*'''Oppose''' per Dragons flight. The partisanship here is apparent, similar to the Benghazi hearings.--[[User:WaltCip|WaltCip]] ([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]]) 01:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Dragons flight. The partisanship here is apparent, similar to the Benghazi hearings.--[[User:WaltCip|WaltCip]] ([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]]) 01:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', any substantive content within the report has been known about for years, it carries no legal weight, and was released now only because the Republicans wouldn't release it next year when they are the Senate majority. <font face="Cambria">[[User:Abductive|<font color="teal">'''Abductive'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Abductive|reasoning]])</font> 02:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', any substantive content within the report has been known about for years, it carries no legal weight, and was released now only because the Republicans wouldn't release it next year when they are the Senate majority. <font face="Cambria">[[User:Abductive|<font color="teal">'''Abductive'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Abductive|reasoning]])</font> 02:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Abductive, DF, and others. Not "new"s, no criminal indictment, a political report against a prior opposition party administration, no deaths, (how many people died attempting to save [[Luke Somers]], and was that posted?) How many failed rescue missions against ISIS have we posted from this year? And the fact that Klaid Shiekh Muhammad, who personally [[behead]]ed [[Daniel Pearl]], was rectally hydrated ''should'' be posted as news? No. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 02:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually - a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
The Kurdish region’s military forces, the Peshmerga Ministry, states that over 700 IraqiKurds have died fighting ISIL forces since June. (AFP via Daily Star)
Arts and culture
Russian billionaire businessman Alisher Usmanov who bought the 1962 Nobel gold medal of scientist James Watson says that he is donating it back to Watson as a gift because the "discovery of DNA structure must belong to him". (BBC)
Nature publishes research by the University of Toronto announcing the discovery of a new class of stem cells called F-class stem cells that have the potential to be better and safer to use in medical research. (CBC)
Three Turkish Army soldiers die by gunfire in the town of Ceylanpinar. The local Turkish governor begins an investigation of whether the gunfire came from the Syrian side of the border. (BBC)
The US Supreme Court rules 9–0 (Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk) in favor of Amazon.com Inc. that employees are not entitled to be paid for the time they spend undergoing security checks after their shifts. (Reuters)
Nominator's comments: Lead story on BBC, the New York Times and CNN. An obviously controversial issue is whether we should say "torture" or "interrogation" in the blurb. For this reason, I have proposed two blurbs. --Everymorningtalk 23:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although it looks to me like the article is not quite there (e.g. use of lists, no infobox). Don't really need to say "of the United States", and surely it's "interrogation techniques" rather than "tactics". Formerip (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're probably right. I have changed it. Everymorningtalk 00:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per FormerIP (and I agree with their suggestions too). Technically though the report hasn't been released, only the executive summary to it has. I don't think this materially affects the story or the blurb though. Thryduulf (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article title and the report itself both use the term "torture", so I think we should go with that. Neljack (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Oppose / Wait. This is a report written by Democrats (and criticized by most Republicans) from within one committee in the US Senate describing and criticizing interrogation practices (i.e. torture) that were used under former President Bush and that have already been forbidden by current President Obama. Unless the report leads to protests in the street or new violence (both of which some people predict are possible), then I'm not sure how significant this really is. Sensationalist, yes, but is knowing exactly how we tortured people really a major story? It is certainly no surprise that the current Democrats oppose torture. If there are broader consequences / events arising from the publication of this report then I would support it, but I'm rather dubious about posting the report by itself. Dragons flight (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be exact on the partisanship authorship angle, the final report was approved by 7 Democrats, 1 Independent who caucuses with Democrats (Angus King), and 1 moderate Republican (Susan Collins). It was opposed by the remaining six members of the committee, all Republicans. The dissenting Republicans on the committee concurrently released a separate 167 page document criticizing the majority's process and conclusions. Most of the Republicans in Congress who have spoken after the release have been highly critical of it as well (excluding John McCain who is notable as a Republican supporter). In part, the report is being released now because once the newly elected Republicans take control of the Senate in January, they would almost certainly have killed it. Dragons flight (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it's leading news internationally doesn't make it significant? Thryduulf (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a significant news story in the basic sense that the news is definitely covering it, but it is still true that only a minority of news stories end up on ITN. Personally, I tend to look for a degree of encyclopedic relevance and long-term significance. This particular news story has a strongly partisan and sensationalist undercurrent to it that tends to undermine its significance in my opinion, especially in the absence of any apparent consequences to the report itself (e.g. new legislation, protests, prosecutions, etc.). Dragons flight (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dragons flight. The partisanship here is apparent, similar to the Benghazi hearings.