this is about, Sudan Tribune is also reporting an attempt to unseat the head of the (only real) political party, as well as sacking every minister and deputy minister. A few years ago all these ministers used to be the heads of rival rebel groups, so this smells like a power grab, and maybe even a coup against Kiir's own government. Unfortunately, there's no update to the suggested bolded link, and only one line updates to Salva Kiir Mayardit and Riek Machar. - BanyanTree00:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great to hear, but without wanting to promote the topic (new country doesn't revert to chaos or tyranny) it will be hard to justify it for ITN. μηδείς (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale needs clarifying--nom makes this sound peaceful "reshuffling" Commenter describes as coup. Which is it? μηδείς (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Without being too flippant about something which is unlikely to happen, would we post the wholesale replacement of the British cabinet, up to and including Nick Clegg? Possibly, but the reasons for and consequences of the decision would be the deciding factors (for instance if the cause of the reshuffle was a major political scandal, or if it was clear that the new cabinet had a dramatically different agenda). —WFC— FL wishlist14:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
British pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline admits that some of its senior executives in China appear to have broken the law as part of a bribery scandal. (Reuters)
At least five people are killed and seven injured after criminals open fire on community safety volunteers in the western Mexican state of Michoacán. (AP via Silicon Valley Mercury)
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.
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: He played Detective Joe Fontana on Law & Order. He was also in Miami Vice, Midnight Run, Get Shorty, Unsolved Mysteries, Saving Private Ryan, and quite a few other films. Andise1 (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Please do not...... add simple "support" or "oppose" notes. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached. Andise1 (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is my original comment unclear? He was an actor who appeared in many television shows and movies. You could have also gone to his article to find out who he was too... Andise1 (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Andisel is absolutely correct to remind you, Medeis, of the clearly-stated protocols ITN has in place for nominations. Asking "who?" as a one word ITN response is out of order, rude, and generates needless ill-will. And you have been here long enough to know that. Jusdafax00:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Ill will?" seriously? I didn't say the guy was a stupid American imperialist who would not have been mentioned if yatta, yatta, yatta, Americans (or the like). It is a suggestion, not a policy, and I think "who" was perfectly eloquent in this case, and I neither withdraw nor apologize. I am nor even opposing, just "whoing". μηδείς (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I recognize the name, but I'm not very familiar with him. I really don't think there's any way he could be considered "widely regarded as a very important figure in his field" as required by the death criteria. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We really must calm down a bit and stop letting the fan clubs of minor performers decide the content of Wikipedia. There's been too much of that recently. HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a fan of him nor have I ever been. I saw that his death was receiving some significant coverage (mainly in US sources) so I decided to nominate him. Andise1 (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The media and the entertainment industry have an interesting relationship. The modern entertainment industry could not live without the media, and the media loves that content to fill column inches and television minutes, for which they now have sub-daily deadlines. We don't. The fact that things appear in the media does not really make them news for our purposes. We certainly don't mention Hollywood romances and the consequent babies here, but they are well covered by the media. I accept that you're not part of the fan club here, but some recent postings (and perhaps this nomination) have attracted plenty of them. HiLo48 (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose like Bongwarrior noted, he does not meet any of the death criteria, which should be enough for not posting him already. And Andise1 popularity is not one of the criteria for posting these, which should be kept in mind. SeraV (talk) 08:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, just not significant enough. Not widely recognised as a leader in his field. The RD section is not for listing every vaguely famous person who dies. Modest Geniustalk16:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Posted] Duchess Kate bears a son
This has been posted and there is virtually no chance it's going to be removed. Pointless discussion is fun but, well, pointless. -- tariqabjotu23:22, 22 July 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.
