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).
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe suspends Russia's right to vote and take part in election observations as a consequence to its annexation of Crimea. (Voice of Russia)
Protesters against a proposed trade deal with China peacefully ended their 24-day occupation of the legislature, as lawmakers prepare to review bills requiring greater oversight for such agreements. (Bloomberg)
Nominator's comments: Minister Flaherty had just resigned from the house, under a month ago. At the time, he said he was on road to recovery and his decision was not health-related. One of the highest ranking politicians in Canada. Canadian Parliament was suspended on news of his death. --Zanimum (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a real RD, then no blurb required. I read the article, many [citation needed] tags and a whole section needing better refs, not sure that this guy even qualifies as an RD-notable candidate. So, all in all, it's an oppose from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - and support inclusion in full listing with text similar to "Long serving former Canadian Finance Minister and MP Jim Flaherty dead at the age of 64 one month after resigning as Finance Minister" - we're talking about an long term finance minister from a G8 country and a sitting member of Parliament. Putting it into context, Canada's major networks all broke into regular programming for this news. -- Tawker (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose full blurb for a non-sitting cabinet minister not killed in a misadventure is simply unprecedented. See the Tom Foley nomination. merely being a high minister doesn't make one top of the field in ministering. Unless there's some special ITN-worthy accomplishment of his in office? μηδείς (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you only oppose a full blurb, or do you also oppose RD? He was practically a sitting cabinet minister, and likely the only reason he did resign was to ensure the stability of the economy. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, unless it is indicated why he was out standing in his field. Plenty of non-English speaking ex cabinet ministers die all the time, we don't post them. (List of recently dead ministers) A good comparison would be General Schwartzkopf. Generals as a class aren't worth posting simply because they are high ranking military officers. But he ran a brilliant, unprecedented campaign in Iraq and won the war, regardless of what happened after. Compare this to CIA Head, and Defense Secretary and Energy Secretary James Schlesinger who died two weeks ago without a peep. Here we have another high raking politician. But what did he accomplish with that high rank? μηδείς (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD - While he did resign as a cabinet minister last month, Flaherty was still a sitting MP and remained a significant individual within the government. Resolute 19:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could those keen supporters please spend a few minutes updating the article and fixing the tags please? It won't be posted until then. 19:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Support RD Highly influential in Canada. Was the finance minister for many years until just a month ago, and a very consequential minister at that. And I'm saying this as someone who didn't share his political views. Death very much unexpected. Redverton (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Please help fix the quality of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD: very sudden and tragic death of Canada's Minister of Finance. Played a crucial role as one of the finance ministers of the G20 nations. Helped Canada to become one of the strongest economies in the world during The Great Recession. The story is being covered by international media organizations; it's trending on social media sites as well. 184.146.111.12 (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Please help fix the quality of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been cleaned up, issue tags removed accordingly. Rambling Man, do you want to add to RD or shall I? -- Tawker (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much better that I don't, as usual I'll be berated for posting something that I've commented on. Thanks for the opportunity. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Weak Oppose non-sitting and otherwise non-notable politician of a small state with little reader interest. Perhaps notable enough to bump Kumba Lala. μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, when article properly referenced. Perhaps more notable for his role in proposing the International Criminal Court than as a head of state of such a small country. The article needs work on referencing, though. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearly someone who made a significant contribution or impact in his country, per Death Criterion #1. He broke that 30-year reign of the People's National Movement by winning the 1986 election; he was held hostage along with most of his ministers in a coup attempt, during which he was beaten and shot in the leg after defying instructions from his captors to order the army to stop firing and instead ordering them to "attack with full force"; he was instrumental in Tobago being given greater autonomy through the creation of the Tobago House of Assembly; as President he caused controversy by refusing to approve some nominations for senators from the Prime Minister and then by appointing the Leader of the Opposition as Prime Minister after an election where the government and opposition each won half the seats; and he made the proposal that led to the creation of the International Criminal Court. How he can be dismissed as "non-notable" is beyond me. Neljack (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support the RD is perfectly notable, but the article itself needs a few more references. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support for RD; former head of state, started the process to create the ICC, meets DC1 and possibly 2. As TRM states, however, article does need more references. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending the necessary improvements above. Former head of state, significant importance, that he was from Africa helps combat systemic bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the comments above. An important international figure. The article isn't exactly a "feature article," but that doesn't make the news any less notable. Mvblair (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until article is improved. It (properly) has an orange tag which is normally considered an automatic disqualifier. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
support per precedenbce. Only one section is missing cites, but the update on this is there.
note I added sources but its likely copied from here and this had verbatim language from our post.Lihaas (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you added sources you know to be bad, then why is this ready? That accomplishes nothing... --Jayron32 16:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its an RS source (and the original content from there IS reliable). Just the lazy media not doing its own background work. I also removed more than 1k bytes that were merely copy+pasted and left only the more ntoabke stuff that was in anothe link.Lihaas (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the precedent is that articles with oraneg level tags are normally not posted. It is even written right into the ITN instructions: "Articles that are subject to serious issues, as indicated by 'orange'- or 'red'-level article tags, will not normally be accepted for an emboldened link." If there is a copyright problem - and you correctly identified that there is - then there is absolutely no way this is going to be posted as is. --16:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I had forgotten to remove the organe tag when i added the sources. BTW- the copyright is not from WP, it was the other way around. As for the new link with the MP stuff, I have removed some stuff (and added some stuff).Lihaas (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BOLDly marked ready per this. If not then challenge it, im fine.Lihaas (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are mistaken. Both the Wikipedia and the newspaper article are copied form the parliament website (the link I gave in the copyright tag). It is definitely a real copyright violation on our part, and unfortunately most of the article is affected (and has been since 2010). --ThaddeusB (talk)
Bank of America agrees to pay $727 million to customers as restitution for deceptive marketing practices and unfair billing. An additional $45 million will be paid as fines to government regulatory groups. (Reuters)
[Closed] Nominating the Champions League quarter finals.
Closing as there's no way that quarter finals of a competition are going to be posted when we debate enough over the final results as it is. Stephen 06:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This has to be more culturally significant than college basketball in America, that no one else on the planet even cares about. For the United States, we are talking about 5% of the population of planet earth. The rest of it was watching the champions league. In world football, you basically have the second legs of the quarters, on two separate days. Then you have the second legs of the semis. Then you have the final. In world football, and indeed world sport, these are easily top 10 events outside of an olympic / world cup year imho. What level of football do you have to get to, to be up there with college basketball? world cup final? world cup semi final? Champions league semi final? You have up to 228 million people watching these events, and they dont get a mention, but college sports in Americas 5% of the planet homeland do?
Wikipedia suggests nothing about college basketball...
Suggested events - NBA Finals
Men's FIBA World Championship
Euroleague Basketball
Expected stories per year: 3 in Olympic and odd-numbered years, 2 otherwise
77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per POINTy and offensive nomination. I don't know what you are looking at, but there are nine association football items on ITN/R, including The Champions League finals. To suggest the quarter finals of any tournament in isolation are one of the top 10 events worldwide across all sports is ridiculous. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Was this pointy and offensive? I couldn't understand it well enough to come to that conclusion, and thought maybe it was a misplaced talk page comment, not a nomination. μηδείς (talk) 04:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. "the rest of the world" also includes Asia, Africa, South America, and Australia, most of which care little about European football. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ThaddeusB. You just beat me to it regarding the rest of the world. Such uninformed parochialism never helps a nomination, no matter where it's from. Where I live, for example, "football" means something entirely different, just as it does in the United States. HiLo48 (talk) 04:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sounds like the nominator is bent out of shape about his country being slighted somehow on a webpage. Nationalism has led to horrendous wars and genocides, and it has no place on Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 04:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Closed] Murrysville stabbing
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 00:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: There's essentially no chance that anyone will support this, because no one died and it happened in the US. I am therefore nominating this mainly to test my hypothesis that the chance of an event getting featured on ITN is directly proportional to the number of people who died as a result of it. --Jinkinsontalk to me 15:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - I've been watching this story, and because right now we have no idea the motives behind it, in addition to these being not-lethal injures (to date), it might not be anything. But if it was premeditated (as opposed to a spur-of-the-moment thing), that might make this story more ITN-appropriate. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait/comment - 1) Too early to tell whether this is ITN material indeed. 2) Why nominate something if you think it's not going to get in? Bit pointless, and seems to be a dig at the system of ITN. I assume this is partly tongue in cheek, given your point about it not being posted because it's in the US (as the opposite is of course true). All in all, rather odd nomination! Fgf10 (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is partly tongue in cheek, Fgf10. However, I am also nominating it because there is a very small chance it might actually get featured. And I'm not sure that tons of US stuff gets posted on ITN, given that on the main page I see a French-British racehorse, a boat race between two British colleges, and Australia and Sri Lanka winning a cricket tournament, and only one thing that specifically mentions the US. And this doesn't even begin to touch on the fact that the Fort Hood shooting was opposed by almost everyone. Jinkinsontalk to me 15:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe this one can get more support because it was a stabbing rather than shooting spree. The Brits here are tired of how we can't learn to use our guns constructively. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that using the present distribution of stories at ITN to judge if there needs to be a story from another region is not appropriate, even from a basic statistical basis. This story may have merits at ITN if it more than just "student gets angry, lashes out at others at spur of moment with knife" which is why waiting to see exactly what went down is needed. --MASEM (t) 16:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that we should wait a little while before deciding whether to post this or not, since if it does have an impact it won't happen this soon. Also, I wasn't citing the current ITN stuff to show that we need to post more US stuff, I was just trying to explain that Fgf10 is wrong when he implies that tons of US stuff gets posted. I might also note that apparently ZunZuneo, Brendan Eich resigning, and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission being decided all happened in the US and were all dismissed as not important enough for ITN. Jinkinsontalk to me 16:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can ITN go two weeks without someone accusing the place of having a conspiracy against American nominations? Redverton (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The examples you cited had very little news value, which is of course the reason they weren't posted. No conspiracy there! Fgf10 (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What is the main draw behind posting this story? That, instead of yet another U.S. school rampage involving a gun, a knife was used instead? Not a very sturdy basis for ITN, I would say. --WaltCip (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close Once again, we get a pointy, insulting nomination from Jinkinson. There's no support for this. There won't be any books, any memorials. A year from now this will have been forgotten. It's not encyclopedic. μηδείς (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/close per Medeis. I would oppose this if it happened in my own country or anywhere else, just like I would oppose the UK smog (missed that one) & the UK flooding in Feb.--Somchai Sun (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/close - sorry if I sound cold but this is not a story for ITN. I might had supported it if it had happened anywhere else but in the US were these kind of school massacres are almost a monthly thing these days. However I do not oppose the article itself as it has some national intention etc.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well then. I'm sorry for getting cynical after such a large number of my previous nominations failed. Of course, the reason this has happened is the same reason this is getting such a negative response--because I don't have much experience doing this kind of stuff. Another reason I made this nomination was, as I said above, to try to find out if more deaths from an event means the event is more likely to be featured.
