Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:In the news  (Redirected from Wikipedia:ITN/C)
Jump to: navigation, search
For administrator instructions on updating Template:In the news, see Wikipedia:In the news/Admin instructions.

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion in Template:In the news (ITN), a protected Main Page template, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.

Svetlana Alexievich
Svetlana Alexievich

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC.
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process. Remember, we use UTC dates.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
    • Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable source. The suggested blurb should be written in simple present tense.
    • Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting. For recent deaths, please state why the person is notable enough to post - merely having a Wikipedia article is insufficient.
  • Please consider adding the blurb to Portal:Current events (the green box at the top of the date section) at the same time.
  • Please consider alerting editors to the nomination by adding the template {{ITN note}} to the corresponding article's talk page.

Purge this page to update the cache

There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template.


  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with [Posted] or [Pulled] in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as [Ready] when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked [Ready], you should remove the header.

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

  • Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a brief (or detailed!) rationale for your choice. Comments and other objections are welcome, but this is the basic form.
  • Some jargon: RD refers to "recent deaths", a subsection of the news box which lists only the names of the recent notable deceased. Blurb refers to the full sentences that occupy most of the news box. Most eligible deaths will be listed in the recent deaths section of the ITN template. However, some deaths may be given a full listing if there is sufficient consensus to do so.
  • The blurb of a promoted ITN item may be modified to complement the existing items on the main page.

Please do not...[edit]

  • ... add simple "support" or "oppose" !votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  • ... complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.
  • ... accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due a to personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  • ... comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  • ... oppose an item because it is not on WP:ITN/R.


October 9[edit]

Nobel Peace Prize[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet

Blurb: Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet is awarded the 2015 Nobel Peace Prize.
News source(s): [1]
Nominator: Csisc (give credit)

Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.

Note: Just announced, might as well nominate this also. Will add source as soon as it hits the net. Done.

Nominator's comments: This is usually the most talked about Nobel Prize and she has been a candidate for a long time. Csisc (talk) 09:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment The article would benefit from some expansion, currently looks stubbish. Brandmeistertalk 10:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Stubbish is putting it kindly. Unpostable in its current state but no doubt it will improve. BencherliteTalk 10:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
      • The alternative would be to bold-link the prize article instead, if the current subject remains too piddly to highlight. GRAPPLE X 10:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

October 8[edit]

[Posted] RD: Paul Prudhomme[edit]

Article: Paul Prudhomme
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NPR
Nominator: Muboshgu (give credit)

Nominator's comments: Celebrity chef, "the internationally renowned Louisiana chef who popularized Cajun and Creole cuisine around the world". And yes, he's in the Culinary Hall of Fame. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak Support I am not really sure what the criteria is on which to judge a cook. But I am noting a lot of front page coverage of his passing and he did get into the Culinary Hall of Fame (standards?). The article looks to be in decent shape and adequately referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Details from USA Today are convincing enough for me that Prudhomme warrants inclusion. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I too was on the fence before I saw all the coverage his passing received. Article appears to be in pretty good shape. Calidum 04:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Article does a decent job of explaining his career and importance. SpencerT♦C 05:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Blatter suspended[edit]

Consensus is opposed to posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2015 (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.

Updated article: Sepp Blatter
Blurb: The adjudicatory chamber of FIFA Ethics Committee suspends Sepp Blatter as the FIFA President for 90 days, the interim President becomes Issa Hayatou.
News source(s): CNN, BBC
Nominator: Brandmeister (give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Looks like this development in FIFA case is significant. Brandmeistertalk 13:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, minor facet of a rather minor story though one with "fans". LjL (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Just another chapter in a long-winded legal battle.--WaltCip (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now; if he's fired/resigns, might be worth chucking up on the MP. Otherwise this is just part of the god awful mess that is FIFA. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat)
  • Oppose; if he is fired or is arrested, it would be notable, but this isn't. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Blatter is the president of FIFA, which is in turn one of the biggest sporting bodies in the world. Being suspended like this is a big deal. I would however consider linking to 2015 FIFA corruption case instead of to Blatter's page. Banedon (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's more interesting that Platini has been suspended. Blatter's just another step on the route to his eventual demise. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, we posted his "resignation" in June. Now anything less than his resignation/removal/conviction isn't getting on ITN. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • SNOW Oppose Not every step in this story is worth posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Nobel Prize in literature[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Svetlana Alexievich

Blurb: Svetlana Alexievich is awarded the 2015 Nobel Prize in Literature.
News source(s): SvD
Nominator: W.carter (give credit)

Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.

Note: Just announced, might as well nominate this also. Will add source as soon as it hits the net. Done.

Nominator's comments: This is usually the most talked about Nobel Prize and she has been a candidate for a long time. w.carter-Talk 11:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support notable. Period.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
    • It is ITN/R, so saying you support it as notable is pointless. Only comments discussing the specific blurb and article readiness are helpful. Thue (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
      • To be fair it was not labeled as ITNR when he made that comment. 331dot (talk) 12:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
        • It was not ITNR when I !voted. Period.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
          • Well, it is ITNR whether someone actually labels it or not. 331dot (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on improvements. One paragraph specifically about some of her works, sales, and reception lack sources but this should be easy to fix. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Paragraph about works sourced with pre-prize ref. When improving the article, please steer clear of recent sources, they all cite the WP. w.carter-Talk 14:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I know that para is still lacking sources discussing the themes of two of her books, but that itself should not be a problem if the Nobel prize writeup discusses those books to a degree. As both books appear to have originally been published in Russian, English sources are weak on it and we'll likely need some editors fluent in Russian to help otherwise find pre-Nobel source materials, which is why just to identify the themes of the books, post-Nobel sources can be used. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Refs for all the books added now. Plus a bit more. All done with pre-prize sources and in English. w.carter-Talk 15:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks all good to me now. And just a quick note: we don't require English-only sources, just that if we take from foreign language we should be reasonably sure of the translation, and if the claim is potentially contentious, should have an expert (eg not Google translate) help out. That's not the case here that I can see, but just a friendly reminder. --MASEM (t) 15:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Masem: I certainly know about the language/source policy, Face-smile.svg I could have provided a heap of sources in Swedish (this being a Swedish prize an all), I was just being polite.15:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Babba, re English-language sources, NYT looks to be the most complete (800 words). (Oddly enough, Ukrainian and Russian WP articles appear to be quite brief.) Sca (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
PS: This story now appears in the ITN sections of the following WPs — F, D, I, CZ, N, PL, RU, UA.
(I know some users find the practices of other WPs irrelevant. I don't.) Sca (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posting. Looks fine to me, the basics are there. Sure, there is always room for improvement. --Tone 16:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – The article says she's "a Belarusian ... prose writer," but from the Bibliography it appears she writes in Russian. Granted, the two are fairly closely related, but for clarity the blurb should either say she's a Belusian writer or a Russian-language writer from Belarus. (Also posted at Main Page errors).Sca (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Look at the blurbs for the other Nobel prizes on the Main Page, none of those have the nationality stated in the blurb, only the name is important, the rest is in the article(s). Keep blurbs as short as possible. w.carter-Talk 17:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Move to ongoing: Hurricane or storm complex?[edit]

Right now, combo blurb of "Hurricane Joaquin" and "October 2015 North American storm complex" are at the bottom of the window. The hurricane has been reported within last 24 hours. So is the storm complex. Move either one or both to ongoing ticker? --George Ho (talk) 10:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Joaquin has transitioned into an extratropical cyclone and its effects are diminishing; however, flooding from the storm complex remains a major issue in South Carolina. If anything, only the storm complex warrants being moved to ongoing but even then, the floods should subside within a few days and South Carolina will be in full recovery mode. Activity on the page is disappointingly limited as well. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 11:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Focusing only on the weather front, while it will still be a story for days because of the impact of the flooding; with similar natural disasters we don't keep those in ongoing, so I don't think we need to here. Unless we're talking something very long term (like the current haze), we shouldn't keep such in ongoing. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

October 7[edit]

[Closed] RD: Harry Gallatin[edit]

Consensus against posting ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:27, 9 October 2015 (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.