Correct the lede: The mother is properly known as Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. I think the verb is "bear", not "bare." With appropriate write-up, support once the official announcement has been posted in London. (Plus, cute babbehpix!) 50.195.77.65 (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit conflicted trying to nominate this (and several more times supporting). The future monarch of dozens of nations is clearly significant. It's plausible that we won't have a freely licensed picture of the baby for some time, unless a Wikimedian happens to be in the crowd. Perhaps we should directly link Line of succession to the British throne? --Pakaran20:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correct it a bit more: What's wrong with "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge gives birth to..."? It's not as if William "bore" the child himself anyway. 87.113.216.108 (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note Isn't it the mother that actually bears the child? Therefore, a better blurb would be "A son, third in line of succession to the British throne, is born to..." Black Kite (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, my high school advanced placement English teacher actually used that as an example of where the passive voice ("is born") is unquestionably appropriate. So yeah, maybe. Pakaran20:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I hate that this is getting so much attention, but that's the way the world turns. I also agree that changing it to "gives birth to a son" is better. Beerest355Talk20:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose altblurb --it's not a bastard child, and we are concerned with the live birth to the parents, not which canal. μηδείς (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ready the birth section is updated, the blurb can be updated if a name is timely given, there is no opposition in general. μηδείς (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't it be "third in the line of succession" rather than "third in line of succession"? The latter, which is currently displayed, sounds weird to my admittedly American ears. Dragons flight (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weeell, those Commonwealth realms might be considered a little anglocentric in who they decide to have as their head of state. Can you think of a way of saying it without adding very much extra text to the blurb? Formerip (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That's critical. I'm an Australian who would rather we didn't have a monarch, but at this stage this kid is just as much in line for the Australian throne as the British one. This apples to around 14 other countries too. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Australia actually has a throne, does it? We would have to add something like "and to become head of state of 15 Commonwealth countries" or something like that. Formerip (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it that way at all. Being "in line", without the the, is idiomatic, and only works when you're in line somewhere, to something, with someone, etc. If it was "third in line to the British throne", I wouldn't have seen a problem. But "third in line of succession to the British throne"? No, I don't think so. Likewise, while you might say you're "third in line at the post office", you probably would not say you are "third in line of people at the post office". -- tariqabjotu22:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Third in line of people at the post office" is actually grammatical, it is just not something we would normally say ("of" = out of). You could instead compare "third in order of preference". Formerip (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose and remove at once. Notability is not inherited, at least not here on Wikipedia. We'll post it if and when he is appointed head of state through democratic election or through a non-democratic mechanism in the country in question, which is the treatment we give all others. If you want to announce the birth of your newborn son or daughter, you should turn to the local paper, not an encyclopedia. This does simply not qualify, especially considering that the election of a head of government of a state with nearly 10 million inhabitants was not posted, and this guy just happens to have famous relatives, he is not the head of state or in any equivalent position. Any speculation that he might become so in the distant future (provided his grandfather succeeds his mother, and that his father succeeds his own father, and that he himself again succeeds his father to a political position in maybe 60-70 years) is just speculation per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Would we post the birth of Putin's son, or the birth of a new member of the Castro family (where family members succeed each others as head of state)? This is an outrageous example of tabloidization and of Anglo-centrism and violates all principles applied to other cases discussed here. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, in some countries, notability is inherited. And the world's press go to great lengths to ensure that remains the case. (Know exactly what you mean, though.) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not relevant. Heck, we don't even post it when the US Democratic Party choose their presidential candidate, which is a way more notable event than the birth of someone who is currently (under mechanisms that may very well change in the meantime) fourth is line to possibly succeed someone who possibly succeeds somesone who possibly succeeds a head of state in maybe 70 years. And the press gives such a way more influential event as the US Democratic Party choosing a presidential candidate a lot more media attention. But we don't post it, because it's country bias, and this is gross country bias too, more blatant and unencyclopedic than anything else previously seen on the main page. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just correct you a little. Although it's probably factually wrong anyway, I think you meant to say that the American press gives the choosing of a Democratic presidential candidate way more attention than this. Spot where the bias is. Formerip (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Any "country bias" argument is invalid, as "Do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." This is the "in the news" page and this birth is in the news. One purpose of ITN is to direct readers to articles they might be looking for on subjects that are in the news. It's isn't speculation that this child will be the King in the future, he will be; it is far more likely that he will be than he won't be. If you disagree with it being in the news, then speak to the press. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's speculation that this person "will be King". Who says so? You? It's really up to the people who live in the country in question in around 70 years to decide. I find this crystal balling of yours rather unlikely, constitutions tend to change in such a timespan and more and more countries in the west tend to abolish non-democratic mechanisms such as this. We build an encyclopedia, and content is subject to encyclopedic standards. We don't post tabloid gossip merely because it's "in the news", a lot of similar tabloid stuff that get tons of media attention is not posted for this exact reason. If you disagree with that, maybe a blog would be a better medium. Josh Gorand (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not unencyclopedic that this birth occurred. It's not unencyclopedic that the child is in line to be King. Yes, the monarchy could be abolished in the next 50 or 60 years. In the next 50 years, the US could have a military coup and be ruled by a dictator, or abolish presidential elections and start a monarchy, or space aliens could invade and take over the Earth. The 2014 Winter Olympics could be cancelled or boycotted. Anything can happen with anything, that isn't a reason to post to ITN a story which is indeed in the news. 331dot (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The birth of Tony Blair's son got huge amounts of media attention too. Is that next? How about children of Paris Hilton? Or the drama surrounding Michael Jackson's family, which gets even more media attention than this non-event? Josh Gorand (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tony Blair's son will not inherit the Prime Minister's office from his father. Paris Hilton is not the President of the United States (thank God) nor would her children automatically be so if she was. Ditto with Michael Jackson. Any other persons you want to ask about? For a "non-event" it is certainly getting a lot of coverage. Again, if you dislike what the press covers, speak to them. 331dot (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Josh, even I who are totally against these "american and english instant notability" figures can see that your arguments are pure speculations. And you obviously need to read a article about British succession.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The guy is not the son of a head of state, but a great-grandson. It's crystal balling and nothing else that he "will be King" in almost a century (IF he outlives his father, and if nothing is changed in the meantime). He is not the crown prince, his grandfather is. So it's like posting the 4th in line expected to POSSIBLY become North Korea's leader after today's North Korean leader (and they do inherit the position too). Josh Gorand (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - In comparison to most "only known for being english/american characters we approve of for ITN I would think this one is actually notable beyond being of a certain nationality.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you have something to discuss, you shouldn't re-open a discussion just for the possibility of further discussion. This has been discussed to death at WT:ITN by the only person to express opposition to this posting. 331dot (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support - Casualties are in line with the types of earthquakes that we normally post. Article isn't ready just yet, however - it consists mostly of a series of one-sentence sections and some unclear wording. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: 6.5 quakes aren't common, and this is a few years after the Christchurch one that did cause a lot more damage. --MASEM (t) 00:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There have been 11 quakes of 7.0 or greater so are this year, and 74 between 6.0 and 6.9. So, I'd guess around 30 of 6.5 or greater this year. There doesn't appear to be anything to make this one worth posting at this time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fortunately no major damage or injury so it is not worth being posted. The deadly China earthquake that just occurred, on the contrary, should be considered. Jeanluc20 (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It was quite a jolt (certainly gave me a fright when I saw the walls of the house swaying!), but the damage doesn't seem too bad and thankfully nobody has been killed. As Thaddeus said, earthquakes like this are nothing new here; we're used to them. Neljack (talk) 05:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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. Relatively minor property damage; doesn't seem to be any significant casualties. No evidence of widespread coverage of this event. 331dot (talk) 00:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Wait summer riots in Paris are de rigeur. Against riots in free countries normally, but this is an interesting topic if something comes of it. μηδείς (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Notable enough for an article but not an ITN listing at present. However, if things continue to escalate I'll be prepared to reassess. Modest Geniustalk16:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Posted] 2013 El Mordisco Attack
'Article:2013 Colombian clashes (talk·history·tag) Blurb: 17 government soldiers are killed in a attack by FARC revolutionaries in the Colombian department of Arauca. (Post) Alternative blurb: Clashes between the Colombian government and FARC rebels kills 19 soldiers and 6 FARC combatants. News source(s):[14] Credits:
