Wikipedia : In the news/Candidates/November 2015

Template:Archivetop Template:ITN candidate Gsnxn (talk) 12:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support article quality seems sufficient at a quick once-over. (P.S. picture most likely won't make it since we have a more recent news item with a picture already)... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The only section that seems undersourced is the Changes section, but this would be something that would seem relatively easy to fill in and not contentious, the rest of the article is well sourced and looks ready for posting. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is good enough. sst✈^discuss 16:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not as detailed as the F1 season article, but definitely sufficient. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 23:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lorenzo's article is not updated. Nergaal (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So fix it. It isn't the target of the blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Myanmar votes in Freest Elections in a Quarter Century

Oppose as suggested, we typically post the results of such elections, we don't editorialise on the election itself. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added a couple more links in defense of my thought that this is a more significant event that your every-day parliamentary election in most states. Gsnxn (talk) 12:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Also 2011–12 Myanmar political reforms should probably be renamed simply "Myanmar political reforms" (is there a word like 'perestroika' for what is happening in Myanmar?). cf http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-16546688[reply]

Oppose Gsnxn, I doubt anyone disagrees that this is a far more significant national election than most, but the point is we don't editorialise. No-one will disagree that the results should be posted, but not this kind of blurb. Redverton (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
support - all rules are meant to be broken. This is a special case with a specially interesting and important election. Of course it should be posted.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)ys[reply]
I'm not sure if you speak/understand English or understand how ITNR or ITNC works, but we simply won't post an unreferenced blurb which strays into the editorialising that Ive already advised we don't do here. If you don't understand that, please let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—the important thing here will either be the winner of the elections, or the military disregarding the result if it doesn't go their way. If this does run, Myanmar continues to march steadily, if carefully, towards democracy after decades of martial law, with its implication that democracy=progress, is certainly not appropriate as a wording. ‑ iridescent 17:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Freest"? The results should be posted, but not this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose When the results come in, then we post that, and without such obviously nonneutral commentary. I don't doubt this nomination was made in good faith, but actually posting such a blurb to ITN would be something of an outrage. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 17:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archivebottom

November 7

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2015 November 7 Template:Cob

RD: Yitzhak Navon

Comment: Notability is clear, but article is woefully underreferenced. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose: Article shows notability, plus meets RD criteria without a doubt, but the article needs improvement. Article is lowly referenced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Notable, and not as well known as he should be. His contributions to Sefardic culture in Israel are underreported in the article. I'll see what I can manage, but people deserve to see this. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment we posted Yitzhak shamir to a full blurb (I remember doing up the page for his death). Though that might have been in the pre-RD era. Although we do have head of state on full blurb right now.At any rate, as RD its a given with precedence and "top of his field".Lihaas (talk) 04:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose insufficient referencing to be considered for main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WHO declared Sierra Leone free from Ebola

We won't get fooled again! μηδείς (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose less ITN material and more Portal:Current events/2015 November 7 material, added. Victor Punta (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support and propose alt blurb I after update of articles; not much has been added re: end of epidemic in Sierra Leone. A notable event in a wider saga that has been covered by popular news sources for over a year. Kiwi128 (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - notable subject. itn worthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the last time this was suggested some new cases were announced within a week, if I am not mistaken. At this point there is a strong opinion that Ebola is basically endemic to West Africa, so posting that it is not currently active in just one of the countries in which it has appeared seems like an incremental, rather than a tipping point development. μηδείς (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last time it was different country. This is for the first time in Sierra Leone. One conformed case is currently in neighbouring Guinea, so yes, it is possible, that isolated case will be bring back into country. However epidemic is over.--Jenda H. (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that it was a different country. The principle still holds. Just as it would hold if you wanted to post that the Andrea Doria was unsinkable, and I said they said that about the Titanic. μηδείς (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment, proving that something doesn't exist is a very difficult thing. If we reject this on the grounds that "maybe it hasn't really been eradicated yet", then we would also have to reject things like the killing of Osama bin Laden (maybe he actually survived, see various conspiracy theories) or the extinction of any species (maybe there's still a population somewhere). The WHO felt confident enough to make this declaration, which should count for something. Banedon (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree with BabbaQ. Banedon (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until WHO declares W Africa ebola-free. Nergaal (talk) 07:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support If Roger Daltrey gives the all-clear, then it's good enough for me. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who?--WaltCip (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] 2015 Romanian protests

Template:Archive top Add 2015 Romanian protests to update the blurb of Romanian PM's resignation? --George Ho (talk) 10:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The above was copypasted, without attribution, and has no substantive difference to Colectiv nightclub fire#Protests. Fuebaey (talk) 10:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can go to WP:AFD to learn steps about nominating the article for deletion, Fuebaey. --George Ho (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a redirect would be fine. You can go to WP:COPYPASTE and WP:ATTRIBUTE to learn what was done wrong here. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I'm not certain that 2015 Romanian protests has no future of its own, but at present I would not consider featuring it on the main page. Kiwi128 (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted to ongoing] Metrojet Flight 9268 investigations