Article: Harry Gallatin
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The New York Times ABC News
Nominator: Kudzu1 (give credit)

Nominator's comments: Hall of Fame basketball player. Article is in good shape. Kudzu1 (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It seems like his career achievements are very unconvincing. He has never won the NBA Championship either as player or coach and hasn't ever been part of any national team of the United States that won a gold medal at the Olympics. The largest achievements of his career are apparently some trivial records of playing in the All-Star Game or having been selected as member of the All-NBA First Team or NBA Coach of the Year. As for his induction to the Basketball Hall of Fame, the article indicates that there are 345 persons who have become members since its inception, making it barely something extraordinary to achieve and thereby definitely not a decisive criterion for inclusion. Also, the news of his death doesn't seem to receive much attention even in the media in North America.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I have to agree that being in the HoF of any sport doesn't add too much weight if other major achievements like Championships, outstanding career numbers, overwhelming individual records, etc are lacking. Rhodesisland (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't believe he meets the RD criteria. While an above average player, I don't think he was "very important" to his field. As noted, Halls of Fame are not automatic tickets to RD; other things are needed. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I generally think a Hall of Fame induction should mean RD 99% of the time, since that's the ultimate determination of importance by the field itself. The Naismith Hall of Fame, in this case, not the SIU Edwardsville Athletic Hall of Fame. Then again, his accomplishments don't seem that big, his impact on the game seems negligable (as opposed to Moses Malone), and the AP story from his election in 1991, which I looked for to see what significance they attribute to him, gives him the last paragraph, and a weak one. Plus, I'm a Knicks fan and I've never heard of him until now. Sadly have to oppose. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose classic attempt via a "hall of fame" claim, but upon light analysis, an above-average basketball player. Of which there are thousands. Not making the grade for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

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.

RD: Elena Lucena[edit]

Article: Elena Lucena
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): La Nacion Telam
Nominator: Kudzu1 (give credit)

Nominator's comments: Award-winning Argentine actress. Article is developed and thoroughly referenced. Kudzu1 (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Remove 2015 Southeast Asian haze from ongoing?[edit]

Since we have 3 rather long items in ongoing at the moment, I wonder if we should keep this one. Looking at the article, the situation is better than it used to be 2 weeks ago, though still far from idea. Any comments from locals? --Tone 18:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support removal it's not really newsworthy right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal I don't think "the situation is better". It continues to be on the news. For example, just news from the past 24 hours: Al Jazeera BBC Bloomberg The Guardian Jakarta Globe Bangkok Post The Straits Times HaEr48 (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal per HaEr48. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It was still going strong a few days ago, with coverage in BBC, SMH and ABC News - including 7,000 school closures, the cancellation of the Kuala Lumpur Marathon and half the events at the 2015 FINA Swimming World Cup meet. The haze now seems to be spreading north, to southern Thailand and Vietnam. Fuebaey (talk) 01:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Ambivalent It may still be in the news, and it may still be hazy, but there really isn't that much "news". One can almost guess what the headlines will be tomorrow: some combination of Malaysia and Singapore complaining about the forest fires, Indonesia saying certain things that don't actually mean anything since the forest fires are still happening, countries discussing whether they should offer aid to fight the fires, and so on. The haze may be omnipresent for the (millions of) people affected, but for the international community I don't see much potential for interesting new developments. The news stories can almost write themselves. Keep the entry for now, but first candidate to replace should a better ongoing event happen. Banedon (talk) 05:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Nobel Prize for Chemistry[edit]

Articles to update: Tomas Lindahl and Paul Modrich
Blurb: Tomas Lindahl, Paul Modrich and Aziz Sancar are awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their work in the field of DNA repair.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: WaltCip (give credit)

Both articles need updating

Nominator's comments: Articles of people in question badly need improving to bring this up to par. WaltCip (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment Here we go again... atl blurb provided per this diff. w.carter-Talk 11:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
    • My bad. I went ahead and swapped out the blurb I have with the one agreed upon by consensus.--WaltCip (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ITNR. Articles are a bit on the short side, but well referenced. -Zanhe (talk) 06:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ITNR. Well sourced and overall ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support with same caveat as the previous days - they are on the short side but the Nobel prize will likely draw attention to them. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Why hasn't this been posted yet, but the more recent Literature prize has been updated ? (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Articles are well referenced. --Logom (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 08:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Move "Russian intervention on Syria" to ongoing?[edit]

Right now "Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War" is at the bottom(currently) pushed out of the ITN window. There have been updates. MoveReinsert it to "ongoing" ticker? --George Ho (talk) 10:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support as it's clearly an ongoing event with series of news published on a daily basis.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Russian warships just launched rockets into Syria. This is serious.--WaltCip (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support A solid candidate for ongoing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Makes sense as stated above. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Question Why is it "Russian intervention in Syria" that is ongoing instead of Syrian Civil War? The Russian intervention is but the latest twist in this ongoing event. Banedon (talk) 05:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

October 6[edit]

HKU pro-vice-chancellor selection controversy[edit]

Article: HKU pro-vice-chancellor selection controversy
Blurb: Students and staff of the University of Hong Kong protest government interference in academic affairs
Alternative blurb: Students and staff of the University of Hong Kong protest political interference in academic affairs
News source(s): Time, The Australian, Reuters, Christian Science Monitor, The New York Times, Voice of America, BBC, The Guardian, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, Forbes
Nominator and updater: Citobun (give credit)

