*'''Support''' Two of the four biggest companies in telecommunications equipment are merging, with a combined revenue of over 25 billion Euro. Cellphones are irrelevant for the impact - none of the companies involved is manufacturing cellphones at the moment. [[User:LoveToLondon|LoveToLondon]] ([[User talk:LoveToLondon|talk]]) 15:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Two of the four biggest companies in telecommunications equipment are merging, with a combined revenue of over 25 billion Euro. Cellphones are irrelevant for the impact - none of the companies involved is manufacturing cellphones at the moment. [[User:LoveToLondon|LoveToLondon]] ([[User talk:LoveToLondon|talk]]) 15:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
*How is this nomination "ready"? We've pointed out the problems of the nomination. Are flaws badly sourced or something or lacking influence? --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 20:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
*How is this nomination "ready"? We've pointed out the problems of the nomination. Are flaws badly sourced or something or lacking influence? --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 20:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' just because of the practical issue that a given proportion of mergers that get announced never actually happen for one reason or another. [[User:FormerIP|Formerip]] ([[User talk:FormerIP|talk]]) 20:34, 17 April 2015 (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).
Iraqi officials claim that militia leader Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri has been killed in fighting in Salahuddin province. Al-Douri was the highest ranking member of Saddam Hussein's government not to be captured.(BBC)
Gunfire and roadblocks are reported in the city of Reynosa on the border with the US after local leader "El Gafe" of the Gulf Cartel is arrested. (Reuters via Daily Mail)
Arts and culture
Univisión announce that Sábado Gigante, the longest-running television variety series in history, will end after 53 years on September 19, 2015. (THR)
Business and economy
Mylan, a manufacturer of generic drugs, announced that its board has no interest in much-discussed prospect of purchase by Teva Pharmaceuticals, one of the 15 largest pharmaceutical concerns in the world. (Reuters)
Bouvier's red colobus, a species of monkey last seen in the 1970s and thought to possibly be extinct, is rediscovered in the Republic of Congo.(Discovery News)
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: According to the Washington Post link above, George "became a leading figure of his era in many of the most important events in the American church." Everymorningtalk19:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD pending article improvements Does appear to meet RD, but the article's sourcing is in very poor shape. --MASEM (t) 19:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Iraqi general and a commander of the Army of the Men of the Naqshbandi Order. He was an Iraqi military commander and was Vice Chairman of the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council, until the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. -The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength17:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait? The news articles state his death is claimed but not affirmed? (I'm not sure on RD appropriateness yet, article seems okay, but just would like better confirmation on news). --MASEM (t) 17:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More than 40 people have drowned as a migrant boat sinks travelling between Libya and Italy. In a separate incident, 15 Muslim migrants from another Italy-bound boat have been arrested, after allegedly throwing 12 Christian migrants overboard. (BBC)
Five are shot in Toronto, Ontario, in a neighbourhood with children around playing, two critically and one in life-threatening condition, having been shot by the police. Four suspects detained. (CP24)
One year after the Sinking of the MV Sewol, police blockade a memorial in response to public anger at inactivity by the government to rescue or salvage the bodies of victims from the ship's wreck. (Amnesty.org)
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 on the quality of the article. The article focuses predominately on scandals and accusations and doesn't seem to me to provide a balanced and reasonable account of Gross's life. Would need a fair bit of work to bring it up to standard. --Bcp67 (talk) 11:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose RD. The implication of importance by the article, even given the time he served as PM, seems trivial and unremarkable in contrast to what I would expect to see from an important world/national leader. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality and merits; article states that he did very little as PM and held the office for a short time, not long enough to have an impact. As such, does not meet the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on article quality. An orange tag up top since November 2013, and the abysmally short quality are unworthy of a former head of state. I am of a mind to suggest that it needs attention from an expert, between the near-total lack of references and the overall tone of the article, as Bcp67 indicated above. The history of this particular PM reminds me of American Pres. Warren G. Harding - who also died abruptly, but from circumstances that were much less clear back in 1923. Challenger l (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh. I REALLY had the wrong end of the stick then. I apologize. If he wasn't a head of state either - then I don't see how he fits RD at all. Challenger l (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A fair question is that is the PM in Czech a more decorative title (the true power in a different body of the government) or is it truly the head of the executive branch? I don't know, but I know an RD in the last 6-some months this was a point of difference for at least one person. --MASEM (t) 12:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PM is never a decorative title, Head of State is often a purely decorative title. People like David Cameron and Angela Merkel are not Head of State. It would be hard to find a more powerless person in politics than the Head of State of the UK, who even has some of her speeches written by the PM. LoveToLondon (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In Arizona, dashcam video showed a police officer intentionally running over an armed suspect. The suspect had stolen a rifle from a nearby Walmart, and had discharged the weapon in a neighborhood. (CNN)
A mailman from Florida was arrested after he made an unauthorized landing of a small gyrocopter with postal service markings on the Capitol West Front Lawn. He had told a newspaper that a terrorist would not have informed the public that he planned a non-violent protest flight for campaign finance reform. (Washington Post)
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 if article is drastically improved: He obviously meets notability criteria, having been a major political force and leader in Nepal for half a century. But the state of the article is appalling. Forget that it still refers to its recently dead subject in the present tense; it has a well-deserved orange tag at the top because it has literally six citations, two of which are duplicates and two of which were just added as references for his death. I'd like to help out with this, but I honestly don't know where to start. Almost every single claim in the article is completely unreferenced; it's a gaping BLP violation, and we're talking about somebody who has been a household name for generations in a country of nearly 30 million people, a five-time world leader, and a respected elder statesman in South Asia. What a shame. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support with significant article improvements - RD is clear, but oh man. That article fails BLP with nearly no sourcing at all. This needs serious work to get it to a state RD can use. --MASEM (t) 05:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on article quality Clearly notable and suitable for RD, but the article needs a lot of work first. If and when improved (I don't have the knowledge on the subject to do it myself), Support. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on article quality - it's a real nightmare. Barely any references and the lead is barely even there. Absolutely notable enough for RD, but it needs a LOT of work. Another article that needs attention from an expert, I'd say. Challenger l (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Weak oppose Murder trial that received some press but only because the guilty party (glad I can type that) is a professional athlete. That doesn't make this rise to the level of importance for ITN. Then again, Oscar Pistorius was posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose: Pistorius was posted, and by that standard, Hernandez should be posted, too. But I don't like that standard, and I don't like ITN being used as Page Six for celebrity court dramas. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of note, the only standard is "Do we post this article now for <reasons>." The posting or non-posting of any article in the past for any reason does not qualify or disqualify this article for any reason. We judge every article suggestion on it's own merits every time, regardless of what has, or has not, been done in the past. --Jayron3216:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Muboshgu (I don't believe we should have posted Pistorius either). If we are going to post, some of his sporting career could be sourced better, and a anti-proseline purge in discussion of the trial events would be helpful. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Weak oppose Pistorius was a whole different batch of cookies. He was an international Olympic athlete (I think), not an American "footballer", and Pistorius IMO generated alot more international media coverage. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!)15:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Pistorius is a Paralympic medallist, Hernandez played in the NFL and was not as internationally known as say his teammate Tom Brady. The Pistorius trial also gained attention for the prospects of an amputee being imprisoned, and also much was said about whether it was murder and manslaughter due to his mental condition. That kind of special attention hasn't been given to this case. I was largely unaware of the ins-and-outs of this case although BBC Sport put up main stories from US sport, including a recent baseball doping ban which one would think is less notable than murder '''tAD''' (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per most of the points above. The only reason this rates major news coverage is that he was a former NFL player. This is legitimate news in New England. Outside of that area it's tabloid news. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support we're a good, comprehensive neutral source where readers will be looking. Comparisons to pistorius sound eltist and biased. μηδείς (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'd agree with the assessment of The Almightey Drill. Aaron Hernandez is not widely regarded as a "face" of the NFL, in spite of the inherent fame that being a football player carries in the USA. Peyton Manning (or on the other side of the ocean, Lionel Messi) being charged with murder would be a bigger deal simply because of his media presence. This case also does not bear inherent controversy as the O.J. Simpson trial did, which surely would have been posted if ITN existed back then. By the way, I feel that it should be mentioned that any story that gets posted on BBC or Reuters is, by definition, not "tabloid news". --WaltCip (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think this is that similar to the Pistorius case; Hernandez was a member of a team, not in an individual sport, aside from the already-stated fact that Pistorius was an Olympic athlete and famous for his circumstances(not having feet). Nothing was particularly notable about this case other than the defendant. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Murder convictions, even well publicized ones, are unfortunately very common in the U.S. Just because it involves someone famous doesn't make it earth shattering news. Aerospeed (Talk) 21:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All Star player, $40 million contract, and the fact that they don't have Olympic American Football is a reason to omit him? As an individual he was obviously at the top of his field. The man's admittedly not of Dutch descent, but he's a world class athlete convicted of a capital crime and facing two more such charges. The only reason not to post him seems to be that this is what we expect from American minorities. μηδείς (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the first handful of arguments here are not particularly productive. We are not a court system, so don't follow and are not bound by precedent here. I'm not sure how the racism accusation came in, but that's probably definitely not the case. Mamyles (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hernandez's race is completely irrelevant to me, and as far as I can see at the moment, most everyone else on this page. I think the racism arguments have no foundation at all. Hernandez is not a disabled NFL player, unlike Pistorius in track. He was also part of a team, unlike Pistorius. Hernandez also did not have international attention, unlike Pistorius(and even former teammate Tom Brady).331dot (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose This conviction doesn't seem to have any more impact than if the player retired or was critically injured. It does have some shock factor, that an individual so many people revered would be so violent, but I would consider that closer to tabloid news. And, for consideration of balance, we've already had many sports blurbs recently. Additionally, his article is close but not quite updated to the quality I would like to see for posting. The yellow-level tag about prose is a great suggestion. Mamyles (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Pistorius was an Olympian, albeit a paralympian who won gold in 3 Paralympic games, Hernandez played american football, a sport that no one gives a second look at outside of the US..there is no comparison here..OJ Simpson qualifies cause he was famous as an actor as well..Aaron Hernandez does not....that said, this is a news item in the Portal for American Football and thats it..--Stemoc05:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Why are we even debating this? Run of the mill murder case, neither the victim or the perpetrator were particularly well know. Medeis' arguments are deeply insulting and just plain ridiculous. Just snowclose it. Fgf10 (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, whether or not calling this run of the mill is insulting or not is irrelevant, not that fact that it is run of the mill, which is relevant. Keep up. Fgf10 (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no racist comments were made, just Medeis accusing people of being racist. As for referring her to ANI, I'd do it if I though it would do any good... Anyway, closing this as it's not going to go. Fgf10 (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose - The death is unusual, but I'm worried about the lack of recognition; I'm not seeing things I would associate with importance in culinary skills like Michalin stars or other awards. If it is only a leader in the molecular gasotromony, that's too fine a subset of chefs in general. --MASEM (t) 14:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said the article is in poor shape... Moto is considered one of the nation's top restaurants and one of ~3 restaurants that led the MG trend. It is definitely Michelin starred and has been for some time. Trust me, among chefs Cantu was considered an innovator and a superstar. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that can be added and sourced, then yes, I would support this as RD. (I don't think him of having enough of a household name presence to merit a blurb like with did with Robin Williams, but assuming the sourcing above, RD for sure). --MASEM (t) 15:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, our coverage of chefs is very poor in general (no idea why). Take Joël Robuchon, the most Michelin starred chef in the world. Even his article is only start quality. The MG article article has like 2 paragraphs about everything that has been since 2000 - and the genre was basically just getting started in 2000... Anyway, improving Cantu's article will be my top priority today, regardless of any decision made here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*Wait: I'm willing to trust and see what ThaddeusB comes up with, even though I'm not seeing a case for RD inclusion right now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support after update. I don't know he was at the very top of his field, but he does at least seem to have been notable and his death was unusual. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose RD There doesn't seem to be much frontpage reporting in international media of his death, so the claim he was a "superstar" is clearly overblown - he was no Paul Bocuse and no Hervé This. ThaddeusB also made the incorrect claim "one of the nation's top restaurants" - Moto (restaurant) says with source In 2012, Forbes Magazine ranked Moto #44 on its list of "The 100 Best US Restaurants.", and having only one Michelin star implies that a restaurant is worse than the over 400 restaurants worldwide that have more than one star (there are over 2000 restaurants that have at least one star). In Chicago Moto is one of 24 restaurants with at least one Michelin star, and not even one of the 5 best restaurants in Chicago that have more than one Michelin star. LoveToLondon (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify, when I say "among chefs Cantu was considered an innovator and a superstar" I mean other chefs considered him to be such. That does not necessarily translate into fame among the general public or Michelin stars. He was known for innovation first, and food second. And in that regard, he was the at the top... No serious foodie would say something as silly as "all 2 Michelin star restaurants are better than all 1 Michelin star restaurants" or even that only starred restaurants matter. Cantu was important because he along with Grant Achatz and Graham Elliot made Chicago into the place to go to innovative food. Any chef wishing to follow that trend - and many, many have - looked up the those three. There are hundreds of Michelin starred chefs that have minimal impact on the culinary world - Cantu had a large one.
I do apologize about calling Moto one of the top restaurants in the country, though. You are correct that it is usually "only" ranked in the top 50 or so. I was actually thinking of Alinea (Achatz's restaurant), which is routinely top 5-10, so did slightly overstate that point. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So your claim "one of ~3 restaurants that led the MG trend" is in reality "one of top 3 MG restaurants in Chicago".
Compared to Grant Achatz he was not even the most renowned molecular gastromony chef in Chicago, and being one of the best 3 molecular gastromony chefs in Chicago is a quite strange definition for "superstar". The real superstar in molecular gastromony who is not defined by having a restaurant with Michelin stars is Hervé This. LoveToLondon (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not what I said at all. I said chefs (all over the world, not just in Chicago) viewed him as one of the top few people in the field. Michelin stars do not measure impact. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What position in what field exactly, and what RS do you have to back this up? E.g. top 10 in molecular gastromony in the world would make him a medium-important person in a pretty small field. LoveToLondon (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, everything I wrote is my personal opinion based on my knowledge of the gourmet food world (following it is a hobby of mine). I was unaware that we are now supposed to start all ITN comments with "In my opinion..." As far as RS coverage/opinion goes, I will let the article speak for itself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It also speaks for itself that you have no RS to backup your claims like "chefs (all over the world, not just in Chicago) viewed him as one of the top few people in the field" and "among chefs Cantu was considered an innovator and a superstar" - no non-US sources in the article, no sources from the field of cooking in the article, and no sources in the article that relevant people in the field of molecular gastronomy like Ferran Adrià or Heston Blumenthal said he was a superstar. You already admitted that your attempts to inflate the importance of Moto were incorrect, and the rest of your claims are also not based on verifiable facts. LoveToLondon (talk) 05:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for your false and unfair personal attacks against me. Please do not ascribe motive or admission of guilt. I made a simple mistake about Moto's rank (top 50 instead of top 10). I stand behind everything else I wrote. You disagree with my assessment and that is perfect fine, but when you attempt to paint me as purposefully deceitful, you cross a line. Believe it or not, two people can have a different opinion w/o one being dishonest. Geez.
I would say the article already backs up my claims. No it doesn't use the exact words "superstar" - but the idea is there including from Adrià. If you had bothered to read carefully, you would see Adrià is mentioned and if you wanted to see his exact words all you had to do was click through to the source.... I'm sorry your view sources such as The New York Times as unreliable and would have prefered food sources such as Gourmet magazine. These sources do exist, I just haven't used them (yet). International sources exist as well. Do not confuse lack of use for lack of existence. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a huge difference between someone being good in his field and respected by other people in his field, and someone being considered a superstar which you repeatedly claimed without bringing any RS for that claim. We are not discussing personal opinions, we are discussing verifiable information. In the source Adrià is saying that Cantu is good, which is lightyears away from saying he is a superstar.
Article is now updated and in good shape. I will likely work on it more, but it is in good enough shape to assess Cantu's merits. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, while a large number of potential deaths, it is also case these are migrants and we have skipped on previous migrant shipwrecks in the past. Article could be expanded but fine as a current developing event for posting. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Weak Support, one of the largest migrant shipwrecks yes, but the article requires quite a bit of expansion, and the casualties figures are all just estimated right now. You also might want to add something about the backlash the EU is getting to the actual article EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!)15:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I considered nominating this yesterday, but decided it was best to wait for more details to emerge. The casualty figure is evidently a guess by a couple rescued immigrants and is far from official. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: These tragedies are very sadly frequent, and elevate during the European summer. Not to say that I oppose its inclusion, but things have been previously opposed on the standard of "unfortunate, but that happens all the time" '''tAD''' (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a big casualty of Human Race & must be brought forward. Most of the details are certain as news are getting updated by agencies.( !dea4u 11:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Support – If I heard correctly on the news Wednesday, some 20,000 people have died trying to cross the Mediterranean to Europe in this century. (Can this be right?) Not a minor problem. Sca (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And we've not posted any of the previous issues with migrant fatalities like these wrecks before. People using any means necessary to flee into Europe is common enough and because they will take any risk, these deaths happen. I'm sure numbers of the same kind can be found for people crossing the Mexican border to the US or trying to cross over from Cuba to the US and drowning along the way. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as the immigration issue continues to be a headline (today's headline is 15 immigrants being charged with murder for throwing 12 others overboard and 40+ others dying in an unrelated sinking), I don't really think we should be highlighting the sinking of 400 in isolation. If we post something, I feel it should be the waves of people arriving (10,000 in the last week), which is being described as an "immigration crisis". In that context, 400 dying is, sadly, perfectly ordinary - an estimated 3,200 died last year in crossing attempts. So the real story is the rise in attempts. An article such as Immigration to Italy would be a better target for the general story. [3][4] --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are taking the issue as a whole, whereas this is a single incident, apparently one of the deadliest, if not the deadliest incident so far involving migrants crossing the Mediterranean (more deadly than 2013 Lampedusa migrant shipwreck, for example). I'm not sure how to reflect that in Ongoing, so posting shipwrecks of such scale would improve our coverage. If the same number of people dies on a capsizing passenger ship, we would almost certainly post that. Brandmeistertalk08:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but capsized passenger ships are not a daily occurrence. Immigrant drownings are - nearly 10/day last year and more this year. Yes, this one is higher in number than average, but that is the only thing notable about it. And with more people trying this year, it is inevitable that more will die. I am not against posting exactly (hence my "comment", not "oppose"), but feel it needs to be put into context. This is not a freak disaster, but rather the outcome of more and more immigrants risking their lives to get to Italy. The comparison Masem made above about drownings in the Rio Grande and Gulf of Mexico is apt. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the death toll is dropping as we speak. Basically yet another transportation accident. We don't need headlines that are estimates couched in euphemisms. μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - We need to feature more business news and this is an excellent opportunity to do so - huge merger of two well known companies with international reach. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support on news - I agree we should be posting large mergers when both companies have announced their agreement to complete such actions, and $16B is not something to sneeze at, but I do note ITN has been resistant to posting theses, so I'm hesistant about breaking tradition. On the article quality, Nokia's is fine but there's problems with Alcatel - the R&D section is mostly unsourced, and I'm worried on the sourcing of that timeline (it has a formatting that screams possible copyvios issues though I can't find anything immediately). --MASEM (t) 14:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, so it's slightly WP:CRYSTAL? But, as with most company mergers, I suspect there won't be any new "announcement" when it actually happens (and it might happen over weeks or months?) So it will be missed. Or were you suggesting a delay in posting? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we are aware of that and that is why the blurb says "Nokia announces merger". As with all big company mergers this is probably the only time it will be all over the news. Small updates will envitably pop up, but the big part here is that the merger has been confirmed. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!)20:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Martin & EoEdE6 are correct, the time mergers are in the news is when they are announced. The legal completion receives a brief mention in business papers at most. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose for impact. Nokia, once the largest cellphone manufacurer in the world, now makes almost nothing, and A-L branding is purely regional. I could get behind posting more business news, so long as the business news is something other than "small-to-mid sized merger occurs". Also, the first news of this broke, I think, on Monday.128.214.53.18 (talk) 09:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're objecting because Nokia "makes almost nothing"? i.e. because it's not "a manufacturer"? It had a net profit last year of €1.17 billion, so it must be doing something right? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Two of the four biggest companies in telecommunications equipment are merging, with a combined revenue of over 25 billion Euro. Cellphones are irrelevant for the impact - none of the companies involved is manufacturing cellphones at the moment. LoveToLondon (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How is this nomination "ready"? We've pointed out the problems of the nomination. Are flaws badly sourced or something or lacking influence? --George Ho (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose just because of the practical issue that a given proportion of mergers that get announced never actually happen for one reason or another. Formerip (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support the story, oppose the article quality. The tag says it all, too much reliance on massive quotations and not much encyclopaedic treatment of the subject matter at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Support on the merits. This seems a notable step in US-Cuba relations. This is just breaking so it will need time to be adequately updated. I would wonder if the target article should be Cuba–United States relations instead of the state sponsored terrorism list(which can still be linked). 331dot (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel there is a better point in regards to the ongoing discussions between US and Cuba that is clearly an ITN entry, no question, I'm just not sure if this is it or not. (For example, if these talks will lead to the end of the United States embargo against Cuba, which I think more sources see as the big event.) It is not that this is important but it may not be the most important results of these discussions. --MASEM (t) 19:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just reading a bit more, I do think this might be the right moment, language being said implies the terrorism factor is one aspect, there's still issues US has with Cuba, etc. But I am only throwing this out there in case. It would be nice in the blurb to reflect that this is an outcome of the current discussions. --MASEM (t) 20:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reading some more I see that this move by Obama apparently starts a 45 day period before the removal actually occurs(see NY Times article) and gives Congress a chance to block it. Should we wait until the removal actually happens? We tend to do that with most other postings(i.e post when it happens and not just the announcement). 331dot (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd tend to agree given the current political climate (election year-buildup politicking already going on). --MASEM (t) 20:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Odd, our political system. :/ But it does suggest that there still remains a 45 day waiting period before it is removed, even if the President can do it on his own volition. --MASEM (t) 22:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bizarre internal policy issue, akin to Nixon official removing someone from his enemies list. We don't even post most actual legislation--and this is just an executive order. μηδείς (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little more complicated than that. The state sponsors of terror designation was created by Congress and comes with automatic legal sanctions for any nation on the list. The US Secretary of State was tasked by Congress with maintaining the list subject to a variety of provisions. It is certainly more than just a private enemies list. Dragons flight (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. My main concern is that the change hasn't happened yet, but rather a process has started that will lead to the removal in 45 days (unless Congress intervenes with a veto-proof majority). Seems like it would be better to post when this news when/if Cuba is actually removed. Dragons flight (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak oppose given that there will be a 45 day wait as well as a chance(if small) that it will be blocked by Congress(which I guess is different than approval). Unlike many announcements I think there will be some news about this when it actually happens. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait In the BBC, Rubio explicitly condemned this - wait and see what Rand Paul says, and whether this will play into the Republican primary. Republicans will try to veto it in Congress if they universally oppose it. -- Aronzak (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how Congress works. Under the law, Republicans would need to cobble together veto-proof majorities to override a presidential veto of any resolution of disapproval. All sources agree the odds of that are virtually nonexistent. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think we definitely need something about US-Cuba relations, but it's likely to be one of those situations where there is no really big moment but a long string of small stories, spread over months. So I'd be in favour of a blurb that covers the general thaw in US-Cuba relations, with this change as the event to hang it on. GoldenRing (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait The thaw in Cuban-American relations is definitely ITN worthy. But I would put it all in one post when formal diplomatic relations are restored and ambassadors are exchanged. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per extreme POV. I don't think we should ever consider posting changes to a highly subjective list of a single country that includes countries that apparently do not comply within its future plans and geostrategy. It might have been worth supporting had this been a legitimate list adopted by the United Nations or any other impartial international organisation. If you really think that we should post something about the Cuba–United States relations, there are other ways to do it such like signing of diplomatic agreements, engaging in joint economic programmes, opening the air transport, etc.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Posted - There is a consensus that the Cuban Thaw should be posted at some point. There is some disagreement about when to post, but several of those who prefer to wait express that their preference is only mild making an overall consensus that now is an acceptable point. The quality of the Cuban Thaw article is acceptable, so it will be the bold link. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The wording change is a smart move (to point out that Obama is moving to remove) addressing the 45 day issue noted above. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] Howard Stern to be featured on David Letterman's last shows
No offense to the nominator who made this in good faith, but this will not gain consensus be posted so I see little reason for this to continue. 331dot (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose - Thanks for the nomination, but the announcement of a guest isn't anywhere close to the importance we usually require for ITN items. I may support posting when the last Letterman show airs, but this really isn't much of anything. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Thanks for the nomination, but I agree that a mere guest announcement does not merit inclusion into ITN. Merely being newsworthy(if that's even the case here) isn't sufficient; I would suggest that Sterngleek review the criteria and perhaps past nominations to get an idea of what may merit posting. Suggest SNOW close. 331dot (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Noted pioneer artist in the R&B genre (received an lifetime award for this), also inducted into R&R Hall of Fame. MASEM (t) 15:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Neutral, however, the blurb should include the conviction of 3 others with 30yr terms. Also, the blurb should link to the shooting page. --MASEM (t) 01:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
In Tripoli, the Moroccan Embassy is damaged by a bomb explosion just hours after gunmen assault the South Korean mission. ISIL loyalists take credit for both attacks. (New York Daily News)
Health
An American man working at Managua's U.S. embassy provokes a security scare in Nicaragua; the country's health ministry quarantines the Ebola suspect and asks that he be removed from the country immediately. (BBC)
The first of four Blackwater security guards to be sentenced is given a life sentence in the United States for his role in killing 14 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad in 2007. (Washington Post)
A volunteer police officer is charged with manslaughter in the shooting death of Eric Harris, an unarmed man who was shot while lying on his back in Tulsa, Oklahoma. (CNN)
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 not convinced this individual is one of the greatest comic book artists in the field, I'm not seeing many notable awards for instance, but open to being convinced. Article is in reasonable state (need to fix "present"), although the text add about his death is somewhat perfunctory. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose As TRM states, while within the field there was a lot of tributes, he was far from the leader in the field. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. When I first heard of his passing, I genuinely considered him for RD - now, as then, I find his article and notability sadly lacking. Yes, he was the first artist to draw Wolverine. I'm not sure he's influential or terribly notable in his field, aside from that single point. I understand completely why he would be nominated, but I don't think he quite meets the bar. Challenger l (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The header is not exactly correct; the BBC states that "evidence" of liquid water was found, not liquid water itself. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As 331dot points out, this is not assurance of water, just strong evidence water likely existed. Which is I think at least the 2nd time this has been shown. --MASEM (t) 21:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Mars has liquid water just below its surface, according to new measurements by Nasa’s Curiosity rover" looks like a pretty categorical statement? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not proof there is water, just that the probability there is very high (It's a theory, not proven). They have not been able to directly sample the water (and verify those findings) at which point that would be a clear ITN. --MASEM (t) 21:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order. It's a hypothesis. Theories (at least the ones we use) are all proven. Hypothesis is the word you're scrambling for. --Jayron3222:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)It is unlikely definite proof will arise in the forseeable future - that would require a Martian mining effort. If it really the second time strong evidence has arisen (do you have a citation for that), that is a valid point, but the request for definitive proof is not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the story I'm thinking of is this one [8] but it might have been other discoveries. And this are ones that showed that there were some water molecules in the rocks, as well as some methane suggesting the possibility of life. But with this new discovery, all they are saying is that the temperature in the Martial soil, for a sufficiently thick enough region, is at the right conditions where liquid water could be retained. Very important towards pushing on human exploration of the planet, but I don't think this is groundbreaking as the headlines are making out. (including headlines that are getting it wrong, though knowing headlines are not written by the article writers themselves). --MASEM (t) 21:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Minor point of clarification since you said "existed", but the claim is about evidence that liquid water exists on Mars in the present, and not merely in the past. Dragons flight (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The optimal target is if there is a good quantity of water on the planet already that could be used to support a colony and reduce the weight of carrying it from Earth to Mars, as well as study a planet which had, at one point, the conditions sufficient to support life. They have found water molecules as part of rock samples, but nothing like a pool of water; they've also shown the water found is of different isotopic distribution as one would expect, which they've used to argue about when (if there was) water on the planet likely evaporated. This specific story says that water pools could have readily existed in the right temperature regions within Mars' soil (and may perhaps still exist if they could dig deeper), but not that they exist, presently. --MASEM (t) 22:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am not sure how you guys are glad to post every single terrorist event around the world, but you find actual human progress as "old news". Nergaal (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Described by the Guardian and the Associated Press as a leading voice in the Latin American left. AP obituary (first link above) says that his book ""The Open Veins of Latin America" became a classic text for the left in the region [i.e. Latin America]..." Everymorningtalk17:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on article improvements - Fair argument to importance. The "Works" section needs a LOT of citations and is almost a direct violation of quotation policy (we're paraphrasing reception about his works by named person and sources but without giving exact sourcing information). --MASEM (t) 17:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Countering systemic bias means that this person meets the RD criteria but is not posted due to such bias; please indicate which RD criteria is met here and in what way. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No that is not what systemic bias means. Systemic bias means that white boys who like sports or war can be sure that their interests are represented whereas people with other interests, particularly those that take slightly more mental effort to appreciate, cannot. This encapsulates the general day to day workings of ITN perfectly. ·maunus · snunɐɯ·20:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: He never exactly racked up awards, but he was a prolific author in a little-covered field, and certainly Open Veins of Latin America is a well-known work. As a side note on quality, I have gone through and removed some problematic sections while adding references and expanding in places. It should be of sufficient quality, or close to it, to post. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose I do not see how this man meets the RD criteria - the article really doesn't make it at all clear what impact he had or how notable he is, or was. There are some decidedly brief moments from his history listed, and literally the other half of the article is taken up by a bullet-point list of his works. If this is someone on par with the best journalists in his language, or indeed, any language - then I suggest that the article needs a LOT of attention. Challenger l (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Opposition withdrawn - the article seems a great deal clearer and more well-formatted now, citations seem to be in order. He seems to bave been among the most influential writers of his nation's recent history, though he has little in the way of international recognition. I think that should make him notable enough for RD, in this context. Challenger l (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Being "global soccer's pre-eminent man of letters" should alone be enough, especially when compared to other recent, more regional, inclusions like Richie Benaud, Elmer Lach and Robert H. Schuller. It is also well-referenced (certainly compared to the last two of these). --Inother (talk) 10:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Based on the huge influence his writings, especially Open Veins of Latin America, had on Latin American and the perception of the continent in the rest of the world. P. S. Burton (talk)12:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: German novelist, poet, playwright, illustrator, graphic artist, sculptor and recipient of the 1999 Nobel Prize in Literature. He was widely regarded as Germany's most famous recently living writer. -The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength09:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This one is a problem, and yes, I could go into the rapid timing with almost no discussion, but the "pull" needed to be done first. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled pending article improvements. Probably not the worst article ever posted, but consensus is we can and should do better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the article is well enough. Even Grass' critics will agree that he was an important personality, and that's what this here is all about. And while we possibly should, we're currently not even talking about a blurb, but about a simple RD. --PanchoS (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note As of right now, about half of the information in the article is uncited. While one or two cn tags wouldn't be a big deal, the fact that half of the information fails basic Wikipedia standards for verifiability is bad. Of course, he's a behemoth of a figure, but the main page should feature good Wikipedia work, and this is not yet it. --Jayron3214:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb would not be appropriate (death was of no surprise); he is not of the level of worldwide impact as Thatcher or Mandela. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, Masem. Long a literary figure of global significance – and not just to English- (or German-) speaking world.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is his death changing the world, in the sense of the amount of attention it got as it did for Margaret Thatcher or Nelson Mandela, where there were worldwide tributes and a significant amount of pomp dedicated to people who had a major hand in bettering the world? No, not here. RD listing is not in question, but this is a bad case for a blurb. (Particularly given the state the article is in). --MASEM (t) 16:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I trust you will ask the same quesiton next time someone proposes posting the result of a college sports-event, a medal bestowed on a soldier or a plane crash etc. His literature changed the work. And since wikipedia was not around to post it when he received the Nobel prize, this is the only other comparable chance for major literary figures to appear on the main page. The systemic bias at play in argumentation here is mind numbing. ·maunus · snunɐɯ·19:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The event where his literature changed the world was proven out by being given the Nobel prize. However, that occurred before we had ITN (much less Wikipedia). His death has not caused a massive change, no more comparable to Leonard Nimoy or other beloved actors and creative persons. As such, RD is well suited, but the world is not dropping everything they are doing to acknowledge this person, and we shouldn't start now. --MASEM (t) 19:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But the world stands still when a bunch of Oxford nitwits sit in a boat on a lake? Or when unpaid kids trying to make their way to the big leagues win an basketball game....please.·maunus · snunɐɯ·19:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Recent Deaths" is a different beast from normal news cycles. Whenever anyone with some ounce of fame dies, there are obits, etc. RD was developed to recognize that this is how the world operates, and to avoid flooding blurbs with every famous person's death, to acknowledge them in the box in a brief manner. In rare cases, such as Margaret Thatcher or Nelson Mandela, the world as a whole mourned their losses due to the impact these people had and their legacy. In other rare cases, we lose people before their time in a manner we did not expect, like Robin Williams, and the world still stops and mourns that. But people get old and they die, that's life, and most famous people that die get a day of recognizing in the newspapers and that's it. That's the place where RD sits. --MASEM (t) 19:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was Oxford and Cambridge (although the 'Tabs were so far behind you'd need a telescope to see them) and they didn't "sit" in their boats, they rowed their bollocks off, for 18 minutes (try doing that yourself, I guarantee you'll puke after five minutes) and it wasn't "a lake", it was the River Thames (sorry if the article doesn't make that clear enough for you). But realistically, your tone (much like mine in some responses here) isn't going to win you any favours. Do yourself a favour and stop whinging. I may follow in your footsteps. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And so fucking what? It is an annual event the global significance of which is more comparable to one of my bowel movements than to that of Gunter Grass' authorship. As for my tone I might listen to advice from someone whose own tone and argumentation suggested they have a clue.·maunus · snunɐɯ·20:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Take a break dude. No need for the "so fucking what"s. Comparing a 186-year-old event to your own shit is puerile but perhaps what you're aiming for. If so, success! A+! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Huge deal. Many news outlets choose a quote by German cultural secretary of state Grütters as a headline, stating: "his literary legacy will stand next to that of Goethe." Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am considering making a point of becoming an ITN regular with the specific purpose of systematically opposing what ever stupid ass sports even you support. I dont mind including cricket matches or other pop culture events when that may be warranted buy the systematic opposition to any topic that works at a slightly higher level of of abstraction than boys fantasies of violence, gold and glory is sickening ·maunus · snunɐɯ·19:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "Grass learned a lot from Rabelais and Celine and was influential in development of 'magic realism' and Marquez. – Orhan Pamuk (Nobel laureate)
• "This is very sad. A true giant, inspiration, and friend." – Salman Rushdie
• "One could argue that Günter Grass's The Tin Drum is the great novel of the 20th century ... it most completely defines the era in all its glories and catastrophes." – Darragh McManus (Guardian)
PS: I'd also argue that Grass's complex and occasionally controversial utterances and revelations make him even more compelling as a significant personality. Sca (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding support is it just me, or are most of those offering such effusive support actually gauged the quality of the article they're supporting for main page inclusion? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing has improved a lot (not enough) but a lot since the first objections were raised. The first time I assessed the article above, about 1/2 of the paragraphs in the article, including several whole sections, had no references at all. As of now, it's much closer to being postable. There are a few paragraphs in the social and political activism section likely to be contentious and need cites, and several of the "awards and honors" need cites as well. It's a smaller hurdle than it was earlier today. If you, @Gamaliel:, could get on those fixes quickly, we're real close to getting this to a postable state. Thanks for your concern, and I'm glad you want to help out. --Jayron3219:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article is in much better shape than when I put up my "pull" !vote above, with maybe a couple floating CNs but far from the undercited case before. It should be okay for posting RD now. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. The quality standards for both should be the same. The blurb vs. RD issue depends primarily on overall notability, with "bonus points" (for lack of a better term) for an unexpected death or other unusual circumstances. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD - might warrant a blurb (beyond my ken), article looks good compared to several almost stubs I've seen posted, a good chunk of references no reason not to have it as an RD in my opinion, I'd suggest get back up there as RD for now, then let people haggle over blurb/not. EdwardLane (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb when last few referencing issues are fixed. The SS material really should be better cited as it is likely contentious and includes (for example) opinions of living people completely uncited. The biography should also have some sort of citation - one ref covering it all could be sufficient. That said, the man was an absolute giant in his field and country and rises to the level of full blurb notability IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, it wasn't me who marked it ready (although due to wiki oddities, the edit summary history makes it seem that I did). It should be obvious from my comment that I don't feel it is quite ready yet. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Now (23:00 April 13) listed on German, French, Danish, Spanish, Finnish, Dutch, Norwegian, Polish and Swedish versions of ITN or RD. Sca (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: With a small bit of free time this evening, I went through and found refs for pretty much everything outstanding in the Waffen-SS section. It took about 15 minutes. Not to point fingers at anyone or single out this particular nomination, but I have to say the WP:SOFIXIT ethos at ITN seems rather lacking. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb or RD - He was great, his death is in the news, and the article features additional referencing thanks to Kudzu1. Let's do this and move on. Jusdafax01:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And let me clarify I support an RD, not a blurb. I don't think a blurb is necessary in this case, as the death does not actively impact a great number of people. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support anything but be quick! - This usually happens here when a person is clearly notable, but some problems must be created despite the article being in good enough shape and the person is defiantly notable. By the time this process is done, it might be 10 days after Grass died (and then who cares?! All that work for nothing!). I support a RD tag and a blurb seems nice since Gabriel Garcia Marquez (I think) got a blurb too. I feel that Grass is good enough for a blurb if not just hurry up to make a decision. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seriously, what's going on? A bunch of students shooting hoops gets a blurb in no time, and we can't even get Günter Grass on RD? What a joke! Fgf10 (talk) 07:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment – Suggest pic of Oxford rowers (right) – who appear about 1/4 inch high – be superseded by Grass pic. (left) used on various non-English WPs since ystdy. (Rowers pic has been up for three days.)
Actually, what it took was article work but some fine individuals. ITN is not a news ticker - it is a place to feature quality articles that happen to be in the news, not things that are in the news and happen to have any sort of article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; there is nothing wrong with an extensive discussion, which posting word counts and time intervals suggests. Short discussions would be a problem. 331dot (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pull blurb, post RD I don't see nearly the impact of this death as there was for a Thatcher or a Mandela. I didn't post here because I knew it was certain to be RD, but I would've opposed a blurb if I had seen it going that way. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly opposeMuboshgu's suggestion. Logically indefensible, IMO. Ignores global coverage, wide cultural and historical commentary touching on great issues of our times. Sca (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pull blurb, post RD per Muboshgu. This is hardly Mandela or Thatcher, and there is nothing particularly interesting about the death. Tailor made for RD, unless we now indeed offer the similar courtesy to all Nobel laureates. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not helpful for admin in making decision or WP:AGF-ful. And please don't start getting personal.