Oppose While the flight recorder is consistent with a mid-air explosion, a bomb on the plane is not the sole explanation as these reports point out. The media is jumping at this story with rather poor reporting and wild speculations based on initial statements made by investigators. If it does turn out to be a bomb, that's an ITN, but we should not be re-adding this until we have more than just FUD being reported. --MASEM (t) 07:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, more ALTs are added. --George Ho (talk) 07:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added a blurb and renamed the section, but I ironically oppose this nomination. Either method would attract wild guesses, like Masem said. Even I was close to nominating this until I found a mere flight data recorder, as said in previous nomination, is not sufficient enough to prove a bomb. George Ho (talk) 07:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho Hmmm... that's why I had proposed it as a ongoing only nomination. Didn't want to editorialize it on the main page. Kiwi128 (talk) 07:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still Oppose blurb, but I am now convinced that a mere mention of the ongoing event seems harmless. I did oppose restoring it back to "ongoing", but those were wrong times to dorestore it so soon. Westerners say that it could have been a bomb by terrorists; Russians... do they publicly reject the claim? Wont' matter, weak oppose to ongoing just to make readers search for the aircraft disaster themselves. --George Ho (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? You don't like the idea so you'll punish the readers by making them "search for the aircraft disaster themselves"? What use is that? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Readers can search it on Google and Bing and Yahoo. As for quality mentioned earlier, like Masem said, reporting is "poor" and speculative. --George Ho (talk) 09:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Readers can search it on Google and Bing and Yahoo" applies to every link on the Main Page. By that logic, you'd abolish ITN altogether. (I can and have made a case for precisely that in the past, but as long as it exists we need a mechanism for deciding what goes on it.) ‑ iridescent 09:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What, no! Why would I want ITN gone? And I would appreciate your refraining from twisting my logic again. --George Ho (talk) 09:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting is not poor nor particularly speculative. The CVR has recorded an explosion. Airbus have confirmed that every aircraft system was functioning correctly up to the point that the CVR recorded an explosion. British and American intelligence agencies are reporting that celebratory chatter has been picked up. There's little left to debate here, your opinion is out of date. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you think my opinion is outdated, I'll try to update my opposition as much as I can. Explosion is explosion. It does not mean a bomb... yet. It's just a recording of explosion. The investigation is ongoing, but I don't see how the reporting of investigation development meets quality standards of ITN other than being ongoing and recording of explosion and Russian flights suspended, both of which may not meet ITN standards. --George Ho (talk) 10:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You think airliners explode every day? 217.38.95.253 (talk) 10:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You said it precisely, it is ongoing, why you would vote against it to annoy our readers, I know not. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not all "ongoing" events have been posted. Most sports events never have been featured in Main Page as "ongoing" by ITN standards. I would honourably mention September 11 attacks, but I can't. Enough comparing, investigations on the airplane crash are prematurely developed as is. No major key actions have been made, even with the recorder and flight suspensions. --George Ho (talk) 11:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're entirely missing the point, the fact is that this is in the news, is affecting Egypt, Russia, and many other countries whose tourists are now stranded. It's ongoing. We're here to help our readers find news items that they may find helpful, not to deliberately make them go and use Google to find the event that's all over their news. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Outdent Investigations are part of aftermath of the crash. Probably instead of investigations, the aftermath in general should be nominated... separately, not in this section. The result in Ongoing ticker would come out as "Aftermath of Metrojet Flight 9268", but the aftermath consists of just investigations, flight suspensions, reactions, and corpse recoveries. The plane disaster was featured once deservingly, but I don't like the idea of posting a part or whole of aftermath as "Ongoing" in Main Page. Readers can search for this article or read news outside Wikipedia. --George Ho (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point, yet again. ITN is here to help readers, not to drive them to a search engine. Perhaps this is lost on you, maybe it's a language thing, but deliberately preventing our readers from reading about one of the most updated news stories in recent weeks is simply absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing Given that this is the third active nomination of the event, I think a restoration to ongoing is in order... Incremental blurb updates are a bit much but it seems prolific enough to warrant ongoing for the time being. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More ALTs are added Cyclonebiskit; your thoughts? George Ho (talk) 07:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping I still hold that ongoing is more appropriate. Any blurbs regarding the investigation would have to be annoyingly vague until a conclusive report is written and published. Kind of regret taking it down myself initially now, but what's done is done. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, no; don't regret it. The process was right. I haven't regretted proposing removal from "Ongoing" ticker. Timing to re-post it should be right. If re-posted, as how shall the name come out? --George Ho (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose in this form as it's a very active investigation and the story is changing and developing constantly. Something more general, such as the Alt Blurb I suggested in the other nomination, "Investigations continue into the cause of the crash of the Russian Metrojet Flight 9268 in Egypt." would cover any later developments. MurielMary (talk) 07:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about now, MurielMary? George Ho (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, MurielMary, I should put your ALT in the fresher nomination. George Ho (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - alt blurb II is very sensible, if we are posting a blurb at all. Still inclined to go with ongoing only for now. Kiwi128 (talk) 07:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Add to ongoing per my opinion below. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you re-summarize your opinion, Rambling Man? A reader can't be forced to search your opinions from three section days ago (technically two days ago). --George Ho (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Says the editor who opens a second nomination, forcing others to cover the same ground twice... Bencherlite ^Talk 08:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just added one blurb, Bencherlite. Kiwi did the nomination actually. --George Ho (talk) 08:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, all you need know is that this shouldn't have been removed from Ongoing in the first place. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have this incredible sense of deja-vu - a developing news story but nothing particularly blurb-worthy, covered in lots of news reports, plenty of constructive edits to the article? Sounds perfect to add to ongoing. <sarcasm> I wonder why it wasn't added to ongoing when the blurb rotated off the main page? </sarcasm> (Incidentally, "investigations continue" is not the stuff of an ITN blurb, because it says that there is nothing better to say, so it is a pretty firm indication that we are still in "ongoing" territory.) Bencherlite ^Talk 08:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing. An article which is being constantly updated as the situation changes and new facts come to light, but where there's not been a single huge development to warrant posting a fresh blurb? This is pretty much the canonical example of what "ongoing" is for. ‑ iridescent 08:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The crash was posted, no reason to post this story twice. 93.215.78.75 (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is, if the news item is still "ongoing". Of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose best to stay away form media sensationalism and wait for investigation outcome.. Victor Punta (talk) 12:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We are simply linking an encyclopedic article, not making any kind of judgement. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose so the plane blew up in midair. So what? Does this tell us anything new at all? I don't think so.72.184.151.24 (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You win ITN first prise for missing the point here. 217.38.122.7 (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, because all those airliners keep blowing up all the time. Stupid planes. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Either IP's presence is coincidence, or the IP is disguised by a registered person with similar traits. I don't want to accuse someone; that would be bad faith. Moreover, shall TRM's attempts to rebut opposition be taken seriously? Looks like I'm not the only ~~one~~ oppose trying to make a point here. George Ho (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - You are missing the point, again and again. If you think I'm related to the IPs, ask for a checkuser. In the meantime, realise that your determination to prevent our readers from finding the articles that are in the news is directly contrary to the purpose of ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        No, no, no. I got the point: attract Western investigator's and politician's speculations, Russia's flight suspensions to Egypt, and inconclusive evidence to general readers, hoping for readers to read over and over without making Wikipedia the crystal ball (sorry, don't wanna link this) until something spectacular happens. The plane crash was already the point. You must thank me and others for removing the "ongoing" event from the Main Page for nearly four days. Meanwhile, our search engine, even when imperfect, can help readers look for the article with or without AutoComplete by typing related terms that might not be exact title of the article. --George Ho (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        TRM has it right. And Wikipedia is not doing any speculating, only reporting on the speculation - which is being made by high-ranking officials, not conspiracy theorists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        But WP does avoid rumormongering even when it comes from normally reliable sources. The potential that a commercial plane crash was something triggered by agents in the ISIS/Syrian war can easily be seen as something that Western countries of power would love to use to initiate action; the reaction of US and UK intelligence sources compared to the more cautious take that Egyptian and Russian sources who are on the ground there shows this to be trying to push for an ideal situation of events for them. And of course, being mostly covered in Western papers, the press is jumping along with that. This is very comparable to the Sony hack that the US quickly pointed a finger at North Korea though since then there's been a lot of counterevidence to that and little conclusive to their point. There is zero question that if the actual investigators determined that the plane was brought down by a bomb (regardless who placed it) that we make it an ITN story and the situation becomes much more serious. But we at en.wiki have to be careful of stories that are pushed and manufactured by the press to be more important than they are without firm evidence. That's Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt at work, just as that failed attack on the French train a few months ago was played up. Which is why we have to keep in mind that we aren't a newspaper, while we keep up with current events, we should be writing them and in the case of ITN treating then with how the work becomes more encyclopedic with inclusion of current events. This current string of stories on this plane crash, which is not revealing any new truths just yet, is really poor for inclusion in WP at this point because it is wild speculation. I still disagree this should be in ongoing for this reason, though clearly consensus is for it, but we need to remember that we're not here at ITN just to report on the loudest stories on the news, but to look with an encyclopedic eye on things which may mean we don't even touch on the loudest stories. --MASEM (t) 17:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        
        "... deadliest both in the history of Russian aviation and within Egyptian territory. It is also the deadliest air crash involving an aircraft from the Airbus A320 family and the deadliest plane crash of 2015." The cause is still not resolved although 90% sure it was bomb. Not sure why it was taken off "In The News". 86.189.225.37 (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Add to ongoing As it's ongoing. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ack! I truly don't understand this. The nominator of this posting is the same one who below told us that to promote the story would be racist?!?!? Will some Admin please just add this to Ongoing already? No need for a blurb. Last I checked there were tens of thousands of people stranded in the Sinai because of this. μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to ongoing Taking the three different nominations, the level of editing activity, the level of news reporting, and the amount of support at all of the nominations, I've added this to ongoing. --Jayron 32 01:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll point out that the British press is giving some pretty detailed quotes of British intelligence sources saying that the bombers were overheard celebrating the explosion in London and Birmingham accents.[24] μηδείς (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] China-Taiwan summit

Support - Huge story, per nom. Article decent at first glance. ITN-worthy, I'd say. Jus da fax 05:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've slightly fixed the grammar ("since end of the" -> "since the end of the"), and I'd like to make a suggestion to change "leaders" to "presidents". To me, "leaders" feels like the blurb is trying to be too politically correct (in Chinese media outlets, calling Ma the Taiwan "president" is forbidden, so they use the euphemism "leader" instead). --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Sorry, Benlisquare; let's not do euphemisms, especially in English.~~ (My bad; I misread your comments.) Speaking of euphemisms, does Chinese Wikipedia do that? --George Ho (talk) 07:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - very significant story. Don't think the place they are meeting in needs mention, though; prefer Alt Blurb I without hotel metion. MurielMary (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
propose alt blurb 2 as per MurielMary. Kiwi128 (talk) 06:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added alt blurb III. George Ho (talk) 06:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alt Blurb III reads that it's the first time they've met in Singapore since the war (but they might have met elsewhere). Grammar isn't right. MurielMary (talk) 06:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alt blurb IV proposed as per MurielMary. Kiwi128 (talk) 06:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still support Alt Blurb II as I think the mention of Singapore is distracting from the significance of the meeting happening at all. MurielMary (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Kiwi128 (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support alt blurb II - as per discussion above. Kiwi128 (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Double vote, but I can't strike it yet. George Ho (talk) 07:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just wanted it to be clear what my position was. Have made the double vote clearer. Kiwi128 (talk) 07:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please can we stop creating so many alt blurbs. It makes deciding on a candidate so much more difficult. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about most likely candidate then? George Ho (talk) 09:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Significant milestone in cross strait relations. Victor Punta (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. I think 4 will work best. Although, it could also be "In Singapore, presidents meet..." --Tone 17:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request - Could we please bold the names of Xi Jinping and Ma Ying-jeou, since it is they the main story is about.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The bolding indicates which article is featured. The event qualifying for ITN is the meeting, not the people involved. Mamyles (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that BabbaQ has entirely forgotten how ITN works. I'd be tempted to ask if the account is compromised... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request - The blurb makes it look like it was the first time between the specififc two leaders. It is not obvious from the blurb that it was the first time any holder of either office met with each other since 1949. 176.92.242.33 (talk) 13:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing: Southeast Asian haze

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2015 November 6 Template:Cob

Comment This was originally posted at the end of September and removed about two weeks ago. While the event is undoubtedly still ongoing, I'm not seeing how the article has recently been updated beyond some standard copyediting. For what it is worth, I'd say the same thing about the European migrant crisis as well. Fuebaey (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for that perspective, I wasn't aware that it had been on so recently. MurielMary (talk) 06:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Fuebaey. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 6

RD: Ri Ul-sol

Support with improvements: Seems to have been significant in the opaque and byzantine world of North Korean politics, at least to outside observers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait: Certainly sounds important, but an article whose main source is an unofficial blog with no credited author is not going to be posted. Blythwood (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with waiting but this is also going to go stale if we wait more than a day. The fact that we don't have corroboration from western press begs how important this figure was or if the death was legit.. --MASEM (t) 00:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greenpeace India

