This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
The Finucane family renew their call for a public inquiry and describe the report as a "sham" and a "whitewash", "a report into which we have had no input." Finucane's wife says, "The British government has engineered a suppression of the truth behind the murder of my husband." (The Guardian)(Irish Independent)
Speaking in the House of Commons, UK prime minister David Cameron says he is "deeply sorry" over British involvement in Finucane's murder but opposes a public inquiry into the killing. (Irish Independent)
Ecuador's National Court of Justice issues an international arrest warrant for former PresidentJamil Mahuad on embezzlement charges and orders that all of his assets in Ecuador be seized. (AAP via News Limited)
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: Probably the most widely known Indian musician of recent times, remained active musically up until his death, and also very well known for his association with George Harrison. This might possibly be a suitable candidate for a full posting, albeit on the lower end of the importance scale, but #1: it's not a painfully obvious full posting candidate, as they almost always should be (think "Michael Jackson"), and #2: it's honestly not worth the arguments we've been having. Let's just post it to the ticker and be done with it. ----Bongwarrior (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blurb, how can he not even be in the ticker of recent deaths yet? He is one of the most revered musicians in modern history. Times of India and NYT are featuring it front and center.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Full Blurb This is Ravi Shankar we are talking about here. As stated above he was by far one of most famous musicians. As far as Indians go he is one of select few that would deserve full blurb. He is one of Bharat Ratna holder. Please check that list and who is on it before making any comment if you did not know the guy. Most news paper out there have him featured front page right now -- Ashish-g5506:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Full Blurb Huge name, article has source calling him "the most famous Indian musician on the planet" by 1966. Since that time there has not been a more famous one. Also, father of Norah Jones. Abductive (reasoning) 06:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD Discussion on talk page is consolidating around very very restrictive access of deaths to blurb status: discussion not going much farther than Queen Eliz, Pope Benedict, Mandela etc. Of course such a principle should have been laid down in guidelines before enacting RD line, but... Kevin McE (talk) 06:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - This has been posted to recent deaths (not by me). I'm not sure if this was only intended as a stopgap measure or what, but it can always be "upgraded" if necessary. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who is unilaterally posting things per their personal whims? There is a reason we have ITNC and its now updated and also with the caveat of a full blurb by the vast majorityLihaas (talk) 06:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It just looks like an admin who is unfamiliar with ITN who was trying to help. I don't think they were trying to push any sort of preference or agenda or anything, and there's no harm in having it there until it is given a full posting, as appears likely. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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: North Korea claims to have successfully placed a satellite in orbit, which obviously should be taken with a grain of salt. South Korea is saying the launch may have been a success. I may be jumping the gun a bit here, but once the updates happen, posting this is a no-brainer, whether orbit was achieved or not (we've posted several unsuccessful North Korean launches in the past). I've omitted the blurb for now until we know for sure if we're dealing with a successful launch, or another failure. ----Bongwarrior (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Michigan's state government passes right to work legislation, making Michigan the 24th state and the most highly unionized state in the US to have such laws. Thousands of union employees protest outside the Michigan State Capitol in Lansing. (CNN)
Nominator's comments: Yes, I know its a very small country, but he is a sitting PM, and importing explosives raises eyebrows. Makes short radio news bulletins on BBC Radio. --Kevin McE (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The arrest of a head of government on charges related to his activities in that office is noteworthy. Heads of government being arrested while in office is a rare event. 331dot (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Another nomination of a worthy blurb for ITN, but a there is a very thin update in the subject's article. I want to support but I also want more text. Jusdafax23:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support a) Against Bzweebl's anti-British vote, and b) interesting and unusual story involving a head of state being involved in legal proceedings. Nick - "Major news" is not a valid ITN consideration. doktorbwordsdeeds07:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Mega bmbing and always qualifies for ITN at this rate anywhere in the world. Perhaps we could temporarily remove the page from the sticky and put this? also trying to create the page, but evey window i open is going so slow on my comp. can someone help update it? --Lihaas (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The sticky is there precisely so we don't have to consider the day-by-day developments for ITN. Nominating them anyway and suggesting we suspend the sticky defeats the whole object. Formerip (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But that doesnt preclude large scale single incidents, it is, as you say, to avoid the "day-to-day developments". We have posted individual vents before.Lihaas (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In principle I think Lihaas has a point; we shouldn't allow the sticky to swallow every Syria-related story without question. However I don't think this is an exception we should post. Tragically, deaths of dozens of people are a "normal" part of the current war. For a posting it would need to be an development in the conflict such as the fall of Damascus or the flight of Assad from the country. LukeSurltc00:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Top of her field (operatics, known as "the Russian Maria Callas" long before she died), honoured in Soviet Union, Russia, France and US. Had pieces written specifically for her by no less a composer than Benjamin Britten. Should address concerns of some about systemic bias and type of story encouraged until recently under minority topics. Featured in BBC radio news bulletin, a main story on BBC Europe page. --Kevin McE (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for ticker. Highly-decorated individual, seems to have been a highly-merited example within her field. Given the closed nature of the USSR it's not surprising someone can be thought of as highly inside it and little-known outside it. Not widely-regarded enough for a full blurb but a ticker appearance seems in order. GRAPPLEX20:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Completely Unopposed Seems to have quite a following on you tube. I am entirely unqualified to make a judgment based on personal knowledge, but could support this if convinced--let's see some tributes and why she's more important than your average Jane Donova. μηδείς (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I know nothing of opera (never quite understood what the difference between it and musical theatre is, apart from the dress code). I'm not sure how to determine where Vishnevskaya ranks among opera singers. Nothing in the article currently says "very notable" to me, though that could be my ignorance of the field, and what awards etc. are important. On general grounds, the article currently seems quite short for someone of high notability. LukeSurltc23:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is about legislation that hasn't been proposed yet, at least if my interpretation is correct. Gay marriage was ratified by voters in four US states last month, and that was rejected here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - a largely expected and procedural development in one country. Also this is only in the stages of statements in the Commons, rather than actual legislation. The actual passing of the law legaling gay marriage in the UK may be an ITN item, but not this. LukeSurltc19:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would just love to see how Britain will legalise a religious heresy and then exclude its state church from practising the same. I assume we must have a great article to go with this. μηδείς (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Carlsen beats Kasparov's rating record during the 2012 London Chess Classic. The new all-time high FIDE rating will appear at the January 2013 list. Oceanh (talk) 08:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Effectively this means that, according to the official numerical rankings (which have an extremely complicated system to them [5]), Carlsen is now the best chess player who ever lived. The article FIDE World Rankings needs a simple description of how the rankings are derived before we could consider posting. Probably needs to come from someone more chess-literate than me. --LukeSurltc11:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a notable all-time global achievement, via the most widely-accepted yardstick in a game of widespread notability. Chess articles on Wikipedia are extensive and generally very good. LukeSurltc14:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The conclusion of the London Chess Classic occurred on 10 December, not the 11th. [6] I believe Carlsen actually guaranteed his ranking in the penultimate round, (9 December?). The official FIDE rankings are actually published at the beginning of each month, though they can be precisely anticipated by tracking results. I've leave it to an admin to determine the relevant date for the story. LukeSurltc00:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Widely reported news with huge repercussions around the world. Article needs to be updated. The country is currently split in half, after the Tuareg rebellion, and Islamists currently control the northern half of the country. Foreign governments are preparing to intervene because of fears that "the north could become a new sanctuary for terrorist groups". The resignation of the civilian head of government has further destabilised the entire region. --xanchester(t)07:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for impact, but the linked article is really quite short, and for a man with his fingers is so many projects I'm a little surprised. I suggest changing the bolded article to 2012_Malian_coup_d'état and updating that one instead. It will give a better background and summary of events thus far for a naïve reader, and really the story here is the effects of the coup and not strictly the PM 130.188.8.27 (talk) 08:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Arrest of a sitting prime minister seems noteworthy, and this is on the BBC's front page. I've also added more of an update to the article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support re: notability, though I'm unsure as to which article is the best primary. While 2012 Malian coup d'état does discuss this, the dates given in the infobox and the lead (which is what readers will first see) all suggest the event ended in May. LukeSurltc14:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support impact is multinational, concerning both business and government, and rises above standard "company fined for regulations violations" stories because money laundering falls within criminal law (in the US at least). There's no obvious update to the HSBC article that I could find on a cursory glance, however 130.188.8.27 (talk) 07:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - An interesting story, I agree. I found that the HBSC article has a skimpy one-paragraph update regarding this matter buried in the history section. I'd like to see more since the story appears to concern money-laundering and "terrorism." Again, I think this is very good ITN material, but can't support just yet. Jusdafax07:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: We didn't post the arrest or the trial since the article didn't exist. This is particularly notable because it was the oldest unsolved murder to lead to an arrest in the US. -- RyanVesey07:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'll just address a few things. First, the text of the article certainly supports the blurb, I don't realize where Mtking says it doesn't. Second, I created a rather short version of the article in the hopes that somebody else would be able to assist in developing the article since I am currently more busy studying for finals. Third, I fail to understand how it is "not remotely ITN material". It is of clear significance and it is in the news recently. RyanVesey14:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Police solve murder, court convicts. Person vast majority of us have never heard of died, another person we haven't heard of goes to prison: what's the story? Kevin McE (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You guys are being ridiculous if you don't think the sentencing of a case that received the attention of J. Edgar Hoover and President Eisenhower isn't significant. It's not another solved murder, it's the oldest unsolved murder to result in an arrest in the US. It's also getting international coverage, here is an article in the Daily Mail. RyanVesey21:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the trial finished in September, so solving of the case is not the news. The only news now is that someone convicted of murder got a life sentence. That is perfectly routine in the US. If the murder 55 years ago were really that notorious, theer should have been an article on it long before today. Kevin McE (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rebel forces seize parts of the Sheikh Suleiman army base near Aleppo after weeks of heavy fighting. Ground clashes continue in the suburbs of Damascus as the government carries out further air raids against opposition forces. (Al Jazeera)
Unknown gunmen assassinate Nadia Sediqqi, head of the women's affairs department in Laghman Province, Afghanistan. She was shot as she was getting into her rickshaw on her way to work in the provincial capital Mehtar Lam, according to a provincial government spokesperson. (NBC News)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Weak Oppose partly because I don't think being a former head of state alone makes one notable, but mostly because I still can't figure out what his big deal was. The presidency section is about two books he wrote? Bangladeshi politics and government is confusing to me, there is supposed to be a caretaker government to hand over power, but the military also imposed one for an extended period? Was he the head of state during this period? A drive by reader on the English WP should be able to figure out why this person is notable without a ton of effort, IMO. --IP98 (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's updated and he would have qualified for a blurb under the old regime, so he's ticker material. I notice from the article he died following heart surgery. Maybe we need to be a bit sensitive in our use of the word "ticker". Formerip (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The death of a head of state is notable, especially when the individual was the head of state of such a populous country. 331dot (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs some sections fleshed out (for example, the "Parliamentary Results" section near the bottom). Otherwise, looks acceptable. Will support when ready. 130.188.8.27 (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been told that the point is to evaluate the quality of the blurb and article, as both could still be rejected on those grounds, just not on its significance or merits, as any ITN/R event is already deemed acceptable on those grounds. 331dot (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
was wondering why it hadnt been updated. Or trater nominated here.
