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).
Neutral, however, the blurb should include the conviction of 3 others with 30yr terms. Also, the blurb should link to the shooting page. --MASEM (t) 01:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In Tripoli, the Moroccan Embassy is damaged by a bomb explosion just hours after gunmen assault the South Korean mission. ISIL loyalists take credit for both attacks. (New York Daily News)
Health
An American man working at Managua's U.S. embassy provokes a security scare in Nicaragua; the country's health ministry quarantines the Ebola suspect and asks that he be removed from the country immediately. (BBC)
The first of four Blackwater security guards to be sentenced is given a life sentence in the United States for his role in killing 14 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad in 2007. (Washington Post)
A volunteer police officer is charged with manslaughter in the shooting death of Eric Harris, an unarmed man who was shot while lying on his back in Tulsa, Oklahoma. (CNN)
The header is not exactly correct; the BBC states that "evidence" of liquid water was found, not liquid water itself. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As 331dot points out, this is not assurance of water, just strong evidence water likely existed. Which is I think at least the 2nd time this has been shown. --MASEM (t) 21:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Mars has liquid water just below its surface, according to new measurements by Nasa’s Curiosity rover" looks like a pretty categorical statement? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not proof there is water, just that the probability there is very high (It's a theory, not proven). They have not been able to directly sample the water (and verify those findings) at which point that would be a clear ITN. --MASEM (t) 21:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order. It's a hypothesis. Theories (at least the ones we use) are all proven. Hypothesis is the word you're scrambling for. --Jayron3222:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)It is unlikely definite proof will arise in the forseeable future - that would require a Martian mining effort. If it really the second time strong evidence has arisen (do you have a citation for that), that is a valid point, but the request for definitive proof is not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the story I'm thinking of is this one [1] but it might have been other discoveries. And this are ones that showed that there were some water molecules in the rocks, as well as some methane suggesting the possibility of life. But with this new discovery, all they are saying is that the temperature in the Martial soil, for a sufficiently thick enough region, is at the right conditions where liquid water could be retained. Very important towards pushing on human exploration of the planet, but I don't think this is groundbreaking as the headlines are making out. (including headlines that are getting it wrong, though knowing headlines are not written by the article writers themselves). --MASEM (t) 21:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Minor point of clarification since you said "existed", but the claim is about evidence that liquid water exists on Mars in the present, and not merely in the past. Dragons flight (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The optimal target is if there is a good quantity of water on the planet already that could be used to support a colony and reduce the weight of carrying it from Earth to Mars, as well as study a planet which had, at one point, the conditions sufficient to support life. They have found water molecules as part of rock samples, but nothing like a pool of water; they've also shown the water found is of different isotopic distribution as one would expect, which they've used to argue about when (if there was) water on the planet likely evaporated. This specific story says that water pools could have readily existed in the right temperature regions within Mars' soil (and may perhaps still exist if they could dig deeper), but not that they exist, presently. --MASEM (t) 22:55, 13 April 2015 (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: Described by the Guardian and the Associated Press as a leading voice in the Latin American left. AP obituary (first link above) says that his book ""The Open Veins of Latin America" became a classic text for the left in the region [i.e. Latin America]..." Everymorningtalk17:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on article improvements - Fair argument to importance. The "Works" section needs a LOT of citations and is almost a direct violation of quotation policy (we're paraphrasing reception about his works by named person and sources but without giving exact sourcing information). --MASEM (t) 17:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Countering systemic bias means that this person meets the RD criteria but is not posted due to such bias; please indicate which RD criteria is met here and in what way. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No that is not what systemic bias means. Systemic bias means that white boys who like sports or war can be sure that their interests are represented whereas people with other interests, particularly those that take slightly more mental effort to appreciate, cannot. This encapsulates the general day to day workings of ITN perfectly. ·maunus · snunɐɯ·20:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: He never exactly racked up awards, but he was a prolific author in a little-covered field, and certainly Open Veins of Latin America is a well-known work. As a side note on quality, I have gone through and removed some problematic sections while adding references and expanding in places. It should be of sufficient quality, or close to it, to post. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2015 (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: German novelist, poet, playwright, illustrator, graphic artist, sculptor and recipient of the 1999 Nobel Prize in Literature. He was widely regarded as Germany's most famous recently living writer. -The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength09:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This one is a problem, and yes, I could go into the rapid timing with almost no discussion, but the "pull" needed to be done first. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled pending article improvements. Probably not the worst article ever posted, but consensus is we can and should do better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the article is well enough. Even Grass' critics will agree that he was an important personality, and that's what this here is all about. And while we possibly should, we're currently not even talking about a blurb, but about a simple RD. --PanchoS (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note As of right now, about half of the information in the article is uncited. While one or two cn tags wouldn't be a big deal, the fact that half of the information fails basic Wikipedia standards for verifiability is bad. Of course, he's a behemoth of a figure, but the main page should feature good Wikipedia work, and this is not yet it. --Jayron3214:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb would not be appropriate (death was of no surprise); he is not of the level of worldwide impact as Thatcher or Mandela. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, Masem. Long a literary figure of global significance – and not just to English- (or German-) speaking world.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is his death changing the world, in the sense of the amount of attention it got as it did for Margaret Thatcher or Nelson Mandela, where there were worldwide tributes and a significant amount of pomp dedicated to people who had a major hand in bettering the world? No, not here. RD listing is not in question, but this is a bad case for a blurb. (Particularly given the state the article is in). --MASEM (t) 16:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I trust you will ask the same quesiton next time someone proposes posting the result of a college sports-event, a medal bestowed on a soldier or a plane crash etc. His literature changed the work. And since wikipedia was not around to post it when he received the Nobel prize, this is the only other comparable chance for major literary figures to appear on the main page. The systemic bias at play in argumentation here is mind numbing. ·maunus · snunɐɯ·19:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The event where his literature changed the world was proven out by being given the Nobel prize. However, that occurred before we had ITN (much less Wikipedia). His death has not caused a massive change, no more comparable to Leonard Nimoy or other beloved actors and creative persons. As such, RD is well suited, but the world is not dropping everything they are doing to acknowledge this person, and we shouldn't start now. --MASEM (t) 19:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But the world stands still when a bunch of Oxford nitwits sit in a boat on a lake? Or when unpaid kids trying to make their way to the big leagues win an basketball game....please.·maunus · snunɐɯ·19:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Recent Deaths" is a different beast from normal news cycles. Whenever anyone with some ounce of fame dies, there are obits, etc. RD was developed to recognize that this is how the world operates, and to avoid flooding blurbs with every famous person's death, to acknowledge them in the box in a brief manner. In rare cases, such as Margaret Thatcher or Nelson Mandela, the world as a whole mourned their losses due to the impact these people had and their legacy. In other rare cases, we lose people before their time in a manner we did not expect, like Robin Williams, and the world still stops and mourns that. But people get old and they die, that's life, and most famous people that die get a day of recognizing in the newspapers and that's it. That's the place where RD sits. --MASEM (t) 19:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was Oxford and Cambridge (although the 'Tabs were so far behind you'd need a telescope to see them) and they didn't "sit" in their boats, they rowed their bollocks off, for 18 minutes (try doing that yourself, I guarantee you'll puke after five minutes) and it wasn't "a lake", it was the River Thames (sorry if the article doesn't make that clear enough for you). But realistically, your tone (much like mine in some responses here) isn't going to win you any favours. Do yourself a favour and stop whinging. I may follow in your footsteps. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And so fucking what? It is an annual event the global significance of which is more comparable to one of my bowel movements than to that of Gunter Grass' authorship. As for my tone I might listen to advice from someone whose own tone and argumentation suggested they have a clue.·maunus · snunɐɯ·20:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Take a break dude. No need for the "so fucking what"s. Comparing a 186-year-old event to your own shit is puerile but perhaps what you're aiming for. If so, success! A+! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Huge deal. Many news outlets choose a quote by German cultural secretary of state Grütters as a headline, stating: "his literary legacy will stand next to that of Goethe." Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am considering making a point of becoming an ITN regular with the specific purpose of systematically opposing what ever stupid ass sports even you support. I dont mind including cricket matches or other pop culture events when that may be warranted buy the systematic opposition to any topic that works at a slightly higher level of of abstraction than boys fantasies of violence, gold and glory is sickening ·maunus · snunɐɯ·19:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "Grass learned a lot from Rabelais and Celine and was influential in development of 'magic realism' and Marquez. – Orhan Pamuk (Nobel laureate)
• "This is very sad. A true giant, inspiration, and friend." – Salman Rushdie
• "One could argue that Günter Grass's The Tin Drum is the great novel of the 20th century ... it most completely defines the era in all its glories and catastrophes." – Darragh McManus (Guardian)
PS: I'd also argue that Grass's complex and occasionally controversial utterances and revelations make him even more compelling as a significant personality. Sca (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding support is it just me, or are most of those offering such effusive support actually gauged the quality of the article they're supporting for main page inclusion? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing has improved a lot (not enough) but a lot since the first objections were raised. The first time I assessed the article above, about 1/2 of the paragraphs in the article, including several whole sections, had no references at all. As of now, it's much closer to being postable. There are a few paragraphs in the social and political activism section likely to be contentious and need cites, and several of the "awards and honors" need cites as well. It's a smaller hurdle than it was earlier today. If you, @Gamaliel:, could get on those fixes quickly, we're real close to getting this to a postable state. Thanks for your concern, and I'm glad you want to help out. --Jayron3219:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article is in much better shape than when I put up my "pull" !vote above, with maybe a couple floating CNs but far from the undercited case before. It should be okay for posting RD now. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. The quality standards for both should be the same. The blurb vs. RD issue depends primarily on overall notability, with "bonus points" (for lack of a better term) for an unexpected death or other unusual circumstances. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD - might warrant a blurb (beyond my ken), article looks good compared to several almost stubs I've seen posted, a good chunk of references no reason not to have it as an RD in my opinion, I'd suggest get back up there as RD for now, then let people haggle over blurb/not. EdwardLane (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb when last few referencing issues are fixed. The SS material really should be better cited as it is likely contentious and includes (for example) opinions of living people completely uncited. The biography should also have some sort of citation - one ref covering it all could be sufficient. That said, the man was an absolute giant in his field and country and rises to the level of full blurb notability IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, it wasn't me who marked it ready (although due to wiki oddities, the edit summary history makes it seem that I did). It should be obvious from my comment that I don't feel it is quite ready yet. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Now (23:00 April 13) listed on German, French, Danish, Spanish, Finnish, Dutch, Norwegian, Polish and Swedish versions of ITN or RD. Sca (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: With a small bit of free time this evening, I went through and found refs for pretty much everything outstanding in the Waffen-SS section. It took about 15 minutes. Not to point fingers at anyone or single out this particular nomination, but I have to say the WP:SOFIXIT ethos at ITN seems rather lacking. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb or RD - He was great, his death is in the news, and the article features additional referencing thanks to Kudzu1. Let's do this and move on. Jusdafax01:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And let me clarify I support an RD, not a blurb. I don't think a blurb is necessary in this case, as the death does not actively impact a great number of people. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Basketball is arguably the world's second most popular sport overall and most successful women's team sport (roughly tied with football). EuroLeague has the highest salaries of any women's league and is perhaps the most widely followed, albeit not in the English speaking world. The men's league is posted (ITNR), but it's final is not for another month, so I thought it was worth testing whether there was consensus to post the women's final. I will have the article in good shape by the end of the day, so article quality shouldn't be a big concern. ThaddeusB (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My knee-jerk reaction was to oppose this because it seems to be a furthering of ITN's recent bizarre fascination with women's sports, but I'm not so sure. I have two questions: is this the highest level of women's basketball, and do people in Europe actually care about it? --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your first question, there isn't a definitive answer. To quote Howard the Duck in my discussion about the matter with him last week: "There's no easy answer to that. If you think "more Americans" increases the depth of competition, the WNBA should be it; if you think salaries is a good enough measure, Euroleague Women should be it. Nevertheless, women's basketball has to be the most competitive of all of women's team sports (perhaps surpassing women's football)". As he pointed out, Diana Taurasi (perhaps the world's best player) announced she would sit out the upcoming WNBA season to focus on EuroLeague (for financial reasons) - that is a strong indication of which league is better/more followed. Here are the ESPN and New York Times stories on the subject.