Comment - I wonder if Greenpeace India would be a more appropriate main article. Although it would require a major cleanup. Also wonder whether it would be worth mentioning in the blurb the wider context of India shutting down 9k other NGOs. Kiwi128 (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Startling and draconian Indian move with international implications. Jus da fax 05:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - also propose possible Alt Blurb as per Kiwi128's comment. MurielMary (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support and propose alt blurb II - also happy with alt blurb I, but think it would be sensible to include a link to Greenpeace India. Kiwi128 (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Before I vote, how is Greenpeace relevant in the environmental field nowadays? There have been criticisms on this NGO. It has received media attention for years, but most of its activities appear futile to the effect. Has the NGO done something successful to affect people involved in the environment? George Ho (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite being a previous Greenpeace supporter, I'm personally inclined to agree with your skepticism of Greenpeace @George Ho. But many would disagree with our views and revoking a license for them to operate in India is notable in any case. Kiwi128 (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability is not a synonym for newsworthiness. Many notable topics haven't gotten the ITN spotlight. There must be crackdowns on other NGOs in India. George Ho (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - True, but I would say that in this case it is both a notable article and newsworthy topic at present. Kiwi128 (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as nominated. I could possibly support posting an article on the crackdown as the main topic which mentions greenpeace as an example among others. Otherwise we are basically just cheerleading for one "victim" among many. μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair point. Greenpeace is a well-known mainstream NGO, which makes some difference IMO. But I certainly think that focusing on a broader trend would be more worthy of ITN. Kiwi128 (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If we were to feature the general trend in NGO regulation in India, I think the most appropriate target article to update would be Non-profit laws of India. Kiwi128 (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable, although the article is refimprove-tagged at the moment and needs an update. μηδείς (talk) 03:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

wait/oppose for now its not much in international repercussions, moreover the appeals process is not yet exhausted. and considering the election result coming in now the central government is not gong to be so arrogant in its power.Lihaas (talk) 09:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

support - because of international implications. also altburb seems best.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment ALtblurbs are highly POV as the content described the events at greenpeace and not an "ongping" crackdown. Also this will look every follish when greenpeace is not banned.Lihaas (talk) 02:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose - per Medeis. Furthermore the proposed blurb doesn't explain why this matters, while the altblurbs don't explain why there is a crackdown in the first place. I'm going to somewhat paradoxically propose a third altblurb while weakly opposing this. Banedon (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

US rejects Keystone XL Pipeline

Template:ITN candidate Template:Collapse top

Weak Oppose While this is a definitive end to the Keystone XL issue (I do not see anything that suggests Congress can override it) and it has been a central issue for the last year, it is also part of pre-election year politicking. There still remains a pipeline that runs from Canada to the US for the same purpose, and the articles suggest that Canada's gov't is disappointed but nowhere close to severing ties with the US. --MASEM (t) 00:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Seems like a notable issue that readers would be interested in. Also, not a disaster or sporting event, which is nice for a change. True, this is pre-election politicking, but politics are real life, and this decision affects real things. Kiwi128 (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Notable indeed, and game-changing news that signals a milestone in the shift away from fossil fuel to renewable energy. Story is international in scope and interest. Agree that this is a welcome change in blurb from sports and disasters. Let's put this one up ASAP. Jus da fax 02:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this is a regulatory policy decision regarding one pipeline which can always be overturned by congressional action or after the next election--it is not "definitive". We don't even post when countries legalize gay marriage anymore. Why we should be posting not approving a pipeline is beyond me. μηδείς (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In the legal world anything can be overturned at a later date. That doesn't mean that a given legal decision isn't important. Kiwi128 (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jusdafax ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Long-expected move that only makes official Obama's unofficial policy of rejection. Nothing has changed. --Tocino 11:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For related previous nominations, see:
- Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/February_2015#.5BClosed.5D_Obama_vetoes_Keystone_XL_Pipeline
- Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/January_2012#Obama_turns_down_Keystone_XL_Pipeline
  - --Spencer^T♦C 19:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why do we need five blurb alternatives? I've removed most of the detritus. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment might want to add that the bcompany also redacted application to build it. Not to mntion the Canadian election produced a different circumstance (priceof oil too probably)Lihaas (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - important and historically important as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For once in my life, I agree entirely with Medeis. "Something that was never likely to happen, is unlikely to happen" is not news; governments decide not to go ahead with engineering megaprojects on cost or environmental grounds all the time. ‑ iridescent 17:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wull, gee, thanks. Next time my fishtank needs cleaning I will ping you. The issue here is that a negative (no more Ebola, no pipeline) is WP:CRYSTAL regardless of our status as wealthy donor-editors. μηδείς (talk) 03:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mild oppose - If the Republicans are in control 14 months from now, it would be surprising if they did not reverse this decision. So this move is merely one step in the process. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - my first impression of this was, "so what?". The nomination doesn't make it clear why this is of international interest, the blurb doesn't either, and even the linked news article contains the line "Obama downplayed the importance of the decision, saying the project had an "over-inflated role in our political discourse"". Banedon (talk) 02:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Its primary purpose locally is to make wealthy Republican donors wealthier. Internationally, it might have some impact on the price of oil. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Reposted to ongoing] Russia suspends all flights to Egypt

Add to ongoing instead Suggest using a "piped link" if the article title is confusing, but the article is constantly being updated, and developments remain top news stories. The target article is correct, even if the title is wrong. We can fix that here via a piped link to a more appropriate descriptor for ongoing, so that's not an issue. If the article title itself needs changing, that's a discussion to be had on the article talk page. But the story clearly meets all of the checklist for Ongoing, and the Kogalymavia Flight 9268 itself is the correct one to link to because it is the one being updated with all of the information. --Jayron 32 15:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose both this and ongoing. This is one country's reaction on a claim, and only affects specific flights (unlike, say, the US stopping all flights after 9/11 or the rearrangements of flights done after the plane was shot down over Ukraine). If official reports do say it was actually shot down, that's a news item. ---MASEM (t) 15:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support in whatever form. This was imprudently pulled earlier while the story was still developing, yesterday British intelligence sources were quoted as saying that a bomb was more likely than not. There is also the airlift of tens of thousands of tourists stranded in Sharm el Sheik being conducted by the British and American advisories to citizens not to travel to the area. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ongoing, neutral toward blurb. This event is still interesting and newsworthy, with significant updates happening daily. Mamyles (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ongoing as per Mamyles. Once something clear emerges from this somewhat chaotic story, doing another blurb might make sense, but for now I think ongoing is best. Kiwi128 (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb/oppose ongoing. The development is noteworthy enough for inclusion into the blurb that's already there. Calidum T|C 19:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb 32.Oppose per Template:U's argument below.Spliff Joint Blunt (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean ALT2, Spliff Joint Blunt? George Ho (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, updated. Spliff Joint Blunt (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose either method. First, listing the investigation as "ongoing" will not help matters, even when it attracts readers (immorally). At first I was uncertain whether most readers are interested, but I realize it won't matter or make any difference. Attracting suspense is already the job of the press. We shall not sink so low just to attract prejudice to all races... and fears. Second, the blurbs add nothing new to the development other than meaningless attraction. They are already posted as articles in Wikinews and other media, so why doing what's already on elsewhere news? Readers shall search for this event themselves if they want to read more. Meanwhile, I must removed "Ready". George Ho (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article describes an event that is ongoing, including the investigation. That is a fact, not an immoral statement or an attempt to "attract prejudice to all races". Our job here is solely to promote quality, newsworthy Wikipedia articles - it is not to censor what's in the news to prevent suspense or perceived prejudice. Additionally, you seem to be saying that we shouldn't have a Wikipedia article about the event, since the content is elsewhere. Frankly, your oppose statement makes little sense. Marking as ready again. Mamyles (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One guy changed his vote, so I'm re-removing "Ready". Second, censorship and deciding which to feature on the Main Page are not the same. Shall I explain more? Third, for my opposition, I'll rephrase: Claim of intent is possible. Without enough evidence to support the claim, this is just hypothesis by UK and US governments, including intelligence. The suspension of all Russian flights to Egypt, even when somewhat related to the flight crash investigations and unusual, tops neither more serious key points of this event... nor ~~more serious~~ bigger, more major (going broad) events. Overemphasizing the suspension of flights is media's folly (or Wikinews); meanwhile, let's not implement our folly and post this story. George Ho (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. Wikipedia does not make decisions based on what you (the singular you, George Ho) believes should and should not be covered by reliable sources. The fact that you (the singular you, George Ho) do not want this topic to be receiving this sort of detailed and well-covered attention from major, reliable, and unassailable news sources is quite irrelevant to the discussion at hand. That you (the singular you) believe it is "folly" and "immoral" (to use your own words) for organizations like the BBC and CNN and Reuters and all the other to be devoting their journalistic resources towards covering this story is irrelevant. It's not what you want news sources to cover or not cover that matters. What matters is what sorts of news sources are giving what sorts of coverage to the story, not that you wish they weren't. You cannot claim this is a story ignored by the best, and most respected journalistic entities in the English speaking world. Because they are covering it. That you think it folly and immoral that they are doing so is quite unimportant to how decisions are made around here. --Jayron 32 21:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about consensus? Stories have been posted based on usually consensus, though 2014 Sydney hostage crisis was featured on Main Page even with (technically) no consensus. Second, these referred 'highly reputable' sources are Western; what about Egyptian and Russian ones? Maybe being pro-Kremlin makes a source less reliable, so there must be a good source from Egypt and Russia. George Ho (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pull quote Spliff Joint Blunt (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb, this is a significant new development of this story.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb per BabbaQ - significant new development. -Zanhe (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the story was the crash, and that one was posted already on the main page. A temporary suspension of flights (not just by the Russian government as the proposed blurb suggests) is a consequence. But that in itself is not unusual or notable, unless this suspension turns out to be more than just a temporary measure until security at Egyptian airports has been improved. 93.215.78.75 (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A major country suspending all flights to another major country during peacetime is by itself remarkable news, and I don't recall any similar event in the recent years. -Zanhe (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peacetime or conflict, flight suspension based on or after a claim is itself wouldn't make this news that BIG. Also, who says that Egypt or Sinai Peninsula is peaceful? There is nothing peaceful about either area, even when Egyptian Crisis is over. --George Ho (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not blow this out of proportion. Temporary flight suspensions are anything but unusual. All it takes is a bit of fog or a typhoon, or security issues, or unpaid airport bills. It happens all the time in civil aviation. We should reconsider if this lasts more than just a few days, but right now this is not a ITN worthy. Especially as the real event, the crash, has been posted already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.78.75 (talk) 17:19, November 6, 2015‎

Sorry, I just tried all I can to appeal those lacking common sense. Anyway, what were previous historic suspensions posted before? George Ho (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How often does fog cause a plane to explode in mid-flight? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - While not openly admitting they suspect sabotage, the Russians are treating it as if they do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The evidence of ~~a bomb~~ sabotage bringing down the aircraft is stacking up. See this current event note. Kiwi128 (talk) 06:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiwi128: Shall I create a newer nomination or add more alts? George Ho (talk) 06:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: I reckon another nomination might be sensible, as the focus of the nomination might be a bit different at this point. Kiwi128 (talk) 06:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? I can't. The flight data recorder is not sufficient enough to support such claim. No confirmation yet; you can nominate, Kiwi. Can't you? --George Ho (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've renominated as ongoing. I don't think we would want to make definite statements on the main page at present due to the chaotic nature of the story. Kiwi128 (talk) 07:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support and propose Alt Blurb III as the story is continuing to develop and change. MurielMary (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can revote in a newer nomination; I added ALT III in the newer nomination in newer form. --George Ho (talk) 07:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment quit all the alt-blurbs, some of which actually transform the tone of the item and render previous discussion and voting irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am collapsing this for space given the item has been posted to ongoing under the most recent nomination. μηδείς (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Collapse bottom

November 5

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2015 November 5 Template:Cob

[Withdrawn] RD: George Barris (auto customizer)

Template:Quote box

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.

Template:Hidden archive top

Weak oppose - Article is in good enough condition, but I'm not sure if the man is a notable figure or made such a large impact on the Hollywood industry. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for being American and therefore unworthy of ITN attention. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is being American unworthy of ITN attention? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent question! -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably just in before TRM shows up.Correctron (talk) 05:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know the guy, and have no opinion either way, but this is utterly ridiculous. Take your persecution complex elsewhere, and let the adults get on with things. Fgf10 (talk) 07:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hab

Support - Top of his field, clearly. Designed and built the Batmobile, seen internationally. RD-worthy in my book. Jus da fax 05:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per TDKR. I would like to support, but I also am unsure if he was 'very important' to his field or just popular. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support if "car customiser" is a field, there's little doubt this guy was up there. His article needs work, many unreferenced claims, WP:BLP problems. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality only, per TRM. Would support if the two filmography sections were referenced. There's a few other fixes that could be made, but from my point of view, that's the only thing keeping this off for quality reasons. --Jayron 32 13:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Notable, but only to a fragmentary U.S. subculture. Sca (talk) 14:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. I know his work - and most people do (the Batmobile), but his death isn't front page news in the US. He's at the top of his field, but is his field ITN worthy? I admit, I'm on the fence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.148.252 (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sca - significant only in a tiny niche area. -Zanhe (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - as per Sca; doesn't seem to meet criteria 2 particularly well. Kiwi128 (talk) 22:20, 6 November 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] RD: Soma Edirisinghe

Oppose - What award did she win that made her a notable figure? I can't see a reason why she's such a notable figure in the Sri Lankan film-making industry. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Soma_Edirisinghe#Career is essentially a list--there should be a greated indication of significant things she did in her career. Spencer^T♦C 03:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But has it left a significant mark? If this one passes then I'm not sure why Fred Thompson didn't pass. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My comment isn't in support or opposition--if there's nothing more to add to that section, then I would oppose. Spencer^T♦C 07:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - read the first news source above, certainly appears to be a noteworthy figure in more than one field (film making as well as philanthropy), won awards in social work, three awards for "film of the year", PM and President at her funeral etc. Article could be developed with more of those details. MurielMary (talk) 09:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality; at stated, article needs some improvement. She seems to be different than Thompson as he did not get awards/recognition for his fields, nor (I believe) do US government leaders intend to attend his funeral. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality, or lack of. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per TDKR Chicago 101 - not ITN-worthy level of contribution. -Zanhe (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did some work on the article out of curiosity. Her film-making contribution is problematic as the 12 films she produced were all by her own company, and the awards she received for them were from a company that's part of her family business as well. There's limited obejctive information on her business successes. However, her contribution in philanthropy seems significant and independently verified. I continue to support on the basis of her charity work. MurielMary (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the work and comment MurielMary. :) Kiwi128 (talk) 04:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Withdrawn] RD: Czesław Kiszczak

Template:Quote box

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 - Lack of sources. Article needs more sources for improvement. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on merits and quality. PM for a month does not make a person "very important" to their field. Sources needed for the article as well. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – PM for 17 days. Sca (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: He's to be buried without official state honors or government representation at the funeral. Sca (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - although significant as the last Communist PM, a 17-day tenure cannot be anything more than transitional. -Zanhe (talk) 22:15, 6 November 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] Myanmar elections

Oppose, best posted after elections. Spliff Joint Blunt (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, SJB, I think you cross-posted with my edit asking that as a question! MurielMary (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The further back you can look, the further forward you are likely to see." Spliff Joint Blunt (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Election results are ITNR, but I don't recall the commencement of any election being posted. The results are what is noteworthy, not the beginning. 331dot (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb is well composed but rather odd in its implication; it seems to imply elections in Burma are unexpected events. Could the issue be better elucidated? μηδείς (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes blurb could be clearer! "first openly contested elections in 25 years" .... I'm really on the fence, in some places where elections aren't common or frequent then the commencement of voting is a big deal, but sure, can wait and post the results. Thanks. MurielMary (talk) 09:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Vladimir Putin and Angela Merkel

Somewhat oppose. It is a listing by one magazine. A big one indeed, but nevertheless. We usually don't post such stories. --Tone 12:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per notability. No local article on most powerful people. Gizmocorot (talk) 12:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we do have an article, of sorts, titled Forbes list of The World's Most Powerful People. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Forbes list not a general list, single source. Spliff Joint Blunt (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, obviously. I guess I misunderstood Gizmocorot. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a single source in the sense that this ranking is only done by one magazine, but it's also a ranking that's widely followed. Plenty of noteworthy things are single source, such as the Nobel Prizes (decided by only one committee), the FIFA world rankings, and so on. Banedon (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't consider a Forbes listicle to be newsworthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Forbes publishes a list almost every month (or week?). Merely a tactic to grab eyeballs. Not real news. -Zanhe (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an annual list, not monthly or weekly one. Plenty of noteworthy things are annual, such as the Nobel Prizes. Banedon (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's one of many Forbes lists. Category:Forbes lists shows some of them. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This list is widely followed and reported on. Banedon (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A Forbes list is dubious as ITN criteria, in my view. Jus da fax 05:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Deutsche Bank

Comment - I note that the fine is much smaller than in the case of BNP Paribas. Kiwi128 (talk) 09:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Note that technically, it's the US branch of DB that's been fined (since for obvious reasons, the German bank is not affected by US sanctions), so the blurbs that specify "German" are inappropriate. Smurrayinchester 09:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The sanctions scandal of DB lasted for nearly 9 years (1999 - 2006) while BNP lasted for 7 years (2002 - 2009) according to the sources. --cyrfaw (talk) 09:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - minus the German part as mentioned above. Misleading. ITN worthy news.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can we pick a blurb and settle on it? Having 6 blurbs to choose from will make it impossible to come to a consensus. --WaltCip (talk) 12:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The blurbs have been reduced to 2, the article is under expansion. cyrfaw (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Comparatively minor fine, of marginal significance in the context of big bank fines. In the target article, sanctions violations are mentioned only halfway down. Sca (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The word "US" is used three times in this blurb. Why not balance the blurb out by mentioning India and Pakistan? ITN isn't all about America. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: $250M is a blink of an eye to corporations/banks of this size; we've seen much larger penalties placed on banks before for poor behavior in both international and national incidents. --MASEM (t) 16:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Masem actually, a bank fined 250 million dollars is really a drop in the ocean. British banks are paying out 10s of billions of pounds for PPI issues, this, in comparison, is completely irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's peanuts – chicken feed. Sca (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In America, we actually consider peanuts a valuable snack moreso than bird feed. Mamyles (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Very small fine, though at least there is an uncommon admission of wrongdoing. Mamyles (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2015 November 4 Template:Cob

November 4

RD Melissa Mathison

Weak oppose one Oscar nomination only and a weak article. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Another sad loss for the entertainment industry, but she was not a major figure in her field. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Doesn't meet ITN/DC2. Has not received significant awards in the field. Spencer^T♦C 09:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - List of her works is not lengthy, but a high percentage are for quality, notable films and television projects. Well deserving of an RD listing. Death at 65 is unexpected and cuts a fine career short. Jus da fax 09:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing: European migrant crisis

Whether or not often reported, I see almost no major updates on European migrant crisis. Instead, this year's crisis becomes more of an everyday routine. Pull it? --George Ho (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note, substantive updates were added less than 3 days ago, and then the day before that and then two days before that. This is still a pretty well actively updated article, the current three day lull is not yet so long to say the story has gone stale, from a Wikipedia editing point of view. Maybe if there's nothing after a week (which is the usual maximum time a story spends on ITN before rolling off the bottom, and also the time we usually start removing RD postings if they've been up that long) we can revisit this again. 3 days is long-ish for no new updates, but the article is still getting regularly updated, seeing regular activity over the time frame of the last week, so I'd say it isn't ready to be pulled yet. --Jayron 32 00:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I continue to see news reports on this. This is also called "crisis" for a reason: it has substantial implications for the countries impacted. Banedon (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fuebaey, here's your chance. I'm reopening this. --George Ho (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no substantial updates for a number of days. I suspect we'll be making this ongoing again in the future, but let's pull it for now. Kiwi128 (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal. As per my comment here, and also because it's becoming a coatrack article - we don't need to document every gruesome news story or every American Syrian refugee pledge. Fuebaey (talk) 04:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – A lull in editing does not mean a lull in the event, still a major crisis with massive repercussions across the majority of the European continent. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, but no updates suggests that the content of the article is not ~~newsworthy~~ going to help someone trying to learn about current events. If someone updates the article substantially, I reckon we would want to keep this as ongoing. Kiwi128 (talk) 06:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we move this proposal to the newest date section? George Ho (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Romanian Prime Minister resignation

Support alt blurb. Nightclub fire and resignation ITN material. Gizmocorot (talk) 11:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – clear change of pace from the previous nomination of the nightclub fire with major implications now present. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 11:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Copy edit tag needs to be resolved before this can be posted. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 12:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. Yes, there's a tag, but it's yellow-level, which can be fixed when the article gets more attention. The overall article is very detailed. --Tone 13:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note the Prime Minister's article has not been updated yet. Thryduulf (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks like, at the very least, the lead has been updated to reflect current events. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I did that (and the infobox) after posting here. It really should have been done before it was on the main page though. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support. Nergaal (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request: Could we put [[]] around Victor Pontas name as well as it is him the situation is about. To highlight that,--BabbaQ (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest you clarify your request and post it at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is a request to bold both linked items, as they're both the "main" story in this instance. IMO that's a reasonable suggestion. ‑ iridescent 22:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Irisdescent for clarifying. And for implementing it. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The resigned PM article has improved... Rather, the "Resignation" section expanded into just one paragraph. As said, the link is ready to be bolded. George Ho (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2015 Juba plane crash

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2015 November 3 Template:Cob

Support subject to improvement. Death toll would include many ground casualties. Article needs expansion atm. Mjroots (talk) 10:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, suggest blurb mention most of the causalities were on the ground which makes it even moreso a big story. --MASEM (t) 15:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very close to postable form. Brandmeister^talk 16:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Notable event. Capitalistroadster (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Article looks currently small but ready to go. George Ho (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update request - title of the article is now 2015 Juba An-12 crash. Kiwi128 (talk) 05:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Pulled] Ongoing: Kogalymavia Flight 9268

Template:Collapse top Kogalymavia Flight 9268 is currently featured on the main page as "Ongoing" without consensus. The airplane crash may be tragic, but making the ongoing investigation part of ITN without knowing whether most readers are interested makes ITN look bad compared to mainstream press. Is featuring it well deserved, or shall we remove it? George Ho (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to ongoing per the standing ITN instructions for administrators: Template:Tq. That's still happening (in fact, rather more than incremental updates are appearing in news agencies e.g. this BBC story from 7 hours ago about flight recorders, so I believe my decision was correct. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, or at least, rename. The flight is over, the plane is downed, the passengers are dead. The investigation is ongoing, but not the flight. I'll also say that I feel there are items far more worthy of ongoing status, such as the Syrian civil war or the Yemeni civil war. Way more people die in those conflicts than in this flight. I do not see how this flight can be ongoing. Banedon (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is how this type of article is typically named. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep for now~~ - The flight downing is a high-profile international incident. It is possibly related to the Russian intervention in the Middle East. The story is in active development. Lastly, I think that many readers would be interested in the story. Kiwi128 (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Iff it shown that the plane went down due to something hitting it from the area (whether it was ISIS or something else), then that would make for an Ongoing story due to the strength of being an international incident, similar to the plane that was shot down in Ukraine. But right now, the reports all seem to point to a major engine failure. --MASEM (t) 04:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the news tonight they said that a satellite detected two flashes: one when it exploded, and another when it crashed. No indication of a missile launch. That doesn't rule out a bomb, of course. But it seems likely that it will be a number of days before anything new is officially known. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair point. I support taking it down, with a possible repost if something surprising is discovered. Kiwi128 (talk) 06:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - We can put it back at need, but time to pull for now, per nom. Jus da fax 07:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remove until something new is reported. And don't call me Shirley. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled from ongoing. As mentioned, there was no discussion to place it within ongoing in the first place (with respect to Bencherlite's initial, good faith decision to place it there) and there's consensus here to remove it already. Leaving discussion open for further comments from other users to determine if restoring it is warranted. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough with removal. But is there a view that items cannot be moved from blurb to ongoing without there being a discussion at ITNC, and if so should we discuss removing that sentence from the administrator instructions? Bencherlite^Talk 10:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's clear that the instruction should be amended. Maybe they should state that items should be referred back to ITN/C if it is felt that they should be moved to "ongoing". Mjroots (talk) 10:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps the only thing that might be clear is that the OP was unaware that an admin could move an item that was still considered "live" to ongoing without seeking a consensus. Perhaps Template:U could comment on his original post. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Go ahead if no one objects; I don't mind changing the rules. We shall propose whatever looks like ongoing and interesting to readers. George Ho (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Per WP:CREEP, WP:BURO, WP:IAR, WP:SNOW, etc. etc. The objections above are not "The item is not being updated regularly and there is no coverage in the news." The objections seem to amount to "I didn't get to vote on this" or "This isn't in the rules". No one has yet demonstrated that the move to ongoing was counter to the objectives of ITN or the ongoing section. When Wikipedia becomes more about the process than the results, it isn't working right. This should not have been pulled; Bencherlite's rationale in green above is spot on, and has not been shown to be incorrect by any evidence presented by anyone. Where rules exist, they exist to promote the smooth operation of the organization. If the organization does something correctly without the rules, the rule didn't need to be followed in that case. The rules do not exist just to be followed for their own sake. That doesn't mean we intentionally go against the rules, or ignore them. But Bencherlite's posting of this item on ongoing neither was against the purpose of ITN, nor did it create a problem for the main page readers. --Jayron 32 18:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Outdent ~~Ignoring all rules~~ doesn't apply; adding it without consensus doesn't improve Wikipedia. The majority already agreed to pull it out of "Ongoing" ticker. As for the event, investigation would, as said, take a long time (days or weeks). Yes, Wikipedia is neither a democracy nor a bureaucracy. However, people operate Wikipedia and should stick together in Wikipedia, not throw each other's throats meaninglessly. Enough about Wikipedia generally, the majority also demonstrated that... well, let's rather pull it out and make readers search for the airplane crash page themselves. George Ho (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what question we're asking here "Should we have a discussion on substantive points, and then decide to pull it if we come to an agreement". Sure. However, that's a different question than "Did Bencherlite do anything wrong in moving it to ongoing, and did it need to be pulled solely because it wasn't discussed". No, we shouldn't. Decide which issue needs addressing, so we can be sure that we're disagreeing on the same points. --Jayron 32 00:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Return it to ongoing: The article has received substantive updates one, two, three, four times in the past 24 hours and has received more than 500 total edits in less than 3 days. The article is certainly still being updated more or less continuously with information which is itself coming just as fast from reliable news sources. This is exactly the sort of story Ongoing is designed for. If everyone wants to have a discussion on this, and feels the need to force a vote on the evidence that this deserves to be in Ongoing, there is your evidence that it belongs. What is the evidence that it doesn't belong? --Jayron32 00:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's getting news but not "ground breaking" news; there appear to be several theories all being advanced at the same time, with some theories that involve malicious intent that would be ground breaking news if proven true. However, it's not yet proven to that yet. Like nearly all other commercial airplane disasters there is a long tail of news as the investigation into causes continues, but that's not the cut we need for ITN (we're not just a news ticker). If the reason for the plane's crash does turn out to be from an external attack, validated by appropriate sources, I can pretty much guarantee that would make for a brand new ITN news item here; if it was just an unfortunate engine failure, not so much. --MASEM (t) 01:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remain removed - As nominator, I don't like featuring "Ongoing" investigations on this tragic event to our or their advantage similar to mainstream press. We don't want to attract readers immorally; otherwise, we would be no better than a sleazy editor. Of course, that's news for ya! In the meantime, we have already featured this as a blurb, so let's not bother featuring it as just the name again as "Ongoing" until something major comes up. George Ho (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Return to Ongoing a possible bomb on board, up to 15,000 British tourists to be "evacuated" while security is examined at the airport, this is all over the news, and on top of all of that, we have space at Ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am collapsing this for space given the item has been posted to ongoing under the most recent nomination. μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Collapse bottom

November 3

[Posted] RD: Tom Graveney

Template:ITN candidate *Support on notability but oppose on article quality. An actual cricketing legend, but an actual article which lacks in pretty much every department. We need to bulk out the article to ensure there are no foul cries. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~on article improvements~~ Per TRM. Our article is woefully weak given what the news reports are saying about his death. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated version is well up to spec for posting now. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support when updated, notability clearly established. --109.149.137.152 (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Not notable outside cricketing countries. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on significance. If you're a top dog in your field, it doesn't matter whether there are places where few are interested in that field. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently on ITN/C, it does. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the merits; seems to meet the criteria as "very important" to cricket(which is wildly popular in many places, including India, the second most populous nation). 331dot (talk) 09:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article has now been rewritten, so I'd invite Template:U, Template:U, Template:U, Template:U and Template:U to take another look. Bencherlite ^Talk 13:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support really nice improvement, great work. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Certainly notable. Article looks much better now. 59.93.230.168 (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, marking as ready. Bencherlite ^Talk 15:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Posted ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support. Great work on it. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Ahmed Chalabi

Support - A important political figure, with a well-developed article. Kiwi128 (talk) 09:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD for a long, storied and impactful career.128.214.53.18 (talk) 10:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article still needs to be brought up to date - lots of present tense still. Bencherlite ^Talk 11:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support when ready. One of the architects of Iraq invasion of 2003. Gizmocorot (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, though I'm disappointed that the article doesn't have more detail on his career pre-2003. Modest Genius ^talk 13:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Major figure in the ongoing situation in the Middle East. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, does not meet RD requirements as top of any field, even 'field' of "liars who started a war". Abductive (reasoning) 17:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said the other day, RD criteria doesn't say "top" of the field is a criteria. It says "very important", and he was very important as an architect of a war fought on false pretenses. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs an update; it does not discuss his death very much. George Ho (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD - a major figure in the Iraq War. -Zanhe (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - oh yes, the "George Washington of Iraq". How's that working out? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] White House welcome for US women's soccer team

Oppose – Failing to see the notability here (opted to keep the nomination open in case it's just my own ignorance of the subject). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We posted the tournament in Ongoing and the US victory at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/July 2015#.5BPosted.5D 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup. A White House welcome four months later? No way. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia article, opening paragraph, states numerous reasons why the team is notable (winning three World Cups for example). Also the President has given a ceremony honoring their achievement, which I guess means that the White House considers the team notable. MurielMary (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ITN has featured motorsports, men's baseball and men's rugby over the last few days. Why not feature some women's sports? MurielMary (talk) 06:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For several reasons:

If you were following the WWC, we posted their win back in July. This is a non-event/PR exercise.
This occurred on the 27 October and is therefore stale (too old). We're, unfortunately, on a fast news cycle at the moment.
A single sentence update is inadequate for ITN, which usually requires at least a paragraph update for developed articles.

But thanks for nominating this nonetheless. Fuebaey (talk) 06:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is routine for any US president, as they typically honor American champions, usually some months after the fact. He honored the Duke basketball team recently also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per WP:SNOW and propose speedy closure. The welcoming of sport teams for their accomplishments by the authorities of the country they represent is nothing but a routine act with no significance at all. There are several hundreds international sport competitions every year and at least that much sport teams or athletes are welcomed. If we are going to post each of them, nobody knows where the end would be.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - winning the event itself is ITN-worthy (and posted, too) but being welcomed / congratulated / etc is not. Banedon (talk) 07:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Michelle Payne

Comment Template:U's vote on the Melbourne Cup nomination below was for a blurb with Payne as the target link. MurielMary (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see below, this is unnecessary, there's already plenty of support for a blurb which includes Payne linked, just not as the target (i.e. in bold). Requiring both articles to be up to scratch, as I have already said, will only delay this nomination. I understand you're trying to promote the female aspect here, but it's already been agreed to include it in the blurb, just not in bold. This multiple/parallel nomination will doubtless delay the posting and reduce the exposure the female jockey deserves. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TRM, I made this new nomination because you recommended it below, quote from your post "We ought to have two nominations perhaps, one where we are concerned with the ITNR (the Melbourne Cup) and one where we are concerned with the female jockey". I am trying to follow the rules and suggestions here, which, TBH, aren't always that clear to a newbie! MurielMary (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's because you're bucking the trend and forcing the pace on female exposure, when ITNR is all about the items we've traditionally posted. We will post the Melbourne Cup as long as it is up to scratch and it will be the bold article. We could (and probably will) also include the jockey in the blurb. But for the link to her to article to be bold, it needs to be of sufficient quality. I guess, in summary, we'll go with posting the MC with a blurb including a non-bolded female jockey, then you and others can work on the jockey bio to make it fit for purpose for the main page, then request it be bolded too. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2015 Melbourne Cup

~~Support and~~ propose alternative blurb 1 - Kiwi128 (talk) 07:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose current article is stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support with alternative blurb 1 Also, re The Rambling Man's comment, it is permitted for ITN items to link to stubs. It may be a way of getting editors to update/expand them. MurielMary (talk) 08:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, it isn't permitted to use a stub for a target article. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting for the record that this is ITNR, so if it does get expanded it will be posted. At the moment though, I agree with TRM's assessment of the article – a fair bit of work will be required to get it ready for posting. Jenks24 (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Rambling Man, I just found that criteria on another page. So is it the Prince of Penzance article being a stub which is a problem? Because the Michelle Payne article is not a stub as far as I can see. Thanks. MurielMary (talk) 08:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We mostly concern ourselves with the quality of the target link, that's the bold one. Curiously we seldom pay much attention to the other linked items in the blurb. We need to expand the Melbourne Cup article to a point where it's considered of sufficient quality for the main page, not just a couple of lines of prose and a table of results. P.S. I'd go for alt blurb 1 as well, once the target article is up to scratch. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks. Actually I would think that the target link ought to be Michelle Payne as she is the part of the story that's all over the news today, with her press conference about being a woman in racing etc etc. If her page is the target link (as in Alt Blurb II) then do the other linked items (the horse and the cup) have to be updated further?? MurielMary (talk) 08:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative blurb 2 - That is, with the target link being Michelle Payne. Kiwi128 (talk) 08:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Melbourne Cup is WP:ITNR which means that, by default, it will be the target article. There's no reason we couldn't feature two targets, in which case we would need to ensure the quality of both are up to scratch, not just the ITNR target. Which is good for the encyclopedia, but bad for getting this expediently onto the main page. You pays your money ..... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe we're about to put yet another horse racing article on the ITN ticker. 128.227.38.126 (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you dislike any specific item or category of items that are on the ITNR list, please propose the removal of whatever it is you don't like. Also understand that ITN is not a "ticker" or source of news, but a way to feature articles that have been improved. If you want to see other items posted, please put the time into improving the article of whatever it is you want to see posted. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's less about the race and more about a first for a woman in this sport. MurielMary (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not, it's about the Melbourne Cup which is listed at ITN every year as long as the quality of the article is sufficient. It could be won by a woman, a dog, a horse, an alien, it'd still get listed as long as the article quality was sufficient. If you change the target article, you nullify the votes that go before. Please think twice. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TRM, the current link in the blurb goes to the page for the 2015 Melbourne Cup, which is a brief article, yes. Can the target instead be the generic page for the Melbourne Cup, which is a much more developed page? If so, this would expedite getting this item onto the main page. The article on Michelle Payne has been substantially updated in the last 24 hours and it seems a shame not to be able to highlight this asap. Template:U MurielMary (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the ITNR target is the Melbourne Cup. If you want the Payne article to be highlighted then ideally both articles need to be fixed up. I'm not voting here, other than to say that when I looked, the 2015 Melbourne Cup article was weak. The Payne article is pretty crap too, but could probably just about get away with being a target article. I think we have a strange scenario here where the ITNR target may be superseded by a subsidiary article. We ought to have two nominations perhaps, one where we are concerned with the ITNR (the Melbourne Cup) and one where we are concerned with the female jockey. Right now, votes above relate to the ITNR, not the jockey target. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done, I have reverted the nomination back to the 2015 MC and made a new nomination for Payne. MurielMary (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the abundance of drive-by commentators and dearth of editors here at ITN, the last thing we need is to split !votes. Why not add a paragraph race summary so we can post both? I'd hate to think we'd rather highlight her gender rather than detail her accomplishment. Fuebaey (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry not sure what you mean by a paragraph race summary, and also not sure why it's a problem to highlight her gender as her accomplishment has two parts, one the win and second the first female to do so. It shouldn't be a problem to mention a first in a field?? MurielMary (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For recurring sporting events, an update usually consists of a paragraph or two covering the event itself. For a horse race, this usually involves describing how the race unfolded (who led out of the gate/field, major falls/overtakes, was it a close finish?). I don't have a problem with the blurb, just that it seems like we're itching to get this posted because of her gender instead of adding more information about her win. Melbourne Cup is well-developed but doesn't have a sufficient update about the 2015 race. Adding a race summary in 2015 Melbourne Cup would get this posted more quickly. Fuebaey (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Yes there is an "itch" to get it posted because of her gender. There's been an ongoing discussion about the lack of exposure of women and women's achievements/issues on the main page and this seems like an ideal opportunity to "do something" about this. MurielMary (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Prefer blurb 2; Both articles updated adequately, Melbourne Cup is ITN/R, I think. Good week for horse racing!Montanabw ^(talk) 20:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree, let's keep it to ITNR and go with blurb 2 which most are supporting. We don't need to overplay our hand here, the female aspect should and will get prominence, we don't need to mandate that the article is up to snuff by attempting to make it a second bold link. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Posted ok, so it's weak and needs a proper prose race summary, but it's a significant sporting event to see a woman riding to victory, thus posted and we'll cope with the fallout (well, I will). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I was just about to post with Payne as the bold link, as per your comment (and a couple of others) that that was the favoured blurb and also as the 2015 race article has an orange tag, so I've swapped the bolding. If the race article is improved it can be bolded but I agree there's no point in waiting to get something up. Bencherlite^Talk 21:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I still refute that the bold link should be the jockey, her article is mediocre while the ITNR is the Melbourne Cup, I've adjust accordingly right now, perhaps the next hour or two will provide some levelling off. Either way I'm not coming back to this particular nomination, attempting to appease the equality lobby here seems to have resulted in chaos. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm bowing out too. Incidentally, the ITNR element doesn't mean that only the race can be bolded - see our treatment of Nobel Prizes, which are ITNR, but where we generally link the recipients or their field of activity rather than the prizes themselves: see Wikipedia:Main Page history/2015 October 9 / Wikipedia:Main Page history/2013 October 10. Bencherlite ^Talk 22:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I say keep the race article bolded and don't bold the jockey. That it's a female jockey is nice, but the story that is ITN/R is the race. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
REWORD POSTED VERSION: "In horse racing, Michelle Payne becomes the first ~~female winner of~~ woman jockey to win the Melbourne Cup, riding Prince of Penzance to victory." She is not the first "female" winner, she is the first woman jockey to win - the female horse Makybe Diva won the race three times and the woman trainer Gai Waterhouse won in 2013. Concise is nice, but precision is betterMontanabw^(talk) 22:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It already uses the word "jockey", a change made within a minute of the blurb being posted precisely for this reason. Bencherlite ^Talk 22:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can somebody provide a link for previous consensus for the ITNR? Nergaal (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here (at the bottom) under May 1, Kentucky Derby. ITN/R was relatively new at the time. Both the Grand National and the Melbourne Cup were added. Fuebaey (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Cyclone Chapala

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2015 November 2 Template:Cob

~~Tentative wait~~ - The impact on human life is expected but not yet known. While being a meterological oddity - if that's all that happens, that's a great DYK. But if this does a lot of damage, then it will be a good ITN. Give it about 24 hrs. --MASEM (t) 02:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Now Support as it did make a significant negative impact on landfall. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative wait - It is uncertain if it will make landfall over Yemen as a very severe cyclonic storm or a Category 1 equivalent tropical cyclone, as Chapala is still offshore now. If the intensity is below hurricane-force during landfall, the sentence should be changed to ‘the strongest’. -- Meow 03:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative wait - Although the storm has moved inland, there are no reports about the storm's damage other than a few eyewitness accounts, and media reports are very difficult to acquire given the looming civil war. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Though it will be difficult to acquire damage figures, the storm itself is quite significant both in damage and history.Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 08:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If this is indeed the first ever hurricane to travel inland in Yemen (or the Arabian peninsula generally), then I think that is enough. It is genuinely in the news, it is encyclopedic and the first reports of material impact are trickling in. However, it seems most others want a larger material impact and/or loss of life to consider this ITN-worthy. I disagree, but if that's the case then I suggest nominator close and re-nominate when appropriate. Otherwise, this will get buried under other nominations, and edits and new altblurbs will clutter the nom.128.214.53.18 (talk) 11:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support either blurb or ongoing - I'm convinced by the IP that, as usual cyclones are, the cyclone is more than just a typical cyclone. This may either end or worsen the civil war, but its arrival is huge. Even when three is a tiny number, this ain't murder, mass shooting, or battle. It could be either mother nature... or a man-made weather-controlling machine, but I shall not foresee. George Ho (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think right now, Meow and Rishabh? George Ho (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops; I must have incorrectly pinged. Pinging Rishabh again. --George Ho (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per IP above. The notability of an event does not decrease if it doesn't kill anyone. Banedon (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Posted ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 08:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2

RD: Andrzej Ciechanowiecki

Template:Archivetop Template:ITN candidate

Comment - Some of the language speaks to something you'd find on a CV or similar, however, I'm not getting hits on obvious phrasing. Regardless this needs major sourcing (the polish WP article is in as bad shape so difficult to pull from there). --MASEM (t) 04:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. That lead sentence is longer than some articles. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't agree more....! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Wikipedia reaches 5 million articles

Absolutely not. ITN isn't the Wikipedia mutual admiration club; anyone who actually cares about this is already aware. ‑ iridescent 01:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose completely unnecessary self-promotion of dubious newsworthiness (as the less-than-stellar sources show). Anyone reading WP's main page at present has the statistic shoved down their throat anyway, so an ITN entry would add nothing. Bencherlite ^Talk 01:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose navel gazing. The banner on the logo is plenty recognition. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archivebottom

[Posted] 2015 World Series

Template:Archivetop Template:ITN candidate

Support - Obviously. The biggest baseball event each year. Article looks pretty good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Summary is now fully referenced. Article is in fine shape. This is breaking news. Let's post it earlier rather than later, for once. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- We kept this one up in tip-top shape so that we don't have to waste time. Three supports, ITN/R, marking ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - ~~but much of the article needs to be cast into the past tense. Can we do that quickly?~~ Done. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 06:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Good job by everyone who worked on the article. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's already up, but I wanted to add my support to the work done on this piece. Good job. South Nashua (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support after posting - good article. Good job.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pull posting and delete article. All mention of this series' result should be obliterated from Wikipedia, if not the entire Internet. (If you're unsure why, please note my username.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

totally agree...stupid useless Astros and Rangers.Lihaas (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about a new nickname for the Mets' illustrious second baseman: "Daniel Boot". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Azeri general election, November 2015

Oppose Three tiny sentences. 322 B. Some recent election noms haven't been updated sufficiently to post, so ping me if this one turns out differently. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support When/If Updated - national elections should be up, but there isn't enough info on this one yet. South Nashua (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support when update - If this was a good article it should of course be posted. As it stands however, it's barely a stub. Fgf10 (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sub-stub quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per article quality. Spliff Joint Blunt (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archivebottom

November 1

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2015 November 1 Template:Cob

RD: Fred Thompson

Weak oppose. I'm having difficulty seeing how he meets the criteria. Being well known does not equate with importance in a field, such as acting. Running for President isn't 'very important' on its own, and as a Senator he didn't really do anything remarkable(AFAIK). 331dot (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not a major figure in the GOP but a notable one. Big figure in Watergate and former senator. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: United States Senator, presidential candidate alone are pretty significant. To combine this with being a film/TV actor is not real common, the last person to pull that off was Ronald Reagan, and Reagan didn't try to do both at once the way Thompson did. (Well, there's also Al Franken, but sort of proves my point) All reports were that he was also a fairly decent human being, imperfect, as are we all, but deserving of main page recognition. Montanabw ^(talk) 00:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to make of this nom. Beyond R.I.P., of course. They drafted him into the ~~2012 presidential race, so it's surprising he didn't survive the next presidential term~~ (oops it was 2008). He's dabbled in different fields, which makes him more important than if he was only in one, but I don't know if we should post it or not. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure either. As an actor, no. As a politician, no. Add the two together, maybe. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I keep thinking "jack of all trades, master of none". He's unique compared to your typical actor and your typical politician, but does that meet muster? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Not an extraordinary senator; and also-rans shouldn't be posted on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Held a number of important posts, played an important part in Watergate and appeared on a top rating TV program. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD. I see a handful of a couple handful of unsourced paragraphs but it is far from a problem for ITN (95% is ready to go). --MASEM (t) 01:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, weak in all fields. Abductive (reasoning) 01:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Notable as both a politician and actor. Maybe we need to ask the US Congress to create more fanciful titles to make more people support RD noms here. Calidum T|C 01:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As a HUGE fan of L&O Prime, I am sorry to hear that Thompson has passed, but he doesn't reach the RD criteria in either of his career fields. Those who support because he was a US Senator, remember there are A LOT of those they can't all be significant enough to post; ditto regarding his presidential bid. As an actor his career doesn't reach the RD criteria either. When the two careers are combined, that doesn't raise either to the RD, but would make a great DYK entry. Rhodesisland (talk) 02:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

strong oppose fail to see how hes top of his career in anything, be it screen or politics. "notable" as bo th is inadequate because by virtue of having a WP page theyre notable...we cant list every seneator or failed candidate. (nowhere near winning either).Lihaas (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say he has to be "top of his career in anything". DC#2: "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." Thanks for helping me make up my mind. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PingIf youre minds made up, how was he "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field"...considering theres no shortage of senators who LED committees or "actors" who won some recognition?Lihaas (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support He was regarded as important enough to draft into the 2008 Presidential race by conservatives to run against Obama. He fizzled, but he's the guy they turned to. Important enough in both politics and acting to merit posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing from full support to weak support. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excelled in two fields that are only vaguely related to each other. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Notable in multiple fields, death received very wide coverage. RD was made for precisely this. "He didn't get elected president" seems like a dubious reason not to post this. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 13:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A key figure in the Watergate investigation, a former presidential candidate and a highly popular actor. Way more well-known than Schabowski who is currently posted to RD. Nsk92 (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose apart from maybe his role in Watergate, I'm not seeing RD notability in either career. Fgf10 (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support notable as lawyer in Watergate and other cases, well-known actor, senator who replaced Al Gore, as well as 2008 presidential candidate; long-standing preference to post people notable in several fields; article is in good shape. μηδείς (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose politician and popular actor, not RD level. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per Montanabw. shoy (reactions) 18:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Marked ready--this is updated, broaldy supported, and there are no objections on article quality. μηδείς (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - The test is "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field". He does not appear to have a significant reputation or to have received significant recognition for his career as an actor, according to the standards that ITNC has traditionally required of actors. His role in Watergate is too small a field to count for much (and, important though Watergate was, not everyone involved in some way can qualify for RD thereby). Which leaves his political career, which is said in effect to be more than the average senator's (and the average senator would not get onto RD) based on a fairly damp squib run for president. And yet... he was one of the top dozen UK and international stories on my BBC news app this morning, which makes me wonder whether I'm under-appreciating his importance. Hmmm... Bencherlite ^Talk 19:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Without trying to pester, Template:U I would suggest you consider the fact that Thompson's legal career, senate career, presidential run, and acting career (many major movies over three decades, as well as his role on Law & Order, which I did not watch,) would each alone have merited him an article--indeed his article is over 72k long, averages over 400 hits a day long-term, and has 123 references as of last count. I would probably be a weak oppose or not vote based on either just his political or just his acting career. But the two of them together and the obvious interest and coverage make this a rather clear "support" for me. μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A question- are we creating a new criteria here, perhaps 'important in multiple fields'? I don't necessarily object to that, but if we are, we should write it down when we are done, because I don't think(and even some supporters concede) he meets the criteria for each individual field he worked in. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, someone above notes "jack of all trades" (which in this case was two), "master of none". I see nothing remarkable about his career as a politician and I see no indication of any awards or that he was anywhere close to top of the field of acting. Just because he did a couple of reasonably interesting things, it's hardly RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given how subjective (by necessity) the guidelines already are, suggesting that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts doesn't seem especially radical to me. And frankly, in both politics and acting he makes a not implausible case for sufficient notability; he was, after all, successful enough as a senator that his name is known nationwide (as others have mentioned, there are many senators - not all have household recognition) and was a presidential nominee, and his acting resume includes heavy hitters like Hunt for Red October, Days of Thunder, Cape Fear, and Law and Order. If you think he'd make the cut if his accomplishments were assessed as a whole but not individually, then I respectfully submit that the rules should be ignored in favor of good sense, as is our tradition. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 22:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he makes the cut individually or combined. He's a popular actor and used to be a politician (would Glenda Jackson be RD material? I don't imagine so for a second because she wasn't in a bunch of endless American television series) but nothing more. No awards, nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly hope that Glenda Jackson's two Best Actress Oscars would secure her a place on RD. Neljack (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, she is an example of someone who 'did excel in her fields. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, I've already said my oppose is weak; your further comments don't address the existing RD criteria (though, to be fair, you're not the only one) or make me change my mind. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose - Looking at the section on Watergate, I see a lot of quotes included, but they add very little meaning to his role as part of the Watergate investigations. He wrote the book about his role, but that's all there is to it. However, he helped a woman win her wrongful termination case and bring some governor down, but the impact of it is too limited. Throughout his acting career, significant or not, his roles are supporting types. He had been never a leading man in entertainment. Being a Senator out of one hundred US Senators is one thing, but he did not lead most of very significant and important events. Usually, he was just a voter or a member of anything. He withdrew the presidential race before the primaries. With one exception, as said before, he was a member or part of a committee. The article emphasizes his role a lot, but information that I read wouldn't make him significant enough to be honorably mentioned. This is George Ho actually (Talk) 22:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I accept that it is legitimate to consider together his achievements in different fields, but even so I don't see how he qualifies. He wasn't a particularly influential senator or a particularly acclaimed actor. Neljack (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is still ready, with 4 to 3 support in favor (ignoring votes that mention his being American) after 36 hour's vetting. Thompson was important enough in the senate that he was chosen to give the Republican rebuttal to President Clinton's 1994 State of the Union address. His article has had over 172,000 hits since his death. In Paris he is being covered as the famed actor who happened to be a US senator, in Berlin he's the presidential candidate who was also a movie star (no insult, but a better one than Reagan) and once again we have opponents who argue that the "American bias is super-strong, it has be combatted fiercely to maintain this as English-language Wikipedia. Perhaps it would serve you and your countrymen better to create an American Wikipedia" removing the ready tag. I somehow doubt that posting the "unwitting" subject of mockery and admitted murderer Günter Schabowski whose 12-source article got 12,000 hits after posting in his stead is the way to show off Wikipedia to its best light. μηδείς (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how you're counting, but it's 11-10 against, no consensus. Please take your misplaced persecution complex somewhere else. Fgf10 (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not a vote tally. It's about the quality of arguments that makes no consensus here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder This is an encyclopedia, not the front page of a tabloid newspaper. Kim Kardashian's article has been viewed a quarter of a million times this past month and she hasn't even died. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD - As other Supports have noted, Thompson was notable for multiple achievements. Opposers fail to convince me; I contend he is a fine RD candidate. I call for posting the blurb to RD. NOTE: My post was an edit conflict. The close was way too early. Jusdafax 09:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- He wasn't British. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - He wasn't a college basketball coach. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening comment: I'm undoing Tone's closure as it's not yet stale. George Ho (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should have been left closed, as it seems unlikely to gain a clear consensus, and further discussion does not seem like it will change any minds. 331dot (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I voted to !support posting it. I think it's clear there isn't consensus to post and that's fine. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Tone ever said it was "stale", Template:U please check the history. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: I didn't say Tone marked it as 'stale'. In fact, I'm not marking it as stale... yet. It is an RD nomination; I'll mark it as "stale" if there's no room for this nomination. --George Ho (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Just check the article views - over 150K in a single day, which utterly dwarfs all the current RD entries put together. People are reading this article in great numbers because the subject is in the news. Nobody cares what the self-appointed gatekeepers here think. Andrew D. (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Replyto If we went by article views, we would post Kim Kardashian just about every day. I am a "gatekeeper" of nothing; things are posted based on consensus. If you dislike the consensus, please continue to participate(preferably without attacking those who put in time here) 331dot (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Small

Kim Kardashian isn't dead, is she? And there isn't a consensus here, is there? In the meantime, what's actually happening is that the readership is reading the article in question whether you like or not. ITN should reflect what's actually happening rather than what people would like to happen. To try to impose your personal preferences is contrary to core policy. Andrew D. (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone here evaluates RD (and all) nominations based on their personal preferences as to how they feel each one meets the deaths criteria. I don't see how people can do otherwise. Here, some people feel that he does not meet the criteria, and some people feel he does, both for varying reasons. No one is trying to censor anything; this is an evaluation. As I indicated, if you don't like what is chosen, please keep participating. 331dot (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looking at other recent deaths, I don't see why this one was not posted. Heck this guy even has a page... FOR HIS POLITICAL VIEWS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Fred_Thompson If some cricket player with a few paragraphs ends up getting posted but this guy doesn't, that's nonsense.75.73.150.255 (talk) 12:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The relevance to ITN being? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, and as an ITN/C regular, I'm not surprised it hasn't been posted and I have a very good idea as to why it hasn't been despite clearly meeting the relevant criteria. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because a mediocre actor/politician doesn't reach ITN/RD standards one would hope. Alternatively there's some kind of subversive plot against mediocre RD nominations, or worse, something that reminds us that we shouldn't just be posting average US politician/actors? Hmm, I wonder. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Count me as an American who doesn't think this merits posting. He was an average actor and and average Senator; nowhere near "very important" to even his fields individually or combined(which isn't a criteria anyway). 331dot (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest close again It's been two days with no new posts on this topic. There is still no consensus to post. I suggest that we close again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhodesisland (talk • contribs) 23:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need. Let the bot archive it, implying closure. --George Ho (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] NYC Marathon

Wow that's an insult to stubs. What's that template that was created to be put on top of pages like this that are ITN candidates? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on article quality. With only one sentence and a list of winners (as of writing), the article is definitely not ready for front page inclusion. I'd support pending article improvements, but as of now, no. Prhdbt [talk] 01:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Article does not have any substantial content yet. Kiwi128 (talk) 09:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose self-evidently inappropriate for the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ...and now it has a race summary. Fuebaey (talk) 03:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's long enough (no longer than a stub) and updated. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weakest possible~~ support The recently added race summary seems to meet bare minimums of expected prose, and I'd not like to encourage us to stop there as "good enough". This support is so weak, I'd consider it an a mistake to assume it over ruled any opposes based on article quality. Surely, we can do better. --Jayron 32 03:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree the overall quality of the article isn't great, not being an American marathon follower and all, but the update is pretty much your standard ITN fare. I can see two options: I could import the background from New York City Marathon and we post (mind you, we put this up in 2013), or I could merge this into the main article and we can post that (like in 2011). Fuebaey (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, went for the former. Should be decent now. Fuebaey (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. Good enough. Thanks for all the work you've done! --Jayron 32 04:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Posted, good work, in particular from Template:U. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Turkish general election, November 2015

Support alternative blurb 2 - Also, I've updated the article's intro. Kiwi128 (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
General elections are ITNR, so we only need an adequate update and a blurb agreed to. 331dot (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One paragraph at the "Results" section needs sources. George Ho (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that "Results" section highly improved, but it still needs one more source. I'm unsure about one paragraph at the top of the "Background" section. It is uncited, but I don't think it affects the nomination, does it? --George Ho (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

altblurb 2 wen updated.Lihaas (talk) 03:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Province-by-province winnings imported - so, I think the article is probably ready to be posted. Kiwi128 (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting for the full results to be imported into the results table will take around 11-12 days (the electoral council allows a 10-day period for parties to contest results),^[2] so I advise we post this without waiting for these results to come through. Nub Cake (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - when everything is ready. National elections should be up there by default. South Nashua (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Günter Schabowski