Nominator's comments: A major attack while peace talks are going on between the government of Columbia and the organization in Cuba. No article that I know of yet, which is surprising, but notable nevertheless and when was the last time we posted anything from there? Secretaccount00:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We shouldn't post something from Columbia just for the sake of doing so. This seems like par for the course for that ongoing conflict- though attacks during peace negotiations are unusual. Would prefer an article to evaluate before stating my final opinion. 331dot (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised when I saw this as a top story in The New York Times and BBC because, I and probably most others interested in current affairs thought that FARC relevancy ended with Alfonso Cano death and the aforementioned peace talks, as there was hardly any major news about the subject. The Colombian-FARC conflict has a bloody history that took hundreds of thousands of lives, forced more than a million others into exile, a major impact in the global drug trade and so forth during a 50 year span, thus an attack like this during peace talks to happen will likely has serious consequences for the entire region. Secretaccount01:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I created an article and the incident(s) seem to be significant, so Support, if expanded by someone else. By the way, it looks like there were 2 clashes one on the 20th and one (presumably in the south) on the 21st (in the east). --Երևանցիtalk01:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support if this gets proper article, this will certainly not help peace negotiations there. Bbc reports now that on that attack which the blurb is about only 15 soldiers died, and 4 on that second attack. SeraV (talk) 07:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment pretty sure this is colOmbia (south america) not colUmbia (new york) so changing the blurb spelling (it was to a disambiguation page previously anyway). EdwardLane (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support due to potential impact on the peace process and because it is the deadliest attack since peace talks began. Article is now updated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unsupported I am not really against this, but the conflict is reaching its 50th year, and as recently as 2010 almost 500 dead in a year was not uncommon. I'd rather we wait till the guns are laid down than post an incremental update. Notice we have pretty much stopped reporting even bigger attacks in Iraq. μηδείς (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
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.
The update needs to be more substantial, either in the Phil Mickelson article or the 2013 Open Championship article. The latter could be updated by expanding the Final round section to about the length (or something close to the length) of the First round section. -- tariqabjotu19:46, 21 July 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.
Comment This election is not actually on ITNR, so I've removed that note. ITNR covers general elections, which this isn't - this is an election to one-half of the upper house of a legislature. As for whether it should go up, I'm not sure: IIRC, we don't normally put up even U.S. House or Senate elections, unless there's something rather notable about it. In this case, it's looking very likely that the LDP will finally reclaim control of both houses of the legislature in Japan, which does mark it above the ordinary. I reserve judgement till I see more debate here. Redverton (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, the last US congressional elections weren't posted because (gasp!) they weren't updated, or the presidential election drowned out everything else. –HTD15:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is an election to, as Redverton stated, "one-half of the upper house of a legislature". Notable, yes, but, worthy of inclusion on ITN versus some other stories, no. - Presidentmantalk · contribs (Talkback) 20:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the nomination for the French Senate election, 2011 was support wholeheartedly (at least by those who cared to comment), only that it wasn't updated in time. A quick read shows that the Japanese upper house has approximately the same powers as its French counterpart, if not a little bit more powerful. –HTD15:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If this body was more like the United States Senate, I might support, but this body can be overruled by the lower chamber of the Diet, meaning their powers are limited. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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. A change in head of state is ITNR. Like the abdication of Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, we posted both the announcement and the actual change. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Are we saying that we are now going to post every change of head of state twice, once for the announcement and once for the coronation, inauguration or whatever? Formerip (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For royal abdications, sure, seems sensible as both make the news (one's a shock, the other's a big fancy ceremony). Despite recent trends they really aren't that common. Ol' Lizzie is gunna cling to that throne with every scrap of strength she's got left for one. --LukeSurltc22:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that posting the announcement of an abdication should be weighed on its merits; the actual change in head of state is ITNR regardless. 331dot (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there has been a strong consensus against posting inaugurations of elected rulers. Given that, I find it quite bizarre that we seem quite willing to post the change of power twice in monarchy situations. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is more unusual for a hereditary ruler to voluntarily give up their throne than an elected leader losing their office(which happens by design). As I said above, announcements of monarchs voluntarily stepping down should be judged on their merits separate from the actual event, for this reason(which I think is why it was done with Beatrix and even the Pope). 331dot (talk) 10:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bushveld-elephant-shrew.jpg){kind=link}