Nominator's comments: The event is a significant development toward the curtailing of academic freedoms in Hong Kong, contradictory to the autonomy and freedoms afforded to the territory under one country, two systems and the Hong Kong Basic Law. Protests are ongoing; there was a protest on Tuesday and another planned for Friday night that is likely to be more significant. Citobun (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose Signing it with "alleged" did it for me (hint: not neutral). The original event is stale - his appointment was rejected at the end of September - and looks like your standard political manoeuvring. I wouldn't consider the reaction, i.e. the small-scale walkouts (1-2,000; HKU has over 30,000 students and faculty members), to be significant enough for ITN. No prejudice against renomination if this does end up like last year's protests. Fuebaey (talk) 02:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I used the word "alleged" because I figured that was the most NPOV way to put it. But I and others have included a multitude of reliable international sources that conclude that this whole affair represents government meddling in academic freedom. Numerous leading international scholars have also affirmed this (as outlined in the article). The news isn't stale, the protests are ongoing. I don't oppose an alt blurb, but there is no problem with WP:ALLEGED here – the allegations are widespread, come from countless reliable international sources, and the article is very well-cited in this regard.
"Standard political manoeuvring" – HKU is one of the world's top-ranked universities. How is this "standard"? It is certainly unprecedented in Hong Kong. Can you name a similar case to this at another well-regarded school in the developed world?
You consider the size of the protests a criterion for whether or not this is notable enough for ITN – but also consider the news stale because the vote itself happened a week ago. This is kind of a catch-22 because the protests are ongoing. This remains huge news locally and has received continuing widespread international coverage - the Time Magazine piece was only published yesterday. The Wall Street Journal piece was published mere hours ago. Citobun (talk) 02:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Political nominations tend to get a hard time here at ITN. From an uninformed perspective: the blurb mentions protests, the news sources detail someone failing to gain an administrative post and the nom comment goes on about politics. We don't judge significance solely on how many column inches a story takes up, else we'd be seeing quite a bit of gossip/sport/trivia on ITN. The only thing we can look at here is the impact of the original event (rejection), of which there appears to be little (speculation and walkouts). Like I said earlier, if those protests grow and start being widely disruptive - think of the Arab Spring, we didn't cover the catalyst but we did the aftermath - I'd reconsider my !vote. Fuebaey (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The significance of this news is that it represents a significant milestone in Beijing's accelerating curtailment of freedoms in Hong Kong, contrary to the autonomy afforded to the territory under the agreement between the Chinese and the British prior to the handover of sovereignty in 1997. The protests are just the "hook" and not really the meaningful impact of this event. The impact is continuously deteriorating freedom in Hong Kong – a trend that is unique and significant among the world's top developed economies and thus has international implications. Authoritarian interference in democratic development (the spark that ignited the 2014 Hong Kong protests) and in local media has been well-established, but academic freedom has been hitherto mostly untouched – until this watershed event.
I believe that the other oppose votes (not yours) are being disingenuous in dismissing this event as some kind of minor school dispute, possibly for political reasons. Important news relating to Hong Kong's decline, which may reflect badly on China, tends to be voted down here by the same users with intense interest in China while other users from places like the U.S. avoid chiming for fear of not being informed enough. The net effect is that important news relating to Hong Kong's decline is censored from ITN – the exact same thing happened with the ITN nomination for the voting down of the Hong Kong government's electoral reform package and the same users were involved.
The Sino-British Joint Declaration that ultimately was meant to (in part) ensure academic freedom in Hong Kong was registered with the United Nations. Hong Kong is a leading economy due to the freedoms in the city that are not available in Mainland China. To reiterate: this has international impact as part of a greater curtailing of freedoms and it is totally absurd for certain users here to dismiss this as nothing more than a local university squabble. Citobun (talk) 04:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The machinery of the Government of China making an unprecedented and decisive move against arguably the last bastion of "two systems". An alt blurb would be good. zzz (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Note – I added an alt blurb. Edit: I have removed entirely the word "alleged" which an editor had a problem with. Many reliable sources, including a Wall Street Journal article published today, describe in very certain terms the rejection of Chan as "revenge against pro-democracy voices". Citobun (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Controversy about vice-chancellor of a university? Not ITN stuff. We don't even post anything about subnational heads of government. -Zanhe (talk) 06:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
This issue very obviously holds serious ramifications that extend beyond the university. I know we're not meant to throw around COI accusations here but I feel you are either being purposefully disingenuous because this reflects badly on the Chinese government – or didn't actually read the article! The issue has been covered by every reputable international news outlet in recent days – what does that tell you? To dismiss this as a minor flap at a local university is absurd and seriously misleading. Unfortunately, it seems that people simply glance over these nominations and won't consider a story with "oppose" votes even if the rationale for the votes is total nonsense. Citobun (talk) 06:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes. It's being very widely reported, not surprisingly. zzz (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
FIFA's suspension of Sepp Blatter has been much more widely reported, but the ITN nomination was summarily rejected. -Zanhe (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Even if the highest reputable university of the US would follow the same fate as the University of HK, I don't think that would have been newsworthy unless foreign involvement is part of it. Anyway, if not for the manipulations in the name of "one country, two systems", this would not have been nominated. As bad as Chinese politics is, emphasizing about the appointments of a vice-chancellor would be media's dirty doing. ITN already has overly emphasized less impactful stories posted recently, but many (including Kim Davis controversy and Umpqua Community College shooting) have become a collection of rejects this year. Let's add this to a collection of rejects then. George Ho (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose, and I have no connection of any kind with China, Hong Kong, or anyone else to whom the OP is accusing the opposers of being connected. Yes, I get that it marks political interference in educational affairs is controversial, but it still doesn't make it ITN-worthy unless something more comes of it (mass protests, an academic boycott, etc). As a direct analogy, when the British government directly overruled Parliament with the appointment of Les Ebdon to OFFA, we wouldn't have dreamed of putting it on ITN. I can see grounds for including this to counter the general systemic bias against Chinese stories featuring in ITN, but I really don't think this is strong enough to justify posting, since ITN is meant to highlight stories that are in the news, not that we think ought to be in the news, and outside the local news in Hong Kong this has made no impact at all as far as I can tell. ‑ iridescent 09:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

International Safe Harbor Privacy Principles[edit]

Article: International Safe Harbor Privacy Principles
Blurb: The European Court of Justice invalidates the Safe Harbor Principles that allow personal data to be sent from the EU to the US.
News source(s): New Scientist, The Guardian, USA Today
Nominator: Smurrayinchester (give credit)

Nominator's comments: Opens up American firms (most immediately, Facebook) to litigation for their role in US government surveillance, and more broadly, marks a big step for data protection and throws a spanner in the works of pretty much every large online company. More updates to the article would be nice, of course. Smurrayinchester 08:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose. From the Guardian source quoted above, Tech giants such as Facebook, Apple and Google have long planned for a loss and are likely to fall back on their own user agreements to allow them to transmit data overseas or use their own legal status within Europe to circumnavigate the ruling—that is, although this is potentially going to have significant behind-the-curtain impact on some companies as to where their servers are based and how they process the data used to serve up ads, it's not something that the average web user will even notice other than that their Adsense ads may become a little less personalised. We didn't post it when Russia introduced an even stricter version of the same measures, albeit because an EU judgement covers the UK and Ireland it will be more noticeable to en-wiki readers. ‑ iridescent 08:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality. The subject seems ITN worthy however as far as I can tell there is only a single sentence on the subject in the target article, which is also very poorly sourced. It would require an extreme makeover to meet ITN standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

RD: Árpád Göncz[edit]

Article: Árpád Göncz
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ABC News The Telegraph Reuters
Nominator: Kudzu1 (give credit)

Note: Article has an orange tag.

Nominator's comments: Former Hungarian president (first in the post-communist era). Death receiving international attention, as you would expect. Kudzu1 (talk) 02:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Conditional support – Article needs improved sourcing as the orange tag of doom implies. Once that's resolved it should be good to go. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Oppose on article quality. It is almost entirely unsourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now: Clearly an influential figure, but the majority of the article is unsourced '''tAD''' (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on notability, oppose for now on quality. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Major figure of modern Hungarian politics, perhaps the most known modern Hungarian statesman, internationally.--The Traditionalist (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Nobel Prize for Physics 2015[edit]

Articles: Takaaki Kajita and Arthur B. McDonald
Blurb: Takaaki Kajita and Arthur B. McDonald win the Nobel Prize in Physics for their discovery of neutrino oscillations.
Alternative blurb: Takaaki Kajita and Arthur B. McDonald are awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for their discovery of neutrino oscillations.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Jenda H. (give credit)

 Jenda H. (talk) 10:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Conditional support Neutrino oscillation currently doesn't seem to mention Kajita and McDonald. Kajita's article also has one orange tag, will support once these are fixed. Brandmeistertalk 11:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
    To some extent, that's because they're not actually that important to the theory itself. Kajita and McDonald led the teams that operated neutrino detectors (atmospheric neutrino research at Super-Kamiokande and solar neutrino research at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory respectively) which proved oscillation happened, but they didn't invent the idea of neutrino oscillation or develop the theory. It's a bit like if the Higgs Nobel had been given to the leaders of the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN – the prize would make sense, but there would be no reason to mention the people on the Higgs Boson page. Smurrayinchester 11:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
    I think that should be clarified a bit in neutrino oscillation, as blurb implies that they were the discoverers. There were previous instances when Physics Nobels were awarded to direct discoverers. Brandmeistertalk 13:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Neutrino oscillation mentions SuperK and SNO, which are the projects lead by these co-recipients of the 2015 Nobel prize in physics. Neutrino oscillations had been proposed previously, but were proved to exist by these experiments. This is a very important scientific result, with a significant impact in the science world. Boardhead (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on one article improvement - Kajita's article has all of two sources, one being about the Nobel. Like the medicine issue yesterday, it should be expanded a bit more before posting. McDonald's is in good shape. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I expanded Kajita's article with the flood of sources that came out with the Nobel win, but there's very little on his previous work. If it's others think it's sufficient, than it can be posted. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Please tweak the blurb. As I wrote in the ITN candidacy for the medicine prize: You never "win" a Nobel Prize, it is awarded to you for an achievement. (Would anyone ever say that someone "won" a Purple Heart?) It's not an international lottery. And the prize is "awarded jointly to...". w.carter-Talk 08:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Article quality is certainly an issue. I can see three options:
    1. Improve the articles on the winners. Unfortunately that may be hard to do, as neither attracted much attention before they won the prize. Edit: actually they're now better than when I looked yesterday - start class anyway. Seems borderline.
    2. Add a paragraph to Neutrino oscillation#Observed values of oscillation parameters detailing the measurements made by these teams and the subsequent Nobel
    3. Update Super-Kamiokande and Sudbury Neutrino Observatory to reflect the Nobel win

Modest Genius talk 11:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Added altblurb to your pleasure. George Ho (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ITNR, and articles are decent. Please post ASAP. -Zanhe (talk) 06:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Remove "European migrant crisis" from ongoing?[edit]


George Ho (talk) 10:42, 6 October 2015 (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.