I would also add "amid allegations of fraud" since the result was controversial.
btw- there is no update ;whatsoever not a single line of prose and a "voter turnour" with nothing but pics. Also ono mention of the fraud thats widely covered.Lihaas (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support controversy section updated. Whats the big deal with a prose update for results anyway? A table says all that needs to be said... --IP98 (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment: controversy setion is not updated, it deals with content priot to the electon not the allegations of fraud as a result. As AGF, what are you seeing as an updae?
Secondly, having been on ITNC for ages you should be well aware that there are update requirements here of a few sentences of prose.Lihaas (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For Pete's sake, a results table has been added with all the info about the election results. Allegations of fraud have to be proven before they are added here (i.e. ballot box stuffing, voter intimidation, etc.). If not, they remain just allegations. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"For Pete's sake" get familiar with ITN before demanding your whim and fancy. ITN DOES require prose. And further i was talking in response to the comment above not your nomination so dont accuse me of "ages". If you dont know how this works then you should be the last person to throw your top off!. And allegation DO have a RS so they can be added! WP:DICK
Support posting now - I've made a few edits that should hopefully mean the article is a little more polished. It's not brilliant, but I think it now meets ITN standards. --LukeSurltc22:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- There is still no prose about the results. What we're posting is the results, not the controversies, so that is the section that needs to be updated. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the controversy and allegations are the reaction to the results. I don't think any news agency is going to cover any other aspect of an incumbent being re-elected until that is resolved. LukeSurltc23:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Violent clashes occur in Bangladesh as protesters stage a nationwide blockade of roads to press for an independent body to oversee the next general election. At least two people were killed and about 100 injured after police fire rubber bullets and tear gas. (Reuters)(BBC)
Article:Jenni Rivera (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Mexican-American singer Jenni Rivera is killed in a plane crash at age 43. (Post) Alternative blurb: Seven people, including singer Jenni Rivera, are killed in a plane crash in Mexico. News source(s):[9] Credits:
Nominator's comments: Sudden and unexpected death one of Latin America biggest singers, article needs updating, the article in the Spanish Wikipedia is in good shape if translation is needed. Considering the tragic circumstances of it full blurb preferable. Secretaccount00:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb. Blurbs should be for bona fide, ground-breaking near geniuses only. I don't know enough about her to offer comment regarding the ticker. Formerip (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb/neutral ticker a latin grammy nomination is a far cry from the top of field. Remember the old ITN/DC requirements? The National Coalition against battered women and domestic violence (there is a coalition opposing these poor women??) might be noteworthy, but there is nothing in her article which establishes significant notability. Football player in a car crash ~= singer in a plane crash, IMO. --IP98 (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. On the one hand the standard is so high that Patrick Moore and Oscar Niemeyer have been overlooked for recent full blurb treatment. From the content of her article and what is presented here I'm not sure this person even achieved what they did. Alternatively, she may be to the banda and norteña music genres what Dave Brubeck was to progressive jazz so maybe she stands a chance, particularly as she died so early. I'm so confused about what the standards are that are being used I can't decide. --86.40.106.60 (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose full blurb. I gather she has had some degree of success, but was nowhere near as important within her field as the contents of the current ticker, let alone the standards we seem to have set for full blurbs. GRAPPLEX00:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ticker only Since advent of ticker, I would advocate blurb only for major world news deaths (Mandela, Queen, Thatcher, Pope are most likely to be the next big enough). Kevin McE (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that she's not well-known outside Spanish speaking countries, but in Mexico and other counties she was one of their biggest female superstars. Her contributions with Banda and Nortena music making it mainstream is the equivalent to Selena making Tejano music mainstream. ABC link shows some of her accomplishments, and celebrities reactions are starting to pour in. I could get links together as it is still a developing and tragic story, but considering that major United States outlets is covering the story as mostly front page news shows her importance to the Spanish community. I'm familiar with the Spanish music genre, and I wouldn't nominate the deaths of any Latin American singers unless they are of unquestioned notability (Julio Iglesias, Sergio Dalma, Gloria Estefan and a few others). A recent death ticker is fine as well, I only nominated for full blurb as the death was shocking and unexpected. Secretaccount01:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Completely Right, this is getting silly now. Since we allowed the ticker, it's been death after death after death, with an ever lowering line for acceptance, and it's worsening both the debate on this page and the look of the ITN box on the main page. I am sure this woman was a lovely person but in all other circumstances she wouldn't have been even nominated, never mind close to having her name on the front page of Wikipedia. Simply not important, notable, or well known enough, at all, by any measure, and that we're considering her nomination seriously shows how far we've plunged to placate the warring factions who now dominate debate here. I'll ask admins for some sanity. Is this woman notable enough by our usual measurements? No. So let's move on. doktorbwordsdeeds03:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for ticker oppose for full blurb. Notable singer, notable death; however, she doesn't meet the level necessary for a full blurb. RyanVesey03:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What US bias? There had been two Latino-related potential ITN items in the last 24 hours that are currently having a tough time here. Compare to some old white guy not from the USA who just died. –HTD03:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
funny, cause I almost posted this. Can someone give a source that doesn't treat this as regional within Mexico? If so, I might actually support it. μηδείς (talk) 03:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[10] This New York Daily News source calls her one of the biggest stars in spanish language television, and a "icon" to United States female Hispanics, and that a show in ABC was in the makings because of it. [11] This Billboard source called her the "queen of Banda music" and "top-selling regional Mexican female star of her generation" among other achievements, [12] Here's one from the Houston Chronicle that called her one of Latin music biggest stars, and likely going to be "immortalized" as a legend. [13] Here's some celebrities reactions to her death from several of the biggest names in Latin music including Gloria Estefan, Jennifer Lopez and others BBC and so forth, it's still a developing story but this seems like the level of coverage typical from a sudden death of a major celebrity, especially from a Spanish language performer and makes me support a full blurb even more, considering the coverage it will probably get within the next few days. Secretaccount04:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb, weak oppose recent death listing - Among other concerns, she does not appear to meet any of the death criteria, which to the best of my knowledge hasn't been deprecated, even for death ticker nominations. On second thought, if she is as well-known in Mexico as Secret says she is, that would probably be just enough to qualify. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards blurb. The likes of Michael Jackson, Ayrton Senna and Steve Jobs aside, I tend to base my decision on blurb vs ticker on how interesting the blurb would be – you have to be notable to reach either. I don't know enough about this woman to give an opinion on her significance. But if she does meet the bar, the circumstances of her death lend themselves well to a full blurb. —WFC— FL wishlist10:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose what about this is ITN worthy? If her impact is regional, she can have a place on the Spanish frontpage. The method of death cannot be noteworthy, because famous people die quite frequently in air disasters. I would also dispute the "icon" characterization, when it has to be so highly qualified when it is made. 130.188.8.27 (talk) 10:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support with (alt) blurb - The story here is the actual plane crash, meaning that, at present, it is her sudden death rather than preceding life that is the main story. The alt blurb leads with the crash, rather than being a standard "X dies at age Y" blurb. LukeSurltc11:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ticker Admins should note that may of the oppose votes above are opposing a full blurb--not a ticker listing which makes sense given the low status of the artist but high notability of the death. μηδείς (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think mainly because her popularity is in Spanish speaking countries, and not English, again some of the sources above shows how huge she was in Latin America, and with United States Hispanics. I wonder how ITN will react with if another major Spanish superstar dies i.e Julio IglesiasSecretaccount22:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ticker. 15 million albums sold and died in a plane crash is sufficiently notable in my view. I'm neutral when it comes to the blurb, but I'd prefer the alt one. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)01:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not sure of the encyclopaedic merit of this record. Surely the most logical way to delineate such football records is per season? Plus, the source doesn't define in which competitions the record is restricted to. There are so many football leagues across the world, and lower-tier games generally have more goals. I'm sure a statistician somewhere could bring out a person who's technically scored more, though against much weaker defences. LukeSurltc21:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Still think the article is a mess, the period arbitrary, and the criteria for inclusion in the tally unclear, but it seems like this sport is so random that the last two objections may never be fully satisfied. --IP98 (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because a calendar year spans two different seasons, and sports events generally follow a season. This strikes me as a curious bit of trivia. Understand that FCB is a top tier association team. So is Fußball-Bundesliga, so I have to assume the "record" is at the top tier.--IP98 (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A "season" is difficult to measure, since all domestic football leagues and cups end at different times. A calendar year provides a definite start and end date. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But a player doesn't change leagues mid-season right? So if Gerrard were to score 89 in a premiere league season, that's just as easy to measure, even if the start and end dates are different. --IP98 (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, players change leagues mid-season all the time. A third-division scorer could move to the first division and his goals would count in both leagues towards his final total for the season. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at what seems to be the primary stats page on Wiki in relation to this, European association football club records, it does seem that the "per season" record is given primary position (Messi is also #1 by the way), whilst the per calendar year record is a minor addition, the list containing only Messi and Müller. In Europe, where all the top association football leagues exist, the "season" is actually fairly well defined - I think it's even in UEFA statute. --LukeSurltc22:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article itself is rated GA. Furthermore, this event took place during the '12–13 season, so I don't see why a separate section is needed for it. Only a few sentences are necessary. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GA was in 2009, no review since. The bit about the record could at least be broken out into a paragraph. A drive by main page reader is going to struggle to find the news bit in that article. --IP98 (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With additional games to be played this year, his goal count may continue to rise, so do we post him breaking his own record again and again? --IP98 (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. What counts is him breaking the record (this occasion). Any subsequent occasion is counted as him extending (not breaking) his record. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support We post track-and-field records via ITN/R when significant records are broken after a significant time period. Why is this any different? -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 21:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response because a track and field record is one person one time against the clock. This is an accumulation over an arbitrary period of time. Goals in a game, in a month, in a season, in a year, in a career, while with one team, while in one league, while under the light of the full moon, it can go on forever. --IP98 (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both are crowning achievements with the same degree of difficulty. I still see no difference, whether it's one event, or an accumulation of events. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 22:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I think this should turn on how big a deal the media think it is, which is not yet clear. If they go big on it, then count me as a support. And yes, sure, if someone broke the record for the most of whatever it is that scores points in American Football, I'm sure it would already have been posted. All the same, I don't think we should just go by our own judgement in deciding how important a particular record is. Formerip (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Questions what's the context of these goals? Certainly professional, but including La Liga, Spanish Cup, Champions League etc etc? What did the previous record include, i.e. are these comparisons like for like? How many games did Muller play for his record vs Messi? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From what the BBC article states, both club and international goals are counted (since Mueller had 72 for Bayern Munich and 13 for Germany). Messi has 74 goals for Barcelona and 12 for Argentina in 66 games (I'm not sure how many games Mueller played). Club goals definitely include domestic league, cup and Champions League. I suppose they might include any other tournaments like the Super Cup or Club World Cup. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A record has been broken and it doesn't involve an American, a Brit, or claims of racism from either side. With the current climate of this page being as it is, I'd put it on the front page on those characteristics alone doktorbwordsdeeds22:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Messi is one of the three candidates, and extremely hot favourite amongst them, to win the 2012FIFA Ballon d'Or (World Player of the Year) award. It'll be awarded 7 January 2013. My guess is we'll probably post that, and that might be a better way of discussing his achievements than this slightly arbitrary record. LukeSurltc22:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It took 40 years to break Mueller's mark and is covered by a wide variety of news sources. Therefore, it's a historical achievement, not an arbitrary record. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- When he broke the mark for a season, that made sense to post because the record was just as longstanding, but it seems arbitrary for a Gregorian year to be superimposed onto a sport that already has its own season. Posting him winning the Ballon d'Or in the future and having posted him breaking the season record in the past is enough. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK, thanks. I think we need to consider whether we are the official organ of Lionel Messi record-breaking or something with more breadth, in that case. However, it would be a new blurb in which no-one dies and no-one is either American or British, so I'm not going to oppose it. Formerip (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Of a wider interest than the Olympic-set records we posted earlier this year; association football is one of the most popular sports globally. Muller's record has stood for forty years, so breaking it isn't something that's likely to happen again any time soon. GRAPPLEX23:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have never bought the idea that soccer/cricket records are somehow more notable than records of other sports just because of their popularity, but this seems to happen on ITN (Like Bloom posted above, we have alreayd posted Messi breaking a record this year). I don't see what makes this record notable in the slightest outside of the world's most famous soccer player breaking a record after playing a year of matches. There have been numerous records that have been broken in the past few years that ITN has opposed because they were just records, so why should a soccer record be any different? When he wins an award, I think that would be notable, but not this. --PlasmaTwa200:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Convoluted record that is not regularly found in lists, calendar year is not the standard unit for measuring football achievements. Akin to adding the percentage of votes a candidate gets in two successive elections: a record could be identified, and may be the highest ever, but of no meaning. Kevin McE (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in my corner of the world, this sport lacks both popular appeal and the gravitas of the Olympics that might offset that lack of appeal. Additionally, I don't think that the responses to IP86's objections are satisfactory. 130.188.8.27 (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How are the responses to IP86's objections not satisfactory? His first point was completely repudiated by TRM as being completely wrong and he already stated that he "concede[s]" to my third response. I'm guessing that the above discussion was the reason why he changed his vote from oppose to neutral. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the first point, it is later noted that points-per-season is the dominant statistic used on the sport's wiki page, so I think it still stands. On the third point, I'm not convinced that the event of breaking the previous record should be posted instead of the total over the full course of the season/year/whatever. For strict news sources, I would say that when the record is broken it should be noted (even if mid-season), but this is an encyclopedia and as such I think the new record is necessary to make the content encyclopedic instead of merely newsworthy (although I'm not sure that I would support it even then). 130.188.8.27 (talk) 10:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
False. Precedent here on WP has shown that breaking the record carries more weight. Take a look when Federer broke Pete Sampras' record of 14. Only in the July 2009 blurb does it mention the record. His subsequent extensions of his record were not noted in January 2010 or July 2012; the only thing it noted was him winning the event. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This wasn't considered an important record before Messi set it. The Gerhard Müller page only mentioned the record after Messi overook him, not before. The record wasn't widely regarded or known in Germany and Rafael Honigstein of the Guardian called it an 'artificial' record.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Reply to comment, the real issue here is the significance of an event. The points you referred to (article and blurb) can be modified and improved.Egeymi (talk) 09:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been told in the past that events listed on ITN/R (national elections) are already deemed significant enough to appear on ITN; posting here is merely to evaluate the quality of the article and blurb, not the significance of the event. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support bold article seems thorough. Maintenance tags on the talk page seem outdated (for example, there's no way that anyone would call this artciel a stub). 130.188.8.27 (talk) 08:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support once results tables have been filled out with the numbers. Is there an English language source where this data can be found, or can anyone translate a Romanian source? Looking at BBC news it says four-fifths of votes have been counted as of about an hour ago. --LukeSurltc13:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Very significant event involving the death of one individual and the manslaughter charge of another. -- RyanVesey17:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The pinnacle of his career seems to have been making the practice squad for the Dallas Cowboys. He's just not what you would consider a leader in his field, AFAICT. And car crashes are obviously not an unusual or notable way of slipping this mortal coil. Formerip (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if the nominator were to present instead the blurb "One person is killed and up to one is injured as a car hits a tree in Texas", then it should be a shoo-in. Formerip (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not a notable football player; not an unusual occurrence; not noteworthy on a worldwide scale. I'm not aware of routine traffic accidents being posted on ITN. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That there are that many Jerry Browns that he doesn't even stand out among those with his own name is perhaps indicative of his unsuitability. After all, there are lots of James Browns and Michael Jacksons too but it's usually obvious which one is being referred to. --86.40.106.60 (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this isn't quite what Recent Deaths is for. RD isn't a lower bar for death stories, Recent Deaths is for the deaths of notable persons, for whom it is their preceding lives makes their, usually normal, deaths noteworthy. In this case it is the actual story of the death and circumstances around this that is 'in the news' - placing on the ticker, with just the name, would exclude necessary details regarding the news story. Therefore it would need to be a full post, or none at all. I don't think this meets the criteria for a full post either. --LukeSurltc20:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Belcher death was notable considering the circumstances, Brown death, while sad wasn't notable, people unfortunately die from DUI crashes everyday. Secretaccount23:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: A very notable person, both for his astronomical work (including the Caldwell catalogue) and possibly better known as the host of the longest-running programme with the same presenter in television history, presenting The Sky at Night since April 1957. Very well known in Britain as the public face of astronomy. The article has a good update. --23230talk14:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm worried the work that led to Recent deaths is slowly being reversed with deaths such as this one and Brubeck. This is not too far above the level of notability of a death that would have been posted in September. The addition of Recent deaths should have raised that bar much higher. -- tariqabjotu14:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for Recent Deaths and as much support as I can muster for a celebrity death (which is not all that much in general) for full blurb .EdwardLane (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as RD only - A well-known television personality on British screens at least, notable for very long duration of career. A leading figure in the field of amateur astronomy - however probabl;y not at the cutting edge of progressing the academic side of the science. Possibly may be a but UK-centric though. LukeSurltc14:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not recently, admittedly, but he has had a long career. In his prime he was an expert in Lunar astronomy; his work was used as part of several American and Russian lunar missions, his maps were even used for the Apollo missions. He's notable as an amateur astronomer because he never went to university and built his own telescopes, that doesn't mean he wasn't respected in his field.--23230talk15:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for full post Per the Dave Brubeck precedent this should definitely get the full honours. Unless it is limited to Americans? It doesn't make sense to give Dave Brubeck such a prominent position and have Moore and Niemeyer hidden underneath. They arguably did more for astronomy and architecture than Brubeck did for music - certainly not less. Actually Sir Patrick is a prominent figure in both astronomy and television. Sir Patrick was also two years younger than Brubeck so the usual "too old" stuff can't really apply either. --86.40.106.60 (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just like what I said years ago, the ITN ultimately boils down to competition between the Americans and the British (and their continental friends) to the detriment of other countries. Since there's the Super Bowl, we'd have to get a European equivalent. They put up Brubeck so they should put up this guy... and he's even a knight! And so on. Somewhere, Niemeyer is pissed. –HTD15:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Brubeck blurb or Niemeyer non-blurb postings are the best examples to use as precedent, both have been fairly controversial. If you're looking for precedents, it's best to have a longer perspective than the past week, else it's possible you'll be picking out outliers. Also remember that article quality is a factor in all these discussions, not just the statuses of the individuals involved. LukeSurltc15:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We used to have someone do the archiving so we can have a headcount on these things. But apparently people would rather write updates than do that. Ditto on article quality, though. –HTD15:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Two wrongs don't make a right. You've stomped and kicked and cried about your perceived bias, but you cant "fix" whatever wrong you see by doing another. --IP98 (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the article quality question-one of the more intelligent issues raised above-if Patrick Moore is a good article and Dave Brubeck isn't, how can article quality be preventing Moore from being promoted? Bruckbeck also has less sources than Niemeyer. No one seems able to answer the overall problem with the way deaths are portrayed. At the moment Wikipedia is giving the death of Brubeck prominent coverage (he even had his picture earlier) while treating Moore and Niemeyer as afterthoughts. What is the reason for this? The question about Americans may be because Bruckbeck is very prominently displayed as an "American jazz pianist"? Whereas Moore was English and Niemeyer was Brazilian. Trying to find any difference or reason for them being treated differently is proving very difficult. --86.40.106.60 (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blurb. As well as the work he himself did, which is considerable, he has probably contributed (albeit indirectly) more to astronomy in the last 40 years or so than one other person. It is totally normal for any professional astronomer talking about Moore to say that he was their inspiration to become interested in astronomy in the first place. When appearing on The Sky at Night professional astronomers, even of the highest rank, will genuinely express their pleasure at being there and, particularly when it is their first appearance, will say how honoured they feel to be there. FerdinandFrog (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but RD only: he was an iconic presenter and amaetur astronomer, but doesn't warrant a full blurb. He was not, for instance, famous in connection to any notable event. -- HazhkTalk to me16:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ticker Only (and weak even then) I don't see any