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).
American politician and former House RepresentativeJesse Jackson Jr. is sentenced to 30 months in prison for spending $750,000 in campaign funds on personal items, and will serve his sentence first before his wife, former Chicago alderman Sandi Jackson, who was given a one year term for tax fraud. (NBC)
Israeli–Palestinian peace talks start amid controversy over Israeli settlement expansion and the release of 26 Palestinians convicted of murdering Israelis. (Reuters)
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, in a major policy shift in the War on Drugs, announces that the federal government, following some states' stances, will direct its prosecutors to no longer insist on automatic mandatory minimum prison sentences for non-violent, low-level, non-repeat offender drug offenses where the defendant is not involved with gangs and/or cartels. (MSN)
Both articles need updating One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: "Stop and frisk" is controversial, as police officers are far more likely to stop and frisk individuals of color --– Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Municipal legal matter, combined with an intensely POV article. By no means suitable for ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Purely a local legal matter. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a Federal judge's ruling, but her remedies are absurd, the policy should just be made illegal, not justify a whole new federal oversight regime. When this gets to the Supreme Court simply outlawing the policy as violating the 4th Amendment without any suggestion it can continue as long as it's filmed it will have my wholehearted support. μηδείς (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, because it is extremely local.Egeymi (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly this one won't get posted (I didn't think it would, but decided to give it a shot anyway), but the issues of profiling go far beyond the "local matter" of the NYPD policy. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The objections are all off though. This has been a federal matter for a while. The one's calling this local have either not read or do not understand the law. μηδείς (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a local law is being challenged in federal court does not mean it isn't anything other than a local issue. 331dot (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
False. It sets a federal-district wide precedent, to which all locations in the federal district must adhere, and if challenged to the SC a final, national precedent. The NYC policy has been challenged locally before this, although our article doesn't mention it. This is the first federal case. E.g., one state judge decision not in our article: [2]. μηδείς (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If this case gets to SCOTUS (possible, but not too likely) then it might be worth posting the ruling on, since there would indeed be a national precedent, but not the ruling from a single federal district within one state. 331dot (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Major mafia figure with a highly publicized trial --– Muboshgu (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support a decades long most wanted story in the US, with dozens of books written and one man basically running organized crime in all of New England with a huge amount of police and FBI corruption to boot. Biggest criminal story in the US since ABSCAM, Gotti, or the murder of Jimmy Hoffa. μηδείς (talk) 4:41 pm, Today (UTC−4)
Support Significant figure within the America crime world. Significant conviction given the former protection Bulger received from the FBI (which he had infiltrated). Also given the length of time he was on the run and on the FBI's most wanted list. Alt blurb provided. --RA (✍) 22:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per RA. 331dot (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article has two "citation needed" tags in the lede, which need to be remedied. Neljack (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Better update needed - two sentences in a very short trial section isn't really going to cut it given the amount of attention the trial has drawn. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:33, 13 August 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.
Support, he meets the criteria for RD.Egeymi (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose under the current RD requirements he is neither a sitting dignitary nor ver important in any field. There is a discussion about the requiremets on talk, but unless they change he in no way qualifies. μηδείς (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A senior member of a major royal house may fit under #1 or perhaps #3. Regardless, we don't need to follow the rules without question if there's a good case for improving the encyclopedia by ignoring them. --LukeSurltc 16:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Because I like his name. It sounds fictional. And because we have an imbalance of US:non-US stories at the moment. Formerip (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD, also worthy of posting on ITN. Death of a member of a Royal Family is newsworthy. Mjroots (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Friso was actually removed from the Royal House which you will see if you read his article. He was neither sitting, nor an heir to the throne, nor part of any international marriage alliance, nor of any importance beyond maybe his holdingsas a private businessman. μηδείς (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Royal House and Royal Family are not the same thing. Friso was the brother of the King. Mjroots (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Friso was actually removed from the Royal House which you will see if you read his article. He was neither sitting, nor an heir to the throne, nor part of any international marriage alliance, nor of any importance beyond maybe his holdingsas a private businessman. μηδείς (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. From reading the article it seems that though he lost his membership in the Royal House he did not lose his titles; he simply was no longer in the line of succession. That said, however, that does mean he is not "in a high-ranking office of power at the time of death", failing #1. I would think it would also mean he was not important in his field if he could not succeed to the throne (the Royal Family, if you call that a field), failing #2. I also don't see a wide international impact here, failing #3. I also think even if we removed the criteria as proposed that he still might not qualify. 331dot (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think we should post the deaths of members of royal families just because they are royal. There are lots of royal families out there and many of them have lots of members. There is no indication that Prince Friso has a significant impact on the Netherlands, and - as has been noted - he renounced his rights to the succession. Neljack (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: The fifth country in the world to build an aircraft carrier. Formerip (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
it is NOT india's first aircraft carrier. and the page is not updated as the lead says it will be launched in 2018 (unless you mean the table with 3 words for the date, if so that's an insufficient update). See List of aircraft carriers in serviceLihaas (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see the box above where it says "article needs updating"? 2018 is the date the ship will enter service, though, not a prospective launch date, as the article makes clear. Formerip (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally we would want an article on the INS Vikrant itself (INS Vikrant currently redirects to an article for a decommissioned ship). To clarify Lihaas' first point, INS Vikramaditya (a purchase rather than a new build) is currently undergoing sea trials, so we have to avoid the words "India's first aircraft carrier" without qualification. --LukeSurltc 13:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are several stages for a warship before it is a fully-fledged vessel in a navy. Launch is one such milestone, however I would be more inclined to favour the commissioning. --LukeSurltc 13:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated this as an industrial achievement, rather than a military achievement, hence the launch is the key event. Plus it's the bit that is traditionally seen as the "birth" of a ship, with the whole dignitary's-wife-wastes-good-champagne hoopla (assuming they do it that way in India). Formerip (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Sounds reasonable. --LukeSurltc 13:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Altblurb suggested which points more to an industrial rather than military angle. Support as per FormerIP, though I would still like an INS Vikrant article. --LukeSurltc 15:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support we really need a new item... i dont think ive seen a new one in a week now. will go lenient on this since the actual commencement is far away. no need to reject items for something that will not come for 5 years. its still a notable achievement -- Ashish-g55 15:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support when updated--a significant military development. μηδείς (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting oppose. We should post when it is commissioned and put in service. Merely launching the ship does not guarantee that. 331dot (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It may depend on perspective but, like I said above, I see this as being about industry and economic development rather than in military terms. Today India formally marked a change from being a country that had never built an aircraft carrier to being one that had. When it subsequently sticks a radar antenna on top, installs the captain's jukebox and sticks the thing in its navy, I think that will be less significant. Formerip (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your views, but I don't see it in military terms so much as usability- anything can happen between now and the expected commissioning date to prevent its commissioning and use- in which case this landmark in industry means nothing. What you said, however, is why I didn't suggest pulling it. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support. Unless this wasn't the day it was launched with the bottle of champagne, this is a fine ITN item. Very few nations have ever had an aircraft carrier. Abductive (reasoning) 00:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Fighting has broken out between tribes in Darfur resulting in many deaths. Andise1 (talk) 05:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support-Immense death toll, needless to say it is uncommon to see this high a death toll outside of war zones. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
War_in_Darfur#2013 needs an update, and I wonder if a separate article might be a better update candidate. SpencerT♦C 18:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - While these conflicts are not uncommon in the region, ones that kill 100+ are rare and often have lasting consequences. Article is now updated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:18, 13 August 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: Death of an alleged Nazi war criminal for the RD ticker. Article is in pretty good shape too. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 08:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD Once the last two uncited parts of the article are referenced. Miyagawa (talk) 09:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD per Miyagawa. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do we judge his importance in the overall scheme of things, though? The article isn't very clear about what he actually did. Isn't a list of war criminals from 70 years ago going to be focusing mainly on the criterion of being alive? Formerip (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is quite enough, there was after all quite lot of nazi war criminals. How was he a special case amongst them beyond living longer. Therefore I OpposeSeraV (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose what in the world criterion does this meet? What field is he at the top of? μηδείς (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he might be at the top of the field of Nazi war criminals, although it is not at all clear. Formerip (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please DO NOT mark as updated articles that plainly aren't. SEe RD requirements at the top right of the page if confused. μηδείς (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Death notices are based on a five-sentence, three source update of the death section, not on updates of the rest of the article. That can be changed, but it hasn't been yet. μηδείς (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He has the right to point out an issue without being pressured into fixing it. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on RD, opposed to blurb. The name will be well known to those with a view on the 21st century attempts to track down surviving Nazis. But to die of natural causes at 98 is unremarkable, and I don't think the article goes into enough detail on his pre-2012 life to justify the additional exposure of a full blurb. —WFC— FL wishlist 17:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A quote from the article: "Csatáry was a small fish. I could name 2,000 people responsible for worse crimes than he was." μηδείς (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A relatively minor Nazi war criminal. SpencerT♦C 18:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose His only significance was living so long after WWII, had he died 10 years ago no one would have noticed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The reference to him being "a small fish" seems accurate. He can thus hardly be regarded as a very important figure in the field of war crimes. I also note that, while the blurb refers to him as a "suspected war criminal" (I would have thought that just being a suspect would make the notability case even weaker), the article refers to him as a "war criminal" on the basis of his 1948 conviction in absentia in Czechoslovakia. I am concerned that there is a NPOV issue with that (others have raised the issue before on the talk page without agreement being reached). Neljack (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Biggest single-event prize awarded for an esport event hosted by a well known company, in a rapidly growing esport, which itself, is a rapidly growing area. --49.187.58.5 (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The biggest Electronic sports ("esports") prize ever awarded, which should probably be mentioned in the blurb if this is posted. However, the Electronic sports article needs attention. --hydrox (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Maybe significant itself but how does this compare itself to MLG (the only esport event I ever heard of) other than prize money. Also I cannot see what is significant to this so called "sport" that struggles to get itself nominated, for example the two IPC athletics and swimming, and even if I would support the two, there are plenty of people who will press for an oppose. Even the nomination for the FIFA Club World Cup final was opposed last December and that is supposed to be the most significant event for any football clubs. Donnie Park (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Updated by [[User:98.166.186.191 (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)|98.166.186.191 (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)]] ([[User talk:98.166.186.191 (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)|talk]] ·[{{fullurl:User talk:98.166.186.191 (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)|action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/preload_credit&preloadtitle=ITN+recognition+for+%5B%5BArgentine+legislative+election%2C+2013%5D%5D§ion=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=Argentine+legislative+election%2C+2013&preloadparams%5b%5d=updated}} give credit]) and [[User:[6]|[7]]] ([[User talk:[8]|talk]] ·[{{fullurl:User talk:[9]|action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/preload_credit&preloadtitle=ITN+recognition+for+%5B%5BArgentine+legislative+election%2C+2013%5D%5D§ion=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=Argentine+legislative+election%2C+2013&preloadparams%5b%5d=updated}} give credit])[reply]
Article updated
Nominator's comments: A significant event in electoral politics; over 30 million voters are registered in Argentina, and turnout for this frst round was over 70%. --98.166.186.191 (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Would this be ITNR, or just the final round? I think in elections with runoffs we only post the final election. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was the first of two rounds, designed to keep very minor parties and ad hoc splinter groups - which in the past were often created solely to wedge the vote for larger parties - from influencing the final results (GOP efforts to draft Green Party candidates - sometimes even the homeless - in past House races is the closest U.S. analogy I can think of). This may not qualify for inclusion in the headline In the News ticker, but I thought you might like to mention it in the 'Politics and Elections' section of the Current Events portal. 98.166.186.191 (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you can add it to the portal yourself without needing permission. Formerip (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles updated One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: This is an ITNR item that should be posted. --HotHat (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rremove nationalisty, we don't post that for other such events like Tennis/Lihaas (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true. We often post nationality, especially as it's more natural to say "American golfer Jason Dufner wins..." than to say "In golf, Jason Dufner wins..." -- tariqabjotu 04:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' - updating the PGA article is preferable to Dufner's page. In any case, I do not find the current update at eitehr page to be adequate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles have significant updates to them, and it has to include his nationality.HotHat (talk) 06:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um, the blurb most certainly does not have to include his nationality. One option may be preferable to the other, but neither is required. Update is sufficient.--ThaddeusB (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posted And, yes, the blurb doesn't need to mention nationality, but I generally believe the alternative blurb sounds more natural. I suppose "American" could still be omitted, but I don't think mentioning nationality is odd or unusual, particularly when the golfer is not particularly well-known. -- tariqabjotu 15:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment when posted, the article (Dufner) was packed with unreferenced claims, and an inadequate lead. Some of the rot has been deleted, but it's still in an appalling state. Why would anyone consider this article to be ready for main page inclusion? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: A new species of a Shark has been found in South Carolina. Andise1 (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Intereting but the article doesn't exist and mention on the main page would be useles to our readers. Do you plan to start it? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, firstly, there is no article at the moment - and also the point about the initial annoucement coming some seven years ago is quite significant. I think all that has happened recently is that the species has been named. Miyagawa (talk) 08:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
James Lee DiMaggio, a suspect in the Boulevard, California murders of Christina and Ethan Anderson, and the abduction of Hannah Anderson, is shot to death by an FBI agent in Ada County, Idaho. Hannah Anderson was unharmed. (CNN)
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: She was a notable singer who won both a Grammy award and an Emmy award. Andise1 (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Reading the news articles and her WP article, she seems to have been a popular singer, but there is nothing to indicate that she was a very important figure in her field. If anyone can provide evidence to the contrary I will, of course, reconsider. Neljack (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Neljack. She won one Grammy in 1967 for a solo performance and won another later as a duo with her husband. While she had a long career I'm not seeing how she was very important either. I also cannot find a mention of her winning an Emmy in the sources given or her article. 331dot (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In her singing partneship with Steve Lawrence: ""A prolific 93 albums, 12 Emmys, 2 Grammys and innumerable national tours.. ": People obit? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Definitely more important in my life and had a longer, more diverse and more successful career than that recent dead non-entity from Glee, but we must do something to restore our standards here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I would really find an essay "My Standards" by HiLo quite. μηδείς (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing formal has changed since the posting of that recent, one-show-wonder from Glee. I will keep highlighting it's stupidity until something happens to prevent such postings in future. HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is unbelievably unhelpful. What exactly do you want - a rule that says "thou shall not post Glee actors?" or perhaps we should add "Don't post anything HiLo disagrees with or else be prepared to be reminded of it forever" to the rules? There is a time to express your disagreement with a post, and there is a time to drop the stick and move on. The latter is here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While it's not an official policy, precedent obviously plays a part in what we post here. Until that Glee precedent is publicly ruled incorrect, and policies put in place to stop such errors ever being made again, it exists as a precedent, so of course we should post Eydie Gorme. Those saying to forget obviously want it to be forgotten, but haven't done anything to fix the problem. I have more principles. I'm not that kind of person. I have more principles. HiLo48 (talk) 04:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it was a precedent, which it is not, part of the reason it was posted was the unexpected nature of the death leading to widespread coverage. That obviously isn't the case here. Again, what policy "put in place to stop such errors" do you want exactly? Maybe you should propose something in an appropriate venue (such as talk page) if you feel so strongly about it instead of repeatedly bringing it up in other nominations. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to Cory Monteith as a "dead non-entity" and a "one-show-wonder" is crass and rude. Yes, the man died of a drug overdose, but that doesn't mean he should be denigrated. God forbid one of his family members stumbles upon this page. 204.111.20.10 (talk) 04:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like the truthful negatives, did you argue against the absolute nonsense positives written about him after his death. That thread was sickening in its dishonesty. And the death got posted. I believe in telling the truth. We could do with a lot more of that on Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 06:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between 'telling the truth' and 'being needlessly crass'; you are doing the latter. One can tell the truth without doing that(which was really my main point) There is also a difference between truth and opinion; you are also giving the latter there. I'm not saying "forget" about it, I'm saying bring it up, if you must, in a manner with basic human decency and respect. You don't need to beat the dead horse to do so. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would also think that threatening to bring it up in perpetuity is essentially a WP:POINT issue. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:331dot, it's only WP:POINT if brought up *after* reform (or when reform is expressly ruled out). Because of the precedent created by the Glee nomination, reform to RD is clearly a long way off. doktorbwordsdeeds 09:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree; the first example listed on WP:POINT is somewhat close to what is going on here. (swap out a few words) A threat to bring up something in perpetuity until one gets their way, especially in a crass manner, is nothing but disruptive. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Allowing crap items to be posted, and refusing to do anything about it in perpetuity, is disruptive AND destructive. Oh, and we have no policies demanding something YOU define as basic human decency and respect. Showing false respect is, in fact, quite disrespectful. HiLo48 (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Repeatedly whining about a past nomination in other nominations is not "doing something". We, in fact, have a discussion on the talk page about the Death criteria and neither you nor Doktorbuk nor The Rambling Man have contributed, opting instead to bring up "that Glee guy" here [again] as if he has anything to do with this nomination. -- tariqabjotu 21:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Saw that discussion. It's pointless. Wrong proposal. HiLo48 (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then start the "correct" proposal. As Tariq said, complaining endlessly is not "doing something" and is borderline being purposely disruptive. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What you call a "crap item" is called a worthy ITN item by others, per consensus. We actually do have a policy about basic decency and respect. Are you the sole arbiter of what is "pointless" on Wikipedia or not? You can either call it pointless and refuse to participate, or you can participate and work to get your point across. 331dot (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite a brief two word appraisal of the entire career of Eydie Gorme.Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose And I use the "Glee Precedent" as created by User:Tariqabjotu as my basis for wanting reform of RD and admin powers, too. doktorbwordsdeeds 09:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As implied by Thaddeus, something is only a precedent if we allow it to be; content here is posted by consensus. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support A notable award-winning popular singer. Difficult when one half of a well-know duo dies (Steve Lawrence still alive, of course). Personally I'd have supported purely on the basis of Goffin and King's 1963 "I Want to Stay Here" (and that only reached number 28!) Martinevans123 (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsing side discussion. SpencerT♦C 20:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Intentionally being obnoxious; see contributions. -- tariqabjotu 17:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought "Duh", "Meh" and "Who" were quite reasonable reasons actually, if a little on the brief side. I see that you actually oppose. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]