Looking at history logs of European migrant crisis, there hasn't been newer key events related to this crisis. There are future schedules this month, but it is nothing that big. The crisis is still ongoing, but reports have steadily declined. We can re-propose this to become part of the ticker again when key events will occur. --George Ho (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I would like to see this remain in Ongoing remain a few more days, until article activity has slowed. From looking at the article history, there have been some rather large updates over the past three days. While widespread media reports have slowed in number, there are still a few new sources being used. Mamyles (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I searched "October" in the article. Nothing new except scheduled meetings and data. --George Ho (talk) 01:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose, I continue to see news articles that are related to the crisis. Banedon (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose very much still ongoing and the article is receiving attention. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose still in the news (possible deal with Turkey discussed yesterday; numbers increased; protests and support in the Netherlands). L.tak (talk) 09:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Still the most major news topic in Germany as well, with right wing demonstrations gaining support over the last couple of days... Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

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.

October 5[edit]

RD Chantal Akerman[edit]

Article: Chantal Akerman
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Guardian
Nominator: (give credit)

Nominator's comments: A very distinguished film director (see, for example, Theyshootpictures, ranking her among the 100 most critically acclaimed film directors of all time), and a pioneer of feminist film-making. (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose based on at least article quality, which references Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Trans-Pacific Partnership[edit]

Article: Trans-Pacific Partnership
Blurb: Twelve Pacific Rim states, amounting to about 40% of world's GDP, reach an agreement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
News source(s): New York Times Bloomberg
Nominator: HaEr48 (give credit)

Nominator's comments: Major treaty affecting multiple countries, described as 'historic', and 'largest in world's history' HaEr48 (talk) 06:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose The treaty goes to the respective gov'ts to ratify and it is fully expected in the States to have strong opposition. This does not make it a done deal and thus a thing to wait on. --MASEM (t) 06:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
    • There is opposition to it in the U.S. from the left (Bernie Sanders) and the right (tea party nihilists who try to stop Obama from accomplishing anything) but it isn't likely to prevent the deal, much like Obama has been able to get the Iran treaty through. I'd say if the U.S. (or any other country) kills it despite this announcement, that would be a separate postable story. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support when ready. The treaty is hugely significant and is likely to be ratified by most of the signatory states irrespective of what the US does. Article quality is decent though it could stand some improvement in sourcing and one section has been tagged for expansion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The referencing has been improved a little now. Nurg (talk) 08:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The fact that there will be significant opposition to the agreement in some of the countries involved does not diminish its notability - in some ways, the fact there will be vigorous political debate about it increases the case for featuring it on ITN. Neljack (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • support of course there are many occasions when this is notable (signing in 2016, entry into force), the this is probably the most significant news event as agreement is reached... L.tak (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait until it's ratified. μηδείς (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Ratified by which country? HaEr48 (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This deal is major. Opposition to it is fairly major too. It's a major story. Major. Post when there are no problems on the article, no need to wait for "ratification" or the agreement to take effect. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Big story and ITN-worthy. At first glance the article is solid, though I see a request for expansion tag on one section. Jusdafax 21:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. Dragons flight (talk) 11:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for the gif! I don't think I've seen a gif in the ITN section before. Dismas|(talk) 12:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

RD: Grace Lee Boggs[edit]

Article: Grace Lee Boggs
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Detroit Free Press
Nominator: FiredanceThroughTheNight (give credit)

 FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Why?--WaltCip (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. The article needs more inline citations and doesn't have a source for her death, and doesn't explain which of her several fields (social activism, feminism, philospher, author) she was top of. The closest I can see is "She founded Detroit Summer, a multicultural intergenerational youth program, in 1992 and has also been the recipient of numerous awards." which is unsourced and not specific about which awards they are so I can't see how prestigious they are or are not. If the nominator or anyone else can explain why she meets the RD criteria then I'll reconsider, but I'm not seeing it at the moment. Thryduulf (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Problems with the nomination aside, I'll support upon some final article improvements. Influence in a number of fields and a pretty good article sway my !vote in favor. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. I am not seeing where Ms.Boggs meets the standards for RD. In what way was she very important or influential in her field? Beyond which the article is in poor shape with glaring deficiencies in sourcing. It would require an extreme makeover to meet ITN standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Walt and AO. No rationale given, no awards, pretty run-of-the-mill academic. μηδείς (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I saw her obits come up on my social media accounts, but can't quite put my finger on enough to say she was truly that important in the field, or at least considered that before her death. I want to support, but I haven't been given a good enough reason. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] RD: Henning Mankell[edit]

Article: Henning Mankell
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: The Rambling Man (give credit)

Nominator's comments: Wallender and all that, one of Sweden's top authors. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support given his recognition and body of work, he seems to be important to his field. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support, granted, he is big in Sweden and maybe in Germany, but is he really notable enough in the rest of the world? w.carter-Talk 10:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Being notable to the entire world is not one of the RD criteria; the relevant one here is that they need to be very important to their field. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I have to say that there is nothing plausible here to make me think he was notable in whatever field. The prizes he was awarded with have earned him a recognition to a very limited area of readership, while he doesn't appear to have won any major literary prize such as the Man Booker Prize or the Goethe Prize. The creation of Kurt Wallander, albeit more notable, didn't bring him exceptional international acclamation either.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Source needed Neither this nom or article has one on the death. --MASEM (t) 11:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Death has been sourced know. He was widely known in Europe (very popular in the UK and Netherlands as well), not just Sweden, and his works have been adapted into successful TV series in multiple languages. Also known for political activism. Nobility is more than clear enough I would say. Fgf10 (talk) 12:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Was unaware of this writer but his death is getting a lot of news space, including the top article on the NYT website as of this posting. Clearly an international force. Jusdafax 13:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Quite an amazing and exceptional individual, really, with a global influence that extends beyond his books.--WaltCip (talk) 13:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - His Wallander books has been successful in Europe and the Wallander series has also becomed a television series both in Sweden and the UK.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 14:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine[edit]

Article: No article specified
Blurb: William C. Campbell, Satoshi Ōmura, and Tu Youyou are awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their discoveries of novel treatments against parasites.
Nominator: Tone (give credit)

Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.

Nominator's comments: The Nobel Prize week has begun! Articles need to be updated of course. Tone 09:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed that. I've moved the golfer to his full name. Perhaps the Nobel laureate does not yet have an article (the other two have been created only today as well). --Tone 09:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • None of the articles currently describe the discoveries which they won the Prize for, except in the most vague general term like "for his research on therapies against infections caused by roundworm parasites". While I personally think that the front page would be better with than without the news item even in this state, a better description in the articles would be much appreciated. Thue (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support but biografies nedds an improvements. --Jenda H. (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Question Do we / can we somehow make it clear that the prized wasn't equally shared? Half of the prize was won for "Malaria" by Tu solely, and the other half for "roundworm parasites" which was spilt between Campbell and Ōmura. -- KTC (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
    The prize money is split like that but nobody else cares. You either get a Nobel Prize or you don't. The diseases could be mentioned but the prize fractions shouldn't be in a brief blurb. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
    Clarify You never "win" a Nobel Prize, it is awarded to you. It's not an international lottery. Plus second PrimeHunter's comment. The prize is "awarded jointly to...". w.carter-Talk 18:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
    "awarded with one half jointly to William C. Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura ... and the other half to Youyou Tu". -- KTC (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support - Ok so the articles are not in the best of shapes but this is really notable events and subjects so I say post.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support with one article improvement Tu's article has a few unsourced points (Family section and one para about malaria) that need to be sourced per BLP. Others could use improvement but they aren't in bad shape for posting. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose two of the three articles need work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM.--WaltCip (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support articles look much better now. They are ready to be shown to the general public I think, after some work was done. Swordman97 talk to me 03:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. First ever scientific Nobel Prize to China. --Bruzaholm (talk) 06:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. Admittedly two of the three articles are still pretty weak (in part because they were created yesterday), but given that this is ITNR and enough had been done that none of the articles are terrible I decided to go ahead now. Dragons flight (talk) 10:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

October 4[edit]

United Arab Emirates parliamentary election, 2015[edit]

Proposed image
Article: United Arab Emirates parliamentary election, 2015

Blurb: In the United Arab Emirates, elections to the Federal National Council are held.
Alternative blurb: In the United Arab Emirates, nonpartisan elections to the Federal National Council are held.
News source(s): GulfNews
Nominator: EamonnPKeane (give credit)

Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.