This discussion should be closed. Why debate this nom – which IMO shouldn't have been controversial in the first place – all over again? Sca (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you're talking about. I simply stated an absolute fact. And we're now just suggesting that it should simply be an RD, Grass was hardly Mandela or Thatcher. And perhaps you aren't aware of our requirement to post quality articles, which this was not. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. But if you asked the whole world who of the three was least significant by some margin, you know what the answer would be. Blurbs are kept for people like Mandela and Thatcher, not a popular and artistic Nobel Laureate who died a very unremarkable death. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blurbs are kept for when consensus thinks that they are appropriate. We hear and respect your opinion, but it seems to be the minority for this one. This posting was a correct interpretation of consensus. Mamyles (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, since posting, two of us have suggested RD is more than adequate for this individual. The posting of the blurb was marginal at best in any case. But thanks for your input! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retain blurb. More notable than a women's basketball tournament? Yup. More notable than the Boat Race? Yup. More notable than someone who was obviously guilty being found guilty? Yup. Pull one of those three if you need to. Black Kite (talk)14:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting Support blurb or RD, as is an especially notable author that is near the top of the field. Note that at this time there are 10 that support blurb and/or RD, and 6 that support RD only. Mamyles (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Every support here has a rational argument and is hardly just a vote. Your arguments are not particularly more convincing than any of the other 10. And yes, the number of supports is a measure of consensus, though not the sole measure. Mamyles (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another opined with the really well qualified "Support blurb amnd RD obviously needs to be posted". The rationales are not all that convincing here, really.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep blurb. Probably a borderline case at best, but I don't think it's so clearly wrong that any good will come out of playing hokey-cokey with it. Formerip (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep blurb whining about this being posted as a blurb is entirely unnecessary. There is sufficient consensus to keep the blurb and he is important enough figure in literature to deserve it as well. Someone should close this. SeraV (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really am getting sick and tired of your arrogant and condescending behaviour. How about joining some workshop on how to deal with people. Might help you. SeraV (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have been yes but mostly just towards you, but I am now more or less sick of you. Please don't reply me ever again with your usual nonsense or anything at all and I do the same. SeraV (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure what you do here other than to pop round to argue with me. It certainly doesn't appear to me that you're here to improve Wikipedia in any way. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not hear me? I don't want to deal with you! And your biggest achievement I suppose is chasing away bunch of admins and other editors from here who disagree with you. SeraV (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. I contribute all over this encyclopedia, enriching its content and upholding quality standards. But you probably aren't aware of any of that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to say but that is overshadowed by your behavior and insistence to hound away people from these pages and from this project who disagree with you. SeraV (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to say that I really only consider the opinions of those who are here to improve things. Anyway, I suggest if you wish to continue popping up to argue with me, you do it at my talk page rather than continually bloat ITN. Feel free to hat all this "don't reply me ever again" nonsense and continue elsewhere. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Basketball is arguably the world's second most popular sport overall and most successful women's team sport (roughly tied with football). EuroLeague has the highest salaries of any women's league and is perhaps the most widely followed, albeit not in the English speaking world. The men's league is posted (ITNR), but it's final is not for another month, so I thought it was worth testing whether there was consensus to post the women's final. I will have the article in good shape by the end of the day, so article quality shouldn't be a big concern. ThaddeusB (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My knee-jerk reaction was to oppose this because it seems to be a furthering of ITN's recent bizarre fascination with women's sports, but I'm not so sure. I have two questions: is this the highest level of women's basketball, and do people in Europe actually care about it? --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your first question, there isn't a definitive answer. To quote Howard the Duck in my discussion about the matter with him last week: "There's no easy answer to that. If you think "more Americans" increases the depth of competition, the WNBA should be it; if you think salaries is a good enough measure, Euroleague Women should be it. Nevertheless, women's basketball has to be the most competitive of all of women's team sports (perhaps surpassing women's football)". As he pointed out, Diana Taurasi (perhaps the world's best player) announced she would sit out the upcoming WNBA season to focus on EuroLeague (for financial reasons) - that is a strong indication of which league is better/more followed. Here are the ESPN and New York Times stories on the subject.
To answer your second question: The number of people who care is certainly less than the number who care about men's basketball, but certainly more than the number who care about almost all other women's professional sports (tennis being the obviously exception). If we are going to post women's sports outside the Grand Slam duel blurbs and Women's World Cup, I would suggest EuroLeague basketball should be the top priority. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't know, but I thank you for your nomination and thoughtful response. I'm not sure this meets my personal bar for sports stories, but I guess it's at least it's possible that it would, if I were more familiar with the subject. This probably wouldn't kill us to at least try it, so consider me neutral, as long as it doesn't lead to us posting the WNBA finals. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose Sports in general is GROSSLY OVERrepresented. That is not combated by simply including more minor sports events. This particular event has NO global significance. It is a minor sports event even among minor sports events. Also a badly written article.·maunus · snunɐɯ·21:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to be more specific than that. Of course, if that's the emotion it evokes it you personally, that's a different matter altogether. Be clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you can provide specific criticism on the article, that can be addressed. Otherwise, your comment is completely unhelpful. And for the record, the majority of the players in the league are American born, not Slavic.
As to notability, we'll have to agree to disagree. The world treats sports as VERY important, even if you think they are not. It is not ITN's job to "correct" the world's "bias" that views sports as important, and we already feature less sports coverage than the media at large (not at the moment - it just so happens March-June is when most of the notable sports finals happens - but in general). --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two women's basketball events posted in ITN in 5 days, while the first German victory at the most prestigious one-day race in cycling in 119 years is not even nominated. This is really strange to me. And I am not saying the latter should have been posted. I am saying the choices here are weird... Also, three sports blurbs at the same time are also a little too many for me. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Basketball is generally a winter sport which culminates in the spring (in the northern hemisphere anyway) so several championships are going to happen in close order. As for the bike race, you could have nominated it. And who says ITN should be restricted to murder and mayhem? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 08:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since we posted the centenary of the start of the WW1, should we also post "the first genocide of the 20th century"? "he starting date is conventionally held to be 24 April 1915". Nergaal (talk) 05:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The WWI centenary discussion here seem predicated on the fact that there were world-leader-led ceremonies to acknowledge its occurrence. I very much doubt (but could be proven wrong) that we'd have the same level of world recognition for this event. I would note that the 100th anniversary of an event would be easy TFA material, if this was a FA. --MASEM (t) 05:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: According to Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/April 24, if you expand the "Staging Area" portion, the genocide article is listed as eligible to appear in the On This Day section of the Main Page. I think that on the anniversary itself, an appearance in On This Day is the most appropriate answer. Looking at the revision history, It appears that the coordinator Howcheng prepares the list approximately one week in advance. As Masem says, if the ceremonies meet the ITN criteria, then they could appear in ITN the following day (or however long the ITN veto process takes). AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I usually get them about 2 days in advance, but OTD would be the appropriate location for this, unless as Masem says it gets a lot of attention worldwide. —howcheng {chat}11:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This strikes me as more appropriate for "On This Day", and potential advocacy given how controversial even recognizing it as a "genocide" remains. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is more appropriate for OTD. The centennial itself has not been getting significant news attention from sources I've read, however there has been attention to the genocide due to comments by the pope, unrelated to this anniversary. Mamyles (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 needs updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Support pending article improvements No need to mention the record, since it was only tying, and it wasn't that long ago the record was previously broken). I recognize the article is comparable to 2014's version, but there's no discussion of media coverage, reception, etc. which would be norm for a major pro event like this in the US, and I really feel this should be part of the article before posting, otherwise it's just a stats page. --MASEM (t) 00:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based solely on article quality. There's very little prose in the article, it's basically a series of tables and lists with a sentence or two of introduction here or there. I would expect a full prose synopsis of the tournament before posting. The "Field" section is also rather unwieldy and has too much WP:TRIVIA. A simple list or table would suffice. If those two problems could be fixed (with appropriate referencing, of course) this would be postable. --Jayron3220:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tempted to support per RamblingMans oppose vote, but Oppose per common sense. Sports in general is GROSSLY OVERrepresented. Also a badly written article.·maunus · snunɐɯ·21:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that sports are over-represented recently. However, that is because of the timing of many championships being close together, and that there are relatively few non-sport events occurring/nominated recently. Notable, once-a-year sports championships should not be excluded solely because they occur close to other notable sports events. (which is in part why ITNR exists) Mamyles (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sports is overrepresented year round every year. And yes most annual sports events have no business whatsoever in ITN. No annual event is that important. Sports is even less so compared to e.g. Nobel prizes.·maunus · snunɐɯ·21:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Consensus above was that article quality was an issue that needed to be fixed before posting. Were the problems itemized as needing to be fixed actually fixed? Because only 2/8 people who commented said that the article was of sufficient quality. While we all know that consensus building is not strictly vote counting, it is hard to argue that number of specific objections based on actionable and needed fixes somehow is ignorable. If the problems have been fixed, fine. But have they? --Jayron3214:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Seems like a significant international incident. According to the Christian Science Monitor, this makes Pope Francis "the first head of the Roman Catholic Church to publicly pronounce the word "genocide" to describe them [i.e. the killings of Armenians]." Everymorningtalk19:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. If there was a breaking of diplomatic relations, that might be enough, but recalling ambassadors is fairly standard in situations like this. 331dot (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (once again) per Abductive, many countries recognise this as genocide, the Pope is just (sort of) saying what they (and most of us) all think. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppos interesting tacit admission it occurred, but they just don't want to talk about it. But overall of no real historical relevance. μηδείς (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Closed] 54-hole record at the 2015 Masters Tournament
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: He broke the Masters record of 201 set by Raymond Floyd in 1976 and matched by Tiger Woods in 1997. May be waited for the final reault. Both Floyd and Woods won the championship the next day. -The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength09:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a trainspotting record, because it doesn't matter until the final round is played, which could wipe that away with one bad round. --MASEM (t) 13:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wasn't active on ITN then, but didn't we post a blurb when Miroslav Klose broke the World Cup scoring record, then merge it when Germany won the hole shabang? I'm sure there was a bit of fuss over that and some proud Americans saying the ITN system has a pro-soccer bias. Overall, any sports record is just that - a record - and interests a niche audience unless it can be tacked onto the end of a wider "X won the Y Cup" '''tAD''' (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the breaking of a record in the world's premier tournament for the world's most popular sport might just be a little bit more important than a footnote statistic like this one. If he breaks the full tournament record tonight that might be different (but I'd still merge it in with the result). Black Kite (talk)19:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. If he scores a record over 72 holes (which is the actual length of the tournament) then we can combine this with the blurb about the winner. But if it's only a record at the 54-hole mark, then I don't see why we should post the same tournament twice in as many days. Modest Geniustalk18:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Heavy Saudi Arabian air strikes hit southern Yemen resulting in at least 20 deaths of Houthis soldiers and two members of rival militias. Saudi Arabia claims to have killed 500 rebels since the start of military operations in March. (Reuters)(CNN)
India evacuates 5600 people including 960 foreign nationals from Yemen under Operation Raahat. Several flights were allowed to take off and land in Yemen despite the no-fly zone declared on the country. (The New York Times)
Turkey sends additional troops and aircraft into Ağrı Province which borders Iran, after four soldiers are injured in clashes with PKK insurgents. (Reuters)
A man carrying a protest sign, backpack and rolling luggage fatally shot himself in the head in front of the US Capitol Building. Capitol Police announced there was no apparent connection to terrorism. It follows unconnected shootings at the US Census HQ and the NSA. (CNN)
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.
Note: We have a link to this in Ongoing. Does this represent a significant enough development in the Yemeni Civil War to need special treatment? --Jayron3200:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a development in the wider ongoing crisis, and not as serious as the capture of a city, a foreign intervention or the ousting of a government. '''tAD''' (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Could you explain how this person meets the RD criteria(either below or in the "nom cmt" line of the template) as it will help others better understand the reason. 331dot (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they do. In any case, an article which gives the subject's date of birth as 1947 and 1952 inside the first two paragraphs clearly needs updating. Black Kite (talk)23:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly certain this was listed when several people were convicted. In any case, don't see his being executed as much of an achievement, this would have to be a blurb, which it does not merit. μηδείς (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The 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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Note The blurb is taken from last year's blurb. The women's Boat Race does not have the same coverage as the main event and does not seem to be part of the previous ITNR discussion. 31.54.156.31 (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose that and say that we should mention that this is the first time the women's race has happened at the same venue as the men's race. Alt 1: In rowing, the male and female crews raced at the same location for the first time in history as in both races the Oxford beat Cambridge [change if necessary] in the 161st Boat Races. 86.190.99.149 (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the women's NCAA basketball final did not (bizarrely, arbitrarily, and rather cruelly) make the cut, why should this be any different? -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure it should be treated differently. The Boat Race (which means by default the men's one), was considered to be prestigious enough for ITNR, yet the women's one would surely fail to make the cut on its own merits. It has not even been discussed there. By the way, writing "the 161st Boat Races" does not make sense because "The Boat Race" refers by default to the men's and the women have only been racing since 1927. Have a look at today's featured article: the focus is all on the men's. Similarly, compare the depth of coverage of Women's Boat Race (2,993 bytes) to The Boat Race (59,006 bytes). 31.54.156.31 (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the article is of a reasonable quality (in my opinion) and suitably updated, the only necessary criterion for this ITNR. Just a shame about the results... I've added an alt blurb for the women's race result too. And obviously I will expand and enhance the article over the next three or four hours as reactions and more sourced material becomes available.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is the women's race ITNR or was just the Boat Race considered? I shall have a proper look. Either way, it is nice to see someone supporting the better of the two universities! ;) 31.54.156.31 (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per ITN/R, even though I couldn't find these sorts of things much more dull. Even NASCAR is more interesting than these rowing contests. Alas, people watch them, for some reason. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. I posted the first blurb. I find the altblurb's grammar to be impenetrable and hard to parse. If someone can offer a better version, and there is clear consensus to post the Women's results as well, no prejudice against updating. --Jayron3217:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I ended up putting a bit in about the Women's race anyways. It is given equal coverage in the highlighted article, and didn't take up too much space to do so. --Jayron3217:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Jayron, but the blurb is quite wrong now. The "161st Boat Race" is only the men's race. There are not separate men's and women's competitions as part of it. The women's Boat Race is about 90 years old. 31.54.156.31 (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I've restored the original (and accurate) blurb until we can agree on wording to include the women's race, if that's deemed appropriate on this historic occasion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to that. There seemed to be a rough consensus to include the Woman's race, and it is given equal coverage in the target article. The issue to me just was the awkward wording. If anyone comes up with a natural way to note the results of both races, and there is consensus to include it, no prejudice one way or the other to posting it or not, for whatever anyone wants to do. I have no opinion on the matter in either direction. --Jayron3218:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1 hr + change with only 4 !votes is far too fast to post something like this, even though I don't see any problems at the time of posting. I don't see any major objections that could come but we should still not be rushing even ITNR posts. Note , I'm not asking for it to be pulled, just a a timing aspect to keep in mind. --MASEM (t) 18:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any aspects of the article which you believe to be insufficient? Please do highlight them so I can address them to your satisfaction. Otherwise, it should be pleasing (to some) to see a good article, well referenced, and complete (as far as I can see) being posted in good time at ITN as it is an ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem:: Perhaps you could get WP:BURO removed from Wikipedia permanently? Otherwise, I fail to understand the "It's fine to post this, there's nothing wrong with the article, but I still object because it was too fast" objection. If there's no reason to object three hours from now, there would be no reason to object now. --Jayron3218:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still, we need to think about the blurb. We have something that does not make sense and also includes an event that is not part of ITNR. 31.54.156.31 (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any issues, and 4 other people didn't see any issues, but we should still wait some time to make sure no one has any serious problems. We are in no rush to push ITN items, and should allow a reasonable amount of time (a few hours at least, in this case , given the timing in the relative English-speaking parts of the world) to gain better consensus. --MASEM (t) 18:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's very rare that we only have consensus on article quality, as well you know. ITNRs can be and are often posted as soon as the posting admin has assessed that an update of sufficient quality has been made. That's been the case here. I think you're creating an issue where one doesn't exist on this occasion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, including the posting notice, there is only one statement made about article quality at the time of posting, which is far from a consensus on quality. I am not saying that the article quality was bad, but that should have not been posted if no one addressed (either way) the quality of the article, which can stall an ITNR. Add in the fact that while an ITNR (and by no means challenging that) that this is a very regional-level topic that has far more interest in the UK/Europe than the US, and you create situations where one takes advantage of time zones to push things things through. Not that this is the case here, but I still stress that we have no need to rush any posts to ITN, and should wait at least a few hours to have more voices check on article quality even for ITNR. --MASEM (t) 18:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have admins here to judge quality for ITNR items. If you don't trust them, perhaps we should let anyone post items to ITN. I addressed the quality of the article, the posting admin has done (otherwise he wouldn't have posted it), you say there are no problems with the article that you can see, I think it's sufficient. Once again, you could save this fight for when it's justifiably required. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given several incidents of where admins have posted articles that have subsequently been pulled because of quality issues (even when these were pointed out in the ITNC), yes, we should have better consensus from !votes on these points. If there was a longer string of comments (I don't know what the minimum number would be, but 4 is far too small) that all pointed out no issues in article quality and the okay to post, that would be fine. Waiting more time for more comments to come for any topic helps to reduce the chance of having to retract ITN after posting. --MASEM (t) 18:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with the actual article, but this ITN process. It's been an issue that articles should be of quality to be posted, even if they meet ITNR, and having a few more !votes here to affirm that the article was in good shape for posting - which would have come within a few hrs more. This may have been fine, but it is this type of "sloppiness" of process that leads to articles being posted to TIN and subsequently pulled due to the article being in bad shape. A few more hours of discussion would have not hurt anything in this case. --MASEM (t) 19:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the sloppiness here? We could wait a few more hours for ... nothing to happen. The article is GA quality. If you think we should wait for ... nothing to happen for three hours just to satisfy some odd urge, that's your perspective. But as I said a couple of times, you could have picked a better victim for your perspective. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with posting (the men's race) as soon as the article was ready. The whole point of ITNR is avoid unnecessary discussions. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ITNR is not a guarantee of posting, only that their is consensus that the event is the type that gets posted, but the specific instance of the event and the quality of the article all still must be evaluated. --MASEM (t) 19:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, it's just an assessment of quality. And we place that in the hands of capable admins. If you wish to pursue this further, I suggest you take concerns to WT:ITN, as it's somewhat bloating this perfectly suitably posted ITNR which now has at least four individuals in agreement that it's okay for the main page. Of course, feel free to bring this fight back into play when you see an ITNR posted which isn't of sufficient quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As TRM says, the assessment of quality has historically fallen primarily to the posting admin. the whole argumjent that somethign was done wrong here smack of pure bureaucracy. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the ITNR discussion here, it is clear it is only for the men's event. The basis for including the event is through its popularity, both in the UK and abroad, justified partly with huge viewing figures on television. Before this year, the women's race has never even been shown on television: it was a much shorter race that took part elsewhere. The difference between the articles The Boat Race and Women's Boat Race is testament to this. If the women's race one day becomes as popular and important as the men's, then it should also be included, but it does not seem as if we are anywhere near that stage yet. It is not down to us to be saying what should be popular and what should not be. 31.54.156.31 (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image note and question: Tyus Jones was the image for 4 days, so I switched out his photo for one of the Oxford team. However, now that I've done that, I see the the top two images on the Main page are both Oxford teams (of 2 different years) in their boats. This problem will go away when the TFA switches in 3 hours, but if anyone thinks this looks horrible, I can revert until that happens. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the historic first for the women's race is worth posting. I too am struggling to think of a non-awkward wording, though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since no other opinions have been offered on the wording & there appears to be consensus to mention both races, I am being bold and making the change. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong pull for the same reasons as the NCAA basketball below. This is an amateur university-level sporting contest, open to students at two universities only. How it got list on ITNR mystifies me. The mere fact that it gets TV coverage does not justify posting it - we certainly do not post every sporting event with a large TV audience (or would be constantly posting IPL games and NASCAR races). Modest Geniustalk13:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, thanks. It is worth noting that it's not the mere fact of its television audience that it is of global interest, but there is little point in explaining it to you for the umpteenth time, deaf ears and all that jazz. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I fail to see how completely ignoring ITN/R is of any value here. There are rules, and they should be stuck to despite the odd maverick's opinion unless there is a revote. 86.190.46.222 (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I must call you out for your ridiculous "strong pull" request. As I explained to you once already this week, a "pull" means you think there is a defect with the article or consensus. It is not merely an expression of your opinion late, but rather an accusation of a fundamental error. Your opinion is not so important that we need to hear it after a matter has been decided. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you get that idea from? I don't think it should have been posted, but it already has been. Ergo my !vote is 'pull' rather than oppose. I'm not aware of any rule or guideline which says it has anything to do with a 'fundamental error'. Modest Geniustalk18:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, thanks to all. What was a trivially simple decision to post an ITNR article of significant quality to the main page has become something of a bitchfest of some magnitude, and unnecessarily so. For anyone objecting as to the quality of the article, please note what's wrong. For anyone objecting to the notability, please address the item's inclusion at ITN/R at WT:ITNR. For those objecting to allowing an admin judge whether an ITN/R should or should not be posted, please address this issue at WT:ITN. You all know this. Stop drama-whoring. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
The Grand National article is NOT adequately updated. At minimum, there should be a text description of the race, not just a table of the finishing order. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On ITNR so should go up once the article is good to go - it currently looks pretty borderline. It has been updated and there's a prose summary, although it only has 2 references. The broadcast section still has an orange tag, however it could simply be removed (and copied to the talk page) until references are found - the article is sufficiently complete even without it. Modest Geniustalk21:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have a problem with sources for those. I have added a note at the Talk Page. I'm not sure that the two blank columns affect the postability of this item (while it's still fresh?) - is there a rule written down about this? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A head-on collision between a semi-trailer truck and a bus carrying a delegation of young athletes in southern Morocco on Friday killed 33 people and injured seven. (ABC News)
"Serial bride" pled not guilty to felony fraud for marrying 10 husbands, up to 8 at once in New York City. She married men from "red flagged" nations such as Egypt, Turkey, Georgia, Pakistan, Mali, and Bangladesh who sought resident status. (WTKR)
Politics and elections
Multiple sources have reported that former United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will announce her candidacy for the office of President in the 2016 election on Sunday, April 12. (The Guardian)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose - Per the article; he was freed "following a court order that he be set free pending trial, his lawyer said." In other words, there is still a criminal trial ongoing.--WaltCip (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In many democracies (excepting where there is demonstrated risk of flight or other extenuating circumstances) accused persons, who have not yet been convicted of a crime, are regularly released from jail pending the completion of their trial. This is not unusual or outstanding in any way. This is "how the system works". No big deal. When he is convicted, we may have something to post. This is unexciting minutiae of every trial. --Jayron3218:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jayron. There's a pending trial, release on that is a common legal practice. The ITN here would be if the trial ends up charging or exonerating him of the original charges. --MASEM (t) 19:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The argument that this is standard procedure and hence of no note is deeply flawed. Yes, it is common practice to allow persons awaiting trial to post bail/bond (or be simply be released), but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a case where, say, a US or UK court released a man accused of over 100 murders in a terrorist bombing on any amount of bail (this would be roughly akin to releasing Timothy McVeigh while he awaited trial). This is not even addressing the rather commonsense assertion that releasing a suspected terrorist into Pakistan is all but inviting escape. That said, I am undecided whether this is ITN material. - OldManNeptune⚓16:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Former captain of the Australian cricket team. From the 1960s until recently he was a commentator for the BBC and Channel 9 in Australia. More than a cricketer, he was a cultural icon in Australia. He was the central character of the very popular The Twelfth Man parodies. Despite his advanced age, he was still commentating just a couple of years ago, and appeared in a commercial for Australia Day this year. He was such a well-known figure in Australia for such a long time, with his career in cricket and the media spanning eight decades, that I believe he deserves a blurb. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD tag, but not blurb He's at the top of his field and that's notable enough for a RD tag mention, but he's not that significant for a blurb. Sorry. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD from reading his page, as he seems to be important to cricket in Australia. I would like to know what Australians think about whether he merits a blurb or not. 331dot (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb I think that among sportspeople only a few global superstars would warrant blurbs - the likes of Pelé, Muhammad Ali and Michael Jordan. While Benaud's not quite at this level, there's no doubt he easily qualifies for an RD. He was a great all-rounder, the world record-holder for most test wickets when he retired, an outstanding captain, a legendary broadcaster, a prolific author, and a key figure in the establishment of World Series Cricket, which had a huge impact on the game. Certainly there have been few more influential figures in cricket in the post-WWII era. There are still parts of the article that could do with more citations, however. Neljack (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD with article improvements, oppose blurb No apparent question of a top of the field cricketer but not sufficient importance for a blurb. Comparing the front half to the back half of the article, the sourcing gets really weak on the back side, and needs a bit of help. --MASEM (t) 00:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD: There are some sourcing issues in the "Later career" section that should be addressed, but I don't see anything dire. That being said, somebody more knowledgeable than I am about cricket should double-check to make sure there are no WP:COPYVIO and WP:BLP issues before it is posted. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! most impressive RD article I have ever seen. The guy's even got a graph! This is updated, referenced, and ready to go. μηδείς (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it has some significant referencing issues to be dealt with. There are several unreferenced paragraphs, which while mostly sports stats, should at least be addressed. --MASEM (t) 01:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unmarked ready. While the referencing in the first half of the article is pretty good, the second half has a lot of unreferenced material including one completely unreferenced section on a major part of his career. Thus, needs improvement before posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I expect this will get a lot of attention in the next few hours as the workday finishes for Friday evening here in Australia. -dmmaus (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD: Icon of Australian culture. However, as said above, blurb should only even be considered for the truly global figures of sport: Ali, Pelé, Bolt et al. (just hoping none of those chaps leave us soon, by the way!) '''tAD''' (talk) 07:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD neutral on blurb. He doesn't meet the blurb requirements as a sportsman, but as sportsman+broadcaster+cultural icon he might. Thryduulf (talk) 09:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support if someone can take over from me and just fix the media section. We've gone from 43 to 103 citations in the past hour or so, hope that assuages some of the concerns over referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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