So I acknowledge that my nom was rather pointy (at least at first), as Medeis states, and for that I do sincerely apologize. I'll try to be less cynical and flippant in the future. Nevertheless it needs to be considered that, regardless of whose fault it was, one reason I nominated this in the obnoxious way I did was because a large number of my previous nominations failed. Jinkinsontalk to me 18:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware, most nominations fail, and most good potential nominations have already been posted once you get here to add them yourself. Constructive comments, reviewing other people's nominations to check if they are updated and otherwise qualified and adding refs to nominations that need them are great helps, and you can get credit as an updater quite easily, since we always have a rush to nominate, but few people actually like to do the work, even on their own nominations. Act in good faith and you will be treated in good faith. μηδείς (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not in the news anywhere in my locality, is this more significant than any other attack in the US? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Watch out Lugnuts. User:AlexTiefling will be around shortly to berate you for you ad hominem attack. μηδείς (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's certainly no relationship of direct proportionality, but the number of deaths is highly relevant - does anyone doubt that this would be a bigger news story if all the people who were stabbed had died? Neljack (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Arguably as big an internet security issue as Heartbleed, and affects hundreds of millions of people worldwide. 25% - 30% of the world's computers use Windows XP, and the end of support means that security-critical problems will no longer be fixed. --Smurrayinchester 11:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MS made it well clear this day was coming for months, compared to the sudden discovery of the Heartbleed security problem. Note that this doesn't mean XP suddenly fails, just that MS will not update it any more, so only if a new security hole is found would this become significant. --MASEM (t) 12:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the right time to post this. We don't post elections, we post results; in the same way, I think this is the right day for this story. And "only if" a new security hole is found? Meant to be a joke, surely? GoldenRing (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of a tech story that can affect millions - akin to the ssl hole - the point to announce this as ITN is when it is affirmed it is happened, that is, back when MS stated they were closing down XP support so that people could actually do something about it. That is the result, even though it was fully done yesterday; this is equivalent to us announcing the sentence of a criminal irregardless of appeals, delayed incarceration, etc. I did check and I don't see anyone bringing it up then, unfortunately (There was one when win 7 was announced, in 2009, on the preseumption XP support would end at some point). Now yes, MS could have set a date and then later changed or cancelled it, but still the important fact was that closure was announced and coming soon, not after the fact. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Big in IT news. --bender235 (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "and the end of support means that security-critical problems will no longer be fixed" Have you tried switching your machine off and then switching it back on again? LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 14:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - significant milestone for one of the most popular (and longest lived) OSes in history. I modified the blurb to link directly to the relevant section. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's interesting, perhaps unexpected, that more than a quarter of computers are still using XP. The BBC has been expounding on the significant cost for small businesses. If this had been proposed when it was first announced it would probably have been shot down to wait for the actual date, in case of postponements. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb note, both suggested blurbs above are inaccurate. Neither says within desktop operating systems and the blurb should do or else they are incorrect. So ' the desktop operating system still used on' or 'the world's second most popular desktop operating system'. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 18:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought of that as soon as I shut down my computer. Have made the change. Smurrayinchester 20:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support it should have its own obituary, an RD of extraordinary wide-reaching significance. Yes, we knew it was going to pass away, but the day has arrived and we should mourn the loss of Microsoft's best effort by a mile. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose this is far less newsworthy than Microsoft wants people to believe it is. This was known years in advance and doesn't actually have any noteworthy long-term effects except for Microsoft continuing to stuff Windows 8 down people's throats. Windows XP hasn't ceased to exist or be useful, it just won't get first-party patches or support anymore, which it rarely did anyway. — TORTOISEWRATH 19:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Which it rarely did anyway" I'm sorry, but that is patently false. Even the April 2014 patches had XP fixes included [1]. Windows XP was one of the longest running operating systems in history [2], and the large exposure of internet connected machines is what makes this newsworthy. Your opinion on Windows 8 is staggeringly irrelevant. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per User:TortoiseWrath. This isn't news, it is arbitrary intentional obsolescence unless you pay as a corporate marketing strategy. A dam hasn't failed--it is being blown up on purpose, but you can pay a protection racket if you still want water. μηδείς (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's certainly well known that this was going to happen, but we're in a new age where operating systems move on day by day. XP is truly significant, as captured in the article and above. It was the OS that no-one really moved on from until Windows 7, a decade later, and even then, XP continues to operate in mission-critical systems. The valedictory for XP is worthy of a brief "thanks and bye" blurb on Wikipedia, hell five years ago, probably 50% of people looking at Wikipedia were doing it on an XP platform. This isn't about sucking up to Microsoft's obsolescence programme, in fact, they've proved time and time again that they're not actually very good at this, but the farewell to XP is similar to the farewell to Windows NT or MS DOS, it's massively significant in the world, significant to just about everyone on earth (even though many don't know it). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But XP isn't "leaving" or "dying." It's going to remain in use for ages, just as previous versions of Windows did. Plenty of enterprises, in particular, still use Windows 3.1 or 2000. All that's changing is a corporation's choice to arbitrarily push updates to it, something that continues to be done by other companies. — TORTOISEWRATH 21:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose There is simply no significance in this announcement unless we see that it really exerts strong effects on the Windows XP users. Please also understand that Windows XP doesn't cease and all the comments above solidarising with Microsoft's efforts to exaggerate the importance of this news are not helpful. We're lucky to have the OpenSSL story on the main page which is incomparably more serious and important than a single decision made by Microsoft coming into force.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; XP isn't dead and gone, or otherwise withdrawn from use, it just is not being supported any longer by its maker. 331dot (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No; I think the point is that it should be dead and gone, because there will be no further security updates for it. Unfortunately, as you say, it isn't; 25% or so of the world's desktop computers still use it. This is news, and news that really needs to get to people. GoldenRing (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose More symbolic than having significant impact. SpencerT♦C
I just don't get how you can think like that. When the operating system used by a quarter of PCs out there suddenly no longer receives security updates, how can that have no impact? GoldenRing (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Just because an event is predictable doesn't mean it shouldn't be reported. Opening and closing ceremonies of an Olympics occur regularly on ITN. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 06:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Prestigious [3][4] and the world's largest [5][6][7] technology award, awarded only every two years --Jopo (talk) 10:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the most likely target article, Stuart Parkin, is tagged for insufficient citations. That will need addressed before item can be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have updated the article now with hopefully enough citations. --Jopo (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, once citations fixed. Sources suggest it's a large & prestigious technology prize. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - article is now in acceptable condition. Based on the news stories I've looked at, this does appear to be a prestigious award worthy of posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as of now. Is this Technology Academy Finland prize truly the largest in the world? What are its competitors? And who were Parkins competitors for the prize, since other nominees are no listed. The article reads like a vague and self-promoting press release. This year's prize itself is one item in a list. Even the Hugo and Nebula Award articles for science fiction list the alternative nominees for each year. μηδείς (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The selection process of the award is explained here. I'm not sure whether the selection committee publishes the other nominees or not. The New York Times called it "the world's largest technology prize" in 2004 [8]. --Jopo (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, there are an awful lot of awards out there. No sources have been provided saying this prize is particularly prestigious, and prestige is not the measure that ITN uses, it's whether or not the item is in the news. I don't see it on the BBC's front page at all, nor the The Guardian's. The update for the present winner is unacceptable; it reads like either copyvio or just painfully hagiographic. Abductive (reasoning) 04:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian called the award "prestigious" [9] and The New York Times has called it "the world's largest technology prize" [10]. --Jopo (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Journalists have the bad habit of unauditedly copying information from Wiki nowadays. And guess what, that information was self-referencing and didn't even exist at the website. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 08:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What information does not exist at which website? (Off-topic: So let me get this straight, we need citations from reliable sources such as well-established news outlets (as per WP:Reliable) but when those sources are referenced they are not to be trusted since they are written by journalists? ;) --Jopo (talk) 09:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I haven't looked in detail at the concerns but there are two maintenance tags on the prize article that need to be addressed. The Parker article is adequate. The prize is clearly notable, coverage in the mainstream press here along with a million euros shouldn't be sniffed at. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As I'm myself leading the branch of a research institute and get to read and know a lot about the physicist's envelope, I can assure this prize isn't all that important. Not important enough to get posted at ITN. Besides, the articles clearly lack the quality. They need to be improved. All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Frankly, Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering actually has a larger prize money. Though it was only established in 2013, and the sources that say this Finnish prize is the largest one all date from before that. --hydrox (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Fulfils recent death criteria two: The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field - in this case, professional wrestling.
ABC News: Pro Wrestling Legend ... one of professional wrestling’s biggest superstars
Reuters: one of U.S. professional wrestling's most celebrated athletes ... days after being inducted into the World Wrestling Entertainment Inc Hall of Fame
New York Post: Legendary wrestler ... a longtime star of the sport
Details of death: collapsed at 8:50pm EST on April 8, which is 0:50am April 9 in UTC. Rushed to hospital and pronounced dead.
This is my first nomination, sorry if there are any errors. --starship.paint"YES!" 07:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is my first time participating in a discussion like this as well, so forgive me if I'm missing something. This nomination does seem to fit Wikipedia:In_the_news#Deaths criteria 2, as far as I can tell. Numerous sources provided by Starship describe Warrior (Warrior was his legal name) as being one of the most recognizable in his profession, being a former WWF Champion. Also headlined the WWE Hall of Fame just days before his death.LM2000 (talk) 07:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes. I forgot to mention: "The Ultimate Warrior" is his "stage name" and WP:COMMONNAME. He had his real name changed to "Warrior". starship.paint"YES!" 07:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment reasonable article, but a maintenance tag indicating some missing references in the "In wrestling" section, could those be addressed? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Done. It had been chopped in half in tonight's all-out blockbuster editing melee extravaganza. EDIT: Oh sorry, I thought you were referring to the red error message in ==References==. Dunno about that other stuff!— Smuckola(Email)(Talk) 08:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as notable in his field(whatever you refer to it as). The nom states it is for RD but where the death was sudden and unexpected (was 54) should the blurb be posted? 331dot (talk) 09:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Purely based on his popularity in his field, I think he's big enough for an RD but I have to admit he doesn't seem huge enough for a blurb... not on the level of Hulk Hogan, Vince McMahon, Ric Flair etc. starship.paint"YES!" 15:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak support As a wrestling fan, I'm not entirely sure if he's quite over the threshold of notability for RD. But, with that being said, his fame did come during one of the biggest periods in wrestling history and his death is getting massive coverage. -- Scorpion0422 12:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Headlined major events in his prime, a recent inductee into WWE's hall of fame. Speaks to his importance in the field. Given his legal change of name I assume the listing should be "Warrior", piped to the article? GRAPPLEX 13:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that he should be listed under his legal name. His ring/stage name of Ultimate Warrior is the WP:COMMONNAME that people knew him by. The five reliable sources reporting his death all used "Ultimate Warrior" in the titles. starship.paint"YES!" 15:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD per all of the above. Name should read The Ultimate Warrior because that's the most familiar name to most readers. --Jayron32 13:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD. Sources describe him as one of the most prolific WWE wrestlers of all time. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 13:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD: One of the top in his field, at a time when said field was considerably large and had a wide following. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD I remember him from the late 80's. He was "top of his field", and was just recognized as top of his field the other day. The article is in okay shape, though there are citation needed tags and the info on the last few days of his life (Wrestlemania XXX for instance) are repeated. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready/oppose - based on approximately 10 [citation needed] in the article, it could easily be tagged with a (disqualifying) {{BLP ref improve}} tag. Please address as many of these as possible before posting.--ThaddeusB (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD - my concern has been met and consensus is there, so I am posting this to RD now. If consensus emerges for a full blurb, it can be upgraded at that time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting Support RD ...just to make the point that, while I aggressively opposed the posting of an event in the script the other day, this guy has obviously been a long term, successful performer in this field. HiLo48 (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not arguing for including the streak, but it lasted almost four times longer than The Ultimate Warrior did (WWF-wise). Most of his notability comes from a single match, where he was scripted/boooked to end Hulkamania. As far as real success, the streak undoubtedly drew many millions more dollars. But yeah, as far as really ending goes, there's a clear difference here. InedibleHulk(talk) 00:16, April 10, 2014 (UTC)
Support RD and blurb There are a lot of wrestlers, but very few so mainstream as Warrior. I think the sources speak for themselves on that. WrestleMania VI was, as Gorilla Monsoon would say, indeed a happening. InedibleHulk(talk) 00:14, April 10, 2014 (UTC)
Wait, no. Support new blurb. Something mentioning the proximity to his return after 18 years, or his ominous final promo. That's what makes the death itself notable. InedibleHulk(talk) 02:41, April 10, 2014 (UTC)
Post-posting Support, blurb opposed This was big enough it made front page news in the US this morning. I have always opposed every wrestling nom we've had. But this seems good for RD. A blurb, however, absent extra-genre awards, would be absurb. μηδείς (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think someone's having a teeny laugh at our expense here. But, for the record, for what it's worth, I oppose a blurb, basically on WP:SNOW grounds. GoldenRing (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming it's me your alluding to, no, I was entirely sincere in my comment. If the typo's the reason, I noticed it after submitting and thought it amusing enough not to bother correcting. μηδείς (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ukrainian police detain about 70 people in Kharkiv in an "anti-terrorist" operation that clear government buildings seized by pro-Russian protesters in Kharkiv.(CNN)
Nominator's comments: This is a notable discovery which I believe is worthy of being on ITN. Andise1 (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I agree this seems to be a notable scientific discovery, and it's being widely covered. 331dot (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting confirmation from local "hype" doubter. Per 331dot, "seems" legit and worth posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this claim has nothing to do with finding the first animal that had a heart. Molluscs, annelids, vertebrates, and dozens of other animal phyla which did not descend from any arthropod had hearts, which was a trait inherited from a much deeper common ancestor much older than this fossil. All this is about is what fossils we have found which have preserved which traits. It's like walking into a poorly lit library with a million volumes, and pulling a John Grisham book off the only shelf you can find in the dark and announcing this book from 1992 is the earliest mystery novel yet found. μηδείς (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The problem here is that the claim made in the blurb (and I must admit, in the titles of the source articles) are far more interesting than what is really being claimed. What we have here is the oldest fossil which has evidence of a circulatory system. That's NOT really confirming anything. As Medeis notes, we know for certain that older animals than this specimen had circulatory systems. Many taxa of living organisms are known to be older than this which are also known to have circulatory systems. However, those taxa lack hard parts, and so leave less interesting fossil traces. This discovery doesn't actually confirm anything we didn't already know. It's mildly interesting, but not a landmark discovery in the sense of "changing what we know about anything". --Jayron32 19:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a traditional family tree of all the animals more advanced than jelly fish. The arthropods are at the end of the branch on the top right. The chordates (vertebrates and close kin) are at the bottom. Every single animal group shown has a cardiovascular system except a few parasitic groups like the tapeworms which don't need them, and hence have lost them. This shows how misleading a simple reading of the claim is, and its ultimate superficiality. μηδείς (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given the commentary, and Medeis' excellent analogy, I've proposed a more correct alternative blurb. Stephen 00:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb would be correct if it said the "so-far" oldest "known" fossilized cardiovascular.... I'd still oppose, as we already know these and more primitive creatures had them, and this is no huge revelation even within the arthropods. It in no way compares to, say, the entirely unexpected discovery that the early flying bird-relative Microraptor gui had four wings. It is an unremarkable heart in an animal we knew had a heart and developed from a long line of animals we knew had hearts. μηδείς (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should, I suppose, apologize. I think this nomination is a lot more relevant than others that I oppose but recently haven't spoken up about. And as a matter of secret vices, I'd probably be happy if this got posted with a properly-qualified blurb. So my thanks and apologies to the nominator and supporters. My sole concern is that we shouldn't have uninformed supports here, for what is likely to be a short-standing and historically quite minor development. WWSJGD? μηδείς (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Significantly better referencing is required; one can't even begin to assess the potential significance of this based on "Yahoo Bews" coverage. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2014 (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.
That's the Presidential election, technically different than the general election(both ITNR though); but if and when posted the blurbs could be combined. 331dot (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest nominations are merged before further consideration. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just another suggestion. In the case of legislatures, can we say "Wins the most seats" or "Wins the most votes" As an American, I recognize and use a word like "plurality" and have no problem understanding it, but I know it causes ENGVAR problems with other varieties of English. It would be best to avoid that word, and "the most" carries the same meaning. --Jayron32 01:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nom. I know most of our readers are tech-illiterate and won't grasp the magnitude of this, but I think we have to post it anyways. The current blurb suggestion is a bit awkward, so I'm open for suggestions. --bender235 (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I just updated my own server. This is a huge bug. Thue (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I think the guy quoting this as "the biggest bug since SQL injection" has it on the money; this is possibly the biggest tech news in some time. Like goto fail;, but a million times more severe. Sceptre(talk) 17:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support a serious tech story that warrants rapid inclusion on our main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I know little about this tech issue, but it seems to me that any tech issue affecting "half the Internet" would be significant enough to post. 331dot (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have revised the blurb. It previously claimed that over half of servers were affected, but the actual figure is around 17% [11]. --hydrox (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That still seems a high percentage relative to the worldwide Internet. I still support. 331dot (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This # should be in the blurb to emphasis the significance (assuming this is the best, most reliable estimate): "...leaving an estimate 17% of the Internet's secure servers..." is a much stronger statement than just "large number". --MASEM (t) 19:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's more than 17%, according to several experts. [12][13]. --bender235 (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We can always say "an estimated minimum of 17% of secure Internet servers", which is still significant. --MASEM (t) 20:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That 17% figure is probably quite accurate. Your first source makes no mention of % that I can see, and the second source is a tweet mentioning that 30% support TLS 1.2, while certainly only some part of those installations were ever vulnerable. Actually, most OpenSSL installations were never vulnerable thanks to conservative sysadmins (the bug was only in the latest 1.0.1 version) --hydrox (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support that wording. "Large number" is rather vague and may be a sensationalist fearmongering. Brandmeistertalk 21:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added the 17% figure to the article as well. Netcraft is a pretty respected authority in this type of web analytics, so I am okay with posting the 17% figure in the blurb. --hydrox (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a case of false accuracy. "17%" accounts only for web servers, but not mail servers and other internet services. --bender235 (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support As the issue will not be resolved overnight (since it requires both the fix and the redeployment), this is a major security issue in the news and is being appropriately covered. --MASEM (t) 19:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The current text in the linked section is horrible. I happen to understand a good deal of the consequences, and I can't recognize it in that section. Thue (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I confirm this. Unfortunately, I don't have time to fix it now. --bender235 (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I put in a few updates, I hope it's a bit more sensible now. --hydrox (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Potentially one of the most severe security vulnerabilities in Internet history. --hydrox (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested update regarding this WMF accouncement: "As an extra precaution, we recommend all users change their passwords as well." Should we add that somehow? --bender235 (talk) 10:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is my opinion that we should leave giving such advise to the WMF IT team only. They have the tools and expertise for orderly informing the users of any such technical issues. Asking users to change their password in an ITN blurb might raise more questions than answer them. --hydrox (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean we should give any advise in ITN, but mention something like: "[...] affects large number of web servers, including Wikimedia's". --bender235 (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support and proposal - A standalone article, Heartbleed bug, has been created for the subject. Should we update ITN to link to the separate article? Mz7 (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Done. Thue (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Request ITN credit I am requesting ITN credit for User:Abdulwrites. His first article and first edit have hit ITN. Very rarely I see this. --Tito☸Dutta 02:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Please feel free to post the template on anyone deserving's talk page yourself in the future. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: I guess it should have been nominated earlier. The article needs further updating and expansion. Will do so later today. Feudal violence is common in the south of Egypt but security officials described this one as the worst in recent memory. --Fitzcarmalan (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support A significant event that our readers otherwise might well not hear about. Neljack (talk) 06:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
note it occurred at least 3 days ago.Lihaas (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In each day there were deadly clashes. There's a three-day truce now as an attempt for reconciliation, but things might get ugly again (I hope not). Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose reasonable stub article, not seeing this prominently in any news outlets I use, but that's not entirely surprising. What's the impact beyond tribal clashes? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The ethnic side of it should be taken into account and might have a future impact in the region. Note that the article is partially developed now and it is still under expansion. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Before opposing, I urge my fellow Wikipedians think about this tournament in a different way, specifically its cultural significance to the United States. Historically, the NCAA tournament has been a contentious nomination (50/50 support/oppose). Two types of opposes are generally offered. First, it is said to not be covered outside the United States. This is patently false, as has been demonstrated previous years. It is not "front page news" anywhere but the US, but very few sports are front page news outside their home region. Second, it is said to not be the world's "top level" basketball competition. This is true, but not relevant.
