Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/October 2015

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

October 31

[edit]
October 31, 2015 (2015-10-31) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economics
Disasters and accidents
International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology
  • A large asteroid 2015 TB145, thought to be a dead comet, passes close to the earth. (Time)
  • According to a new NASA (U.S.) study, ice sheet gains outweigh losses on the continent of Antarctica. An increase in snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago outweighs increased losses from the continent's thinning glaciers. In 2013, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change findings suggested gains were not keeping up with losses. NASA glaciologist Jay Zwally said, "We’re essentially in agreement with other studies ... (except) ice gain in East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica exceeds losses in the other areas." (UPI) (NASA)

Sports

[Posted] 2015 Breeders' Cup

[edit]
Article: 2015 Breeders' Cup (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The 2015 Breeders' Cup championships featured the first-ever "grand slam" in American horse racing with the win of American Pharoah in the Breeders' Cup Classic. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ American Pharoah's victory at the 2015 Breeders' Cup championships marked the first-ever "grand slam" in American horse racing.
Alternative blurb II: ​ American Pharoah's victory at the 2015 Breeders' Cup championships in the Breeders' Cup Classic marked the first-ever "grand slam" in American horse racing.
Alternative blurb III: ​ Triple Crown-winner American Pharoah retires after winning the Breeders' Cup Classic, becoming the first Thoroughbred in history to win a calendar year "Grand Slam"
News source(s): ESPN, The New York Times, Associated Press
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: First time in history for a racehorse to win this set of four races (Triple Crown + Classic) Montanabw(talk) 00:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Sorry, failing to see the significance. American Pharoah has not just been on ITN - it has been here three times in the past six months. While the Triple Crown was indeed a feat, I'm not getting the same sense here - either from the news sources or the article. Even if there were consensus to post, the article fails to provide an adequate update via a main race summary. Fuebaey (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To put this in perspective, he broke the Keeneland track record today by more than five seconds. The Breeders' Cup is run against older horses. The "Grand Slam" is legacy-defining, an achievement without precedent. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Breeders' Cup Classic is the largest purse in US Thoroughbred racing and the fourth largest purse in the world. As American Pharoah was set to be retired to stud at the end of 2015, this was the only chance to test him against an older, more experienced field. And he trounced them. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 02:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support given above explanation. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just found out before your comment. I'm unmarking it right now. Georgie says "Happy Halloween!" (BOO!) 05:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Are you talking about American Pharoah? The lede to this Featured Article is updated, and there's a new "Grand Slam" section covering today's Breeders' Cup victory. The other three Triple Crown races are recounted in detail. What more does it need? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 05:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(No, @Vesuvius Dogg: I think they mean 2015 Breeders' Cup, that's the boldfaced article... we had Pharoah as ITN when he won the triple crown. )
If we are going with the Breeder's Cup as the target article (and even if not and we're going with Am.Pharaoh), there's very little actual update in prose. --MASEM (t) 06:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem:, we are going with 2015 Breeders' Cup, which was only created a week ago. Per my comment above (13 races, each with separate articles) can you clarify what you need? I just added quite a bit more prose, is it better now? Montanabw(talk) 07:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. As a note, we're not looking for super quality in ITN articles, but just that the update is there, and since the race was completed, something more than a result table is needed and the few para of prose you added is exactly sufficient. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is this just a term pretty much invented in 2015? Nergaal (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nergaal: Interesting question. To my knowledge the term was first propagated on June 7, 2015, one day after Pharoah won the Triple Crown, by Bob Ehalt on his influential ESPN racing blog. In retrospect, one might argue that "Grand Slam" was an invention of the Breeders' Cup/Keeneland promotional team. As it was by no means certain at that point that Pharoah would continue to race the full season, as a rhetorical enticement for him to delay retirement, it worked. By the time Pharaoh raced in the Haskell a couple months later (August 2), it was being used casually by NBC television commentators, the promise of great things yet to come. Maybe "Grand Slam" deserves its own cynical article, but I am not cynical enough, one day after seeing him triumph so handily and shattering the Keeneland course record, to undertake that yet myself. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless wether this item should be on ITN, a grand slam is a jargon which NEEDS explaining (i.e. wikilinking of some sorts). Nergaal (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to the idea of creating Grand slam (horse racing) (as there exists one already for National Hunt Racing in the UK) but not sure we really have more than a definition. Thoughts? Montanabw(talk) 01:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we could somehow confirm Ehalt's first usage—how would we go about that?—we'd have the germ of fhe article. We can certainly credit him for having used it as early as June 7. His was the first usage I could find when I was Googling in early August. We do have the term defined two different ways (for colts and fillies) in the "Equestrian Sports" section of Grand Slam. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I support this being posted but I think the blurb should be a brief explanation of what was done. I might suggest "Triple Crown winner American Pharoah wins the Breeders' Cup Classic, becoming the first horse to win all four races" or something along those lines. Besides avoiding debatable terminology, it removes ambiguity by specifying "four and only four" races won. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 05:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2015 Rugby World Cup Final

[edit]
Articles: 2015 Rugby World Cup Final (talk · history · tag) and 2015 Rugby World Cup (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The 2015 Rugby World Cup ends with New Zealand beating Australia 34–17 in the final, the highest-scoring in World Cup history. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The 2015 Rugby World Cup ends with New Zealand beating Australia 34–17 in the final. New Zealand becomes the most successful team in the Rugby World Cup with three wins.
Alternative blurb II: ​ In rugby union, the 2015 Rugby World Cup ends with New Zealand defeating Australia in the final.
News source(s): The Guardian - live thread, BBC Sport, The Telegraph (more sources to be added)
Credits:

One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

 SounderBruce 17:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Closest asteroid this big in at least 9 years

[edit]
Clear consensus against posting this. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: 2015 TB145 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
News source(s): http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?
Credits:
Nominator's comments: This object we had no idea existed only 3 weeks ago will come within 1.25 Moon distances and a direct hit would've been well over "all nuclear bombs in the world going off in one place at once". The fireball would've been hot enough to ignite trees within a 270 kilometer wide circle; 45 miles away, it would get the brightness of 51 suns in 0.185 seconds, then wood would ignite, then there'd be a magnitude 7.4 earthquake, then it'd rain rocks the weight of light bowling balls (solid or molten? IDK), then there'd be enough overpressure to tear human limbs off and 301mph winds (worst tornado ever level).


This is the closest object this size that we know of between 2027 and 2006 or even 1925. It's 0.6 kilometers wide and the fastest object to enter Earth's "sphere of influence" in 3 centuries (126,000 kph). (I can't find a list that covers more than 1900 to 2200AD). It'll have the fastest angular motion of any potentially hazardous object between 1927 and 2029 (1 Moon width every 2 minutes!). Scientists will use the opportunity to get the highest resolution images ever of an asteroid from Earth,


Also it's on Halloween, most likely a dead comet, and it looks like a freaking skull Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This seems much more suited as a DYK, and the fact the NASA blurb downplays any potential impact aspects, it's hard to justify this for inclusion at ITN. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even days after discovery probability of impact was 150 sigmas which is impossible. That'd be like a person with a 2350 or minus 2150 IQ (if it were a perfect bell curve, it's not). NASA doesn't need to upplay potential impact risks because stupider or dishonester people do that too much already and they're actually honest people that speak accurately, unlike CEOs or FIFA or marketers or politicians or lawyers. Also, the error ellipse is 3 kilometers wide (thanks to radar) which means they know how much it clears by to better than one part in 100,000. It's the ones decades in the future where there's a maybe 1 in 1 million chance of impact that'll shrink to zero when they get more data. If there actually was any chance of hitting we would have the location pinned down to 3km at worst now and probably wouldn't have had time do shit about it (besides evacuate). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Per Masem. For most people, a non-event. Sca (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this (and the fact that we are an encyclopedia) is the relevant statement: "This is the closest object this size that we know of between 2027 and 2006 or even 1925. It's 0.6 kilometers wide and the fastest object to enter Earth's "sphere of influence" in 3 centuries (126,000 kph). (I can't find a list that covers more than 1900 to 2200AD). It'll have the fastest angular motion of any potentially hazardous object between 1927 and 2029". The article is in good shape, and I am frankly surprised people think this is not ITNworthy because the object will not strike the earth. μηδείς (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I can see why some find this interesting, and I can see why others goes meh. It's relatively big, but not actually *that* close. (Think <1 lunar distance.) At no stage is the object AFAICT above a routine 1 on the Torino Scale. -- KTC (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well some people wouldn't think of meters as relatively big cause they don't realize how powerful solar system speeds are but really anything having to do with hitting is not relevant or needed for ITN cause they're such low probability events. Near Earth objects, extrasolar planets and cosmology-type things are some of the biggest current research areas in astronomy and as additions to human knowledge about something beyond than our small blue dot they're posted sometimes. And doubling resolution seems like the least important of the remainder (electronics advance all the time). So I agree with Medeis' assessment. It's not that beyond the Moon, either. Only 1.2 times further when the Moon is far from Earth. (It passed 0.74 lunar distances from the Moon before Earth but I didn't think that was important enough to mention). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose posting a non-happening; seems appropriate for DYK. 331dot (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support – Sensationalist comments in the nomination aside, asteroids are not something we often get to feature. It's in that murky area at the border of ITN and DYK, but given the media attention to it I see no harm in showcasing this. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Wikipedia isn't a reference to itself. And this asteroid is passing quite a ways away. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's close by astronomy standards (the NASA list of close approaches can only be set to display 5, 10, ~20, ~40, ~80, ~120 and ~200 lunar distance maximums (the orbits of Earth and Mars average 205 lunar distances apart) and even if TB had been only 150 meters @ 1.266 LD that seems to happen about twice per decade). Only the brightness of the one in 2006 is known so TB is only probabilistically more likely to be larger than the 2006 one so that couldn't possibly be the blurb. Of all the ways one could word the relative infrequency I was not suggesting comparing it to Wikipedia with an asterisk* needed, that would be incredibly unimaginative and navel gazing. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This sort of thing interests me greatly, but I don't think it is ITN material because of its lack of relevance for most visitors. It seems like most people would not have seen it (observation was apparently reasonably difficult), and it posed no threat whatsoever. However, it would be great DYK material. Kiwi128 (talk) 09:23, 1 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.

[Posted] Kogalymavia Flight 9268

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Kogalymavia Flight 9268 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Kogalymavia Flight 9268 (aircraft pictured) crashes in the Sinai Peninsula en route to St. Petersburg, Russia with the loss of all 224 people on board. (Post)
News source(s): Aviation Herald Mirror Sputnik
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Casualties not yet known for sure and whether there are survivors as it occurred just a few hours ago. Many deaths reported (if not all). Updated a lot recently about the movments, etc. Lihaas (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

btw- its not even been 12 hours since it happened. Someone in the media must b highly prophetic (or responsible?).Lihaas (talk) 11:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Target article says 224 deaths (no survivors). Same per AP, Reuters. Sca (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Sca (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 30

[edit]
October 30, 2015 (2015-10-30) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture
Business and economics

Disasters and accidents
International relations

Law and crime

[Merge-Posted] 2015 Bucharest nightclub fire

[edit]
Article: Colectiv nightclub fire (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 29 people are killed in a nighclub fire in Bucharest, Romania. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A nighclub fire in Bucharest, Romania, resuts in at least 29 deaths and 184 injuries.
News source(s): BBC The Independent NBC News
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: High death toll incident (and with 155 in hospital it could rise) in a country we don't cover often, it has gained reaction from the Romanian president and is currently the second most read on BBC News. The article needs very significant work before it could be featured though. Thryduulf (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

oppose mere macabre death count doesn't make it noteworthy of itself.Lihaas (talk) 02:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good spot Iridescent, clearly politicians talk crap to pander,. there word is not gospel.Lihaas (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can request ITN be expanded to include more entries. Not a valid argument that more 'important' events happened same week... Gizmocorot (talk) 11:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SheriffIsInTown: A common complaint here is that we have not enough turnover, not too much. Turnover is not a bad thing. If there are 'more important' events (importance is relative to the person) I invite you to nominate them. Also, the fact that this event is in Romania is immaterial(see "Please do not..." above). 331dot (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - significant number of deaths, notable. Top news in all media along with the plane crash.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Nightclub fires are a well-known genre of accident and often follow a pattern (poorly signed exits etc.), so an interesting topic to cover as well as a clearly notable event. Blythwood (talk) 12:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oppose – Tragic for victims and families, but I don't see the wider significance. Nightclub fires with multiple deaths, some more lethal than this one, are fairly common worldwide. This wil fade quickly as a topic. (But I can see I'm in the minority.) Sca (talk) 13:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, decades ago as a reporter I covered this one, in which 165 died. There have been quite a few of these tragedies. Sca (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A relatively high number of casualties (injured included) and these kind of fires make for important case studies for organizers and safety officials world-wide. --Pudeo' 15:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is borderline, the notability being only due to the death toll, not some heretofore unknown principle that heavy metal fireworks displays kill nightclub audiences. But even if we were to post based on deathcount, the article now begins "The Colectiv nightclub fire was a fire". Serious quality improvements are needed. μηδείς (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't decide yet, but I won't make comparisons, especially to the Taiwanese park dust explosion, which I nominated months ago. The injuries toll is tremendous, and deaths are tragic and sudden. Unauthorised polytechnics must have been responsible for this; two band members died. The standards of ITN have been set high; we editors might be split in this because there have been other similar incidents before. We already posted this at Wikinews; so did the press. But ITN's quality of news shouldn't be the same as American (or restricted Chinese) mainstream news. C'mon, we should make ITN's quality higher, but I'm still undecided. Georgie says "Happy Halloween!" (BOO!) 18:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to look at The Station nightclub fire where a heavy metal band's pyrotechnics killed 100 people in almost identical circumstances. The horrible thing is that the Romanian band didn't learn that lesson. But ITN is not about causes. I will not be upset whichever way this goes, but looking at it from a historical perspective it doesn't strike me as making the cut, except for the death toll. μηδείς (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sca (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't seem to have anything to do with ISIS or Boko Haram. Can you explain what you mean by "regular mass shootings encouraged in other places around the globe"? μηδείς (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Medeis: Standard unwarranted jab at America to continue beating this poor, dead horse. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried my best to make ITN different from the international (not American) mainstream press, but somehow death and injury tolls, circumstances, and even the nature of the incident are too overwhelming to make it different from the press anymore. Still, I'm not happy with overemphasis on usual interior nightclub fires, not counting this year's Taiwanese one, which took place outdoors. I thought, "Can the city or Romania enhance the safety of nightclubs?" I want to lean toward "oppose" because other stories that we've posted are more usually impactful than this. However, it's too overwhelming to go to this path. But I'm not leaning "support" either... yet. This is "unusual", but airplane crashes (usual they have been), sports events, awards, and elections make "unusual" criterion useless and futile. More blurbs can be added to emphasize the tragedy; why not add a Romanian heavy metal band's involvement, a stampede, and/or an unauthorized equipment? Georgie says "Happy Halloween!" (BOO!) 21:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Casualty counting form a well-known issue with pyrotechnics. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't think this is notable on an international level. With all of the items vying for ITN, an isolated fire of this size with a well-understood (and not surprising) cause is not front-page material IMO. And the causality count is not enormous compared to many other tragic events that occur regularly. Kiwi128 (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - that is a major disaster in Romanian recent history with three days of mourning. - Gsvadds (talk) 12:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This event only has regional notability, not global. Plenty of people die from fires every day. South Nashua (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is no requirement of "international notability"; we discourage such arguments under "Please do not..." above. We cover events affecting only a single country all the time. 331dot (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Affecting a single country is different than being notable only in a single country. This item is not notable outside of where it happened given the context. South Nashua (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact remains that single-country arguments are not valid. I read much news coverage about this where I live, so it has some degree of notability outside Romania. 331dot (talk) 02:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree with your statement. Guidelines are recommendations for decisions, nothing more. Otherwise, there wouldn't be discussions on decisions, the decisions would just be made by following the guidelines. There's nothing wrong with a disagreement, and again, I also disagree with you about the notability of this news item. South Nashua (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I certainly hope that people are making decisions based on the guidelines, as otherwise they would have little meaning. Most of what we post is notable in only one country(most general elections, sporting events, some natural disasters, etc.) and if we declined to post them all because of that, very little would be posted. But yes, you can certainly make whatever arguments you wish, regardless of their validity. 331dot (talk) 11:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Likewise. A natural disaster is far different than a fire in a club. And calling someone else's comments invalid doesn't help increase the validity of your own comments. South Nashua (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm not intending to increase the validity of my comments. It isn't me saying so, it is this page: "Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." Nevertheless, thanks for the discussion. 331dot (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Not sure what that page is and I'm unsure how that addresses my concern (broader notability, there are plenty of notable things that are notable beyond just where they are), but that's okay. I also thank you for this discussion. South Nashua (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right now, the oldest blurb is the airplane disaster in Egypt, which happened a day later. Time for all of us to cool down and go elsewhere. --This is George Ho actually (Talk) 21:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that the DYK will outbalance the other side in a couple hours. I'm not closing this discussion yet, but there won't be enough room for this story for long. --This is George Ho actually (Talk) 21:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Never mind; I measured the length incorrectly. --George Ho (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ho hum, posted anyway... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Stale] 2015 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships

[edit]
Article: 2015 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Kōhei Uchimura wins his sixth and Simone Biles wins her third consecutive all-around title at the 2015 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Kōhei Uchimura wins his sixth and Simone Biles wins her third consecutive all-around title at the 2015 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships.
News source(s): NBC Sports, Reuters, Guardian, ESPN
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Possibly the greatest gymnast in recent times and an up-and-coming 18 year old winning record world title hauls. The event hasn't completely finished (apparatus finals still to go) but the all-round title is the highest individual title available. Depending on the blurb: main article needs a lot more prose, and the individual articles could do with some extra sourcing. Fuebaey (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, my mistake. Fixed. Fuebaey (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per nom. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • These articles still need a lot of work. Female bio is tagged for lacking adequate sources. Event article looks short in prose. Male bio looks like it's in good shape, but it's the only one.
Did a bit of copyediting. Altblurb should be good to go. Fuebaey (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had an extra day to work on this, on something I'm mildly interested in as well. Oh well, too many fresh stories at the moment. Fuebaey (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Stale] RD: Mel Daniels

[edit]
Article: Mel Daniels (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sports Illustrated
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Basketball Hall of Famer, one of four players to have his number retired by the Indiana Pacers. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 29

[edit]
October 29, 2015 (2015-10-29) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Art and culture

Business and economics

Disasters and accidents

International Relations

Law and crime
Politics and elections

Science and technology
Sports

[Posted] 2015 Japan Series

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2015 Japan Series (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In baseball, the Fukuoka SoftBank Hawks defeat the Tokyo Yakult Swallows to win the 2015 Japan Series. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In baseball, the Fukuoka SoftBank Hawks, led by Series MVP Lee Dae-ho (pictured), defeat the Tokyo Yakult Swallows to win the 2015 Japan Series.
News source(s): Japan Times, USA Today, CBS Sports
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Noticed this on ITN/R, even though I'm not someone who follows baseball. Will probably be overshadowed by its more famous cousin next week. Needs some match summaries, if any baseball fans out there care to work on this. Fuebaey (talk) 04:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the summaries are there. I don't think there was an issue with Game 5, but Game 4 could do with more than two sentences. Rest seem short but adequate. Fuebaey (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I added more for Game 4. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Stale] Tanzanian presidential election

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Tanzanian general election, 2015 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ CCM's John Magufuli (pictured) is elected President of Tanzania. (Post)
News source(s): NYT, SABC, WSJ
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Closest fought election in decades. Based on official result but main opposition has yet to concede. Please note that the result came out on Thursday (African votes are comparatively slow). Since we don't post until confirmed, I'd rather we treat these like late RDs (where deaths are posted when they are announced in the media, not when they occur) instead of lumping them with stories that are about to roll off ITN. Fuebaey (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

wait the election is still undr dispute. I added some to the page on the controversy. Or at the very least mention the controversy over the CCM (and the first time the opposition united under 1 candidate)Lihaas (talk) 02:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Raif Badawi