--WaltCip (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, any substantive content within the report has been known about for years, it carries no legal weight, and was released now only because the Republicans wouldn't release it next year when they are the Senate majority. Abductive (reasoning) 02:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Abductive, DF, and others. Not "new"s, no criminal indictment, a political report against a prior opposition party administration, no deaths, (how many people died attempting to save Luke Somers, and was that posted?) How many failed rescue missions against ISIS have we posted from this year? And the fact that Klaid Shiekh Muhammad, who personally beheadedDaniel Pearl, was rectally hydrated should be posted as news? No. μηδείς (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two raging fires in Los Angeles destroy a massive residential complex under construction, heavily damage a building undergoing renovations, and snarl rush hour traffic. (The Hollywood Reporter)
United States President Barack Obama unveils new limits on racial profiling. These new limits outlaw profiling based on race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexual orientation. (NPR)
Nominator's comments: This news is a little old, and the effects appear to be trivial compared to last year's typhoon, but recovery efforts are ongoing and the current impact is notable enough for ITN, especially considering how slow it has been lately. ----Bongwarrior (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Known as "The father of video games", given a National medal for his work. RD only, as death by age (92) --MASEM (t) 21:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, notable as the "The father of video games". --AmaryllisGardenertalk 21:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support- clearly very important to the field, as he had a big hand in creating it. 331dot (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as written--there's no actual reference to him as the father of video games, the creator of pong, or such, just mention of the controversy. Give me some referenced support and I'll vote otherwise. μηδείς (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First line and the source has it. It's pretty much in every source that I've added. (He didn't create pong, however.) --MASEM (t) 23:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Baer is widely considered to be the father of video games and was the recipient of the National Medal of Technology and Innovation, meaning he was recognized by the United States government for making groundbreaking contributions to technology. Condition 2, being considered an important figure in one's field, has been meet. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nationally recognized as an innovator, decorated and lauded as the forefather of an entire industry and beyond. Once the article's in the proper shape, this is an easy support. Challenger l (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support meets RD2 by a mile and then some. Article looks to be in decent shape now so marking ready. Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --Jayron32 12:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Withdrawn] United States Senate election in Louisiana, 2014
Withdrawn. --George Ho (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
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.
@HiLo48: While you are correct about your general point- I don't think this sort of comment is terribly helpful at getting people to see that. Even with systemic bias here it is still a good faith nomination- even if one that should not be posted. There are better ways to make that point. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bullshit. Nothing else works. Might as well try this. HiLo48 (talk) 11:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar- or at least an explanation rather than sarcastic condemnation. People don't always know what one wants them to know. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both ITN/R and for the same reason we always post unexpected minority take-overs of a nation's upper house. μηδείς (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say in ITNR that we post a result from a single state? And there's nothing in the blurb about this vote being an "unexpected minority take-over of a nation's upper house". HiLo48 (talk) 04:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an "unexpected minority takeover"; the GOP had already taken over, this was icing on the cake. I don't see that criteria written down anywhere, either. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While the mid-term election that switched the GOP to a position of power in the US Congress was important and thus ITN, this single re-election for one Congress seat is nowhere close to that. --MASEM (t) 04:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this election did not change the existing control of the Senate, just gives them a bit more distance. --MASEM (t) 04:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Control did not hinge on this election. We would not post any other election for a single legislative seat. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A runoff (or special election) for a single Senate seat isn't important enough for ITN except in very unusual circumstances (e.g. if control of the Senate hangs in the balance). Nothing particularly special in this case. Dragons flight (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - absolutely no international significance, recommend snowball closure. --W.D.Graham 13:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Per previous comments. Sca (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, no international significance as said above. --AmaryllisGardenertalk 15:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Notable, a high-prifile event in the War on Terror Olegwiki (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support unsure if this should be RD or blurb, but it's an act of war, and hence deserves publication of some sort. μηδείς (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose RD neutral about blurb currently. RD is for people who were at the top of their field where the death is not newsworthy beyond that it happened. This is definitely not the case here where their death is the story. Thryduulf (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose RD per Thryduulf. Also neutral on blurb. Jusdafax 01:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted the ones who created this article; I suggested merger because 2014 rescue mission in Yemen looks smaller and should merge with this article. --George Ho (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose RD. Weak support for a blurb as a notable act of war. 331dot (talk) 09:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both. Too many times do botched rescue attempts result in the death of the intended rescuees. Tragic, but not particularly noteworthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I am missing something, this was not nominated (maybe it was changed) as RD. In any case, 13 people died in the raid, not two. μηδείς (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both also. We should donate money to Wikipedia to help the website improve rather than allow advertisements and turn it into a news-spinner. I'm going to close my above nomination as withdrawn soon. --George Ho (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this template incomplete? Who are the nominators and updaters? Is this updated? μηδείς (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A judge in the Netherlands declares Dutch clothing company Mexxbankrupt. The bankruptcy ruling affects over 300 stores worldwide, including 95 locations in Canada. (CBC News)
Disasters and accidents
Italian rescue crews discover 17 bodies in the hull of a migrant ship off Libya. (FOX News)
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: One of the 8 ever Queen of the Belgians and held the position for over 30 years. Also notable in her own right for her charity work, especially working in the field of children's health. Since her retirement, she's also been subject to death threats (2009) and tax evasion scandals. Still very recent story. --—Brigade Piron (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support there'd be no question of posting Prince Philip were he to pass. μηδείς (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on article quality only. This absolutely should get posted; if someone can fix the referencing issues. Most of the text of the article is unreferenced; what is referenced is shaking on WP:RS issues; for example there's things like random photos with no context, a blogspot post, etc. It'd really be a shame to miss putting this up on RD, but someone with access to sources should fix it up... --Jayron32 21:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All good now. Fully support. Thanks to @AmaryllisGardener: and anyone else that helped. --Jayron32 14:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on major article quality issues only; support for RD once fixed. Several unsourced quotes, per Jayron's statement above, are clear problematic signs. --MASEM (t) 22:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above that we're good enough for now - there's still a few places I'd like to see sourcing but nothing to stop posting as RD. --MASEM (t) 19:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, any statement that would take me more than a simple google search to identify (such as medal and honors she's won, those would be easy to locate) should be sourced for a bio article; at minimum this should be a reference per paragraph, but need not be as stringent as one reference per sentence. The first paragraph of "Marriage" has bare quotes that absolutely need sourcing to affirm. --MASEM (t) 23:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source added for the quote, although the source article (which is most likely the only one available to verify the quote) at time.com requires a subscription. --AmaryllisGardenertalk 23:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Paywall sources are fine - we just need to make sure verifyability is met for something like that. --MASEM (t) 19:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The former queen of one of the few remaining monarchies is surely worthy of RD. -Zanhe (talk) 09:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Former queen is notable. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marking as Ready Mjroots (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - queens are notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: I nominated his 'investigation' announcement in July 29 and was told to wait until something more concrete happened. This is a huge story and currently on the front page of BBC and New York Times, as well as almost all Chinese-language news portals. Back in June we posted the expulsion from the party of military official Xu Caihou, who is of a lower rank than Zhou. Zhou's expulsion from the party, the most serious form of political condemnation in the world of Chinese politics, is the first of its kind since the Cultural Revolution. --Colipon+(Talk) 18:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For those not familiar with Chinese politics, could you clarify what "first of its kind" is referring to? I'm guessing it's not simply the first expulsion since 1976 given that it would contradict the previous sentence. Fuebaey (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should not take knowledge of these arcane subjects for granted. Zhou is the first member of the Politburo Standing Committee, China's top council of rulers, to have ever been charged with corruption; also the expulsion from the party is an extremely serious verdict in the world of elite Chinese politics - akin to the death sentence. It is first time that a PSC member has been expelled from the party since the Cultural Revolution. It is not a stretch to say this is the largest corruption scandal in the history of China under Communist rule. Colipon+(Talk) 03:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - he is a much bigger name than Xu Caihou. Indeed #1 story on BBC now. starship.paint~ regal 22:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The article appears to be in good condition. This regards a very powerful man who has fallen hard from a major position of importance in China, possibly analogous to the head of the FBI, though that appears inexact. I support posting the altblurb. Jusdafax 23:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - According to the NYT, he's the first member of the elite Politburo Standing Committee to be arrested for corruption. Prefer the altblurb, per Jusdafax. -Zanhe (talk) 09:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Article has been updated and looks good. JehochmanTalk 12:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: The article looks updated at first glance. According to it, the spacecraft will facilitate human exploration of the Moon, asteroids and Mars. --Brandmeistertalk 13:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be too technical, but the rocket Orion is being launched on is not new, nor is this a manned orbital flight, so I don't think this is ITNR. I do support posting this test flight, though.331dot (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't think this is terribly important news unless it blows up. Why we are still putting people on spacecraft? Robots can do more for less money. If anybody is listening, please take the few billion dollars to be wasted on these PR stunts and invest the money to in something that will benefit us more directly, like the Portal Bridge or I-84. (By "us" I actually mean "me", but let's not quibble.) Sorry for the editorializing... JehochmanTalk 14:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — AP says "for the first time in 42 years" NASA launches a spacecraft built to carry humans beyond Earth orbit, i.e. to Mars. Perhaps this makes it significant — but maybe we should wait 'til it splashes down, only 4 1/2 hours after launch, to see if all goes according to plan? Sca (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe wait until some humans actually take a flight? There will be a bunch of tests before anybody gets on board, and I think there's a high probability the program will be cut before any human ever flies. Putting a human on board a space ship greatly reduces performance and utility. JehochmanTalk 14:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AP: "NASA deliberately kept astronauts off this first Orion." Good to know; glad they weren't kept off inadvertently. Sca (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Weak oppose While a launch and considered successful (it's made waterfall as I write this), being unmanned and only a test flight isn't really that significant; it's comparable to the routine shipment launches to the ISS, for example. --MASEM (t) 16:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's more significant as it's a vehicle designed for humans, that has gone farther from the surface of the earth than any vehicle designed for humans in over forty-two years; that time we called it Apollo 17. I understand that it's hard to put the distinction down in facts and figures, but manned spaceflight (and the lead-up to manned spaceflight) is generally considered more noteworthy than routine supplies deliveries. Evan(talk|contribs) 16:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also fairly sure that we posted the first flight of every single one of the cargo craft that delivers supplies to the ISS (with the obvious exception of Progress which pre-dates Wikipedia) --W.D.Graham 19:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per my comment above. Evan(talk|contribs) 16:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Tho I've never been a big fan of the $$$pace program, I reluctantly agree with Evan that this appears to be the beginning of a new phase, potentially at least. Sca (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - If I understand correctly, it's a typical spacecraft, with a bigger capsule and a higher orbit than most. It doesn't seem that significant. While it's possible it might lead to humans landing on Mars, that's still sci-fi at the moment. -- Ypnypn (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only comparable spacecraft is Apollo; no manned craft capable of operating beyond low Earth orbit has flown, manned or unmanned, in the last 40 years. While the Mars plans are somewhat vague there are concrete plans for beyond-Earth-orbit missions with this type of spacecraft in coming years. --W.D.Graham 19:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As the first launch in NASA's plan of placing an asteroid in orbit around the moon and landing on Mars, this launch represents the start of a new era in space flight. RyanVesey 18:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per Ryan and Sca and Evanh, this is indeed a new era. A story of worldwide interest. This program is intended to move humans out of close earth orbit and into the further reaches of space. Jusdafax 18:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I support mostly because news has been slow with the oldest ITN now 11 days old, and this has a fairly interesting article attached to it. In general though, if we were busier I would be against posting a rocket test launch as the first real mission of a new design would seem to be the more important milestone. Dragons flight (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - first flight of a spacecraft designed to carry humans beyond Earth orbit for the first time since 1972. First manned flight is still years away so no harm in posting twice. I have removed the ITNR flag from this entry because it doesn't meet the ITNR requirements - though mostly because of an oversight on my part when I proposed the criteria - but this does not mean that it isn't significant. I do think the blurb should mention Exploration Flight Test 1 which is specifically about this mission, so I have proposed an alternative blurb. --W.D.Graham 19:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I was going to support this, but this isn't really some notable achievement. It seems more of a NASA PR event. The mission itself is not more notable than a regular ISS personnel transfer, so it those get posted this should to. Otherwise, NASA just tested the capsule, not the REALLY important part, the rocket. Nergaal (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought maiden flights were itnr, and I think most readers would come here if they wanted encyclopedic coverage, not to a tabloid. μηδείς (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ITNR says the "first or last launch of any type of rocket", not spacecraft. The rocket used here was not a new one, though eventually there will be a new rocket for this craft. 