serious arguments here as to why this should have a full blurb other than 'those evil Americans'. (I am also unaware of who has opposed Niemeyer for a full blurb as not American, or of any effort by those making racist anti-American claims here to get Niemeyer upgraded. It seems more a convenient reason for spouting bigoted nonsense than a real concern.) μηδείς (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Small mercies: Our Dave Brubeck blurb no longer credits him with the "first platinum jazz album". I'm sure everyone spotted immediately that Kind Of Blue was released six months earlier and went platinum in Australia. Formerip (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So there's a further example of the prevailing bias-accidental, intentional or otherwise-that the world = the United States. And when anyone comments on this they are insulted and called racist and bigoted. How much of Brubeck's perceived importance lay on the false assumption that he had the "first platinum jazz album"? When Wikipedia acts so casually and so unprofessionally, as if no other music charts exist outside the U.S., as if "presidents" automatically refers to U.S. politicians, and other sloppiness, on the website's most viewed page, can the rest of the world be blamed for objecting? --86.40.106.60 (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was making a slightly jokey post. Kind Of Blue did go platinum in Australia, but I don't know how long that took, so maybe Brubeck in the US was first after all. On the other hand, I doubt the sources that give us the info about Brubeck have even checked. Formerip (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest very strongly that you withdraw that and refrain from using phrases like "anti-American racists" again, if you wish to continue contributing on this page. Black Kite (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we constantly have statements made about Americans in general based on nothing other than their common nationality that claim they are doing something nefarious as a group it's no different from saying the Jews control the media or immigrants are ruining the country. That's racism, and it's highly offensive. I have routinely opposed non-notable nominations that have something American related to them and have frequently supported non-American nominations (see, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#.5BPosted.5D_Supertyphoon_Bopha_strikes_Phillipines) yet I have to be subject to accusations of bad faith merely because I live in the dread USA? i've made my comment less potentially personal, but I'd really like to see some concern taken here for these constant and unjustified accusations. μηδείς (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Americans are more likely to support nominations that they are familiar with and oppose nominations that "they've never heard of" (see above) and the same goes for Europeans. That doesn't, however, mean they're racist, which is the problematic word here. There may be an issue given that American editors are the majority and therefore more likely to prevail on such issues, but it is down to editors to investigate such nominations, rather than come up with "I've never heard of them, so oppose". Such "votes" should be disregarded at every turn. FWIW, I'm European, and I think that Moore should only be on RD. Very, very, famous here, but if we went with every death that was very famous in one particular country, we'd have ITN bigger than the main page. Black Kite (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have individual editors, not collective votes by nationality. I don't think continuing an OR discussion of what "Americans" are likely to do here is useful. μηδείς (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD only not the most notable astronomer, not the most notable tv presenter. Maybe a prominent TV astronomy presenter, but that's too narrow a field for a full blurb. Good update. --IP98 (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity what would you define as a notable TV presenter? Considering this fellow presented the same programme for 55 years and holds the world record. Who do you rank ahead of him? --86.40.106.60 (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, find me an American who has appeared on single show for 55 years, "hobby" or not... No need to be "sorry", I get it. Of course, if a lead actor in Lost which seemed to go on for 55 years died, 12 or 14 episodes a year, posting their death here wouldn't be questioned. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about an American being required? Except for the tired raging of the IP 86.40.106.60... FWIW I would challenge a random actor from Lost. --IP98 (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, really, man, have the Yanks got you flustered? Drop the American comparisons and give us some good reasons why he should be upgraded on his own merits. Was his a nightly hour-long show? Was it award-winning? How many hours was he on the air over his career? Did he have references in the culture? Did Monty Python and Cooke and Moore lampoon him like they did the Attenboroughs? Give us anything to work on other than America-envy. I'm sure you'll get plenty of support if you can pose some good arguments in favor of it. μηδείς (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, are you addressing me? As I said below, someone on television in the same show for 55 years is notable. Yanks don't have me flustered, just frustrated. If someone who had appeared regularly on the same US television show every season for 55 years died, I'd fully expect there to be a ITN/C for it. Yet this is laughed out of court because the Yanks probably aren't even aware of his notability. Never mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the show did 12 episodes in a 12 month season, I would support that individual for the RD ticker. Why are you so upset? --IP98 (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
People seem to be focusing too much on the number of episodes rather than the number of years, which is what is important. The periodicity of the episodes is part of the type of program: having a daily show about astronomy would make as much sense as having a sit-com with one episode a month. In fiction and other shows the number of episodes is relevant since that is what governs plots, story-lines, characters etc... For a factual, scientific program like The Sky at Night the number of years it has been broadcasting is much more notable - covering all major missions and advancements in the field for over 50 years. And this is all regardless of the actual point here, which is that Patrick Moore holds the record is for the longest-running programme with the same presenter, which is regardless of number of episodes. He would hold that record whether the program had 10,000 episodes or 200 - its notable for the length of time. I hope that makes sense--23230talk22:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Why am I mentioned (and again personally insulted) here? Is it to invite a comment? Does 98 think I have some sort of control over all the supporters from across the world and am directing them to say what they say as well? I don't know where the "raging" tone comes from. Unless everyone who makes the slightest objection to something is classed in that way I am no more into "tired raging" than anyone. The man has broken television records and influenced generations of astronomers. --86.40.106.60 (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please AGF on us Americans. I'm sick of reading people bash the people of my country on this page because of perceived biases that I don't believe are based on any fact. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who is bashing the people of your country? This has nothing to do with the people of your country or the people of any country. The evidence of the "perceived biases" is not hidden. There is an essay. There is even a WikiProject. It is not some silly fabrication designed to annoy Americans. It is not racist or bigoted to mention this. Those who mention it are not all raging with hatred. When an American jazz musician is fully blurbed over such comments as "Strong support. Certainly." (that is what one of them actually says), while insurmountable difficulties are encountered by a Brazilian architect and an English astronomer/television personality who have both made significant impacts in their specialist areas of expertise (and whose articles are in better condition than Brubeck's) then the question must be asked. --86.40.106.60 (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's stupid. I'm not going to mince words. It's just stupid. This one particular guy was posted as a full blurb, and so it must indicate an American bias. Pure stupidity. Brubeck was also a musician. But no one has claimed people are biased toward musicians. There are a lot of things that distinguishes him from Moore. But, no, it must be because he was American. ITN posts plenty of Britain-related stories (as it posts a good number of U.S.-related stories), plenty of stories that aren't of great interest to Americans. Rarely do those items get lambasted as being one step closer to a Britapedia, at least not with this kind of fervor. So, of all places to go on a crusade against systematic bias, a Britain-related nomination is not one of them. -- tariqabjotu01:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do hate that these things end up as comparisons between other people and accusations of pro-/anti- American/British bias. As the nominator, I'll do my best to describe why Sir Patrick Moore is deserving of a proper blurb on the main page. He was notable for two things - as an amateur astronomer and as a television (specifically science) presenter, I strongly believe he is very notable for both positions. For the former, despite not attending university and building his own telescopes he produced an impressive amount of well-regarded astronomical literature, including as I have mentioned maps of the moon used by both US and USSR lunar missions, including Apollo. He was well enough regarded in his field that he was elected as a member of the International Astronomical Union, the only amateur astronomer to ever be given that honour. He created the widely-used Caldwell catalogue (named after him, his full name was Caldwell-Moore) and has an asteroid named after him (and 57424 Caelumnoctu named after the show). He is probably the best known astronomer in the United Kingdom, and his show is quoted by many to be what inspired them to take up astronomy - in fact I wouldn't hesitate to say that a vast majority of British astronomers and physicists watched his show. Neatly fitting into the second section, he is as mentioned the record holder for the longest single presenter on any television show. Some claim that it being on a monthly basis detracts from this, but I believe it is still notable even because of this. The shows were broadcast from his own home and he was still dping them directly up to his death at age 89 - in fact he had already recorded next month's show that has yet to be broadcast. I'm not sure how many episodes exactly he recorded but the 700th show was in 2011. According to List of longest-running UK television series it is the longest running non-news show in British history and quite probably the longest running science-focused show anywhere. If the show is now ended I would say that was notable in itself. I would also support based on his position in British culture, in response to comments above he was parodied by Ronnie Barker and Jon Culshaw (in direct response to μηδείς's comments about Attenborough) and played himself on comedy shows with The Goodies, Morecambe and Wise and Kenneth Horne. His article lists his appearances in popular culture - including hosting GamesMaster and featuring in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and a more recent episode of Doctor Who. If anyone wants more information his death is still featured at the top of the BBC News web page, including many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many articles and features on him. Does any of that give enough reason to support? --23230talk22:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Abductive, but your post was very short. Would you mind posting a giant wall of text so I can take the time to read it and consider? Formerip (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is very unfair, FormerIP, and not the kind of comment we need at the ebst of times. Martin23230 has written a fair and fine rational and dismissing it is uncivil and unjust. As it happens, I find this whole debate unedifying. We perhaps need to stop comparing our dicks like this. doktorbwordsdeeds03:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please, I'm trying to be considerate and put across my argument as nominator to try and explain how important someone was to people (often) from a different country, who aren’t members of his field and most of the time who have never heard of him - it's not an easy task. As a frequent reader of the page but first-time nominator I've been trying to avoid bias/comparison/personal attacks but they just keep coming - I can tell you once this is over I won't be returning or nominating anything again.--23230talk10:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gladly. For Doctor Who, he played himself in the 2011 episode The Eleventh HourIMDB (I belive this is the scene ([18]), he was also mentioned in an earlier episode [19]. For The Goodies, he appeared a total of 6 times according to this fan site, this covers many of them. For GamesMaster he was the titular "GamesMaster" and so I believe appeared in every episode of its 7 series over 6 years. here is a compilation of the show’s opening credits, that feature him in character, as well of course as the link given above by Doktorbuk. He has a pretty comprehensive IMDB page which details the apparently 67 different shows in which he either played himself or appeared (everything from Big Brother to Red Dwarf to Celebrity Squares).