@Martinevans123: What? Was any part of that comment meant to be serious? -- tariqabjotu 18:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only the bits between "I" and "oppose". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok... but I haven't opposed this nomination. -- tariqabjotu 18:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no you haven't. You just appear to have. Now's your chance! But why do you think those one word reasons are "obnoxious"? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He was clearly just mocking the ITN/C instructions that say Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. He even made sure to edit in the exclamation point. -- tariqabjotu 18:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not a coincidence, then. How ironic. And I always thought those were some of the most sincere reasons. Of course, they may still be useful...but apparently not when all used in rapid succession. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin Evans. μηδείς (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as Martin has made a good case. It's not quite the Glee guy (after all, it hasn't been posted within moments against criteria), but I've noted this passing has been main page on the BBC on my iPhone this morning and is still there some 12 hours later. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Very minor figure in pop music history. (Sorry, Martin.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems to tick all of the boxes for RD notability as an important figure in the field. Eight top 40 hits in the US (and four in the UK), member of the Songwriters Hall of Fame, and won an Emmy and two Grammys. Teemu08 (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Is anybody going to create this article?
This isn't the forum to request the creation of an article; I further suspect that the event would probably get added to an article about the ongoing conflict there. Given the ongoing status of the conflict and bombings there, I suspect this would not win consensus to get posted, as it is (unfortunately) not an unusual occurrence in Iraq. 331dot (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support this source Wired will give enough for an update. Five dead in a pyroclastic flow. μηδείς (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see this as important enough for us to cover. The volcano has been erupting continuously for over a year; this was a spasm that happened to find a few people in the wrong place at the wrong time. Looie496 (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Searching Google News I haven't been able to find anyone else killed globally by pyroclastic flows in the last decade. The prior reported eruptions of this volcano this decade have just been spewed ash, not pyroclastic flows. μηδείς (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That is the reason I said "I haven't been able to find" instead of there weren't. μηδείς (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the careful wording, although honestly I'd have gone with standard Google since Google News purges itself in regular intervals. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I used the date range function. Are you implying even then it is not a complete record? μηδείς (talk) 02:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The date range function will not pick up sites which have gone dead, naturally. I remember reading that most pages go offline within a year. My experience with Google's cache is that it goes down within a month. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Because this is an Indonesian news, added by I comefrom Indonesia, I like it! Indonesian language (Karena ini adalah berita Indonesia, ditambah lagi saya berasal dari Indonesia, maka saya menyukainya!)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanamanteo (talk • contribs) 07:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being from the nation where this news is occurring is not a reason to post this story to ITN, nor is "I like it". 331dot (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really does, but I comefrom Indonesia...--Hanamanteo (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to see this posted, updating the article with info from the eruption will help a lot. μηδείς (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marginal support How common is the eruption of this volcano? I can see the death count being an issue (if you know what I mean) but it's a rare enough event to be notable. doktorbwordsdeeds 09:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Number of deaths is somewhat marginable, volcano has been erupting for the past several months according to the article. Certainly nowhere near the scale of the Merapi eruptions (which did make ITN). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Intentionally being obnoxious; see contributions. -- tariqabjotu 17:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose With only few deaths and 3000 evacuated (which really isn't that much), I don't see this as being that significant. Article quality is also rather poor. SeraV (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A 31-year-old Florida man kills his wife and posts a picture of her corpse with a confession onto Facebook. The picture is removed and the man is arrested. (CNN)
Nominator's comments: This appears to be a notable and rare event. A president does not fire his whole cabinet that often. Andise1 (talk) 23:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is indeed a rare and significant event. Neljack (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. From what I see, we generally don't post cabinet changes, as cabinets typically serve at the President/PM's pleasure. Would be willing to reconsider if it is made clearer why this is significant. 331dot (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' - I believe 331dot's comment accurately assess previous decisions. Consensus can change, of course, but I would like to see an explanation as to the importance here above and beyond "its rare". --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would think its notable, btu per precedence it was not approved for South SUdan (and that was more notable as a first) so opposeLihaas (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: He was released from prison for having an improper trial. He originally was sentenced to forty years in jail for killing Enrique Camarena. Andise1 (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think we should have debated posting the overturning of his conviction, and not just his release. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed this story as the blurb shows is tortured, esoteric and obscure. μηδείς (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose looks like a non-story. Certainly not ITN-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Big news in Mexico, but I don't see how this story has an impact across the world. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 22:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From the blue box above: "Please don't... 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." – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I should have read that before posting. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 22:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Mexican drug war is important enough generally for ITN and key events are ITN worthy. Certainly it gets a great deal of press in the US. However, as said above we probably should have posted the decision, not the actual release.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't really get the impression the OP was saying "This is not important because it only happened in Mexico. Rather, the implication seemed to be a worldwide impact would be more impressive. That being said, this sort of thing has happened before in reverse, where people have gotten off in America when they are wanted in other countries. The bottom line is it is a very recondite issue. The will be no general interest; just a very emotional response by those very closely related to and invested in the issue. μηδείς (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what I was thinking, but I would have never been able to express it as well as you did. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 04:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A bus carrying 31 passengers, while crossing the Truc Khe Bridge that was under repair in Cam Lộ (Quảng Trị, Viet Nam), falls into a river, leaving 17 passengers injured. (Tuoitrenews)
International relations
The Republic of China lifts sanctions imposed on the Philippines after presidentBenigno Aquino apologized to the family of a Taiwanese fisherman shot dead in disputed waters. (BBC)
Law and crime
A shooting spree in Dallas, Texas, U.S., kills 4, wounds 4 and the gunman is subsequently arrested. (CNN)
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 was a country music hall of fame singer/producer. According to USA Today, he was a "country music legend." Andise1 (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like he probably meets the death criteria, but the article is seriously lacking in references. Neljack (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support in pricniple - when I saw the death earlier today, I was too busy to nominate it or I would have. (Member of multiple Hall of Fames, Life Time Achievement award winner, etc.) However, the article is in poor shape and will need substantial work to warrant posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lean towards support But one look at the article dismantling itself into a string of single-line asides suggests this won't go through quickly doktorbwordsdeeds 07:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on article quality. At the very least a biographical article posted to ITN should have a decent lead which summarizes why this person is notable enough for ITN.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment agree the article is so substandard as to make it difficult to judge his importance, but I lean opposed. μηδείς (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From above, "... 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) 17:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Intentionally being obnoxious; see contributions. -- tariqabjotu 17:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle - if the article was fully referenced. Which it isn't. Miyagawa (talk) 08:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: She was a notable actor who won two golden globes in her career. Andise1 (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support was considering whether to waste my time nominating this myself. She's not only a double golden-globestress, she was grammy and oscar nominated. Her work is mostly far far to the horror/schlock B side of Brennan's though. Bottom line is posting her beats empty space. μηδείς (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care if this is posted or not, but your "empty space" argument is no argument at all. The availability of space on the death ticker isn't one of the death criteria. If they are notable enough, they'll be posted. If they aren't, they won't. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am of the opinion we place the bar too high when, of recent noms, for example, Brennan, Black and Admiral Woodward don't get posted. In effect we are saying we prefer empty space to their names. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The bar we go on is the Wikipedia:ITN/DC, which is the one area in which the criteria for ITN are spelled out. Also, the deaths of suitably notable individuals are a bit random; we usually have several names on the template.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having no recent deaths doesn't actually lead to any empty space anyway. Formerip (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support (pending update of course) her role in Five Easy Pieces is probably one of the more iconic movie roles ever, top actress of the 60s and 70s where she was either in the main cast or supporting cast of dozens of top films. Rather common sense RD here. Secretaccount 23:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pending support The article doesn't say much about her death yet, but I'm supporting this when it gets updated - a long career with recognition seems RDworthy to me. Beerest355Talk 00:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose. I don't see how she meets the death criteria.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not seeing the evidence that she was widely regarded as a very important figure in the field of cinema. The news stories/obits don't seem to provide much evidence of her influence/impact. Seems like an important figure, but probably not a very important one. Will reconsider if further evidence of her importance is provided. Neljack (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Long career, combined with wide recognition for performing one role and two awards with other nominations, suggest she is important in her field. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per above and although she had long career, it does not mean she meets the criteria given that many influential figures with long career in their fields have not been posted.Egeymi (talk) 13:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Veteran character actor with a couple awards and nominations, but does not meet the death criteria as significant in her field. Not every Golden Globe winner is automatically qualified for RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support 2X Golden Globe winner and a fair career seems just about good enough for RD. --Somchai Sun (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm considering changing my !vote to neutral as Karen Black's death has gotten some reasonable coverage though looking at the page the update needs work. Most of the update is a quotation from her widower husband posted on facebook, which ought to be removed.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was one of the most read about stories on the BBC yesterday. --Somchai Sun (talk) 08:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Award winning actress with a long list of films who worked with major names in the industry. Article is decent for an ITN RD nom. Article fails to note she had a role in the iconic movie Easy Rider. Jusdafax 19:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is improved. I'm switching from oppose to neutral. Still seems like a weak case but she may have seemed a very high profile actress at the height of her career. However, the update is still insufficient (so I'm naturally opposed on those grounds). I'm removing the part I referred to above, the quote by her husband posted on facebook, right now.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing consensus then, I am marking as ready. Jusdafax 01:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm removing the ready tag. The article isn't updated.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done Re-marking as ready. Also: I've also expanded the main section a bit more and added a quotebox. Jusdafax 04:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question I am genuinely confused. Sandy Woodward commanded the forces on one side in a conflict that is in the 10 largest since WWII (at least those involving Western nations) and is regraded as important but not very important. Winning a science Nobel prize is not sufficient to be regarded as very important. However this case is supported with comments like:
"Award winning actress with a long list of films who worked with major names", not was a major name but worked with major names.
"2X Golden Globe winner and a fair career".
"Long career, combined with wide recognition for performing one role and two awards with other nominations, suggest she is important in her field", one role, two second tier awards and important so presumably not very important.
"probably one of the more iconic movie roles ever, ... she was either in the main cast or supporting cast of dozens of top films", one role and appeared in many major films - which could be said of loads of people.
I totally accept that these comments are sincere but not one of them suggests to me that she was very important. In fact many of those phrases could, with the addition of only here and there, be associated with an Oppose.
It seems to me that quite a lot of opinions are based, I am sure subconsciously, on whether the editor knows about the person or not. Hence media & sports people get an easier ride than, say, scientists.
I suppose that this amounts to a particular instance of systemic bias.
Well with Black we are dealing with one of the most iconic actresses of the second half of the 20th century, and it is (if its posted) the first recent death listing in nearly a month. In this exception, I wouldn't call this case of systemic bias, just that her notability proved to be too strong. Everything else, athletes/actors/scientists and so forth nominated for recent deaths has been shut down lately, (hell we shot down Donna Summer last year) not to mention it is almost impossible to post a media article or a sports related article unless its WP:ITN/R or the significance is too great to ignore. We do post the deaths of Nobel Prize scientists and major politicians every so often in RD if it occurs, and there is rarely a day that in the news does not have any science articles there. It's unfortunate that Woodward was shot down (and Rex Hunt was posted), but it happens, also the condition an article is really important as well. Woodward article was a mess before he died, and it took days to fix it, by that time the nomination got rather stale (I did support btw). Secretaccount 16:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"one of the most iconic actresses of the second half of the 20th century" - Do you actually have any justification for that? None of the Support !votes said anything like that.
"her notability proved to be too strong" - how is that reflected in there being 4.5 Supports, 1 Neutral and 3 Opposes?
"We do post the deaths of Nobel Prize scientists" - every time one is nominated there seems to be an immediate comment that winning a Nobel priize does not automatically make someone sufficiently important to qualify.
"It's unfortunate that Woodward was shot down ... also the condition an article is really important as well. Woodward article was a mess before he died, and it took days to fix it" - days as in less than 22 hours (proposed 5th 21:30, updated 6th 18:54).
Also you have completely ignored my, implied, question of why this case is being considered when the Support comments say that she was not in the top tier, "worked with major names", "a fair career", etc. FerdinandFrog (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I really don't want to be uncivil here (which I could easily), as I replied to your question in good faith and next thing I know is that I'm being attacked like I'm the villain despite supporting Woodward. Can you give me an example that Nobel Prize winners get "shot down" all the time? I been working in this area for several years and the only times a Nobel Prize winner was not posted was when the article wasn't updated and in poor shape, or the October 2012 era which we had such high standards of posting. Before October 2012, almost every death proposal that weren't a sitting head of state or some highly important figure like Steve Jobs and Robin Gibb (and yes well-updated Nobel Prize winners) was shot down quick. Also when it was nominated Woodward was a mess, thus some of the early oppose votes. I didn't ignore your question, you ignored the other parts of those comments including the award winning mentions and so forth to make a point. Secretaccount 17:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that you interpreted my comments & questions as an attack. However a number of the points that you made were factually incorrect (how long it took to sort out the Sandy Woodward article) or did not reflect the discussion above (her iconic status). Also you have repeated the comment about the Woodward article being a mess. After it was nominated it had two short paragraphs (three sentences) added and then seemed to be acceptable. That does not sound like a mess to me.
I'm sorry but I don't have time now to trawl through the archives but I am certain that at least one Nobel prize winner had had a comment about that not being a mark of sufficient notability but noone seems to object to a Golden Globe award (or even a nomination) in the same way. Possibly the Nobel prize winner may have been rejected for other reasons but that is not really relevant. Winning an acting award seems to confer notability but winning a Nobel doesn't.
I really don't see what you mean by "you ignored the other parts of those comments including the award winning mentions and so forth" In the list of, IMO, poor Supports I included one of the two that mentioned her winning a Golden Globe. That also said she had a "fair career".
I do not at all see how my comments can be regarded as make a point. The discussion was moving towards posting and I wanted to question if we were acting in a consistent manner.FerdinandFrog (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Donna Summer died in May 2012, but Recent deaths wasn't introduced until October 2012. -- tariqabjotu 16:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In what way did I not assume good faith? You and Muboshgu (opponents of the nomination, mind you) don't see consensus. I disagreed, obviously; that's why I posted. What's so complicated about that? -- tariqabjotu 17:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu asked a specific question, "Based on what reasoning?" asking how you had come to believe that there was a consensus to post and your response was just to say that you saw a consensus without giving any reasoning. To me that seemed you were ignoring his question. FerdinandFrog (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Muboshgu, there is no consensus above, even if we ignore that many of the Supports are half-hearted. FerdinandFrog (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't criticize Tariq's posting this, but it is clear the support is far from overwhelming. I voted support, but my wording sounds like a weak oppose. Black's work since the mid 70's has consisted of dozens of horror and B movies: Burnt Offerings, Killer Fish, Invaders from Mars, Plan 10 from Outer Space, Children of the Corn IV, House of 1000 Corpses.... there is no objective comparison which makes this superior to Eileen Brennan's work. Sandy Woodward may not have been the most important military man of the 20th century, but he was certainly more "important" than Ms. Black. I'll repeat that all three probably should have been posted (Woodward can still go up--you can make my vote there a support if it helps). The problem is not really in the nominations but in the way important is being used in judging them. See talk. μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection per se to Black being posted but I don't see a consensus, or even any very good aguments, that she was very important. I agree with your point that there is problem with the way that important (or very important) is being interpreted.
Counting dead bodies is a bit ghoulish but please excuse me. It seems odd to me that a bus crash that kills 20 people is important enoght to get several lines in ITN but the commander in a conflict that killed over 900 people is not important enough to get two words in ITN. Also I am pretty sure that in, say, 10 years time more people will read about Sandy Woodward than about most bus crashes.
"you can make my vote there a support if it helps" - Thanks but (pardon the pun) I think that boat has sailed!
While I remain neutral on this, the current !vote count is 6-3 with one neutral (yes it's not a vote yadayadaya) so I think this was a reasonable consensus. The comparison with Sandy Woodward is pointless--he's a general and she's an actress so it's not a like to like comparison. Honestly famous generals don't seem to die that often so there isn't much agreed-upon criteria on what makes a General a worthy RD.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Very rare for a film as substantial as this from a major director to be rediscovered. Article looks in good shape, I'd suggest that the out of date tag can be removed. --yorkshiresky (talk) 09:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. The porn remake won't even need a new title. Support. Formerip (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for a variety of reasons. Newsworthy, article is updated reasonaby well, unusual event as the nom. points out, secondary links go to a variety of good quality articles, provides added value to the readership and variety to the ITN section. I'm fully aware that most of these reasons are not in the criteria guide before anyone points that out :) Pedro : Chat 11:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support clearly newsworthy and the article is in good shape. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting and unusual story in the world of cinema/film history/Orson Welles. This film was lost, then found, then presumed destroyed, so yeah - I think very few people saw this coming. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Pedro. SeraV (talk) 11:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Pedro. Gamaliel (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pile on support. A rare event dealing with a historically notable film. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the update could use some work. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ready the third paragraph of the loss and recovery section is well updated. μηδείς (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree this is ready, good work on the update. Note to posting admin - to save you checking the image is not free so can't be used. Pedro : Chat 16:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is, however, a PD of Welles himself. Teemu08 (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yay! (support) μηδείς (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, suggest we use that and loose Mugabee. Pedro : Chat 16:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per established importance of Welles' work. --MASEM (t) 16:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You all are aware that this film was never screened, never finished, and was an experimental piece meant to be played along with a stage show? It can hardly be said to be "substantial" or "historically notable". Abductive (reasoning) 18:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A lost work by Orson Welles is a lost work by Orson Welles. His pea commercial outtakes are classics. The issue here is that because we don't really expect lost works of great artists to be found we don't include that as a category. Instead we have WP:IAR. μηδείς (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I'm not opposing posting, just trying to set the record straight. For instance, it was not a copy of the film that was discovered, it was the film. Abductive (reasoning) 18:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the blurb is misleading. I was trying to figure out why this was in the news now, when the article clearly states the film was found in 2008. If the recent restoration announcement (buried way at the bottom of the article, and not visible in the opening section) is the newsworthy event, then the blurb should reflect that, not a discovery made 5 years ago. - dmmaus (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The canister was found in 2008, it's contents weren't discovered till recently. μηδείς (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article, it was discovered in 2005, and was found to contain TMJ in 2008. The only news here is "film house announces the completion of a restoration", which probably wouldn't have been posted if that had been made evident from the beginning. I have reworded the blurb - it's now boring as hell, but accurate. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This would still have been posted in October when it is to be released. We can pull and repost or leave it up as still notable and still in the news. μηδείς (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would it? I'm less that 100% sure about that. I think maybe we need to just quietly file this under "oops". Formerip (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled At the very least, the story nominated here wasn't the story actually posted, and there is reason to believe this wouldn't have been supported had people known what actually happened recently. -- tariqabjotu 22:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incredible! I am glad Tariq knows how people would have voted without giving them time to comment. I am not sure why we bothered to have the nomination in the first place given his prescience. Can Tariq let us know whether this will go back up automatically in October? Or will he post it for us in 2008? This is getting tiresome in the extreme. μηδείς (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, he was only undoing himself. A pull in no way says the story can't be reposted now or later, just that Tariq was no longer confident in his own reading of consensus. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Having given Tariq some grief myself over the Glee affair, he's quite correct to pull this in my opinion. Black Kite (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm yeah it seems blurb was misleading, I think pulling was correct choice. I don't think restoration in itself is some huge news, perhaps when this is shown in public. SeraV (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
President Barack Obama affirms that the US will attend the upcoming G-20meeting, despite differences with the Russian government and the cancellation of bilateral talks between Obama and President Putin. (BBC)
Portugal's treasury secretary Joaquim Pais Jorge resigns after media reports and opposition politicians questioned his previous role at Citigroup. (Reuters)
[Closed] Recent Deaths: Margaret Pellegrini
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 22:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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: She was one of the last three surviving munchkins from the movie Wizard of Oz. Andise1 (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose She's not a notable actress on her own.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - unless there is something more to this. Being a Munchkin alone is surely not enough. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. She is notable for one role only, or at least the article only mentions her association with that role. Also agree with Johnsemlak. 331dot (talk) 03:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, as already pointed out she really isn't notable enough for RD.--Somchai Sun (talk) 11:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Follow the Weak Oppose Road. Wizard Of Oz may very well have been a ground-breaking film, but a single role is not part-and-parcel notable for RD; compared to Judy Garland who had the leading role but was also in other movies at the time.--WaltCip (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably support a full blurb when the last munchkin dies, like we did with Millvina Dean, the last Titanic survivor. Secretaccount 23:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Other than one role (of which she was one of many scores of actors), what else did she do? Anything of note for the front page? RD was not supposed to be an open door for anybody doktorbwordsdeeds 07:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Closed] Fire Hits Kenya's Main Airport
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 22:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Update needed three sentences on one reference doesn't make an update. μηδείς (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - An apparently accidental fire now contained with no casualties is a news blip, not an ITN. --MASEM (t) 21:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral now, support if there is a significant update the amount of coverage in the article has actually decreased since earlier in the day when there was about 4-5 sentences supported by 2-3 references (based on memory). There would be a lot more coverage if this had happened at a European or North American airport (for example) but major fires at major international airports are rare and Kenya is under-represented here. I'll definitely support if there is a significant update to the article but at the moment I can't decide whether I'm a weak support or weak oppose, so I'll stay neutral for now. Thryduulf (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Accidental fire with no casualties. The disruption caused by the damage to the terminal is being managed. 331dot (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose flights already back up and running within a day or so. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment We usually post such deals on the completion of the deal, which in this case does not sound like it is completed yet (BBC says "60 days"). --MASEM (t) 01:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not ready to oppose yet, but I don't see the significance here. A newspaper was sold- the Boston Globe was just sold a few days ago (also for a miniscule price) and we didn't post that. 331dot (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Boston Globe and associated papers, which were purchased for US$1.4B ($1,400,000,000.00) by the New York Times in 1993 were just sold for $70,000,000.00--far less than 5% of the original investment, about the value of their real estate holdings, if one accounts for inflation, with the NYT still holding $100,000,000.00 in pension liabilities.[10] This is much bigger, more notable, and sadder news. μηδείς (talk) 02:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, but such a well known newspaper being sold at such a loss would seem to be notable IMO. 331dot (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If posted, the two (Post and Globe) should go together mentioning they've been sold below asset vallue. Being as I almost always oppose business news, I'll not support the Post sale as an item by itself. A supportable blurb could be something like "In separate sales The Washington Post is sold to Amazon's Jeff Bezos and the Boston Globe to Red Socks owner John Henry at considerable losses." Or, perhaps, "In unrelated sales the Washington Post and the Boston Globe are sold at $US losses in the hundreds of millions." μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support only the Washington Post sale. An iconic newspaper being bought by a very notable individual. The Washington Post is much more notable than the Boston Globe.--24.90.93.88 (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who is able to buy a major newspaper will probably be notable, so I don't think that aspect of the story gives it anything extra. Formerip (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb should explain who Jeff Bezos is, as he's not a global household name. --LukeSurltc 09:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We could write 'Amazon founder Jeff Bezos' though I'd be concerned this would mislead viewers into thinking Amazon bought the newspaper.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about "Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon.com, purchases the Washington Post for $250 million in cash." Having the reference to Amazon after his name and not before might reduce confusion. 331dot (talk) 10:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support with article updates and blurb that mentions Amazon. Gamaliel (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose as nominated. The Boston Globe fire sale is the much bigger and still fresh story. The collapse of the industry may be worth covering, but one vanity purchase with no managerial or policy changes promised is not. μηδείς (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A very big story regarding what is effectively "new media" that has bought up the old media: the newspaper of record in the capital of the USA. I do believe it is a good idea to mention Amazon in the blurb. Suggest we leave the Boston Globe out of this, as the Post is, or perhaps was, in a class of its own. Iconic is not too strong a term for the Washington Post. Jusdafax 07:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose per Medeis.Lihaas (talk) 10:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Ever since Watergate, the Washington Post has been a print-media beacon. In U.S. journalism, only The New York Times has had more clout. Sale of the Post far outweighs that of the Boston Globe in significance — and the buyer being a cyber-mogul of sorts may be significant as well.
PS: It's listed today in German Wiki's version of ITN, In den Nachrichten. Sca (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't understand opposition based on the fact that the Boston Globe is a bigger story here. Anybody remotely familiar with the US media landscape will understand that the Washington Post is second only to the NY Times as a mainstream broadsheet. The Boston Globe isn't even in teh top 5.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's the case if you are part of the nattering class--the Times, Post, and Wall Street Journal are bought outside their areas for political, cultural, and financial reasons. But the Globe is/was a top-rate paper which the Times itself bought for $1.1 Billion. As papers and not, say , flagships of a certain political party, they are quite comparable. The WaPo has 47 Pulitzers since 1936, The BoGlo 22 since 1967. On your reasoning there should be a lot more support for a combined posting. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't heard the word nattering since Spiro Agnew was vice president! Sca (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Medeis I think you've answered the question of why the WaPo is more notable than the Globe--it is one of the few papers in the US to have a truly national profile.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sale of one of the world's most influential newspapers to one of the best known entrepreneurs. -Zanhe (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This story is updated so I'll mark it ready.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 22:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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: USA Today refers to George Duke as a "jazz icon" and "a pioneer in the funk and R&B genres." Andise1 (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sorry, but this man is not "worldwide known" enough to justify an inclusion at ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement that a candidate be worldwide known; the only requirement is that it meet one of the three criteria. 331dot (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a good working musician but no awards, or major hits and only one album with its own article, on which his trio is listed second. μηδείς (talk) 00:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Medeis. 331dot (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just not important enough for the front page doktorbwordsdeeds 07:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Sems to be in the news and with large scale protests, including the sacking of the national prison chief. Lihaas (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is no article to evaluate, nor is the scale of this person's alleged crimes given(one victim, a hundred, etc.) 331dot (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am closing this under the bold policy of WP:BLP. It can be reopened if we get an article with sources to support otherwise defamatory claims. μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Way too premature. Nominations are made here all the time without associated articles, and he is a convicted child rapist, as nearly every source on this story corroborates. Oppose if you feel there's an issue. -- tariqabjotu 03:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he was apparently convicted and then pardoned, and the pardon was withdrawn(part of the reason this hit the international news, I think). Still need an article but I could potentially support this. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This really should be closed if we are not going to have an article on which to pin the accusations. He's not notable, and this violates WP:EVENT. μηδείς (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a stub on Galvan atleast.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And now also on the protests. Take it or leave it.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Large scale convictions for an alleged coup attempt in a large country is notable, IMO. I know there is an article for this but I cant find it. Can someone add it here?Lihaas (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support if updated. Also, can you provide some sources ? --Երևանցիtalk 06:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support only if article gets significantly worked on. It's currently in poor shape and very much outdated, and doesn't even mention the recent convictions yet. The event is quite notable though and definitely has had international news coverage (e.g. top news item on German "Der Spiegel" online edition yesterday). Fut.Perf.☼ 11:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems a serious political attack on the Turkish military, hitherto guardian of secular republic. Here's a source for the Spiegel article in English translation:
Support - for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I oppose to the blurb in this form, since none, except the Turkish government and the judges, thinks that all these 200 people were really part of a plot (people who speak German can read for example here). Alex2006 (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that this would make the story more significant, not less. Formerip (talk) 12:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I was not clear: the story is very significant, is the form of the blurb which is wrong. According to the news that I read (Repubblica, Corriere della Sera, NZZ) the existence of Ergenekon is real, but the government used the plot as an excuse to get rid of opponents who had nothing to do with it, manipulating evidences. So, we cannot write "Over 200 Ergenekon members", since the large majority of them were not part of the plot. Alex2006 (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about "convicted on charges of..." as a form of phrasing? --LukeSurltc 11:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. The point is that according to most of the press (at least here in Europe) many of them are not members of the plot at all. Maybe "Over 200 alleged Ergenekon members..." could be a solution. BTW, IMHO a putsch attempt which involves directly so many people would be suicidal. Alex2006 (talk) 07:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