To answer your second question: The number of people who care is certainly less than the number who care about men's basketball, but certainly more than the number who care about almost all other women's professional sports (tennis being the obviously exception). If we are going to post women's sports outside the Grand Slam duel blurbs and Women's World Cup, I would suggest EuroLeague basketball should be the top priority. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't know, but I thank you for your nomination and thoughtful response. I'm not sure this meets my personal bar for sports stories, but I guess it's at least it's possible that it would, if I were more familiar with the subject. This probably wouldn't kill us to at least try it, so consider me neutral, as long as it doesn't lead to us posting the WNBA finals. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose Sports in general is GROSSLY OVERrepresented. That is not combated by simply including more minor sports events. This particular event has NO global significance. It is a minor sports event even among minor sports events. Also a badly written article.·maunus · snunɐɯ·21:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to be more specific than that. Of course, if that's the emotion it evokes it you personally, that's a different matter altogether. Be clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you can provide specific criticism on the article, that can be addressed. Otherwise, your comment is completely unhelpful. And for the record, the majority of the players in the league are American born, not Slavic.
As to notability, we'll have to agree to disagree. The world treats sports as VERY important, even if you think they are not. It is not ITN's job to "correct" the world's "bias" that views sports as important, and we already feature less sports coverage than the media at large (not at the moment - it just so happens March-June is when most of the notable sports finals happens - but in general). --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since we posted the centenary of the start of the WW1, should we also post "the first genocide of the 20th century"? "he starting date is conventionally held to be 24 April 1915". Nergaal (talk) 05:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The WWI centenary discussion here seem predicated on the fact that there were world-leader-led ceremonies to acknowledge its occurrence. I very much doubt (but could be proven wrong) that we'd have the same level of world recognition for this event. I would note that the 100th anniversary of an event would be easy TFA material, if this was a FA. --MASEM (t) 05:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: According to Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/April 24, if you expand the "Staging Area" portion, the genocide article is listed as eligible to appear in the On This Day section of the Main Page. I think that on the anniversary itself, an appearance in On This Day is the most appropriate answer. Looking at the revision history, It appears that the coordinator Howcheng prepares the list approximately one week in advance. As Masem says, if the ceremonies meet the ITN criteria, then they could appear in ITN the following day (or however long the ITN veto process takes). AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I usually get them about 2 days in advance, but OTD would be the appropriate location for this, unless as Masem says it gets a lot of attention worldwide. —howcheng {chat}11:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This strikes me as more appropriate for "On This Day", and potential advocacy given how controversial even recognizing it as a "genocide" remains. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is more appropriate for OTD. The centennial itself has not been getting significant news attention from sources I've read, however there has been attention to the genocide due to comments by the pope, unrelated to this anniversary. Mamyles (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2015 (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.
Support pending article improvements No need to mention the record, since it was only tying, and it wasn't that long ago the record was previously broken). I recognize the article is comparable to 2014's version, but there's no discussion of media coverage, reception, etc. which would be norm for a major pro event like this in the US, and I really feel this should be part of the article before posting, otherwise it's just a stats page. --MASEM (t) 00:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based solely on article quality. There's very little prose in the article, it's basically a series of tables and lists with a sentence or two of introduction here or there. I would expect a full prose synopsis of the tournament before posting. The "Field" section is also rather unwieldy and has too much WP:TRIVIA. A simple list or table would suffice. If those two problems could be fixed (with appropriate referencing, of course) this would be postable. --Jayron3220:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tempted to support per RamblingMans oppose vote, but Oppose per common sense. Sports in general is GROSSLY OVERrepresented. Also a badly written article.·maunus · snunɐɯ·21:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that sports are over-represented recently. However, that is because of the timing of many championships being close together, and that there are relatively few non-sport events occurring/nominated recently. Notable, once-a-year sports championships should not be excluded solely because they occur close to other notable sports events. (which is in part why ITNR exists) Mamyles (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sports is overrepresented year round every year. And yes most annual sports events have no business whatsoever in ITN. No annual event is that important. Sports is even less so compared to e.g. Nobel prizes.·maunus · snunɐɯ·21:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Seems like a significant international incident. According to the Christian Science Monitor, this makes Pope Francis "the first head of the Roman Catholic Church to publicly pronounce the word "genocide" to describe them [i.e. the killings of Armenians]." Everymorningtalk19:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. If there was a breaking of diplomatic relations, that might be enough, but recalling ambassadors is fairly standard in situations like this. 331dot (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (once again) per Abductive, many countries recognise this as genocide, the Pope is just (sort of) saying what they (and most of us) all think. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppos interesting tacit admission it occurred, but they just don't want to talk about it. But overall of no real historical relevance. μηδείς (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2015 (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: He broke the Masters record of 201 set by Raymond Floyd in 1976 and matched by Tiger Woods in 1997. May be waited for the final reault. Both Floyd and Woods won the championship the next day. -The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength09:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a trainspotting record, because it doesn't matter until the final round is played, which could wipe that away with one bad round. --MASEM (t) 13:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wasn't active on ITN then, but didn't we post a blurb when Miroslav Klose broke the World Cup scoring record, then merge it when Germany won the hole shabang? I'm sure there was a bit of fuss over that and some proud Americans saying the ITN system has a pro-soccer bias. Overall, any sports record is just that - a record - and interests a niche audience unless it can be tacked onto the end of a wider "X won the Y Cup" '''tAD''' (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the breaking of a record in the world's premier tournament for the world's most popular sport might just be a little bit more important than a footnote statistic like this one. If he breaks the full tournament record tonight that might be different (but I'd still merge it in with the result). Black Kite (talk)19:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. If he scores a record over 72 holes (which is the actual length of the tournament) then we can combine this with the blurb about the winner. But if it's only a record at the 54-hole mark, then I don't see why we should post the same tournament twice in as many days. Modest Geniustalk18:11, 12 April 2015 (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.
Heavy Saudi Arabian air strikes hit southern Yemen resulting in at least 20 deaths of Houthis soldiers and two members of rival militias. Saudi Arabia claims to have killed 500 rebels since the start of military operations in March. (Reuters)(CNN)
India evacuates 5600 people including 960 foreign nationals from Yemen under Operation Raahat. Several flights were allowed to take off and land in Yemen despite the no-fly zone declared on the country. (The New York Times)
Turkey sends additional troops and aircraft into Ağrı Province which borders Iran, after four soldiers are injured in clashes with PKK insurgents. (Reuters)
A man carrying a protest sign, backpack and rolling luggage fatally shot himself in the head in front of the US Capitol Building. Capitol Police announced there was no apparent connection to terrorism. It follows unconnected shootings at the US Census HQ and the NSA. (CNN)
Note: We have a link to this in Ongoing. Does this represent a significant enough development in the Yemeni Civil War to need special treatment? --Jayron3200:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a development in the wider ongoing crisis, and not as serious as the capture of a city, a foreign intervention or the ousting of a government. '''tAD''' (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2015 (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.
Could you explain how this person meets the RD criteria(either below or in the "nom cmt" line of the template) as it will help others better understand the reason. 331dot (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they do. In any case, an article which gives the subject's date of birth as 1947 and 1952 inside the first two paragraphs clearly needs updating. Black Kite (talk)23:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly certain this was listed when several people were convicted. In any case, don't see his being executed as much of an achievement, this would have to be a blurb, which it does not merit. μηδείς (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2015 (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.