--23230talk10:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ticker Only. Brubeck was a clear mistake. Let's not repeat it. Only deaths which get top headlines in multiple countries should get their own blurbs. Kaldari (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: I think we've posted some of Pacman's fights before. This is pretty big internationally given it involves a Mexican and Filipino, and was fought in Vegas. Fight wrapped a few minutes ago so sources aren't up to date yet. --Hot Stop(Talk)06:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Although this was not a title bout, I think the fight/result will attract a lot of readers. I also support the nomination for the following reasons: (1) Pacquiao had not been knocked out since 1999; (2) the previous fight between these two guys was highly contested; and (3) it's good to see a new kind of blurb on ITN. ComputerJA (talk) 10:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Non-title fight, no evident reason for non-fans as to why this is any more noteworthy than any other bout. Pacquiao has been featured five times on ITN since March 2009: we have more than done justice to his fans, and should not let ITN turn in to the Pacquiao Bulletin. Kevin McE (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose though much anticipated by boxing fans, it's not a title bout, so the only thing establishing it's notability is that anticipation. I know we've posted Pacquiao fights in the past (his Talk page doesn't explain what fights, just that it was on ITN), maybe that was a mistake. The NHL All-star game, the Daytona 500, the NCAA championship, and various European Football contests have all been sour-faced because they weren't the "top contest" in their sport. I know fans were excited, but ultimately this is no different from The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria, which would never fly. --IP98 (talk) 11:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BBC World News certainly found it notable enough for their sports bulletin (along with today's Manchester Derby), even saying there was a title belt involved (I think it was the WBO light welterweight belt) but I dunno if that's correct or if we should follow the BBC or news sources across the Atlantic... and the Pacific. –HTD14:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that and some supposed Bavarian derby involving Bayern. There'd be strong lobbying though if England break some record vs. India that they haven't done since the 1980s. But I don't think the rest of the stories in that sports bulletin would've been even considered for broadcast in networks across the Atlantic or the Pacific, though. And the BBC never mentions boxing unless there's a riot outside the ring. –HTD15:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose And question if this should even be an article on WP; non-title fights are equivalent to routine games which aren't covered by separate articles. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me restate: The coverage by a large number of newspaper/sports recaps is not equivalent to the coverage needed to show notability as they are all primary sources. --MASEM (t) 15:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That pretty much makes writing updates for ITN rather impossible. Don't have the time to think on how WP:NOR factors into all of this, though. –HTD15:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Highly notable and entertaining fight with widespread media coverage. Just because it's not for a title doesn't mean it's not significant. Doubt it will be posted, however, since it's become clear to me that ITN doesn't have much love to give for notable boxing events. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 21:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm not seeing what is noteworthy about this fight, if it's not for a title. If there is a rivalry here, I'm still not seeing the notability (in terms of ITN) as we don't post notable games in the rivalries of other sports(such as Boston Red Sox/NY Yankees games). 331dot (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--if I understand rightly that no titles were at stake, then I oppose. The fight does appear to have garnered a great deal of interest, but really, I think with boxing we have to limit ourselves to title deciding fights.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bosses at Australian radio station 2Day FM suspend all advertising until Monday after several major advertisers withdrew their business in the wake of the death of Jacintha Saldanha. (BBC)
oppose al jazeera propoganda apart, it doesnt matter with large scale po;lluters withdrawn from it already. Its just a face=-saving gessture. Thereve been mor e pertinent summits we have posted.Lihaas (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - International significance, and article (I assume 'Kyoto Protocol' will be bolded) is in decent shape. Support for this blurb should have nothing to do with one's beliefs about global warming and everything to do with the continuation of a major treaty that is a bit on the weak side, considering those not participating... which is a part of the newsworthiness of the blurb and article. Jusdafax21:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's exactly it. It is like the mice agreeing to bell the cats with the cats abstaining. Kind of silly for the sparrows to trumpet the fact of the vote. μηδείς (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you assume Kyoto Protocol - the article is minimally updated, whereas the conference is the thing in the news and that article is all update. Formerip (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Since 2012 United Nations Climate Change Conference will be the bold article, that is the only one that needs to be updated, so problems with Kyoto Protocol are irrelevant. This is not only a major decision, but it is a rare example of a summit with a notable result, and most summits not on ITN/R, and even sometimes on ITN/R, are opposed because of a lack of known results. This is a perfect example of a summit that is not ITN/R that should be posted. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I think the wrong bit of the conference is being focussed on in the blurb. The extension of Kyoto is an easy headline. But a formal if vague international agreement that rich, polluting nations should compensate those worst hit by climate change and least able to do anything about it is arguably more newsworthy, given the involvement of non-Kyoto countries (with varying degrees of reluctance). I am personally skeptical about what this will actually do, but that should be left to the reader to determine. Both of the opposers above are proposing to take the decision out of the reader's hands based on personal and/or political opinion ("al jazeera propoganda", "face=-saving" and "meaningless green press releases", for instance). —WFC— FL wishlist02:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The United States Supreme Court grants review of California's ban on same-sex marriage (Proposition 8, which has been challenged), and also agrees to finally determine the constitutionality of the federal DOMA law, which the Obama administration has said it will not continue defending. This is the Court's most significant foray into the issue yet, though an overruling of the DOMA act would only mean the federal government would have to recognize such marriages in areas where they are already legal. (NBC News)
The grandmother of murdered teen Tia Sharp will not face charges in the UK. (Sky News)
Irish state broadcaster RTÉ is to provide staff training on what subjects are appropriate for discussion on social media sites such as Twitter following several controversies involving tweets from its employees. (Evening Herald)
The promoters of Formula Two decide not to run the series in 2013 after completing just four years of their five-year contract with the FIA. (ESPN)(Motorsport)
Oppose - No casualties, minor damage. Also, I'm no seismologist, but I don't think this could possibly be an aftershock of an earthquake that occurred nearly two years ago. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Little damage, no deaths so far. It might be "major" in terms of strength, but its effects have been minimal. We don't post every hurricane that comes along in ITN, such as those that go out to sea. 331dot (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per above. The merciful lack of widespread casualties also means the article is currently just a couple of sentences. My guess it is likely to remain under the size that we would consider acceptable to post anyway. --LukeSurltc17:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At least 5 people are shot dead on the third day of clashes between Alawites and Sunnis in Tripoli, Lebanon. The casualty toll of the three days is at least 10 killed and 73 injured. (Reuters)
NASA's twin GRAIL probes have revealed the surface of the Moon in unprecedented detail, showing unexpectedly-deep cracks, craters and tectonic structures. (Los Angeles Times)(BBC)
Support pending update or better article links. And calling anti-morsi protests 'anti-morsi protests' is not POV. Saying they are good or bad might be. μηδείς (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The event is definitely front-page ready, the article is definitely not. First, the lead is a mess. It needs to be cleaned up a bit. Second, the entire article is a proseline and needs to be converted to a proper narrative. If we could get some work on this, I'd post it. --Jayron3203:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Right now the current blurb wording seems a bit vague: "protests" about what? Can anyone think of a way to neutrally incorporate Morsi into the wording? SpencerT♦C20:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, the current blurb proposal puts more weight on injuries than the motive of protests. How about "At least 6 people are killed and hundreds injured during protests against president's power grab in Egypt" --ELEKHHT04:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Post The current blurb is inordinately conservative, and support for this is definitive. I am not sure what the delay is caused by. if something needs fixed please say so, otherwise this is over-ready. Medeis 03:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Please fix and post, I cannot understand why it is not post. Please fix or explain what should be done and post it, since it is much more significantly covered than the existing items posted.Egeymi (talk) 09:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb I'm all in favor of saying "Morsi makes concessions in face of deadly protests"; but giving the death stats is basic whowhatwherewhenwhyhow journalism, not "obsession". μηδείς (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Morsi has rescinded most of his decrees, according to NBC News. I'm not sure if that warrants a separate blurb (with a separate discussion about it) or simply rewording this one(if we want to mention it at all). 331dot (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Already near enough to the top of the template, but looks very silly if we are posting previous chapter in story on Main Page: Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi annuls his declaration of expanded presidential powers and withdraws a proposed new constitution after public protests.Kevin McE (talk) 09:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't even fit in a tweet and I'm pretty sure he hasn't withdrawn the draft constitution, so maybe we could miss that bit out. Formerip (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal is to miss that bit out. If you need an example of what that would look like: Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi annuls his declaration of expanded presidential powers after public protests.
Oppose I wouldn't have thought the UN would actually have any jurisdiction in this matter? Looks like the reason for the appeal is as a publicity exercise to the wider world. It would be the actual destruction of the site that would be potentially an ITN item. LukeSurltc12:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this once it was destroyed(unfortunately) but I oppose it now; the UN has very little influence in this matter. Many groups appeal to the UN for attention so I don't think that in and of itself merits inclusion at this time. 331dot (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
American businessman John McAfee is arrested in Guatemala following an alleged illegal entry after leaving Belize where he is wanted for questioning over the death of fellow American Gregory Faull. (Reuters)
Nominator's comments: Nyasasaurus was just named in Biology Letters and has received widespread attention in the press for predating the previous earliest dinosaur record by 15 million years. --Smokeybjb (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the sources, it's not so much it might not be an accurate finding but just that something might not have been discovered yet (and may never be). This is essentially the setting of a world record that may never be broken ever, but we don't know that it will or won't. GRAPPLEX03:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: if the word "possible" seems problematic, it may be reformulated as "the oldest dinosaur discovered so far", or something like that. Cambalachero (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify things, Nyasasaurus is a "possible" dinosaur because the paleontologists who described it can't say with absolute certainty whether it lies within the dinosaur group or just outside it. But even if it was just outside the group, it would still be a good representative of the theoretical first dinosaur (which, as Grapple X has already said, will probably never be discovered). Smokeybjb (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meh Dinosaur = cool, but the claim is vague and more a matter of committee decisions. By itself Nyasasaurus is only at 1500 hits trending downward from 1800 at its peak yesterday. Count this as an unopposed vote. μηδείς (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: A Brazilian architect specialized in international modern architecture. "He established himself as one of Modernism's greatest luminaries, while reshaping Brazil’s identity in the popular imagination and mesmerizing architects around the globe". --Vittau (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting a blurb Oscar Niemeyer is by far the most important person than any other whose death has been proposed after the introduction of the recent deaths layer and deserves place with a full blurb on the main page. He is often cited, along with Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and Le Corbusier, as one of the most influential and prolific architects of the modern architecture, and his main works include most of the administrative and cultural buildings in Brasilia and the United Nations headquarters in NYC. It's important to note that he remained active until his death and was symbolically referred to as the world's oldest architect.-Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could we have our attention drawn to something more concrete (pardon me) in terms of his status? The above quote may be perfectly fair, but who said it? I'm not much of an architecture buff, but is he really, really up there with Mies vd Roe and Le Corbusier? Or just maybe arguably?