Nominator's comments: Elections held in a fairly important country. Candidates are non-partisan so you can't say a certain party won, but I think the election should be noted even if the parliament isn't very powerful. ("The percentage of those with the right to vote increases progressively at every election. The authorities claim that these are the first steps toward a more representative political system.” - 1EamonnPKeane (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - I'm no expert on this, but is there a reason not to hold off until after the results come out and we have some sourced comments from politics experts on who the candidates elected are and what the results could mean? I realise that we can't quote their opinions in the blurb, but I think people will be most interested in seeing the article after some sources discussing the results come in. Blythwood (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. General elections are ITNR, so no notability issues here. The blurb, though, needs to somehow reference the winners; usually we put "X party led by John Public, won the UAE parliamentary election" or something like that. If these elections are historic as stated, that could be noted as well. Article will need to be updated adequately. 331dot (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment. Political parties are illegal in UAE, candidates stand as individuals. EamonnPKeane (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the correction; the blurb may want to clarify that. I've made a suggestion. 331dot (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
    • It's the UAE, so probably it would be "John al-Public". -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not without results. It doesn't have to be "X party led by Y wins the elections"; something like "20 new members are elected to the FNC" works as well. But that is still a result, and until there are results to the elections, I would oppose posting. Banedon (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as nominated per Banedon. Let's wait for results, if they're not available, and post when it's ready with a descriptive blurb. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] South Carolina flash floods (Nor'easter)[edit]

Proposed image
Article: October 2015 nor'easter

Blurb: A large Eastern United States weather system (satellite image pictured) causes historic flooding in South Carolina.
Alternative blurb: Over 40 people are missing or dead as Hurricane Joaquin batters the Bahamas and the ship El Faro is lost, while the October 2015 nor'easter brings once-in-1000 year rains to the US East Coast.
Alternative blurb II: Hurricane Joaquin and the October 2015 nor'easter bring exceptional rain and flooding to the Bahamas and US East Coast.
Alternative blurb III: Hurricane Joaquin and a nor'easter bring flooding to the Bahamas and southeastern U.S. coastal areas, claiming an estimated 40 lives.
News source(s): CNN, AP
Nominator: Cyclonebiskit (give credit)

Nominator's comments: Crippling flash flood event that has been building over the past several days. Incessant rainfall over nearly the entirety of South Carolina reached the tipping point this morning and tremendous floods have ensued. The entire state is essentially shut down as the emergency management department has urged everyone to remain put unless it's a life or death situation. The situation will continue to go downhill as rains continue through tonight into tomorrow. The overall system has cause moderate damage elsewhere, namely New England and New Brunswick, Canada. At least 5 people are known to have been killed in relation to the storm, possibly more, but the disruptive effects are beyond extreme. The article definitely needs some work, but this event is notable enough in my opinion to push it early. There's a lot going on and way too much to keep track of, but doing what I can. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now - In the grande scheme of things not really worth posting now unless it does get worse. This is only causing major disruption to one state. Stories should not be posted on the back of a "maybe" (even if it is a strong "maybe") Meanwhile, 16 people are confirmed dead on the French Riviera [2]. -- (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    • So nominate a story about the French Riviera. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support It's being called a "once in 500 years" event. If that's not "rare" enough for ITN I don't know what is. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I suppose this should be merged with the Joaquin blurb, since it is causing this rain. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
      • See below discussion with Masem & Juliancolton as to why this shouldn't be done. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Hmm. I'll go along with whatever decision prevails, then. Aside from not posting something. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I think a satellite image would be instructive. Abductive (reasoning) 18:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The disruption of the lives of millions in a single state due to a 500-year rain event seems notable; damage will likely be extensive and widespread. 331dot (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge with Hurricane Joaquin, this two are connected phenomenons. --Jenda H. (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Meteorologically they are separate events, albeit partially intertwined. Although the nor'easter tapped into moisture from Joaquin, the floods would not have taken place without the East Coast low. Joaquin's effects are limited to moisture transport and merging them gives undue weight to the hurricane's influence. NOAA does not attribute the event to Joaquin and the WPC focuses on the coastal low in their summaries. Only ones tying Joaquin into this beyond the moisture transport is the media. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
      • While separate events, to highlight the flash floods and ignore the damage that Joaquin's caused is rather poor form. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Joaquin caused no damage in the United States, there's no need to mention it here. I nominated Joaquin as a separate event yesterday with its notability stemming from widespread damage in the Bahamas and the disappearance (and likely sinking) of El Faro. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
          • Joaquin has not yet hit the States, it's expected to drop its rain tonight, which atop the existing flooding will make things works. A blurb like "A combination of Hurricane Joaquin and a weather front in the southeast US cause flash flooding in SC, the disappearance of one ship, and at least (40) deaths". --MASEM (t) 20:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
            • Joaquin is currently lashing Bermuda and continuing northeast out to sea after that (expected to bring gales to the UK in ~6 days). It's not touching the US. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
              • This storm is drawing moisture from the Hurricane; that's the connection, as the rain would not be as bad if not for the hurricane. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
                • The most significant factor in the event is the non-tropical low over the Southeast. Without that system, it would be sunny in South Carolina today. Large quantities of moisture were already in place with this event and widespread flooding was going to happen with or without Joaquin. Even a week back when models initially dissipated Joaquin, the frontal system was shown producing widespread torrential rain. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
                  • No, Joaquin had a much more deadly impact, but we sometimes forget that when the states aren't hit as bad. The news is focusing on the eastern-moving front that is dropping rain, but even still, most reports fear that Joaquin's storm edge will drop yet more rain on that same area, up through NJ, even if the eye doesn't make landfall in the states. It is best to treat this as a combined story because it is difficult to separate which part is which in terms of the affect on human life. --MASEM (t) 20:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
                    • No credible meteorological agency is concerned that Joaquin's "storm edge", whatever that is, is going to influence the weather in the United States. I'll direct you to the Weather Prediction Center's short-range public discussion, which doesn't so much as mention the hurricane, but discusses the heavy rain threat from a non-tropical upper-level low (the system in question). The same is true of their more technical QPF discussion, which says "The intense low level easterly to east-northeasterly inflow with very high PWATs within this axis will continue on the northeast side of the closed low, impacting at least eastern and central portions of the Carolinas. This will again support continued training of areas of rainfall in this inflow axis of above average PW values." Tropical moisture contributed to the extreme precipitation totals, but the link to Joaquin itself is tenuous at best, and if you need to see it with your own eyes, here's a current WV loop showing two distinct synoptic-scale systems... the ULL over the southeast which produced flooding rains, and the tropical cyclone nearing Bermuda. I'm not sure where you learned that rain was expected as far north as NJ, but the WPC predicts virtually no precipitation north of the Outer Banks for the next several days, and in fact the weather looks quite sunny for most of the northeast. I think you need a more reliable source for forecasts. :) – Juliancolton | Talk 20:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
                      • At least when I was watching CNN this morning (no sound but going by on screen visuals) they were still implying that Carolinas up through NJ were preparing for Joaquin rainfall. Clearly since then the path has shifted to be more NE-ish. But there is still indications that the two systems are affecting each other, and because of their geographical proximity and similar effects, we should treat them as a common story. --MASEM (t) 21:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
                        • What indications might those be? A hurricane and a cold-core upper-level low are about as dissimilar as large-scale cyclones can get. They have different origins, wildly different mechanisms for intensification, and different real-world effects. That Joaquin and the nor'easter-like storm are relatively close to each other make them no more "common" than for two individuals to die in the same country. As a rule of thumb, CNN has never and will never override NOAA. Essentially you're dismissing a source that's as reliable as you can get in regards to meteorology because of something you saw on TV while it was muted. The information Julian provided should be more than enough to dispel the thought of merging these two events together. Meteorology is what the two of us excel in, and it's my profession. It would be remiss of me to completely overlook this event in the way you seem to be suggesting. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – What about flash floods that have taken at least 16 lives in the French Riviera? Sca (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    • What about it? Does the presence of a smaller-scale, albeit deadlier, flood nullify the notability of this event? Both are notable in their own rights and on different levels. I have my hands full with Joaquin and this nor'easter so if you wish to create the article and nominate it please do so by all means. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
      Perhaps it's symptomatic that there's no massive rush to create a French Riveria disaster article... Bloody systemic bias.... ! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I was just about to say that a) the nominated storm doesn't strike me as particularly notable on the global scale, and b) it would be odd and seemingly U.S.-centric to run this one but not the French one. Sca (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Then create an article for the French one and nominate it. I've already nominated two non-US related natural disasters, one of which was just posted, and the other is rotting without attention. Any claims of a U.S. bias here are insulting. This "global scale" aspect is ridiculous at times and haphazardly handed out, namely against U.S.-related topics simply to squash them. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Er, I happen to be an American. Sca (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Unless there is a significant death toll we tend to shy away from weather related events. Yes, there are some exceptions, but I am not convinced the level of damage, at least so far, makes this ITN material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Switching to Support following a closer examination of the news sources including updated reports. This does in fact look like a pretty epic flood. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
South Carolina's capital (almost 1 million metro population) will have 15 inches in 2 1/4 days if the forecast holds true. I can't tell if I've found the most shocking point on this curve (can't find past hourly numbers) but this is at least an almost 2,000 year rainfall event for this city of 900,000 (extrapolate from the other curves). Gills Creek in the capital went from not flooded to twice the record flood in 5 hours and then the flood gauge broke (while it was still shooting up like a rocket). The flood gauge hasn't given a reading since then (destroyed?). Mandatory city-wide curfew of 6pm (!) in the capital. That's an hour and 4 minutes before sunset. Charleston, pop. 700K (where the Civil War started) had 98% of it's rainiest October ever fall this Saturday alone and broke it's 1 day rainfall record. This is a subtropical place that gets frequent hurricanes remember. some parts near Charleston got 0.6 meters of rain in 3 days and that was by 7am today. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait – Having scanned at a Washington Post roundup featuring numerous photos, I must admit this looks pretty big. However, I suggest waiting until the weather system subsides and more details emerge about its effects. Sca (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. The Governor of South Carolina has described this as a '1000-year' event and is asking all people to stay where they are and not leave, even on foot. [3]. 331dot (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Sarcastic oppose: This is happening in the United States and therefore it doesn't matter. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that was a good one. μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support looks like a pretty major event to me. That said, I'd suggest using the phrase "nor'easter" in the blurb, because although 'weather system' is an established technical phrase, when I read the blurb my first thoughts were that some kind of man-made weather control or early warning system had malfunctioned and caused the flooding. Support merge with Hurricane Joaquin. They may be different meteorological events but they're both meteorological events in the same part of the globe. Some kind of blurb that talks about chaotic weather in the Bahamas and South Carolina seems most natural to me. Banedon (talk) 01:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support and Support Merge Something along the lines Hurricane Joaquin causes floods in the Bahamas and the loss of the cargo ship El Faro while South Carolina suffers record floods, with separate targets for Joaquin and SC. μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Marked Ready with combined blurb as both articles are relevant and well supported and updated. μηδείς (talk) 05:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment happy to post this but the first blurb seems insufficient, the second is far too long. Can we find a suitable compromise? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Alt 3 offered above. Sca (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Either alt version looks good to me, The Rambling Man, but I personally would be inclined to mention a combined total of at least 40 lives lost. The important thing, however, is really to get the target articles up there, so if short is better then short is good. μηδείς (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - definitely for itn. it is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Note – The U.S. Coast Guard has announced that the El Farois believed to have sunk during Joaquin and recovered one body; 32 remain missing. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Update – Based on above, Alt3 updated to "claiming an estimated 40 lives." Sca (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment: do Hurricane Joaquin and the nor'easter actually produce flooding? Perhaps "Hurricane Joaquin and a nor'easter cause extensive flooding in the Bahamas and Southeast U.S. coastal areas, resulting in an estimated 40 deaths" would be better? Banedon (talk) 02:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
    Reliable sources commonly use the word "produce" (and derivatives thereof) in this context (referring to various effects of a storm). See this Google News search for "produced flooding". —David Levy 05:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

2015 NRL Grand Final[edit]

Article: 2015 NRL Grand Final
Blurb: In rugby league, the North Queensland Cowboys defeat the Brisbane Broncos to win their first ever premiership.
Nominator: Jonny Nixon (give credit)

Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.

 —Jonny Nixon (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose based on current state. No references whatsoever and very little prose. Significant improvements need to be made for this to be posted. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat)
  • Support Once updated. Clearly not ready to be posted right now. -- (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's ITNR, so "support once updated" is somewhat redundant. It's way off the quality we need for main page inclusion, please add a bunch of references, and an enhanced description of the final, which I'm led to believe was one of the better ones. Do it justice. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

October 3[edit]

[Posted] AFL Grand Final[edit]

Article: 2015 AFL Grand Final
Blurb: In Australian rules football, the AFL season concludes with Hawthorn defeating West Coast in the Grand Final.
Nominator: Jenks24 (give credit)

Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.

Nominator's comments: Only ITNR Australian football item we have. Match report and the rest of the article seems detailed enough and I've added some refs recently so I think everything should be OK on that front. I realise I'm nominating several days after the event, but it is ITNR and I think it's in good enough nick to go up or at least close enough that work can be done on it to get it up. I think the blurb is how we usually structure these types of stories to avoid the defeat/defeats issue. Jenks24 (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support article is of sufficient standard to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Seeing as no one has objected and this is ITNR, I'm marking this as ready. Jenks24 (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support and suggest posting. Per TRM's assertion that the article is good to go. Rhodesisland (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Handful of unsourced pieces of prose scattered about the article, once those are handled I'll be happy to post. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Added more refs, pretty sure everything is covered now – every paragraph has at least one ref. Marking ready again. Jenks24 (talk) 08:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Bombing of Médecins Sans Frontières hospital[edit]

Article to update: 2015 bombing of Médecins Sans Frontières hospital
Blurb: An airstrike conducted by the United States hits a Médecins Sans Frontières facility, killing at least 22 people.
Alternative blurb: An airstrike conducted by the United States hits a Médecins Sans Frontières facility, killing at least 22 people and causing the organisation to leave Kunduz.
News source(s): Wall Street Journal, [4], CNN, The Washington Post
Nominator: Andise1 (give credit)

Article needs updating

Note: The article needs quite a bit of work.

Nominator's comments: Major airstrike on a building that was not the intended target, causing Doctors Without Borders to leave Afghanistan as a result. Andise1 (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support once the article is improved. This seems to be a major news pertaining to the killing of innocent people and the departure of one of the most famous humanitarian organisations as result.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: If the article on the bombing, and the one on the organisation, use "Médecins Sans Frontières", then the blurb should too. GRAPPLE X 08:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I have changed it in the blurb and have also proposed an alternative one mentioning their departure from the country.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Did they really left country? So far herd that they left just Kunduz. Are there any reilabele sources to support that? --Jenda H. (talk) 10:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
        • I found something mentioning it in a news article in my country but cannot find anything in English. I will change then the wording of the blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support mayor war crime, sgnificant dead-toll --Jenda H. (talk) 10:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I've given the article a bit of reordering and chapter structure, but more work is obviously needed. The notability of the incident seems clear. Jusdafax 12:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support article is in decent enough shape for posting, a couple of POV tweaks wouldn't go amiss, but it summarises the situation well and is good to go, marking as such. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
    • There's one unsourced quote in the article (John F Campbell), which needs to be fixed for sure. Otherwise looks fine for ITN. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Major news, decent quality article (aside from that unsourced quote Masem noticed). – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This story is already off the front pages. Posting this would be anti-American, pr0-Taliban propaganda. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support if nothing else, just so we have fewer people who think like Baseball Bugs in the future. LjL (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support prompt posting. Story remains current. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. I've edited this myself, but only to copyedit and throw out sources like Twitter. Since there isn't any opposition that is actually related to the guidelines at ITN, posting. Black Kite (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Denis Healey[edit]

All getting a little silly, glad it's moved away from here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2015 (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.