Note The blurb is taken from last year's blurb. The women's Boat Race does not have the same coverage as the main event and does not seem to be part of the previous ITNR discussion. 31.54.156.31 (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose that and say that we should mention that this is the first time the women's race has happened at the same venue as the men's race. Alt 1: In rowing, the male and female crews raced at the same location for the first time in history as in both races the Oxford beat Cambridge [change if necessary] in the 161st Boat Races. 86.190.99.149 (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the women's NCAA basketball final did not (bizarrely, arbitrarily, and rather cruelly) make the cut, why should this be any different? -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure it should be treated differently. The Boat Race (which means by default the men's one), was considered to be prestigious enough for ITNR, yet the women's one would surely fail to make the cut on its own merits. It has not even been discussed there. By the way, writing "the 161st Boat Races" does not make sense because "The Boat Race" refers by default to the men's and the women have only been racing since 1927. Have a look at today's featured article: the focus is all on the men's. Similarly, compare the depth of coverage of Women's Boat Race (2,993 bytes) to The Boat Race (59,006 bytes). 31.54.156.31 (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the article is of a reasonable quality (in my opinion) and suitably updated, the only necessary criterion for this ITNR. Just a shame about the results... I've added an alt blurb for the women's race result too. And obviously I will expand and enhance the article over the next three or four hours as reactions and more sourced material becomes available.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is the women's race ITNR or was just the Boat Race considered? I shall have a proper look. Either way, it is nice to see someone supporting the better of the two universities! ;) 31.54.156.31 (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per ITN/R, even though I couldn't find these sorts of things much more dull. Even NASCAR is more interesting than these rowing contests. Alas, people watch them, for some reason. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. I posted the first blurb. I find the altblurb's grammar to be impenetrable and hard to parse. If someone can offer a better version, and there is clear consensus to post the Women's results as well, no prejudice against updating. --Jayron3217:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I ended up putting a bit in about the Women's race anyways. It is given equal coverage in the highlighted article, and didn't take up too much space to do so. --Jayron3217:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Jayron, but the blurb is quite wrong now. The "161st Boat Race" is only the men's race. There are not separate men's and women's competitions as part of it. The women's Boat Race is about 90 years old. 31.54.156.31 (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I've restored the original (and accurate) blurb until we can agree on wording to include the women's race, if that's deemed appropriate on this historic occasion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to that. There seemed to be a rough consensus to include the Woman's race, and it is given equal coverage in the target article. The issue to me just was the awkward wording. If anyone comes up with a natural way to note the results of both races, and there is consensus to include it, no prejudice one way or the other to posting it or not, for whatever anyone wants to do. I have no opinion on the matter in either direction. --Jayron3218:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1 hr + change with only 4 !votes is far too fast to post something like this, even though I don't see any problems at the time of posting. I don't see any major objections that could come but we should still not be rushing even ITNR posts. Note , I'm not asking for it to be pulled, just a a timing aspect to keep in mind. --MASEM (t) 18:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any aspects of the article which you believe to be insufficient? Please do highlight them so I can address them to your satisfaction. Otherwise, it should be pleasing (to some) to see a good article, well referenced, and complete (as far as I can see) being posted in good time at ITN as it is an ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem:: Perhaps you could get WP:BURO removed from Wikipedia permanently? Otherwise, I fail to understand the "It's fine to post this, there's nothing wrong with the article, but I still object because it was too fast" objection. If there's no reason to object three hours from now, there would be no reason to object now. --Jayron3218:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still, we need to think about the blurb. We have something that does not make sense and also includes an event that is not part of ITNR. 31.54.156.31 (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any issues, and 4 other people didn't see any issues, but we should still wait some time to make sure no one has any serious problems. We are in no rush to push ITN items, and should allow a reasonable amount of time (a few hours at least, in this case , given the timing in the relative English-speaking parts of the world) to gain better consensus. --MASEM (t) 18:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's very rare that we only have consensus on article quality, as well you know. ITNRs can be and are often posted as soon as the posting admin has assessed that an update of sufficient quality has been made. That's been the case here. I think you're creating an issue where one doesn't exist on this occasion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, including the posting notice, there is only one statement made about article quality at the time of posting, which is far from a consensus on quality. I am not saying that the article quality was bad, but that should have not been posted if no one addressed (either way) the quality of the article, which can stall an ITNR. Add in the fact that while an ITNR (and by no means challenging that) that this is a very regional-level topic that has far more interest in the UK/Europe than the US, and you create situations where one takes advantage of time zones to push things things through. Not that this is the case here, but I still stress that we have no need to rush any posts to ITN, and should wait at least a few hours to have more voices check on article quality even for ITNR. --MASEM (t) 18:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have admins here to judge quality for ITNR items. If you don't trust them, perhaps we should let anyone post items to ITN. I addressed the quality of the article, the posting admin has done (otherwise he wouldn't have posted it), you say there are no problems with the article that you can see, I think it's sufficient. Once again, you could save this fight for when it's justifiably required. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given several incidents of where admins have posted articles that have subsequently been pulled because of quality issues (even when these were pointed out in the ITNC), yes, we should have better consensus from !votes on these points. If there was a longer string of comments (I don't know what the minimum number would be, but 4 is far too small) that all pointed out no issues in article quality and the okay to post, that would be fine. Waiting more time for more comments to come for any topic helps to reduce the chance of having to retract ITN after posting. --MASEM (t) 18:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with the actual article, but this ITN process. It's been an issue that articles should be of quality to be posted, even if they meet ITNR, and having a few more !votes here to affirm that the article was in good shape for posting - which would have come within a few hrs more. This may have been fine, but it is this type of "sloppiness" of process that leads to articles being posted to TIN and subsequently pulled due to the article being in bad shape. A few more hours of discussion would have not hurt anything in this case. --MASEM (t) 19:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the sloppiness here? We could wait a few more hours for ... nothing to happen. The article is GA quality. If you think we should wait for ... nothing to happen for three hours just to satisfy some odd urge, that's your perspective. But as I said a couple of times, you could have picked a better victim for your perspective. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with posting (the men's race) as soon as the article was ready. The whole point of ITNR is avoid unnecessary discussions. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ITNR is not a guarantee of posting, only that their is consensus that the event is the type that gets posted, but the specific instance of the event and the quality of the article all still must be evaluated. --MASEM (t) 19:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, it's just an assessment of quality. And we place that in the hands of capable admins. If you wish to pursue this further, I suggest you take concerns to WT:ITN, as it's somewhat bloating this perfectly suitably posted ITNR which now has at least four individuals in agreement that it's okay for the main page. Of course, feel free to bring this fight back into play when you see an ITNR posted which isn't of sufficient quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As TRM says, the assessment of quality has historically fallen primarily to the posting admin. the whole argumjent that somethign was done wrong here smack of pure bureaucracy. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the ITNR discussion here, it is clear it is only for the men's event. The basis for including the event is through its popularity, both in the UK and abroad, justified partly with huge viewing figures on television. Before this year, the women's race has never even been shown on television: it was a much shorter race that took part elsewhere. The difference between the articles The Boat Race and Women's Boat Race is testament to this. If the women's race one day becomes as popular and important as the men's, then it should also be included, but it does not seem as if we are anywhere near that stage yet. It is not down to us to be saying what should be popular and what should not be. 31.54.156.31 (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image note and question: Tyus Jones was the image for 4 days, so I switched out his photo for one of the Oxford team. However, now that I've done that, I see the the top two images on the Main page are both Oxford teams (of 2 different years) in their boats. This problem will go away when the TFA switches in 3 hours, but if anyone thinks this looks horrible, I can revert until that happens. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the historic first for the women's race is worth posting. I too am struggling to think of a non-awkward wording, though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since no other opinions have been offered on the wording & there appears to be consensus to mention both races, I am being bold and making the change. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong pull for the same reasons as the NCAA basketball below. This is an amateur university-level sporting contest, open to students at two universities only. How it got list on ITNR mystifies me. The mere fact that it gets TV coverage does not justify posting it - we certainly do not post every sporting event with a large TV audience (or would be constantly posting IPL games and NASCAR races). Modest Geniustalk13:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, thanks. It is worth noting that it's not the mere fact of its television audience that it is of global interest, but there is little point in explaining it to you for the umpteenth time, deaf ears and all that jazz. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I fail to see how completely ignoring ITN/R is of any value here. There are rules, and they should be stuck to despite the odd maverick's opinion unless there is a revote. 86.190.46.222 (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I must call you out for your ridiculous "strong pull" request. As I explained to you once already this week, a "pull" means you think there is a defect with the article or consensus. It is not merely an expression of your opinion late, but rather an accusation of a fundamental error. Your opinion is not so important that we need to hear it after a matter has been decided. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you get that idea from? I don't think it should have been posted, but it already has been. Ergo my !vote is 'pull' rather than oppose. I'm not aware of any rule or guideline which says it has anything to do with a 'fundamental error'. Modest Geniustalk18:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, thanks to all. What was a trivially simple decision to post an ITNR article of significant quality to the main page has become something of a bitchfest of some magnitude, and unnecessarily so. For anyone objecting as to the quality of the article, please note what's wrong. For anyone objecting to the notability, please address the item's inclusion at ITN/R at WT:ITNR. For those objecting to allowing an admin judge whether an ITN/R should or should not be posted, please address this issue at WT:ITN. You all know this. Stop drama-whoring. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2015 (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.
Article 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.
The Grand National article is NOT adequately updated. At minimum, there should be a text description of the race, not just a table of the finishing order. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On ITNR so should go up once the article is good to go - it currently looks pretty borderline. It has been updated and there's a prose summary, although it only has 2 references. The broadcast section still has an orange tag, however it could simply be removed (and copied to the talk page) until references are found - the article is sufficiently complete even without it. Modest Geniustalk21:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A head-on collision between a semi-trailer truck and a bus carrying a delegation of young athletes in southern Morocco on Friday killed 33 people and injured seven. (ABC News)
"Serial bride" pled not guilty to felony fraud for marrying 10 husbands, up to 8 at once in New York City. She married men from "red flagged" nations such as Egypt, Turkey, Georgia, Pakistan, Mali, and Bangladesh who sought resident status. (WTKR)
Politics and elections
Multiple sources have reported that former United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will announce her candidacy for the office of President in the 2016 election on Sunday, April 12. (The Guardian)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose - Per the article; he was freed "following a court order that he be set free pending trial, his lawyer said." In other words, there is still a criminal trial ongoing.--WaltCip (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In many democracies (excepting where there is demonstrated risk of flight or other extenuating circumstances) accused persons, who have not yet been convicted of a crime, are regularly released from jail pending the completion of their trial. This is not unusual or outstanding in any way. This is "how the system works". No big deal. When he is convicted, we may have something to post. This is unexciting minutiae of every trial. --Jayron3218:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jayron. There's a pending trial, release on that is a common legal practice. The ITN here would be if the trial ends up charging or exonerating him of the original charges. --MASEM (t) 19:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The argument that this is standard procedure and hence of no note is deeply flawed. Yes, it is common practice to allow persons awaiting trial to post bail/bond (or be simply be released), but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a case where, say, a US or UK court released a man accused of over 100 murders in a terrorist bombing on any amount of bail (this would be roughly akin to releasing Timothy McVeigh while he awaited trial). This is not even addressing the rather commonsense assertion that releasing a suspected terrorist into Pakistan is all but inviting escape. That said, I am undecided whether this is ITN material. - OldManNeptune⚓16:50, 11 April 2015 (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.
