{{archive top|Please argue for a change of target article in the existing nomination than creating a pointy competing nomination. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 03:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)}}
{{ITN candidate
{{ITN candidate
| article = Euromaidan
| article = Euromaidan
Line 71:
Line 72:
*'''Note:''' Article has been updated by others to say 27 killed — 20 civilians and seven policemen. '''However,''' at the moment BBC still says "at least 13," Reuters says "at least 18." [[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 23:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
*'''Note:''' Article has been updated by others to say 27 killed — 20 civilians and seven policemen. '''However,''' at the moment BBC still says "at least 13," Reuters says "at least 18." [[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 23:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
*See the above nomination, the only difference between them is target article. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 03:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually - a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
Dongfeng Motor, a Chinese auto company, is buying a $1.1 billion equity stake in PSA Peugeot Citroen for 800 million euros, part of a broader effort to bail out the struggling French concern. (Reuters)
Violent clashes between police forces and opposition demonstrators reignite in Kyiv, Ukraine. The death toll rises to 14, six of them policemen who were shot dead during the confrontation. (CNN)(BBC News)(Reuters)
Arts and culture
A US$1 million vase made by Chinese dissident Ai Wei Wei is destroyed in Miami by a local vandal protesting the lack of exhibits promoting local art. (The New York Times)
Support This seems to be a large, deadly, and significant development in the protests. Tons of media coverage. The BBC is reporting the main Maidan camp is being stormed by police [2]. E4FZq (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a new development in this crisis; it also could represent a turning point leading to further actions on all sides. 331dot (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support! — As updated to 13-14 deaths (from Reuters, AP). Alt. blurb:
Oops! Seems I updated Euromaidan rather than February 2014 Euromaidan riots. The latter includes a welter of minute-by-minute verbiage on today's actions, comprising some 1,300 words, and thus is not an encyclopedia-style summary. I don't like its structure at all. What do do? Guess I'll nominate Euromaidan update. Sca (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose article in current condition - Twitter is used as a source more than 10x, ick. Please trim social media hearsay (and excessive details in general) from the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article:Euromaidan (talk·history·tag) Recent deaths nomination Blurb: Spokespersons for police and anti-government protestors say 13 to 14 killed in assault on demonstrators by riot police in Kiev. (Post) Alternative blurb: Fourteen reported killed in clashes between riot police and demonstrators in Kiev. News source(s): Reuters, AP, BBC Credits:
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Note: Article has been updated by others to say 27 killed — 20 civilians and seven policemen. However, at the moment BBC still says "at least 13," Reuters says "at least 18." Sca (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At least 25 people are killed and dozens wounded in bombing attacks across Baghdad; three bombs exploded in public markets and a fourth outside a Shiite mosque. (The New York Times)
Weak support. The report isn't telling us anything that wasn't known already, but it is a widely covered report by a major international body. Sending a letter to Kim threatening him with prosecution also seems an unusual development. 331dot (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose UN officials or panels release reports on human rights violations in various countries quite frequently, but I don't recall us posting one before. Did we, for instance, post UN reports on American human rights violations? Ultimately the release of a report that, as 331dot points out, tells us what we already knew does not really seem significant enough to me. It would have been rather more newsworthy if the report had concluded that North Korea was a paragon of respect for human rights! Neljack (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By a political organisation with vested state political interests. That is not a non-partisan, non-governmental group. Obviously...Not to mention how they got access to these camps when they claim the country was not cooperating (yes I read the document not just the news reports (have you?)) is a doubt itself. Trusting s. Korean reports perhaps? You can hardly claim that's apolitical. Then add that there is a south korean Sec'y General in what is supposed to be apolitical and you can severly doubt the veracity of the UN with north Korean affairs during the Moon regime.Lihaas (talk) 08:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What evidence do you have that the Secretary-General micromanaged the release of this report or otherwise directed its content? 