Proposed image
Article: Denis Healey

Recent deaths nomination
Alternative blurb: Former Chancellor of the Exchequer and Labour Party figure, Denis Healey dies at 98
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (give credit)

Nominator's comments: Healey is by far one of the most iconic Labour figures and possibly in British politics. I might see a blurb being proper but for now let's focus on a RD tag. I WITHDRAW BLURB NOMINATION, BUT SUPPORT RD TAG --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Major figure in 1970s UK politics. Mjroots (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD, and I wouldn't oppose a blurb. Not just a major figure in UK and European politics in the 1970s, but one of the last survivors among the original architects of the post-war consensus. For such a divisive figure, his article is in surprisingly good shape. ‑ iridescent 16:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I just don't know how to write a blurb summing up Healey's importance. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on article improvements for RD only, oppose blurb. The article is missing a lot of citations throughout with some unsourced paragraphs, and some about his importance resting on one or two. The RD criteria is clearly there, but while I accept he played a major role in British politics, the influence on the rest of the world doesn't seem to be there to where a blurb would be appropriate. We're talking a Cabinet level position, and there, I would expect someone as influential as , say, Winston Churchill, was to be a blurb. --MASEM (t) 16:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD conditional on improved sourcing. Oppose blurb He was 98 so his passing is not a surprise and while he certainly meets ITND criteria, his notability is not great enough to justify a blurb. The Queen will almost certainly get one when she passes and Margaret Thatcher should have gotten one (I don't remember if she did). But we are talking about a cabinet level figure here. He needs to have done something really over the top to warrant a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD when article is of sufficient quality. Weak oppose blurb largely per Ad Orientem. Thryduulf (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Okay, he held one of the Great Offices of State. Yet when U.S. Speakers of the House die (1, 2), it isn't posted. It wouldn't be posted if he was in a comparable office of any other nation either. There's a systemic bias here with British non-heads of state getting support where top non-heads of state from other countries get dismissed and I'm pointing that out whether you Brits like it or not. Go ahead, flame me for it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
You make a fair point with regards to inconsistency in the application of RD guidelines (though I think your point would have been stronger if you had avoided accusing an entire group of editors of bias based on nationality). That said I am standing by my Support !vote because he clearly meets the guidelines. So, for that matter, do Speakers of the House of Representatives. I have consistently opined that they meet ITND criteria and I believe that arguments to the contrary can only be made by ignoring the plain language of the guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I count a grand total of one (or possibly two) Brits among the supports. Not everyone disagreeing with you has to be part of a conspiracy. ‑ iridescent 19:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't have everyone's nationality memorized, but I see at least 3 of the 5 supports are British, Ad Orientem's page indicates interest in British history but doesn't list nationality, and one of the five I don't know. The one I don't know, Masem, says this guy played a "major role in British poltiics", but called Jim Wright a "Mid-level US politician". I find that baffling. Believe me, I don't want to call out editors, and I don't want to restart a U.S. vs. U.K. thing (especially not looking forward to when TRM logs on and reads this), but I'm calling it like I see it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I am American. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
American here too. But to the point, this appears to be the equivalent of the Secretary of Defense in the US, and there, not every one that is named is necessarily material for RD to start. I'm judging the contributions as listed on the bio page and its clearly more than average so RD is completely fair. --MASEM (t) 20:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Noted. Speaker is above Sec Def in the U.S. presidential succession, though. I still don't understand the opposition to those two deceased speakers, while this will clearly pass. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Succession to the seat of power is one thing, actual actions and activities is another. For example, Donald Rumsfeld has far more important a play on world politics than Dennis Hastert, Speaker at the same time. That's what I'm judging here is what the person's larger impact was and it seems significant enough to qualify for RD but certainly not for a blurb. --MASEM (t) 21:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The Hastert Rule rears it's head quite frequently. That's his impact. Otherwise I'd agree Rumsfeld probably had a greater impact than Hastert. Still, these are top level officials if they reach those offices. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Great to see such an insightful analysis of British politics here as part of the discussion on Healey. (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
As I said below, it would be nice if the nominator or any of the people supporting this nomination would analyze Healey's impact, but noone has. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll take a stab at it. During the period of chaos in European economies in the 1970s following the 1973 oil crisis, the British government was uniquely disadvantaged. Prime Minister Harold Wilson was in the early stages of Alzheimer's disease and was drinking heavily, and both major political parties were in open civil war between various ideological factions; thus, the Chancellor in this period was actually a more significant figure than any of the succession of Prime Ministers. Healey pretty much single-handedly stabilised the economy, which in turn prevented what was then the EEC from disintegrating and made the modern EU possible, and provided a stable basis for the Thatcher government's reforms (no private investor would have invested in an economy that was in the state Britain had been in in 1973) which in turn provided the economic template for the western world for the next 30 years. In addition to this, he was also the man responsible for the forced depopulation of the Chagos Archipelago, making him the single most important figure in the history of the Chagossians. ‑ iridescent 06:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose a blurb but support RD. I don't think he rises to the level of people like Thatcher but reading his page he does seem to be very important to his field. I also think we could use an update of some kind(there is nothing in the RD line currently) 331dot (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Iridescent who makes a good summary of the contributions of Healy. No need for a blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb but support RD – His name rings a bell even for a vulgar American like – Sca (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Iconic for what? Simply saying that he was iconic is like saying he was notable. We need a rationale, not a reassertion of the obvious in exaggerated terms. What did he do that others haven't or wouldn't have done? μηδείς (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
    • That's a great point I forgot to raise. It's a long article, with systemic bias playing a factor in why it's of strong quality in the first place, but skimming it and the posts above don't tell me why he was so important, other than the office he rose to, which still wasn't enough for two Speakers of the House. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not really ITN material. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for RD - Pretty obviously. Very influential chancellor in office through some of Britain's most turbulent post-war years. Fgf10 (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm sure it seems obvious to you, but those of us with no prior knowledge of him are still looking for a rationale other than that he was "influential" or a "major figure", because that's vague and others who could claim that have been rejected here. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose RD (full oppose for blurb) – per Moboshgu and Medeis. If someone can quantify why Healey was "iconic" for me, I'd be more inclined to support. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    • And maybe I'd reconsider, too. I am after all making the case that a politician who didn't serve as head of state can be posted depending on the case. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Support RD per Iridescent's explanation of importance. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Medeis and Muboshgu. Calidum 01:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, weakly, for RD, and simple oppose for blurb, on article quality grounds. The minor problem is that there are a fair number of unreferenced assertions in the article; some but not all have been tagged. The major problem is that the article's text establishes that he was an important politician; but it doesn't really establish that he had a "significant impact" on the country. He may well have, but it isn't in the text. He was elected to Parliament. He negotiated loans and proposed budgets, the sort of things you'd expect the head of a treasury to do. Then his party lost, and he was not chosen to lead it. Add a couple referenced testimonials to his significant impact from historians, and I might change my mind. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. He is 98 years old, his death is natural. sst 05:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose RD (full oppose blurb). Never a party leader (well, not permanently anyway), let alone PM. Got to draw the line somewhere. I think there may be some nostalgia for Healey given the pathetic state of the Labour Party today. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Seems significant enough. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This is hilarious, the American editors are so transparent. "You don't support posting this years umpteenth school shooting, we're just going to oppose all British noms." ITN is such a joke. There have been plenty of explanations why this is ITN material, and all the opposes are just ignoring that, or complaining Americans weren't posted. Nobody has yet given a valid oppose. Oh and Support for RD if that wasn't obvious yet. (talk) 09:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    • "[O]ppose all British noms." Yes, we're opposing all one of them because our feelings are hurt and we're annoyed that the "homeland" doesn't care about us.</irritated sarcasm> The reasons for opposing were quite clear and reasonable; no one explained why Healey was "iconic" at first. He's a figure that naturally wouldn't garner much attention outside of Britain so how are we supposed to inherently know about him? It's up to the nominator (or anyone who wishes to do so in the stead) to explain why the topic they're nominating is notable. This was not done properly and the nomination received opposition by basic comparison accordingly since that's what we had to work with. My concerns have since been resolved by Iridescent's explanation which gives me a better idea of his importance and I would imagine others have a better idea how to adjust their votes if they see fit. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, quite transparent. Like being "savaged by a dead sheep". (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
      • "so how are we supposed to inherently know about him?" - Jesus tap dancing Christ - this is an encyclopedia! Look at the article and judge for yourself. -- (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Sure, let me just spend my time reading up on a subject (person) I care next to nothing about when the nominator, who would likely have a better understanding of the subject, can easily explain the importance for everyone, not just myself, to understand. It streamlines the process of ITN/C and allows more people to take part. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
            • Yikes. You make it seem as if it's an impossible task - only a very brief scan of the page in question (you know...the lead? Which summarizes the article?) would be enough to get yourself informed. If you didn't know all the facts, why did you even bother voting? Asking people (especially an admin) if they could take an active interest in the article subject they're discussing is not too much to ask, is it? How much of your time would it take to just read the opening few sentences of an article? The nominator may as well just copy/paste segments of the lead here (with sources) - which is fine, and something that they probably should do for the sake of convenience. "a better understanding of the subject," - Most of the time I doubt it. And if they feel passionate about the subject, then you might be inclined to believe that they would provide more detailed info here. Sheesh. And your comment about IP editors is noted - hardly befitting of an Admin, and hardly befitting the spirit of the project. -- (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
              • At the time of my comment, the lede did nothing to properly convey Healey's importance. There's no mention of the economic improvements that Iridescent explained, nothing about setting the stage for the modern EU, but there is a piece about his bushy eyebrows. I got no sense of importance and voted accordingly. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - significant enough to justify inclusion at ITN. --BabbaQ (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on account of this nom being disrupted by tendentious editors and IPs. We can readdress this when cooler heads have prevailed.--WaltCip (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Effectively the second-most powerful figure in British politics during one of its darkest hours since the War. Blythwood (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD by Black Kite ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, sorry about that - my PC crashed just as I posted it. Rationale: Pretty much 2:1 support for this, article is reasonably well sourced (though the section which would cement Healey's importance as noted by Iridescent above could be expanded), and RD was currently empty. Black Kite (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The lead of this article still doesn't suggest to me why this guy is significant, if Speakers of the U.S. House aren't. I'll look forward to referencing this thread the next time an American non-head of state politician of great importance dies and the users who supported this nom start opposing it. Congratulations on reinforcing the U.K. systemic bias! – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • As we should know by now, precedence on ITN really doesn't mean anything. Never forget that an amateur provincial collegiate sport got posted to ITN after years of non-posting. Just lie back and think of England.--WaltCip (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • You mean one of the most significant sporting events in the U.S.? That Brits dismiss as an "amateur provincial" event out of a lack of understanding and lack of a desire to understand that its impact in the U.S. overrides its lack of impact in the U.K.? I'm taking this to WT:ITN, no sense in getting off the topic of this thread that can close now that the inevitable posting has been made. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Hurricane Joaquin (updated)[edit]