331dot (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, it seems to me that just about every space "first" gets posted. Why the launch of vehicle that is spanking new, and has been designed to get people back to the Moon, should not be posted I don't know. Abductive (reasoning) 07:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. There is no clear preference above for which blurb so I've used the altblurb which I personally slightly prefer. Thryduulf (talk) 08:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Islamic insurgents kill three state police at a traffic circle before taking an empty school and a "press house" in Grozny. Ten state forces die with 28 injured in gun battles ending with ten insurgents killed. (RT)
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: MP for 20 years, Leader of the Liberal Pary for 9 years, involved in a famous scandal. --The Theosophist (talk) 12:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on article quality grounds. Would support for RD, but the article is almost entirely unreferenced. Clearly a recognizable figure, so would get posted on notability grounds, but the article really needs some work before we could put it on the main page. --Jayron32 14:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the merits but oppose on quality, per Jayron. Seems to be notable in UK politics but article needs references. 331dot (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Famous Scandal? can we have a link to this from outside Leftbritain? I might support it, but haven't seen anythingatall about this. μηδείς (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, do be aware I would not have known that from anything else in the nomination. Reading the guy had a dog shot by a hitman makes him sound more a criminal than a victim. μηδείς (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I thought that after clicking the article, it would be obvious. Sorry.-The Theosophist (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD subject to referencing. A major figure in British politics in the 60s and 70s, who led the Liberal Party to levels of popularity they had not had for about half a century and was famous for his acerbic wit. His career of course ended in a sensational murder trial, notwithstanding his acquittal. Neljack (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] 2014 Grozny clashes
Article:2014 Grozny clashes (talk·history·tag) Blurb: 20 people were killed and 28 injured in the aftermath of clashes between security forces and insurgents in the city of Grozny, Russia. (Post) Alternative blurb: Dozens of people are killed or injured in clashes between security forces and insurgents in Grozny, Russia. News source(s):BBCReuters Credits:
Nominator's comments: Bloodiest terrorist attack in Russia since 2013. --Catlemur (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Big story with international implications. Jusdafax 17:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support but we may want to wait until the death toll is more clear. Right now, the blurb says 16 and the article says 20. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Let's not let the wording of the blurb get in the way of a major flashpoint. If ITN serves a purpose, it should do so timely. See altblurb. μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose How is a clash at a protest suddenly the "bloodiest terrorist attack"? It's certainly not featuring on news outlets that I trust, and a question for Jusdafax, how does this have "international implications"? The confrontation between Russia and Chechnya has been ongoing for years. Finally, the article is not good enough for main page inclusion, by miles. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What protest?Please provide proof of a bloodier incident.I have to agree though, that the most respected news outlet has yet to report this event.Catlemur (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're calling Conservapedia the most respected news outlet? Are you joking? Everymorningtalk to me 19:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm sure it's not intentional, this is the funniest response to an oppose I have seen in nearly ten years at Wikipedia. Conservapedia? Brilliant! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Updated as of at least this edit the article is well updated, with major international sources, including the BBC, Washington Post, and Russian media. The article meets the three paragraph minimum for posting, and one presumes more news will arise. μηδείς (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article is a stub and is full of blustering reaction, but nothing substantive about the event itself. Inadequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even per the article, Putin says "I'm sure, the local law enforcement authorities will take proper care of them". This is of no consequence. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on the grounds that the article is assembled from quotes from media sources, (According to the Lazy Writer, "I cannot be bothered to paraphrase".) Abductive (reasoning) 20:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, you "don't believe the hype"... ? Good answer... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest, Abductive, that you look at the article now, and revise your estimate. The article is not a stub, has many reliable sources from around the world, and uses quotes in the reaction section, where they are appropriate. μηδείς (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is fixed now.--Catlemur (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Pull for both notability and article quality. While this is a larger than normal outburst of violence, it doesn't cross the line from a quantitative difference in the status quo to a qualitative one. This isn't Beslan redux. The article has NPOV problems that make it unfit for encyclopedia. It says that Putin's state of the union speech was "rambling", interprets the reactions of people that listened to the speech, and in fact, seems to spend a lot of time going over the state of the union speech instead of, you know, the actual event.128.214.53.18 (talk) 05:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited out the word "rambling" as unencyclopedic and a vio of WP:UNDUE and agree that the 'Reactions' section needs additional editing. Jusdafax 09:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both Time and the Washington (Nixonslayer) Post commented on Putin's "rambling" but it's not essential for this article. What other editting do you suggest on the reaction section? It has quotes from involved parties found in reliable sources. μηδείς (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The edit by an IP, right after mine, improved the article to my satisfaction, though like many articles it could stand further work. New articles are seldom perfect. I'm not sure the material about the "light applause" is needed. That's merely an alleged reaction to a reaction, and of dubious value as I see it. Jusdafax 23:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Late comment It's been days since this was posted, so I took a look at the article after all the work. There are all of 8 sentences that deal with the actual event, most of which are repetitive. The lede appears again in the (questionably titled) "Timeline" section, almost word-for-word. There are apparent non-sequiturs: the line about people carrying Putin's picture in a parade some years ago; and the still-present commentary on the State of the Union speech. Additionally, this is a minor spurt of violence in a part of the world where this is common. By my reading, the article is in poor shape and covers a trivial event, so I guess I'm still confused how this got approved and so quickly.128.214.53.18 (talk) 06:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Italian police arrest a mix of mafia gangsters, corrupt politicians, and one former terrorist in a corruption scandal exploiting migrants and gipsies. (Telegraph)
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: Prominent member of the Faces and Small Faces. According to the Guardian, his "evocative playing became part of the fabric of rock’n’roll history"-this seems to meet the second RD criterion. --Everymorningtalk to me 13:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about this one. He was a member of a band that is in the RandR hall of fame, though I'm not clear on how influential he was. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD: Recognizable and significant member of a top-of-their-field musical group (Small Faces/Faces). --Jayron32 17:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sad that he died, but I don't see him as main-page newsworthy. --George Ho (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless I misread the Faces discology, his involvement with notable songs was as part of the ensemble for "Stay with Me" and "I'm Losing You". Let me know if I have missed anything. μηδείς (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha, very funny (and not true, as I was busy listening to Elvis, Sinatra, Cash and Cline back then). Can you point out bigger hits than the one's I've mentioned where he's given credit? I'm willing to change my mind, but the research doesn't tend to make me want to do so. μηδείς (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
[reply]
"I feel inclined to blow my mind, Get hung up feed the ducks with a bun." Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's from Itchycoo Park. The BBC adds that McLagan played on "Cindy Incidentally" as well, [5] which according to our article on the song was on the UK charts for 9 weeks. Everymorningtalk to me 23:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nowhere near the top of his field. Wood and Stewart would meet the criteria, but McLagan doesn't have the profile of a guy like Ray Manzarek. Teemu08 (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Just not sufficiently notable I'm afraid. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a tough call. How do you measure the influence of a talented sideman? He worked alongside some of the most well-known people in music, some of whom were notoriously discerning (the Stones, Dylan) about who they would work with. Challenger l (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] Death of Eric Garner
No consensus to post. Stephen 22:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: I realize this is nowhere near as significant as Michael Brown. However, it is still getting a lot of news coverage, [6] and has sparked protests across the country. [7] --Everymorningtalk to me 02:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Does not reach the significance of the Michael Brown case, and even the nomination of that story on ITN was rather controversial.--WaltCip (talk) 04:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support given the murder of the black-market cigarette vendor was done against NYPD regulations by an illegal choke hold, not the shooting of a charging theft suspect. μηδείς (talk) 04:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Can we please not play this game again? We're already stuck with one parochical matter in the ITN box. Now you'd like to add another even more parochial matter into the ITN box? Absurd. Little parochial stranglings, however distasteful, disdainful, or inciting, do not belong at ITN. We need to be selective. We are not a news ticker. What's more, merely because such a story happens in America does not mean that we post it. Think about what has encyclopaedic value, not about yellowness. RGloucester — ☎ 04:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per RGloucester. Hard to believe this was nominated seriously, really. Do we report every grand jury outcome in the United States now? GoldenRing (talk) 05:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it so hard to believe someone made a good faith nomination about an item they saw getting a lot of news coverage? 331dot (talk) 10:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith or not, this nomination is simply wrong. RGloucester — ☎ 15:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is it "wrong" to nominate something getting news coverage for "In the News"? This comment isn't constructive. People should be encouraged to make any good-faith nominations they see fit to make. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is we can extend good faith so far, but extending it to every decision of every court in the US which results in a few disgruntled people is simply not required. When nominating, people should demonstrate that the are aware of what is required. This is a snow close and, like the Ferguson "riots", which have come to absolutely nothing whatsoever, we should remind ourselves that this is an encyclopedia and not a news ticker for American racial tension issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, a sad result to the case, but in the end it's about the notability of the event, and this isn't covered enough for ITN. I'd like to remind μηδείς that the suitability for ITN this has is not about your personal opinions. --AmaryllisGardenertalk 05:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per RGloucester, how many of these items of nominal interest are we going to have to suffer? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; no violent riots, no National Guard. As protest subject matter this will also likely be added on to the already existing Brown protests. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There could be federal charges, so simply the lack of indictment isn't newsworthy since it is not a "final" judicial decision. Wait and see if there are noteworthy protests worth posting. SpencerT♦C 10:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It could be merged with the Michael Brown blurb. These two incidents are overlapping. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, a merger would be entirely inappropriate. According to witnesses Brown had already attacked and was charging the officer who shot him. The New York incident involves a non-fleeing man choked to death against police regulations for selling loose cigarettes on a street corner, not robbing a bodega. In the first incident the policeman was cleared. In the second incident it looks like the killer, who has been suspended, will be fired, sued, and brought up on federal charges. μηδείς (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Per above objections. This is getting ridiculous.-RHM22 (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Closed] Snap election in Sweden (2015)
Consensus is to wait for results. SpencerT♦C 22:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: First time that fresh elections are announced since 1958. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until the results of the election are in. We don't generally post upcoming elections, whether scheduled or called. It's a mildly interesting constitutional development in Sweden, but I think we can be safe waiting for the results on this one. --Jayron32 17:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with you partly. But this is an extraordinary situation in Sweden. It is something no one expected.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
? Is "fresh" election the proper term here? I have heard of early elections being called after votes of no confidence. μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, snap is the term. And the formal snap election announcement is slated for 29 December, so this is a premature nomination on two counts. Stephen 21:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we post it now or then is insignificant and a formality. But if users find it that important to follow formalitys we can wait.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for the election itself, when the results will be posted per ITNR. I get that this sort of thing hasn't happened often in Sweden, but it is not unusual in countries with parliamentary systems. 331dot (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support with 'snap election' or 'extra election' in the blurb. This will apparently be the first such election in Sweden since the 1950s, and it's in the news today because it's been precipitated by the failure of the minority government to gets its budget approved. That's what the news is. The formalities aren't news. The news is 'Löfven can't keep governing, calls an election', and that happened today. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless this leads to a change in government and PM, otherwise support. μηδείς (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, post results. As per ITN/R, only results are to be posted. Waiting until March is no problem. Abductive (reasoning) 01:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting until March is a HUGE problem if the word "snap" is literal. I am not sure if this should just be closed now, or if we should hash out a proper translation for something that means immediate, but long, long form now. μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't "literal". It is the established phrase in English for such elections in parliamentary systems. Please see snap election. RGloucester — ☎ 01:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That edit soummary is so humourous it's almoust founny; like a snap freeze that takes four mounths tou happen! Lets see what happens next Mourch. μηδείς (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wording As opposed to...are there "stale" elections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.22.148 (talk) 02:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on notability but I've proposed an altblurb that better captures what is unusual about this election. GoldenRing (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait at least until the Dec. 29 formal dissolution, if not the election itself. Wikipedia is not Aftonbladet.128.214.53.18 (talk) 07:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Per others. Certainly, neither blurb makes it obvious why the dissolution is unusual. As noted above, this is routine in most Parliamentary systems. Resolute 16:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per AlexTiefling. By 29 December, election campaigns will already be in full swing and this piece of news will only serve to confuse. So either post now or not at all, IMO. Yakikaki (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but "announces his intention" is not news. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox_(cropped).jpg)