331dot (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not this incident, but in the past his nonpartisan role was put into question when he advised on teh shoulds of affairs with North Korea vs. the South. That is where his credibility is at stak e hgere.Lihaas (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the incident we are discussing, which has nothing to do with the conduct or views of the Secretary-General (again, unless you have evidence of his hand directing the content of this report) as the news stories I have read on this report do not even mention him. 331dot (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno if that's meant to be sarcasm, but I really don't think much of a post that supports a position with two questions. It should be ignored by any wise closing admin. HiLo48 (talk) 07:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not for you to determine either; you also are not in admin's heads and do not know what they are thinking when they make a decision. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think this is common knowledge right now. It would be more notable to see action taken in response to the findings of this report, but this will probably not occur. Ergo, this news story ends right where it started.--WaltCip (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest of supports My first thought was "in other news, water is still wet", but this is a well researched report and is getting news coverage. I do agree that fallout is limited at this point. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We have a sovereign state ruthlessly killing its own citizens. This is a big deal. And the UN being concerned about real warcrimes is definitely news. -- Ypnypn (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support when the article is updated to reflect the most important feature of the report; the OHCHR has suggested that Chinese officials may be open to being indicted on charges of complicity. Abductive (reasoning) 01:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is major news of global relevance reported world-wide. Much more notable than those local accidents posted at ITN on regular basis. --ELEKHHT01:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This has been named the most comprehensive account of the human rights situation in NK so far. Note that the commission was operating under the direct mandate of the UNHRC. To quote the head of the commission: "At the end of the World War II, so many people said, 'If only we had known, if only we had known the wrongs that were done in the countries of the hostile forces. If only we had known that.' Well now, the international community does know." --hydrox (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This was not expected as it was reported that there were no notable issues with the plane. Also, none of the passengers or crew members on the plane survived the crash. Andise1 (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That posting was a horrible, horrible mistake, a rush based on localism and a presumption the casualties would be much higher, and is no reason for supporting this one. μηδείς (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't entirely agree; that was a larger plane which went down in a nation with a good safety record and involved a larger number of people, and was more disruptive having crashed at the SF airport; Nepal has a higher rate of crashes and is known for its poor safety record according to the news sources. They also didn't know about it until the plane did not arrive, meaning it didn't affect other travel. It was also a domestic flight in Nepal, and not an international flight. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Obviously a race on golden-colored bears, done to the tune of Beethoven's symphonies. Oh and did I mention that the bear riders had to drink an ale without spilling it during the race as well? --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, calls on other sectarian forces in the Arab world to withdraw from Syria, saying that if they did so, Hezbollah would also "not remain in Syria either." (Reuters)
Eleven miners in South Africa are freed after being trapped in an illegal gold mine where they had opened up old sealed shafts but the remaining estimated 19 trapped miners are refusing to come out for fear of being arrested. (CNN)(Bloomberg)
Nominator's comments: Boko Haram are only suspected (though more than likely, aint no one else in that part of the world) so it may be pov to mention them aexactly, But the incident is notable by ITNC standards. -- Lihaas (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Two separate nominations, two pretty different awards (and the BAFTAS seems to get the most media coverage in general). Anyway, I would imagine the winner of the Golden Bear is ITN/R as well.--Somchai Sun (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with MG. And there is not a single line ofprose beyond the lead. The lead is supposed to reflect the article, ie- have paraphrased content there already.
Seriously, if you're going to attempt to quote me, at least write it in English. BAFTA best film list article updated here (nothing more to add to that article) and 67th Awards article updated here. Nothing more to add. It's a fact, Film X won Award Y at Award Ceremony Z. Common sense applies. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First off, Rambling Man, on a QWERTY keyboard, you will note the proximity of the "y" key to the "u". It is due to this that I feel your remarks were directed at a mere typographical error, rather than a lack of proficiency in English. Anyway, I offer my support to this nomination. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Second off, Lihaas makes a habit of rushing his chat here, and that's obvious from the fact that most of his mainspace work is fine. In any case, when quoting someone, you should do it accurately, whether it be Wikipedia or any other walk of life. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose resignation of a minor minister over a scandal is not notable enough. If it has bigger ramificaiton on the coalition government of the c ocountry, then maybe Lihaas (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Agree with previous comments — not significant yet. Perhaps a significant German story would be Merkel's proposal for a more secure, Europe-based Internet — See "Data protection: Angela Merkel proposes Europe network," [3] "Merkel, Hollande to discuss European communication network avoiding U.S." [4]Sca (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As far as I can tell, it's not really a "coalition crisis", just a ministerial resignation. There doesn't seem to be any suggestion that the coalition is going to collapse, and if it is we should wait and post that. Neljack (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: I find it ironic that a beetle Charles Darwin discovered 180 years ago is rediscovered on his 205th birthday. Andise1 (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I located the original description (http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.379.6624) and corrected the article a little. This is a new species from Argentina that is known from two specimens, one of which was collected by Darwin during the voyage of the Beagle. The specimen was lost for a while before Chatzimanolis found it back. I don't think there is anything especially significant about this; new beetle species are found all the time and the fact that Darwin managed to catch one doesn't automatically make it important. The fact that the article was released on Darwin's birthday was probably just for PR. Ucucha (talk) 05:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And your point being? Besides showing a "Im right you are wrong" attitude..? Do not see what you tried to accomplish with the comment. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. New beetle species are not unusual, and as Lugnuts said the mere fact that Darwin had one in his collection doesn't reach the threshold of notability for ITN. I agree that this would make an interesting DYK entry though. Modest Geniustalk13:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Its no mean feat to form a government in Lebanon of itself, this one additionally has BOTH polar opposites in the government and took 10 months to form. Thats added notability, and its also in light of the Syrian situation to form a national unity government. This is akin to Belgium's government formation. Lihaas (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support after sufficient update. Forming governments in Lebanon has been a tough deal in recent years. To come with a national unity government after the recent bombings and tense situation in neighboring Syria is surely a great achievement. Mohamed CJ(talk)18:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why? was this posted without an update? Evene if it's ITN/R, it still needs a nice new prose paragraph. This should be pulled if not fixed by a supporter. μηδείς (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this large portion was a chart, with only two prose sentences at the time, expressing no more than was in the blurb itself--that's specifically deprecated in the posting policy. μηδείς (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to a talk page discussion, as you seem to object to pretty much everything that's posted that you haven't nominated or supported yourself. Clearly you have an issue with the way in which consensus is judged here, whether it be "4 supports" or "page views" or "prose update adequate". Whatever, it's becoming tedious seeing your griping on everything that gets posted that you don't like. Please start a proper thread at the talk page, or better still, formulate an RFC so we can gather community comments to discuss such issues as "4 supports" or "5 sentences, 3 references" etc. Right now, moaning on every nomination is getting you nowhere. In fact, according to some, it's getting you worse than nowhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: 21 year old record by Ukrainian legend Sergey Bubka, in athletics, which until recently was thought to be bound to last for a very long time. --Hektortalk16:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support given the length the record has stood, but the blurb should refer to the "men's world record", rather than just the "world record". Neljack (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but AFAIK there has been no woman who has pole vaulted higher, so the qualifier is not needed. It is indeed an all-human world record. --Jayron3202:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Our article calls it the "men's pole vault world record" (or the "world record in the men's pole vault"). As usual here, we should follow the relevant article. And it is standard to refer to "men's" and "women's" world records in athletics and other sports. Men's and women's records are equally world records. Men's and women's pole vaulting are separate events with separate records. The blurb should not imply that there is one world record for what are two separate events. Nor should it elevate the men's record above the women's one. The higher (or lower, in running events etc) world records in men's events, as a result of physiological differences, do not mean that women's records should be treated as second-class records while the men's records are treated as the "real" records. That would be a clear case of sexism. Neljack (talk) 06:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that Lavillenie broke the indoor world record, while Bubka still holds the outdoor record at 6.14 m. Indoor athletics events have always been held as preparation before the start of the season and thereby have never had the same significance as the outdoor athletics. However, breaking a world record standing for 21 years appeals to support this, unless there is a precedence that we should not post the achievements in indoor athletics.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's early to judge in advance before IAAF officially ratifies this record. No IAAF rule applies to achievements that were no ratified as official records. Hence, it leads to the conclusion that this nomination was posted too early. Please also note that IAAF makes distinction between the all time best results recorded indoor and outdoor.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then you also have to wait to say that he broke the indoor record, because it hasn't been ratified either. If you agree to say that it is an indoor record, it is also a world record. The official rule 260.18a states that a world record can be set "with or without a roof" and there is no official outdoor record ratified by the IAAF. Withenemies (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a must. Many headlines have not mentioned the 'indoor' caveat. The article clarifies that point which I think is sufficient.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From 18 to 43 people including civilians are killed and dozens wounded by a car bomb outside a mosque in the southern Syrian village of al-Yadouda according to local reports. (ABC News)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: We commonly see baseball/basketball HoF'ers here, well here's a genuine British version, OBE, CBE, Knight, Preston (569 games) & England legend (30 goals in 76 matches), inaugural inductee into the English Football Hall of Fame, footballer of the year (twice), statue outside the National Football Museum. More updates once I wake up properly. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support A true legend and gentleman, honoured by all clubs and respected by everybody who knew him. I'm a proud Prestonian, this city mourns its greatest son today. doktorbwordsdeeds09:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe not a household name for some fans, but he was one of the greatest England international footballers. First player to be Footballer of the Year in the top flight twice, and a one time all-time leading goalscorer for the international team. Preston North End's stadium on only sits on Tom Finney Way, but there's a statue of him outside the ground and one of the stands is named after him. Miyagawa (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion went slight awry with regard to this topic
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.
Instead of beating people over the head with your past failed nominations why not concentrate on building consensus for an actual nomination that you put forth? People will not fall over themselves to support your nominations just because you want them to; you must convince them. I would be happy to support an Australian football player comparable to this man. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I worked my guts out for the last Australian footballer I nominated. It wasn't rejected. It wasn't posted. The Americans and Brits ignored it, so it fell off the bottom of the page. Beating people over the head seems a valid strategy to me at this stage. HiLo48 (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Beating me over the head wouldn't make me want to help someone like you out. It's always disappointing when something you worked hard on doesn't get the recognition and respect you feel it deserves(like my failed Iceland police shooting nomination, a widely covered event that I believe was not understood by most people) but it just happens and it is better to focus on the next one than on the last one. You make more friends(or at least get more support) with honey than vinegar. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice platitude, but irrelevant to the reality of our systemic bias. And it's not a matter of helping ME out. It's about making ITN and Wikipedia better places. Note my comment about the entire thread of which I spoke being effectively ignored. No amount of honey would have made any difference, because nobody would have even seen it. HiLo48 (talk) 11:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not irrelevant; convincing people about how your arguments will address a significant issue on WP is better than just repeatedly telling people they are wrong. But to each his own. If you say it's not about you I must believe you, but you are the one who said "I worked my guts out" above. 331dot (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of writing the most brilliant and most diplomatic arguments, if our systemic bias means that people never look beyond the subject line? HiLo48 (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose First, this is very nicely updated. Second, I am opposing on principle as I opposed Ralph Kiner and he seems to have had about twice the readership interest. Of course he has about 12 times the interest that the now stale Stuart Hall has, so seeing that bumped would not hurt the project. μηδείς (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well the US has five times the population of Britain, so that's not surprising. And I was under the impression that significance in their field, not popularity, was the criterion here. Relying on popularity would massively exacerbate systemic bias - think how hard it would be to get anyone from a small, non-English-speaking country posted. Neljack (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose all too common in Italy and head of govt is not notable enough of itself for such postings. AOnly if theres somethign extraordinaryLihaas (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Head of government has the power in Italy. And Italy is an important country. I'd go with an altblurb instead, PM Letta resigns. No need to mention Napolitano here. --Tone17:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Governments do change somewhat frequently in Italy, and if I read the news sources correctly there was no scandal or single event that precipitated this resignation(just ineffectiveness in the position). Not seeing a ton of news coverage of this, either. 331dot (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It might help if we had a rationale, like, imagine, Letta resigns for health reasons, throwing the XYZ coalition that has ruled for five year in a tizzy. Something to give us context and a reason to think it's important. μηδείς (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only reason this would be particularly significant is how it relates to the overall financial situation in Europe. Banks are still looking rather nervously at Italian debt, wondering if continuing to fund the government is a good investment or not - and instability doesn't help. But overall I agree with others here that this should be opposed unless there is more news surrounding it. GoldenRing (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This resignation is particularly significant considering the still precarious economic situation in Italy and the Eurozone in general. The political situation in Italy has implications across the Eurozone, since political uncertainty or instability has previously undermined market confidence in Italy and trouble in the third-largest economy in the Eurozone would have significant effects throughout the bloc. More generally, I don't understand the opposition to resignations. To my mind, the resignation of a government is just as notable as the election of one. And does anyone seriously doubt that we would post the resignation of a US President or even a British Prime Minister? Neljack (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's certainly not true. In Westminster systems such as Britain most executive power lies with the Cabinet, rather than the Prime Minister alone. Neljack (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thousands of homes in England remain without power following Wednesday's storms as the UK's Met Office forecasts fresh heavy rain and high winds for Friday. (BBC News)
During a two-day visit by an Egyptian delegation in Moscow, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Moscow and Cairo have agreed to speed up work on drafting agreements on military-technological cooperation. Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu added that this could include joint military exercises and training of Egyptian officers in Russian military academies. (Al-Ahram)(The Hindu)
The UK Government says that packages sent to several army careers offices had "potentially viable devices bearing hallmarks of Northern Ireland related terrorism". (BBC News)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Footballer manager who won the UEFA Euro and FIFA Confederation cup as Denmark manager, managed number of national teams aswell as club teams. Only Danish manager to win a national cup competitions. Well known person and deserve RD as for his kind of work he did great. – HonorTheKing (talk)12:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see the significance. For an American comparable, we have Jim Fregosi, who just died today, and I think he's so unlikely to pass I never thought of nominating him. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He's comparable as a team manager with some career success. How does coaching in one upset, no matter how historic it might be, qualify him through the death criteria? I don't see evidence he is/was "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." – Muboshgu (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The European championship is a significant title but I think for a manager to be notable there needs to be a significant career record of successes to be notable enough for ITN.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose this if he was American, British, Australian, Indian, Japanese, Martian, Alpha Centaurian, Vulcan, etc. etc. The nationality is irrelevant. There is no evidence of bias in opposition to this entry (in fact someone pointed out a comparable American that they did not nominate) so I am a tad puzzled as to why you brought it up. There is no systemic bias battle to be fought on this issue. 331dot (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where were you when Stuart Hall, who didn't even get a thousand hits, was nominated? (Talk about bias, that's about the size of the subscribership of the Manchester Star) A laughable, in-group nomination. μηδείς (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, HiLo, do you consider yourself on the left, or the right? BTW, while Nielsen got just under 4,800 hits, Kiner (whom I also opposed) got just under 48,000 hits. Bias? You so crazeh. μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Coaches and managers of sports teams (w/o any other major career highlights) are unlikely to be important enough for RD to start. --MASEM (t) 02:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wasn't sure about this at first, but on thinking about it some more his significance is this: he coached Denmark to probably the biggest upset victory ever in a major international football competition. They didn't even qualify for the tournament originally (they only got in when Yugoslavia was banned because of the war there), their best player refused to play for them, and nobody gave them any chance. But they triumphed over most of the best teams in the world. That's enough for RD in my book. Neljack (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But it seems to me that it is precisely when teams that have less talent than others triumph that the coach must take the most credit. It's one thing to coach a team full of stars to a title, quite another to mould a team out of more limited talent that can beat the best and win a title. Neljack (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sadly if he was British or American it would have had only support claims, same as Sir Thomas Finney who was posted in RD. What is the diff between the two? Both were knighted by their kings/queens, both played and managed teams. But Finney article have nothing about his duties since retirement in the 1960's, only small part about him maybe as PNE president but doesn't tell you much. While Nilsen, whos article is not so long or nice looking, is known in his country and other countires maybe more than Finney. This is sad that even tho this is English speaking wikipedia, Brits and American always no matter what have RD posted, even College football managers from the 1950s. – HonorTheKing (talk)15:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your pain, but Finney was in a different class, an international with over 70 appearances and 30 goals, played for one club for over 500 games, honoured for his charity work, referred to by some as the greatest footballer ever.... If Nielsen matched that I'd get it, but he didn't. I don't think, on this instance, it's related to Brits and Americans (although the draw of college football remains forever a mystery to 98% of the globe). Having said that, the article does itself no favours, with POV from the start with "which surprisingly won", and entirely unreferenced paragraphs, but that's another issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article:Kelud (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Kelud volcano eruption in Indonesia prompts evacuation of 200,000 and closure of three airports (Post) Alternative blurb: After the eruption of Mount Sinabung, that killed 14 people, the eruption of Kelud volcano in Indonesia prompts evacuation of 200,000 and closure of three airports. News source(s):ABCThe Australian, CNN Credits:
Nominator's comments: Developing story. The full impact is not yet known, but "explosions could be heard 130km away in Surabaya [...] and further afield in Yogyakarta. Ash covered the ground in both cities." This shows the extent --ELEKHHT03:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support if 2014 Eruption section is updated expanded and ready to give more information, I've add more photos along with Crisco to Commons, latest news the ash also reach Solo.--AldNonUcallin?☎04:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless the story develops. We just ignored the eruption of Mount Sinabung two weeks ago which killed at least 14. This volcano erupts regularly. We can post it quickly if the situation becomes notably dire. μηδείς (talk) 05:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed out above that this is "developing" so no need to oppose before all news are in. Regarding Sinabung, I can't find the relevant discussion (both the January and February archives show no indication of any discussion), but I see the 2010 eruption was posted (17,000-30,000 evacuated). Finally, please consider that not only deaths are notable events. Thanks. --ELEKHHT05:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC):[reply]
Implicit in my statement is that I will support it under other circumstance, but I do oppose as is. Be assured I do follow up, do change my vote on occasion, and do work to help noms I have opposed get posted anyway if there's consensus--see the plain crash below. I think the combined blurb is a good idea, and would like to see other comments on that. μηδείς (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I meant of the airport reopenings he mentioned. Semarang is almost 200km away from Kelud, so it is unsurprising that the airport reopened (heck, it opened for half a day on Friday). Malang is much, much, closer, and if the airport there is reopening... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support important scientific study that helps answer an old question (where the native peoples of the Americas came from) fairly definitively. "Native American" is not the best term, though, as that term usually means people native to the US only, not the broader group - I have suggested an alt. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Have wondered about issuing this for a few days, but the extent and intensity of the recent damage, record breaking meteorological values and the ongoing political fallout and continued high profile makes me think it should be posted. --yorkshiresky (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Strongly opposed to the idea that this is somehow a catastrophe - it ain't. Homes built on flood plains get flooded as a result of flood-defense neglect...coupled with the usual political tit-for-tat. And don't forget the long-term impact: some, but not that much. Truth is, this isn't even close to our own version of Typhoon Haiyan or even Hurricane Katrina (well maybe it is if you're a Daily Mail reading middle Englishman!) --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Whilst this is devastating to those affected, it is minor by international standards. One death (that I'm aware of) and a relatively small number of flooded houses is not significant enough for ITN, and would be an example of WP:BIAS if we posted it. Modest Geniustalk11:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think the refusal to post this story on several occasions is approaching bias. Southern England has now had its heaviest 3-month rainfall in over 250 years of records; some localities have been cut off entirely for over a month; most of two counties have been cut off by rail after a rail system that has survived 150 years collapsed into the sea, and there is no expectation that it will be restored for at least six weeks; the people of Worcester would probably object to Somchai Sun's insinuation that they have foolishly built their city on a flood-plain when it has been there for over 2,000 years; the civil institutions have been unable to cope with demand, necessitating a military deployment nearing 10,000-strong; damage estimates are already in the hundreds of millions of pounds. Meteoroligcally, it is considerably worse than hurricane Katrina, lasting, as it has, for eight weeks and producing storm surges comparable to Katrina on numerous occasions, and the only reason it has not equalled it in damage terms is that the UK is considerably better prepared for it. GoldenRing (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"insinuation that they have foolishly built their city" - I assure you it was no insinuation and no mention of cities in my text (and since when did I say it was foolish? Didn't you see me mention "flood defense neglect" in the same sentence?). I have my opinions/views/personal involvement with this, and from what I can see this has blown massively out of proportion in the UK media. And guess what, I live in the Thames Valley. --Somchai Sun (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, either the phrase "Homes built on flood plains get flooded as a result of flood-defense neglect" was meant to include Worcester, a city, in which case I can't see how I'm wrong, or your summary of the situation was woefully inaccurate. Up to you, I guess. GoldenRing (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose however it is largely disruptive to a large number of people in a "first world country", with deaths comparable to that from a recent volcanic eruption in Indonesia. All done now though I think (and hope). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the biggest news story of the year so far in the UK (where they are the worst natural disaster at least since the 2007 United Kingdom floods), but has no effect of the rest of the world. That is why there is a great deal of media coverage of it in the UK but very little elsewhere. Putting this on the front page would seem like Anglocentrism, because floods of this severity and worse happen all the time somewhere in the world. What are the guidelines regarding inclusion of events that are unusual in the country in which they occurred, but are commonplace elsewhere in the world? If this had happened in Bangladesh, no-one would nominate it, nor would it have an article. Jim Michael (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This was on the US nightly news the other night, right after a 30 second piece on the death of the actor who played the father on The Waltons. Given the storms are a continuation of the storms coming off the North American east coast, with its record breaking cold and snow cover, perhaps a combined blurb would garner more support. μηδείς (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pssst, that guy from The Waltons wasn't even nominated for RD, thank God...And Indonesia maybe - as apparently this weather "knock on effect" started there. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mean commonplace for this amount of rainfall to fall in this duration of time and this extent of flooding, not compared to the average. Despite Britain's almost worldwide reputation for having very high rainfall, the truth is that many other countries have much higher rainfall. Sydney and New York City each receive over twice the rainfall of London, yet Sydney and NYC aren't widely regarded being particularly rainy, but London is. Likewise, Rome and Lisbon both receive significantly more rain than London, yet aren't thought of as rainy cities. Jim Michael (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The article has multiple unreferenced paragraphs in the "Film career" section. If those are fixed, I support - clearly a significant figure in Indian cinema. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Russia says it will veto a U.N. resolution on humanitarian aid access in Syria, claiming that the draft is an effort to prepare for military strikes against President Bashar al-Assad's regime. (Reuters)
In which way is it POV? The results of the repression are precisely what makes it stand out from the regular demonstrations, and what the media focus when they talk about it. Cambalachero (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Lihaas- "support and post" is not a helpful comment. Why is it 'notable' or otherwise worthy of posting? Just saying something is interesting is not sufficient and does not help posting admins evaluate the rationale behind the consensus. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support but maybe wait - what do others think? This is probably a big news story for Venezuela, but my feeling is that it will get bigger over the coming days and that might be the right time to post it. I've suggested a more neutral altblurb. The article itself seems to be in pretty good shape. GoldenRing (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the alt blurb is the only way forward here, target article is half decent but the protests appear to be ongoing, there could be more in the pipeline as right now it appears to be a minor scuffle albeit with a handful killed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is correct to wait and see what develops a little more; I have read that Pres. Maduro has expelled 3 US diplomats saying they are meddling in the protests and a protest leader is going to present a list of demands to the Minstry of Justice (mentioned in same link). We should see what happens. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Unfortunately, it seems that there is a strong discussion lately between Zfigueroa and Communist-USSR about the content of the article. I will try to help them to achieve a neutral version of the article as best as I can (other's help may be welcomed), but for the moment the article may not be as stable as it should be in the main page, so perhaps I should decline this proposal Cambalachero (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jade Rabbit mission over
Withdrawn. Since I made this nomination, Chinese media has now started reporting that it's still alive after all. Serves me right for believing the state media I suppose. I therefore withdraw this nomination. Modest Geniustalk11:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: China has officially declared that its lunar rover is dead. It was designed to run for 3 months, but only managed 41 days before breaking. The problem occurred on 25 January, and it hasn't done anything since then, but they only abandoned attempts to recover it today. --Modest Geniustalk22:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If this was the first exploration of Mars or some other body that isn't often (relatively) explored, I might support, but it's not. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support Caesar was a pioneer of broadcast television not only in the US but worldwide - his television debut in 1949 predates the introduction of regularly scheduled television in most other developed countries, let alone the world. A significant influence on the medium.theBOBbobato (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose article is woefully short of references, it would be embarrassing for Wikipedia to promote this article on its main page. With regard to the subject matter, in uninvolved press coverage I'm not seeing the claim of "pioneer", or "legend", more a "comedian", a "co-star". If the article could be improved, it might be worth another look, but right now, this is a just another US actor passing on I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The credit's enough of a reference to indicate that the actor played such and such a role in that film. I.e., one can say Bruce Willis is credited in The Fifth Element without any source besides The Fifth Element itself. This is long established policy. μηδείς (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have already linked to the policy. Specified TV shows are primary sources; anything one can glean, without synthesis or interpretation, from a primary source is fine. An episode of Texaco Star Theater that had him listed as cast would be good for that episode, assuming he didn't have a continual starring role. μηδείς (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Link to a policy that states that a TV show is a primary source. Because WP:RS that you linked to doesn't say that. And then explain how a TV show article that doesn't list him in the credits supports your claim to using it as a primary source. Stephen02:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read the article primary source, which is already linked in the policy. Any published, named work is a source, from a novel to a cartoon book, to a documentary, to a Simpsons episode. You might as well ask for a source that says that the source that says that a primary source is a primary source is a source. μηδείς (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you can't link to a policy. Nor can you show that a fact can be verified by linking to an article that doesn't mention the fact. That's all I needed. Thanks. Stephen03:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not interested in getting you to back down. Nor do we have policies that list policies. Nor do we have policies that list policy about which policies are policy. We simply have policies such as {{WP:RS]] that list how sources can be used, and a link that describes what primary sources are, which includes movies and TV shows, and other documentary, commentary, and works of art. At some point these things stand on their own. If we needed a source to tell us that a source is a source we'd have an infinite regress. I know that can be confusing. I understand completely. μηδείς (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Based on his long and award-winning career. The guy was a legend and indeed an acting and television hosting pioneer, but died in the fullness of his years which makes it not quite big enough for a blurb, so this is what RD is for. Yes the article needs some help, but it will get better as the hours go by. Jusdafax02:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be helpful to know if the "oppose because of article quality" votes are actually "support if article is improved" votes, or just opposes looking for a reason to hang their hat on. μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - We tend to post a few more actors than I would prefer, but I don't see a problem here. He certainly qualifies as a broadcast television pioneer, and the sources are calling him just that. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Updated The article now has 24, instead of 11 citations (diff). The death section is updated. I have hidden material that seems correct but which I can't support. Coverage now crosses the Atlantic, with "legend" and "pioneer" claims in almost every citation, including remarks by Carl Reiner and Mel Brooks.
Comment I will abstain from !voting since it would seem somewhat self-promotional, but let me just say a) to those who opposed earlier, I would ask you to take another look, since much work has been done in the mean time, and b) much has been done by a number of other editors as well, significantly by Moncrief, Tenebrae and not at all least by Medeis. I have added them above. DwpaulTalk 04:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article now looks to be in reasonable shape. TBH I've never heard of the guy, but then US comedy is not exactly one of my areas of interest. Could The Rambling Man and Connormah take another look and see if their concerns have been addressed? GoldenRing (talk) 10:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been to the article today, but I should mention that Caesar's obituary with six photos of him appears on the front page of The New York Times. He was by any standard a comedy legend. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, he was a tremendous influence on American comedy, and started the careers of many of the 20th century's top comedy writers. When the scripts from Your Show of Shows were found in a closet in 2000, it made the NYT front page. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
.jpg)