[edit]
Proposed image
Articles: Raif Badawi (talk · history · tag) and Sakharov Prize (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Saudi blogger Raif Badawi is awarded the 2015 Sakharov Prize. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Saudi blogger Raif Badawi is awarded the 2015 Sakharov Prize for the defense of freedom of thought and human rights.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Saudi blogger Raif Badawi is awarded the 2015 Sakharov Prize for defending human rights and fundamental freedoms.
News source(s): BBC The Guardian European Parliament
Credits:

Article updated
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

 cyrfaw (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gutted another 10kB of quotes/refs. I think it might be passable now, though could do with another set of eyes to recheck. Fuebaey (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fuebaey: once the last citation tag in the "Personal life" section is dealt with and the under-construction template is removed, I'll go ahead and post it. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] China abolishes one-child policy

[edit]
Article: One-child policy (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The People's Republic of China abolishes its one-child policy, introduced in 1978. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The People's Republic of China abolishes its one-child policy and imposes a two-child policy.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The People's Republic of China abolishes its one-child policy and introduces a two-child policy.
Alternative blurb III: ​ The People's Republic of China abolishes its one-child policy in favour of a two-child policy.
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A significant political step in one of the world's leading nations. Also, it's the sort of news that ITN seldomly covers (no catastrophe or sport event). Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. A notable change in public policy for China. Brief updates have been added to the lead and in the article itself; a little more would be nice, I think. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support - This change is definitely ITN appropriate and the article is fine, my only hesitation is from the linked article above this is a plan and not yet the actual revocation of the law/policy; it would likely make more sense to post on when the law is officially removed from the books. But I suspect this will be the point of major coverage. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think the blurb should be clarified to mention that China, though it's abolishing the one-child policy, is effectively switching to a "two-child policy", which is still a government-imposed limit.--WaltCip (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ever heard Love Minus Zero/No Limit? Sca (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
impose: "1. To establish or apply by authority. " Seems to fit perfectly. Also conveniently contrasts in diction with the positive-connotation word "abolish". Mamyles (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
added alt blurb with introduces instead of impose Gizmocorot (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Introduces implies a sort of optionalness not known for in policies of this nature put forth by the PRC leadership. Introduces implies they're making a suggestion or a recommendation. Imposes is exactly what is going on here; the PRC leadership tells the country what it will do with regards to their reproductive system, that sounds a lot like imposing. --Jayron32 01:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a sentence to the article linking to two-child policy, and mentioning continued criticism of China's reproductive policy. Still not a large update, but it should serve to meet ITN's minimum update guidelines. Mamyles (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Bidhya Devi Bhandari

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Bidhya Devi Bhandari (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Bidhya Devi Bhandari (pictured) is elected President of Nepal and the first woman to hold the office. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Bidhya Devi Bhandari is elected Nepal's first female President.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Bidhya Devi Bhandari (pictured) is elected President of Nepal.
News source(s): (BBC News),(The Guardian)
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: First female President. Biplab Anand (Talk with me) 07:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article needs some work but otherwise a new head of state is ITNR. --Tone 07:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Head of State is ITN/R, albeit for a ceremonial role. While she is Nepal's first female President, her predecessor was the country's first President (the country previously was a constitutional monarchy prior to 2008). Update wise, this was a stub yesterday and now no longer is. However, the first two sections lack inline citations. Fuebaey (talk) 08:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fuebaey: Citation added. Thanks--Biplab Anand (Talk with me) 09:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added another ALTblurb. Satisfied, μηδείς? --George Ho (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with the "first woman" blurb. It is a landmark and real progress in Nepal, and nothing condescending about that. -Zanhe (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The fact that she is the first female president is also being prominently featured in the news coverage. Neljack (talk) 03:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanhe: Tx.. Medeis- I don't think there is condescending about the blurb at all, Even the guardian and the NYT reported saying she is the first female president. Thanks--Biplab Anand (Talk with me) 04:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alternative Blurb I think for a female to get elected as a president of a country is a good enough reason to be In The News, there is no need to mention "(pictured)", sounds odd since the picture is there and must be of the person featured in the story. United States couldn't elect a female president in over two hundred years while Nepal's second president is female. Mentioning the gender adds an additional value to the story. Sheriff (report) 04:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support - this would be front page news material (as an election) even if Bhandari wasn't the first female president. Kiwi128 (talk) 08:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted alt blurb (with picture), adds flavor to what would otherwise be a bland ITN/R post (and it's a notable part of the story). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 28

[edit]
October 28, 2015 (2015-10-28) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations

Health and medicine

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science

[Closed] Cassini Enceladus flyby

[edit]
No consensus, nomination has gone stale. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Articles: Atmosphere of Enceladus (talk · history · tag) and Cassini–Huygens (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Cassini probe performs a close flyby of Saturn moon Enceladus, studying its atmosphere. (Post)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: A story with far less fanfare than the Pluto flyby but with some excellent science nevertheless. Both articles need updates (likely to happen when data start coming). --Tone 13:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Tone 13:26, 29 October 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] Ongoing: Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War

[edit]
Closed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War" is featured on Main Page. I have yet to see event developments aside from Reactions, even when the event is covered by news frequently. Pull it out? George Ho (talk) 06:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: No longer breaking news and no longer being regularly updated in such a way that it merits front-page status. The Saudi-led intervention in Yemen is still going on too, and we pulled it off months ago... -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with Syrian Civil War. The Russian intervention is the last act of this ongoing event. If this is not an alternative and it's between keeping or removing Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War only, I am for keep: It's a war that involves multiple world powers, and I see plenty of news articles on it. Banedon (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with replacing it with the Syrian Civil War, as suggested by Banedon. Although a terrifyingly large article (>300 kB with over 800 references), it appears regularly updated whenever major events happen with links to numerous articles about notable offensives that take place. Probably the most useful link we can provide in regards to this conflict. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace as suggested above; Russia's involvement is now at the point where it is not top news, along with the involvement of other nations, but the conflict is still news in general and the page being updated.331dot (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: If we're going to replace it, we need a different article than Syrian Civil War. That article is not being updated at a rate I would consider to be in line with the purpose of the "Ongoing" section. There have been only two significant additions in the past 9 days. The most recent, [3] involves outdated information (from January!!! or earlier) and the other is mostly stylistic and organizational changes, [4] and did not add any new information. Thus, in the past 9 days (from the 50 diff page history) we haven't had a single substantive update on the Syrian Civil War to that article. If it were an article in the main ITN section, it'd have rotated off by now. I can't support this for a good replacement. As of now, unless someone can massively update that article, and/or propose a new target, I have to vote for Remove and not replace. --Jayron32 11:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove there is no need to replace it with one of the numerous conflicts going on around the globe. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove I don't see significant updates to the Syrian Civil War to use that in its place as more notable than other conflicts at the present time. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a comment, the Syrian Civil War receives more news coverage than any other ongoing conflict I'm aware of. It also involves four of the world's five UN security council members. What other present conflict is there that is comparable to this? Banedon (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lots of conflicts and situations get continuing news coverage, but the question is how much of that leads to encyclopedic content. That's the value we need to judge here and I don't see that for the Syrian civil war right now; it's happening, but it's not always significant events. (as when Russia opted to get involved). --MASEM (t) 14:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not to say you're wrong, but IF there is more information about the Syrian Civil War available which could be added to our article, it has yet to be added to the article. The purpose of the "ongoing" section of ITN is the same as the rest of ITN: To highlight quality, new Wikipedia content on quality articles. Whether or not the Syrian Civil War is still getting new news reports isn't important, if no one is using that news to update the article in question. All that matters, the ONLY thing that matters here, if you want this to be in ITN, is that the article has quality updates. Any other argument makes no bit of difference. If you want it posted, fix the article. It will be posted. --Jayron32 15:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War; will let discussion about replacing it with Syrian Civil War play out a little further. SpencerT♦C 20:44, 28 October 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.

October 27

[edit]
October 27, 2015 (2015-10-27) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economics

Disasters and accidents
International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Posted] RD: Philip French

[edit]
Article: Philip French (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Guardian
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: One of notable British film critics and radio producers. He was appointed OBE and given "Critic of the Year" in 2009. George Ho (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as very important to his field; we posted Roger Ebert and this person seems to be similar. His successor said he inspired "a generation of film critics", had gotten recognition related to his field. The update seems cited but I don't know if anything more can be said about his death. 331dot (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added another small detail about his death, but that's all I can do. George Ho (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Ranjit Roy Chaudhury

[edit]
Article: Ranjit Roy Chaudhury (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Business Standard
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: One of prominent Indian pharmacologists. Also chairman of WHO–Indian Gov. joint programme. He had two awards. George Ho (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 26

[edit]
October 26, 2015 (2015-10-26) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science

[Posted] Afghanistan earthquake

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2015 Afghanistan earthquake (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ An earthquake of 7.5-magnitude strikes Afghanistan. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A 7.5-magnitude earthquake strikes Afghanistan, India, and Pakistan killing more than 150.
News source(s): (NBC News),(Fox News)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Major earthquake of 7.7 magnitude Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 11:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the article a bit. Should be ready enough to go on the main page? Blurb needs to be changed. Majority of casualties are from Pakistan so this is not purely Afghanistan earthquake.--Saqib (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 25

[edit]
October 25, 2015 (2015-10-25) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economics

Disasters and accidents

International relations
Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

[Stale] RD: Flip Saunders

[edit]
Article: Flip Saunders (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NBA.com
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: One of prominent NBA coaches who died so suddenly. George Ho (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Stale] Ivorian presidential election

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Ivorian presidential election, 2015 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Alassane Ouattara (pictured) is re-elected for a second term as President of the Ivory Coast. (Post)
News source(s): France24, Reuters, VOA
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

 Fuebaey (talk) 06:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Stale] Omani elections

[edit]
Article: Omani general election, 2015 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Oman, almost 612,000 voters elect a new Consultative Assembly. (Post)
News source(s): Tagesschau, Times of Oman
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Well, as a general election in a sovereign state, this is ITN/R as far as I understand. However, the election does not really make a difference and there is no winning party as parties are illegal in Oman. Feel free to discuss. Maybe someone could create a table with all the winning candidates? I don't really have time for that now... Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: At this point, the article should not be posted in my opinion. If one were to replace the dates, # of voters and names of candidates, this article could reasonably used as an article for an Oman election from a previous year. There should be text outlining what makes this election different, even though it's "fixed". Without an update like that, I wouldn't consider the article to be sufficiently updated. SpencerT♦C 15:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This falls under ITN/R, but I agree somewhat with Spencer in that the update is insufficient. It should ideally summarise the results of the election, even if the candidates all stand as independents. The final paragraph (four sentences) attempts to do this but only mentions one winning candidate, out of 85. Fuebaey (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was the only candidate that I could find that was picked out in the coverage of the election. For everyone else, there is just a winner's list... Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Guatemalan presidential election

[edit]
Article: Guatemalan general election, 2015 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Jimmy Morales is elected President of Guatemala after winning a run-off. (Post)
News source(s): Guardian, Al Jazeera, ABC
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Former comedian versus former first lady in a presidential run-off, with a landslide. Fuebaey (talk) 06:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – important governmental change. --Jenda H. (talk) 12:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was a late night nom, so I didn't get to it until now. I've added some prose, albeit incomparable to the seemingly comprehensive Spanish version. There's scope to expand, but I think it gets the main point across. Fuebaey (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Hamilton F1 World Champion

[edit]
Proposed image
Articles: Lewis Hamilton (talk · history · tag) and 2015 Formula One season (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Lewis Hamilton (pictured) wins a third World Drivers' Championship in Formula One, after his team Mercedes secured the Constructors' Championship. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In motorsport, Lewis Hamilton (pictured) wins the Formula One World Drivers' Championship and Mercedes secures the Constructors' Championship.
News source(s): Guardian
Credits:

One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Notability should be a no brainer. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to suggest an altblurb, I agree that it should be made clearer that the constructors' was decided earlier, but I tried to keep the blurb short. Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it's such a big deal, replace the word "as" with "after" before "his team". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Added Altblurb. The season (ITN/R article) is updated but not fully sourced. For those that don't follow F1, we could use the infobox picture rather than one that looks like a random driver in a car. Fuebaey (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I believe he is quite well recognizable with his helmet. Also, he is a racing driver after all, and he achieved the feat looking like that. The infobox photo is a little old, there's a newer one from two weeks ago, but he looks like a jackass in that one... Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as a person who hasn't followed F1 in years, "recognisable" assumes that everyone knows what his helmet looks like, which is similar to a football (soccer) fan describing Cristiano Ronaldo, to a layman, by the colour of his boots. Fuebaey (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, what the hell is wrong with an actual photo of Hamilton himself? This bizarre image is impenetrable to most of our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Polish elections

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Polish parliamentary election, 2015 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Law and Justice party (prime minister designate Beata Szydło pictured) wins the most seats in the Sejm. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Law and Justice party, led by Jarosław Kaczyński, gains the largest vote share in the Polish parliamentary elections.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Le parti Droit et Justice remporte les élections parlementaires en Pologne.
Alternative blurb III: ​ Die nationalkonservative Partei Recht und Gerechtigkeit (PiS) um Spitzenkandidatin Beata Szydło (Bild) hat die Parlamentswahl in Polen gewonnen.
News source(s): BBC, Politico, NYT
Credits:

Article needs updating
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

 Fuebaey (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Strong support – Law and Justice winning 39 percent is an ominous development for the EU. (Note: I don't think Sejm, the Polish word for parliament, will be understood by most English-lang. readers.) Sca (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Sejm" is one of those words that for some reason is used a lot in the media (for example the Telegraph uses it without a gloss), probably because it lacks a direct English translation (similarly, articles on German politics usually use Bundestag, because the most literal translation "Federal Diet" is rather confusing). Smurrayinchester 16:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: nearly all english language readers have the ability to click the blue link... --Jayron32 18:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why not make the blurb instantly intelligible to the reader? Or would that not be the Wiki way? Sca (talk)
PS: I'd never heard the word sejm 'til I lived Warsaw in the mid-'90s. It's not an English word, and its Polish orthography makes it unpronounceable to unschooled English speakers (even though it's actually easy to pronounce). Sca (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for the alternative blurb. Important development in Europe. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until Tuesday, The official results have been released showing Law and Justice getting 37.5 per cent of the vote but the official number of seats will not be announced until Tuesday. I would suggest that we not put anything up until we get the official results. See US News and World Report
Preceding comment posted by Capitalistroadster – Sca (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Sejm' old offensive blather. Sca (talk)
George, this is the Pollish-langauge version:
W wyborach parlamentarnych w Polsce zwyciężyło Prawo i Sprawiedliwość (na zdjęciu prezes partii Jarosław Kaczyński) uzyskując 37,58 % głosów w wyborach do sejmu. – Sca (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only Polish found in the blurbs are proper nouns. I'm not sure why the second (French) and third (German) blurbs were added but perhaps you could ask the proposer. Fuebaey (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To show how far behind we are. Sca (talk) 01:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:POINT. Ask some questions if it doesn't make sense to you. --Jayron32 01:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fish, vistors, and news.... Sca (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Consensus seems to be the updates are sufficient, and maintenance issues seem to have been dealt with. --Jayron32 01:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting comment: Extremely disappointing to see this took three days to post, with the rationale for holding up posting being a tendentious tag that even a cursory glance at the Talk page would demonstrate shouldn't have been placed. I'm glad it's finally up, but jeez, one hopes to see more initiative from the editing community -- yes, that includes the good folks here at ITN/C -- in getting stuff like this ship-shape. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 24

[edit]
October 24, 2015 (2015-10-24) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

                
Arts and culture






                
Disasters and accidents






                
International relations






                
Law and crime






                
Politics and elections








[Posted] RD: Maureen O'Hara
[edit]




Article: Maureen O'Hara (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC News
Credits: 




Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Very legendary and successful actress --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



There's nothing wrong or unusual about having the filmography at its own article, given its size.  You might want to pick out a few works and list her first and last movies briefly below the redirect to the separate article.  I'll be busy for the next several hours, or I'd do it myself now. μηδείς (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a comment, while we would not worry about the state of linked articles that stem from the bolded one for ITN, having that many unsourced quotes on the filmography page is a bad thing and should be remedied, though that would not hold up her main article. --MASEM (t) 19:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Please tag a few items then.  Most of the "she appeared in" stuff does not need a ref if there's a bluelink to a work she's been credited in.  It is a lot easier to look for refs for tagged items than to read peoples' minds as to what they would like reffed but haven't specified.  PS< I will only be on line a few minutes at a time for the next 3 1/2 hours, so the nominator is invited to help with the article. μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At minimum each paragraph needs an inline source, period. (And if there were unsourced quotes on the page, they would need those). I've also found that editors get very upset when you orange tag or CN tag an article that's been nominated at ITN, because they seen it as a malicious action, so it becomes counter productive. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I CN tag such nominees all the time, but if no one wants more than at least one ref per paragraph that's fine with me. μηδείς (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A minimum of one inline per paragraph helps to make sure that readers have a good expectation where to find a source to back up material, and gives potential editors a sign that material should be sourced when they add. More sources are always appreciated and a few places (in general, not here) where sources are required like on quotes, but a minimum of one inline per paragraph is a good rule of thumb. (I'm adding this comment after its been posted and the diff Medeis links below and it's fine now). --MASEM (t) 03:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

W'll, jeez, Masem, barnstars is . . . thataway. μηδείς (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Thanks, @Spencer:, that was quick! μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


October 23
[edit]



















    

        
October 23, 2015 (2015-10-23) (Friday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
Arts and culture






                
Business and economics






                
Disasters and accidents






                
International Relations






                
Law and crime






                
Politics and elections






                
Sports








RD: Murphy Anderson
[edit]




Article: Murphy Anderson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): http://www.comicbookresources.com/article/prolific-dc-comics-artist-murphy-anderson-passes-away-at-89
Credits: 




Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Major comic book artist, forty year career.  In several comic book halls of fame. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



RD: Thomas G. Stemberg
[edit]




Article: Thomas G. Stemberg (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Boston Globe Fortune
Credits: 




Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Businessman who founded Staples Inc. and pioneered the office supply store. Kudzu1 (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Criteria seems there. Article is fine save for one sentence that needs a source "Stemberg is also an ardent philanthropist in myriad of areas pertaining to education." but that should be easy to add and/or remove it until one can be found. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Weak oppose I doubt he's recognizable outside the US, even if Staples Inc. has branches in several countries. Brandmeistertalk   19:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support pending some article flow and sourcing improvements. It's not just that Stemberg founded Staples, listen to Mitt Romney talk about his significance:


Romney recalled that shortly after he was elected, Mr. Stemberg asked him why he ran for governor. Romney said he wanted to help people, and Mr. Stemberg replied that if he really wanted to help, he should give everyone access to health care, which Romney said he hadn’t really considered before.
“Without Tom pushing it, I don’t think we would have had Romneycare,” Romney said. “Without Romneycare, I don’t think we would have Obamacare. So without Tom, a lot of people wouldn’t have health insurance.”[1]




References




    

  1. ^ Luna, Taryn (October 23, 2015). "Staples founder Thomas Stemberg dies at 66". Boston Globe. Retrieved October 23, 2015.

    2. 





So that's impact. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support - per criterias met.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose - There are thousands upon thousands of companies. Co-founding one, even a very notable one, doesn't necessarily equal ITN-level significance in one's field, and he doesn't appear to be a particularly recognizable figure, either inside the US or out. I also don't give much weight to the Obamacare angle - lots of people had suggested similar proposals, and I doubt Obamacare is what Stemberg had in mind. Having said that, I suppose he was an innovator in retail office supply, but that seems like a pretty narrow field. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose as not meeting the RD criteria.  As stated, founding a notable company doesn't make one very important to their field.  His influence on the ACA (likely unintended) doesn't make him notable to a field.  331dot (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose – Per previous two comments. Mr. Stemberg seems notable only within a discrete U.S. business niche. Sca (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment. I'd just like to point out that nearly all businesspeople engage in charitable giving due to the benefits in the tax code and for the approbation of their peers, and mentioning their charity in RD nominations does nothing for the chances of getting posted. Abductive (reasoning) 16:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



[Posted] Hurricane Patricia
[edit]




Article: Hurricane Patricia (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Hurricane Patricia, the strongest ever recorded in the Western Hemisphere, makes landfall in Mexico.  (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Hurricane Patricia, on the Pacific coast of Mexico becomes the strongest ever recorded in the Western Hemisphere. 
News source(s): weather.com, CNN 'the most dangerous storm in history', BBC Hurricane Patricia: Mexico awaits 'strongest ever' storm
Credits: 




Article updated
Nominator's comments: Article in good shape, storm is monstrous record breaker, should be ready to post on landfall μηδείς (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I'd say a major hurricane, especially with a qualifier like "strongest ever recorded in the Western Hemisphere", is worth posting. It helps that the article is in nice shape. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment – Wait until landfall actually occurs before posting, of course. Still offshore at the moment. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • I was surprised this wasn't up yet, so the blurb is prenature by a few hours.  I see no reason we can't post with an appropriate blurb, then update is as needed. There is no question whether it will make landfall. μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Wait Per my comments on the talkpage, wait until landfall and until there's a clearer picture of what damage it's causing. We already have Typhoon Koppu in ITN—if this runs now, we'll have the perverse situation of "storm uproots a few trees and is possibly linked to a landslide" running above "storm kills 50 people and leaves 100,000 homeless". ‑ iridescent 18:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I agree this should wait till landfall, which will be by this evening (the next 6 hours or so), but the hurricane is being compared to Typhoon Haiyan which killed 6,300, and has sustained winds of 200mph 350 kmph.

I mostly agree, except that 200+ mph and a record 879 mbar is by itself more a piece of news than uprooting a few trees. Cato censor (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Agreed, on that basis I have added an altblurb. μηδείς (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



I was surprised by posting without much effect...but good job on tweaking it. IOfcourse we can update if, lord forbid, its so bad.Lihaas (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



[Closed] Puisseguin road crash
[edit]






No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 03:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]






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









Article: 2015 Puisseguin road crash (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ More than 40 people are killed in a road crash near Puisseguin, France.  (Post)
News source(s): Der Spiegel, BBC
Credits: 




Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Major incident. Article still needs some work. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


oppose tis mere counting of casualties dotes not notability make. Also per Masem.Lihaas (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Not thatunusual. Germanwings went down ad there have been other road/bus accidents involving tourists etc(in Switzerland a year or so ago if memory serves).Lihaas (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support This would of been posted if it had taken place in...--109.149.136.178 (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • No, there's nothing about the nation where this happened to consider. It was a unfortunate traffic accident: a truck driver (with no evidence they were doing anything outside of proper driving) lost control of his truck, tried to but failed to avoid hitting a bus carrying a number of senior passengers, and when the bus crashed and caught fire, they couldn't get most of them out in time. Tragic regardless where in the world it happened, but it is not going to make any significant impact on the world at large being a random traffic accident. This is why it fails WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NEVENT. Perfect story for Wikinews, but not ITN. --MASEM (t) 18:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      • If it happened in Times Square with the same outcome? Well would it be the same outcome. No doubt it would get 10x the media coverage, even if it was a tragic accident. --109.149.136.178 (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

        • If the exact same situation occurred in Times Square, it would still not be appropriate for WP or ITN, even if it got 10x the coverage. It's a very short-tailed news story because it was simply a tragic traffic accident. --MASEM (t) 21:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support - I agree with the IP above.--WaltCip (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose A bad accident, but (a) we should not be using the number of fatalities to decide to post or not, and (b) we should only be promoting solid content. This article is 617 B of prose at the moment of my typing this. That's not the kind of article we should be showcasing. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • 

  • Oppose Contrary to the implication that this would have been posted had it taken place in the US or UK, no it wouldn't. Take a look through List of traffic collisions (2010–present) and you'll see that comparable incidents in the Anglosphere generally don't even have articles. (2014 Glasgow bin lorry crash is an exception, but that's probably owing to the major legal case still going on about it.) The closest recent equivalent, 2015 Karachi traffic accident, wasn't even suggested for ITN; Acayucan bus crash was suggested but overwhelmingly opposed. ‑ iridescent 18:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support iff improved - significant road accident with high death toll. But the article cannot be posted in its current condition. Mjroots (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support per international covarage. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 19:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose It is just an isolated traffic accident with no deeper meaning, consequence, or connection. Thue (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose - Very tragic accident indeed. Still a lot of overemphasis in attempt to prove that media are interested in French local news. Coverage in the article is limited at best. And I don't give a damn about whether bus and lorry accidents are rare in France. Bus crashes are... newsworthy, but they do not reach to the Wikipedic standards of ITN, especially when nominations on past bus crashes (as said by someone else) resulted in "no consensus". Now as I realize, consensus are editors-in-chief (or editors in charge)... sorta. George Ho (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support If an aeroplane accident killed 40 people, it would undoubtedly be posted. No-one has ever given a persuasive explanation of why an aeroplane accident that kills lots of people is far more notable than a road accident that kills the same number. Neljack (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Because no one asked that question. Airplane accidents are rare, and car accidents are common. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      • And I really think we should reconsider posting every air accident, even the smaller ones. Some of them are just not that important. Thue (talk) 11:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

        • A key thing to remember about accidents involving any type of public or large commercial transportation service (Airplanes, trains, and water-going vessels) is that these industries are generally highly regulated and any accident is going to be explored in depth by authorities and potentially many others. That draws attention to them and gives them some type of long-tail story if a number of deaths are involved. Traffic accidents like this will have some exploration by local authorities but there is nowhere close to the level of scrutiny that the larger accidents would get, hence why they tend to not be articles on WP much less ITN. --MASEM (t) 13:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

          • Sure. But sometimes a 40-casulties air crash is just "low-standards third-world aircraft company doesn't follow good practice, makes obvious mistake", which isn't really that interesting. Thue (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

            • Yes, agreed - just that I'd consider it a rule of thumb to consider the differences between commercial air/rail/sea transport accidents and traffic accidents, not a hard line as implied. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose - I think fatality count absolutely can be a factor in some cases, but the List of traffic collisions (2010–present) shows this is the fourth traffic accident to claim over 40 lives this year alone, and a quick survey of the list as a whole shows most such incidents don't even get articles, making it a safe bet they didn't get posted ITN either.  Granted, this is an exceptionally large accident for France, and most such accidents take place in countries with considerably more dangerous roads, but I think that's a bit too fine of a line to draw for ITN purposes.  This is another case where my gut reaction was "of course it should get posted" but due diligence convinces me otherwise. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 02:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose - I do not find this interesting. In fact, I'll go further to say that I think the article is worthy for deletion per WP:NOTNEWS. It is just a simple traffic accident, nothing more. Banedon (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose – While tragic for the numerous victims and their families, and widely carried Friday by Eng.-lang. media, the event lacks wider significance or ramifications, and will fade fast as a topic. Sca (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support - tragic and high number of deaths. beyond the usual crash. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose from nominator. I nominated this in the hope that the article would be updated, which I don't have the time for. Since that didn't happen, I don't see the quality anywhere near main page status. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:09, 24 October 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.




October 22
[edit]



















    

        
October 22, 2015 (2015-10-22) (Thursday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
Disasters and accidents






                
International relations


                
Law and crime






                
Politics and elections






                
Sports








[Closed] Sweden school attack
[edit]






It doesn't seem we'll get a consensus to post here. Therefore, the best idea is to close the nomination. --Tone 08:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]






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









Article: Trollhättan school attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A masked man attacks students at Kronan School in Trollhättan, Sweden, killing two people and injuring two more students.  (Post)
News source(s): [5], [6], [7]
Credits: 



Nominator's comments: A unique event in Sweden, has received attention world wide. BabbaQ (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] 






  • Now support: Likely political motive and first attack on a Swedish school since JFK was in the White House. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose Violent crime is not as common in Scandinavia as it is in many other places, but this is still far too low level of an event to warrant attention on ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ironic: "the deadliest attack on a school in Swedish history." - if this was the case in the US, we'd be posting yesterday.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed ironic. When a similar thing happens in America it is of "world interest" when it happens in Sweden it is "a local story of little importance". How ironic :)--BabbaQ (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    

    I find it ironic that TRM is pushing for a single isolated attack that as far as I can tell has no greater significance, while opposing any gun violence in the U.S. that demonstrates our inherent and ongoing gun problem, which is resulting in attempts at legislation. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Speculation on your part. You are not here to weigh this against an American gun violence issue. So, you can do better.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Just trying to make sense of a perceived inconsistency. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I find it ironic that you make that claim.  The US is completely blind to its internal problem of mass slaughter of children on a daily basis.  More advanced societies find this to be abhorrent, hence why this news item is so significant.  I'm sure I don't need to repeat the statement "the deadliest attack on a school in Swedish history" to make it clear how significant this is.  To cover all the mass murders in America, we'd need a ticker which would update more than once per day.  This is absolutely different, and important because of that difference.  If the Americans here think it's just "meh" then more fool them.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You mischaracterize the situation by saying we're "completely blind" to it. We're not. Gun control activists are at a weakened state while the National Rifle Association has demonstrated it has more power than we ever thought. This comment just shows me you don't understand the issue of gun violence in the U.S. And since it doesn't relate to this nom, I'm done on it. I already supported this nomination. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


(edit conflict)Unless VIPs were involved, I cannot recall any criminal violence being posted here with only two victims. On a side note I must ask, yet again, that people refrain from commentary that clearly violates WP:FORUM. This is and has been for some time an ongoing problem whenever these kinds of stories come up. I honestly don't care what anyone's views of American gun laws are. THIS IS NOT THE PLACE FOR POLITICAL EDITORIALIZING. To all concerned, please stop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it is a place for some parts of the world to recognise that the murder of children in schools isn't a daily occurrence.  Clearly this is a significant news story (otherwise why would it be headlining around the world?) and it's odd to try to suppress it simply because it doesn't meet some arbitrary death count, which is exceeded daily by mass murders in the US.  We're talking about an attack in a first world country who value the lives of their citizens and especially their children.  Your shouting is noted, but not required. If it helps you focus, I'll repeat:  "the deadliest attack on a school in Swedish history." If you switch out Swedish for American, would you expect to post the new item?   The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind this being posted but if you switch out Michigander or North Carolinian or Georgian (not the country) for Swedish would you still have supported their worst school attack? Nine and a half million live in Sweden and about ten million in each state. Sweden is awesome though, they go decades between school attacks, I'm jealous. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we're talking about a country here that isn't America.  Perhaps that's not clear.  It's not about the population, the proportions, the numbers, it's about the fact it's Sweden, and this stuff doesn't happen there ever.  Unlike the US where it happens every single day.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Each and every story is unique and should be treated that way. This story shouldn't get preference because there's less violence in Sweden, likewise shootings in the U.S. shouldn't be dismissed just because there are so many of them. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I'm afraid that's absurd, this story is fundamentally more important simply because it is so rare.  Mass shootings in the US happen every day, attacks on schools in Sweden happen every other decade.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


It is not political editorializing to say that school shootings at every level have become routine in the United States, because that is something that every person on both side of the political spectrum in the U.S., when pressed, will admit. There is just no comparison. America is letting their kids die on a near-monthly basis due in no small part to horrendously lax gun laws. This does not happen in any other developed country, and certainly not Scandinavia.--WaltCip (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support I held off until now on deciding one way or the other. The possible motive of right-wing anti-immigration is sufficient for me to post, as opposed to a random attack. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Did you mean "oppose", Muboshgu. "As opposed" would imply that you oppose posting this. This is George Ho actually (Talk) 00:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that I support "as opposed" to if this was a random attack, in which case I would oppose. But after reading some of the opposers below, I'll change to weak support. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support per WaltCip. It wouldn't definitely have been an extraordinary occurrence had this happened in the United States. Unfortunately, this happened in Sweden, a European country where many would surely not remember the last such school attack.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Strong support in proportional terms with respect to population, attack more grave and tragic than Umpqua Community College shooting. Gizmocorot (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • We should never use relative numbers based on country population to determine if something is more tragic than another event. (3 ppl in a 10M country like Sweden would then be equated to 300 ppl in a place like China, which seems far too high to determine if something is tragic or not).  There are other reasons to consider the nation of the event, no question, but not number of people relative to the country. --MASEM (t) 20:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      • Indeed, since it's  "the deadliest attack on a school in Swedish history", even you Masem should be moved to agree with yourself and support this.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

        • Using superlative language like "deadliest" when only 2 innocents died is really pushing importance. (And arguably the previous one in 1961 had more wounded than this one, so that still is begging on the language issue). The fact that Sweden generally does not have such incidents, and now what is being reported as the motive and methods used in the killings, are the salient points, not the fact that this questionably the deadliest one. We particularly should not be using the anti-nationalistic "school shootings happen all the time in the US, we just ignore those" thought process. Case by case treatment is required. --MASEM (t) 21:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Scale is definitely important, not necessarily 1:1 ratio, partially logarithmic.. with due weight to motive/type, past similar events....  Gizmocorot (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support. What really matters is whether or not this is notable in Sweden, which it certainly is, and this is getting coverage worldwide from what I can see.  The attack seems unusual additionally because it was with a sword(from what I read). 331dot (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose: Can't recall us ever posting an ITN incident with such a small death toll. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Can't recall us not posting  "the deadliest attack on a school in [insert your country here] history." The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    

    @Kudzu1: There is no death toll requirement; each nomination is evaluated on its own merits.   We post some things with zero deaths and things with many deaths; we also do not post some events with zero deaths and with many deaths.  It all depends. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support deadliest school attack in Sweden. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support. The section is "In the News", not "What we think ought to be in the news", and whether right or wrong this is getting significantly more coverage—and not just in Sweden—than comparable incidents elsewhere. ‑ iridescent 20:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Except that we don't just mirror the news, otherwise we just might as well shut down ITN and replace it with an RSS feed from the BBC. We are selective based on the encyclopedic quality of the news story. Coverage is not always a strong indication of encyclopedic worthiness (such as would be the case for most celebrity news). --MASEM (t) 21:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose A double homicide of non-notable persons should rarely be in the section, I think, despite the yellow press' obsession with school related attacks akin to the missing white girl syndrome. The possible political motive can't be used as a supporative argument either given that the police has simply stated they will not comment at this point but will study it, at this point it is based on the tabloids checking Facebook and Youtube likes. --Pudeo' 21:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose As discussed repeatedly here before, a double-homicide of non-notable individuals does not meet the importance criterion of ITN. I am not persuaded by logic that this is a "record" school attack in Sweden - there are records occurring every day that we don't post. Unconfirmed rumors of political motivations are also not persuasive. I do, however, offer condolences to the Swedish community in dealing with this loss. Us not posting this event does not diminish its tragic nature. Mamyles (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • 

  • Oppose per Mamyles and others. Calidum 22:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose per Mamyles and Puedo, among others. Highly tragic but not an ITN-level subject, in my view.Jusdafax  04:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose as essentially a non-record.  This guy killed a single person, which makes it the most deadly school attack in Sweden since year X.  If the guy had not killed anybody, but still harmed the others, it still would have been the most vicious school attack since year X.  Had he merely threatened the students, he still would have set a record for the most threatening school threat since year X.  The only facet of this that gives it any hope on ITN is the fact that it happened in Sweden.  In the Anglosphere, this would be non-notable.  If the Swedes want to post this, then let them post it on their version of ITN.128.214.53.18 (talk) 07:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Nonsense.  It makes it the deadliest school attack ever.  It absolutely is notable in the "Anglosphere", that's why it's all over English language news sites.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


It is the deadliest school attack in Swedish history, not counting deaths due to war or civil upheaval.  That's already quite a bit pigeonholing already.  I just checked the NYTimes, WashPost and Guardian.  This story is on the frontpage of Guardian, has a tiny snippet at the bottom of the page in the Times, and is not mentioned at all on the Post's frontpage.  That's a pretty mixed result for supposedly being "all over" the news.128.214.53.18 (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when it happens in America it is a World event story, when it happens in Sweden it is local. It is the way the world works sadly. Not only on Wikipedia.  It is however strange that Wikipedians apply a "American standard" on a crime that happens in Sweden, the US is now used to these kind of school attacks but you can not apply the American standard to Sweden. I also suspect that several users here are from countries "used to violence" of this sort and are a bit numb. Just being real. --BabbaQ (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is almost as if, people who speak different languages take notice of events differently for some reason, and this is inexplicably reflected in the language-specific frontpages of Wikipedia.128.214.53.18 (talk) 08:09, 23 October 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.




October 21
[edit]



















    

        
October 21, 2015 (2015-10-21) (Wednesday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
Disasters and accidents






                
Health and medicine






                
International relations






                
Law and crime






                
Politics and elections






                
Sport








[Posted] Chelonoidis donfaustoi
[edit]




Article: Chelonoidis donfaustoi (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Scientists describe a new species of giant tortoise, Chelonoidis donfaustoi.  (Post)
News source(s): PLOS ONE, Washington Post
Credits: 



Nominator's comments: Even though a reclassification, the elevation to the full species status of such big animals seems significant. Article is open to further expansion. Brandmeistertalk   11:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



[Posted] Typhoon Koppu
[edit]








Proposed image


Article: Typhoon Koppu (2015) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Typhoon Koppu (satellite image pictured) kills at least 50 people and displaces more than 100,000 others across the Philippines.  (Post)
News source(s): TWC, BBC, AlJazeera
Credits: 




Article updated
Nominator's comments: Deadliest typhoon of the year (specific to the 2015 Pacific typhoon season) with widespread and long lasting effects across Luzon. Nearly 1 million people have been directly affected by the storm, of whom more than 100,000 are displaced according to the latest Sit Rep from the NDRRMC. Also worth noting that at one point, 9 million people—approximately 9% of the entire country—were without power. I've been hesitant on nominating this since by Philippine standards it's not exceptionally bad but it's still a major natural disaster that's worth posting on ITN. Impact section could use some expansion, which I'm currently working on, but the pressing details are up-to-date and should meet ITN standards. Wasn't sure what day to place the nomination on since the storm struck on October 17 but effects are still ongoing (more fatalities occurred yesterday, fwiw). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



[Closed] Seong-Jin Cho wins the XVII International Chopin Piano Competition
[edit]






No consensus to post, and no clear indication of a willingness to improve the target articles.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]






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









Articles: Seong-Jin Cho (talk · history · tag) and XVII International Chopin Piano Competition (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Seong-Jin Cho is named the winner of the 17th International Chopin Piano Competition  (Post)
News source(s): BBC ABC News Business Insider
Nominator's comments: Advanced apologies if I'm doing the nomination incorrectly, as this is my first time to do an ITN nomination :) The South Korean Seong-Jin Cho was named the winner of the 17th Chopin competition in Poland, and I think that this one deserves a mention as the Chopin is a prestigious competition in classical music that happens every five years only. I've created a stub with some minimal information, will try to get back to editing it further during my lunch break. --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment.  Thanks for the nomination.  Part of determining the consensus to post this depends on its coverage in the news; can you provide some links to news stories about this event indicating it is 'in the news'? 331dot (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


How many news items would be needed for this? Here are some of the English-language news items I've picked up so far:



There also seem to be others in Polish, [https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=dAxGwzfmkkZPbaMD5O8Om3VfaGjXM&q=seong+jin+cho&lr=English&hl=es&sa=X&ved=0CCcQqgIwAmoVChMIw6fI2MfSyAIVjgmOCh1BCgKp Spanish and German [12] news websites, but I'm not well-versed in those languages to check the contents. There also appears to be a couple of news items in Korean, too. --- Tito Pao (talk) 02:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Weak oppose on article quality - The links above do show the competition appears notable but the articles needs more prose and the like to be a suitable ITN entry - just a list of competition results is not sufficient. I don't know how much can be added for that, however. --MASEM (t) 03:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support Looks like an important competition in the world of music. I believe the article is in adequate shape and decently sourced. Could it be expanded? Probably. But I am not seeing any issues that would bar linking it on the front page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • There are only 103 words in the prose of the article, or about 600b of text. That is nowhere sufficient, even if sourced, for a front page item. We have rejected ITNRs that lack such prose (such as the recent US tennis Open). --MASEM (t) 06:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose on notability.  |Haven't seen this in the press, and while the nom itself mentions the XVIIIth competition, the target article is the XVIIth competition.  I think that speaks volumes. μηδείς (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I am fairly confident that XVIII is a typo. A cursory reading of the XVII article clearly indicates it is the correct one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



siupport different topic and in RS media of note. (pending quality of course)Lihaas (talk) 03:34, 22 October 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.




October 20
[edit]



















    

        
October 20, 2015 (2015-10-20) (Tuesday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks


                
Arts and culture 






                
Disasters and accidents




                
Health and medicine






                
International relations






                
Law and crime






                
Politics and elections






                
Science






                
Sports


  • Lamar Odom, who had been hospitalized in grave condition after ingesting, in a binge, herbal Viagra, alcohol, and other substances in a 3-day, $75,000 stay at a legal brothel in Nevada, comes out of his coma, improves, and is able to have conversations, though he is still on dialysis to deal with the renal damage he suffered. He is released from intensive care and Sunrise Hospital, to a hospital closer to his Los Angeles home. (MSN via Sporting News)






RD: Sir John Scott
[edit]




Article: John Scott (medical researcher) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits: 




Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Decorated medical researcher.  Not a great deal on the subjects of his research, but the subject was a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire and former president of the Royal Society of New Zealand. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have not found any news coverage of Sir John's death (I do find it a bit surprising that it hasn't made the news here in New Zealand, so please say if I'm missing something). Some degree of news coverage is obviously a prerequisite for featuring on In the News. As for whether he was a very significant figure in his field, I don't think a knighthood and the presidency of the Royal Society of New Zealand establish that by themselves. I would want to see an explanation of the significance of his research before deciding whether he meets the threshold. Neljack (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose This fails on quality and RD Notability.  I have seen this nowhere in the news, and the article is basically at stub level, with a one-sentence lead.  If it is greatly improved, ping me and I might say otherwise.  But at this point it is a no. μηδείς (talk) 02:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose While it looks like he did good research, there's no indication that he was at the top of his field. SpencerT♦C 07:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


[Pulled] Remove "2015 Southeast Asian haze" from ongoing?
[edit]


Other than table updates, which is disputed and discussed at Talk:2015 Southeast Asian haze, I do not see any substantial prose updates within last five days about "2015 Southeast Asian haze". And I mean prose. --George Ho (talk) 08:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]




The issue in this case isn't whether or not news stories are still being written about the topic, except tangentially.  The main issue is whether the highlighted Wikipedia article is being continuously updated with appropriate new material.  Directing readers to articles on "ongoing" stories which are not being updated with quality new information on said stories is not keeping in line with the stated mission of ITN. --Jayron32 03:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So it remains severe and lasts all year, is that really something we need to persist on Wikipedia's Ongoing ticker?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

R U asking me to decide? I thought it was based on consensus. Sca (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, definitely not.  Decision has already been made. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Sca (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


October 19
[edit]



















    

        
October 19, 2015 (2015-10-19) (Monday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
Business and economics






                
Disasters and accidents






                
International relations






                
Law and crime






                
Politics and elections






                
Science and technology








[Posted] Swiss federal election, 2015
[edit]








Proposed image


Article: Swiss federal election, 2015 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Swiss People's Party, led by Toni Brunner, retains its plurality in the Swiss National Council.  (Post)
News source(s): Time
Credits: 




Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
 '''tAD''' (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ready the article is well updated, over 5.8kb since the 15th and meets the prose requirements.  The overall outcom,e is clear, even if a few races are not yet called.  The English language press is probably a good 6-24 hours behind the Swiss media. I won't mark this ready yet, in case there's some odd factor that I am unaware of that someone wants to bring up.  But my opinion is an admin should feel free to post it now. μηδείς (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Consider waiting as the composition of the executive could change. (unique system that Switzerland has)Lihaas (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment The update consisted of one sentence to the lead, two about the migrant crisis and a results table. It could do with more campaign issues and/or, at the bare minimum, prose to the body about the result. Fuebaey (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Given this is a new article, what is necessary is three paragraphs of prose with five sources.  This isn't an old article.  The winning plurality is not in doubt. μηδείς (talk) 05:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about your definition of new, but I doubt an article first created back in February 2014 fits that bill. I'm going to oppose based on the quality issues I've outlined above. Fuebaey (talk) 07:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



[Posted] Canadian federal election, 2015
[edit]








Proposed image


Article: Canadian federal election, 2015 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the Canadian federal election, the Liberal Party wins an absolute majority in the House of Commons as Justin Trudeau (pictured) is elected Prime Minister of Canada.  (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Liberal Party, led by Justin Trudeau (pictured), wins the most seats in the Canadian federal election. 
Alternative blurb II: ​ The Liberal Party, led by Justin Trudeau (pictured), wins an absolute majority in the Canadian federal election. 
Credits: 




The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Preemptive nomination for an election of a G7 country. Pretty big deal regardless of whoever wins. No sources given yet since the results haven't come in yet. (They will come in around (9:30pm EST) Aerospeed (Talk) 00:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The blurb should follow our usual form for parliamentary elections - "X, led by Y, wins the most seats in the Canadian federal election" - rather than saying so-and-so is elected PM. The proposed blurb would be particular misleading if - as seems very likely - no party wins an overall majority. Neljack (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]





Support Notable election. The early nomination has the advantage that when the result is known the blurb can be added quickly to the main page. It's good to have something quick on the main page so it looks that WP is verry up-to-date (and there were so less new items the last week.) Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 09:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]




Is support on the merits prohibited? Sca (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Posting support on the merits for an ITNR item contributes nothing to the discussion, since that has already been decided. One can certainly post whatever they wish if they want to put the effort into doing something that isn't needed. 331dot (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



October 18
[edit]



















    

        
October 18, 2015 (2015-10-18) (Sunday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
Arts and culture






                
Business and economy






                
Disasters and accidents 






                
Politics and elections








RD: Gamal El-Ghitani
[edit]




Article: Gamal El-Ghitani (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): International Business Times Associated Press BBC News
Credits: 




Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Award-winning Egyptian author and journalist with international recognition and acclaim. Kudzu1 (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



  • Oppose per Smerdis on quality.  The article hasn't even been updted for tense, given his passing.  It has an entirety of two (2) sources, and as stated, the bibliography is solely in transcibed arabic. μηδείς (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


[Posted] Guinean presidential election, 2015
[edit]








Proposed image


Article: Guinean presidential election, 2015 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Alpha Condé is reelected President of Guinea.  (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, BBC News
Credits: 




Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
 Ali Fazal (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



This election is included in WP:ITN/R, as as such has already satisfied the "importance" criterion to post. If you would like to change that, feel free to post on ITN/R's talk page. Mamyles (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that ITN has absurd criteria for inclusion, and no I dont care to try and change those except by pointing out when they lead to absurd editorial decisions such as for example automaticall posting the reelection of a president of tiny country and the automatic exclusion of a significant act of politically motivated violence in a major nation that has not experienced this kind of event for decades.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with Maunus, the Lukashenko re-election is about as much news as the fact that Generalisimo Francisco Franco is still dead.  But the problem is we'll end up with a stale or empty queue otherwise.  If there were a lot of good nominations, we could argue whether A should push Z off the front page.  At this point we're not looking at the prospect of still-fresh news being eliminated by a less important matter. μηδείς (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being ITNR, even if the article is in good shape, is not a guarantee of posting if consensus thinks that on that specific recurring event, it really isn't as notable as other occurrences. This allows for easy-to-write-and-understand ITNR allowances that can be debated for the exceptional cases (as this one might be). --MASEM (t) 01:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Nothing else has been posted at ITN in the past five days; this is hardly crowding out "stuff that matters", but if you feel that other potential items are being overlooked, please nominate them here at WP:ITN/C. Best, SpencerT♦C 01:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



October 17
[edit]



















    

        
October 17, 2015 (2015-10-17) (Saturday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
Arts and culture






                
Business and economy






                
Disasters and accidents






                
Law and Crime


  • Ardit Ferizi, a 20-year-old hacker from Kosovo and computer student in Malaysia, is arrested for hacking into a Phoenix, Arizona computer system and stealing the names and personal information of thousands of U.S. military personnel. Ferizi is accused of giving the information to ISIS. The U.S. is seeking Ferizi’s extradition. (CNN)
    • 

  • A shooting just before midnight at the ninth annual Fort Myers, Florida, Zombicon kills one person and injures four others, none with life threatening injuries, and causes pandemomium on the city's downtown streets. Police ask attendees to share smartphone video from the incident. (USA Today), (Reuters)





                
International relations






                
Politics and elections








[Closed] RD: Howard Kendall
[edit]






No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]






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









Article: Howard Kendall (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Eurosport BBC UEFA
Credits: 




Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Notable football player and manager throughout his career. George Ho (talk) 07:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The sourcing on this article seems very thin, absent in some sections - the statistics section relies on a sub-only service as a source, or no source at all. In addition - I am not seeing how he meets the bar, for notability or influence - the lead of the article does not do the job of outlining who he was, or what his influence was, aside from a few bullet points in his career, which started young. Challenger l (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose on sourcing / article quality. In particular, the honours section is unreferenced. A two-time manager of the year and national hall of fame member would be arguable for RD. The "manager of the year" award for English football is a bit confusing - the article on this site about manager of the year awards only go back to 1992/93 (LMA Manager of the Year) or 1993/94 (Premier League Manager of the Season). This may have something to do with the restructure in English football around that time (the Premier League clubs broke away from the Football League in 1992). Biographies of various managers (Kendall, Bob Paisley, Bill Shankly) claim that they won "manager of the year" awards before then, but there doesn't seem to be any supporting evidence (either in their articles or in other wiki pages). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support on notability provided that the quality issues are resolved. Just about a support on notability - he was a notable player, famously youthful FA Cup finalist and a significant part of a championship-winning team, but never played at the highest level for England; his fame as a manager rests principally on his first spell at Everton where he a built a team which is one of the best seen in the English game in my living memory. On the point raised above, I think the manager of the year award at the time pretty much went to the league champions' manager regardless, so its probably not a key piece of supporting evidence. But he was certainly regarded as an important figure in the English game, so I'll support the nomination.--Bcp67 (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Weak oppose a sad loss to the British game, and a truly great manager (probably Everton's finest ever) but not quite making it to RD level.  We'd struggle to claim he was at the top of his field when we have contemporaries such as Ferguson and Wenger, and although being Everton's top manager, a couple of league titles, one European trophy and some other bits and pieces don't quite cut it.   Article also needs a lot of referencing work, should consensus be in favour of his notability.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Weak oppose mainly based on sourcing. Clearly known to Everton fans and anybody who watched English football in the 1980s, and gone too soon, but he wasn't as groundbreaking and internationally known as Ferguson, Wenger, Mourinho et al. '''tAD''' (talk) 02:16, 20 October 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] Henriette Reker stabbing
[edit]






SNOW close good faith nomination, but this single act of political violence won't be posted. It might be a reason to keep the migrant situation at Ongoing, but not as a separate blurb. 331dot (talk) 02:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]






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









Article: Henriette Reker (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Henriette Reker, a candidate in Cologne's mayoral race, is stabbed in the neck by a man claiming to be angry over the Germany's refugee policies.  (Post)
News source(s): (BBC), (DW), (The Independent), (Euronews)
Credits: 



 An independent candidate for mayor of the German city of Cologne, who is supported by Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU party, has been stabbed by a man while campaigning in the city. Henriette Reker and an aide were seriously injured. Mrs. Reker is in a critical condition. Three other people were injured when they intervened to help. Police say they arrested a 44-year-old man, who said he was motivated by Reker’s support for refugees. Reker is also backed by the FDP and Greens, and has been involved in supporting and helping house refugees in the city. The election takes place on Sunday. (Euronews) Jenda H. (talk) 18:31, 17 October 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.




October 16
[edit]



















    

        
October 16, 2015 (2015-10-16) (Friday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
Arts and culture


                
Disasters and accidents


                
International relations


                
Law and crime






                
Politics and elections








[Closed] RD: Mikhail Burtsev
[edit]






No consensus to post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]






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









Article: Mikhail Burtsev (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): TASS obituary
Credits: 




Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: RD blurb says he's a six time world champion in fencing (saber).  Olympic career of two golds, two silvers from 1976 to 1988. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]





How does the passage of time detract from the multiple medals he won? 331dot (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't, but I think it makes it less likely that today he would be "widely regarded as a very important figure in his field." (But that's just a thought, hence a comment.) Sca (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; thanks 331dot (talk) 16:05, 17 October 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.




October 15
[edit]



















    

        
October 15, 2015 (2015-10-15) (Thursday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
Arts and culture






                
Business and economy






                
International relations


  • Vietnam says a Chinese vessel rammed into and sank one of its fishing boats near disputed islands in the South China Sea. More than 20 Vietnamese fishing boats have been attacked by Chinese vessels this year causing tensions between both countries. (AP via Yahoo)





                
Disasters and accidents






                
Law and crime






                
Politics and elections






                
Science


  • Astronomers say they have observed bizarre light patterns using the Kepler Space Telescope from a star that appears old, but is shrouded in debris like a much younger star, roughly 1,500 light-years away. This has led to speculation that these are an "artificial extraterrestrial mega-structure", orbiting the star known as KIC 8462852 in the Cygnus constellation. KIC 8462852 lies just above the Milky Way between the constellations Cygnus and Lyra. It first attracted the attention of astronomers in 2009 when the Kepler Space Telescope identified it as a candidate for having orbiting Earth-like planets. (Independent) (Discovery News)





                
Sports








[Posted] RD: Kenneth D. Taylor
[edit]




Article: Kenneth D. Taylor (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News Los Angeles Times Sydney Morning Herald The Atlantic
Credits: 




Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: The Canadian ambassador to Iran during the 1979 Iran hostage crisis who helped six American envoys escape in the "Canadian Caper" operation. Bloom6132 (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]





  • Arguably the hostage rescue was not a single "event" - as sources suggest, it took some time of planning with Taylor's help to figure out how to do it and enact it. Add that he was also an ambassador from one country to another, which is not something to sneeze at by itself (it's not a line for automatic notability/importance but it is a position that requires some degree of recognition) --MASEM (t) 15:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]




  • Roughly 200 squared at any current time. Which is why I said it wasn't an automatic pass at notability or importance, but it is an additional bit of merit that clearly doesn't make the person a BLP1E problem. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]




  • Alone, no, of course not. Just being an ambassador doesn't even assure meeting notability here. The reason this person's being nominated is because of his role in freeing the Iran hostages, major even of the late 20th century. The point about noting that he was an ambassador is that WP:BLP1E would not apply here even if you took the hostage crisis as a "single" event, because beyond being involved in that, he was also an ambassador. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]




  • Support on article improvements: While there is an unsourced paragraph, it is about the history of the Iran hostage situation and is not controversial. That said, I feel this articles doesn't do a sufficient job at explaining Taylor's role in the rescue, and the fact there is more about Argo than the actual event is a weakness to this article.  I recognize we have other articles that cover the rescue effort in full but more can definitely be brought into this one. --MASEM (t) 05:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose like Abductive, this appears that he's notable for just one event, indeed there are probably hundreds if not thousands of people who have done similar things, who just don't get the publicity via Hollywood.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



  • Support as meeting DC2.  A notable historic figure and important to his field(ambassadors). Article does need improvement as stated but not many ambassadors become notable in the way he did. Death being covered in many places. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support notable historic figure. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support An ambassadorship alone isn't RD material, but his role in the Iranian hostage crisis demonstrates his significant importance in his field of ambassadoring. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose: There's very little about the person or his career. The lead and main body of the article is about the hostage event, but that section is mostly about the films, not the person, and reads like a movie review. And what's not about the films, includes contradictory statements such as "CIA organized the rescue" and "let Taylor take the credit for political purposes." But as a bio it's missing too much. --Light show (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose. What he did made no real difference at all. Suppose he hadn't been there: Then there would have been 58 hostages instead of 52. The course of history would not have been altered. Abductive (reasoning) 01:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Ask the six people who got out if it made a real difference. Aside from the personal aspect, it greatly solidified US-Canada relations. 331dot (talk) 02:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And harmed Canada–Iran relations. They didn't talk for years afterwards. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but either way, he was notable as an ambassador for his role. 331dot (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]






October 14
[edit]



















    

        
October 14, 2015 (2015-10-14) (Wednesday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
Arts and culture






                
Disasters and accidents






                
Politics and elections






                
Sports






                
Business and economics








[Closed] Ongoing? Intifada 3.0
[edit]






No consensus to post.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]






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









Article: Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Since Rosh Hashanah, clashes between Palestinians and Israeli security forces and settlers has been ongoing almost daily.  (Post)
News source(s): RTRT2 From Sept: Israel national newsIsrael national news2
Credits: 




Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Surprised it hasn't been nominated here, but the practicall y daily stabbings and counter violence (Arson, etc) are a big escalation in a region about to blow (it has, I would say?). Lihaas (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


That AFD is going to close as the article has had a massive revamp since that was created (could be speedy close as we're notw working towards resolution). At any rate, its not going to end before the 7 days are up (if it does then we can close it)...I the interim we can discuss the merits of it and see if its worth posting to ITN when ready.Lihaas (talk) 02:50, 16 October 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.




[Posted] RD: Mathieu Kérékou
[edit]




Article: Mathieu Kérékou (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Bloomberg Le Monde Globo
Credits: 




Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Former Beninese president known as one of few African dictators to leave office and then later be elected by popular vote. Death is receiving international attention, as the sources show. Kudzu1 (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Sources seem all right. George Ho (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



October 13
[edit]



















    

        
October 13, 2015 (2015-10-13) (Tuesday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
Arts and culture






                
Disasters and accidents






                
Business and economics






                
International relations







                
Politics and elections






                
Sports








2015 Man Booker Prize
[edit]




Article: 2015 Man Booker Prize (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A Brief History of Seven Killings by Marlon James wins the 2015 Man Booker Prize.  (Post)
News source(s): New York Times BBC
Credits: 




Article needs updating
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: ITN/R award. Andise1 (talk) 04:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



[Posted] AB InBev and SABMiller
[edit]






Not the location for unproductive personal attacks.  Please carry on such discussions elsewhere.  --Jayron32 15:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]






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









Articles: Anheuser-Busch InBev (talk · history · tag) and SABMiller (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Anheuser-Busch InBev agrees to purchase SABMiller for £68 billion ($104 billion).  (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian BBC Wall Street Journal
Credits: 




Both articles updated
Nominator's comments: If this goes through it would create the world's largest brewer, with a 30 percent market share. There are some regulatory hurdles to clear, but better to post now while it's actually news. Calidum 12:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


As the op said there are regulatory issues. with nearly 50% of the industry's profits the monopoly regulatubions which are harder in Europe are a strong factor.Lihaas (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Weak Support Both major players in the beer industry. While the articles aren't in poor shape in terms of sourcing, I think a bit of help to clean them up and flesh out a few places where non-contentious statements are made to add additional sources (eg the international activities for each brewer) --MASEM (t) 13:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support A big deal. The size of the acquisition is reason enough for me to support this. Banedon (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support. Not usually one for business stories but the figure is quite significant—that's a lot of money for watery beer. GRAPPLE X 14:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose yet another mere corporate consolidation.  Some bottling plants will close, there will be buy-outs and early retirements.  They won't be bringing back Zima. We should feature mergers that promise some sort of innovative synergy, not just downsizing of middle management. μηδείς (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support – This isn't just any old corporate merger, it's the world's two biggest megabuck purveyors of panther p---. Sca (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support - Though a merger would still never convince me to drink any of their swill.--WaltCip (talk)


Stella on tap is not bad if you're in Fosters on tap country...bloody rip off though ;)Lihaas (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]








This back-and-forth sniping is ALSO not a !vote.  --Jayron32 15:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]




The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.





















  • Insufficient update, apparently.--WaltCip (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • As noted numerous times in this forum, and in the rules, the purpose of ITN is to highlight quality Wikipedia content.  If the articles in question don't have quality updates (or the articles themselves have major issues) then we don't post.  It has nothing to do with anything else.  That is the first, last, and only reason why this has not yet been posted, and will continue to be the first, last, and only reason why it will not be posted, up until someone fixes it.  If you want it posted, you're the person most responsible for fixing the problem, and then demonstrating to us it is fixed, so we know it's time to post.  "But MOM, Jimmy gets to stay up late tonight!  Why don't I get to stay up late!" doesn't really apply here as an argument type for posting.  That another article was posted has no relation to why this one has not been.  If you want this one posted, fix it and then let us know you fixed it. --Jayron32 15:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


No need to condescend. I wasn't aware the article was substandard. Sca (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jayron, hopefully WaltCip will now have more of a clue.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully TRM will make his positions more clear.--WaltCip (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've already asked you to go and do something more useful than this, please consider that carefully and try improving something rather than just being a pest.  P.S. If you don't understand " I'm not seeing sufficient updates in both bold articles for this to be posted." then there's no hope for you I'm afraid.  Go and pester someone else who cares about your odd opinions. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support This is literally a big deal.  The state of the articles is a minor consideration because people will be reading them regardless.  What matters is the content which we have on the main page. Andrew D. (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Incorrect.  Articles have to be quality and their update has to be sufficient.  If you wish to ignore that, or propose a different set of criteria for ITN, please do so, but in the meantime you assertion is completely erroneous.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I am well aware of your view but do not share it.  We should be encouraging readers to pitch in rather than giving them the false impression that our topics are always polished and presentable. Andrew D. (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Then please advocate a change to the criterion which states we should be promoting "quality" articles to the main page.  Otherwise your vote(s) are in direct violation of the criteria, and are therefore pointless. Of course, you can stick to DYK if that's your approach, most of the stuff there is far from polished or presentable, seems a perfect playground for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Per WP:IAR, it is a core principle of Wikipedia that we use common sense rather than formal rules.  WP:NOTLAW tells us that policy follows actual practice.  The place to get changes made is therefore in the front line or coal face where the detailed decisions are made.  The key argument in this case is that, having just posted one big deal, it would be inconsistent not to post an even bigger deal.  The state of the various articles is a comparatively minor consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 07:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, very good, it's so easy to IAR.  If you want to continue to advocate posting poor quality items to ITN then please address it correctly by raising an RFC against the extant criteria.  Or stick to DYK.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If you don't like IAR, then you can take it up with Jimbo.  In the meantime, the articles in question have been posted even though they still have ITN banner tags.  That's good enough for me so I'm moving on.  I now see another interesting item in the news and will indeed promote it via DYK which doesn't have this silly voting process.  Andrew D. (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, go for it!!  That's a brilliant idea, keep focused on good old DYKs. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you quite through with your badgering, good sir? And apparently I'm the pest.--WaltCip (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Update – OK, added three grafs of detail re market shares, brands. Others are welcome to pitch in! Sca (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Also CXd prospective U.S. market share. Sca (talk) 23:55, 14 October 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] Malaysia Airlines Flight 17
[edit]






No consensus to post: I think we can safely say we are not gong to reach agreement on this one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]






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









Article: Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Dutch Safety Board releases their final report into the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 disaster that concludes that the flight was shot-down by a Russian-made Buk missile system in July 2014.  (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Dutch Safety Board releases their final report into the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 disaster. 
News source(s): (Sky News) (BBC) (Al Jazeera) (9News)
Credits: 




Article updated
Nominator's comments: We need a disaster-related event. ༆ (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


True, but mention the controversiy from the other side as notable and NPOV.Lihaas (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The other side? Like the egregious destruction of a precious Russian missile, that was minding its own business in mid-air, by a reckless Malaysian Airlines pilot? GRAPPLE X 09:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


There is no need to do that, per WP:DUE and WP:GEVAL. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



The report makes no finding of fault; it only says a Russian missile was responsible(which we already knew), and both sides in the conflict have such missiles. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment The report seems to reveal other findings of, at least, equal significance as the country of origin of the missile (five key findings reported here). Shall we not post a blurb documenting that the final report was published with no indication to a specific finding if this gets consensus for posting?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


It's the putative smoking gun. Have you noticed how the Russians are doing everything they can to discredit it? Sca (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but here we deal with news and facts. It's not our job to judge what the Russians or Ukrainians do.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kiril, please note that I said putative, not proven. Anyhow, to some extent it's ITN's job to reflect media coverage.


Alas, this story is another that's fast becoming a stale fish. Sca (talk) 14:34, 15 October 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.




October 12
[edit]



















    

        
October 12, 2015 (2015-10-12) (Monday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
Business and economics


                
International relations






                
Law and crime






                
Politics and elections


                
Science








[Closed] Playboy discontinues full nudity
[edit]






Closed with consensus against posting (13 oppose, 7 support, 1 wait). RD for Playboy Centerfold, as suggested by Medeis, is certainly tempting, though. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]






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









Article: Playboy (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ American men's magazine Playboy announces plans to discontinue featuring full nudity starting from March 2016 issue.  (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, New York Times, Boston Globe
Credits: 




Article updated
Nominator's comments: Not the end of the world, but looks like the first such a decision in the magazine's 62-year history. This is what happens when you try to compete with free web porn. Brandmeistertalk   09:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Try centuries. Sca (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Millennia GRAPPLE X 15:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but they were a big part of its recent history. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose. Even if this were of enough significance to post, which I don't feel that it is (Playboy was always a mix of pictures and articles anyway or so I hear; get back to me when Brazzers goes fully-clothed), this is a pretty premature story given that it's not due to happen for at least five months. GRAPPLE X 11:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]










per request of both disputants, I'm closing this --Jayron32 18:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]




The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.






    • The most well known brand in an industry(essentially creating it) having decided to get out of the industry is a triviality?  If GM decided to stop making cars or Microsoft decided to stop making operating systems, would that be trivial? 331dot (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      • Bad examples, and as Grapple X notes, Playboy has always been more than just a bunch of pictures of naked girls, and this is an announcement, not the actual event.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

        • So you read it for the articles, huh?  You and I both know this will not be news when the first non-nude issue is released; ITN is stacked against business stories(announcements are not posted because they are announcements but the actual event is almost always in the news less). 331dot (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

          • Sorry 331dot, but this isn't really that interesting at all.  And may well not happen.  So I'm afraid I'm not interested in continuing this discussion.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

            • Have it your way, and I seek no further reply from you if that is what you wish, but "not interesting" is a poor argument. 331dot (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

              • You linked to arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion, not arguments to avoid at ITN.  If an item is not interesting, and not actually happening, it shouldn't be considered for ITN.  Period.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

                • A poor argument is a poor argument wherever it is made.  Everything is not interesting to someone. Please provide sources which even just speculate this will not happen. 331dot (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

                  • I think you're entirely missing the point.  If something is not interesting, not happening, not particularly newsworthy for a global encyclopedia, it shouldn't be at ITN.  Now please stop badgering the opposers, you've made your point, we've made ours.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

                    • I am not 'badgering' anyone; simply responding to poor arguments, as you do all the time.  I am not forcing you to reply(and specifically state you didn't have to above); it is factually incorrect that this is "not happening"(again, please provide sources).  I don't think I'm the one missing the point. But to each their own. 331dot (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

                      • Please stop badgering me, and unless you have a crystal ball, I suggest you wait until this does happen, then we can go through this whole sorry saga one more time, once again declaring it to be trivial, of no real significance, of no real interest and of no long-term impact on anything anywhere.  We all get it that you support it, you can now stop responding to each and every person who disagrees with you.   The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                        • 

                      • "Interest" is a completely different animal for ITN than it is for the site as a whole. If we posted everything someone felt was "interesting" at ITN, we'd clog up the ticker every time Kate Middleton farted. A significant portion of why these nominations are discussed like this is gauge a consensus on what is merely interesting versus what is noteworthy. GRAPPLE X 14:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

                        • But by the same token, we shouldn't not post something because some find it "not interesting". Everything is not interesting to someone.  If people want to argue this isn't a big industry, or some other actual argument, fine- but "not interesting" is a poor argument in and of itself, just as "interesting" is.  I just think we need to keep in mind what the actual purpose of ITN is here and this is one occasion where we are taking our eye off the ball. I appreciate your constructive comment. 331dot (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]








But is this history wie es eigentlich gewesen ist?? Sca (talk) 16:16, 13 October 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.




[Posted] Dell acquires EMC
[edit]








Proposed image


Article: EMC Corporation (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Dell Inc. announces acquisition of EMC Corporation (logo pictured) for US$67 billion.  (Post)
News source(s): NY Times BBC
Credits: 




Article updated
Nominator's comments: Why the hell not? Highly publicized, but I'm nominating this as filler. George Ho (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Nepal PM
[edit]




Article: Khadga Prasad Oli (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Khadga Prasad Oli is elected prime minister of Nepal following the enactment of a controversial constitution.  (Post)
News source(s): First Post
Credits: 




Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Not sure if this is ITNR as its not a popular election nor that of head of state. Nevertheless, the controversial constitution and a pm that is not "interim" following the civil war and removal of the monarchy is notable in that it is far from everyday. Lihaas (talk) 00:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it should be considered ITN/R, but I have zero background on what's happening in Nepali politics, so I don't understand why there isn't an election article if Mr Oli was elected. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • From what I am reading, it looks like the President has the seat of power, the PM someone that is elected by the legislative branch (not a public election) to serve under the President. So that might not be equivalent to, say, PM for England.  But someone with more expertise in this area should comment. --MASEM (t) 06:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      • Sounds like the French system then, where there's a democratic president and an appointed prime minister; we would cover the election of Francois Hollande but not Manuel Valls. GRAPPLE X 09:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Just a heads up: The PM was elected popularly. This is unusual under the circumstance as the constituent assemtnbly was elected and the constitution just passed after about 3-4 years and hence this PM was ot popularly elected. He's not an "interim" PM presiding over the constitutional dsicussions for the first time since the end of the monarchy/civil war/constitutional convention. (as a note, the only Hindu country in the world now has a communist PM too which is notable a move away from religious grounding (India has been constitutionally secular since 1947))Lihaas (talk) 11:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our articles say he was elected by a parliamentary vote, not popular, which is why it is confusing. The President is definitely a public vote, but doesn't look like the PM is. --MASEM (t) 13:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, he was elected this way but the position is same as a parliamentary system. THATS why I queried it.Lihaas (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]




[Posted] Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences
[edit]




Article: Angus Deaton (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Angus Deaton is awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences for his analysis of consumption, poverty, and welfare.  (Post)
News source(s): (The Guardian), (The Washington Journal)
Credits: 



 Jenda H. (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



The term "Nobel Prize" is by far the most widely used in reliable sources and it is the term that most ordinary readers use. See WP:COMMONNAME. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


It also is a Nobel Prize, and is awarded under the auspices of, and fully equal to the other prizes awarded by, the Nobel Foundation, at least according to their official website: [13]  The only way it differs is chronologically (being created later than the other five) and in official name (largely due to the first difference).  Otherwise, however, it is not "unofficial" nor "lesser" nor "not a Nobel Prize".  It is officially, fully, and completely equally a Nobel Prize as much as Peace and Chemistry and all the rest.  The fact that the formulation of the official name is slightly different than the earlier created prizes is an inconsequential difference, and as reliable sources report it using the "Nobel Prize in Economics" formulation, we do that as well.  --Jayron32 00:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I think it's either called "Nobel Prize in Economics" or "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences".  The former, as noted by Jayron, seems preferable here. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the latter is preferable, as the former is incorrect. Fgf10 (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it depends if you use common name or not.  Certainly the former is used by reliable sources.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the names in this nomination to raise an eyebrow I thought it would be another one. GRAPPLE X 09:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



The sourcing seems fine, but I have hidden what look like remarks about poverty that are actually remarks about wellbeing, which is referenced.  In any case, I

Support the current posting as is. μηδείς (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • I just now went through and removed and/or cn'ed, any uncited stuff.  There really wasn't much.  There were 2 uncited paragraphs that were in the entire article.  One I removed as it was beyond rescue, the other I added a cn tag because it seems easily fixable.  Otherwise, I can't find anything which should keep it off the main page.  It's short, but not unreasonably so, and reasonably well sourced.  --Jayron32 20:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Ach! See above. μηδείς (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


[Posted] Belarusian presidential election
[edit]




Articles: Belarusian presidential election, 2015 (talk · history · tag) and Alexander Lukashenko (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Alexander Lukashenko is re-elected for a fifth term in the Belarusian presidential election.  (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits: 




Article updated
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Simply put: fifth term for another five years. Needs an update. Brandmeistertalk   08:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



October 11
[edit]



















    

        
October 11, 2015 (2015-10-11) (Sunday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
International relations


                
Law and crime






                
Politics and elections






                
Sport








[Posted] RD: Richard F. Heck
[edit]




Article: Richard F. Heck (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits: 




Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Nobel Prize winning chemist. Article in good enough condition. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I think there's a few paragraphs that could have a few more sources but they're far from controversial claims. But Nobel-winning person is definitely RD material. --MASEM (t) 05:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support Heck was clearly a notable chemist whose discovery presents a stepping point towards future research. He was also awarded with Nobel Prize in Chemistry.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support - clearly notable enough for mention at RD,--BabbaQ (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support with a minor quibble – The first para under 'Palladium-catalyzed coupling reactions' section is unsourced. —Vensatry  (ping)  14:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Simply winning a Nobel Prize in and of itself has never been considered sufficient reason for posting at RD, and neither does "clearly notable enough for mention at RD" explain why the nominee actually is clearly notable enough for mention at RD.  The Heck reaction is apparently quite important, but from reading our article on it, only the synthesis of Naproxen stands out as an example.  It would be helpful if we had some sort of mention of important compounds that can now be synthesized due to the Heck reaction.  Otherwise we are simply left with an article that says he won a prize for doing some thing in chemistry. μηδείς (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • 

  • Support I don't think anyone can question that a Nobel winner is important to their field. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]




The issue of does a Nobel mean an automatic listing at RD was discussed at length at the time of the death and posting (soon after RD was instituted in late 2012) of Rita Levi-Montalcini who was a Nobelist, but also accomplished on other fronts.  The consensus was that a Nobel alone didn't merit posting at RD.


Of course I am not saying that a Nobel is unimportant, or that Heck is not important.  But the problem is as I stated; at least Heck or Heck Reaction should make clear to the reader the actual concrete impact of his work.  Something like, the Heck Reaction made possible these classes of compounds, which include such important medicines as Naproxen, and several other examples.  In other words, if ""It's not winning the Nobel, it's the work that won them the Nobel", then what was the concrete result of that work?  At this point, we really aren't telling the readership much beyond he got the Nobel along with a few others for inventing some mysterious process with a very expensive metal. μηδείς (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Weak oppose - Medais had me good this time. Whilst a Nobel Prize winner is honorably mentioned, quality while improving is left to be desired. Also, we cannot know how much work he has done that earned him the Prize. George Ho (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks, although at this point my oppose is really technical.  With a real update of five sentences with three sources saying what his palladium process has actually made possible, my assumption is that I would support this.  When I took Organic Chem in the 80's he was not even mentioned, and we certainly never used palladium as a catalyst in lab.  But I was a bio and philosophy major.  So I am hoping we have a chemist who can give some lay-friendly information on what sorts of modern compounds we can attribute to his innovation.  I suspect Naproxen is just a toe dipped in the swimming pool. μηδείς (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the Heck reaction is an intermediate - an important one but not a final one -  in making complicated organic molecules, so we're primarily talking in areas of things like drug synthesis or the like. It is not like, say, the Haber process for making a commodity chemical like ammonia; it is a specialized reaction that is made for speciality chemicals so you're not likely going to find a good example.


What is important about it is that it allows for highly selective addition of one type of hydrocarbon to an existing one at a very specific site. Normally such additions are not very selective which means you have to spend extra time and resources to purify your end product. While Heck reactions are not 100% selective, they are tons better than alternatives, assuring a reasonable yield for a desired product, which helps to reduce costs of chemical processing at large scale. Very importantly where one can possibly make cis or trans products (which when you talk interactions with the human body can make a huge difference), the Heck mechanism favors trans over cis. --MASEM (t) 05:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



October 10
[edit]



















    

        
October 10, 2015 (2015-10-10) (Saturday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
Disasters and accidents






                
International relations


                
Politics and elections






                
Sport








[Withdrawn] RD: Manorama (Tamil actress)
[edit]






Withdrawn by nominator. 331dot (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]






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









Article: Manorama (Tamil actress) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, The Hindu, The Economic Times
Credits: 




Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: A legendary actress in Tamil cinema. Made into the Guinness World Records when she completed 1,000 films —Vensatry  (ping)  07:27, 11 October 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.




[Posted] 2015 Ankara bombings
[edit]




Article: 2015 Ankara bombings (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 80 people are killed and more than 180 injured in twin bombings at a peace rally in Ankara, Turkey.  (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits: 



 The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



[Closed] Landslide in Guatemala
[edit]






Already posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]






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









Article: 2015 Guatemala landslide (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  A landslide in Guatemala triggered by heavy rainfall has killed at least 253 people and left 386 others missing.  (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A landslide in Guatemala triggered by heavy rainfall has killed at least 253 people and left several hundred others missing. 
News source(s): Yahoo! News
Credits: 




Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: High death count Decentman12 (talk) 10:31, 10 October 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.




October 9
[edit]



















    

        
October 9, 2015 (2015-10-09) (Friday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks 






                
Disasters and accidents






                
International relations






                
Law and crime






                
Politics and elections


  • European migrant crisis

    • The southern German state of Bavaria threatens to take the Federal German government to court if it fails to take immediate steps to limit the flow of migrants to Germany. Over 200,000 migrants are estimated to have entered Germany since the beginning of September, the vast majority over the Austrian border into Bavaria. (Reuters)






[Posted]  RD: Geoffrey Howe
[edit]




Article: Geoffrey Howe (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits: 




Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: British politician, former Chancellor of the Exchequer and Foreign Secretary. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I supported Denis Healey, but that was because for much of the 1970s he was effectively co-PM owing to Harold Wilson's drinking and Alzheimer's. Howe wasn't in the same league; the important Chancellor of the Thatcher era was Nigel Lawson, while his time as Foreign Secretary included nothing memorable, given Thatcher's habit of going over his head and dealing with the important negotiations with Reagan, Gorbachev and the EEC/EC directly. ‑ iridescent 16:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support. While for sure not as charismatic as Denis Healey, Howe's time as shadow-chancellor and then chancellor for Thatcher was nevertheless highly significant, in particular the outright rejection of Keynesian demand management which had been the economic orthodoxy in the UK since the 1940s.  Howe was Thatcher's right hand in this, against the considerable protestations of more traditionally-minded elements in her party.  In particular, the decision in his 1981 budget to squeeze the economy hard even at the very lowest depths of recession, following two years of uncompromisingly high interest rates, has since been estimated to have added an extra 1 million to unemployment, over and beyond what would have achieved the falling inflation profile they were looking for.  Had it not been for the Falklands War, this would have been the defining feature of a one-term Thatcher premiership, and it is likely she would not have been re-elected in 1983.  Some of Lawson's later actions may have had more sparkle, but it was Howe's term as Chancellor that set the economic tone for the Thatcher administration -- a radical break with what had gone before.  Jheald (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose Was a strategically significant person to Thatcher's government, but one that has not managed to keep his legacy in the public spotlight. It may have received a good amount of media attention, but he isn't important enough to be on RD unfortunately. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 17:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Weak oppose: Not as significant as Healey, who was a borderline case anyway, per the comments above. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Strong oppose No accomplishments that I see beyond being a Thatcher lieutenant. Not RD material. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • It seems a strange thing to put a tv chef on RD, or perhaps a bodyguard, ahead of a finance minister whose decisions had a real and direct effect on millions of people's lives -- and arguably still do, given the UK's stubbornly high rate of unemployment ever since.  Jheald (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      • Another case of a clear ignorance over the achievements of the person in question.  Bring on the college basketball coaches.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

        • The chef had impact in bringing his cuisine to popularity. The lackey was a lackey. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

          • Wow, when I said "ignorant" I thought I was being generous.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

            • Dismissing Howe as a lackey fails to understand the history, or really even the UK political system.  Thatcher's position before 1983 was far from secure -- she needed to keep her party following her.  Having a like-minded chancellor, who had been one of the major architects of the party's new economic agenda, was critical to her political stability in that period.  And it was very much Howe that was leading on the economic policy detail -- even Thatcher was surprised by how far his 1979 budget went.  "Very well, but on your head be it" was her response.  As well as huge shifts in taxation, the bonfire of economic controls in that budget, and in particular at a single stroke the complete abolition of exchange controls, was essentially the step that paved the path to today's globalised control-free neoliberal financial reality (especially when later taken up across the whole of Europe as part of the 1986 agreement for the single market, for which Howe, by then Foreign Secretary, was a lead UK negotiator).  Howe's style was very low-key, but he was no lackey.  Jheald (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • 

          • Muboshgu, do you realise that the man you are describing as one of Thatcher's lackeys actually precipitated her demise as Prime Minister? Neljack (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • 

  • Oppose. He's really best remembered for his resignation speech, which helped bring about Thatcher's downfall. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose – Significance seems largely limited to UK politics. Sca (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • 

  • Support. The criteria for RD is being top of one's field. While Howe never had the top job, dismissing him because of that is to seriously misunderstand UK politics. Chancellors of the exchequer have almost absolute control over the purse strings of the entire government and, as explained above far more eloquently than I could, Howe had a very significant impact during his time in the role. He absolutely was top of his field - and politics in the United Kingdom is no small field. Thryduulf (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support.  Reading the page, he seems important to UK politics in several ways. 331dot (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose - His resignation was part of British politics, but his role wasn't mostly foreign. His duty as "Deputy Prime Minister" lasted one year until resignation. I don't see his any other major accomplishments as "Deputy Prime Minister", but he would have been "Prime Minister" if Thatcher resigned beforehand or was brave enough to fight for poll taxes. George Ho (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Weak Oppose Oppose for not necessarily being the top of his field, but "weak" because of decent article quality. SpencerT♦C 04:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Weak Oppose I do agree that Howe does meet the standards for notability (awhile ago we posted a Lebanese singer who no one heard of) but the article needs more sourcing. Support' --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support Andrew Rawnsley sums up Howe's importance best: "He was both the author of much of what became known as Thatcherism and the man who played the biggest part in bringing her down."[16] If that doesn't make him someone who had a "significant impact" on Britain (per Death Criterion #2), then I don't know what is required. Neljack (talk) 05:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support Unless there's a rule that only Prime Ministers are allowed on RD, then Howe surely qualifies.  Thatcher's longest serving cabinet minister, held several extremely important roles - I find it hard to think of a more significant figure in British politics who wasn't PM. 146.198.45.110 (talk) 09:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support for RD.  Very senior politician in UK for long period.  Endorse comments by Jheald, Thryduulf and Neljack.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support. Geoffrey Howe is credited as the man who brought down Margaret Thatcher, he has a substantial and lasting political legacy. Actually we should probably have a blurb noting the deaths, in the same week, of Howe and Denis Healey, two of the elder statesmen of British politics. Guy (Help!) 10:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support One of the most important Tory politicians of the second half of the 20th century.--The Traditionalist (talk) 11:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Posted BencherliteTalk 21:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



  • Pull - Telling from the arguments, I don't see consensus agreeing to post the guy's name to RD. And I haven't seen a rationale for posting his name. --George Ho (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • @George Ho: You mean you haven't seen any rationale other than all the comments above explaining how he meets two RD criteria (1 - he had a significant impact on the United Kingdom; 2 - he was at the top of his field) when only one is required? Have you actually read anything other than the bolded words? Thryduulf (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I read them all. Supporters said that he was significant to UK politics due to his role as Secretary of State and short-lived Deputy Prime Minister and his resignation under protest against Thatcher, making him important. However, major statements are unsourced. I see other opposition saying that he is not on top of field or not important enough. George Ho (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



I sympathise with this opinion. We seem to be heading towards a situation where anybody who holds one of the Great Offices of State in the UK (PM, Chancellor, Foreign Sec and Home Sec) is posted on RD - that's four people at any one time. Meanwhile, Speakers of the House in the US, which is arguably the second most powerful position (constitutionally third) are not being posted. That is totally out of whack when you consider the relative power of the US compared to UK. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo, but the Brits run this place. 17:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Funniest thing I read all day, bring on the next college basketball coach!  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Post-posting support - You know, I wasn't going to get involved in this, but the absolutely ludicrous arguments in some of the oppose votes made me change my mind. Ignorance is not a reason to oppose, but it seems like this is being forgotten on a regular basis. Also, some users, and I won't name names seem to have a personal vendetta against British RD nominations, which are pretty rare to start with anyway. Fgf10 (talk) 07:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


What makes you determine that they have personal vendetta against UK politics? Did they argue the sources and article quality well, or did they trivially mention them without depth? George Ho (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


His accomplishments have been summed up as "a powerful PM was already on her way out and this guy gave a resignation speech that might or might not have had anything to do with her continuing downfall". And Speakers of the House, who dictate what bills become law in the U.S., is "parochial". Seriously. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



That isn't wheel warring. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you have a doctrine to follow without thought once again; not interested.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, whatever that means. But it's not wheel warring. I've helpfully linked that page for you in case you'd like to read it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, there are several pages about common sense and not being a dick, but I guess you're more than familiar with those.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean, but if random outbursts of boorishness make you feel better about being wrong, who am I to judge? --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I saw a statement that the article was full of CN tags and an orange tag, which Muboshgu placed on the page themselves. This arguably could be a valid tactic to pull an ITN they disagreed with, but in assuming good faith I reviewed the article before Muboshgu's CN/Orange tag edits, and it was in terrible shape, and that was a point that none of the above !votes really focused on; Muboshgu's concerns were legit. Items linked from the front page can't be in that bad of a shape, particularly BLP, so the one-time pull (and secondary followup to restore the last RD per Kudzu1) was reasonable. Jheald got it in shape, so that issue is resolved. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Re-post. Pulling this was a bad idea, both on the merits of the posting, and also because the nature of this page is that at some point we need to make decisions and stick with them. ITN is unlike almost every other page on wiki because the content is temporary by definition, so it doesn't make sense to have days of back-and-forth decision-changing on routine RD postings. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Posting/pulling cycles based on anything beyond sourcing is an issue, that I agree with; sometimes we do post the wrong ITN thing and we need to live with that decision. But this was about sourcing pure and simple, it clearly failed BLP policy at the state it was pulled, and not in a manner that one or two inlines would fix.  That's unacceptable for a front page item. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    

    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


@Masem:.  I think I've dealt with all the {{cn}} tags now.  Nothing very controversial -- all found pretty unanimously in all the major obituaries. The Independent one might even have taken a look at our article before filing -- though now of course it'll look like the other way round :-)  So I hope that now clears that up. Jheald (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    • Yes, the improvements in sourcing clear out the obvious problems that were there when I pulled. No reason to reconsider pulling on the sourcing aspect alone. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support - He was certainly a highly influential politician and diplomat. We're making the threshold too high for politicians, and too low for sportspeople and entertainers who, no matter how well known, make far less impact on history and society than policymakers. -Zanhe (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • 'Keep pulled. This isn't a memorial page for British politicians. Calidum 04:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I mistakenly assumed it was pulled out. --George Ho (talk) 04:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


[Closed] RD Jerry Parr
[edit]






Close good faith nom. It's obvious where the trend is going here. μηδείς (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]






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









Article: Jerry Parr (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
Credits: 




Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Jerry Parr was one of two Secret Service agents whose heroism and split second reactions saved the life of President Ronald Reagan on March 30 1981. In the bodyguard profession you don't get more important than that. Nominating per ITNDC #2. The article needs improvement in sourcing which I will work on. Ad Orientem (talk) 06:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose - I don't really see his actions that day as some extraordinary achievement. He reacted well, and he did his job, but Secret Service agents are largely a faceless, interchangeable group, and I suspect any number of them would have gotten the job done if they were in Parr's place. Heroism aside - and he certainly was a hero on that day - he was more of a minor figure within the larger event. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


It is also worth noting that Parr was not just any agent. He rose through the ranks to become the head of both the Vice-Presidential and then the Presidential protection details. Before retiring he had gained the rank of Assistant Director of the Secret Service. I'm not sure what more one can do to be considered important in that field. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support.  Seems to meet DC2 as important to his field(policemen/SS agents).  331dot (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose The dexterity of his reaction to help Ronald Reagan survive is perhaps a great act of humanity but definitely not sufficient to make him notable in his field as noted above. There are people in the world who saved hundreds or even thousands of lives and deserve much more credit than someone who used to save a single life. I've also noticed that the highest rank he achieved in his entire career was Assistant Director of Protective Research, which is relatively low in the hierarchy of the United States Secret Service. Finally, his obituary doesn't seem to appear on the front page of the media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


One action can make someone important, as his honors would seem to indicate.  One does not have to be highly ranked to be important(many low-ranked people received a Medal of Honor, for example). Other things exist; if there are people who have saved hundreds of lives who meet the RD criteria, I await their nomination. 331dot (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose Per Bongwarrior/Kiril - performing one heroic act is not necessarily enough to elevate one to top of their field. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment.  He has many more honors than the typical person in his field. There is no requirement for front-page coverage in the RD criteria; what matters is if they meet the criteria. I'm not sure in what other way a person in his field could be posted. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose: Only notable for a single action. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose Parr did his job well that day, but shoving Reagan into a limo is really it for him, and that's not RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment I have to agree with 331dot's observation above. When you consider all of the professional bodyguards in the world, if being entrusted with command of the protection detail for the President of the United States, and then saving his life in an assassination attempt, does not make one important in that field, then what does? The implication of the oppose votes seems to be that they do not believe this field is one where it is possible to become important per ITNDC. And that is a proposition with which I very strongly disagree. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose He might have saved President Reagan's life, but that's all he seemed to do that was significant. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 19:32, 10 October 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.




[Posted] Nobel Peace Prize
[edit]








Proposed image


Article: Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet is awarded the 2015 Nobel Peace Prize.  (Post)
News source(s): [17]
Credits: 




The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: This is usually the most talked about Nobel Prize and she has been a candidate for a long time. Csisc (talk) 09:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



October 8
[edit]



















    

        
October 8, 2015 (2015-10-08) (Thursday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
Arts and culture






                
Business and economy






                
Disasters and accidents






                
International relations


                
Law and crime


  • Spencer Stone, one of the individuals involved in stopping the gunman in the August 2015 Thalys train attack, is stabbed in downtown Sacramento. Police said the incident is not related to a terrorist act; the assault occurred near a bar. He is in stable condition at a hospital with what are believed to be non-life threatening wounds. (MSN)





                
Politics and elections






                
Sports








[Posted] RD: Paul Prudhomme
[edit]




Article: Paul Prudhomme (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NPR
Credits: 




Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Celebrity chef, "the internationally renowned Louisiana chef who popularized Cajun and Creole cuisine around the world". And yes, he's in the Culinary Hall of Fame. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



[Closed] Blatter suspended
[edit]






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






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









Article: Sepp Blatter (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The adjudicatory chamber of FIFA Ethics Committee suspends Sepp Blatter as the FIFA President for 90 days, the interim President becomes Issa Hayatou.  (Post)
News source(s): CNN, BBC
Credits: 




Article updated
Nominator's comments: Looks like this development in FIFA case is significant. Brandmeistertalk   13:47, 8 October 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.




[Posted]  Nobel Prize in literature
[edit]








Proposed image


Article: Svetlana Alexievich (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Svetlana Alexievich is awarded the 2015 Nobel Prize in Literature.  (Post)
News source(s): SvD
Credits: 




The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: This is usually the most talked about Nobel Prize and she has been a candidate for a long time. w.carter-Talk 11:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]






  • I know that para is still lacking sources discussing the themes of two of her books, but that itself should not be a problem if the Nobel prize writeup discusses those books to a degree. As both books appear to have originally been published in Russian, English sources are weak on it and we'll likely need some editors fluent in Russian to help otherwise find pre-Nobel source materials, which is why just to identify the themes of the books, post-Nobel sources can be used. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]




  • Looks all good to me now. And just a quick note: we don't require English-only sources, just that if we take from foreign language we should be reasonably sure of the translation, and if the claim is potentially contentious, should have an expert (eg not Google translate) help out. That's not the case here that I can see, but just a friendly reminder. --MASEM (t) 15:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • @Masem: I certainly know about the language/source policy,  I could have provided a heap of sources in Swedish (this being a Swedish prize an all), I was just being polite.15:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Babba, re English-language sources, NYT looks to be the most complete (800 words). (Oddly enough, Ukrainian and Russian WP articles appear to be quite brief.) Sca (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



PS: This story now appears in the ITN sections of the following WPs — F, D, I, CZ, N, PL, RU, UA.


(I know some users find the practices of other WPs irrelevant. I don't.) Sca (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Posting. Looks fine to me, the basics are there. Sure, there is always room for improvement. --Tone 16:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Post-posting comment – The article says she's "a Belarusian ... prose writer," but from the Bibliography it appears she writes in Russian. Granted, the two are fairly closely related, but for clarity the blurb should either say she's a Belusian writer or a Russian-language writer from Belarus. (Also posted at Main Page errors). – Sca (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Look at the blurbs for the other Nobel prizes on the Main Page, none of those have the nationality stated in the blurb, only the name is important, the rest is in the article(s). Keep blurbs as short as possible. w.carter-Talk 17:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


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






No interest in this at all.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]






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







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



  • Joaquin has transitioned into an extratropical cyclone and its effects are diminishing; however, flooding from the storm complex remains a major issue in South Carolina. If anything, only the storm complex warrants being moved to ongoing but even then, the floods should subside within a few days and South Carolina will be in full recovery mode. Activity on the page is disappointingly limited as well. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 11:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose Focusing only on the weather front, while it will still be a story for days because of the impact of the flooding; with similar natural disasters we don't keep those in ongoing, so I don't think we need to here. Unless we're talking something very long term (like the current haze), we shouldn't keep such in ongoing. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[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.




October 7
[edit]






[Closed] RD: Harry Gallatin
[edit]






Consensus against posting ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]






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







Template:ITN candidate



  • Oppose It seems like his career achievements are very unconvincing. He has never won the NBA Championship either as player or coach and hasn't ever been part of any national team of the United States that won a gold medal at the Olympics. The largest achievements of his career are apparently some trivial records of playing in the All-Star Game or having been selected as member of the All-NBA First Team or NBA Coach of the Year. As for his induction to the Basketball Hall of Fame, the article indicates that there are 345 persons who have become members since its inception, making it barely something extraordinary to achieve and thereby definitely not a decisive criterion for inclusion. Also, the news of his death doesn't seem to receive much attention even in the media in North America.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose. I have to agree that being in the HoF of any sport doesn't add too much weight if other major achievements like Championships, outstanding career numbers, overwhelming individual records, etc are lacking. Rhodesisland (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose. I don't believe he meets the RD criteria.  While an above average player, I don't think he was "very important" to his field.  As noted, Halls of Fame are not automatic tickets to RD; other things are needed. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • I generally think a Hall of Fame induction should mean RD 99% of the time, since that's the ultimate determination of importance by the field itself. The Naismith Hall of Fame, in this case, not the SIU Edwardsville Athletic Hall of Fame. Then again, his accomplishments don't seem that big, his impact on the game seems negligable (as opposed to Moses Malone), and the  AP story from his election in 1991, which I looked for to see what significance they attribute to him, gives him the last paragraph, and a weak one. Plus, I'm a Knicks fan and I've never heard of him until now. Sadly have to oppose. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose classic attempt via a "hall of fame" claim, but upon light analysis, an above-average basketball player.  Of which there are thousands.  Not making the grade for me.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[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.




[Posted] RD: Elena Lucena
[edit]


Template:ITN candidate




I added name, Bencherlite, to replace "by whom". George Ho (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that makes sense now. Posting BencherliteTalk 21:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


[Closed] Remove 2015 Southeast Asian haze from ongoing?
[edit]


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




Template:Archive bottom



[Posted] Nobel Prize for Chemistry
[edit]


Template:ITN candidate





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


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




October 6
[edit]


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





HKU pro-vice-chancellor selection controversy
[edit]


Template:ITN candidate



  • Oppose Signing it with "alleged" did it for me (hint: not neutral). The original event is stale - his appointment was rejected at the end of September - and looks like your standard political manoeuvring. I wouldn't consider the reaction, i.e. the small-scale walkouts (1-2,000; HKU has over 30,000 students and faculty members), to be significant enough for ITN. No prejudice against renomination if this does end up like last year's protests. Fuebaey (talk) 02:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I used the word "alleged" because I figured that was the most NPOV way to put it. But I and others have included a multitude of reliable international sources that conclude that this whole affair represents government meddling in academic freedom. Numerous leading international scholars have also affirmed this (as outlined in the article). The news isn't stale, the protests are ongoing. I don't oppose an alt blurb, but there is no problem with WP:ALLEGED here – the allegations are widespread, come from countless reliable international sources, and the article is very well-cited in this regard.


"Standard political manoeuvring" – HKU is one of the world's top-ranked universities. How is this "standard"? It is certainly unprecedented in Hong Kong. Can you name a similar case to this at another well-regarded school in the developed world?


You consider the size of the protests a criterion for whether or not this is notable enough for ITN – but also consider the news stale because the vote itself happened a week ago. This is kind of a catch-22 because the protests are ongoing. This remains huge news locally and has received continuing widespread international coverage - the Time Magazine piece was only published yesterday. The Wall Street Journal piece was published mere hours ago.  Citobun (talk) 02:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Political nominations tend to get a hard time here at ITN. From an uninformed perspective: the blurb mentions protests, the news sources detail someone failing to gain an administrative post and the nom comment goes on about politics. We don't judge significance solely on how many column inches a story takes up, else we'd be seeing quite a bit of gossip/sport/trivia on ITN. The only thing we can look at here is the impact of the original event (rejection), of which there appears to be little (speculation and walkouts). Like I said earlier, if those protests grow and start being widely disruptive - think of the Arab Spring, we didn't cover the catalyst but we did the aftermath - I'd reconsider my !vote. Fuebaey (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The significance of this news is that it represents a significant milestone in Beijing's accelerating curtailment of freedoms in Hong Kong, contrary to the autonomy afforded to the territory under the agreement between the Chinese and the British prior to the handover of sovereignty in 1997. The protests are just the "hook" and not really the meaningful impact of this event. The impact is continuously deteriorating freedom in Hong Kong – a trend that is unique and significant among the world's top developed economies and thus has international implications. Authoritarian interference in democratic development (the spark that ignited the 2014 Hong Kong protests) and in local media has been well-established, but academic freedom has been hitherto mostly untouched – until this watershed event.


I believe that the other oppose votes (not yours) are being disingenuous in dismissing this event as some kind of minor school dispute, possibly for political reasons. Important news relating to Hong Kong's decline, which may reflect badly on China, tends to be voted down here by the same users with intense interest in China while other users from places like the U.S. avoid chiming for fear of not being informed enough. The net effect is that important news relating to Hong Kong's decline is censored from ITN – the exact same thing happened with the ITN nomination for the voting down of the Hong Kong government's electoral reform package and the same users were involved.


The Sino-British Joint Declaration that ultimately was meant to (in part) ensure academic freedom in Hong Kong was registered with the United Nations. Hong Kong is a leading economy due to the freedoms in the city that are not available in Mainland China. To reiterate: this has international impact as part of a greater curtailing of freedoms and it is totally absurd for certain users here to dismiss this as nothing more than a local university squabble. Citobun (talk) 04:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



This issue very obviously holds serious ramifications that extend beyond the university. I know we're not meant to throw around COI accusations here but I feel you are either being purposefully disingenuous because this reflects badly on the Chinese government – or didn't actually read the article! The issue has been covered by every reputable international news outlet in recent days – what does that tell you? To dismiss this as a minor flap at a local university is absurd and seriously misleading. Unfortunately, it seems that people simply glance over these nominations and won't consider a story with "oppose" votes even if the rationale for the votes is total nonsense. Citobun (talk) 06:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's being very widely reported, not surprisingly. zzz (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA's suspension of Sepp Blatter has been much more widely reported, but the ITN nomination was summarily rejected. -Zanhe (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Even if the highest reputable university of the US would follow the same fate as the University of HK, I don't think that would have been newsworthy unless foreign involvement is part of it. Anyway, if not for the manipulations in the name of "one country, two systems", this would not have been nominated. As bad as Chinese politics is, emphasizing about the appointments of a vice-chancellor would be media's dirty doing. ITN already has overly emphasized less impactful stories posted recently, but many (including Kim Davis controversy and Umpqua Community College shooting) have become a collection of rejects this year. Let's add this to a collection of rejects then. George Ho (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Weak oppose, and I have no connection of any kind with China, Hong Kong, or anyone else to whom the OP is accusing the opposers of being connected. Yes, I get that it marks political interference in educational affairs is controversial, but it still doesn't make it ITN-worthy unless something more comes of it (mass protests, an academic boycott, etc). As a direct analogy, when the British government directly overruled Parliament with the appointment of Les Ebdon to OFFA, we wouldn't have dreamed of putting it on ITN. I can see grounds for including this to counter the general systemic bias against Chinese stories featuring in ITN, but I really don't think this is strong enough to justify posting, since ITN is meant to highlight stories that are in the news, not that we think ought to be in the news, and outside the local news in Hong Kong this has made no impact at all as far as I can tell. ‑ iridescent 09:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for the independent input. However, I don't think the UK analogy is appropriate because the UK is not in the same unique position as HK, i.e. being semi-autonomous within an unfree single-party state. This incident validates a fear of the past 30 years – that China would not respect the spirit of one country, two systems. This is the same fear that has continually diminished Hong Kong's competitiveness and sent waves of Hong Kong people migrating to other countries. This particular incident also sends a message to all academics at all Hong Kong institutions: stay in line or risk jeopardising your future. There is no more academic freedom. Hence I don't think the UK example holds the same gravity and significance. I also doubt pro-government media conducted a concerted smear campaign against whomever Ebdon was up against.


As for the statement "ITN is meant to highlight stories that are in the news, not that we think ought to be in the news" – I did post many examples of international coverage above. The Forbes piece was just published yesterday and a new wave of stories (i.e. Reuters) is beginning to come out as another rally took place at the school tonight. Of course in terms of quantity most coverage comes from local media, but the incident has also been covered repeatedly by all major international media outlets. Citobun (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Sadly, this won't get any support because it's not in the UK or USA. If the head of a Cambridge or Oxford or Ivy League university got kicked out by the UK or US government for political reasons, it would stand a far greater chance of  getting posted, despite the fact that this is a far bigger deal, as explained in all the international media coverage. zzz (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Yup. ITN has been dominated by Nobel Prize award winners all week in a celebration of academic achievement. I would argue that the blatant suppression of academic freedom in one of the world's top global cities is equally or more newsworthy and has more serious ramifications. Citobun (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



The notability of events like bombings and Nobel Prize awards is immediately evident to most people. But to recognize the newsworthiness of this HKU controversy requires a little more prior knowledge of Hong Kong's unique political position. It may sound trivial to some overseas readers at first glance. But I don't think that's a valid reason to reject this nomination, particularly when the story has been picked up by major international media and subject to editorials in Forbes and Wall Street Journal.


"News worthiness immediately apparent to all" is not a criterion for inclusion in ITN. I have explained the significance of this event elsewhere in this discussion and it should also be made apparent by reading the article and the multitude of stories published by international media. But if you can suggest an alternate blurb that is more than welcome.


That Hong Kong has been a hotbed of protests in recent years also does not diminish the significance of this event. There were numerous Nobel Award winners this year and they all got posted. This controversy should similarly be judged on its individual merit, not ditched just because Hong Kong students also protested last year over something else. Plus, as I mentioned, the protests are simply the "hook" in this case – they are just a small part of the bigger picture. Citobun (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


International Safe Harbor Privacy Principles
[edit]


Template:ITN candidate



  • Weak oppose. From the Guardian source quoted above, Template:Tq—that is, although this is potentially going to have significant behind-the-curtain impact on some companies as to where their servers are based and how they process the data used to serve up ads, it's not something that the average web user will even notice other than that their Adsense ads may become a little less personalised. We didn't post it when Russia introduced an even stricter version of the same measures, albeit because an EU judgement covers the UK and Ireland it will be more noticeable to en-wiki readers. ‑ iridescent 08:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose on article quality. The subject seems ITN worthy however as far as I can tell there is only a single sentence on the subject in the target article, which is also very poorly sourced. It would require an extreme makeover to meet ITN standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


[Posted] RD: Árpád Göncz
[edit]


Template:ITN candidate




Support when ready. Major improvements have been made and more appear to be in progress. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



While improvement has been dramatic, there are still a few too many gaps in sourcing to post this. But we are getting closer. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



[Posted] Nobel Prize for Physics 2015
[edit]


Template:ITN candidate



  • Conditional support Neutrino oscillation currently doesn't seem to mention Kajita and McDonald. Kajita's article also has one orange tag, will support once these are fixed. Brandmeistertalk   11:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    To some extent, that's because they're not actually that important to the theory itself. Kajita and McDonald led the teams that operated neutrino detectors (atmospheric neutrino research at Super-Kamiokande and solar neutrino research at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory respectively) which proved oscillation happened, but they didn't invent the idea of neutrino oscillation or develop the theory. It's a bit like if the Higgs Nobel had been given to the leaders of the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN – the prize would make sense, but there would be no reason to mention the people on the Higgs Boson page. Smurrayinchester 11:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that should be clarified a bit in neutrino oscillation, as blurb implies that they were the discoverers. There were previous instances when Physics Nobels were awarded to direct discoverers. Brandmeistertalk   13:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support Neutrino oscillation mentions SuperK and SNO, which are the projects lead by these co-recipients of the 2015 Nobel prize in physics.  Neutrino oscillations had been proposed previously, but were proved to exist by these experiments.  This is a very important scientific result, with a significant impact in the science world.  Boardhead (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support on one article improvement -  Kajita's article has all of two sources, one being about the Nobel. Like the medicine issue yesterday, it should be expanded a bit more before posting. McDonald's is in good shape. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support I expanded Kajita's article with the flood of sources that came out with the Nobel win, but there's very little on his previous work. If it's others think it's sufficient, than it can be posted. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment Please tweak the blurb. As I wrote in the ITN candidacy for the medicine prize: You never "win" a Nobel Prize, it is awarded to you for an achievement. (Would anyone ever say that someone "won" a Purple Heart?) It's not an international lottery. And the prize is "awarded jointly to...". w.carter-Talk 08:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Article quality is certainly an issue. I can see three options:

    1. Improve the articles on the winners. Unfortunately that may be hard to do, as neither attracted much attention before they won the prize. Edit: actually they're now better than when I looked yesterday - start class anyway. Seems borderline.
      2. 

    2. Add a paragraph to Neutrino oscillation#Observed values of oscillation parameters detailing the measurements made by these teams and the subsequent Nobel
      3. 

    3. Update Super-Kamiokande and Sudbury Neutrino Observatory to reflect the Nobel win


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



Added altblurb to your pleasure. George Ho (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



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


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.




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



I would like to see this remain in Ongoing remain a few more days, until article activity has slowed. From looking at the article history, there have been some rather large updates over the past three days. While widespread media reports have slowed in number, there are still a few new sources being used. Mamyles (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I searched "October" in the article. Nothing new except scheduled meetings and data. --George Ho (talk) 01:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose, I continue to see news articles that are related to the crisis. Banedon (talk) 01:54, 6 October 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.


October 5
[edit]


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





[Closed] RD Chantal Akerman
[edit]


Template:Archive top
Template:ITN candidate




Template:Archive bottom



[Posted] Trans-Pacific Partnership
[edit]


Template:ITN candidate



  • Weak Oppose The treaty goes to the respective gov'ts to ratify and it is fully expected in the States to have strong opposition.  This does not make it a done deal and thus a thing to wait on. --MASEM (t) 06:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • There is opposition to it in the U.S. from the left (Bernie Sanders) and the right (tea party nihilists who try to stop Obama from accomplishing anything) but it isn't likely to prevent the deal, much like Obama has been able to get the Iran treaty through. I'd say if the U.S. (or any other country) kills it despite this announcement, that would be a separate postable story. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support when ready. The treaty is hugely significant and is likely to be ratified by most of the signatory states irrespective of what the US does. Article quality is decent though it could stand some improvement in sourcing and one section has been tagged for expansion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The referencing has been improved a little now. Nurg (talk) 08:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Ratified by which country? HaEr48 (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



[Closed] RD: Grace Lee Boggs
[edit]


Template:Archive top
Template:ITN candidate



  • Why?--WaltCip (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Weak oppose. The article needs more inline citations and doesn't have a source for her death, and doesn't explain which of her several fields (social activism, feminism, philospher, author) she was top of. The closest I can see is "She founded Detroit Summer, a multicultural intergenerational youth program, in 1992 and has also been the recipient of numerous awards." which is unsourced and not specific about which awards they are so I can't see how prestigious they are or are not. If the nominator or anyone else can explain why she meets the RD criteria then I'll reconsider, but I'm not seeing it at the moment. Thryduulf (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Problems with the nomination aside, I'll support upon some final article improvements. Influence in a number of fields and a pretty good article sway my !vote in favor. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose for now. I am not seeing where Ms.Boggs meets the standards for RD. In what way was she very important or influential in her field? Beyond which the article is in poor shape with glaring deficiencies in sourcing. It would require an extreme makeover to meet ITN standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose per Walt and AO.  No rationale given, no awards, pretty run-of-the-mill academic. μηδείς (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Weak oppose I saw her obits come up on my social media accounts, but can't quite put my finger on enough to say she was truly that important in the field, or at least considered that before her death. I want to support, but I haven't been given a good enough reason. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Archive bottom



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


Template:ITN candidate




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


Template:ITN candidate




I've noticed that. I've moved the golfer to his full name. Perhaps the Nobel laureate does not yet have an article (the other two have been created only today as well). --Tone 09:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



October 4
[edit]


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





[Closed] United Arab Emirates parliamentary election, 2015
[edit]


Template:Archivetop
Template:ITN candidate



  • Comment - I'm no expert on this, but is there a reason not to hold off until after the results come out and we have some sourced comments from politics experts on who the candidates elected are and what the results could mean? I realise that we can't quote their opinions in the blurb, but I think people will be most interested in seeing the article after some sources discussing the results come in. Blythwood (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment.  General elections are ITNR, so no notability issues here.  The blurb, though, needs to somehow reference the winners; usually we put "X party led by John Public, won the UAE parliamentary election" or something like that. If these elections are historic as stated, that could be noted as well.  Article will need to be updated adequately. 331dot (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • 

  • Oppose - not without results. It doesn't have to be "X party led by Y wins the elections"; something like "20 new members are elected to the FNC" works as well. But that is still a result, and until there are results to the elections, I would oppose posting. Banedon (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose as nominated per Banedon. Let's wait for results, if they're not available, and post when it's ready with a descriptive blurb. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Archivebottom



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


Template:ITN candidate



  • Oppose for now - In the grande scheme of things not really worth posting now unless it does get worse. This is only causing major disruption to one state. Stories should not be posted on the back of a "maybe" (even if it is a strong "maybe") Meanwhile, 16 people are confirmed dead on the French Riviera [18]. --109.149.136.105 (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • 

  • Support It's being called a "once in 500 years" event. If that's not "rare" enough for ITN I don't know what is. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • 

  • Comment I think a satellite image would be instructive. Abductive (reasoning) 18:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support.  The disruption of the lives of millions in a single state due to a 500-year rain event seems notable; damage will likely be extensive and widespread. 331dot (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Merge with Hurricane Joaquin, this two are connected phenomenons. --Jenda H. (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Meteorologically they are separate events, albeit partially intertwined. Although the nor'easter tapped into moisture from Joaquin, the floods would not have taken place without the East Coast low. Joaquin's effects are limited to moisture transport and merging them gives undue weight to the hurricane's influence. NOAA does not attribute the event to Joaquin and the WPC focuses on the coastal low in their summaries. Only ones tying Joaquin into this beyond the moisture transport is the media. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      • While separate events, to highlight the flash floods and ignore the damage that Joaquin's caused is rather poor form. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

        • Joaquin caused no damage in the United States, there's no need to mention it here. I nominated Joaquin as a separate event yesterday with its notability stemming from widespread damage in the Bahamas and the disappearance (and likely sinking) of El Faro. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

          • Joaquin has not yet hit the States, it's expected to drop its rain tonight, which atop the existing flooding will make things works. A blurb like "A combination of Hurricane Joaquin and a weather front in the southeast US cause flash flooding in SC, the disappearance of one ship, and at least (40) deaths". --MASEM (t) 20:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

            • Joaquin is currently lashing Bermuda and continuing northeast out to sea after that (expected to bring gales to the UK in ~6 days). It's not touching the US. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

              • This storm is drawing moisture from the Hurricane; that's the connection, as the rain would not be as bad if not for the hurricane. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

                • The most significant factor in the event is the non-tropical low over the Southeast. Without that system, it would be sunny in South Carolina today. Large quantities of moisture were already in place with this event and widespread flooding was going to happen with or without Joaquin. Even a week back when models initially dissipated Joaquin, the frontal system was shown producing widespread torrential rain. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

                  • No, Joaquin had a much more deadly impact, but we sometimes forget that when the states aren't hit as bad. The news is focusing on the eastern-moving front that is dropping rain, but even still, most reports fear that Joaquin's storm edge will drop yet more rain on that same area, up through NJ, even if the eye doesn't make landfall in the states. It is best to treat this as a combined story because it is difficult to separate which part is which in terms of the affect on human life. --MASEM (t) 20:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

                    • No credible meteorological agency is concerned that Joaquin's "storm edge", whatever that is, is going to influence the weather in the United States. I'll direct you to the Weather Prediction Center's short-range public discussion, which doesn't so much as mention the hurricane, but discusses the heavy rain threat from a non-tropical upper-level low (the system in question). The same is true of their more technical QPF discussion, which says "Template:Mono" Tropical moisture contributed to the extreme precipitation totals, but the link to Joaquin itself is tenuous at best, and if you need to see it with your own eyes, here's a current WV loop showing two distinct synoptic-scale systems... the ULL over the southeast which produced flooding rains, and the tropical cyclone nearing Bermuda. I'm not sure where you learned that rain was expected as far north as NJ, but the WPC predicts virtually no precipitation north of the Outer Banks for the next several days, and in fact the weather looks quite sunny for most of the northeast. I think you need a more reliable source for forecasts. :) – Juliancolton | Talk 20:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

                      • At least when I was watching CNN this morning (no sound but going by on screen visuals) they were still implying that Carolinas up through NJ were preparing for Joaquin rainfall. Clearly since then the path has shifted to be more NE-ish. But there is still indications that the two systems are affecting each other, and because of their geographical proximity and similar effects, we should treat them as a common story. --MASEM (t) 21:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

                        • What indications might those be? A hurricane and a cold-core upper-level low are about as dissimilar as large-scale cyclones can get. They have different origins, wildly different mechanisms for intensification, and different real-world effects. That Joaquin and the nor'easter-like storm are relatively close to each other make them no more "common" than for two individuals to die in the same country. As a rule of thumb, CNN has never and will never override NOAA. Essentially you're dismissing a source that's as reliable as you can get in regards to meteorology because of something you saw on TV while it was muted. The information Julian provided should be more than enough to dispel the thought of merging these two events together. Meteorology is what the two of us excel in, and it's my profession. It would be remiss of me to completely overlook this event in the way you seem to be suggesting. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment – What about flash floods that have taken at least 16 lives in the French Riviera? Sca (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • What about it? Does the presence of a smaller-scale, albeit deadlier, flood nullify the notability of this event? Both are notable in their own rights and on different levels. I have my hands full with Joaquin and this nor'easter so if you wish to create the article and nominate it please do so by all means. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Perhaps it's symptomatic that there's no massive rush to create a French Riveria disaster article...  Bloody systemic bias.... !  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I was just about to say that a) the nominated storm doesn't strike me as particularly notable on the global scale, and b) it would be odd and seemingly U.S.-centric to run this one but not the French one. Sca (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then create an article for the French one and nominate it. I've already nominated two non-US related natural disasters, one of which was just posted, and the other is rotting without attention. Any claims of a U.S. bias here are insulting. This "global scale" aspect is ridiculous at times and haphazardly handed out, namely against U.S.-related topics simply to squash them. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I happen to be an American. Sca (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose for now. Unless there is a significant death toll we tend to shy away from weather related events. Yes, there are some exceptions, but I am not convinced the level of damage, at least so far, makes this ITN material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Switching to Support following a closer examination of the news sources including updated reports. This does in fact look like a pretty epic flood. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



South Carolina's capital (almost 1 million metro population) will have 15 inches in 2 1/4 days if the forecast holds true. I can't tell if I've found the most shocking point on this curve (can't find past hourly numbers) but this is at least an almost 2,000 year rainfall event for this city of 900,000 (extrapolate from the other curves). Gills Creek in the capital went from not flooded to twice the record flood in 5 hours and then the flood gauge broke (while it was still shooting up like a rocket). The flood gauge hasn't given a reading since then (destroyed?). Mandatory city-wide curfew of 6pm (!) in the capital. That's an hour and 4 minutes before sunset. Charleston, pop. 700K (where the Civil War started) had 98% of it's rainiest October ever fall this Saturday alone and broke it's 1 day rainfall record. This is a subtropical place that gets frequent hurricanes remember. some parts near Charleston got 0.6 meters of rain in 3 days and that was by 7am today. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Thanks, that was a good one. μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support looks like a pretty major event to me. That said, I'd suggest using the phrase "nor'easter" in the blurb, because although 'weather system' is an established technical phrase, when I read the blurb my first thoughts were that some kind of man-made weather control or early warning system had malfunctioned and caused the flooding. Support merge with Hurricane Joaquin. They may be different meteorological events but they're both meteorological events in the same part of the globe. Some kind of blurb that talks about chaotic weather in the Bahamas and South Carolina seems most natural to me. Banedon (talk) 01:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support and Support Merge Something along the lines Hurricane Joaquin causes floods in the Bahamas and the loss of the cargo ship El Faro while South Carolina suffers record floods, with separate targets for Joaquin and SC. μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Marked Ready with combined blurb as both articles are relevant and well supported and updated. μηδείς (talk) 05:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment happy to post this but the first blurb seems insufficient, the second is far too long.  Can we find a suitable compromise? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Alt 3 offered above. Sca (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Either alt version looks good to me, Template:U, but I personally would be inclined to mention a combined total of at least 40 lives lost.  The important thing, however, is really to get the target articles up there, so if short is better then short is good. μηδείς (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



[Closed] 2015 NRL Grand Final
[edit]


Template:Archivetop
Template:ITN candidate



  • Oppose based on current state. No references whatsoever and very little prose. Significant improvements need to be made for this to be posted. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat)
    • 

  • Support Once updated. Clearly not ready to be posted right now. --109.149.136.105 (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose it's ITNR, so "support once updated" is somewhat redundant.  It's way off the quality we need for main page inclusion, please add a bunch of references, and an enhanced description of the final, which I'm led to believe was one of the better ones.  Do it justice.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Archivebottom



October 3
[edit]


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





[Posted] AFL Grand Final
[edit]


Template:ITN candidate




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


Template:ITN candidate








[Posted] RD: Denis Healey
[edit]


Template:Archive top
Template:ITN candidate






  • Support on article improvements for RD only, oppose blurb. The article is missing a lot of citations throughout with some unsourced paragraphs, and some about his importance resting on one or two. The RD criteria is clearly there, but while I accept he played a major role in British politics, the influence on the rest of the world doesn't seem to be there to where a blurb would be appropriate. We're talking a Cabinet level position, and there, I would expect someone as influential as , say, Winston Churchill, was to be a blurb. --MASEM (t) 16:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support RD conditional on improved sourcing. Oppose blurb He was 98 so his passing is not a surprise and while he certainly meets ITND criteria, his notability is not great enough to justify a blurb. The Queen will almost certainly get one when she passes and Margaret Thatcher should have gotten one (I don't remember if she did). But we are talking about a cabinet level figure here. He needs to have done something really over the top to warrant a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]




  • Support RD when article is of sufficient quality. Weak oppose blurb largely per Ad Orientem. Thryduulf (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose Okay, he held one of the Great Offices of State. Yet when U.S. Speakers of the House die (1, 2), it isn't posted. It wouldn't be posted if he was in a comparable office of any other nation either. There's a systemic bias here with British non-heads of state getting support where top non-heads of state from other countries get dismissed and I'm pointing that out whether you Brits like it or not. Go ahead, flame me for it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


You make a fair point with regards to inconsistency in the application of RD guidelines (though I think your point would have been stronger if you had avoided accusing an entire group of editors of bias based on nationality). That said I am standing by my Support !vote because he clearly meets the guidelines. So, for that matter, do Speakers of the House of Representatives. I have consistently opined that they meet ITND criteria and I believe that arguments to the contrary can only be made by ignoring the plain language of the guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


FWIW, I count a grand total of one (or possibly two) Brits among the supports. Not everyone disagreeing with you has to be part of a conspiracy. ‑ iridescent 19:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have everyone's nationality memorized, but I see at least 3 of the 5 supports are British, Ad Orientem's page indicates interest in British history but doesn't list nationality, and one of the five I don't know. The one I don't know, Masem, says this guy played a "major role in British poltiics", but called Jim Wright a "Mid-level US politician". I find that baffling. Believe me, I don't want to call out editors, and I don't want to restart a U.S. vs. U.K. thing (especially not looking forward to when TRM logs on and reads this), but I'm calling it like I see it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I am American. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


American here too.  But to the point, this appears to be the equivalent of the Secretary of Defense in the US, and there, not every one that is named is necessarily material for RD to start. I'm judging the contributions as listed on the bio page and its clearly more than average so RD is completely fair. --MASEM (t) 20:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Speaker is above Sec Def in the U.S. presidential succession, though. I still don't understand the opposition to those two deceased speakers, while this will clearly pass. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Succession to the seat of power is one thing, actual actions and activities is another. For example, Donald Rumsfeld has far more important a play on world politics than Dennis Hastert, Speaker at the same time. That's what I'm judging here is what the person's larger impact was and it seems significant enough to qualify for RD but certainly not for a blurb. --MASEM (t) 21:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Hastert Rule rears it's head quite frequently. That's his impact. Otherwise I'd agree Rumsfeld probably had a greater impact than Hastert. Still, these are top level officials if they reach those offices. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see such an insightful analysis of British politics here as part of the discussion on Healey. 81.152.16.52 (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said below, it would be nice if the nominator or any of the people supporting this nomination would analyze Healey's impact, but noone has. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a stab at it. During the period of chaos in European economies in the 1970s following the 1973 oil crisis, the British government was uniquely disadvantaged. Prime Minister Harold Wilson was in the early stages of Alzheimer's disease and was drinking heavily, and both major political parties were in open civil war between various ideological factions; thus, the Chancellor in this period was actually a more significant figure than any of the succession of Prime Ministers. Healey pretty much single-handedly stabilised the economy, which in turn prevented what was then the EEC from disintegrating and made the modern EU possible, and provided a stable basis for the Thatcher government's reforms (no private investor would have invested in an economy that was in the state Britain had been in in 1973) which in turn provided the economic template for the western world for the next 30 years. In addition to this, he was also the man responsible for the forced depopulation of the Chagos Archipelago, making him the single most important figure in the history of the Chagossians. ‑ iridescent 06:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose a blurb but support RD.  I don't think he rises to the level of people like Thatcher but reading his page he does seem to be very important to his field.  I also think we could use an update of some kind(there is nothing in the RD line currently) 331dot (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support per Iridescent who makes a good summary of the contributions of Healy.  No need for a blurb.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose blurb but support RD – His name rings a bell even for a vulgar American like – Sca (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose Iconic for what?  Simply saying that he was iconic is like saying he was notable.  We need a rationale, not a reassertion of the obvious in exaggerated terms.  What did he do that others haven't or wouldn't have done? μηδείς (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • That's a great point I forgot to raise. It's a long article, with systemic bias playing a factor in why it's of strong quality in the first place, but skimming it and the posts above don't tell me why he was so important, other than the office he rose to, which still wasn't enough for two Speakers of the House. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose - Not really ITN material. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support for RD - Pretty obviously. Very influential chancellor in office through some of Britain's most turbulent post-war years. Fgf10 (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm sure it seems obvious to you, but those of us with no prior knowledge of him are still looking for a rationale other than that he was "influential" or a "major figure", because that's vague and others who could claim that have been rejected here. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Weak Oppose RD (full oppose for blurb) – per Moboshgu and Medeis. If someone can quantify why Healey was "iconic" for me, I'd be more inclined to support. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • 

  • Oppose per Medeis and Muboshgu. Calidum 01:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose, weakly, for RD, and simple oppose for blurb, on article quality grounds.  The minor problem is that there are a fair number of unreferenced assertions in the article; some but not all have been tagged.  The major problem is that the article's text establishes that he was an important politician; but it doesn't really establish that he had a "significant impact" on the country.  He may well have, but it isn't in the text.  He was elected to Parliament.  He negotiated loans and proposed budgets, the sort of things you'd expect the head of a treasury to do.  Then his party lost, and he was not chosen to lead it.  Add a couple referenced testimonials to his significant impact from historians, and I might change my mind. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose blurb. He is 98 years old, his death is natural. sst✈ 05:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Weak oppose RD (full oppose blurb). Never a party leader (well, not permanently anyway), let alone PM. Got to draw the line somewhere. I think there may be some nostalgia for Healey given the pathetic state of the Labour Party today. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support Seems significant enough. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment This is hilarious, the American editors are so transparent. "You don't support posting this years umpteenth school shooting, we're just going to oppose all British noms." ITN is such a joke. There have been plenty of explanations why this is ITN material, and all the opposes are just ignoring that, or complaining Americans weren't posted. Nobody has yet given a valid oppose. Oh and Support for RD if that wasn't obvious yet. 82.8.32.177 (talk) 09:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • "[O]ppose all British noms." Yes, we're opposing all one of them because our feelings are hurt and we're annoyed that the "homeland" doesn't care about us.</irritated sarcasm> The reasons for opposing were quite clear and reasonable; no one explained why Healey was "iconic" at first. He's a figure that naturally wouldn't garner much attention outside of Britain so how are we supposed to inherently know about him? It's up to the nominator (or anyone who wishes to do so in the stead) to explain why the topic they're nominating is notable. This was not done properly and the nomination received opposition by basic comparison accordingly since that's what we had to work with. My concerns have since been resolved by Iridescent's explanation which gives me a better idea of his importance and I would imagine others have a better idea how to adjust their votes if they see fit. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • 

    • Yes, quite transparent. Like being "savaged by a dead sheep". 217.38.154.231 (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      • "so how are we supposed to inherently know about him?" - Jesus tap dancing Christ - this is an encyclopedia! Look at the article and judge for yourself. --109.149.136.105 (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

        • Sure, let me just spend my time reading up on a subject (person) I care next to nothing about when the nominator, who would likely have a better understanding of the subject, can easily explain the importance for everyone, not just myself, to understand. It streamlines the process of ITN/C and allows more people to take part. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

            • Yikes. You make it seem as if it's an impossible task - only a very brief scan of the page in question (you know...the lead? Which summarizes the article?) would be enough to get yourself informed. If you didn't know all the facts, why did you even bother voting? Asking people (especially an admin) if they could take an active interest in the article subject they're discussing is not too much to ask, is it? How much of your time would it take to just read the opening few sentences of an article? The nominator may as well just copy/paste segments of the lead here (with sources) - which is fine, and something that they probably should do for the sake of convenience. "a better understanding of the subject," - Most of the time I doubt it. And if they feel passionate about the subject, then you might be inclined to believe that they would provide more detailed info here. Sheesh. And your comment about IP editors is noted - hardly befitting of an Admin, and hardly befitting the spirit of the project. --109.149.136.105 (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • 

  • Support - significant enough to justify inclusion at ITN. --BabbaQ (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose on account of this nom being disrupted by tendentious editors and IPs. We can readdress this when cooler heads have prevailed.--WaltCip (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support Effectively the second-most powerful figure in British politics during one of its darkest hours since the War. Blythwood (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Posted to RD by Template:U ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Yes, sorry about that - my PC crashed just as I posted it.  Rationale:  Pretty much 2:1 support for this, article is reasonably well sourced (though the section which would cement Healey's importance as noted by Iridescent above could be expanded), and RD was currently empty. Black Kite (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • The lead of this article still doesn't suggest to me why this guy is significant, if Speakers of the U.S. House aren't. I'll look forward to referencing this thread the next time an American non-head of state politician of great importance dies and the users who supported this nom start opposing it. Congratulations on reinforcing the U.K. systemic bias! – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]




  • You mean one of the most significant sporting events in the U.S.? That Brits dismiss as an "amateur provincial" event out of a lack of understanding and lack of a desire to understand that its impact in the U.S. overrides its lack of impact in the U.K.? I'm taking this to WT:ITN, no sense in getting off the topic of this thread that can close now that the inevitable posting has been made. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Archive bottom



[Posted] Hurricane Joaquin (updated)
[edit]


Template:Archive top
Template:ITN candidate




Template:Archivebottom



October 2
[edit]


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





[Posted] RD: Brian Friel
[edit]


Template:ITN candidate




[Closed] Yemen cuts relations with Iran
[edit]


Template:Archivetop
Template:ITN candidate




Template:Archivebottom



October 1
[edit]


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





[Posted] El Cambray Dos landslide
[edit]


Template:ITN candidate





[Closed] Umpqua Community College shooting
[edit]


Template:Archivetop
Template:ITN candidate



  • Oppose with apologies to the nom who makes an obviously sincere argument for why we should be covering all of these shootings. Unfortunately they are far too common in the United States to keep posting them all. If something turns up that makes this one different (perhaps evidence of a terrorist motive?) I will reconsider. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Support  It is becoming increasingly clear that this is NOT the usual random mass shooting we have become so used to. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    • Well, I appreciate your appreciation of my argument. To me the motive isn't so important. It could be a jilted lover, or someone who feels they were unfairly fired, or it could be a terrorist. The mass shooting, to me, meets the "significance" criteria of ITN as part of the crisis we have with guns in this country. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      • I agree with Muboshgu that motive means little in the story, compared to destruction. Adam Lanza worried that his mother would send him away, Klebold and Harris felt bullied – neither of those motives is out of the ordinary with modern American life, but the destruction they wrought clearly is '''tAD''' (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • support - considerable number of deaths. had it been 1-2 deaths or no deaths I would have agreed with Ad orientem, but here we have a major story.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose - And, I literally came onto WP because I assumed that someone would propose this, and so I could oppose it. I don't feel particularly good about being right about it. I'm afraid this is just NEWS and not an opportunity to showcase our articles. Sad news, but, even sadder, barely news. Pedro :  Chat   19:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


You are definitely wrong in your assessment about this bing "barely news". That is just simply wrong.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How fascinating. You'll no doubt explain to me what my own standard is for "barely news". Don't be so presumptive. My argument is that this does not support further learning or show case quality. Your opinion on what my opinions are... Well. 86.163.163.210 (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC) — 86.163.163.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]



  • Template:Reply Charlie Hebdo was internationally noted as provocative - it had a long history of provocation by printing the Jyllands-Posten cartoons in 2007, had their offices firebombed in 2011 and the murders in 2015 were instigated by Al-Qaeda putting them on a hit list - this school has no political context. -- Callinus (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support. The opposes are dumb. How about we make the "it happens all the time" argument for typhoons striking Asia, disease in third world countries or European countries going bankrupt?  Calidum 00:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


One of the criteria for newsworthiness is: the unusual. (Obviously, such events shouldn't be usual in an ostensibly advanced country – which is what President Obama argued today.) Sca (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, the point he was trying to make is that how numb we've become to these shootings is unusual. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; alas, that doesn't make such events unusual. Sca (talk)


  • Support.  Assuming we believe the USA Today backed Behind the Bloodshed project [22], this is only the 8th US mass killing since 2006 to have more than 10 victims, and the largest mass shooting since the Washington Navy Yard shooting of 2013.  For me that is sufficient evidence that this is not a routine shooting event, but instead a sufficiently unusual one to qualify for ITN.  That said, I agree that we should wait for a bit more information and article development before posting.  Dragons flight (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I allow that it tops U.S. media Thursday, but alas I expect it to fade quickly from the public consciousness – as just another crazy shooting spree. The gun laws won't change in Amerika. Sca (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose - As unusual it was in Oregon or community colleges, we have already posted Charleston church shooting this year. Let the media do their dirty work (media is plural of medium). In the meantime, the reactions about "numbness" is overstated. In fact, the more newsworthy than this is repealing or amending the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution or signing a bill restricting gun use or sales or something. The media focus on this shooting because... the shooting happened in peaceful Oregon. "Unusualness" as one of criteria? We have already posted annual sports events and award ceremonies. The UK has been restricting gun use without written Constitution (but instead uncodified), while the US... struggles to restrict with the Amendment in place. ----George Ho (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Weak Oppose The school has not done anything political above any other soft target in the area - the Dylan Roof Charleston church shooting had obvious political/racial issues at play. I'd be willing to re-consider in 24 hours if there are any actual political ramifications beyond the usual school shootings in the U.S. -- Callinus (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support. TOP number one story right now on both Google News, and Yahoo! News. — Cirt (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose - I feel these are just too common now to highlight each and every one. Blythwood (talk) 05:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support per Cirt. Opposers fail to convince. Each time one of these shootings happen is a separate event involving different people acting for different reasons, which is a fundamental difference over things like the daily battles in the Syrian Civil War that result in deaths. Banedon (talk) 06:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose yet another shooting.  The impact only extends to those directly harmed by this.  Unless there's serious connection to the IRA stuff that he had been supporting, this is yet another lonely malcontent speading misery.128.214.53.18 (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose per Blythwood, unless this is the catalyst that causes the US to finally wake up and see sense. We can but hope...  — An optimist on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 07:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose - Another week, another shooting. Rapidly losing newsworthiness. Fgf10 (talk) 07:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • The anti-American bias is quite strong here. What a complete joke. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It's more a reminder that the rest of the world are sick and tired of seeing these events, sick and tired of the "shock" and "upset" that is portrayed, only for nothing to change.  Go buy a burger, get a gun while you're there, etc etc.  These events are no longer uncommon, they are not ITN newsworthy, nearly 150 school shootings in three years?  Perhaps suggest a school shooting ticker instead.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


How many of those 150 were nominated or posted? No one is suggesting posting every school shooting, or every earthquake, or every airplane crash. As (I think) the deadliest school shooting since Sandy Hook, this one seems significant enough to post. If reasonable people objectively disagree, that's fine. If this gets buried underneath a bunch of "It's Amerika, happens all the time, they need moar gun laws" hyperbole, that's pretty lame. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it's not lame at all.  That's what happens, that's why we don't post suicide bombings in markets any longer, or traffic accidents in India.  They are commonplace.  As for your quote, well it's abosultely spot on, isn't it, not hyperbole at all, unless you and your countryfolk are content to keep seeing children shot to death every week while you do nothing about it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but it's garbage. At least try to give the illusion of objectivity. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not garbage. I'm afraid it's the US that lacks objectivity. If something happens on a regular basis, it's not news any more. Simple as that. What needs to be done to stop these is an entirely different discussion for a different place. (Well not really a discussion, it's blatantly obvious, but I digress) Fgf10 (talk) 08:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


It's garbage?  And that's why the rest of look on incredulously while your children are murdered every day and you do nothing (apart from encourage moar gunz in schools).  What a bizarre approach to life and what an offhand and dismissive attitude to children being murdered.  One mass shooting per day, well played.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you feel the need to mention dead children in every post in order to try to win an internet argument, but it's the level of class we've come to expect from you, and I guess that's oddly comforting in its own way. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What a bizarre response.  This is a proposed post about a school shooting?  Perhaps you misunderstood.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support if major news organizations worldwide consider it major news, then opposing it seems like sour grapes. The world's news organizations consider it major news. As to those saying that it happens all the time it should not be noted, well, we should stop noting natural disasters then, since they happen all the time, and with much the same effects, and much the same lack of preparation. If the news headlines or frontpage news outside the region of origin, then it should be a simple decision that it qualifies for ITN. This currently headlines DW.com (Germany), BBC News (UK) ; is front page news for SCMP (Hong Kong), ABC News (Australia)  -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose Routine, medium-low death count, no lasting impact. 109.149.137.78 (talk) 09:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose - Although, it is newsworthy about just how blind America is to its own glaring gun problem.--WaltCip (talk) 11:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Weak support because the shooter was apparently asking about his victims' religion.  If not for that, I would not support. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]






  • Note that this was not a church, and that any other "soft" target could have been attacked and the same thing done - the target was not chosen specifically for political purposes (unlike the Charleston church shooting) -- Callinus (talk) 12:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose per The Rambling Man's reasoning. The nominator has apparently tried to explain how the United States are different than Afghanistan and how each shooting is sui generis but there is nothing compelling beyond this tragic event that makes me think something would change in the future. Shooting incidents in countries like the United States, Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan are fairly common, meaning that these countries are similar in it regardless of the different incentives for all these incidenents. School shootings, which constitute the largest portion of all shooting incidents in the country over the last couple of years, are even less significant than other shootings, as they occur on recurrent basis and the incentives for each of them remain very unclear, implying that they don't have the potential to trigger other subsequent incidents. For example, the Charleston church shooting was a shooting incident with almost the same casualities but it was an unusual shooting of racial character that lead to multiple subsequent events and harsh community response. Sociologically, school shootings as example of a social deviance in the American society should have already been brought to resolution on a highest level by the authorities but, unfortunately, the authorities haven't done anything yet to tackle this deviance. That said, they either: 1) don't prioritise the problem with shooting incidents and thereby consider them as routine acts in the society or 2) don't want to restrict the freedom on the market of weapons because of the extremely high potential losses in the industry. In conclusion, a news regarding the school shootings in the United States that is worth posting is definitely not a shooting with a high death toll but a law or regulation (e.g. restrictions in the possession of weapons) that would prevent them in the future.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Exactly. As it is, the obsolete Second Amendment almost always backfires by not protecting those whom it's supposed to protect: whenever a shooting occurs, it turns out no one around is armed to respond. Either some strict gun control legislation or the repeal of the Second Amendment would be newsworthy. Brandmeistertalk   12:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Template:Archivebottom









Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/October_2015&oldid=1136879989"