Posted with October 2015 North American storm complex ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:46, 5 October 2015 (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.

Proposed image
Article: Hurricane Joaquin

Blurb: Hurricane Joaquin causes extensive damage across the Bahamas after battering the islands for two days and leaves 33 people missing.
Alternative blurb: Hurricane Joaquin causes extensive damage across the Bahamas and leaves 33 people missing after likely sinking the M/V El Faro.
News source(s): Numerous in article
Nominator and updater: Cyclonebiskit (give credit)
Other updaters: Juliancolton (give credit)

Nominator's comments: I'm somewhat hesitant with this nomination as there's a potentially greater meteorological event about to unfold. Hurricane Joaquin, while not a historic event, has caused widespread damage across the Bahamas. It sat over the eastern islands for two days as a major hurricane, wrecking havoc all the while. Some islands are still isolated so the full-scale of impact is yet to be known, but the entire country has basically been forced to hunker down. Additionally, contact was lost with the American cargo ship M/V El Faro with 33 crew on board; search efforts came up empty handed yesterday and are likely starting back up as I type. Overall, this has been the most disruptive, and potentially damaging, hurricane in the Bahamas since Hurricane Frances in 2004. I can't make a definitive claim on the latter due to a lack of reports...

However, as I alluded to at the start, there is a "potentially historic" flood event looming for the Southeastern United States along with damage coastal flooding across almost the entire Eastern Seaboard. If this event pans out, it will likely far overshadow Joaquin and I know how much topic saturation is loved here. Face-wink.svg I had an idea that if Joaquin were to be added to ITN, and the flood event did pan out, that the flood event should replace Joaquin's position on the ticker. This would allow both to receive their due attention, but avoid flooding the feed with meteorological events (pun intended). Truthfully, this nomination is partly my desire to gauge how ITN-worthy certain events are so I can better tune my nominations. I've noticed a particular focus on statistics and a need for death and destruction from tropical cyclones for people to support them, with a blind eye being turned to their other, non-fatal disruptive effects. Sorry for rambling post (as well as temporarily stealing your namesake, TRM). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 12:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

  • support - widespread damage, potentially many deaths. etc. this is ITN material.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I am weary of putting out a natural disaster with absolutely no deaths. Nergaal (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Noteunconfirmed reports of deaths in the Bahamas. Although the nation hit by hurricanes every few years, seldom are there fatalities, let alone multiple fatalities. To anyone hesitant over supporting because of an upfront lack of statistics, the scale of damage should be more than enough to warrant posting in my opinion. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Devastating category 4 hurricane that had a significant impact on the Bahamas. Dough4872 11:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. If deaths are needed to make the storm worthy of a blurb, the likely loss of the El Faro with 33 crew members counts. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

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.

October 2[edit]

[Posted] RD: Brian Friel[edit]

Article: Brian Friel
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Ihcoyc (give credit)
Updater: JMHamo (give credit)

Note: Article would appear to be fairly well referenced with the exception of a "Private Life" section; subject wasa very private person and perhaps that should simply be removed.

Nominator's comments: Appears to have been a significant English language Irish playwright. Best play Tony Award for Dancing at Lughnasa, Drama Critics Circle Award, other nominations and awards. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: Contra nominator, referencing is not good for this article at all, including unreferenced quotes. Looks to be notable as a Tony Award-winner, but article is not currently postable. Happy to support once it is. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: nominating an article under BLP and updating it with a single cited sentence is not a sufficient update if the majority of the article remains unsourced. While the lead is packed with inline cites, the last few sections have very few references. But otherwise, would support for RD as a three-time Tony Award nominee (with one win) and one of a handful of artists elected to the title Saoi. Fuebaey (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support conditional on significant improvement in sourcing. Subject appears to meet ITNDC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - as per ad orientem.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The entire "Career" section—which is most of the article—is virtually unreferenced. ‑ iridescent 09:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Article needs a lot of editing. Personally, I'm not interested in doing that (and incidentally, despite the nomination above, don't wish to be credited for the one sentence I did add). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC) .
  • Oppose on article quality. Massive chunks of prose are entirely unsourced and it seems like it would take a considerable amount of effort to fix this article. Certainly will be happy to support if someone spends the time to fix the article, but I certainly can't do so considering its current state. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending improvements There are still unsourced paragraphs, but the subject meets importance criteria. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - definitely notable enough for front page. EamonnPKeane (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - The more I read the more I am left with the impression of a rare and important writer. I have spent a few hours working on this and it should be improved now. --Benchwarming (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Much appreciated. Should this be marked ready, or is more work needed? I still see a few unreferenced grafs. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
      • I have marked it ready if that helps. --Benchwarming (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 05:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Yemen cuts relations with Iran[edit]

Denied by both the governments involved. This is what happens when journalists file stories without bothering to fact-check. ‑ iridescent 15:38, 2 October 2015 (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.

Article to update: Iran–Yemen relations
Blurb: Yemen ceases diplomatic relations with Iran due to alleged Iranian support of the Shiite Houthi group to overthrow President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi.
News source(s): Reuters, Xinhua
Nominator: Brandmeister (give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Needs some work, but AFAIK, end of diplomatic relations between countries is usually postable. Brandmeistertalk 13:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once the article is expanded. The cease of diplomatic relations between two countries is very significant and can also have major implications on the relations in other spheres (e.g. economic relations).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: There are currently two entities claiming to represent the government of Yemen. Perhaps the blurb should make it clear which one is cutting off relations? -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - updated and ready, then post. not before.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

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.


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 [] 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: