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).
Article:Dabajuro (talk·history·tag) Blurb: A bus en route to a sporting event in Dabajuro, Venezuela crashes, injuring 40 - including 26 children - and leaving one dead. (Post) News source(s):Laverdad.com (in Spanish) Credits:
Strong oppose. If we posted every traffic accident that killed one person we would (regrettably) be posting thousands every day. This is a story for the local newspaper, not ITN. Modest Geniustalk15:31, 8 September 2013 (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.
Nominator's comments: The film festival is ITN/R so once the relevant articles are updated we should be ready to post this. Gianfranco Rosi also should be updated along with the other articles mentioned in the blurb above. Andise1 (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: First launch of the Minotaur V. Mission to the Moon. First solar system exploration mission launched from Wallops. Hektor (talk) 09:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - ITNR convinces me. Even without it, it is a story of fascinating impact, in the news, and of international interest, as the frontiers of human science are expanded. What is that moon dust? Jusdafax18:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, both for the new launcher and the mission itself. However I would turn the blurb around to lead with the probe and cut out the unnecessary detail. I've suggested an alternative above. Modest Geniustalk21:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The LADEE article has a sufficient update, and this is ITNR so I'm marking as ready. Note my comment on the blurb is now even more important due to the location of the update. Modest Geniustalk14:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: This is usual. However there is a twist. In fact this 125th IOC Session will have indeed three votes, two important ones and a minor one: the election of the host city, the election of the new IOC president and the choice of a new Olympic sport. This is the first election of a new IOC president since wikipedia, I think. And I think given the prominent role of an IOC president it should be ITN. So do we do a second blurb when the successor of Jacques Rogge is elected, or do we do a single blurb to wrap everything, for instance "During its 125th Session in Buenos Aires, the IOC elects Xxx as host city of the 2020 Summer Olympics and Yyy as president of the IOC". And what about the election of a new sport ?
I think it would be best to mention the host city and the new IOC president in the same blurb. I don't think the new sport is important enough to mention, but I don't suppose there is any actual harm in listing that also, if it can be done without making the blurb overly long (I doubt that it can be). Either way, my preference would probably be to omit the new sport. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree. Please note then that I would support putting the blurb tonight as soon as the 2020 host city is elected, and update it on September 10 (Tuesday) when the IOC president is elected. Hektor (talk) 06:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we can update it gradually, but there are three days between the elections and there is a little risk that the blurb will vanish from the main page during that time. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support including the host city and the new president in one blurb. It's quite likely that there won't be a new sport, since it's widely expected that wrestling will be successful in its attempt to remain in the Olympics. I don't think "wrestling doesn't get kicked out of the Olympics" would be a sufficiently big story, though perhaps a new sport would be. In any case, it might be difficult fitting that into the blurb too. Neljack (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Though since the presidential election will take place three days after the choice of the host city, the blurb should go up with just the latter and then be updated and bumped up when the former is announced. Neljack (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd go for the host city and the new sport. I know the presidency does not change hands regularly, and it's not like it isn't a big deal. I just think it's likely to be less interesting to readers. Unless, perhaps, it is someone already well-known. Formerip (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Why the delay in posting? Consensus to post the host city was reached before the decision.More than 12 hours. later still no update, this should have been done yesterday evening. yorkshiresky (talk) 07:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugnuts: Is that really necessary? As yorkshiresky seemed to acknowledge, the problem was the update. It was only marked ready at 12:02 UTC, and was posted within an hour and a half. C'mon. -- tariqabjotu14:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Comment Re the blurb... Australia has a parliamentary system. Voters do not vote directly for the PM. Assuming the result is clear enough quickly enough (it wasn't last time; it took weeks), the blurb should read something like "The xxxxx party wins a majority of seats in the Australian federal election, making yyyyy the Prime Minister." HiLo48 (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the election is likely to be won by a coalition rather than a party, and its leader will not become PM for a couple of weeks (until appointed by the Governor-General after final results are in), so "making yyyyy the Prime Minister" would be misleading. I would suggest this as a blurb, following our usual practice for election blurbs: "The Coalition, led by Tony Abbott, wins the 2013 Australian federal election. Neljack (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right. I was going to say something more than just "The Coalition" until I saw from the article on it that it technically comprised four parties (Liberal, National, Country Liberal. and Liberal National), which complicated things a bit. But the Liberal National Party is apparently just a merger of Liberal and National in Queensland, and the Country Liberal Party is sort of a mixture and only exists in the Northern Territory, so perhaps we could refer to the Coalition as "the Liberal-National Coalition". I've seen it called that in the international media and it is referred to as such in the disambiguation note at the top of our article too. Neljack (talk) 06:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Liberal in both Australian and US usage are essentially equivalent terms. Both Democrat and Republican parties would be well on the right side of Australian politics. --Pete (talk) 10:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Coalition" is not a proper noun and is not capitalized. I'd also express a general distaste for generic piping - "The coalition" or any similar term could redirect anywhere and the link should bear a meaningful relationship with the target. The actual story is obviously worth posting given a decent update. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 10:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've encountered a unique and confusing aspect of Australian politics. Please look at Coalition (Australia). Note the capital C. It's a virtually permanent coalition of a couple of larger parties that tends to exist even when the parties are not in power. To add further confusion, one of the members of this Coalition is the Liberal Party, Australia's major conservative party. HiLo48 (talk) 10:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll resist commenting on how upside-down that is ;).
Capital C all the time. See here. It's so common and ingrained a usage in Australia that I'm certain many Australian people don't realise that the words "coalition" and "liberal" have very different meanings elsewhere in the world. HiLo48 (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What update is needed? The current text appears to address the comments above where appropriate, and the bolded article text appears to be up to date from a quick scan. John Vandenberg(chat)04:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abbott is currently the leader of the party that's the major partner in the Coalition which has, for all intents and purposes, won the election. The formal process is that in that capacity he will, some time in the next few days, visit the Governor General and tell him he is able to form government. The GG will then swear him in as Prime Minister. It doesn't depend on parliament meeting. HiLo48 (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to this, "The Prime Minister is chosen by a vote of the members of the government." I'm unsure if "government" refers solely to the ministers, the members of his party/coalition, or the parliament per se. Well of course, he should have to go to the GG once he is chosen. –HTD06:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Government" refers to the elected members of the ruling party, or in this case, the Coalition. I guess that, theoretically, a new vote could be held now and the leader could change, but that would be unprecedented. HiLo48 (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Post as soon as possible, someone, please. This is very important news, and Kevin Rudd, when he was elected leader of Labor midway, was put on the news post-haste. Someone do this quickly, please. (btw, good riddance to him) Decentman12 (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2013 (EST)
Support - yeah, look, parliamentary elections with an indirectly elected leader are obviously more complicated but all reliable sources are now describing Abbott as the "Prime Minister-elect" with the presumption he will be sworn in over the next few days. That's what they're saying in the news, and this is "In The News". I don't think we're going to run into too much trouble. Stalwart11111:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just finished adding a results table for the House of Reps and some prose in the "Post-election" section. Is that good enough? If so, can someone uninvolved in updating the article mark this as [Ready]? —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
South Korea bans all fishery imports from eight Japanese prefectures, amid concern over leaks of radioactive water from the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant. (BBC)
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Support - The target article is somewhat thin on the content side, but that will grow. Definitely in the news, and of international interest. Perfect candidate for ITN. Jusdafax18:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article:Srebrenica massacre (talk·history·tag) Blurb: The Dutch supreme court rule that dutch soldiers acting as UN peacekeepers were liable for some of the deaths in the Srebrenica massacre. (Post) News source(s):BBC Credits:
Support Indeed a significant decision that will surely get plenty of international attention. Suggest changing the blurb to make clear that it is the Dutch state that has been found liable, not the soldiers personally. Neljack (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on posting, but the proposed blurb is somewhat misleading. The Supreme Court ruled that the Netherlands shoulders liability for three of the 7,500 deaths in the Srebrenica massacre; while "some" might be technically accurate, I think that to most readers it would suggest a higher proportion than 0.04%. -- Black Falcon(talk)04:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment alter the blurb please, I was under the impression that the 3 were a 'test case' for 'The three men were among thousands who took shelter in the UN compound'. And yes dutch state were found liable not the individual soldiers but I couldn't figure out a correct sounding blurb for that. EdwardLane (talk) 08:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This leak is of global impact; we now know the NSA is capable of hacking "HTTPS, voice-over-IP and Secure Sockets Layer (SSL)" among other things. Mohamed CJ(talk)14:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Especially the confirmation that the NSA has been inserting back doors in hardware, software, and standards (though previously suspected) is highly notable. NSA's collection of private keys through hacking and court orders is also highly notable. The NSA has basically highjacked the Internet security structure. Though it should be noted that the NSA can't actually hack HTTPS and SSL in general. Thue (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am pretty sure Snowden released all these things in one go. these newspapers just want to take their sweet time and slowly reveal one classified program after another. Its getting annoying... couple weeks after it'll be another thing that he released. We get it NSA snoops on anything and everything. -- Ashish-g5518:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And we have posted almost nothing of it ITN. This news item in isolation is insanely notable - I am baffled that people here are so opposed to posting it. Thue (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose because the article is so short, and can not be foreseen to develop much further, because all information about this programme is so incredibly scarce. We know very little (actually nothing) of its specific technical capabilities, like which encryptions it can actually defeat. Quoting The Guardian, after pressure from the intelligence community the publications that ran this story "[...] removed some specific facts but decided to publish the story because of the value of a public debate about government actions [...]." If we actually had information about the specific cryptographic advances NSA has supposedly made, this would be a very interesting story. --hydrox (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One of the core responsibilities of spy agencies is cracking encryption and codes. The existence of this program should be utterly unsurprising. In that vein, this seems little more than an incremental update on the already-ran fact that the US government is spying on its own citizens. Resolute19:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Inserting actual backdoors into encryption standards (and getting caught) is not business as usual! On the other hand, would you also argue that the military's job is to wage war, so ITN should not feature any news involving a military waging war? Thue (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Put in parallel, an ITN story on a military going to war would be equivalent of our posting the revelation that the NSA is spying on its own citizens. The latter was posted, and the former would also be posted, of course. This story is like running an ITN blurb on troop movements. Resolute23:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A parallel would be the military using chemical weapons. Backdooring encryption standards really is not business as usual. Thue (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is non-news. NSA receives billions of dollars to make codes and crack codes. It is not news that a secret government agency is able to do what they are supposed to do. Per Resolute, this is a minor, incremental update of a previous story. JehochmanTalk20:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The newspapers were asked not to publish specifically these articles because of national security, but posted edited but still revealing article anyway - calling that "not news" is insane. Don't be fooled by diversions in the information war. Thue (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jehochman. Also, ITN is not an Edward Snowden ticker. We don't need to post every "new" release from the information he took. 331dot (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I remember, we only posted the initial revelation, and the grant of asylum in Russia. Our Snowden coverage is proportionally wastly smaller than the newspaper coverage. Thue (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Important new revelations, raising questions about internet security and privacy with considerable public interest. Widespread international coverage. Neljack (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the oppose comments that suggest we should already all know exactly what the NSA is doing border on the assertion of psychic ability. Indeed, why don't those who suggest this is "no surprise" tell us what other secret domestic spying and other illegal activities the US government is up to? I don't see any reason to wait for the press to cover it, when editors here are so knowledgeable. μηδείς (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are filtering everything and reading/listening/looking-at whatever is flagged as "interesting". I don't see this revelation as being different from the one that was already featured. With ITN we don't post every new facet of the same story. This news is significant, but it's not separate enough from the story we already featured to be featured again. If more details are revealed about "back doors", I might change my opinion. If the back door is just a method of complying with a subpeona, that's not really newsworthy. If NSA have found a way to crack PGP or quickly factor really large composite numbers, I'd be impressed and might reconsider. JehochmanTalk02:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This chunk of the story does seem to suggest that they can 'crack' really large composite numbers - not because they are better at the maths required but because they have forced the people writing encryption protocols to use particular factors (that are then known to the nsa) making cracking any public key encryption possible where normally it would need a supercomputer - all they would need to say is you must use this large prime as part of the composite number - the code appears encrypted but is effectively not encrypted to anyone knowing which large prime is used. That's described here as "adding a common exponent to a public-key exchange protocol," EdwardLane (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Though not stated explicitly in the article, the back door in the encryption standards has to be talking about stuff like this. A confirmation of that really is extremely notable, and much more than just another subpoena. Thue (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is another big twist in the ongoing spiral of online spying. The "back door" revelations are new and highly significant. This is a big breaking story with international implications and clearly ITN-worthy. Jusdafax19:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's a long-running story, and this is a significant development so a good point to post. Deliberate installation of back doors into entire protocols is a major new revelation, and entirely unprecedented. However, I would prefer to avoid naming Snowden in the blurb, and instead having a link (on 'reveals'?) to 2013 mass surveillance disclosures, which has much more relevant content. Modest Geniustalk23:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this is not about the NSA having cracked a code, that's indeed part of their job (although had that happened, that would still be Breaking News because 256-bit AES requires a supercomputer far longer than the age of the universe to crack using brute force). Rather it is about the use of backdoors, which violates the contract every internet user thinks he/she has agreed to. Count Iblis (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose. The ITN criteria for deaths are not met: Misch neither held a high ranking office, nor was he "a very important figure in his field". His death did not create a major international impact. A listing at "recent deaths" would me more appropriate.--FoxyOrange (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it was worth nominating this, as it is a very interesting fact. Unfortunately, it's a little too trivia-like for ITN. Recent deaths would be a better place for it. Redverton (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment definitely not blurbworthy, and can't imagine any circumstance in the last 60 years where his death would have been anything other than a backpage (in)human interest story. Not worth pushing any current RD off the ticker. μηδείς (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're overlooking the fact that posting Misch would mean taking down one of the existing listings, all of which are more notable. I'd be in favor of some sort of ranking system for RD so that this could go up when one of the other listings is stale, but without pushing another listing off prematurely. μηδείς (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2013 (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.
Bengali writer and Social Worker Sushmita Banerjee, whose book about her escape from Taliban-ruled Afghanistan was made into the Bollywood movie Escape from Taliban, is shot by suspected Taliban militants. (BBC)
Sixty-eight people are injured as more than 130 vehicles are involved in a series of crashes in thick fog on the Sheppey Crossing, a major road bridge in the United Kingdom. (BBC)
Support Iff it is ready to post reasonably quickly. If not the whole rationale of posting is lost. It's obviously of note but there have been quite a glut of these scientifically notable but otherwise largely ignored "news" items over the last few months. At least it would naturally displace the existing geology story in the template if posted. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Think the blurb should say "largest in the world" and leave the solar system out of it. What proportion of the solar system has been thoroughly surveyed for volcanoes? Formerip (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except for Pluto and Ceres, and the outer Kuiper bodies, the entirety of the solar system has been surveyed for volcanoes. Mercury, Venus, and Mars have been mapped, as have all the tectonically differentiated gas giant satellites. The Earth and Titan are the only bodies with surface oceans, and this volcano wasn't found until now because it is over a mile under water. It's not believed that the gas giants have volcanoes. We shouldn't be dumbing down blurbs on editorial ignorance. Unless there's a source that you know says otherwise this is far and away a huge find. μηδείς (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with this. Why engage in second-guessing the sources because you think the solar system has not been surveyed? It most certainly has been surveyed, and no big volcanos have turned up except Olympus Mons. Abductive (reasoning) 03:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support original blurb. This isn't just slightly larger than Mauna Loa. It's an order of magnitude larger. It's kind of a bad joke on our lay readers and an insult to our educated readers to portray this as just larger than the next terrestrial competitor. μηδείς (talk) 02:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb. If our own planet hasn't even been completely surveyed of volcanoes (and had them measured) we certainly don't need to mention the Solar System in the blurb. 331dot (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, other than your own ignorance of the topic, 331, do you have some basis for that? We have full maps of the surface of every terrestrial body in the solar system closer than Pluto and other than Ceres. The earth is an exception because one or two miles of water on the surface is a unique difficulty. Is there some other planet you fear has an ocean hiding a volcano? μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Drawing a map from satellite imagery is very different than actually exploring another planet or moon. Unless you've been to Titan or Europa recently you cannot categorically state we've found every volcano in the Solar System. I know of no scientist who would make such a claim, unless you hold a degree in astronomy. 331dot (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, people with degrees in astronomy have long stated that Olympus Mons is the largest in the solar system. They have gone to the trouble of mapping Titan and Europa, and no such volcano exists. So this subsea volcano is the second largest. No magical weaseling or Wikilawyering is needed here, thank you. Abductive (reasoning) 03:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What you offensively call "weaseling" and "wikilawyering" I call common sense. If we just found this volcano on our own planet, underwater or otherwise, who knows what we will find when we actually get to other locations in the Solar System. That said, I would be satisfied with "known Solar System" in the blurb. Additionally, most news sources I am seeing are describing this as the largest on Earth in the headline, and mentioning the Solar System and Olympus Mons in the article itself. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll call it worse than that; you are engaging in WP:SYNTHESIS of the sources in your head. Real sources say that vulcanism in the solar system is rare, and creates (other than Earth and Mars) small. Abductive (reasoning) 14:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's very simple to add the word "known" to a blurb when that is found necessary. I don't think it is when one also says "discovered" in the same blurb. But one can add "known" much less destructively than other options. μηδείς (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support with a preference for the original (+"known" per Medeis). Yes, something larger could be found under the ice of Europa, or a known formation could be re-analysed like this one was and found to in fact be a single volcano, but for now it is certainly the second largest known volano in the solar system. To those supporting only the alt because a new volcano may be discovered: This one was found by analysing data on a known structure (discovered early C20 according to the page), so it's also possible that something larger could be found on Earth through similar analysis. I'd say it's notable as the largest known, despite this. MChesterMC (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is an admin not involved in the discussion here reverting the consensus version of the blurb, and why has he not been reverted by another admin for his disruptive edit? μηδείς (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This seems like a notable discovery worthy of being included in In The News assuming the relevant articles are adequately updated. Andise1 (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are approx. 1,240 species of bat. Bats is a far to general article for this story. I'm not even sure this discovery would warrant mention in that article. --LukeSurltc14:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this study revises the phylogeny of the bats, showing a different tree than had previously been worked out. So the Vesper bat article (and others?) will need some changes. However, if one looks at that article, one will notice that there are existing bat species that are redlinks, showing the complete lack of interest in bats even from Wikipedia editors. Abductive (reasoning) 16:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the scientists themselves say "Many vespertilionid species lack external taxonomically informative characters and are therefore difficult to identify using morphological keys. Consequently, the possibility of adding new distribution records or even discovering new species is still high". I also oppose on the grounds that these new species have not been properly described and named, merely discovered by their DNA. Now, if the nominator could find some secondary sources that emphasize the revision of the phylogeny and crafts a blurb about that, I might change to support. Abductive (reasoning) 16:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Abductive. This is more like finding out from a blood test that your brother, whom you've always known, was actually fathered by that man your mom had an affair with, rather than like discovering you have a brother no one ever suspected existed. μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters reports that the former defense minister of Syria, Ali Habib Mahmud, has defected to Turkey. (Reuters)
The Russian government releases a report that claims to show a makeshift weapon used in a chemical attack near the Syrian city of Aleppo in March was similar to ones made by rebels. (Reuters)
The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee approves a resolution authorizing a limited US military intervention in Syria, setting the stage for a debate in the full Senate next week on the use of military force. (Reuters)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Perhaps posting this in the recent deaths section of the main page is distasteful, but Ariel Castro was still the subject of a very significant international news story within the past few months. He's become a household name. Kurtis(talk)06:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose He doesn't have his own article; that alone should disqualify him from RD. Also, I should point out that we haven't posted anything about this case; I'm not sure why this would be the one thing we post about this on ITN, especially with no context. -- tariqabjotu06:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If it's his unexpected death we are posting, we should be discussing a blurb about this event, and as Tariq said we have posted nothing about this case before, we don't need to start now. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tariq makes the point well, we haven't ITN'ed any of this before, the suicide of this criminal isn't all that, other than to put a spotlight on the way the US jail system works when he was supposed to be on suicide watch. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to the BBC article he was on an enhanced watch but not a suicide watch, although I don't know what the practical difference is/was. Thryduulf (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Is the suggestion that he qualifies for RD by being "widely recognised as a very important figure" in the field of crime? His crimes got a lot of coverage because it was a sensational story, but I don't see much wider significance beyond the many other cases of serious crime that occur every year. Also, he may be a household name in the US, but I doubt he is worldwide. Neljack (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some nice Wikilawyering happening in many of the above posts. Won't fight it. But something really needs highlighting. Given that Castro's death has probably been mentioned in thousands of news services in almost every country in the world over the past 18 hours, probably more than any other item in the current active list, there is clearly something wrong with our title "In the news". I know we need some sort of guidelines, but something's obviously not quite right here. Please don't respond with existing rules. That's been done above. HiLo48 (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what wikilawyering you're talking about. There is no standalone Ariel Castro article; it seems hard to justify someone being notable enough to be included on Recent deaths when he's not notable enough to have his own article. I don't think Ariel Castro is well-known enough, without the context of his crimes, to be posted onto ITN; four months ago, the name was completely unknown. This could, of course, be posted as a blurb, but I'm struggling to understand why the discovery of the three women was not in the news enough to be posted and his admission and thousand-year sentence were not in the news enough to be posted, but his death is. Perhaps this story should have been posted, in retrospect, but it just seems like an odd point to just change our mind about the notability of this story. -- tariqabjotu22:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just on a point of fact, he is actually notable enough for his own article, it's just that we have a (perfectly sound) policy that prevents him from getting one by trumping GNG. All the same, I agree that we can't post someone to RD if they don't have an article. Formerip (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2013 (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.
I have no problem with there being no consensus to post here, damnatio memoriae is quite fine with me. But had this story been nominated (it wasn't?), the objection, as with the SA girlfriend-shooter, would have been that the subject had not been found guilty in court. Now that that issue is moot, nominating the story for posting is hardly bad form or worth immediate closure. μηδείς (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Medeis: Ariel Castro was found guilty (as he pled guilty) in a court of law, and sentenced accordingly, a month ago; that wasn't even nominated. The discovery of the three women was nominated in May, but there was strong consensus not to post. To be honest, I really don't understand the obsession with waiting until someone is found guilty of the crime (that did not appear to be the objection to the story about the women's discovery anyway). -- tariqabjotu02:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just an FYI, it was big news here in Canada too. Oh, and I'm fine with not posting this in recent deaths; I just proposed it in case anyone else saw him as significant enough to warrant mentioning. Kurtis(talk)05:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that we need to think about the fact that an item that really, truly was in the news all over the world isn't "In the news" on Wikipedia. Sure, we have rules that meant it didn't make it, but it does make Wikipedia seem pretty weird. Are we really sure that those rules make sense? HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remember the "Occupy" movement was not put on the front page either. I think it's better that we don't always chase the white heat of what's making the front pages. doktorbwordsdeeds07:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should change that section heading on the Main page to "Some items that are in the news but not necessarily the biggest ones". HiLo48 (talk) 08:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anticipating a retaliatory strike from Syria, Israel carries out a joint missile test with the United States in the Mediterranean. (BBC)(Sky News)
U.S. government officials say that they are willing to rewrite a proposed resolution to clarify that any operation would be limited in scope and duration and would not include the use of ground troops. (Washington Post)
A former US army chief claims that Barack Obama is eyeing intervention in Syria that would go beyond a mere deterrent against chemical weapons to damage the military capacity of the Assad regime. (The Telegraph)
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon questions the legality of US plans to strike Syria without UN backing, saying that the use of force is only legal when it is in self-defence or with Security Council authorization. (Reuters)
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: Prominent science fiction writer/editor from the Golden Age of Science Fiction. While his own works are not quite as prominent as those of fx Asimov, Pohl's activity as agent and editor for other writers also contributes to his importance. Thue (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marked Ready I am marking this ready as well supported. The update is to the whole article, not just the death section, in case anyone wants to object. μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moved up from September 1 to correspond with the date of the opening
Article:Library of Birmingham (talk·history·tag) Blurb: The new Library of Birmingham, the largest municipal library in the United Kingdom and the largest public cultural space in Europe, opens in Birmingham, England. (Post) Alternative blurb: The new Library of Birmingham, the largest municipal library in the United Kingdom, opens in England. News source(s):[1][2][3] Credits:
Question What exactly does "largest" mean here? Largest by square footage? Largest collection? Most capacity for visitors? The article (and even the citations) didn't really answer this question for me. Teemu08 (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bots add the dates at the appropriate time, and as I understand it adding or removing dates prematurely messes up the bot. Just FYI. 331dot (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not every warning can be in large bold print at the top of the page; users adding or removing dates is not the biggest problem on this page, usually informing someone who does it is more than sufficient. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think this will be the largest Local Authority library in the UK, not the largest public library. It will be less than a fifth the size of the British Library and a third the size of the BL Document Supply Centre in West Yorkshire. Formerip (talk) 10:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's only open to the public by prior appointment, and you have to prove the material you wish to access is unavailable elsewhere. Black Kite (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly used to be the case that you couldn't just turn up and access everything. For a lot of stuff you had to give 48h notice. Anyway this is all moot I think. Black Kite (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if so (this is a significant building by Dutch architects; holding collections of international importance), is that a reason to exclude? We have at least two stories on the current homepage which are "national at best". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits10:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Objections based on an event being from a single country are not valid; Do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive."331dot (talk) 11:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can if the blurb is fixed to say something like largest local/municipal/etc. library in Britain and if we get at least three more good and referenced sentences of prose in the construction, holdings, or an opening section. μηδείς (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update itr's fairly clear this will get posted if it's updated, and not if it isn't. We need attention from the nominator or a Birminghamster. μηδείς (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that should go in the blurb. How can it be not be the largest public library in Europe at the same time as being the largest "public cultural space" in Europe? Why do the Pompidou Centre (five times as big), the Prado, the Tate Modern (both twice as big) and so on not count? Obviously, the PR people must have found a way.
Can we please fix the blurb, though? It is definitely the biggest municipal library in the UK, but it is not the biggest municipal cultural space in Europe. According to the article it is "20,798m² (plus 6,804m² shared with the Birmingham Repertory Theatre)". But the Cent Quatre in Paris is 36,800m² and Amsterdam Public Library is 28,500m². These are both municipal sites. I'm pretty sure there will be other examples. Formerip (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Please fix blurb. The claim is dubious in the extreme, and reads more like a press release than an encyclopedia excerpt. Largest municipal/city library in Great Britain is good. μηδείς (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting weak support Damn Brummies always trying to big up their city! A moderately notable le grand opening with some interesting architecture (if you ask me Birmingham needs it ^_^) and a rather different story for a change. --Somchai Sun (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Microsoft's purchase of Nokia's mobile phone division
Article:Nokia (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Microsoft announces that it intends to purchase the mobile phone division of Nokia in a deal worth $7.2 billion, pending approval. (Post) Alternative blurb: Microsoft announces that it will purchase Nokia's mobile phone business in a deal worth $7.2 billion, pending approval. News source(s):CNETNBC NewsCNNLe Monde Credits:
Support. Receiving wide coverage, significant that a once-notable and widely known manufacturer of mobile phones is leaving the market. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The announcement of business deals typically gets more coverage than the actual conclusion or approval of the deal; it's in the news now. Saying "wait" is essentially saying "oppose". 331dot (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was just breaking into the first line of Please Mr Postman by the Marvelettes. I guess it doesn't come across properly on the internet.ETA: The Beatles version, which does actually start with the word "wait".
Obviously, I mean wait until it is a done deal. That announcement may make less of a splash, but that doesn't prevent us from posting it. It's nothing new for us to post something a while after the main news event (e.g. The Ashes). Formerip (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. For that it is an incomplete transaction. I would had supported it for that ten years ago before smart phones, you either had a Nokia, a Motorola, a Ericsson or anything else that came and went, so that explained how big the company was then, now they clearly are a shadow of its former self. Donnie Park (talk) 12:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the wording of the blurb to be more clear, as ViperSnake151 noted. As for whether or not the "pending" part matters, this announcement will get by far more press than the approval, regardless of whether or not it will be approved. There isn't much preventing this from being denied, either. -- Anc516(Champs!) (Talk ▪ Contribs) 12:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as usual, this is simply a flow of money to a better expected rate of return, not a harbinger of great new innovations. μηδείς (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although Nokia's phone business had already almost diminished, the brand is still very well-recognised and this was the leading business story of the day globally. Waiting is not sensible: there are two reservations in the acquisition plan (non-approval by shareholders' meeting scheduled for 19 November 2013, and non-approval by regulation authorities), both of which are only theoretical at best. --hydrox (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, one of the sources says, "Nokia is a deeply troubled company and is rapidly losing relevance." Also, allegedly important cell phone blurb already disgraces ITN presently. Abductive (reasoning) 01:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deeply troubled does not mean it's not notable ITN-worthy. Nokia is still one of the largest mobile phone makers and one of the most recognized brands in the world. -Zanhe (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: one iconic global brand buying another is far more consequential than most of the sports items that we regularly feature on ITN. -Zanhe (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2013 (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.
Comment. Undecided at this moment, but regardless of my opinion my experience here has told me that just winning a Nobel Prize is not a ticket onto ITN or RD(rightly or wrongly). 331dot (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very important economist, a pioneer of the influential law and economics movement (applying economic analysis to law). The Problem of Social Cost has been incredibly influential with its analysis of transaction costs - it is the most cited law review article of all time. Neljack (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate nomination/support for Coase as an RD entry added for 3rd September by Kiril Simeonovski (talk·contribs), with the comment "Coase was particularly known for his theorem explaining how the economic efficiency improves in case of externalities and no transaction costs. He was also the winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1991.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)". It was supported by Thue (talk·contribs) with the comment "Nobel Prize in Economics => automatic support for RD. Thue (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)". I have taken the liberty of deleting the duplicate nomination and moving their comments here instead. BencherliteTalk22:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, Thue, that discussion has been had before, perhaps your support will be automatic, but there are a ton of nobel prize winners. μηδείς (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was going to oppose, but after reading the article ("If you torture the data long enough, it will confess") I am impressed. There's a citation needed tag, and the prose could use some work. I am not sure whether I will be able to get to it in a timely matter. μηδείς (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marked Ready the nomination is well supported, the article is updated and the sources (New York Times, Washington Post, Slate Magazine, Forbes) describe him as one of the greatest of the last century's economists. μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Complaint -- As one of the most influential economists of our time - an assertion supported by virtually every obituary - there is no reason Coase should be consigned to the RD line as opposed to a full entry in ITN. If Seamus Heaney is worthy, Coase is certainly far more, there is no reason whatsoever that Coase should not have a full entry. Simfan34 (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But Heaney's not worthy. He was posted over a few hours on a weekend that's a holiday in the US. The ticker is fine for notable old men dying of old age, which is where Heaney should have ended up. You should express your complain under Heaney's nomination and on the errors page. μηδείς (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that whether or not Heany is worthy is different from whether or not Coase is worthy. I definitely think Coase is worthier than Heany, but just because his death was not unlikely does not mean it isn't newsworthy. The flip side is also true that just because one Nobel Prize winner was not worth a full entry does not mean that no Nobel Prize winners are worth a full entry. I think that if John Nash were to die, for example, there would be no question as to whether or not he deserves a full entry. Coase is not as famous as Nash, but certainly within his (high profile) profession, he's close. 0x0077BE (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not complaining about Heany. I am saying Coase should be on there, on his merits, as a leading expert in an important line of study. Simfan34 (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed. I am new to this page and so I would like to make clear that I did not intend my support for the RD line to be mutually exclusive with a full entry. Coase is probably one of the top 5 most influential economists of the last 50 years. (Updated to sign properly - was IP for some reason) 0x0077BE (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is quite a no-brainer once updated. Perhaps a qualification of professional/non-stop in the blurb to honor Cubans who've don the same thing in slightly different circumstances. μηδείς (talk) 18:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe any Cubans have swam the entire length; they usually get partway out in a boat or makeshift boat and swim if it sinks. This swim is being reported as the second successful attempt. No media is putting a "professional" qualifier on the feat or otherwise acknowledging any alleged Cuban swims; we shouldn't either. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your point seems to be that the accomplishments of non-professional swimmers without professional support are less important than those of well-to-do privileged folk with media support and no nearby attack vessels trying to kill them as escapees. I personally know someone who sam the whole way, with no support, using a large plank like a small surf board, allowing rest. I do support this nomination, but not her deification. μηδείς (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, reliable sources do say that "Professional 64-year old long-distance swimmerDiana Nyad swims from Cuba to Florida with special gear and a 35-person support team."
This is not a soapbox for Cuba's political refugees or situation; but anyway, the issue is not whether or not the swimmer is professional, but whether or not others who have swam the same area are documented and covered in the news, since this is the "In the News" candidates page. If you have a news story of a Cuban refugee swimming or paddleboarding or whatever from Cuba to Florida, I would be more than happy to support it. I don't think it's "deification" to report what the press is reporting. 331dot (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are not a web mirror. When one says "comprehensive encyclopedia" it doesn't mean parrot. You may also note, 331, that I was the first to support this nomination. So the implication that what I am interested in is soapboxing is insulting bullshit. The blurb should simply be accurate. μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - came to nominate it. Note, however, that she is not the first to do the swim but rather the first to do so w/o a shark cage (which aids substantially in drafting). --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Even leaving off the qualifier "without a shark cage" she is only the second person to accomplish this(and the first was in 1997). Clearly a rare feat; top story on NBC and CNN, and most sources describe this as "historic". 331dot (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Our job is not to prove anything, but to report what is being reported, which is that she was the first to do this w/o a cage. It can (and should) be phrased in that context. There is no reason to provide the entire count of her support team and any technical gear she used in the blurb; that's what the article is for. I don't recall any other blurbs about personal achievement going into that much detail. 331dot (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is not really unprecedented at all. Note the clarification factored into the sources - without a shark cage. In other words it's been done before. When you have to clarify an achievement like that to achieve a "first" it's notability goes way down. It's isn't even some heroic case of derring-do that she somehow put herself at risk given that she was surrounded at all times by 35 support staff. Really then, what is of note here? 87.114.54.152 (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it has been done before- once in 1997. People aren't doing this every day(even if there are unrecognized Cubans doing so, they don't on a regular basis or this would indeed not be a notable achievement) Even with support staff she was still at risk from jellyfish stinging her(which prevented past attempts at doing this). Further, I know of few achievements which are performed alone or without some level of involvement from others. 331dot (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
re the Jelly fish she was wearing a face mask against those. Does that mean the first person to do this without the mask is also worthy of ITN? The first to do so bollock naked? The first to do an equivalent swim in slightly colder waters or between any other two arbitrary points? It's a clarified first: it doesn't matter how you try and explain them the clarifications are still there. 87.114.54.152 (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The mask was not a guaranteed protection against jellyfish, it was to prevent her from breathing them in. We're not talking about some feat which has been done by thousands of people with protective gear and she was the first to do it without such gear. We also are not talking about something ridiculous like the first person to cross Broadway in Manhattan with a chicken while reading two books at the same time. This is only the second time this has been done and the first was around 15 years ago. Could you do it? 331dot (talk) 09:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it in the news then? It is still a rare event; even with a qualifier it is only the second time and the first was not recently. 331dot (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) We missed the last update by about 17 hours, so this one, and even one more that becomes ready, could be posted now. I've crafted an alternative blurb that captures the essentials newsworthiness: she's 64; she did it without a shark cage which is much harder (nevermind the sharks, the cage creates a drafting effect that adds to swimmer speed). JehochmanTalk13:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Unusually large business transaction that happens only once or twice a decade. This is the largest corporate deal since 2000.[4] Involves both US and UK businesses. JehochmanTalk17:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Is this really a merger? Verizon is simply buying Vodaphone's 45% stake in Verizon Wireless(where they already owned 55%), not the whole Vodaphone company. 331dot (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it is classified as a merger or an acquisition, I am not sure, but it is definitely an M&A transaction. We could replace "M&A" with "corporate" because that's the exact word used by Reuters. JehochmanTalk17:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - As noted by nom, the third largest business transaction in history. For the record, it is NOT a merger. Update could use some work. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose It is a buyout--an "unmerger". When Bell Atlantic and GTE merged to form Verizon they need cash, so they sold a large stake in their overseas phone service to Vodaphone whith whom I believe they arleady had some sort of arrangement. Now that Verizon no longer need the cash, it wants full control back. This isn't really news. This doesn't mean any brand new age of telephony. It's basically the repayment of a loan, with the collateral being returned. μηδείς (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's the third largest corporate deal ever. It is not just the repayment of a loan. The equity buyout was negotiated, and Vodaphone makes a handsome profit. No doubt Vodaphone will be looking for something to do with the cash. This is quite significant for the telecom industry. JehochmanTalk18:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, with the exception of "quite significant for the telecom industry" you have just repeated exactly what I said. The problem is that the "quite significant for the telecom industry" is true only for stockholders and middle managment. It's not like they have announced the roleout of DSL, picture phones, or texting. μηδείς (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I will say this is "not really news" again to see if you'll scream louder. I am intimately aware aware the corporate news on this, and have been since before Verizon was formed. The Vodafon alliance was always looked on as a temporary partnership of convenience, and now looks like a good time for both parties to separate on mutually beneficial terms. That is not something like the groundbreaking on the hyperloop, the debut of the segway or even the release of Mr. Garrison' Entity. μηδείς (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Seriously, for a merger to be ITN-worthy there should be secondary sources explaining why it is revolutionary. An example might be if Google buys General Motors with the intention of turning it into an all-electric vehicle maker. Abductive (reasoning) 18:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is a really unfair standard. We don't require any other story to be "revolutionary". And this deal is quite important - see for example the linked news story which explains how this ends 14 years of disputes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support – of greater world interest than re-living anecdotes about blackberries and tadpoles, however masterful. Besides, all but one of the current items relate to death or ancient history, and the one that doesn't is news from four weeks ago. —WFC— FL wishlist19:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the largest corporate deals in history and getting plenty of international media coverage. For those who doubt the impact of the deal, the Wall Street Journal says its impact will be "colossal" and it "could spark a new round of mergers across the telecom industry."[5] And it could have a significant impact on the British economy.[6]Neljack (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support-Per Neljack. Additionally, without delving into issues surrounding notability nor response length, someone dying is not "revolutionary". I wish to make it clear that I support the inclusion of notable deaths on ITN, I use this argument simply to quash the "revolution" criterion. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 02:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is not pointy. What would be pointy is if QatarStarsLeague opposed every death nomination on the grounds that it wasn't revolutionary, even though they didn't support that criterion. As the page says: "As a rule, someone engaging in "POINTy" behavior is making edits which s/he does not really agree with, for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition." Neljack (talk) 04:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out that your criterion would lead to silly results if consistently applied is a perfectly legitimate argument; what would be problematic is if QatarStarsLeague starting opposing other items based on the criterion despite not really believing it was a good criterion. Neljack (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Armed militants stage an unsuccessful attack on a container ship passing through the Suez Canal in an attempt to disrupt the flow of ships through the waterway. (Al Jazeera)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Weak oppose - I'm not dead set against posting this, but I'm awfully lukewarm. I think it would be a stretch to consider Morrison a "very important figure" in boxing - although he had a good record and he was a heavyweight champion, his belt was only one of four possible heavyweight championship belts, and he only held it for just under five months. In addition, at the time Morrison won his belt, the WBO was considered more of a second-tier sanctioning organization - it wasn't recognized as one of the majors until sometime in the early 2000s, I believe. (I'm not a boxing fan, so I apologize if I got any of the particulars wrong, but the gist of my argument should be correct.) --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Weak support. I'm not sure if this is the sort of thing we post(record breaking sports contracts), but I do know this is getting decent coverage, even in the US(which isn't typically disposed towards soccer news) I would suggest that the blurb does not need to mention the previous record holder. 331dot (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Ignoring the 1992–2001 period (rapid growth due to the emergence of the Champions League and clubs becoming increasingly confident that the flow of money would not dry up), this is a rare event, and of international interest. Oppose any mention of Ronaldo. —WFC— FL wishlist20:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose really not newsworthy outside ardent football fans. As WFC has noted, we've gone through one period of seriously stupid transfer fees already. This is trivially interesting but nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support given its very wide coverage. We've got decent free images of Bale as well (which would need a crop). Agree the blurb doesn't need to mention Ronaldo. Black Kite (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a business deal. Not a big one on that scale. And which "world" record did it break, anyway? If it's just within soccer, then this is nothing. Following that lead we would have to post every highest price for every sports person in every sport. And we won't. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um, given that soccer is played worldwide, then it is indeed a world record. I'd guess it's actually the most money paid for any sportsperson's signature in any sport. I have to admit I'm wavering on this one, though. Black Kite (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is far from the most for "any sportsperson's signature", but as for money paid for the transfer of a player from one team to another, I would have to think that it's a record. -- Mike(Kicking222)22:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is "here" the UK? That's an honest question. I would never think of using that terminology; if you ask me (or, I'd imagine, almost any American) what "most money paid for any sportsperson's signature" referred to, they would say Alex Rodriguez's $275m contract. Not chiding you at all, just wanting to clarify. -- Mike(Kicking222)
Without meaning to be too dismissive, a degree of AFL/NFL "what makes soccer so special?" is to be expected with a nom of this nature. For the record, while this unquestionably meets the ITN criteria in a literal sense (the highest value transfer of all time to the most successful club in European history in what most would consider to be the world's most popular team sport), my weak support is based as much on the lack of recent updates and emphasis on death as anything else. The cynic in me would point out that the staleness has kept Syria on the template... but anyway. If we post on the basis of the €100 million barrier being broken for the first time, then we can ensure that we do not set a precedent. —WFC— FL wishlist22:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, UK - it is common to see and hear "X team has paid Y pounds for the signature of player Z", or more commonly "X have signed Z for Y pounds". The amount the player is being paid is rarely stated (if indeed it is even known). Black Kite (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think a contract signing is ITN-material at all. We do not post the majority of sports items, such as records or retirements of major stars, and I don't see what makes this as notable as a championship (I don't believe soccer's popularity makes anything major that happens in the sport automatic ITN-quality where it would not in any other sport). --PlasmaTwa206:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I can understand the attraction of posting this, and the precedent set the last time the record was broken. But at the end of the day it's just a player moving teams. ITN (rightly) restricts itself to posting the results of sporting competitions, not the factors which may or may not influence what those results might be. On the other hand, the news is slow right now. Modest Geniustalk13:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A soccer record, perhaps, but the NFL, NHL and NBA have all had $100 million+ contracts, while MLB easily eclipsed this transfer, going as high as $270 million. €100 million is a very sexy number, but it is still an arbitrary figure, and not a world record. Resolute14:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, those were all total contract values, not transfer fees. Many football transactions have cost more than €100M once multiple years of salary, agents fees, image rights etc. are added on. The number referred to in the Bale story is just the transfer fee, not all the other items. Modest Geniustalk14:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, Bale is apparently paid €21M/yr just in salary, as has signed a 6 year contract. So more money on total salary than the actual transfer fee. Modest Geniustalk16:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If what you're saying is correct, then salary + transfer would be about €247m (£21 = €24.6 by using the same percentage by which £85.3 = €100). That's ~$326m, I think. Mohamed CJ(talk)16:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But let's not forget that this story is about the transfer only and that a hypothetical Alex Rodriguez nomination would likely face similar opposes. Mohamed CJ(talk)17:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose This is a sports transaction, which is of lesser importance than a non-sports business transaction. This doesn't fundamentally change the game in any way. Further, soccer is strongly represented in ITN/R and other posts that get consensus from time to time. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm not a football fan (I only watch big matches), but I find this news to be of worldwide interest. FYI the page was visited 80k times yesterday [7]. Mohamed CJ(talk)15:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because it's not nearly as important as Verizon buying out Vodaphone for US$130 Billion (1000 times as much money as this deal).[8] If we are going to run a business transaction, why not that one? JehochmanTalk17:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. The more I read here, the less I support it- if this money is just a fee from one team to another. I'm inclined to agree with Muboshgu's reasoning above- though I still understand this is being heavily covered in the news. 331dot (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This will be a weak support if that matters, though I'm not a believer in that sort of !vote. However this seems to be getting a fair bit of coverage. The baseball drug ban was posted a few weeks ago and one of the support !vote rationales read something like 'baseball news doesn't often reach my country'. This has certainly got coverage across the atlantic. This is certainly viewed in the football world as a very significant story, and it's a record within the sport that won't likely be broken for a few years (I won't attempt to compare it with an MLB contract). My sense is this is less significant than transfers in the last decade involving David Backham or C Ronaldo but it's still in money terms a record-breaking transfer.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This user is a newbie who is starting to improve their comments (they were previously only posting simple votes) per comments on their talk page. Let's continue to help them instead of just removing their posts. They might simply be referring to the fact that this was a record in soccer/football as a rationale for their support. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are certainly NOT "simply...referring to the fact that this was a record in soccer/football", because they also said "I like this news". It's important to help a newbie by at least pointing out that whether or not we like something is irrelevant here. HiLo48 (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I can accept not biting the newbies, but the post is inappropriate. It doesn't belong. It should be removed, but with a "nice" explanation to the newbie. An inappropriate post is an inappropriate post, no matter who makes it. HiLo48 (talk) 11:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I can think of no better way to discourage someone from posting here than by removing their posts, no matter how nice an explanation is given to them. The post is not vandalism, vulgar, or a personal attack, and provides a reason for their support. There is no rule that says a reason has to be lengthy, worded eloquently, or deemed appropriate by HiLo48 to be posted here. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Compared to the most expensive sculpture and photograph that made it to ITN in the past years, the coverage Mr. Bale's transfer is greater than those two put together yesterday. Those who opposed haven't changed my opinion last time during the car auction record nomination months ago. Like I said, this is more like double standards or IMO, are some Wikipedia editors snotty art and literature lovers who think sale record regarding sport and automobiles do not have a place in ITN. Donnie Park (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Well we don't often have early releases for war criminals. Ibn light of the couple of ICTY postings weve made I think this is somewhat different there. Lihaas (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at the top of what field would he be, eyebrow grooming? His conviction would not have been posted, let alone his release. μηδείς (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced his conviction wouldn't have been posted (convicted of extermination, murder, persecution, deportation, and forced transfer) but I would need to see some news coverage of this before deciding whether to support it or not. Lihaas, it would help your nominations if you posted some news sources with them. 331dot (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lihaas, you're the only person I ever see post possible blurbs without including news references, and there's exactly one in the article regarding his freedom. Additionally, I don't think- even if it was a direct quote from BBC News or the New York Times- we would use a phrase such as "a hero's welcome". Things like that make it very hard to support a nomination. -- Mike(Kicking222)22:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a slot in the nom template for "sources" for a reason. An article can be updated without being in the news to the level required for even considering posting an item. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but saying "the references are with the update" is unacceptable. First, as 331dot said, there's a reason "sources" is a field on the template. Second, I obviously read the article, and I noted in my comment that there was only one reference in said article regarding his release (so even if more had been added in the four days between my comment and your response, the crux of your response would have still been moot). Third, there's STILL only one reference about his release in the article. So, to summarize, you nominated an article that you knew was under-sourced, then told me that you didn't have to provide sources in the nomination because they existed in the article, even though those sources clearly were not there. -- Mike(Kicking222)22:35, 5 September 2013 (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.
Comment. This has been nominated as a blurb, so it might avoid some confusion if people make it clear whether they support that or just an RD listing. Formerip (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although given that there have been two deaths in quick succession, neither of which were unusual circumstancesand the first was not in unusual circumstances, I would request that Seamus Heaney goes to RD if this is to become a full blurb. Personally I would prefer that both were RD, because neither death was unusual, but I acknowledge that my view on when to RD and when to blurb differs from the general consensus. —WFC— FL wishlist 12:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Corrected —WFC— FL wishlist12:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a follow-up, perhaps the blurb should touch on the circumstances of his death? It was somewhat unusual, and would therefore strengthen the argument for a full blurb. —WFC— FL wishlist12:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Internationally renowned broadcaster as shown by the breadth of coverage and tributes. While his death wasn't unusual it was unexpected. yorkshiresky (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, Neutral about blurb. A very significant figure in journalism, but I'm not sure he is as influential in as Seamus Heaney was in his field, and I don't think having a heart attack age 74 qualifies as unusual circumstances regardless of what you're doing at the time. Thryduulf (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb and a good time tom move him and Heany to RD together. Heart attack for a 74 y/o old is not unexpected and adds no notability. μηδείς (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marked Ready the consensus seems to be for a full blurb. Considering I knew who Frost was in America by about age 10, a full blurb is not objectionable. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NO, because YOU knew who he was at 10 that does NOT make a full blurb not objectionable. Are you seriously claiming your whim and fancy determines that? Lihaas (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? Medeis is suggesting that because she has been aware of Frost's prominence since she was 10 (and considering that's an English journalist's significance in the US), she doesn't object to the full blurb. Lihaas, please try to express your opposition with some kind of logical background and demonstration that you understand the preceding comments. Oh, and avoid the SHOUTING nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And yet below, Medeis is (still) virulently opposing Seamus Heaney because RD blurbs should be reserved only for "statesmen in office". Or are there two Medeises? Formerip (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You people need to learn the meaning of objectivity and detachment. I still oppose this being a blurb. You check what I have written above, I will wait while you do so. See? I oppose a blurb for this. But I also recognize that there is a good majority in favor of one. And the article is ready, so I have marked it ready because it is ready, not because I want it to go up as a full blurb. Although I oppose a full blurb, I do not find its being posted objectionable in the way I would the recent MTVA performance by that ex-mouseketeer. It's an objective observation that I knew who Frost was long before I knew who most Brits were, admitting which hardly merits a screaming response. As for virulence, Seamus Heaney (whose Beowulf I own) elicits a ho hum, not rabid hysteria. μηδείς (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb. Clearly notable in the field of journalism, but I don't think he was at the tip-top of his field to warrant a blurb, and he certainly isn't at the level of others who have received blurbs. 331dot (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb (can't post this per WP:COI because of criticism to my post below for a similar situation) per reactions to his death, and one of the most respected journalists in the later half of the 20th century. Not to mention all those stale items we have ITN, please nominate more content this for example. I'm too busy to go though global news and look for suggestible candidates Secretaccount21:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm surprised at the level of support for a blurb and I think it's a mistake. I think blurbs are for people who are truly exceptional in their field. As in you try to think of someone more significant than them, then after a while you think of someone, then you realise that the person you thought of is actually dead. I'm not knocking David Frost, and I'd definitely put him in my all-time top 50 list of TV personalities named David. But I think any admin that posts this needs to be really sure I have things backwards. Formerip (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but Frost was standout in his generation of political commentators and interviewers. You may wish to belittle it by your "best David" list, but the community disagrees with you. Deal with it and stop trying to unduly influence any posting admin with your "backwards" speak. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I was surprised as well, given that Heaney (who is almost certainly more notable in his field than Frost was in his) was such a close call. I guess his more worldwide profile is something to do with that. Black Kite (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both are old men, who worked with words. Comparing page views tells us that more of our readers are interested in Frost. Be saying that "we" judge you are saying the handful of people who comment on ITN/C are more important than the thousands of readers of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for the readers, not your notions of what is important. Abductive (reasoning) 18:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes ITNC editors do have to make decisions like that. But we do take into account recognition people get from authoritative sources. Semeus Heaney received the Nobel Prize, which is about the highest honor anyone can get in any field. So so it's certainly possible that Heaney is more notable than David Frost despite page views, which are not insignificant but don't necessarily represent notability, ore even reader interest necessarily. I'm making no assertion on who is the more notable of either of these men, but certainly a Nobel counts for a great deal.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A play and a movie were made out just of a set of interviews that Frost did. Other Nobel laureates were not posted. My argument is sound; people are more interested in Frost. Consensus for a blurb is about the same here as in the Heaney nom. Abductive (reasoning) 05:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Specious argument. My argument is that Frost and Seamus should be treated equally. Besides, if Miley Cyrus were to die, not just twerk, would you oppose posting that? Abductive (reasoning) 19:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
_(72).jpg)