The only true significance any sport has is that which people assign to it. In the United States, the NCAA tournament is the 3rd most watched sporting event - ahead of the NBA finals and 13 other US events we post: the World Series, The Masters, the US Open (golf), the PGA championship, the Kentucky Derby, the Stanley Cup, the Boston Marathon, the Chicago Marathon, the New York City Marathon, NASCAR, the Indianapolis 500, and the US Open (tennis). It terms of cultural impact, only the Super Bowl is obviously ahead of the tournament; it is on par with the World Series and the Kentucky Derby; and is miles ahead of things like the US Opens, the NASCAR points championship, and Chicago/New York City Marathons. (By cultural impact I mean, is talked about/followed by people who rarely watch the sport or even sports in general.)
We should strive to post the sporting events of the greatest cultural impact, not necessarily the "highest level" competitions (although often the two are the same). That is what the NCAA tournament is - an event of huge cultural signifcance. I realize America's interest in University-level sports is strange to most non-Americans, but I kindly ask you to try to see things from our prospective (and if you must complain about US-bias in sports, I suggest targeting a competition of much less importance to America than NCAA basketball.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that your case would be bolstered if you could provide sources that explain that US basketball does not have minor leagues or lower divisions, so that the college teams act as more than university play. Abductive (reasoning) 01:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, "The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is the 'de facto' minor league for basketball" [14]; "[college basketball] is the greatest minor league system in the world" [15]; "NCAA basketball is now officially the NBA's farm system" [16] --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the D-league (one of the provided sources is about how NCAA is better than D-league)... Among college players who don't make the NBA, some of the best go to the D-league, but others go to European or Australian pro-leagues. It isn't clear that the "Development" league is even the best route for players done with college to develop into NBA talent. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Enormous cultural impact. Additionally, college basketball is not limited to only American players. For example, UConn has players from Ghana, Jamaica, Germany, and the whole list of international players that participated in the tournament can be found here. SpencerT♦C 02:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not get too carried away here. Those international players would not be there if they weren't being paid to be there, in what is officially an amateur competition. The farcical "scholarship" system doesn't help the image of this competition. HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You think this is farcical, you should read this. Everyone who doubts how seriously Americans take college sports should read that. Note that basketball is even more popular than football in North Carolina (probably) and has ~85% fewer athletes to subsidize. Also, in case you don't know, the they can't be given more sugar than what's needed to attend the college (except from family) so no beer or car buying money or solid gold basketballs (though solid gold locker room hottubs would be allowed, if anyone did that. I'm not kidding) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know some Australians who got an American college education through their sporting talent. None would have made it into an Australian university. Nice people. Good at their sport. Bloody lucky! HiLo48 (talk) 06:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At least they finished. Some play as little as 1 year and then join the NBA. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, though I suspect that people unfamiliar with it will see "it isn't professional" and thus will oppose without any knowledge of it's relative importance (i.e. more important than the NBA finals). --Jayron32 02:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support due to the argument given above. As pointed out by Spencer, there are players from all over the world. If we posted the Boat Race(which I support) we can do this, too. 331dot (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all the reasons given by the nominator. One of the few sporting events that draws interest from non-sports fans, with millions of brackets filled out each year. Not to mention the press surrounding Warren Buffett's billion dollar perfect bracket challenge. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 03:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support reasonably well-covered across the globe. YEPacificHurricane 03:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For many decades, the NCAA was actually the highest level of basketball recognized by FIBA in the USA, primarily because they're "amateurs". American college kids beat out teams of fully grown European men (who were also "amateurs") in the Olympics. Of course, that isn't the case anymore, but the open era of basketball also made the NCAA tournament international when players from other countries started exploiting college basketball as an alternative way to develop their young basketball players (the Australian Andrew Bogut, and the Panama national basketball team last decade, for example). Nowadays, the NCAA final four games have now become the single largest basketball event in the world, with the semifinals and final having the largest live attendance for the season in basketball. Not even the World Cup (of basketball) next year can boast of having almost 80k people watching a single game in a single venue. Compare, for example, the TV rights of the Premier League in the UK, 1.782 billion pounds for four years or 445 million pounds a year or 3.2 million pounds ($5.3 million) per match; NCAA basketball TV rights in the USA is $10.8 billion dollars for 14 years, or $771 million per year or $11.3 million per game. Granted, the Premier League has plenty of TV rights elsewhere, but this tells you the magnitude of interest for a bunch of college kids playing hoops for "scholarships". –HTD 03:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: one of the most watched sporting events in the US and the world. It baffles me why this is not in ITN/R. -Zanhe (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One of the most watched in the world? Have you seen the audience for cricket in India? I'm not planning on opposing this, but I will still highlight silly claims. HiLo48 (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the stats handy, but it's probably one of the top 10 most viewed sporting events in the world, which is why CBS and Turner have agreed to pay $11 billion for 14 years of TV coverage for NCAA basketball, compared with $4 billion or so NBC's paying for 10 years worth of Olympics. -Zanhe (talk) 05:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
American money for American sports is not a valid comparison with the size of the audiences for cricket in India. HiLo48 (talk) 06:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And comparing the "value" of an annual competition with one hosted only every four years is pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking to Zahne (hence the indent level), and referring to the Olympics. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How's that pointless? NCAA: $11 billion/14 seasons=approx. $780 million per season. Olympics: $4 billion/5 games (including winter)=$800 million per game. I thought people were capable of doing such easy math themselves, so didn't elaborate the first time. -Zanhe (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would like to point out that the updated article is now of pretty high quality, which hopefully counts for something. (I am happy to take suggestions for improvement though.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Thaddeus's excellent statement and my own comment from last year.[17] Clearly we do post university sport, given that the Boat Race is up there at the moment, and I'd say this has significantly greater cultural impact and public interest in the US than the Boat Race does in Britain. As someone from a country where university sport is little more than a social pastime, I find the massive interest bemusing, but that's neither here nor there. Ridiculous as the idea of posting a university sports tournament seemed to me at first, sport does not have inherent significance - as Thaddeus says, it is only significant because people care about it - and the amount of passion and interest this tournament generates is truly staggering. Neljack (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh you're got to be kidding me. Posted after just 4.5 hours, with just the US evening for voting? Give me a break.... Once again, ITN becomes a joke! Fgf10 (talk) 06:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pull immediately The same story once again. We agreed on multiple occasions not to post this for many reasons and now it looks like someone was so prudent to nominate it and collect sufficient amount of votes while Europe sleeps and is not able to counterbalance it. This is a classical example of a systemic bias and extreme POV. Bongwarrior has apparently violated the rule of neutral point of view for his selective approach to consider only the votes from users from the other site of the globe and speedily post it without any real discussion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be silly. There's a clear consensus to post. Europe has been awake for three or four hours, I see no dissenting voices other than your own. Should a plethora of opposes appear, then consider pulling. This was posted just as Tony Benn's RD was posted, quickly and with clear support. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Admins should always wait for a longer time when posting any item, not to talk about one that has been long discussed in prior occasions with no general consensus to post. This is clear avoidance of that rule of thumb and I'd even say that it was deliberately made. Maybe it's time to propose introducing a rule that will prevent such haste in posting ITN items on the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Admins should always wait for a longer time when posting any item" no, not really. There's been no opposition but your own, European editors have been awake and online for six hours, there's no problem here but the one of your own making. As for implementing a delay, tried that, failed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiril - We most certainly never "agreed" to anything. 1) The NCAA Tournament has been posted some years. 2) Some of us Americans felt that the not posting the our beloved NCAA basketball other years was the single greatest injustice on ITN.
Those "many reasons" you refer too basically boil down to precisely the one's I listed in the original statement. I attempted to refute those reasons with a strong argument, precisely the same argument I made about the Boat Race 24 hours prior. Given that we had never posted The Boat Race before and had posted NCAA basketball, I am confident cooler heads would have won out this year and NCAA basketball would have been posted, regardless of timing. That said. there is precisely nothing wrong me nominating the event (and working extensively on the article) when it occurred.
The only "extreme POV" here is your accusation of impropriety. --ThaddeusB (talk) 10:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
support. Well argued Thaddeus. I can't add more but I've posted arguments in support of this event in years past.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support of a good, consensus-based post. The Australasians were watching this through the day as well as our American friends; not sure why we have to wait for the Europeans to wake up? Stephen 11:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the Europeans have woken up, and have been awake for six or so hours, and no-one's dissenting to this post bar the one clamour for "immediate pulling". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment I didn't express an opinion either supporting or opposing the boat-race nomination and have stayed out of this one. I think ThaddeusB's argument of cultural significance has some merit. My worry is how it will play out in practice, in two ways.
Firstly volume: ITN/R already adds up to ~65 sports stories per year. If we add in all the not-at-the-top-of-the-sport-but-still-really-popular events then that will be a considerable increase - I'm thinking of Manchester City v United, West Coast v Fremantle / Adelaide v Port Adelaide, Ascot, Goodwood, Bristol City v Rovers (for all you Rovers fans out there, yes, both of you!) and so on and so on. Where do we draw a line here? AFAICT, the rule of thumb has been that only ITN/R sports stories get posted unless the event is somehow unusual compared to the same event in other years (ie a particularly notable boat race or NCAA final or whatever). If it's a regular event we're posting only because the event has a particular cultural significance every year then the argument should be happening at ITN/R, not here. I get the impression that several sports events have fallen by the wayside recently, despite being ITN/R, because "we have too many sports nominations around here." I'm pretty sure this isn't going to help that situation.
Secondly, the 'cultural significance' aspect adds a taste of subjectivity that has previously been absent. It is possible to assess in a fairly objective way which events represent the top of a particular sport; if we accept proposals on the basis that an event is very significant to my particular cultural group, there will be no end to it. It is impossible to oppose a nomination on these grounds, since all you have to do to establish cultural significance for a group is to claim that it exists; anyone who opposes it is obviously just not part of that particular cultural group that finds it significant. If we're going to do this for sports then we should do it for other things as well; why not report on the last night of the Proms, or Glastonbury, or Burning Man? GoldenRing (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everything posted at ITN is subjectively judged, including judging what represents the 'highest level' of competition in a sport. The 'cultural significance' aspect of the NCAA tournament can be measured by a few objective measures however, such as viewership figures, google news hits, WP page views, etc.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I do agree that the "cultural" argument needs to take place at ITN/R and will bring it there in good time (generally items need to pass regular ITN before they can even be considered there). Sports do have a big impact on people's lives, and deserve the coverage level they get. It might be somewhat subjective to say NCAA basketball has an extremely high cultural impact, but it can also be measured in certain ways (some offered in this thread). It is also somewhat subjective as to what constitutes highest level play in many sports (for example boxing is especially prone to this problem), and other ITN decisions are almost purely subjective.
We actually do have at least one item on the current ITN/R list (Japanese baseball) that is definitely not "top level", but is properly included because of its importance to its home country. The most important sport(s) in many countries also happen to be top level and are listed. However, I have a few ideas to add (none of them American other than this nomination). There are at least three items (all American events) on the current list that I feel have no real impact that I plan to nominate for removal on the cultural angle. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I give up but will never agree with Thaddeus that this has cultural impact on a high level. It may have only in the United States, which is way far from being something significant. Unfortunately, the English Wikipedia is mostly edited by users from very few countries and this fact will never give us the chance to get rid of local stories in an attempt to creating an impartial and neutral encyclopedia. Evidently, this Wikipedia is nothing better and even worse than the smaller Wikipedias that are infamous for doing the same.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with you, though if pushed to it I'd have to admit ignorance about the cultural impact of the NCAA championship in North America. But I have to say your point is somewhat weakened by your silence on the Boat Race nomination. If local stories of limited, national cultural impact are the scourge of an impartial and neutral encyclopedia, where were you when the Boat Race was nominated? GoldenRing (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having lived for some years in Lexington, Ky., I wouldn't say the "impact" was "cultural." Sca (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in Australia and have never been to the UK, but I am familiar with the Boat Race. The only place I ever hear of the NCAA championship is here. HiLo48 (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the Philippines and this was live on TV; the Boat Race and cricket weren't on TV and the news. –HTD 12:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)It says on this page "Please 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." If a "local event" is covered significantly enough on a worldwide basis(which this is), it can be posted. 331dot (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth, I had never heard of The Boat Race before getting active on Wikipedia. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither, though I would've bet many tens of bucks to win ten that it existed (but not if I had to guess it's name, lol). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support from Europe (if it matters). Important in the US, even though it's not the top level of the sport. I can't see why we shouldn't post this and other similar items of cultural significance (e.g. the Boat Race posted recently). 62.249.160.48 (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support It was wrong not to post the 2013 tourney. Glad to see we've corrected this. Championship in the top level of amateur basketball, major impact, etc. Kudos ThaddeusB. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've proposed to add NCAA basketball to WP:ITNR. Please participate in the discussion at the ITNR talk page. -Zanhe (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support Very nice construction arguments put forward for posting. Nice. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong pull. We have had this discussion many times - amateur university sports are not the top level of competition, and are therefore not suitable for ITN. I wasn't around for the discussion of the boat race, but would have opposed that (and will advocate pulling); if I was being uncharitable I would suspect it was a stalking horse. 'Cultural significance' is neither here nor there. The timing of the nomination meant it was posted by the time anyone in Europe woke up, meaning that very few people outside the US had a chance to comment. Modest Geniustalk 22:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. See The Rambling Man's comments about the timing. Andise1 (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's at least partly true, and there was no need for such haste in posting. It LOOKS like American domination and systemic bias, even if you think it isn't. HiLo48 (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's been 24 hours now, with just two people in favour of removing it, and many, many in favour of it being posted. Appearance of bias, "stalking horses" etc etc, whatever. There's been plenty of chance to overturn the clear and large consensus to post this, and nothing's happened. Time for people to get over it and move onto something productive. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You must surely realise that a lot of editors don't even bother to look at items that are already posted. HiLo48 (talk) 10:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And clearly our audience is satisfied too, I don't recall seeing a single complaint about this item's appearance on the main page in the past 24 hours either. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well if we're not here to provide information our audience wants to read, I don't know what we are here for. Not one single complaint. Nada. Must be doing something right!! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can't have looked very hard. There was in fact quite a well-developed complaint discussion at talk:Main_Page#Sports well before you made this comment. GoldenRing (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with HiLo here - I'd have opposed this given the chance, but didn't feel strongly enough about it to argue for a pull. 4.5 hours consideration of a minor sporting topic ending at 06:06 UTC is not good enough. Even if it was done in the very best of faith, it was an undoubted mistake because it creates the appearance of US-based editors doing whatever they like and not caring what anyone else thinks. There are plenty of stories that garner no opposition but go unposted because no-one bothers; did an admin really have nothing better to do than post this story?
Arguing that there hasn't been a 'single complaint' is also rather disingenuous - there have been at least four editors who have expressed concern at this posting, sometimes in very strong terms, in the paragraphs above. GoldenRing (talk) 11:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still doesn't change the fact there is clear consensus for this to be posted... --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the level of disagreement expressed here can be consensus called consensus, so yes, I rather think it does change that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenRing (talk • contribs) 13:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Logorrhea Log — The preceding discussion comprises 4,000 words. Sca (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even counting GoldenRing and the MP comment as opposes (while ignoring the MP talk page support comments), there are five supports and four opposes since it was posted. Given that it is much more likely for people to express disapproval than approval of something after the fact, I think it is pretty clear the item would have been posted regardless of timing. Additionally, some opposes from previous years were supports this year. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Thaddeus. I opposed this last time round but there's no issue here at all. You know something, some of us, maybe all of us, need to remember that Wikipedia is something like the 4th most visited website in the world. Millions of homepage hits a day. We have one or two complaints about "too much sport". So what? We're not here as a science project, to precisely carve out a politically and socially equal and "correct" encyclopaedia, we're here to put stories on the main page that some/many will find interesting. We have tens of thousands of hits on ITN, and this post isn't different. The main page is hit, on average, 15 million times a day. We're wasting our lives discussing why NCAA was posted and will disappear in a few days time. No-one else seems bothered, most importantly, the actual, genuine readers of Wikipedia. Do something else for a change, you whiners and whining stealth ponies, write an article, do something positive. Transmission ends. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Please update I don't have a strong feeling one way or another whether this deserves to be up there. Since the consensus seems to be that it does, then it should be updated to say that UConn also won the women's championship. That they won both in the same year is bigger news. Such an update would also help to reduce the WP:BIAS of sports coverage here. Teply (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree, but it would require a separate nomination and an updated article to occur. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I too am disappointed that the ITN section has not yet been updated to reflect the dual championship win. This is more notable than the current article, as it has only happened twice in Division I history - and both have been Connecticut Huskies. mikemillerdc (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't be too disappointed, I just updated it. Please feel free to suggest any streamlining of the blurb. Before anybody gets wild ideas, do not pull this blurb without first having substantial discussion and obtaining a consensus to do so. I will take a dim view of my admin action being reversed without following the required procedures. Additionally, the reason I've added the women is that there is no plausible argument to exclude them and there is clear support to include them. If the men are posted, the women should be posted too. Given the choice of pulling the men or adding the women, I've decided that there is a consensus to add the women. I am most convinced by the argument that the amount of news coverage of these championships is extremely intense. They get substantially more news coverage than many other sports events that we post. Per common sense, these belong in the ITN section. JehochmanTalk 13:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jehochman: Well, would you at least fix the fact that the "defeat" in "and the Connecticut Huskies women defeat the Notre Dame Fighting Irish to..." still links to the men's final? I don't know if there's an appropriate women's article. Either way, two bold links to the same article in one blurb isn't quite right. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the links - hopefully that doesn't make me a "dim" admin :). There actually is a plausible reason to exclude (or at least not bold) the women's tournament - the article is decidedly not updated (first sentence: "The 2014 NCAA Women's Division I Basketball Tournament will be played in March and April 2014"). ITN requires both consensus on notability and an adequate update. I will try to tackle the update sometime today, to avoid this embarrassment. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all! Thank you for helping. The article has been patched, but certainly could be improved further. I'm of the opinion that posting quickly can make Wikipedia more engaging for the reader. If they see a chance to fix something simple, they may begin to edit. JehochmanTalk 15:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- ridiculousI posted that the champions league quarter finals were more culturally significant than this, and i had my nomination shut down and was insulted by people with a credibility gap. So here it is, reality. Wikipedia seems hopelessly parochial and out of touch with reality. College basketball isnt even second level, its kids level. The champions league quarter finals are watched by more people, and are truly a world event, not a domestic kids level event. seriously suggest checking viewing figures world wide, including asia, africa, etc, before making assertions as to its regional nature. Especially as that region is a continent and not a nation. Furthermore, there can be no debate about what the world means when it says the word football, as football is the world game, and all other codes are domestic. Gaelic, Aussie rules, etc are domestic games. American football is a domestic game. football is the world game, whether USA embraces this or not. so to include something as internationally meaningless as a college basketball tournament, while leaving out even the quarter finals of an event carrying around 220 million viewing figures internationally, is silly, parochial, petty and incredulous.
This is a domestic kids level event with little to no interest outside of one nation, who though over represented on wikipedia, are currently carrying 5% of the worlds population. something like even the Champions league quarter finals is a global event, because in asia, africa and even south america, people are watching to the tune of 220 million people worldwide.
Wikipedia is out of touch with reality on the nom. Kids level, domestic, and absolutely irrelevant to the average citizen of planet earth. By all means try making that argument about the champions league semi finals?
Simply put, it matters not that this is a final, and thats a quarter final, as this is a kids level event, and no one outside of america cares what so ever. Comparative viewing figures, international reach tv reach, continent v domestic breadth of the tournaments, and full adult level v kids level nature of competitions all resoundingly back up my point.
Go check google trends under their respective labels and laugh as the whole planet outside of canada and usa turn up a search volume zero for college basketball, and the whole planet including america spam numbers for the champions league. Furthermore the global search volume for the champions league dwarfs college basketball, even in the day of the basketball final.
Wikipedia is domestic, and arrogantly out of touch with reality, on the evidence of this.
Kettle, black. You equate the "rest of the world" (minus the US) with Europe, described the quarter finals of a European event as top 10 in the world across all sports, and equate NCAA basketball with "kids level" sports, and yet it is everyone else who is out of touch with reality? WOW!
And no, Championship League is not widely followed in Africa, Asia, Australia, or South America. It is moderately followed in some of those areas (as is NCAA Basketball), but mostly those areas care about their own region's leagues. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you obviously just made assumptions instead of actually checking. Google Trends is probably a poor metric to use, but the actual numbers show NCAA basketball has been more searched than Champions League over the last month and has more searches by a 4:1 margin around the championship game, far from your assertion of the opposite.
The Champions League final will be posted. We have never posted anything but the final for any sport ever. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with ThaddeusB. While I'm not the greatest fan of this item, it has to be posted, we have a significant consensus to do so, and that's how Wikipedia works. Next up, whether you think this (or the Boat Race or any such other localised item) is worth posting on the main page, you can do something about that by getting involved in the processes (WP:ITN/C to discuss what goes onto the main page, WP:ITN/R to discuss what will go up regularly as long as it's updated properly). Thanks for taking the time to give us so much feedback, but unless you and others who agree with your point of view get involved with directing the articles selected for ITN, things won't change to your satisfaction. Look forward to seeing you participate!! All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, this is getting so much hate; meanwhile, the Boat Race below is sitting pretty. –HTD 19:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your point? I think we've already established categorically that the Boat Race is global and NCAA is not quite so. Time for you to stop pretending otherwise. Where is NCAA broadcast? Does it get mainstream television in Europe? In India? In China? What channels broadcast this in Spain? In Uzbekistan? In the United Kingdom? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So which channel is that shown on in the United Kingdom? How many hours of it is broadcast to Malaysia? Is it on Freeview in Spain? I can't believe this at all, is it free to view in Estonia? Which broadcaster is showing it in Uruguay? These need to be answered.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ESPN international broadcasts it worldwide. If you subscribe to ESPN, you can watch it. TOA and Xinhua ran the results. TV5 broadcast it in the Philippines. Who covered the boat race in the Philippines, USA, Canada (or for that matter Uzbekistan). --76.110.201.132 (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see Uzbekistan on that list, which channel is this broadcast on in Uzbekistan? Is this cable or free-to-view in Mongolia? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Same question for The Boat Race. TRM, I think you could agree that NCAA Basketball is US-centric with some international interest, and I think most people would agree that the boat race is UK-centric with some international interest. Why not just leave it at that? Uzbekistan and Mongolia are barely countries... --76.110.201.132 (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that neither of these events have the level of interest of Olympic Mens Ice Hockey or the FIFA World Cup. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lawyer Cù Huy Hà Vũ, one of Vietnam’s most famous dissidents, is released early from prison. Afterwards, he travels to the United States. (VOA)
Science and technology
A critical vulnerability referred to as the Heartbleed bug is discovered in certain versions of the popular OpenSSL software which allows attackers to steal information from internet servers which would otherwise be protected. (BBC News)
Nominator's comments: My campaign to fix our anti-business bias continues. In terms of dollars and significance this is the largest merger I've seen in quite some time. Yes, like all business deals it will be subject to regulatory approval. However, mergers are rarely denied at the main time of coverage is on the announcement, not the approval. ThaddeusB (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak support its good per the Fyffes precedent. But im not sure how its structured. Will one own more than the other? Or is it a merger of equals? Someone must have paid more in stock, or was it a cash merger? Also if there is regulatory doubt then id waitLihaas (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Holcim is technically the acquiring party, but in reality it is a merger of equals. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
should we structure it like Fyffes then?Lihaas (talk) 01:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think either (or both ) articles could receive the update if that is the question. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's the Fyffes precedent? (for those of us uneducated :) ) CaptRik (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lihaas is referring to this blurb: "Chiquita and Fyffes agree to a merger that would create the world's largest banana producer." which was posted last month. A suppose the precendent he refers to (even though we don't work of precendents) is something like "create industry's largest company = post worthy" --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I'm going to sit on the fence on this nom, i'm pondering where the granularity should be for articles like this (for example, cement manufacturer vs industrial material manufacturer, or banana producer vs fruit producer). CaptRik (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose neither article appear to even mention this (both listing each other as a competitor) and the Holcim article is barely stub quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, hence why I said the articles would require significant work. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then dare I be bold enough to suggest that in your pursuit of more business coverage on ITN, you fix up the articles yourself before nominating them, thus removing one of the two major stumbling blocks, i.e. article quality (the other being ITN-worthiness). Unless you or someone else can be bothered to fix these up, this nomination will fail dismally. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do intend to work on this tonight. (I hope you know I would never want anything of poor quality posted.) As to nomination timing, it is kind of a lose-lose situation. If I fix it and then nominate it is too late to get enough comments (because it takes a while to fix an article of poor quality). If I nominate first I get opposes on quality grounds. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's ifine what oyou are doing. TRM enjoys bitching around here instead of being helpful. Cest la vie and all of that. Keep up the good work though ;)Lihaas (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very helpful Lihaas, very helpful. Keep up your great work here, whatever "ifine what oyou" means... Of course, if you could spare a moment, you could tell me what part of my constructive oppose here constitutes a "bitching"? You could also point me to the nomination which you made that I support. You could do more... but I'm guessing you won't. If not, I suggest you wind your neck in and do something useful for a change. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have created a new article, LafargeHolcim, on the merger. This seemed to be the best way to handle the new material, rather than repeating everything at both partners. I will be working on the article throughout the day, but it should already be sufficient to show that this merger will have a large impact on the industry even if it never takes place. Eventually I will add a brief summary of the new article to the two merging company's articles. The Rambling Man, if you could take a look at your convenience and let me know what you think, I'd appreciate it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article is now in good shape, although I will continue article work... Now we just need some opinions on the merits of the story so that we can form a consensus.--ThaddeusB (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as I opposed the banana merger. This will effect the middle managers who are laid off, and may mean marginally increased prices for consumers. But it won't mean new cement markets opening up, like iCement or Virgin Spacement. Business stories about new developments are good, but this is just about market efficiencies. μηδείς (talk) 23:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
People (not you presumably) tend to oppose new developments in business as "commercial product announcements, not real news"... Of course no one can predict the future for sure, but the industry analysts are saying this merger is likely to have effects that ripple throughout the industry. The consumers of cement are other business, so if prices do change "marginally" it would impact businesses of a wide variety. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do tend to oppose business noms. I think this one was in good faith and worth nominating. I just don't think it is cutting edge, or has anything to do, again, with other than a management restructuring. If we go by size, this may have size. But if we go by innovation, which is how I view news, none is promised.
Again, I'll apologize, because my opposition seems combative. It's just that I don't tend to bother to post when I agree with a trend and se nothing worth adding. Here there was a request for comment--otherwise I'd have stayed silent. μηδείς (talk) 05:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize - I respect your consistency and realize it was my request for more opinions that attracted your !vote. As a group, we have no (informal) standards as to what is a worthy business item which tends to lead to nothing at all being posted. Meanwhile, in the typical newspaper (at least in the US) business is one of the four or five sections printed every day. I will probably start a talk page discussion soon to try and get a better idea of what business stuff people are wiling to support. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cement might not be the most exciting thing out there, but it's pretty important, and a $55billion merger is big news in most industries. GoldenRing (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Not so much on it being on cement, but $55B is far from trivial nowadays. --MASEM (t) 14:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: John Shirley-Quirk was a genuinely significant figure in 1960s and 70s British classical music, and beyond, He created several important roles in British opera, was a friend of Britten and Pears and a noted teacher. Britten and Pears herd him once and immediately cast him as the Ferryman in Curlew River, a massive sing and a huge leap of faith. Subsequently roles were written for him by Britten and others, including Death in Venice, which he took to the New York Metropolitan Opera, resulting in several future roles there. He sang Belshazzar's Feast at the Last Night of the Proms and created the role of Lev in Michael Tippett's The Ice Break in Covent Garden. BBC Radio 3 gave extensive coverage to his death. John Shirley-Quirk is probably the most important English classical singer to have died this year, a towering figure in English music of the mid to late 20th Century, an important teacher and part of the inner circle at Aldeburgh. His voice was on a par with Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau. Famous for being good, not for being famous. Guy (Help!) 00:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. The qualification Briish baritone makes this look less important that, say, "great" baritone. Can this be argued on best-in-filed merits, rather than great-in-locality merits? μηδείς (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The antagonist roles in Britten's last opera, Death In Venice, were written for him, and he took them to The Met, where he was brought back to sing other roles. He also performed Belshazzar's Feast at the Last Night of the Proms. This was a man with an international career and reputation, but whose greatest fame was as a singer of English music. We currently have a WWF wrestler in recent deaths, John Shirley-Quirk was massively more significant. He created several important classical roles, had music written for him by Benjamin Britten, has an enormous catalogue of superb recordings, BBC Radio 3 has been playing some of them in his honour. He also had an international teaching career. Fischer-Dieskau had a greater reputation, but not much. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative support, once article improved -- currently far from suitable quality, though I note it's in the process of being improved from the Telegraph obituary. To try to address Medeis's comment, English classical music from the era Shirley-Quirk was performing was a prominent genre internationally. He was preeminent worldwide as an interpreter of this movement, and particularly of Britten, who wrote several roles for him; he made several definitive recordings of Britten's works. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've made a few adjustments to the article, but can't find it in my mind sufficient notability to support this RD. There are just a couple of sources reporting his death, and while one calls him a "legendary interpreter of Britten", that's a pretty niche claim. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support He was certainly one of the leading bass-baritones of his time. As has been noted, several roles were specially written for him. Being a legendary Britten interpreter is nothing to be sniffed at either - Britten is one of the most important composers of the 20th century. As for μηδείς's point about "British", it is not always easy to compare singers who perform in different national/linguistic traditions - British opera and vocal music is quite different from its German, Italian, French or Russian counterparts. I doubt anyone would bat an eyelid if a nomination of a writer talked about his or her importance in French or German literature - we recognise that different languages and nations have quite separate literary traditions. The same applies in opera and vocal music, where of course the language plays such a key role. Neljack (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: First time nominating so please excuse any errors. I'm not overly attached to the subject but I think this at least deserves a nomination. --OrganicsLRO 12:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Thanks for the nomination; I would ask which of the recent deaths criteria this person meets? 331dot (talk) 12:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a fair question, I can't say it meets any of them - just noticed that it's getting media attention and thought it was worth a shot. I'm happy to self-close the nom if it's got no chance at all. OrganicsLRO 12:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a death for RD. This is a death for a real blurb. –HTD 12:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What are the grounds for a blurb here? 331dot (talk) 12:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, it's in the news? It's like when Hoffman died, no one expected that she'll die right now at the ripe old age of 25, previous drug use notwithstanding. –HTD 12:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize; I guess my question is, is this person as famous as Hoffman was? Her article is kinda short. 331dot (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TBH, I don't know, probably not; but her death generated large enough interest. I guess Hoffman was a bad comparison. Perhaps a better one would be Steve Irwin. It appears that our standards for regular blurbs for deaths is that the person who died was exceptional, or the person's death generated huge interest. –HTD 13:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the answer is definitely not as famous as Hoffman. A tragic, short life, yes, but achievements? Awards? Notability outside being Bob and Paula's daughter? Not much at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know it's been "in the news", but being "in the news" doesn't necessarily make it ITN, as has been discussed here countless times. She doesn't have the achievements/awards or anything, save her parentage, that makes her so important. I don't see any comparison between her and PSH other than the unexpected natures of their deaths. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Muboshgu. Shocking and tragical news for sure, but no major impact. -Zanhe (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As above, thanks for your nomination, but this time it's an oppose as although the death was tragic, it's not quite up there in notability stakes for ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Only really notable for being the daughter of other famous individuals (IE - famous for being famous). Not the top in her field (whatever that was), and the "celebrity" reactions of Phillip Schofield and Helen Flanagan speak volumes. Hardly Obama and Merkel. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 18:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Muboshgu. Although if the Cory what's-his-name logic holds, she should get a full blurb; even though world renown actors like Mickey Rooney and Paul Newman don't just because they were old when they died. Rhodesisland (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC) rhodesisland[reply]
Oppose. Just not significant enough. She was famous only for being someone's daughter. Even her TV appearances were based on that simple fact of parentage. Modest Geniustalk 23:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, perversely, for the above stated reasons: daughter of Bob Geldof and Paula Yates, granddaughter of Hughie Green, this person has cultural signifnicance well beyond they personal fame, IMO. Guy (Help!) 00:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Partial support, im probably doing this all wrong, but I just wanted to point out to rambling man that the world doesnt revolve around america, and that peaches geldof is on about the same searches total as the ultimate warrior. rooney has been gone for days, and he is no where near that total. we live in a multi polar world, defined by the interests of our generation as much as the medias ideas on who was noteworthy 50 years ago. the british media has gone nuts over this, and on a world wide basis its a lot more culturally significant than the death of rooney. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Did this person ever make the news before she died? HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Partial support. In far more respectable circles than Paris Hilton has done..She basically grew up in front of the media and did a lot of productive work in her field. It wasnt quite as productive as the out standing contributions of someone like Warrior, and her parents werent quite as famous as someone like prince william, but she was well known in the uk, and therefore her name carries. I think its a valid point that her parents are a calling card, unlike someone like stella mccartney, who is one of the greatest fashion designers ever...I understand wikipedias need for a stringent criteria with these things, but when you are making news, it is hard to just reflect world events on some grand merit scheme. The comments are a little america centric, seem tinged with hypocrisy, (we dont have any idea what she died of, but we see none of the same dirty tones around warriors sad passing, that seem to accompany a drugs speculation on peaches). The bottom line is the lindberg baby is only famous because of its parents, but we look back and it was a significant cultural event, not because of any grand political factor, but because human interest has the power to make things thus. Consensus in this media seems to be achieved by making the most americans agree with you. As i said, contrary to rambling mans previous points with regard to rooney, he is getting less than half the amount of searches that peaches is, and silly as it may seem to some people, worldwide, she is "in the news" and arguably more famous than he is. I think when you start deciding what is and isnt news on a particular day or week, you run the risk of using lofty criteria as a tool to delude yourself as to the profound myopia of location and generational concern. I absolutely agree that celebrities who are basically fampous for being famous, should not command the same attention from wikipedia as more politically significant developments do. However, when someone dies at 25 who is essentially a fixture on the national backdrop, and a media frenzy follows this, supported by actual and genuine public interest in many different continents, - you have what was in the news on that day or week. Looking back over history, surely it is better to reflect what was a significant news story of that time, rather than dictate it. With trivial celebrity rubbish it has no permanence or cultural significance. However as with my example of the lindberg baby, the deaths of these cultural fixtures, and resultant media franzy, do have a permanence and legitimite cultural landmark factor, that are a little more intransient. A great many people will look back and think of this as the week that peaces geldof died. Any fair reflection of what was in the news this week, would probably reflect that. Thank you. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You say "She...did a lot of productive work in her field." Um, precisely what was her field? HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Suggest read her wikipedia entry. She was a notable public figure who had been a model and journalist and the story itself is permanent, because it concerns a death, and notable, because its very big news story commanding the same kind of internet searches as ultimate warrior passing. In short her name was one of the two hottest searches on the www on the day she died. There has been blanket coverage in the british media and well, its no college basketball game, but hey. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We always say notability isn't inherited. Just because her mother died an early death doesn't make her death particularly notable. Add to that the fact that she was 25, and hadn't really made her mark in her field. The news is mainly gossipy stuff that's built around her celebrity status, Bob's reaction, and her mysterious death. -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question What was particularly notable about JFK Jrs death? Because its listed as one of the 15 most significant events of July 1999, and I have no idea what the man did other than being the son of a famous man, who also died too soon? Notability isnt inherited if your father is trying to save the world, but it is perhaps more congenital if he was trying to run it... 77.101.41.108 (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, known primarily for being a celebrity child but not because of any major achievements of her own. Nsk92 (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] Quebec general election, 2014
No consensus anywhere close to posting this. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Note that this is about the results of the election, not the voting about to begin. --Jinkinsontalk to me 05:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know the Quebecois regard their province as more special than your average state or province, but this isn't a national election. HiLo48 (talk) 05:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; we don't typically post subnational elections; as I understand it the only big story is that the separatist party was defeated, which only means that the status quo will remain. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While a pretty big deal within Canada, not just Quebec, (the separatist party no longer being in power), I don't see it as significant enough to be ITN. --kelapstick(bainuu) 13:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose With very rare exceptions (heck, I can't think of one right now), we don't post subnational elections. Redverton (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Closed] Indian general election, 2014
Similar nomination was already proposed about a week ago, and consensus was quite clearly against. -- Redverton (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support - 814 million potential voters start a very unique election process. Definitely a huge story and the entry reflects that. Mvblair (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is simply about the fact that they are having election. This has happened before in Indian (if it was the first democratic election, sure). But I'll support the results, not the fact that the election is starting. SpencerT♦C 22:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We only post election results, not the beginning of the election process. I see no reason to change that. --hydrox (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This same issue was discussed on March 31, and roundly rejected that we would not post anything until the results were known. Stephen 23:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Closed] The IBM mainframe is celebrating its 50th anniversary today
Twelve years late for mainframes in general, and the anniversary of the System/360 is just not as sexy. Stephen 03:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NOt a lick in hell this is going on as its more for OTDLihaas (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as opposed to the directly rude comment above, I'd suggest this is not ITN; a shame it missed OTD. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It would help if nominators actually read the articles they link to. IBM mainframe says, in its very first sentence, "IBM mainframes are large computer systems produced by IBM from 1952 to the present". (My bolding.) It's the 50th anniversary of System/360, which does mean something, but this nomination is simply wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This would be an anniversary, not a news story. And apparently the date is wrong anyway. Modest Geniustalk 23:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Highly notable and will be updated any minute. --Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — For all the obvious reasons. Reuters: "Kiev fears invasion." [19]Sca (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The informed speculation has always been that Russia planned to do a repeat if the Crimean strategy of "internal" revolt followed by invasion to "protect" ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine. The fact that Russian TV was live broadcasting the protesters' fake legislature and call for a referendum to join Russia convinces me that this is not trivial. Thue (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote — Latvia, Lithuania ban Russian state TV broadcasts as "tendentious" re Ukraine. [20]Sca (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Russian ITAR-TASS is describing the fake legislature made out of random unelected protesters occupying the building as just "the regional legislature". Really. Thue (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It is a fast-changing situation, but certainly dominating the news. Definitely an important event. Mvblair (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Donetsk article is currently up for deletion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, and strewn with factional arguments. Easy thing is to unlink the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait normally this would go up, but there has been plenty of updates with this border dispute. I suggest waiting until there is something more than a bunch of average people declaring something. Nergaal (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. If this is significant in the way being suggested, then we will surely have something more concrete to post in the very near future. Formerip (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. The building was already taken back according to some reports. My very best wishes (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A building in another city was taken back. The Donatsk building was definitely not taken back. Thue (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting now. What has happened so far is quite significant already. Instead of waiting for something "particularly big" to happen, the correct thing to do is to keep a ticker than gets updated as events develop. Nsk92 (talk) 04:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose It's a difficult one to judge; I have difficulty with this story for a few reasons, a) Donetsk is not an autonomous region like Crimea was therefore can't declare independence, b) This is basically an armed group besieging a building to make a political point, something that's not uncommon in the Ukraine right now. c) Most buildings have already been re-taken. I think a story of this level of detail is more comparable to the routine events you hear from N. Korea - they make a brief news splash but have no real lasting impact. There is definitely a possibility of a bigger, more supportable, story here however if Russia decides to get overtly involved. CaptRik (talk) 11:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: While the cause of death is not yet known, he was 93. Doubt it was anything "unusual". RD suggested - I don't believe he had international notoriety as much as other silver screen actors at that time to warrant a full blurb. --MASEM (t) 03:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support An obvious candidate for this spot, even though we don't know the cause yet. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think he was bigger than you may think Masem. HiLo48 (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there's support for a full blurb, I'd be fully behind it. It's just that I'm not thinking this wasn't unexpected (just looking at the pics on the Rooney page, you can tell he was close) and RD is certainly assured here. --MASEM (t) 03:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. No matter what the official report might end up saying, he has died of old age, a bloody good old age! So, no surprise. HiLo48 (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Big name, but long since out of the spotlight and the death itself is not unusual; RD makes sense over a blurb. GRAPPLEX 03:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support huge star, multiple awards, iconic career, subject himself of imitation and allusion by other stars and in the media for decades. Marking ready for RD, and support full blurb. μηδείς (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just added an alternate hook since this is hook-worthy. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD with no doubt this is warranted. Debate can continue for a full blurb. Stephen 04:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blurb per all of Medeis' reasons. The end may not have been sudden but the 88-year career calls for it! Rhodesisland (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support for RD only (even though there was and still is an ORANGE maintenance tag in the Personal life section, the section most likely to be highlighted by Rooney's death). Although I think Rooney warrants a full blurb, the article has large swathes of unreferenced text and as such is not suitable for posting to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blurb - Fix the article and give him a full blurb, I say. Jusdafax 06:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other than Dickie Moore of course, but I do agree that the Orange tag needs to be resolved first. 07:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhodesisland (talk • contribs)
Support RD, oppose full blurb - This is what RD is for. We don't post deaths of nobodies to RD, we post deaths of people whose life makes them noteworthy but whose death is only newsworthy because of their lives. It's not like the average RD nomination has comments like, "Bit of a star, almost won an award, mediocre career, no-one took much notice of him," (to paraphrase Medeis reasoning). Nominations like Hoffmann got a full blurb because his death was in some way significant in and of itself. This is nowhere near that grade. GoldenRing (talk) 08:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb I agree with GoldenRing - leaving aside cases where the death itself is significant, I think blurbs should be reserved for major international figures - the sort of people whose death leads the global news. Furthermore, I question whether Rooney is quite as important as people are making him out to be. For instance, when the American Film Institute produced its list of the 50 greatest actors of the 20th century, Rooney was not on there. I do not dispute that he was a very important actor, well worthy of an RD listing, but I'm not convinced that he was one of the very greatest actors ever. Neljack (talk) 10:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb per Neljack and GoldenRing. 331dot (talk) 10:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blurb I turned to the main page to look for the Rooney article, and was surprised not to find it. The man had a 90-year career in show business, truly unprecedented, and his death warranted an immense front page obituary in the New York Times, occupying one-fourth of the entire front page, by Aljean Harmetz, with a full page inside the paper devoted to the man. This kind of obit is reserved only for major figures in the history of entertainment. Coretheapple (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...and those are arguments for an RD listing. GoldenRing (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I believe we typically post deaths as a blurb when the death is particularly shocking or unexpected(not just because someone was old, as Rooney was 93) or if they were at the tip-top of their field with worldwide influence or notability(like Margaret Thatcher or Nelson Mandela), which isn't the case here either. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blurb based on impressive New York Times obituary Secretaccount 14:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically here, as well as some of the other first stories that broke on this. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are we really saying that Rooney was the equivalent(in the field of acting) of Mandela and Thatcher(other notable people whose deaths themselves were not notable)? "Impressive obituary" only means a writer summarized his career and life well, and does not indicate that he was at the very tip-top of his field. 331dot (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The critical line is "in their field", we don't make comparison to other fields. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm asking; is Rooney as important to acting as Thatcher was to politics or Mandela? As TT says below, is he the greatest of all time? 331dot (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb. He was a legend, yes, but I wouldn't consider him one of the greatest of all time. I also don't think his death is particularly shocking like Hoffman's, as Rooney's career peaked a while ago. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Not very internationally known, and not an exceptional mega-star or a trend setter. RD is perfect. --Somchai Sun (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a mega star? Not a trend-setter? Seriously, some people here need to do some reading. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you address me directly? He wasn't, in any-way shape or form a mega star in my mind: he was great, but not great-great. Like comparing Abe Lincoln to Ronald Reagan...whatever. I don't care if you disagree with my opinion, sorry! --Somchai Sun (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blurb - Very known internationally, unlike what some claim here. One of the last surviving actors of the silent era who dies aged 93 years old after a long and fulfilling career. Seriously, should anything else be added to that? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update Blurb this looks like about 8 to 6 in favor of an upgrade to a full blurb, depending on the interpretation of some conditional statements. μηδείς (talk) 05:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or, to put it another way, there's no consensus for a blurb. It's fine the way it is, let's just let it be. If it isn't a blindingly obvious decision, then it probably isn't blurb material. And I honestly don't think this one is. Not to mention, it still has those pesky orange tags. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurb but clear support for RD. It may be that if the heyday of his career were better remembered he might be regarded as more notable but as I read his article I see he had a prolific (and obviously very long) career, won a number of top awards, and was a successful actor. Not groundbreaking or record-setting. His death produced tributes but where I am it was a relatively minor news item. RD seems about right.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update Blurb Bongwarrior's comment on consensus is simply wrong. The discussion in August 2012 establishing RD addressed this explicitly, and it was agreed as part of the RfC that when a majority of support votes (which we still have) were in favor of a full blurb, a full blurb would be posted. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb in current condition, far too much of the article in need of help. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voters in Costa Rica go to the polls for a general election. Luis Guillermo Solís is the only presidential candidate left in the race following the withdrawal of Johnny Araya. (BBC News)
Oppose article quality is very poor, not seeing how this person was top of their field, no awards noted in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Which of the Recent Deaths criteria does this person meet? 331dot (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Answer Criterion 2--being "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." The obituary I linked to above says that "His reputation grew after he was hired as the first black columnist for the Philadelphia Daily News, where he worked as a columnist and editor from 1972 to 1991. He was known for being outspoken on discrimination, police brutality and racism." Jinkinsontalk to me 21:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say so before but a blurb is out of the question; should be considered just an RD nomination. I respectfully disagree with the assessment given; if the field is journalism, I don't think being the first black columnist for a single newspaper makes him that notable(if he was the first for any newspaper, maybe). It doesn't mention any awards won for his work (two nominations are) or other critical acclaim, or if others in his field were influenced by him. 331dot (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wrestlemania XXX
CLOSED
there's no way this is going to be posted, based on the current consensus, and it's degenerating into an excuse for people to deride each other. --Jayron32 02:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Probably be more and better refs in the morning, it is sunday night after all. I'll admit this is an unlikely nomination, and I fully expect the anticipated cries of "but it's fake!". Still, this is a record that stood for over two decades in an industry when two wins on the trot is becoming a rarity and everything seems to revolve around the flavour of the month (the current one of those won big too). I highly doubt we'll ever see the like of this again. --GRAPPLEX 03:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You could ask the scriptwriters whether we will ever see the like of this again, or not. This is like reporting the contents of the latest episode of any TV sit-com or drama as news. HiLo48 (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go grab a crystal ball and get on that; you're right that it's scripted but this is the culmination of something that started in 1991--even if they started trying to replicate it right now we'd still not see it again until 2037. GRAPPLEX 03:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If Alf Stewart was outed as a paedophile tonight we wouldn't post it here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - its not sports news, but it is entertainment news. WWE is followed by a large number of people and like Grapple says this record will likely never be broken (even though script writers could in theory do so). --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose impossible to bring myself to argue against the nomination of scripted pablum as if it had anything to do with reality. μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Record in the field, even if it is scripted. Also, this might be an interesting read; there is considerable staying power and fitness required for pro wrestling, even if it is scripted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's simply NOT a record. It's a fictional story about a fictional record. Or perhaps more like a fictional play about a fictional record that's been performed by some actors. HiLo48 (talk) 10:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A record in its field, which would be "scripted professional wrestling". Is it a scripted record? Yes. Does that mean it is not a record in its field? No. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I write a story about a longer record, will that be posted here? HiLo48 (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support but oppose current blurb. This might be some sort of entertainment news, but we shouldn't post the proposed blurb since it is scripted(if they had wanted that person to win again they could have done it). I would support a more general blurb that Wrestlemania XXX occurred. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Matters to people who care about the sport/entertainment and it's participants, therefore worthy of mention — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.108.226 (talk)
Everything matters to someone; the question is if this has the notability and news coverage to be posted. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb. Event is worldwide and draws huge interest but the blurb is not encyclopedic for the myriad reasons given above regarding scripts, acting etc. If the blurb had said something like "Wrestlemania XXX draws the largest television crowd for any professional wrestling event in history", it might draw a mild support. However, even then it'd be better suited for DYK, just as this factoid-based blurb is too. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Do we post about major plot developments in soap operas and the like? No. So why post this fictional plot development? Fgf10 (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Regardless of the fact it's scripted, I don't actually see that it's massively notable. Black Kite (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd be happy to support is this "sport" wasn't scripted and in fact, do we ever see WWF results in the back page of the news, no not unless it is scripted. Donnie Park (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Pro "wrestling" is not a sporting competition but a scripted theatrical performance. I find comparisons to plot developments of soap operas quite fair. We would not post any stuff – however unusual – from the The Bold and the Beautiful as news, would we? --hydrox (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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: It meets at least two of the de facto criteria here: it doesn't have to do with the US, and it's about the leader of a major country. Of course, I expect everyone to pooh-pooh the significance of this event just like they do with all my other nominations. --Jinkinsontalk to me 22:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: ITNR, results should be out shortly as voting has concluded. --Lihaas (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are parliamentary elections really ITNR? Also, the winners here are well known in advance. Nergaal (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
support with Altblurb II μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)(actual support)[reply]
Support; maybe add something about the various parties? -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support and agree that something on party standings should be included. Medeis, keep the ad hominem stuff to yourself, please. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-opened this given it was closed by a competing editor who neither signed the closure nor notified the voting editors nor copied their votes to an unsupported and technically separate nomination below. μηδείς (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ITN is not a competition. It is unproductive to have two nominations for same thing. If either Lihaas or Jinkinson want to pat themselves on the back for nominating this, they can feel free to do so. I will combine the nominations now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you ThaddeusBb, I have no intention to compete, it was just open and ITNR below so no reason to rediscuss. Completely stupid comment above you.
Let me add that by precedent we don't mention the latter party. So @"Fidesz win a plurality was the proper one"Lihaas (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to the projections Fidesz will win a majority (quite possibly a two-thirds one, allowing them to unilaterally make constitutional changes), not a plurality - see the Reuters article. I have therefore changed "plurality" to "majority" in the blurbs. Neljack (talk) 09:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Though an expected result, it's significant (perhaps ominous?). Re "majority" cited by Neljack, suggest caution — Reuters also says, "...but only by one seat. Final results could still push Fidesz back below the threshold." Sca (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True, only projections...changed blurb (and swapped them)Lihaas (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not updated - neither article has been updated at this time. Orban's article would need some trimming of existing material in addition to an update to warrant posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now updated wih proseLihaas (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This is not the "highest level" of rowing, but is a race of high cultural significance. The only true significance of any sporting event is the amount of importance the public assigns to it. We should strive to recognize the most culturally significant sporting events, not necessarily the "highest level" events (although the two are often the same). ThaddeusB (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have not posted much sports of cultural significance. I would like that to change. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If someone suggested posting the Harvard-Yale Game I would assume it was either a joke or a real sign of that dreaded institutional bias. I don't think there's any chance at all Britain is underrepresented here culturally--although it was very weird we didn't post the Bafta's. μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The four most culturally significant sporting events in the United States are (in no particular order) the Super Bowl, the World Series, March Madness, and the Kentucky Derby. Three of these of posted, while the exclusion is one of the greatest injustices on ITN in my opinion. Like March Madness (and the Army-Navy game), the significance of The Boat Race goes well beyond the "level of play". While I don't know what the most significant sports are in every country of the world, I am certainly open to listening to testimony of my fellow Wikipedians. When such nominations hopefully occur in the future, they will have my support 100%. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, on a quick count, so far this year there have been six ITN items related to the United Kingdom, the majority RD. Compare that to 20 for the USA and I think you've found where the systemic bias is here. In particular, the number of American "entertainers" listed for RD is excessive, IMO. GoldenRing (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excluding RD there have been 3 US related blurbs since January 1: Janet Yellen as Fed Chair, posted Jan 7, the Super Bowl posted Feb 3, and the Washington Mud Slide, posted March 25. --Jayron32 12:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did kind of point to entertainment-related RDs as the main culprit. I guess you're right, then, three blurbs is reasonable - so long as you don't count "The United States announces that it will relinquish control of the DNS root zone," or the Oscars, or the Grammys, or the Polar Vortex, or the genetic sequencing of ancient native Americans. So that'd be eight blurbs, not three. And before you complain that the genetic sequencing of ancient Americans is not US-related as it predates the union, realise that I also counted the discovery of the oldest known footprints outside of Africa (in Edinburgh) towards the UK tally. GoldenRing (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The UK is a smaller country, so you would expect it to have less stories than the US even if no bias existed. Regardless, the proper way to correct bias is to nominate and improve more non-US stories, not to oppose notable US stories. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Er, yeah. And this is a UK story that someone was opposing (or at least commenting against) on the grounds that UK stories are over-represented here. GoldenRing (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um, in fact it's your nomination of a UK story. What's the problem again? GoldenRing (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem. I am happy to have this story posted (obviously). But, if someone is going to make accusations of pro-US bias on ITN, I am going to respond. Of all the areas on Wikipedia, ITN is the least biased. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will concede on that point and revise to "ITN is among the least biased". --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Agree with nominator's rationale. 62.249.160.48 (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tradition is important. HiLo48 (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the rationale given. 331dot (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support although the wrong result. Have adjusted blurb for BritEng (see BBC for example). The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per nom. Also viewed by approximately 130 million people so clearly important enough globally. CaptRik (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, not to mention the seven million plus viewers in Britain alone (i.e. about 11% of the population). The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The event has huge cultural and traditional value in the United Kingdom. One only needs to look at the popularity shown by the public, most of whom having never attended either of the universities. Given the consensus here, perhaps a more experienced user might like to nominate it for WP:ITN/R. 86.170.98.9 (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Support Overdue for posting. Major tradition and much media attention both in the UK and worldwide. Obvious post. Fgf10 (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. I voted, but it's a clear consensus. So sue me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Side discussion regarding modification of blurb post-posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Post-posting apology, it appears that another admin has taken it upon himself to adjust the blurb to something akin to a tabloid headline with no context or meaning to non-experts. The fact that both teams race in variations of blue is entirely irrelevant to this blurb and unhelpful in understanding the news story. I have asked for this to be removed and reverted to something akin to the blurb that was agreed here with a community consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, you rushed to my talk page to complain about my "disgraceful" insertion of team nicknames appearing in countless reliable sources and our article about the event. —David Levy 19:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and I look forward to you restoring the blurb as agreed by consensus here, not your own personal preference. The sooner the better. Why would you feel the need to suddenly inject nicknames and your own preferences in a blurb that has achieved significant community consensus? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators frequently edit posted ITN blurbs' wording (addressing all sorts of style and linking issues — most of which aren't even considered at ITN/C — in the process). I do so on a regular basis. I've received very few complaints over the years, with yours being the first in which my edit was labeled "disgraceful". One common reason to modify the blurbs is to sidestep the "defeat"/"defeats" issue that invariably causes some readers to mistakenly believe that we've goofed (and even has led well-meaning admins to "correct" the wording by switching to an inappropriate English variety). I saw team nicknames in the bold-linked article and confirmed their use in multiple reliable sources' coverage of the event (including those in the UK). This, in my view, was an opportunity for commonality. You're entitled to disagree, but I'd like to think that my efforts (here and in general) are better than "disgraceful". —David Levy 21:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You could have mentioned that I self-reverted. —David Levy 21:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, perhaps you should participate in the ITN process rather than wholesale re-write the blurb after there's been a consensus on what to post. Particularly when you "Americanised" it to such an extent it became alien to most of the interested audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I "Americanised" the blurb by incorporating information reported by numerous British media outlets (including The Oxford Times, the Cambridge News and the BBC)? —David Levy 07:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. You made a twee headline using nicknames and "editions" etc. Never mind, it's fixed now, perhaps you could participate in the ITN process rather than wholesale re-write blurbs in future after a consensus has been found. Or perhaps we shouldn't write blurbs at all and allow you to do that on our behalf? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. You made a twee headline using nicknames Again, the teams' nicknames appear in our article and in news reports (including headlines) from countless reliable sources (British and otherwise). and "editions" etc. Now you're referring to language that I copied from our article's lead verbatim (thereby correcting the erroneous treatment of "The 160th Boat Race" as a proper name). Apparently, I was mistaken in my assumption that the article's introductory sentence was worded appropriately when you posted the item. Never mind, it's fixed now, perhaps you could participate in the ITN process rather than wholesale re-write blurbs in future after a consensus has been found. I'm no stranger to this page, but I participate in the ITN process mainly by improving blurbs after they go live. Some of them (generally not posted by you, I'll note) slip through with major flaws (such as factual inaccuracies, links to incorrect articles, and especially style errors/inconsistencies). This reflects the simple fact that these discussions rarely focus significant attention on the blurbs' precise wording. Some administrators proofread them before posting, while others (who shall remain nameless) simply copy and paste whatever happens to have been written. So the concept that these blurbs typically are the products of inviolable consensus formulated here simply doesn't reflect reality. Multiple administrators routinely perform substantial revisions to posted blurbs, and our role in the ITN process is no less valid than anyone else's. Like all who take part, there's no "disgrace" in our inability to be infallible. —David Levy 10:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of the point in us discussing a specific blurb here at ITN/C, one, in fact, that was corrected for BritEng, just for you to completely 100% re-write it after I had posted it. That is genuinely problematic, particularly when the original blurb was 100% factually and grammatically accurate, not to mention succinct and in-line with community consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of the point in us discussing a specific blurb here at ITN/C, You initiated this discussion by writing a "post-posting apology" above and condemning my "disgraceful" blurb change in your very first communication with me regarding the matter. one, in fact, that was corrected for BritEng, Indeed, you corrected "beats" to "beat". And your simultaneous notation of this was the only discussion of the item's wording that occurred here before you posted it. (No one else made any reference to the blurb.) And that's fine, but I stand accused of "disgraceful" tampering with a "blurb that has achieved significant community consensus". just for you to completely 100% re-write it after I had posted it. "Completely 100% re-write it"? You're suggesting that I replaced the entire thing? Our standard procedure, backed by years of consensus, is to seek commonality across English varieties when feasible. I did so by inserting information straight from the article that you approved, whose accuracy and notability I verified by consulting reliable sources from the UK. Two editors (you and one other) expressed disapproval of the nicknames' inclusion, so I self-reverted. And yet, you continue to complain about my impudent disregard for the "consensus" silently achieved here. That is genuinely problematic, particularly when the original blurb was 100% factually and grammatically accurate, Again, the blurb wasn't "100% factually and grammatically accurate"; there's no such event as "The 160th Boat Race". You just attributed the wording "the 160th edition of The Boat Race" to me (as though I invented it to "Americanise" the blurb), despite its origin as the first seven words of the article bold-linked in the item that you posted. not to mention succinct and in-line with community consensus. The "consensus" achieved among editors by not mentioning the blurb in any context. —David Levy 18:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you fixed the multiple problems you introduced by a wholesale re-write of the blurb. There was no need to do this. At all. So the only issue you can find is the capitalisation of the word "The"? But then you change the entire blurb to suit your version? How curious. Please don't do that again. Thanks. (P.S. you'd also benefit from being a little bit less TL;dr, cheers). Oh, and "there's no such event as "The 160th Boat Race"? The official website begs to differ. "by not mentioning the blurb in any context" this is 100% incorrect again, please check above where I note "Have adjusted blurb for BritEng". Now, time for both of us to do something more useful. You've hopefully learnt something from this. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you fixed the multiple problems you introduced by a wholesale re-write of the blurb. I await your explanation of how the addition of information from numerous reliable British sources (and the Wikipedia article that you approved for inclusion at ITN) constituted Americanisation. Please also explain why you blamed me for the use of language copied directly from our article's introductory sentence (which I assume you read before posting the item). So the only issue you can find is the capitalisation of the word "The"? No, I noted the English variety issue (and our usual approach in such a circumstance). As I explained, I sought commonality by incorporating information from our article, whose accuracy and notability I verified by consulting reliable sources from the UK. Then two users (including you) opined that such a change was undesirable, so I self-reverted. A short time later, I edited the NCAA item to eliminate the Americanism "defeats". This is routine maintenance, which rarely results in complaints (and when it does, I address them). Oh, and "there's no such event as "The 160th Boat Race"? The official website begs to differ. That's a capitalization error. (Note that the official website also contains several instances of "the 160th Boat Race".) The event's formal name is "The BNY Mellon Boat Race", reflecting an ongoing sponsorship agreement. "by not mentioning the blurb in any context" this is 100% incorrect again, please check above where I note "Have adjusted blurb for BritEng". I linked to the diff and noted that "this was the only discussion of the item's wording that occurred here before you posted it" and "no one else made any reference to the blurb". You just ignored those statements and quoted me out of context. In response to your assertion that the original blurb was backed by "community consensus", I referred to "the 'consensus' achieved among editors by not mentioning the blurb in any context" (emphasis added). Are you suggesting that you represent the community and generate consensus on its behalf? You've hopefully learnt something from this. I've learned to expect immediate hostility if I happen to edit an ITN blurb in a manner not to your liking. —David Levy 19:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you change the blurb so much? Why did you feel the need to degrade it to include nicknames? The only thing you could honestly claim to absolutely need to fix would be the modification of a T to a t. Instead you rephrase it entirely. Sorry, you made several mistakes, and now you know better, that's the most important thing. "Are you suggesting that you represent the community and generate consensus on its behalf?", don't be silly. The way ITN/C is that someone suggests a blurb, the support/oppose votes imply that the nomination itself, including the blurb, is either okay, or not okay. I noted that the blurb needed a minor tweak to be in Brit Eng, and modified it as such. What you did was to create a completely different and awful American version of a blurb that had no support from anyone anywhere, and actually effectively wheel-warred by modifying my version (and the ITN/C version) on the main page to do so. And then, thankfully, you reverted most of it. Please don't wholesale re-write blurbs again, that way we can all get on with better things. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you change the blurb so much? I've explained why repeatedly. Why did you feel the need to degrade it to include nicknames? You think that I perceived this as degradation? That I purposely inserted details with the knowledge that others would regard the change as objectionable? The only thing you could honestly claim to absolutely need to fix would be the modification of a T to a t. Retaining "The Boat Race" seemed desirable, so I copied the first seven words of the article that you approved for inclusion at ITN ("The 160th edition of The Boat Race"). I don't understand why you've attributed this language to me (because you've declined my requests for an explanation). The way ITN/C is that someone suggests a blurb, the support/oppose votes imply that the nomination itself, including the blurb, is either okay, or not okay. You're mistaken if you believe that a blurb's precise wording typically factors into the "support"/"oppose" votes. Blurbs in terrible shape (again, I'm not referring to those that you post) frequently make it onto the main page. Occasionally, they even show up written in the wrong tense. There is no implied "consensus" for this. Certainly, discussion of blurbs' wording occurs in some instances. In this case, there was a single mention by you. I noted that the blurb needed a minor tweak to be in Brit Eng, and modified it as such. I noted this above (and even linked to the diff), after which you inexplicably accused me of denying (or overlooking) it. What you did was to create a completely different and awful American version of a blurb Again, I found information in our article (which you approved for inclusion at ITN) and verified its presence in reports published by numerous reliable UK sources. I remain baffled as to how its addition "Americanised" the blurb (another claim that I've repeatedly asked you to clarify), but when objections arose, I self-reverted (and apologized for any offense caused to the editor who'd just labeled my good-faith edit "disgraceful"). and actually effectively wheel-warred by modifying my version (and the ITN/C version) on the main page to do so. Wow. I can't say that I expected that allegation. What reverted administrative action did I reinstate? —David Levy 20:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You needlessly changed the blurb, introducing an appalling and inappropriate and unsupported variation of your own preference. Thankfully you appear to have learnt that you shouldn't do that again. Americanised - introducing nicknames for British University teams, using phrases like "edition" (which may have been in the article, but there was no need to do anything beside turn T to t, if you have no empathy for British English, best to avoid editing these kinds of blurbs altogether). Now then, we can all move on because many of us have, you just need to remember not to completely rewrite the blurb as added by an admin to your own taste. FWIW, I'm out of energy now on this. The bottom line: take more care when editing blurbs that are already on the main page that are clearly outside your comfort zone. You made it look foolish for some time. Now feel free to add a few more thousand bytes of refutation or move along and do something helpful. I won't be continuing here. Instead, I've created a whole new article about... guess what... (T/t)he Boat Race! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Americanised - introducing nicknames for British University teams, As I've stated repeatedly, those nicknames appear in coverage of the event by countless reliable sources in the UK. Given that fact, how does their inclusion constitute an Americanism? This is what I've been asking you to explain. Simply reiterating that is one is unhelpful. using phrases like "edition" (which may have been in the article, but there was no need to do anything beside turn T to t, Again, retaining "The Boat Race" seemed desirable. It didn't occur to me that you might have approved an article whose introductory sentence contained an English variety error that you recognized but left in place. if you have no empathy for British English, best to avoid editing these kinds of blurbs altogether). One of the things that makes your criticism so disheartening is that I go out of my way to be considerate of English varieties other than mine (and even to seek commonality where the use of American English is appropriate). If we assume that I committed a terrible error in this instance, that doesn't justify your response. Your very first communication with me on this matter was to deem the change "disgraceful". Other such adjectives have followed. There simply is no need for that type of reaction. You've made some major mistakes when editing ITN, and I've responded only with constructive criticism and assistance. Now then, we can all move on because many of us have, Move on? You just accused me of wheel-warring. Now feel free to add a few more thousand bytes of refutation or move along and do something helpful. I won't be continuing here. So you aren't going to explain what reverted administrative action I reinstated? I see. —David Levy 21:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a discussion about adding The Boat Race to WP:ITN/R. Please feel free to comment there on the merits of posting the race every year. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong pull. This is an amateur university sporting event. It is not in any way the top level of competition, and is only open to two teams. The fact that alumni of the two universities pay attention to it does not make it 'culturally significant'. Besides, that's irrelevant. This opens the floodgates for every spurious university sports event (e.g. NCAA, BUCS etc.) which should never get anywhere near ITN. Modest Geniustalk 23:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is no ordinary "amateur university sporting event"; it is watched by hundreds of thousands in person and millions on TV(including 10% of the UK's population). While we tend to post only the top level of a sport, there is no written requirement that it be so; any event widely covered and followed is valid for posting. 331dot (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's an amateur event, yes, but many international rowers (or perhaps I should say rowers at international level from many countries to make it clearer) apply to Oxford and Cambridge just to be able to take part. It has been going since the 19th century. A crowd measured in the hundreds of thousands watches the race live. It is covered live on the BBC (and has been televised since before World War II) and the main photograph on the front page of The Times on Monday was of an incident in the race. The race is celebrated in the works of PG Wodehouse. No other rowing race (including international competitions) gets this much attention in the UK - and it's not just the alumni of Oxford (of which I am one) and Cambridge who pay attention. A couple of years ago, someone decided to interrupt the race knowing that he would receive significant publicity for doing so. Saying that it is only open to two teams rather misses the point. It is precisely because it is a race between these two university crews that it gets the attention it does. The annual UK universities rowing regatta won't make any splash at all in comparison. BencherliteTalk 07:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Business stories are woefully represented on ITN. Here is a good opportunity to correct that. According to The Wall Street Journal, this is "a pivotal moment" for Nigeria that "validates foreign companies' moves into Africa's riskier markets." ThaddeusB (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good news for Nigeria that its economy is growing, but this is certainly a matter of estimates, certainly doesn't reflect any black-market economy, and reminds me of another story we posted three times, Voyager leaving the Solar System. μηδείς (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When was it posted 3 times? I remember it being struck down 3 times. Nergaal (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I find searching the archives here impossible, but I remember arguing in favor once, and it being posted, then against, and it being posted, and someone saying it was the third time. In any case what we've got here is a declaration by some statistician, not any real hard fact. μηδείς (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I learned in school that SAf has the only developed economy in Af, and if Nigeria surpassed it is definitely notable. Nergaal (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nergaal, South Africa certainly isn't a developed economy. The majority of the population live in poverty and it is actually poorer than several other African countries (e.g. Botswana, Libya, Seychelles, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Mauritius).[22]Neljack (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Libya is close to splitting and none of the other countries have a wordwide impact. Nergaal (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment im leaning oppose here as its a regional thing, and also moastly just the raw numbers of population. What are on-the-grounds changes here? Highest market cap in its stock exchange?Lihaas (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Suggest change to something like "After rebasing their GDP, Nigeria surpasses South Africa to become Africa's biggest economy." That is the significance of the change. --LT910001 (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See this article: [23] and many others. Have created article on Yemi Kale, the head of Nigerian national bureau of statistics who coordinated this rebase. --LT910001 (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Becoming Africa's largest economy is pretty significant news. I'd also like to echo the fact that the change, however, occurred as result of the rebasing that was implemented in calculating the GDP.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose This had nothing to do with changes in the Nigerian or indeed South African economies. What has happened is that the way GDP is calculated has been altered to include a whole raft of sectors that were formerly excluded. If you include more businesses it stands to reason the calculated figure is going to increase. The real story here is that a national government has changed the way it arrives at an official statistic. Is that really ITN worthy? 87.112.110.28 (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
that's what ive been reading to that the barometers changed. strong oppose we can only compare apples with apples (and not even red with green)Lihaas (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but nominally this is still very important, as this more accurately reflects the actual GDP of the country. If even by a metric China surpassed the US as the world's leading economy, that would be notable; surely this would be the case here, too? This has the potential to alter the spread of aid money, investment by foreign and domestic companies, and may ultimately change the way Nigerians and others perceive the country. --LT910001 (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nnope, it has to be the same barometer.Lihaas (talk) 09:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Should be based on a common measure of GDP, same penalties and boosts for both. --MASEM (t) 03:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In all probability, if the latest methodology is correct, it overtook South Africa some time ago. They've just changed their calculations and caught up on the change now. And of course we don't know the soundness of the change in measurement - after all, the Nigerian government presumably has an interest in portraying the country's economy as large. Neljack (talk) 10:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] Captain America
No appetite to post this, so I am closing now to allow energy to be concentrated on more viable nominations --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: We rarely post entertainment news despite it being one of the most popular subject areas in the public. Here is a good opportunity to work on changing that. We have posted box office records in the past. Yes, this is not an absolute record, but viewership figures vary significantly by month, so the April record is not merely a trivial distinction. ThaddeusB (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not a big fan of "highly anticipated product makes a lot of money" nominations, and since this one isn't an absolute record I don't think it's a very big deal. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 20:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose This is exactly the kind of news we should never post. It's a trivial record in a non-sense category that many have surely never heard of and typical example of a tabloid story. I wonder what will be the next thing for posting from the film industry if we really regress on posting such things. Maybe the highest-grossing film in a single country or the film with the highest box-office earnings to total film length ratio?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A "typical example of a tabloid story" would be celeb X is dating celeb Y. The Wall Street Journal' does not cover tabloid stories. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Taylor. Are we now going to post the record for each month? Unless there's some reason why the April record is particularly important, I will oppose. Neljack (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
April is used as a barometer for the all-important summer movie season. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose even if this is record seats filled, as opposed to ticket revenues, which simply follows from ticket-price inflation, it's less important in the long run than the Nigeria vs SA story. We can revisit this in three months if it surpasses Nemo and Titanic. μηδείς (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose if it needs all the cavats like april then it ought not to be herLihaas (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC) e[reply]
Oppose posting the record for a specific month. 331dot (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Closed] RD: Peter Matthiessen
Withdrawn by nominator, just looks like an opportunity to take a swing at me personally, so we'll drop this particular stkic. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 award-winning author. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure the awards amount to much, no Pulitzer, no Nobel. One interesting tidbit that is woefully unexplained is the claim that he was working for the CIA. This is entirely unexplained. The article is very short of citations on things like his '58 divorce.
oppose per above and per TRM's criteria of being top of his feild, those awards are not the top.Lihaas (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you support a journalist who wasn't "top of [her] feild"? Perhaps it's time to start disregarding your opinions. (P.S. it's "field"). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just as soon as we invalidate yours.Lihaas (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Significant natural disaster in the Solomon Islands with potentially 50 fatalities (up to 40 people remain unaccounted for). Capital region significantly affected. Deadliest tropical cyclone in the Southern Hemisphere this year as well. --Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - significant natural disaster, article quality is adequate already (but by all means continue to improve it if you can.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support; notable disaster with wide effects. 331dot (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support decent article, worth bringing it to ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support and marking ready. Impact is local but significant and encyclopedic, will affect Solomon Islands for years to come. μηδείς (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This has been leading the news here in New Zealand. Sadly the death toll is likely to rise, with dozens of people missing. Neljack (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Costa Rica is one of Latin America's oldest democracies and will make a drastic political transition counter to its normal centrist history. This is the first time in 66 years that a candidate from outside the two ruling parties will take office. Mvblair (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ITN/R although I don't care for the blurbs. I did have to look to the fourth paragraph to see that the runnoff only happened yesterday, when I opened the article I was wondering why it would be ITN if the election was in February. The election should be linked and bolded in the blurb however, not the president. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At least three are killed and seven injured when a passenger train derails in the Tasikmalaya District, in Indonesia's West Java Island after hitting mounds of mud following a downpour of rain. (MSN)
No consensus to post, wait until something concrete is reported. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: We've featured two events about this plane on ITN before. --Jinkinsontalk to me 18:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose everything I have read says they hear something but don't know if it is MH370, and that all recorders (including those that are on ships) also use the same frequency. Unless it is verified to actually be MH370, it shouldn't be posted. Even the blurb posted doesn't say that they actually found it, just that it is on the same frequency. --kelapstick(bainuu) 18:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the only news story to report on this from a couple of weeks back is the discovery of the wreckage/black box. Absolutely no point in posting speculation. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell is wrong with all of you? Why are your standards so unreasonably strict for ITN inclusion--except when it comes to cricket tournaments and horse races? Is the entire month of APril Opposite day or something? Because otherwise, barring an extended and unfunny April Fool's Joke, there is no possible explanation for your idiotic oppose votes. (Sorry for my rudeness, but I've been having some trouble with my real life.) Jinkinsontalk to me 19:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't even know if this black box discovery is a black box, let alone that of MH0370. If and when it is proven to be so, we nominate and post the discovery of the remains of the aircraft. By the way, if you're having a bad time in real life, this probably isn't the most relaxing and inspirational forum for you. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) My opposition is because there is no story, they hear a ping, they don't know what it is. Until they find the black box, which they haven't, there is nothing to post. Until they have something confirmed this is no different than the dozens of unrelated floating things that they have found over the last few weeks.--kelapstick(bainuu) 19:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the Cricket comment, but the major, encyclopedic issue is the loss of the plane itself, not posting every follow-up. If we posted this, would we also post when the first wreckage was retrieved? Then when the search for bodies was called off? ITN is not a newspaper or a 24 hour news network. It's a place to post encyclopedically significant articles. And cricket. μηδείς (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now - iff wreckage is found, then we should seriously consider posting for a third time. Yes, a third posting is probably unprecedented, but it would be a clear case of WP:IAR applying. Mjroots (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until it is determined that this is indeed from the plane, which is not certain yet. We don't need to post every milestone in the search. 331dot (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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: Awaiting the mens' tournament result, approx 1 billion people will be watching this LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 12:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until there is more text, preferably including a description of the final game (probably best done at 2014 ICC World Twenty20 Finals for men). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone is knowledgeable about the subject of articles that might need fixing, or has a free moment to do so. 331dot (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you've got time to complain it hasn't got enough text, you've got enough time to fix it. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 18:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon Nugluts, you know as well as I do, there are many folks who just comment on Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is an incredibly inaccurate comment. It takes all of 30 seconds to comment here - fixing an article takes far more time than that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I may do so, but I am certainly not obligated to do so in order to oppose. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the Finals article isn't in the blurb so isn't part of this nomination....? And the "blurbed" articles have plenty of text according to the ITN criteria... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The text should be added either way. (As you like to point out, there are no official requirements so I am certainly allowed to judge an article as inadequately updated IMO.) I was merely suggesting the best place to do so, which would of course then be used in the blurb instead of the other article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you oppose the blurb then, the articles linked therein? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion. I am opposed to the currently nominated articles based on lack of text. that can be fixed by improving either the nominated articles or the final game article. I am not opposed to posting the tournament article if it is improved first. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose this is not the top tournament in cricket. We have the proper WC and we could probably post the leading annual test team (which is the top of cricket)Lihaas (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the top tournament in one of only three formats of the world game (and on ITN/R). We definitely should not be posting the leading "annual test team" (whatever that means) as it changes based on Test results and there's no such concept. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question how many cricket stories do we have every year? By comparison, I know baseball has one each year. Nergaal (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per ITNR, approximately three, depending on the calendar. Which is fine considering the general population who watch cricket vs those who watch baseball. And this isn't an ITNR suggestion, it's ITNC, so it's really irrelevant how many others we may have posted. And yes, this is an ITNR already. If you wish to discuss the number of cricket articles listed at ITNR, I suggest you do it at ITNR's talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added some text to the Womans page. Don't have time to do anymore right now, but if no one beats me to it I will do the same to the Mens in about five hours time. AIRcorn(talk) 19:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - that is the kind of update I am looking for. Update the lead (it is still future tense and has nothing about teh tournament itself) and likewise update the men's article and you'll have my support. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Got to run again, but it should be ready enough to post now. AIRcorn(talk) 02:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Aircorn. I can now support the articles on qaulity grounds (notability is pre-established by ITNR). --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It is certainly the highest level of 20/20 cricket, which is certainly a big deal in South Asia and is probably a bigger deal in the English speaking cricket countries than a lot of cricket traditionalists care to admit.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Nominator's comments: ITN/R and updated. --LukeSurltc 10:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support article in reasonable condition but bare URLs in the refs need to be fixed and the SPs seem to be missing from the first table. Also, not sure where the silks are referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've run reflinks and added a source for the colours. --LukeSurltc 11:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Starting prices added and referenced. --LukeSurltc 12:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - article is in acceptable condition, update is of good quality. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not many opinions offered but this is ITN/R and there are no objections, so I'm marking it ready. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posted - since this was overlooked by other admins, I am posting despite offering an opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaddeusB (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.
Nominator's comments: Former head of state is "top of his field". Also the instability there and its drug links to europe make it notable despite its size. --Lihaas (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support former head of state. Article is in a reasonable state too which makes a lovely change. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Certainly had a significant impact on his country, given the instability of his tenure - culminating in his overthrow by a military coup. However, there are some negative statements in the article that need to be either cited or removed - for instance, the bits on financial mismanagement and imprisoning opposition activists. Neljack (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you tag the offending statements to facilitate them being fixed? --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I've found sources for them, so this can be ignored now. Neljack (talk) 11:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a former head of state, but the lead states that he converted to Islam and changed his name to Mohamed Ialá Embaló; should the listing be that? 331dot (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not-quite one-term president, not prime minister, of a rather small state with nothing besides his being deposed of any notability. μηδείς (talk) 02:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - although this has been marked ready by Lihaas, the lead still sucks, which is why I have refrained from supporting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)What changes do you seek? Im nore sure what it needs.Lihaas (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per the big yellow maintenance tag, "This article's lead section may not adequately summarize key points of its contents." The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not explicitly opposing, but I would expect a subject of this level of importance to have a lead roughly twice as long as it is at current. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know what to add for the sae of it, but it has more than the requisite update ethat most/many posted ones do lately. Feel free to add itLihaas (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should summarize the entire article. There is current zero on his early life, zero on his pre-presidential political career, and basically zero on what he did as president. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
tHE CONTROVERSY around it is there...don't understand why one article is penalized on his technicalities when the section is updated. (ad his presiendeitla period IS sumarisedLihaas (talk) 09:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Considering I am not opposing, I don't see how you can say I am penalizing it. I certainly I am not obligated to support something. (I am currently neutral and gave a way I would move to support.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not accusing you personally ;)Lihaas (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posted - since (apparently) no other admin has looked at this, I am posting this per consensus despite my personal opinion on the article's lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaddeusB (talk • contribs)
Closing this as, according to what i just added to the page, the result will be affirmed by mid-May (not to mention the 2nd round)Lihaas (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: A national election plus the added significance of being the first democratic transferral of power. --Iamstupido (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This will very likely go to a runoff, to be held in May. So I think this nomination is rather premature. Neljack (talk) 10:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, even if there is a winner on the first round, it will be several days before we have results. Neljack (talk) 10:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
South Korea test-fires a new ballistic missile with a range of 500 kilometres and hopes to extend its range to 800 kilometres so that it can reach anywhere in North Korea. (Reuters)
Mazda announces the recall of 42,000 units of its Mazda6 model built from 2010 to 2012, citing fuel tank issues. The recall specifically refers to those with 2.5 liter engines. (KRON)[permanent dead link]
A meningitis outbreak has been reported in the greater Los Angeles area, with incidents related to sexual intercourse. (MSN)
Law and crime
A Manhattancourt stenographer is discovered to have written nonsense instead of actual court transcripts, potentially jeopardizing thirty court cases. (KNTV)
Nominator's comments: Seems to be a significant scientific discovery. --Jinkinsontalk to me 19:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would be willing to support this if more mainstream news sources were shown to demonstrate that this is widely in the news. 331dot (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I do support as this seems a significant scientific discovery, with wide coverage. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support because I'm just waiting for some "clever" Wikipedian(s) to yell at us all "DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE" despite publication in what we normally call reliable sources. (Having said that, there's a maintenance template smack bang at the top of the target article, although it may be a colour that's amenable to some posting admins, I think it would be nice to resolve it). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - finding liquid water outside of Earth is certainly notable. Article is in good shape, excluding the lead, but the update could use some expansion. Hopefully both can be addressed before posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good stuff this is. Received wide coverage in the scientific community of its type. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Appear to be peer-reviewered confirmation. --MASEM (t) 20:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The debate over the existence of liquid water on Enceladus has finally been resolved, it seems. The existence of the water was first hypothesized in the 1980s (if I recall correctly), so this result is not completely unexpected. In fact, there are enough preceding discoveries (plumes and so on) that this is almost stale. Abductive (reasoning) 00:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: She is clearly notable, and since she has won some notable awards I think this makes her at least as well-known (and therefore deserving of a main page RD) as Frankie Knuckles --Jinkinsontalk to me 16:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Explantions as to why you feel an event is notable enough to post are almost always helpful. Like all of Wikipedia, ITN is not a vote. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb, barely even notable enough for RD in my opinion as part of a Pulitzer Prize-winning team. (P.S. Knuckles invented a genre of music, this lady was a journalist who did a good job but was by no means recognised as top of her field, unless you can provide RS to state otherwise).... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The recent death equivalent of missing-white woman syndrome. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 17:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. RD is for deaths of notable people, which I'm not sure this individual is. A blurb would be for persons at the tip-top of their field or of worldwide significance, which isn't applicable here. 331dot (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - full blurbs are also used for cases where the death itself is a big story. Whether this story is big or not is debatable, but it certainly is a case where the death is the primary story (as oppose to the person's career). --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support She is fairly notable as is her death by itself. Not enough for a blurb, but enough for RD. Iamstupido (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Although Niedringhaus has not been a household name, the assassination of a veteran and courageous female photojournalist, of European and American repute, has received extensive global coverage and merits mention in RD. Sca (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS: She's on German Wiki's version of Recent Deaths, Kürzlich Verstorbene.[30]Sca (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's entirely irrelevant to this Wikipedia, that's my point. She was German so presumably the German language Wikipedia feels a greater affiliation toward her. She still fails to meet the RD criteria, wholesale. Period. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Niedringhaus was German, but she worked for the U.S. wire service Associated Press for 12 years and was shot in company with Canadian-born AP reporter Kathy Gannon. She is thus not "irrelevant" to English Wiki. Further, if you Google Anje Niedringhaus and you'll find scores of tributes to her work and life from people in the profession. Her murder is a commentary on the Afghanistan debacle, and a world event. Sca (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And she was neither top of her field nor will her death in any way have any effect. Hence she doesn't qualify for RD under this Wikipedia's RD criteria. (And checking your link, it appears that Niedringhaus is most certainly not in that section of the German Wikipedia homepage... Oops.) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just like on en.wikipedia, that's a changing page. (Actually a recent change appears to have made it more fleeting there, see here). In any event, she was in that section: Hauptseite/Archiv/4. April 2014. Not saying that German WP's featuring her death is either here or there, but your parenthetical remark certainly is neither nor. ---Sluzzelintalk 01:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly indicates that the German ticker-tape approach necessitates a much lower standard for inclusion on the main page. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD since we've got the space, and posting would not be bumping anyone, I think she's just notable enough, and there's just enough interest, that we can afford to list her. μηδείς (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sad story, but she's not sufficiently notable to be listed. JehochmanTalk 16:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
support shes certainly in the news.Lihaas (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And doesn't meet any of the RD criteria, so what's your point? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whats the name of this section? ITN = ???
At any rate, you have reasons and I have mine. You cannot pick and choose what is acceptable/.Lihaas (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neither can you; please review the RD criteria and state how it is applicable to this person. Just being "in the news" has never been enough to post something here, something which you should be aware of by now. 331dot (talk) 02:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, for a death there are two possible reasons to post: existing notability (as defined by RD criteria), or the death being a major news story for some reason. Arguing the death is a major news story is certainly a valid opinion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is, but it's not entirely clear that's what Lihaas did, they just said it is "in the news". 331dot (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no real noteworthiness and certainly not ITN-worthy, but may squeeze a DYK out of it. If you're quick. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's no surprise that the US government is trying to influence Cuban society or politics. Not really a top headline story, either. 331dot (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose CEO of company that is losing market share resigns - not exactly a great shock. And it's hardly one of the biggest or most important companies around. Neljack (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I haven't seen wide news coverage of this; as Neljack said this isn't one of the biggest or most important companies, either(to warrant noting changes in their leadership). 331dot (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's because he gave money to impede gay rights, and Mozilla foolishly hired him. Then a social media firestorm rose up. I'm not saying it needs to be posted, but the blurb would need to explain why this worthless POS needed to be fired. Abductive (reasoning) 03:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose minor business figure who cocked up. Not ITN-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support the guy that built Javascript (used on more webpages than flash) is, uh, "retired" over a political row. Impact is the millions of people that use Mozilla products, encyclopedic content is the technical accomplishments of the man (JVscipt, renowned programming talent) as well as the political row that fueled his opponents (Proposition_8), and notability is attested to by international sources. I'd understand if people didn't want this posted for personal or political reasons, but this checks all the boxes for ITN.128.214.198.4 (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure how it impacts us who use Firefox, I haven't seen any changes. The EV should really relate to the story itself, not about what the man has done in a previous life. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The guy resigns - we get a new header font! Must be some kinda conspiracy here? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Winds from Africa bring Sahara Desert sand to Britain, this mixes with pollution causing a smog, people with breathing problems are urged to stay indoors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lerdthenerd (talk • contribs)
Lerdthenerd Is there an article you are nominating? You didn't think to one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even if there was an article, I'd oppose. So we've had a bit of crappy mist for a few days, and a few more people have whinged about it. Now move on. It's nothing compared to China, to the pea-soupers of yesteryear. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Saharan dust seems to go everywhere. Having it turn up in unusual places is a surprisingly common event. Here in Texas, over twice the distance from north Africa when compared to Britain, we see it on a semi-regular basis.([33][34]) --Allen3talk 21:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cough, cough "Fog everywhere. Fog up the river, where it flows among green aits and meadows; fog down the river, where it rolls defiled among the tiers of shipping and the waterside pollutions of a great (and dirty) city." Only 160 years too late, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Err.. usually I expect to see an article somewhere here.. --hydrox (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2014 (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.jpg)