Also, can we decide collectively not to pick up the habit of putting "RECENT DEATH" in caps. It makes me jump a little. Or alternatively, we could go the whole hog and add three exclamation marks. Formerip (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Formerip: There are plenty of articles and works that admirably mention his name among the greatest of the modern architecture. One of the lists even tops his name as one of the 12 architects that changed the world ([22]). A book titled Oscar Niemeyer: A legend of modern architecture was published several years ago ([23]). Furthermore, some media portals announcing his death hail him as 'patriarch of modern architecture' ([24], [25]).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support He was one of the most outstanding figures of 20th century architecture, and defining for Brazil. Not on the same par with Mies or Corbu, but known worldwide and highly influential in Latin America. He was active until the end of his life. The Oscar Niemeyer International Cultural Centre has been inaugurated last year. Is one of those rare opportunities to highlight culture related articles in the ITN. --ELEKHHT01:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should be more accurate though as he designed the buildings but was not the exclusive planner of Brasilia, neither was he the only architect of the UN. --ELEKHHT01:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blurbworthy? but not worth the effort to Update? Update? Update? A little more effort will go a lot further than so much argument. μηδείς (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. One of the leading figures in both modern architecture and Brazilian history. Article is in relatively good shape, "personal life" section could do with a bit more clarity and sourcing. IgnorantArmies – 03:41, Thursday December 6, 2012 (UTC)
What other update are you asking for besides what's already there? 3000 words about each minor detail of the circumstances of his death? --ELEKHHT04:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've given the important parts of the article a bit of a tidy, and added a few more sentences on the reaction to his death, which seemed to suffice for Dave Brubeck (below). Marking as updated. IgnorantArmies – 05:44, Thursday December 6, 2012 (UTC)
Support for RD, oppose blurb. Celebrity architects just don't have the profile to sustain full blurb level of interest. I would expect full blurb now to be for "hold the press" deaths only. Kevin McE (talk) 07:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference between this and the full blurb for Dave Brubeck? One of the foremost exponents of a type of jazz, itself a type of musical style. And "one of the key figures in the development of modern architecture." Oh wait, one is from the United States. Guess which one. This is an absolute outrageous decision. --86.40.197.18 (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment concur that it is remarkably inconsistent to have a blurb for Dave Brubeck but not for Niemeyer. Added a blurb suggestion. --ELEKHHT23:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If a blurb is 100% necessary, remove Brubeck's then. The point of the ticker was to not clog up ITN and yet people are suggesting to do it anyway. Support ticker but oppse blurb for either personally. Wizardman03:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where in the world did the notion that one nom's blurbworthiness implies another blurb should be pulled? Please refer to the discussion of such a policy and where it was accepted. μηδείς (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough we have people arguing on the talk page that the fact that this has not been made a full blurb is a sort of bias, while they haven't nominated him for one here or even expressed there opinion. μηδείς (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd. Your monitor is not displaying the proposed blurb, the discussions about the blurb and the support for blurb? --ELEKHHT10:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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: Leading Australian philanthropist (and Rupert's mummy). Pioneering in some sense in saying: anyone rich enough can give money, but its more than that. ----Lihaas (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm not seeing what is meant by "it's more than that". No disrespect to her at all, but it's very hard to see what her ITN-worthy contribution to the world was. Formerip (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Highly decorated, notable in many ways: wonder if FormerIP read the article and the quote from a major Australian (non-Murdoch) paper: "Her interests are so many they need to be alphabetically catalogued: academia, the arts, children, flora and fauna, heritage, medical research, social welfare. Many of Melbourne and Australia's most cherished institutions, from the Royal Children's Hospital to the Australian Ballet and the Botanic Gardens, have benefited from her involvement. But Murdoch also devoted herself to less popular causes: prisoners, children in care, those battling mental illness and substance abuse." Page views consistently 220-250/day or more. Kevin McE (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My interests also need to be catalogued alphabetically and I have given money to many charities. Relative to wealth, this may be less or more than Rupert Murdoch's mum. It's hard to say. I suppose the only thing standing in the way of me being posted to ITN is the fact that I am still breathing. Formerip (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear about about what makes per pioneering. The Philanthropy section says she was president of the Royal Childrens Hospital from 1958 to 1965, but beyond that it's pretty vague. --IP98 (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- Don't understand what makes her pioneering.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support Definitely for Recent Deaths. I'd have to be convinced to support a full blurb, but I'm not automatically against it either. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, take five (seconds to support this): "The State Department said in a statement that "as a pianist, composer, cultural emissary and educator, Dave Brubeck's life's work exemplifies the best of America's cultural diplomacy." Time Out was the first jazz album to sell more than a million. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Long term hits are well excess of 700/day; in top 9000 of all article views. Wat ahead of others who have been in this abridged format. Kevin McE (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article has now been put into past tense as appropriate, and a sentence has been added about how he died. We can wait a few hours for tributes to roll in which we can copy for the "five sentence update" but I think this is unnecessary. For a natural death such as this, the article's purpose is essentially as an obituary and it is the details of his life that readers will be interested in, not those of his death. Suggest posting now. --LukeSurltc20:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC) P.S. Yes, this is a slight deviation from policy, but I can't see how waiting helps the Wikipedia project. In my opinion the update requirements should be relaxed for recent deaths if they are natural deaths.[reply]
I don't see the need for a "five sentence update" regarding the death of a 91 year old. The only content we can add is tribute. It's not like there's an investigation into the death, such as there is/will be for Jovan Belcher. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ready While you have been sitting here complaining an update is not necessary, I have updated the article. It's ready to go, no policy trickery needed. μηδείς (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS This is a nom I'd've posted with a blurb. Is there any support for upgrading this? He was certainly the greatest living Jazz Musician at the time of his death. μηδείς (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blurb - Subject was super notable in my view for "Take Five" and a long lifetime of music, and I was pleasantly surprised to see this on ITN's full listings. Good call! Jusdafax21:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose full blurb. I don't think his death quite reaches that level. Undeniably notable and significant, especially in the world of jazz, but not a household name. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one in my extended family was unaware of him or his passing, and none of us is a musician. Perhaps your household is different. The criterion is top of his field, not tip of your tongue. μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What criterion? As far as I know, the requirements for a full blurb vs. death ticker haven't been discussed in any great detail. Many/most of the recent death entries we have posted were also at the top of their respective fields. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Being significant in one's field has always been a criterion of ITN death notices and Brubeck surpasses that, does he not? μηδείς (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The whole point of RD is to ensure that people who are notable can be posted uncontroversially, without clogging up the template with formulaic tripe such as [nationality] [profession] [forename] [surname] dies [at the age of XX]. If the deceased is Michael Jackson, the death itself is worth writing about, or both of the above apply, then a full blurb should be considered. —WFC— FL wishlist09:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Promote Given the strong support here and above for this nom and a full blurb I suggest we promote it now--suggest we also use shorter altblurb which removes a redundant "album". μηδείς (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spencer, considering you supported posting it as a full blurb in the discussion, shouldn't you allow another administrator to decide if consensus exists to post it as a full blurb? RyanVesey01:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've done this before, including with articles I have updated or nominated, albeit from nominations that have had much less after-posting discussion. Although in this case I do believe there was clear consensus to post a full blurb at the time, I will refrain from doing so in the future. Sorry about that. SpencerT♦C04:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ITN/DC, this falls under criteria 2, "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field.", which isn't contingent on international notability. SpencerT♦C03:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's criteria for eligibility for a blurb, not an automatic qualification. International notability still could be used as an argument against him. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 01:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: I thought the reason we created the 'recent deaths' line on ITN precisely to avoid posting deaths like this one. I'd argue first that procedurally speaking, there was no clear consensus on this issue (see for example some of the vociferous protests against this here), so it was premature. Secondly, blurbs for recent deaths should really use a "Michael-Jackson test". Think about Michael Jackson - not only did news sources from around the world report his death, it gave continuous coverage of it for days after it happened. Not only because he was a cultural icon, but also because it was extremely unexpected. I browse the New York Times and various other newspapers today and I find coverage of the death itself very few and far in between. In addition, in contrast to the Jackson death, coverage in places outside of the Western world is scant to non-existent. 193 news sources covered his death according to Google News, while the number for Jackson numbered over 3,000. This is orders of magnitude of a difference. Finally, this sets an extremely bad precedent for future 'recent deaths' posts to devolve into blurbs vs. 'single-link' debates. If someone like Dave Brubeck is even considered on the threshold, as some have suggested by invoking ITN/DC 2, then the vast majority of our recent RD discussions would also easily fall on this threshold (and many can be argued to be even more notable than Brubeck). For me, this is a no brainer. We should replace the blurb with an RD link. Colipon+(Talk) 02:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe other nominations deserve promotion, argue that fact. After the link has been promoted we can pretty much be assured by anti-confirmation bias or whatever it is called that only complainers will come to complain. The simple fact is that Brubeck would most certainly have gotten a full listing back when there weren't just ticker listings. Rather than complain against, work and argue in favor of what you support, please. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shifted back to Recent deaths I don't think there was consensus to put it up as a full blurb, but even if someone disagrees, it should not have been posted by an admin who supported posting it as such. -- tariqabjotu03:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually... now that I read this, I realize I was slightly confused. I didn't realize this was not a continuation of the previous nomination that led to it being posted under Recent deaths, but a separate nomination in which (presumably) the discussion is only about whether it deserved a full blurb. So I'm putting it up, at the same time eliminating any objection based on who posted it. -- tariqabjotu03:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this is purely procedural, it doesn't change the fact that Spencer both supported the full blurb and posted it. If you believe consensus exists for the full blurb, there's no problem. RyanVesey03:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You confuse me. You seem to be so gung-ho about Recent deaths, and yet at the same time, still gung-ho (and somewhat annoyingly so) about giving someone a full blurb. -- tariqabjotu14:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you will see at the Talk Page, there is some dispute over whether Time Out really was the first jazz platinum album, or whether it tied (.. on exactly the same day) with Miles Davis' Kind of Blue. I see that someone has very sensibly removed this claim from the Main Page blurb. I personally don't think this really affects the international notability of Brubeck's life and work, or his death. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative support, re: notability it's pretty large as far as fines go. However the the article update is pretty small, and I'm not sure it's got sufficient potential to grow within the confines of the Barroso Commission article. If a decent article could be written on the affair itself I would lend full support. LukeSurltc19:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support this is a very large fine, and it relates to a significant and long running price fixing scandal. Weak because the update is really thin, and this could probably be spun off into it's own article by an interested party. PS: Almost everything we post is organizations doing what they do: footballers kicking a ball, elections electing someone, race car drivers driving, courts passing judgement, etc; so an oppose on the grounds that this is business as usual is either misplaced or staggeringly inconsistent. --IP98 (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Against exactly whom are these office penguins competing? They simply declare you guilty and you are. I just got a whole year's wages' award from a bureaucratic agency. Does that make them or me notable? Had there been a criminal trial with a guilty verdict, maybe. But this is simply a decree. It's a press release of the least notability. μηδείς (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why does there have to be a competition? They have the authority to levy fines for rules violations. They found a violation, and levied a substantial fine. The size of the fine, and the breadth of the cartel are both significant. Is there something I'm missing? --IP98 (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(to Medeis) We're not talking about a traffic ticket or routine workplace violation fine, these are several multi-million Euro fines against several companies who were engaging in widespread illegal conduct. 331dot (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this headline were that the exact same companies announced they planned to accept a bureaucratic fine in order to pursue a specific business practice it would be laughed at as a nomination. It is not a record fine, it is not a criminal conviction, it is simply how business is done. μηδείς (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article needs expansion, also probably something about the price-fixing itself, not just listing amounts of the fines. SpencerT♦C07:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article:Family planning (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Pioneering research reveals that France's number of millions of spermatozoa per millilitre has fallen by around one third, as has its percentage of normally shaped sperm. (Post) News source(s):Anna-Marie Lever, Health reporter
Oppose results not broadly accepted, and this is a single uncontrolled survey. Additionally, article needs an update, and the phrasing of the blurb needs to be qualified and refined. 130.188.8.27 (talk) 10:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Agree with the IP above. This is a single unconfirmed study. The blurb also needs serious rewriting: "number of millions..." is redundant, and one might just as well say 'sperm count' and have done with it. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. One study, which is unconfirmed and states no cause. Someone quoted in the article even states that it isn't necessarily a problem. 331dot (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This seems dubious to say the least, particularly with a claim such as "pioneering research" in the blurb, which automatically suggests a POV.--WaltCip (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This is a remarkable storm. It formed very close to the equator, made a close pass at the island of Palau, and is now striking the Phillipines at extreme intensity, in a part that very rarely sees typhoons. This story will develop over the next few days -- this storm will be very damaging at best, catastrophic at worst. Looie496 (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you suggest, we should keep a watch on this. We usually report storms primarily via discussing the damage and loss of life that they've caused, so we won't be able to completely formulate and discuss this nomination until those such facts are known. LukeSurltc00:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the appropriate question is whether it is news yet. In my view the unusual features of this storm make it news already, even if nothing more happens. Looie496 (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Post, Already! I am not quite sure why this hasn't been posted already. It would have been had it struck the US. It has met the update requirement several times over, and is certainly as newsworthy as, say, Sandy. μηδείς (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does meet the update requirement as of yesterday. A "December 4" section has to be created for today's events, which shouldn't be that hard... –HTD04:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Considering almost no one has commented on it, I don't know why you expect someone to just post it. It's not ITN/R. It looks newsworthy to me too, but a couple more supports are necessary. In fact, were there any before you posted? -- tariqabjotu06:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just googled around, but see no reports of damage or casualities as of yet. The article seems decent enough, but so far I don't see a reason to support this. Mind you, that could change quickly. Jusdafax06:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Watch closely and be ready: merely making landfall is not ITNworthy, but, unfortunately, there will almost certainly be consequences that are, and those will be the essence of a blurb. Shame on the media in UK/Europe for the paucity of coverage, especially in comparison with the blanket coverage Sandy which had comparable wind speeds and was of no more direct consequence to those of us here. Kevin McE (talk) 07:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per Kevin McE, but worth noting, I think, that an opinion can on occasion be both correct and politically correct. It's not neccessarily mutually exclusive. EdwardLane (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support – decent update, the event is of an encyclopaedic nature, and the big news outlets seem to all be covering this, albeit not quite as prominently as I had expected. —WFC— FL wishlist12:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak SupportThe Guardian now reporting at least 5 dead 50,000 evacuated (I put the link in the sources above), a google news search had a local paper saying 7 dead 24 missing, so changing from wait to weak support for reporting a 600km wide storm (which is all I think I gave Sandy).EdwardLane (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - According to various media outlets the death toll is 80 odd and rising, and we are probably looking at the retirement of the name as will prob cause over 300 deaths.Jason Rees (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Massive destruction in Palau and dozens of fatalities, with dozens to hundreds more likely, in Mindanao. Second most southerly Category 5 on record. Lots of stuff noteworthy. TropicalAnalystwx13(talk)19:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I've added the number killed; is this acceptable, or did you have something more than that in mind? (I was concerned about making the blurb too lengthy.) Also, the storm is regaining strength and may hit again [30]. I suggest modifying the blurb and bumping to the top if this happens and the impact is severe. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article makes it seem like the government transition was expected following the Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2012. I am unclear on why this is not a normal transition of government following an election. If it is such a landmark situation, can you rewrite the updated section of the article to make it clearer? Thanks! --Jayron3221:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as far as I understand it. They were obliged to commit to standing down as an obligation of the recent election: many members of the resigning (but remaining in place for the interim) government will be reappointed when the electoral results from the election are enacted on 15th Dec. Kevin McE (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Inquiry Was the election itself posted to ITN? If not, why is the nom invalid as if it were old news that had already been covered? μηδείς (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the sources for the exact date when the resignation was accepted. Calling me "invalid" is not something that will be appreciated here. I really need to consult with any of the admins to take care with you and your comments.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have misinterpreted μηδείς's intention. When he said "nom" he meant "nomination" rather than "nominator". It was actually a fairly procedural question about the story, not an attack of any sort. --LukeSurltc00:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In that example, Medeis is certainly saying "nom" as "nominator", but in this case I'm pretty sure it means "nomination", asking whether or not the nomination is valid. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Iesu Hristu, Kyril. Combien de fois peut un homme utiliser la parole "it" quand il veut (en anglais) indiquer une personne et pas une chose? Je regrette d'avoir posé la question. μηδείς (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The election wasn't posted to ITN, because the result came only in a week after election day (and then the nomination was considered stale). Therefore I would support posting if the President swears in a new government. But if the old cabinet stays in office ad interim, there is no real news. A new government formation will be interesting, because the allegiance of independents is not yet completely certain (however, most of them are considered pro-government). --RJFF (talk) 12:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the present nomination, but support the posting of the new government when it forms, and endorse Medeis' criticism of Kiril, which is spot-on. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, please, I don't want to be seen as criticizing Kiril; just very confused by how he could think something I was calling an it would be a person, or how people could be invalid. I was actually sympathetic to the nomination, and he seemed to interpret that as hostility to the nominator. But no criticisms. μηδείς (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies to both of you for my misunderstanding. I am also sympathetic to the nomination, and would like to see the story covered when it's the right time. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, but her article needs a little work. I'm surprised this is not on the ITNR list. Is it really less well-known than the Struga Poetry Evenings or the Fields Medal? Formerip (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It says it's a prize eligible only to British visual artists under the age of 50. That's too many qualifiers for me to believe this is ITN/R-worthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A fair point. The Huffington Post ran a live blog on the ceremony so it's not entirely insular to the UK, but still, I get your concern. But per FormerIP, its surely more notable than the "Struga Poetry Evenings"...?!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC quote it as "Video artist Elizabeth Price wins Turner Prize, one of the art world's most prestigious awards". That may be the opinion of one writer at the BBC, but if it is considered one of the world's most prestigious art prizes, it presumably meets any notability requirements here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused, because I'm pretty sure it is a Brits-only prize, as mentioned, but at least one German has won (Wolfgang Tillmans). Not sure how that works. Anyhow, I think the prestige of the award would be based on the list of past winners, if you know enough about contemporary art. Formerip (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a discussion on whether this prize is ITN/R-worthy, but on whether this individual news story should be featured in ITN on its individual merits. --RJFF (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a joke, RJFF? Because the artsbeatblog at the NYT is hardly the front page, even if it does have a few dozen readers. μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support-ish - the premier art award in the UK, seems an important development in Art, one of the major fields an encyclopaedia should cover. However I'd accept an argument it's too UK-centric, I'm pretty much unable to really judge that from my computer here in Norwich. --LukeSurltc23:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a recurring event, not on ITN/R, and nothing notable about this occurrence of the item. Also the stub like article has an inadequate update. --IP98 (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That item was boldly added by Bzweebl without discussion. I vehemently opposed it, even tried to revert it, and was shouted down. I strongly disagree with the logic behind it, and I stand by my oppose. --IP98 (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find that the technical term for "was shouted down" is "favoured a view that did not gain consensus." By all means continue to post such opposes if you find it therapeutic (it is only a request not to do so), but expect admins to read it as an argument that, according to consensus, is not to be given any weight. Kevin McE (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We commonly post national prizes in sport. Would one in the whole year for art be so bad? If you google "world's most prestigious art prize", this does seem to be the one. Formerip (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there a problem with this prize being national, but not with the NBA Finals, the Super Bowl, or the Premier League (which is even for English teams only, while this is for all Britons and resident aliens, "living, working or born in Britain")? It obviously draws international attention, as I have showed above, citing US and Canadian news media. --RJFF (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. and Canadian news media buried in some specialist section that only comes to life in 2 out of 365 days of the year?. –HTD12:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To give an example on how this is big in the UK, Price's article's page views (BTW, it's a pain to access the stats nowadays) don't surpass 60/day, until she won where it jumped to an impressive 2.5k. Compare to Toronto Argonauts with daily pageviews in the hundreds to the thousands. Grey Cup is a big thing i Canada and is not just relegated to some specialist CFL section nobody reads. –HTD13:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a weird set of arguments. Surely the sudden upsurge in interest in this person so that she -wow!