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 captain of the Australian cricket team. From the 1960s until recently he was a commentator for the BBC and Channel 9 in Australia. More than a cricketer, he was a cultural icon in Australia. He was the central character of the very popular The Twelfth Man parodies. Despite his advanced age, he was still commentating just a couple of years ago, and appeared in a commercial for Australia Day this year. He was such a well-known figure in Australia for such a long time, with his career in cricket and the media spanning eight decades, that I believe he deserves a blurb. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD tag, but not blurb He's at the top of his field and that's notable enough for a RD tag mention, but he's not that significant for a blurb. Sorry. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD from reading his page, as he seems to be important to cricket in Australia. I would like to know what Australians think about whether he merits a blurb or not. 331dot (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb I think that among sportspeople only a few global superstars would warrant blurbs - the likes of Pelé, Muhammad Ali and Michael Jordan. While Benaud's not quite at this level, there's no doubt he easily qualifies for an RD. He was a great all-rounder, the world record-holder for most test wickets when he retired, an outstanding captain, a legendary broadcaster, a prolific author, and a key figure in the establishment of World Series Cricket, which had a huge impact on the game. Certainly there have been few more influential figures in cricket in the post-WWII era. There are still parts of the article that could do with more citations, however. Neljack (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD with article improvements, oppose blurb No apparent question of a top of the field cricketer but not sufficient importance for a blurb. Comparing the front half to the back half of the article, the sourcing gets really weak on the back side, and needs a bit of help. --MASEM (t) 00:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD: There are some sourcing issues in the "Later career" section that should be addressed, but I don't see anything dire. That being said, somebody more knowledgeable than I am about cricket should double-check to make sure there are no WP:COPYVIO and WP:BLP issues before it is posted. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! most impressive RD article I have ever seen. The guy's even got a graph! This is updated, referenced, and ready to go. μηδείς (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it has some significant referencing issues to be dealt with. There are several unreferenced paragraphs, which while mostly sports stats, should at least be addressed. --MASEM (t) 01:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unmarked ready. While the referencing in the first half of the article is pretty good, the second half has a lot of unreferenced material including one completely unreferenced section on a major part of his career. Thus, needs improvement before posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I expect this will get a lot of attention in the next few hours as the workday finishes for Friday evening here in Australia. -dmmaus (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD: Icon of Australian culture. However, as said above, blurb should only even be considered for the truly global figures of sport: Ali, Pelé, Bolt et al. (just hoping none of those chaps leave us soon, by the way!) '''tAD''' (talk) 07:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD neutral on blurb. He doesn't meet the blurb requirements as a sportsman, but as sportsman+broadcaster+cultural icon he might. Thryduulf (talk) 09:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support if someone can take over from me and just fix the media section. We've gone from 43 to 103 citations in the past hour or so, hope that assuages some of the concerns over referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A violent storm system spawns at least one tornado killing two people and injuring seven others in the American state of Illinois and causing widespread damage especially in the small towns of Rochelle and Fairdale. (Chicago Tribune)
Law and crime
A gunman attacks the Palace of Justice in Milan, killing three people, including a judge. A fourth person found dead at the scene apparently died from a heart attack. (AP)(The Telegraph)
A fire on April 1 that disrupted power and internet access throughout London is now suspected to have been part of a robbery at the Hatton Garden Safe Deposit Company. (The Register)
The question is not "Is ISIL relevent". The question is "Is our highlighted article being continuously updated" Ongoing (as well as ITN in general) is designed to highlight Wikipedia content on recent events. If we have no ongoing content updates, there's no reason to have a link. If there should be updates that you aren't making, you should probably get on that. Otherwise, if the article is static and not being added to with events on a regular basis, there's no reason to have an ongoing link. --Jayron3214:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In a week's time ISIL could be a bigger story again. Look at the AP Bigstory's tag for the issue - and how many stories happen in just 24 hours. If something blurb worthy happens in a week it will be a pain for editors to argue for ISIL to go back to being ongoing again. The Al Shabab attack in Kenya happened only a week ago, there could be another major attack with 150 dead somewhere in North Africa and it's unreasonable to constantly be putting this story in and out of ITN ongoing. -- Aronzak (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update article or link - Continued articles updates is part of the "ongoing" requirements. Either the main ISIL article needs upadte or the link needs changed to Tikrit battle article (which is still being updated regularly). The current state of affairs (indefinitely linking to a stale artcile because it might be updated when the next big event happens) is not acceptable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Right now, the U.S. media agencies are running stories about parochial issues like the shooting in North Carolina. What the mass media considers a leading story is not necessarily a notable story. ISIL is pertinent on an international scale.--WaltCip (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@WaltCip:@Baseball Bugs:@Aronzak:@Thue: What article contains the most recent information that you feel should be linked from Ongoing? Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has not been updated with events more recent than 10 days ago. If you can suggest an article which should be linked from Ongoing where Wikipedia readers can get current information, it would lend weight to your argument. --Jayron3220:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remove: There are lots of terrorist organisations who are active right now. Boko Haram have been killing and kidnapping people all year but they only get featured in the news when they make big news. Isil should not be treated any differently. Nathan121212 (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remove until there's any evidence that the currently linked article is demonstrative of an "ongoing" issue. Nothing for April? It's a joke to have it as "Ongoing" in that case. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remove In its current capacity it could be deemed "newsworthy" for the foreseeable, indefinite future. I do not know that I want a precedent for keeping a string of related events on the front page for years on end. It's also worth mentioning that ISIL is in some measure only part of a much broader topic, but "Terrorism in the Middle East and Africa" is TOO broad for a front page newslink. I would recommend removing the ongoing link and separately post items that stand on their own merits. - OldManNeptune⚓21:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I wish this group was fading into irrelevancy, but as we all know, it's not. US news coverage is not a good meter for judging what's going on in the world and of great importance. If nothing pops up by the end of the month we may have to revisit the issue, but I would be extremely surprised if that were the case. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please point me to the "ongoing" criteria that allows for not updated stories to stay on for a month because some sort of update is likely to happen in the future? Dozens, perhaps even hundreds of events are broadly considered ongoing but our criteria require more than just the event literally being ongoing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One possibility is to revisit this in a week. Although there is support for keeping this in Ongoing, if the article is not consistently updated in the next week then it can be removed. SpencerT♦C04:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. We either see an update in the Ongoing article, find a new updated Ongoing article to point at, or remove it altogether, forgoing the speculation and incredulity shown above. Some of the "keepers" should work on the article they're asking us to keep as an "ongoing" article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per Spencer's suggestion, if there are no updates by the end of the week, I'm going to remove the item for not meeting the ongoing criteria - it can always be re-added if/when events flare up again. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - per objections that the section has no entries this month, and that the topic has largely faded from the news headlines. We can always put it back if matters change. Jusdafax18:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A gunfight erupts between Afghan soldiers and U.S. soldiers working for NATO's Resolute Support Mission leaving 1 Afghan and 1 U.S. soldier dead, and 3 Afghan and 2 U.S. soldiers wounded. (Reuters)
At the Dragon Aromatics chemical plant in Fujian in southeast China, a fourth tank of about 1,500 tonnes of liquid hydrocarbon catches fire and explodes. More than 14,000 residents have been evacuated. (BBC)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support when improved: the awards which this gentleman received prove that he is at the top of his field. However, a section criticising him is completely unsourced, which is unacceptable for any person or concept. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose on quality, support on notability. Lead inadequate, referencing amongst the worst I've seen for such a long article, happy to reconsider once major improvements are made. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the merits but as already stated, improvement is needed in referencing. Should not be posted until that is adequately addressed. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on article improvements RD importance is clear but 2 sources for an article of this size is woefully bad. Lots of qualitative sentences that need sources immediately --MASEM (t) 22:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality - there are no sources for any information except his death. If the information in the article is verified, I agree that he is sufficiently notable for RD. Mamyles (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunate Oppose on quality. After seeing the above opposes, I had a look to see if I could help clean up the article, but it needs more than what I could do. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support when improved The entire article is filled with claims like "Jayakanthan is infamously known for his arrogance and his multi-dimensional personality" which lack citations. You'd expect at least 20 references for an article this size, and there are currently two. If it were pared down to what's supported, it would be an ineligible stub. μηδείς (talk) 05:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've attempted a complete re-write as the article was full of fluff and unsourced commentary. Can somebody have a look at it and give inputs for further development so that we can wind this up in quick time? —Vensatry(ping)09:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's good work Vensatry, the only major flaw I see is the vast section of his Works, most of which don't even have an article, but also most of which are entirely unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I got a "somehow satisfying" ref. for the short stories section. As for his novels, all I could get is only a site like this. Considering that it was an extract of a series of articles posted on the subject and their literary contributions to the "soc.culture.tamil USENET newsgroup" by one of the faculty members of University of Regina, Canada, can we AGF over it? —Vensatry(ping)19:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] Dzhokhar Tsarnaev guilty in Boston Marathon Bombing case
Nominator's comments: Significant event, result of the trial. The sentencing hasn't happened yet but its basically a question of whether its life in prison or a death penalty, that's not going to have as much significance as this point. MASEM (t) 18:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending article updates: Huge news in the U.S. with significant international implications. The end of a long, bloody, high-profile legal saga centered on an act of terrorism. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question: This is the least surprising verdict in recorded history. Wouldn't it make more sense to wait until after sentencing, which is at least slightly less preordained? Or is it a pretty solid long-standing principle that we post when the verdict is announced if we post at all? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but in this case, and certainly in the case of United States justice, a death sentence could just as easily equate to thirty years on death row followed by a pardon. In other words, the sentence (I think) is somewhat irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it wasn't a question of him being charged, but to what degree, and if any of the charges would be death sentence-able. The fact all thirty changes were affirmed is more the "news maker" in the case. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From a federal case? Not so much. The defense appears less interested in appeal and more about assuring the sentence will be something that doesn't involve death row. --MASEM (t) 01:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although Floq's comment makes a good point. Finding him "officially" guilty is a major milestone in the case. Federal death sentences are rare, so a separate entry for that could be warranted, whenever it might happen, and IF they decide for execution. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The penalty phase in complex death penalty cases often takes weeks. If he is sentenced to death, it will almost certainly require a whole new blurb if that is to be posted. Dragons flight (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And as I said, the inhumane "death penalty" system of the US means that the individual could wait 30 years to be executed. By then, this will be a tiny glitch in the terrorism news network. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The verdict was as predictable as the sun rising in the east. The real news, and it will be ITN worthy whichever way it goes, will be the sentencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They can also result in someone being put to death. Per CRYSTAL we don't know what will or won't happen and we don't operate on "maybes." Federal death sentences are fairly rare. Even if this turns out to be a case of "life in prison and we really mean it," that's for the courts to resolve over time. All we can do is report that he was sentenced to death. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I already said that it could be a death penalty, but that is usually delayed by months, years and sometimes even commuted to life. The difference in sentencing is somewhat irrelevant. A "maybe" is "even if sentenced to death, will it ever happen?". The only actual fact is that he's been found guilty. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If he is sentenced to death that will be a fact. The issue of how long it takes to carry out the sentence, or not, is really not relevant. But again we are wondering onto CRYSTAL territory. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, perhaps you don't understand. Being sentenced to death doesn't mean that the death penalty is carried out. It is relevant. The sentencing here is irrelevant because of that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I note above, no one doubted he would be charged to some degree, even considering the actions he did during the manhunt after the bombing. What is the news maker element here is that he has been found guilty on all thirty counts, showing there was no doubt (from the legal side) this was premeditated act of violence committed by the brothers. Also keep in mind, this is at the federal level, and thus there's very little room for appeal, and it seems the lawyer representing Tsarnaev is more now trying to keep him off death row, instead of appealing the decision. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the expedient of federal charges in such cases is that it allows the execution of a killer even in a state which itself does not have the death penalty. (Hence the rarity of federal capital cases, since almost all murder trials are held at the state level.) The course of this, and the fact that state prosecutors did not object to the feds claiming jurisdiction, is quite clear. Reader interest exists now, waiting for the inevitable sentence of death is a disservice to those lloking to Wikipedia for comprehensive, neutral coverage. μηδείς (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How many readers are really, really interested in the convictions of the brothers involved in the bombings? And when do readers care about neutral coverage nowadays? Readers can be also editors, including those inserting one-sided sources. --George Ho (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, ITN is not about being a news ticker but to highlight important topics that are of good quality that happen to be in the news. Both the Boston Marathon bombing and the Tsarnaev pages are in very decent shape, and the topic of exactly what Tsarnaev would be charged with in what was a very public event is definitely of interest. All factors fit the purpose of ITN. --MASEM (t) 01:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how people explain how ITN works, we've already seen such news topics that are already found elsewhere (especially on Internet), but at least Uzbekistani elections is worth featuring. If Wikipedia and ITN existed twenty years ago, OJ Simpson's acquittal of his wife's and her fiancé's murders would have been in the Main Page. --George Ho (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Appeal will be filed in no time. Meanwhile, Boston Marathon bombings aren't much as impactful as the press wants it to be. Why weren't many oil spills in the news lately? --George Ho (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Convictions are typically when postings are made; if this is overturned on appeal(which seems unlikely) that would be notable itself. 331dot (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ho's comments should be discounted - they are contrarian and absurd - suggesting that we not post this conviction because "oil spills". We will most certainly post the next oil spill that ends in five deaths, 29 critical injuries, 264 hospitalizations, and 16 people with lost limbs, not to mention other types of maiming. μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind oil spills, a bad comparison. I'll rephrase: I can't understand the agreement toward the bombing event as part of Main Page and the opposition toward other convictions as just mere local impacts. Are there any other convictions that are or are not ITN-qualified? --George Ho (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is unlikely to be an appeal of the convictions themselves, as the defense attorney himself declared Tsarnaev's "guilt" in his opening statement. It's the sentence that will likely be appealed, IF it's death. If life in prison, they wouldn't have much ground for appeal. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What if the defense made improper proceedings, especially during a statement to the jury? Also, the suspect pled not guilty twice to all charges against him. Also, probably the defense could be incompetent. Not all court events are covered by media. --George Ho (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There will presumably be an appeal from the conviction based on the refusal to grant a change of venue, since the defense has already sought mandamus on this issue from the First Circuit at least twice. The appeal is unlikely to succeed, given that the First Circuit denied both petitions (albeit over a dissent), but it will surely be filed. However, this is just a response to the question asked above; I don't see that it is especially relevant to posting or not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't put it that way exactly. We've seen same ol' voters on every nomination, but same ol' is better than none, right? Well, every news is front news-worthy, but I don't know why some stories that have split votes were posted in the first place. The bombings was featured once in the ITN. However, at the time of nomination, voters were split, but the administrators decided to post it anyway. The bombings were devastating but not as devastating as wars and attacks on skyscrapers. Even an "official" conviction is not front news-worthy because of the enthusiasm on the topic and subtopics. --George Ho (talk) 04:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read that ITNC - the opposes were wanting to make sure there was stable information instead of just rumor -mongering or hype. It quickly revealed it wasn't, and that it wasn't an accident. But remember we're not covering news, we're covering topics that happen to be decent articles and that happen to be in the news. With the original bombing (which I remember helping to keep the article at its initial stages), the article quickly came together, avoided rumors and the like until official reports were issued, and represents a case where WP does a good job where multiple editors come together to keep an article on a breaking event both useful and objective. In the present case of the conviction, the bombing article is fairly complete and the suspect's as well, and it is in the news, and it is a case that has international interest, so there's little reason to oppose. --MASEM (t) 05:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not implying rumors or anything like that. I did say an appeal might happen, but I wasn't implying that a conviction wasn't official. As for quality of the article, a story may have a chance when its article is decent and stable. However, I'm not keen on the conviction itself. The bombings may have affected the lives, but the conviction itself is not as impactful as the bombing itself. People would praise the conviction, but I don't give a damn because I got other things to worry about. Also, I wonder if the bombing was an inside job. As for international interest, showing the bombings coverage throughout the world was enough, especially on Wikipedia. Besides a Russian and an American, why should a Brit, an Aussie, a New Zealander, and a Canadian on Wikipedia be very keen on the conviction of the suspect? They worry more about their own domestic issues and are too busy to care about international affairs. --George Ho (talk) 06:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with user:Ad Orientem. This was never in doubt in the slightest, so is not really interesting news. Thue (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment – Suggest pic of basketball player Tyus Jones be replaced by this of Dzhokar Tsarnaev. (Could & probably should be cropped.) Sca (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The World Health Organisation estimates that 560 people have died, more than 1,700 people have been injured and more than 100,000 people have fled their homes following the intensification of fighting three weeks ago. (AP via Virginia Gazette)
Disasters and accidents
Following the deployment of 350 police, over 600 firefighters and over 400 soldiers, the fire at the Dragon Aromatics chemical plant in Zhangzhou (southeast China) restarts, forcing the evacuation of residents within a radius of 18km from the plant. (South China Morning Post)
Raiders using specialist cutting equipment break into an underground vault in the Hatton Garden Safe Deposit company in the London diamond district and empty 300 safety deposit boxes. (Daily Mail)
Clear consensus to oppose posting to ITN at this time. Does not rise to the level of inclusion on ITN. Nakon05:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose yet another shooting in America, sadly means absolutely nothing once again, not to mention the shooter is "charged" and not "convicted". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose primarily due to timing as we typically wait for convictions. While it is incorrect to say it means absolutely nothing, it isn't the top racial issue in America right now; quick action likely prevented this from blowing up into something big. It is significant that action was taken so quickly on this matter in South Carolina. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is huge news in America, especially because it is shown on tape. (Also, the lawyer has announced the accused admits he shot the victim, but is arguing self-defense, so waiting for conviction is not necessary as long as we say "charged with".) In addition to the state murder charge, it might also warrant a federal civil-rights trial. But at this point, the simple facts are that this is an unpremeditated killing and it will have to go far beyond the current tabloid stage of development for consideration. Even then, it wouldn't necessarily be broadly encyclopedic enough to merit featuring in ITN. μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: regardless of the scale (state, national, international) that this is reaching, the man has only been charged with murder. He has not been convicted, nor sentenced. That is reason alone to oppose any criminal case. We didn't report on the 30 federal charges being laid against Dzokhar Tsarnaev but waited for his conviction to even bring up debate. '''tAD''' (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the benefit of the doubt lies with the suspect, not the state. Acting as an agent of the state, a police officer should have to defend himself in court on some charge. That being said, while I don't agree your rationale merits posting the nomination, and I don't doubt the real rate of murder by police officers is not reflected in convictions, I'd like to see some statistical evidence, if you have it. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a personal challenge, I am genuinely curious (and personally have highly mixed feelings about the police), and have asked at the ref desk. Our categories are a horrible source, since they depend entirely on the creation of articles based on the subjective interest of editors. I meant something more scientific, a peer-reviewed study. μηδείς (talk) 05:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a bad situation topping other issues of police + public relations in the states, but it is ultimately a story involving only 2 people and immediately family and co-workers. If this instigated riots or the like at a large scale (and remember: we didn't post Ferguson) then that might be something. --MASEM (t) 05:26, 9 April 2015 (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.
Oppose I will grant that the mens NCAA has the popularity for blurb from earlier, but the womens' NCAA, while it is followed to an even greater degree of excitement by a number of fans, has nowhere near the breadth or coverage of the mens. So this should not be posted. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is evidence of exactly what I said was going on in the earlier blurb posting. If one must be posted, why not incorporate this one into that blurb? RGloucester — ☎13:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Combined blurb per WaltCip and RGloucester. If as a result we need to remove mention of the MOP for brevity, that would be fine. Mamyles (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support combined blurb: It's just wrong to exclude the women's basketball tournament because it happened a day after the men's tournament. I can't fathom that the intent to exclude it here would be misogynistic, but it would have the unacceptable appearance of such to many readers. Furthermore, there is ample precedent for combined blurbs; major tennis tournaments, for instance, usually have the women's singles final a day before the men's singles final, and the blurb typically names both champions. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason to post the men's but not the women's would be that the women's receives less attention, including in television ratings (though I'm not sure of the numbers). – Muboshgu (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pull immediately. The bold article linked doesn't even mention the women's final in prose, it's not written in the correct tense and it's barely above stub quality. Shambolic. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to say support or oppose, but just <facepalm>. Geno Auriemma ties the record for most championships in NCAA history, and not even a mention...despite being in an era where we are trying to recruit female editors. I wonder how many championships he has to record before he gets an ITN mention? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a complete joke when we can't figure out how to post something because it's too long. Thank God civilization isn't dependent on Wikipedia inventing the wheel. :) --Hammersoft (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The women's tournament certainly draws less interest than the men's. The UConn coach's tenth championship is a major achievement which is at least as much the real story as the game itself. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The women's tournament does not get the attention of the men's tournament (rightly or wrongly) so I understand not posting it for that reason, but I am not against posting it as a combined blurb, but only if it can be short331dot (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But your comment doesn't mention article quality at all. Have you even noticed that it was posted with no update, with incorrect tenses, with dabs, and barely beyond stub quality? I'd like to know because assessing consensus includes assessing the ability of commentators to address article quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since it had been pulled I didn't think it necessary to further comment on quality. As I said, I don't disagree with anything that you said regarding the article quality and I agree with the pulling. 331dot (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how I could possibly be "digging myself deeper" on something which my only previous comment was "Um, the article isn't really updated adequately." There is absolutely no evidence being an American story had anything to do with the too rapid posting, that is quite simply an assumption by you. No one knows Jayron's motive, including you. Maybe he didn't even have one and simply made a mistake. Human beings do that from time to time you know... What there actually is evidence of is that a desire to combat gender bias motivated "support" !votes - several of them explicit say they supported for equality reasons. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, as I said [citation needed]. Just cool it down and let's try to stop posting super crap articles to the main page. I don't care for the reasons, because all of them are flawed when we post crap quality articles, like ones without any updates and ones written in the wrong tense and ones without suitable referencing. Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I agree we shouldn't be posting inferior articles and was the first person to point out this one was posted too quickly. Not sure why you think I am disagreement on that point. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As with far too many threads on this page, this discussion has become bitterly contentious and tangential at best to the ITN candidate in question. If this were a forum, which it is not, I might even don my acid-washed jeans and call it a "flame war". Can we step back, take another look at WP:CIVIL, and be a little nicer, please? -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - For the most part, the world generally doesn't care about women's team sports. It's not ITN's job to make them care, and it's a mistake to piggyback this on the men's championship in the interest of gender equality. For better or worse, the two aren't even in the same universe in terms of popularity. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article is now significantly improved from the state it was posted (and pulled) at. I would say its now right around the minimum quality expected and withdraw my implicit objection. Thank you SusanLesch for your efforts. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I support posting a combined blurb, but I suggest leaving Wisconsin and Notre Dame out of it to keep it brief. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another option would be to leave out the team names (i.e. just "Duke defeats Wisconsin") which I suppose wasn't done for ENGVAR reasons initially, but would substantially shorten the blurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about if ITN were to have a separate little section about sports? Then you could have major events such as the NCAA's, soccer championships, canoe races, and all manner of stuff, and hopefully avoid some of these debates. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose everything, even a combined blurb this may not be politically correct, but nobody really cares about women's college basketball. Combatting gender bias is the only reason to post this, and, last I checked, ITN doesn't exist to combat gender bias. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose With very few exceptions (the World Cup, Super Bowl and maybe the World Series) sports events don't usually rise to ITN attention level. And as others have noted this is regrettably but also especially true of women's sports. The only plausible argument for posting this is to promote female athletics which is not ITN's job. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I really don't see how it's any skin off our nose to post a combined blurb, provided it's not too long. It's already an ITN item; this would just be expanding it to simply note the results of the women's event. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's because everyone hates and is sick of the WNBA (LOL). Fun fact: The champion coaches of the men's and women's NCAA Division I basketball are the coaches of the men's and women's U.S. national teams. –HTD15:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The WNBA season does not correspond the the NBA season. Indeed, the season mostly runs during the months the NBA is dormant (presumably to avoid competition for viewers). While a combined blurb is not possible, it would be worth while nominating the WNBA to test consensus - it does not appear to have ever been nominated before. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The European and Chinese (and Australian?) seasons are also running during the WNBA offseason. The best WNBA players get to be paid more in Europe than in the WNBA. Diana Taurasi was even paid by her Russian team not to play in the upcoming WNBA season. –HTD18:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Honest question: what would you say the highest quality of play in women's basketball is (excluding the Olympics and other international team events)? I would suggest it might actually be the NCAAs. Given the limited professional opportunities, many of the top players chose not to pursue the sport beyond college. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no easy answer to that. If you think "more Americans" increases the depth of competition, the WNBA should be it; if you think salaries is a good enough measure, Euroleague Women should be it. Nevertheless, women's basketball has to be the most competitive of all of women's team sports (perhaps surpassing women's football) but it's a hard sell to even post the FIBA Women's Basketball World Cup because it's the "American sport" of basketball. With that said, Spencer said that the "NCAA women's tournament does have higher TV viewership ratings than WNBA finals"; if our "standard" is the WNBA finals, that standard is really low. –HTD01:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support combined blurb. Doesn't get as much attention as men but NCAA women's tournament does have higher TV viewership ratings than WNBA finals, and the article has been expanded. SpencerT♦C19:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support combined blurb, as it harms nothing and allows us to include two similar events of interest to our readers. The Women's games and championship are certainly followed in the US NE. μηδείς (talk) 03:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not really seeing this as a "very big event", nor are our audience with little over 2,000 hits on the NCAA women's final in the past 30 days. Incredibly insignificant, but now a watershed moment at ITN which creates a precedent to forcibly include female sports regardless of their significance. Maybe a good thing? Maybe a false dawn? Maybe a PC exercise gone wrong? You decide. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article 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: American historian who successfully fought for the release of President Richard Nixon's secret tapes related to the Watergate scandal. Bruzaholm (talk) 08:58, 8 April 2015 (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.
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: Major influence in comedy and media, definitely would be considered a leader in this area from that time period. Inducted in the Nat'l Radio Hall of Fame. MASEM (t) 21:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Reading the page he seems to meet the criteria. I don't see any glaring quality issues but other eyes might want to judge it. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality grounds. Between a third and half the text is unreferenced at current and the lead doesn't summarize the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait it's a great article, he makes the criteria, except for the fact that it has dozens of claims, even paragraphs that lack refernces. μηδείς (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support for prompt posting. I think the article is in relatively good condition for its subject-matter. It would obviously be desirable to have additional referencing, but I don't see any content that is controversial or actually disputed. There is importance to posting a significant "recent death" while it is actually still recent. That doesn't, of course, mean that there isn't a minimum quality threshold to be applied to such an article, but I feel that considering this article as substandard for the purpose, and the tag that is currently defacing the article, are arbitrary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that's nonsense. There are whole sections without a single reference, let alone the many other paragraphs completely unreferenced. How you can even suggest an article is in "relatively good condition" when we don't even know if over half it is actually factually accurate (which we normally do using reliable sources, which are woefully bereft here) is beyond me entirely, but not surprising to see such urgency attached by you to this "type" of RD nomination. If it helps, we can remove part of the maintenance tag relating to under-referencing and I can tag all those clauses which aren't referenced individually. Or perhaps, being such an ardent supporter, you can actively improve the article yourself, rather than just claim the perfectly reasonable and very standard request for adequate referencing is "defacing the article". The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - with a article that technically still falls into BLP, we should have a minimum sourcing of one cite per paragraph, as previously discussed at WT:ITN. There's no serious claims, I agree, but we want to make sure the article is sufficiently a good example of how to source and cite for new editors to help build on, hence the need for proper referencing. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing that I write on Wikipedia is "nonsense," though you are free to disagree with me. If we made a list of the English Wikipedia's top eight thousand problems, articles like Stan Freberg aren't one of them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following you really. You're trying, once again, to push a really poorly referenced article onto the main page because it's a one of those recurring topics you pop by here to try to advocate without worrying about quality. Your claim that the tags are "arbitrary" really is nonsense. It's stating the article needs an improved lead, check, and that it's woefully under-referenced, check. I can add [citation needed] to the unreferenced claims if you prefer. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article has thirty-eight in-line citations and a dozen external links. For an article about a comedian and advertising writer, that is not "really poorly referenced" by any standard bearing upon the English Wikipedia that exists today, as opposed to the English Wikipedia that ideally might exist in a perfect world or that we might aspire to develop several years from now. It is not the case that every sentence of every article is inline cited, or should be inline cited, or ever will be inline cited; nor has any other encyclopedia in the history of the planet earth aspired to such a standard; nor is the period of a couple of days following an individual's death a reasonable time-frame within which an article could be improved to such a standard. I am all for better sourcing and more referencing of any page, and I even understand holding up an ITN or RD posting pending article improvements, but not when the level of improvement that is being demanded is unreasonable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, the fact that you start some kind of futile rebuttal with a count of citations is truly enlightening. There's a WHOLE SECTION without a single citation, and multiple paragraphs with nothing either. Your response equates to other crap exists and we don't post crap to the main page. Unlucky. And please, what's "unreasonable" about asking you, an ardent supporter of this article, to actually do something about its appalling referencing? Time to stop driving by to support your pet favourites and actually step up and do something practical, helpful and beneficial to the encyclopedia. Your lame parallel claiming I'm looking for a utopian article is embarrassing, I'm actually asking for a bare minimum of references, this stuff is going onto the homepage of the fourth most visited website in the universe. I know you really love these RDs that you drive-by and attempt to create a mandate to post, but I think, at some point, you've lost sight of what we're trying to do here, especially if you think it unreasonable to ask for a single reference in an entire section of a BLP. Wow. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article is woefully unreferenced. Many of the claims are simply unsupported, period. While we do usually allow primary sources to support credited roles if there is a link to the primary source's article, or full information like title or episode number and date of release, there are many claims of the sort "he made appearances on this show" which don't have a link or identify a specific episode. Those need secondary references. I have tagged the first and third parts of the article to make clear which claims are unsupported.
Nominator's comments: Historically, the NCAA basketball tournament was a contentious nomination (roughly 50/50 support/oppose). It was posted some years and not posted others. Last year that changed due to a better explanation of why it is important and was posted with near unanimous support. Here is a recap of my argument:
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 12 other US events we post. 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 the New York 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 significance. 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.)
Additionally, two arguments sometimes offered in opposition are false. The tournament does lots of receive coverage outside the United States (as demonstrated in previous years, original reporting on it is published around the globe). Basketball is not a "minority sport" internationally - most estimates place it either second or third in global popularity. ThaddeusB (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
extremely long discussion of now moot point
With respect - oppose per the reasons listed in the nomination. It was, currently is, and always will be a University-level sport - and to be clear, I would oppose posting the Boat Race events as well, but I understand that those universities are on somewhat of a different level.--WaltCip (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a university sport that gets the same or more attention than the NBA Finals. Given recruiting, scholarships, and fan bases, it is all but a professional sport. 331dot (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The fact that non-Americans really wish this wasn't a big deal doesn't have weight. It is the third biggest sporting event in the U.S. (after the Super Bowl and the NCAA Football Championship, another event people don't want to post). The measure should be "how much people care" and not "how much we want people to care". The championship game is almost always the most watched basketball game in the U.S., and will be again this year. "But it's a university sport, it SHOULDN'T be that popular" doesn't sound much like an actionable oppose here. --Jayron3201:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support by ThaddeusB's reasoning. This is a MAJOR sporting event in the U.S., even though some people can't seem to understand why this "university-level sport" is on par with or more important than certain professional sports. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the explanation given. I actually don't follow it- but whether this should be a big deal or not is irrelevant; it is a big deal despite being "university level" and it gets more attention than many professional sports, even as much or more than the NBA Finals. 331dot (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will continue to work on it (and welcome suggestions), but the article is now nicely updated and should meet ITN standards in that regard. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd. I could swear I had pushed for inclusion of EuroBasket, a championship that certainly has a bigger profile in Europe than, say Six Nations, on the list some years ago... Euroleague's still there though. –HTD11:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And a majority of English-speakers in the world... Which would make it a big deal on English-language wiki. Your boat race is even less important.Correctron (talk) 05:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@LoveToLondon: As stated above, objections related to something being from a particular country are not valid. This isn't being proposed as an ITNR event so that's not relevant; and if you feel something is missing from being posted or the ITNR list, please nominate it. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Something being only a national youth competition of a professional sports is a very valid objection. Please bring any non-US example where both the national adults and the national youth championship from the same country have been featured at ITN in the same year. LoveToLondon (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't what I said was an invalid argument- but this isn't a "youth championship". 331dot (talk)
Interest in US youth sports is very marginal in Europe. If you disagree, please bring a RS how many people watched this game live in France, UK and Germany. LoveToLondon (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interest in rugby and cricket very marginal in the U.S., Latin America and most of the Far East but doesn't prevent them from being posted. –HTD12:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't claim it was the most watched event or even highly watched in Europe, but you said that there was "nearly no coverage outside that country" which isn't true. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's also news in Australia. Clearly it is getting coverage elsewhere even at a minimal level. Respectfully, I really don't know how you can say it isn't. 331dot (talk)
I also don't know how you use the term "youth" but in the US it typically means people less than 18 years old, very few if any of which play college basketball. This isn't considered a "youth" tournament in the US. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The players in the 2015 UEFA European Under-21 Championship (that even serves as a qualifier for the Olympics) are professional players, some of them earning millions every year. Whatever term you prefer, this is also a tournament for young players that is inferior to the regular championships and won't make it to ITN. LoveToLondon (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The NCAA isn't a "youth tournament". A "youth tournament" is a tournament, like your example, restricted to a certain age group. The NCAA is open to all ages. If a 30 year old player doesn't want to earn money but still play while having a "college education", it's perfectly legal for him to do so. Either way, if the UEFA Under-21 Championship is the third most popular tournament in Europe (I'd say the Europa League is more popular), then we could equate it to NCAA basketball. Is it? –HTD12:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I used the page views for 2013, the last time both tournaments were held on the same year:
With all due respect, a comment calling NCAA sports "a youth tournament" is so woofully ignorant, that it can easily be ignored. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is that despite all these years of discussing it, certain Brits simply don't understand its importance, because they don't have a comparable level. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Strong oppose as this is not something which has significance in the world of sport and doesn't seem to attract people globally. Most of the supporters above rely on facts that it's a major news in the United States, it has broken multiple television records or it's of particular relevance to the English-speaking world but avoid to mention how this game has made global impact for attracting people to practice college basketball on professional level. We comment on the same nomination every year but it continues to be practiced chiefly in the United States with not even a sign that one day it may be introduced and become popular in other countries. And for the matter of clarity, we don't oppose this because we have something against the United States, the American people or the American culture; it's simply because the world doesn't accept the "significance" of college basketball and remains out of its "impact". That's it. Some may argue that stories concerning a single country could have global impact to a lesser extent, but it's completely not true as we've posted such stories with much greater impact in the past.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just because some in the world don't see the impact, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are probably many things that are posted(as well as things on the ITNR list, as an example) that I don't get the impact for, but I still support their posting because I know that others see it. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it exists, then please prove it. College basketball is played for decades and we don't see even a tiny progress in its acceptance or its growing popularity outside the United States. And your argument that we should post this because of some precedent with other things is poorly a desparate evidence.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, college basketball and volleyball is widely popular in the Philippines, but focus is on local teams, not on the US teams. I dunno about Canada, but it seems the US NCAA tournament is more popular than their own CIS. Some national basketball teams also have players from US (in cases of African national teams) and local (South Korea, of all places) college teams on their rosters. –HTD11:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) ThaddeusB explained it far better than I could. I wasn't suggesting precedent as an argument, simply making the point that every event has people who don't understand the impact or significance of it, and very little would be posted if that was a widespread justification. There is no requirement that this or any event be wildly popular outside where it comes from, and we in fact discourage such arguments on this page. I could probably pick out five ITNR events right now(just as examples) that get little coverage outside their home countries but are still posted. 331dot (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ThaddeusB did a great deal explaining the importance of a college sport in the United States and how it could become one of the most popular sporting events in the country but he didn't explain why the college basketball teams in other parts of the world are considered amateur teams that play for recreational purposes and why their games are not even covered in the media. We can make a nice parallel in looking for the reasons why the United States national basketball teams (both men's and women's) dominate over the rest of the world and the quality of college basketball might be even greater than the professional leagues in other countries. Nevertheless, we probably live in a world where people are not interested in further investing in basketball to bridge the gap between the United States and the rest of the world and that's why the popularity of college basketball will never grow on the same level. Some may say that we, the Europeans, and the people from other parts of the world are ethnocentric or have very low regard to the American culture but, trust me, it's just an inherent image that comes out because of the failure of college basketball to succeed in other countries and the lack of feasibility found for further investment in the sport.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why college-level sports don't prosper in many places is because athletes who should be playing for a university would rather turn pro early and earn money, something that can't happen with the NBA still having their minimum age for draft eligibility. So in the case of the U.S., the only way in to the NBA is via the college game. This is not to say youth-level basketball isn't popular in many countries, they probably are, but the players are either riding the bench on "first squads" of the pro teams, or are playing in the under-X age squads of said pro teams. –HTD11:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the reason is historic rather than anything else. After all, college baseball and college hockey are relatively minor sports; player development in those sports happens primarily through junior leagues and professional minor leagues. Basketball and football were invented on U.S. University campuses by U.S. University students and/or professors, and were played by universities for DECADES before the pro game took off (college Basketball dates to the 1890s, the NBA was formed in the 1940s, for example). The best analogy I can give for their popularity is the difference between Rugby Union and Rugby League (an imperfect analogy, but close). Historically, Rugby Union developed first among amateur players (incedentally, on University campuses), and maintain a level of forced amateurism until only about 20 years ago. Being the older form of the sport, it historically had a greater following, even though it wasn't "professional". Rugby League has always been professional, and (except in certain geographic pockets) has always had less popularity than its older, more established, form. In the U.S., a similar relationship exists between the NCAA (amateur) basketball and the NBA (pro) basketball. --Jayron3213:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think Kiril was wondering why college sports isn't that prominent elsewhere, not why college sports is prominent in the U.S. Elsewhere, people can rally behind a local team on the lower divisions. While there's some equivalent minor leagues in the US, like you said, due to historical factors, universities became the "rallying points" of locales which don't have a "top division" team in the U.S. –HTD14:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, college basketball has made significant in roads globally. As recently as say 15 years ago, it was very rare for a team to have even a single foreign born player on its roster. Now, most teams have at least one and many teams have multiple foreign players. NCAA basketball is viewed as a great opportunity to get a free education or develop a player to play professionally later (depending on the level of athlete and country of origin), so athletes from all over the world come to play in the NCAAs. This doesn't happen to the same degree in other NCAA sports.
I realize this may not be exactly what you meant - you perhaps meant development of local teams with local players to be watched on TV. However, it still demonstrates an significant international impact of the game. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vehement oppose Sigh, must we go through this again. No, of course we shouldn't post it. However you twist and turn it, it's only a university competition, with no major impact (cue all the 'explanations' on how I'm wrong). I think I might nominate the Cardff-Swansea Varsity later this month, see how that one goes down. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the "Cardiff-Swansea varsity" is, but if it is equivalent to this tournament which has more viewership than professional level basketball, and is all but professional basketball given recruiting, scholarships, and fan bases, I would be happy to support it. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support in light of the huge interest and passion the tournament generates. Thaddeus is right - sport does not have inherent significance; it only has the significance we invest it with by following it and caring about it. The fact that it is a university tournament is neither here nor there when it comes to that significance. Neljack (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A professional national league for adults where some of the regular season games are being watched live by up to half a billion people worldwide[14] was recently rejected at ITNR. How many people did watch this youth basketball game? LoveToLondon (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Major [citation needed] there. La Liga matches are not watched live by 500 million people and the champion was posted last year on ITN. Very likely, it will posted again this year come May when the season ends. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now pissed that the push for the removal of the Irish hurling championship from the list was successful. Now I could only cite Gaelic football lol. Thank goodness the boat race -- which isn't even a championship (think of it as the British version of the annual Harvard vs. Yale football game, only if both schools got the best recruits in the country) -- made it. –HTD11:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe Boat Race is the most well-known rowing event in the world, even the World Championships didn't make it to ITNR. Some of the people here also seem to fail to notice the difference between amateur sports and national youth championship of a professional sports. What amateur sports are relevant enough for ITN is a question completely separate from whether national youth championships should be posted at ITN. LoveToLondon (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the global audience of the NCAA tournament is significantly greater than the global audience of The Boat Race. For example, Canada is one of the top "secondary" markets for both and NCAA basketball wins that battle easily. From a UK perspective, basketball is a very minor sport, but in most of the world it is in the top 3 or so of popularity. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the global audience of the boat race is somewhere in the range of 800 million, with 6 million in the UK (that means it needs 794 million eyeballs elsewhere to approach 800 million. I dunno how the math works but it's true!).
This isn't a garden variety "youth competition"; players are recruited, they are essentially paid by giving them scholarships, teams have large fan bases, and the event generates tens of millions in revenue and is more watched than the professional level of sports. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it is more popular than the NBA, then get the NBA final removed from ITNR first. Two national championships from the same sports in the same country is too much for ITN. LoveToLondon (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a onetime resident of Lexington, Kentucky, let me say that there already has been far too much wordage * expended on NCAA BKB. Sca (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support This is a significant sporting championship, around 40 million people watched this game. The entire tournament cost $1.9 billion in lost productivity [15]. It's unclear why this wouldn't be in the ITN. Shiny Son (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The measure here is how many people watch US college basketball worldwide. American football, for instance, despite being popular primarily in the US, is in ITN as a globally recognizable mainstay of local culture and national sport. I'm not sure whether college basketball rises to the same level among non-Americans. NBA finals and FIBA Basketball World Cup would suffice. Brandmeistertalk13:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On what do you base the assertion that "the measure here is how many people watch" worldwide? If that's the measure, we could jettison probably 75% of ITNR and not post a great deal of ITN nominations. I don't think there is any requirement of a worldwide audience, just worldwide coverage, which this has. 331dot (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the nomination, you can see the news reports from Le Monde, Der Spiegel and the Guardian. I'm sure you could find many other non-US news outlets covering this. It's basically a professional-level championship, despite the university-level players. Shiny Son (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or they might include it because they think their readers are interested in it. That's just speculation. There are many ways to rationalize and diminish the news coverage of any event. It's not being a newspaper to have a posting about a top watched sports event with international players that people in many places are interested in or want to learn more about. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying every NCAA sport should be posted; basketball and football are different from other NCAA sports in that regard; they both get far more coverage and attention than the other sports. 331dot (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This looks to be blown out of proportions. Will Duke University be remembered for fostering a college basketball champion in the long run? How all those teams would perform against national basketball teams? Like many other sports, basketball ultimately comes down to international competition. Media are naturally alowed not to ask such questions. Brandmeistertalk15:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Duke University has already been known for a long time for its excellent basketball program ever since Mike Krzyzewski took over. International competition in basketball is actually hotly contested, but it's the US that always wins, so it's not that popular when a full-strength US team is playing. That's why European championships are more hotly contested than things such as the FIBA World Cup because you can't be sure on who'd win. The Olympics are a different matter because the best players, who are too tired to play after the 82-game NBA regular season to play in continental and world championships, actually show up. Incidentally, two of the best five players in the 2012 FIBA Under-17 World Championship are from Duke, and another one is the "most outstanding player" in this tournament. Coincidentally, the coach of the senior US team is Krzyzewski who fixed things up in the senior national team and only has one competitive loss to his name in nine years. –HTD16:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: Yes, the highest prize in international basketball, the one players actually care about, isn't on ITNR, and is the toughest sell here on ITN. The Boat Race is a lot easier to post than the Olympics. –HTD16:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - last year's tournament (this year's figures aren't available yet), was watched by ~102 million people on TV across 165 countries and broadcast in 5 languages. An additional 10 million people streamed at least one game online. [16]. Incidentally, 100 million was the figured offered as to The Boat Race's global audience when it was added to ITN/R. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So this whole tournament had only a fourth of the number of viewers that each of El Clásico games has (there are at least 2 El Clásico per season, often 4 or more). The Boat Race is the most important event in its sports, the NCAA championship is only the second-ranking national championship in one country. LoveToLondon (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't understand where this La Liga comparison is coming from. ITN posted La Liga last year without much issue. ITN also posted Copa del Rey last year(?) too (with some controversy). Last year's NCAA basketball championship was posted quickly (HAHA). This isn't an ITNR nomination. Both NCAA basketball and La Liga aren't in ITNR, and were posted last year despite not being listed there. –HTD14:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The Boat Race is most certainly not the highest level of rowing. The sport does have world championships, you know. Most other sports we list are also not the highest level as regional and international tournaments/world championships exist. If you only posted the true highest level of any given sport, that would mean World Cup only for football. No one would make such a argument for football, which is why we list 9 football events on ITNR (and often post Bundesliga & la Liga as well, making 11 total). Basketball, arguably the world's second most popular sport, lists three: FIBA World Championships, NBA Finals, and Euroleague. NCAA basketball has often been posted, making 4 possible. NCAA basketball is more popular in the US than any of the others, and likely more popular globally than all but the NBA (these things are really hard to compare precisely as audience figures are not readily available). In terms of cultural impact, there is no comparison - NCAA basketball wins easily. In terms of quality of play, NCAA basketball perhaps outranks Euroleague despite one being professional and the other nominally amateur. Several sports less popular than basketball globally have more than 4 ITNR listings (Golf - 6, Horse Racing - 5, Marathon Running - 4, Motorsport - 8, Rugby - 5). Several sports have multiple US entries, so that is not a disqualifier either. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's safe to say that the Euroleague has overtook the NCAA in quality of play ever since the 1988 Olympics where grown men from the Soviet Union beat US college kids. From 1936 to 1976, US college kids beat the grown men from other countries all of the time except for that crazy game in Munich (Americans boycotted in 1980 (Soviets lost lol), and the Americans won in home court in 1984). In a random preseason game where both teams are sleepwalking throughout the game, a Euroleague champion can beat the NBA champion. –HTD15:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You could be right - it is very hard to say for sure. Certainly, the average Euroleague team is better than the average NCAA team - there are 350 NCAA teams after all. I'm not so sure the top NCAA teams aren't better than the top Euroleague teams though. My counter-argument would be from top teams, 2-4 starters go to the NBA and the remaining starters and top reserves end up split between European leagues and the D-league (minus the few who choose not to pursue the sport further when they realize they won't make the NBA). That implies the best college teams are somewhere between a bad NBA team and a good Euroleague team. Granted, all those players continue to develop after they leave college, and the Euro teams also attract good players who never went to American college, so the Euroleague team is obviously better than the comparison implies. Overall, I would say there isn't a huge difference between an average Euroleague team and a top 20 NCAA team. NCAA teams are allowed an overseas preseason trip every four years, so I could look up how NCAA teams have done in exhibitions against Euroleague teams, but I don't put much stock in such "sleep walking" matches as you call them. A team of college All-Stars even beat the original Dream Team in exhibition game. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This event has a significant amount of news attention and a significant number of viewers/fans. The article is well-written and updated. (This may not be the most notable sporting event in the world, but there is still a great deal of coverage and fanbase for it. There is a quality article - why not post?) Mamyles (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although not vehemently, for the reasons given by other supporters above. In any event, could an uninvolved administrator assess the consensus relatively soon, before we lose the element of timeliness. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As with all news that gets distributed by some news agencies, you will always find some places where this gets (re)printed. How many percent of the news sources you link to have that on their frontpage? LoveToLondon (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except, these mostly aren't agency reprints, but rather original reporting (or at least original writing). Almost no sport gets front page coverage outside its local market. Are you suggesting we remove every sport outside of the Olympics and World Cup? --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are going to have to qualify that comment. I meant the actual front page of general interest newspapers. In that sense, the NBA rarely is front page even in the United States. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to edit war over the ready tag, but there is clearly consensus for posting; whether you like it or not is irrelevant. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu and I are hardly the only two supporters, active or otherwise. It's not just about number of supporters, but strength of arguments; virtually every oppose argument has been refuted. 331dot (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure who here is shouting; I'm not; nor is my goal to get you to "give up". My goal is to present and support logical, rational arguments. In this case, most of the oppose arguments have been demonstrated to not be accurate. 331dot (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are some very active opposers like you LoveToLondon. That is not the same as non-consensus. And with all due respect, someone with a very strong opinion and ~45 edits before today is hardly in a position to judge consensus accurately. Let's leave that to an uninvolved admin. Incidentally, the !vote count is actually 13-5 as my nomination is an implied support. 72% support almost always represents consensus; there would have to be a wide gap in the strength of arguments to override that level of support.--ThaddeusB (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support absolutely nobody in the US cares about stuff like Formula 1, WRC, The Boat Race. The only sport event that Americans care about are the World Cup, Olympics and the Euro Championship. However, the former get posted even though a giant chunk of wiki readers don't care. I would rather have another sport event posted with 10+ live viewers than post another 20-something death terrorist bombing. Nergaal (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is a huge institution with multi-billion dollar broadcasting rights, and coverage in Time Magazine, the International Business Times, and The Wall Street Journal, the highest overnight viewership rating in 18 years and a record 3.4 million live-streaming viewers. μηδείς (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Three quarters of the comments have been supportive, and many of them make an argument or offer evidence of large scale significance. The balance of the arguments at this time favors posting. The article itself is substantial and appears to be of reasonable quality. I didn't do anything with the player award or the picture, as that was only recently added to the nomination and hasn't been discussed much. In particular, the player photo is not of great quality (looking away from the camera with a shadow running across his face.) Dragons flight (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose – Clear attempt at framing Wikipedia as an encylopaedia written from the hyper-masculine gaze. There is no justification for the inclusion of insignificant people running about in a room on the front page of the encylopaedia, especially given the very significant world events that are presently occurring and not listed. No lasting impact. RGloucester — ☎17:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I praise you for your consistency, but that is a completely unrealistic expectation. There are other users here besides yourself all with their own visions. Systemic bias does not mean American items or even just sports items should be excluded from ITN. What you seem to want is a much larger battle than this one issue. 331dot (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More systemic bias. You seem to have spoken as if money has something to do with encyclopaedic significance. No sport should be appearing here. RGloucester — ☎19:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Money does have something to do with significance. It represent the economic and even cultural impacts of the sport. It's not called 'March Madness' for nothing. I understand that your view(no sports here) is sincerely held but the chance that you will gain consensus for that seems remote. 331dot (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "hyper-masculine gaze"? RGIII, are you implying basketball fans are on the down-low? And how much did you spend to acquire "hyper-masculine gaze"? In the US, it costs at least four years and a couple hundred-thousand dollars. μηδείς (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I shan't have consensus, I'm aware. I'm also aware that this is pure old boy's club systemic bias. Boat races, cricket matches, basketted balls, &c. No significance, and merely meant to promote the dominant societal gaze, which privileges such fripperies as worth more WP:WEIGHT than war and famine in wherever. RGloucester — ☎19:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So what is insignificant to you must of course be insignificant to everyone else? People also want to read about things other than death, disaster, destruction, and war now and then. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You speak as if there were such a thing as the individual. I disagree. There is one human consciousness, one meaning. The insignificance of these trifles is clear. People may well want to read about such events, but they should do so in the appropriate venue, preferably in a shadowy back-alley where no one else is required to view their seditious activities. This is an encylopaedia. We must be upright and proper. RGloucester — ☎19:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And we're in an old boy's club? Your philosophical beliefs are just that, your own, and not shared by everyone else- and the fact that you hold them doesn't give you any more weight than any other person here. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They are not "my own", as I have no property. We are all proper to God and to each-other. Everything we are and ever will be is by default shared amongst the collective humanity. When I write "you", I mean it in the plural sense. I hail humanity. There is no "you" in the singular. Regardless, this is a digression. The matter of significance is clear. Oppose inclusion. RGloucester — ☎19:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong pull. This is an amateur university-level national only sporting contest. I perfectly understand the reasoning behind those who support posting this, but find their arguments to be entirely unconvincing. ITN rightly restricts itself to posting the most significant top-level sporting events, international ones when available (in few sports such as ice hockey a national event is in fact the most prestigious, so are exceptions). We already post the USA's national championship - the NBA - and I see no good reason to also post a much less significant sideshow. None of the NCAA events are anywhere near significant enough to warrant spaaaaaace on ITN. Merely being popular does not merit posting - or we would have continual stories about pop stars and celebrity gossip. PS. I have consistently opposed posting the Boat Race too, as that is a similarly-insignificant amateur university event. Modest Geniustalk21:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the assertion that "ITN rightly restricts itself to posting the most significant top-level sporting events..." In short, while this tournament is disqualified by guideline from being in ITN/R, that by no means indicates that it cannot be posted. We can post any blurb that is notable with a quality article, as judged by consensus. While there are guidelines on what can be considered ITN/R (always notable), anything is fair game to post at ITN/C provided that consensus to post is reached. Mamyles (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So your opinion overrides consensus? That appears to be what you are saying by demanding this be pulled, since you haven't cited any defeciencies in the article or consensus - a "pull" is not a late oppose, but rather a claim a mistake was made in the reading of consensus... The discussion was well over & was even collapsed for more than 24 hours. Trying to reopen it with "strong pull" demands is a waste of time and borderline disruption. Move on to something productive please. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion counts as my opinion - I never claimed that it 'overrides consensus'. I apologise for not having logged on (so was unable to comment) during that earlier discussion, but nevertheless I wished to register my strong opposition to posting this item. I recognise that others have different opinions, and don't expect a single comment from me to result in changing the status quo. I will respect consensus, but do feel that there is any harm or disruption in contributing my opinion towards it. Modest Geniustalk13:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox.jpg)