- now gets more views that a Canadian Football team just indicates the significance of the event (?). Formerip (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from the BC Lions stats last year (which was not posted), somewhat half of the Argonauts' page views can be attributed for it being linked to the Main Page. That's still significantly higher than Price's article. Also, it helped that it was quickly posted (hahah), and that Toronto is a larger media market. –HTD14:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's nonsense, Alex. We as editors do not control what user stats are; they are independent (thank god) of editor consensus. μηδείς (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did explain, and have put a note in the talk page of ITN/R. By the by, I have no problem with the nomination being re-opened, though I suppose now the chance for it being posted has passed doktorbwordsdeeds23:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do find the "scope" argument somewhat curious. The "scope" of the Superbowl final is two teams from, what, 24 franchises, all based in the US? The "notability" of the Superbowl final is without question, and that really should be what we're commenting on here. The "scope" of many of the ITN/R items is small, smaller even than this, but yet they feature without question. I suggest you think about it's a "scope" thing or a "notability" thing here, if the New York Times, the LA Times, the Huffington Post, Le Monde, etc have articles on the winner, it's probably irrelevant what the "scope" is... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those news outlets are also covering Prince William & Kate's announcement, but that's being rejected. The Super Bowl is the highest level of professional football in the US(with 30 teams spread over the country), and is a nationwide, popular sport; the Turner Prize is only given to people under 50, not any possible nominee or entrant. Apples and oranges. I wouldn't support listing the winner of a particular NFL division, or the winner of a college division. 331dot (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, 30 pro teams over a country of 300m+ people. The UK has over 100 pro football teams in a country with 60m people. Apples and oranges back at ya... The real point is that the notability of this prize supersedes your opinion of the inclusion criteria, as demonstrated by its global coverage. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that this Prize does not represent the best possible artist in the UK as those over 50 are not included. It would be as if an Academy Award was only given to actors under 50. The Super Bowl winner does represent the best team out of all professional teams. 331dot (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is invalid. This is "In The News", not "What 331dot thinks is important". Global coverage of this art prize suggests your assertion of parochialism to be somewhat misguided. 18:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
It kinda is "What 331dot thinks is important", or more specifically ""What 331dot and Hot_Stop and The Rambling Man and Howard the Duck and etc. etc. think is important". ITN (and Wikipedia as a whole) is a community whose "opinions" are essentially the aggregation of those of its editors. LukeSurltc
No, you've missed the point as well. It's all very well to oppose anything here but if you oppose on false grounds or on a misunderstanding of the criteria, then it's not important what an individual thinks. That's the key to how articles should be chosen, a well-judged appraisal of supports and opposes, and if either have misunderstood the inclusion criteria, then they should be disregarded. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "false grounds"; it's my assessment of the notability of this award in order to consider its merits for inclusion on ITN, just as your opinion is based on the same. That's what this page is for- for users to post their opinions and debate them to arrive at a consensus, if possible. I've given mine, and you've given yours. There is no such thing as a "false" opinion- that's why it's called an opinion. I don't think there is anyone here in the business of determining whose opinion is valid and whose isn't. 331dot (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "global coverage" is only a small part of reasoning for including things here; I saw the North Korean "unicorn" story in several outlets worldwide; Prince William's and Kate's upcoming child is being covered globally, etc. etc. Just because an event is mentioned globally doesn't mean automatic entry into ITN. 331dot (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: I'm not from the UK, but this seems to be noteworthy as the child will be directly in line to the throne. Not sure if the child should be born first in order to be in ITN but I thought I'd put this out there. --331dot (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tend to agree with the nominator's concern, this is something that we will list if/when the child is born, we don't really need to run it now. Any child born here would become third in line to the British throne (I think, after Charles and William, regardless of whether baby is boy or girl) so that is a notable aspect, but given that Charles hasn't ascended yet, and doesn't look likely to do so for another decade, we're talking about a possible monarch in 2060.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I can't even see the merit of listing a birth (any birth), let alone a pregnancy announcement. Leave it to The Sun or something else deprived of real news. GRAPPLEX17:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle because there will be huge readership interest and because this child will be in direct line for the throne--whether we have anything encyclopedic to say is another question. A link to British monarchy in the blurb or House of Windsor might make sense. μηδείς (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As much as most of us probably think this is a bit overblown celebrity gossip with a regal twist, like it or not, this is very much what is in the news at the current time. People will be coming to en:wikipedia to look up this story. Perhaps we should swallow our pride a bit and consider this? --LukeSurltc17:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's my point. We do have some good articles on the royal family worth linking readers to and interest on this topic is worldwide. Unfortunately we all too often support our own pet topics and look down our noses at actual users of the project. μηδείς (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But that sets a dangerous precedent. "In the News" has always had a bias against this sort of news story, and with good reason. We're not a news ticker, more a news filter if anything, and allowing this through would have a "Penn State Coach" effect.....doktorbwordsdeeds19:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you keep beating that dead coach. The issue here is worldwide frontpage coverage, and the presumed heir to the throne. Later pregnancies will not be as notable. The "filter" argument is ridiculous if you look at such things as striking state teachers protests making it to the front page and the strong support for posting a cricketer's announced retirement. People coming to our front page should find links to the good articles we do have on the British monarchy and the House of Windsor. That's what applying our standards should look like. μηδείς (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because that was a watershed decision. It enables nominations, mostly from college-level minority sports, to get extra support. It's worth remembering that it took a long time to beat back those who wanted the Occupy movement on the front page, which in hindsight was even more of a success than it felt at the time. ITN is not designed as contents list or a highlights package. I think it's much more worthy of us to tip our hats to Ricky Ponting, who has achieved greatness in his career, to the pregnancy of a Royal Family member. We should wait until the baby is born, a far more logical announcement. doktorbwordsdeeds19:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has pretty much snowed oppose, but I'm going to declare myself as support. Yes it's tabloid news, but people read tabloid newspapers. Opposing popular news stories because we don't deal them 'worthy' seems somewhat patriarchal. ITN should reflect the news (as it influences the ongoing development of the encyclopaedia), not pretend that it decides what the news is, nor consider itself a filter for news of a certain level of sophistication. For better or worse this will be top of the news cycle in many countries, and ITN is going to miss it out, despite it resulting in significant changes to several important articles. We're humans, not computer scripts, we don't need to run everything by a preordained set of rules - nor would this open the floodgates to every story one wouldn't want on ITN in the future.
Given your 'reasoning', doktorb, shouldn't you be arguing we not acknowledge the conception of the next in line for the British crown until he's actually crowned? Certain events, like the re-election of Barack Obama, are notable even before the inauguration/christening/coronation. μηδείς (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to crack the surface of your sarcasm but I'll try. The re-election of Obama was notable because, and this may surprise you, it's the election of the President of the United States of America, and that sort of thing tends to tick plenty of boxes. What we have here is the pregnancy of the wife of someone second in line to the throne. The birth *will be* notable, because it's an addition to the Royal Family. The pregnancy is just something which happens along the way, and as such is quite close to a press release from Company A admitting it's in merger talks with Company B. I'm surprised at you, in a way, because I always thought you were a pretty good gatekeeper for ITN. doktorbwordsdeeds22:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks for the compliment. People do, however, disagree. I support this nom not because I think it meets some sort of highbrow standard, but because it has a good beat, and you can dance to it. That is, our readers will like it and we do have good encyclopedic articles to offer them. As for Obama, he hasn't yet been certified by the Electoral College nor the House of Representatives nor sworn in. By the "wait" rationale here, we shouldn't post Obama's reelection at least until the House certification in January, if not until he's been crowned 2013/01/20. So while I am not so delusional as to expect the nabobs here to agree, I do think the rationale in favor of this posting is quite sound and in good faith. μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To return to LukeSurls point: Right now, on Google world news, directly under the royal baby, is the pope on twitter. Yep, the pope on Twitter. Just because something is in the news, doesn't mean it matters. --IP98 (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentLe Monde and New York Times, "serious" newspapers currently have links to this story on their front pages, suggesting it is news beyond just the UK sphere. And foreign tablets such as Bild and Paris Match have splashed the thing as their main headline. I think I'd broadly agree with LukeSurl; it's not so much whether Wikipedia thinks it's worthy of being in the news, it's a question of whether it *is* in the news. And it seems to be. — Amakuru (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in the final analysis, of course it is about whether Wikipedia thinks it is worthy of posting. For various reasons, we haven't posted any of the stories currently on the BBC News homepage, for example. Formerip (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I phoned my mother with the news the minute I read it, but this is an encyclopedia, not a news ticker. We'll post an ITN item when the baby is born and a Wikipedia article about him/her is written. —David Levy18:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wikipedia is not People magazine. Regarding figurehead monarchies (and I know that phrase will piss off some Brits), the only newsworthy bit to me is actual succession. I object to posting news about "baby bumps". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until news of birth. This is likely to be the next king/queen of the various commonwealth realms some day, but there's no impending need to jump the gun. Wikipedia doesn't need to get "scoops" and this event should appear in ITN, when the child is born. Just not now. --Jayron3219:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I might change my opinion if the child were a North Korean unicorn that signed a contract with a National League baseball team. --RJFF (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is this bizarre obsession with Henry VIII? Incidentally, "King Hal" is more usually taken to be Henry V – but, as ever, don't let facts get in the way of your inscrutable comments. 87.114.31.223 (talk) 10:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not lobbying this too hard, as I was mostly testing the waters of what people thought, and it makes sense to me to wait until the birth- but I disagree with the characterization of this as "tabloid news", unless NBC, the BBC, Le Monde, and the New York Times are tabloids now. It's news relevant to the succession of the head of state of the UK and many other countries. I agree with LukeSurl's comments above- even as I understand this will not be posted. 331dot (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, once again I have to agree with Luke and 331, and wonder if the "wait" votes are not the funniest (unintentional?) jokes I've seen in ITN in years. μηδείς (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - tabloid fodder with no impact whatsoever. We can post if/when they actually ascend to the throne, not before. A complete non-story. Modest Geniustalk23:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's much too early to call this one. Once an heir is actually born, that might be ITN-worthy. But when the attendant change in the succession law is finally passed, I'll back that for ITN: it's a constitutional amendment in a very literal sense. For the style-hounds, the correct form for the proposed blurb here is "The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge announce..." AlexTiefling (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This and oppose the birth. Would we support it if it was the Saudi royal family? I doubt it, and the Saudi royal family actually run the affairs of that country. I don't think we need it. Vegemighty (talk) 10:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also oppose the posting birth, and I hope I remember that argument in <9 months. If you actually mean "oppose the birth", well I don't have anything personal against the royals. Let them breed if they wish. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Saudis don't have a line of succession beyond the next immediate successor, because it's not strictly hereditary. But we definitely cover changes to the line of succession nonetheless. -LtNOWIS (talk) 04:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – my position is similar to AlexTiefling. This is a definite no-no, while the birth itself would be a close call, following lengthy debate. —WFC— FL wishlist11:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox