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).
Twenty people are killed in bombings in Iraq. (BBC)
A suicide bomber blows himself up in the Tunisian tourist resort of Sousse and police foil another attempted attack in Habib Bourguiba's tomb in Monastir. No casualties are reported. (Reuters)
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.
The !vote here is to have editors validate that the article was updated and free of significant problems, as opposed to the worthiness of the news blurb itself. ITNR is not a guarantee of posting if the article doesn't get an update that is proper for that topic. --MASEM (t) 05:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The lead needed some fixing to summarize the series better, and probably still does, but it certainly seems in order overall, and is one of the most major sporting events in the United States. I would prefer the alternate blurb to read better for a worldwide audience (or maybe a slight variation to mention "2013" and also simplify further, but still mentioning "in baseball" or similar.) Odg2vcLR (talk) 06:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose don't see any ramifications outside one country (the "int'l" source is domestic here). If that can be proven otherwise, ill changeLihaas (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Happily enough we have gone quite a while without a conflict posting (I believe), anyways, the end of a movement is usually notable enough. We posted the tigers dying in lanka.. --Lihaas (talk) 10:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's actually the UN Special Envoy saying that, which makes it more newsworthy in my view - I wouldn't be inclined to trust the statements of the Congolese government since they are a party to the conflict and therefore have an interest in saying how well they are doing in crushing the rebels. I'm going to boldly edit the blurb to reflect this. Neljack (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The current blurb seems messy. Is there a way to report what has actually occurred without having to quote an individual or organization? --LukeSurltc12:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It could be changed to just refer to the offensive, but a lot of the news coverage seems to be focusing on the statement that they're finished. Neljack (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What, can you write in English please? You've edit-conflicted at least twice today, that's not the "software", it's you overwriting other editor's discussions. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not conscientiously remove content. When the edit conflict page comes up in the editor box and dislays the WHOLE page I just added to the section itself, didn't paste over everything.Lihaas (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a classic case of systemic bias in the media - a very important story that doesn't get sufficient coverage because of where it occurs. Neljack (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would it not be better to wait until the situation is resolved? I'm uncertain about posting news to ITN every time someone - be they the UN Special Envoy or not - provides a soundbite for the media. m.o.p00:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The story that this group was "finished" might be okay, but this is just the story that, according to someone, they will probably be finished real soon for sure. Formerip (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the update' shows that their last stronghold has been evacuated...that's an indication, a la the tamil tigers, that theyre finished.Lihaas (talk) 22:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will be inaugurated today (Republic day in Turkey), though it will not be fully functional for a while, according to the BBC article. Still, a good opportunity to feature the story on ITN. --Tone09:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per 331dot. Currently the article talks about the opening in the future tense. Could we have a couple of sentances on the actual ceremonies that happened today? --LukeSurltc12:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's cause there aren't many such inkages abailable. Where it is Im sure you have rail network across the urals and then you have the suez and panama canalsLihaas (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Post-support I made a note to myself yesterday to nominate this today, but was too busy and forgot about it. More stuff like this, please! --hydrox (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see the near unanimity on this one. As a purely technical challenge (the soil! the depth! the earthquake management!), this ranks as one of the most important engineering achievements of the 21st C to date. ... Not that the political ramifications of the physical connection for mass transit are unimportant, especially given the EU in the background. (A fixed Bosphorus link already exists for cars and trucks, if no longer for pedestrians.) - Tenebris 00:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Two people are killed in the northern city of Tripoli in fighting between supporters and opponents of the Syrian government and the Lebanese army. (Reuters)
A suspected U.S. drone strike kills at least two Islamist Al-Shabaab insurgents and commander driving in a car south of the Somali capital Mogadishu. (Reuters)(BBC)
Ennahda party leader Rashid al-Ghannushi announces in a televised interview that the party may be willing to give up the government but not power. (Al Arabiya)
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Support, but only if the article is updated and in an acceptable shape to be showcased on the main page. A quick glance at Argentine legislative election, 2013 shows that this has not been done yet, because currently the lead reads "Legislative elections will be held in Argentina on October 27, 2013..." Also, there are lots of empty sections.--FoxyOrange (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could we please not nominate things before the event is done, or before the article is written? It's actually reducing the chance of an item being posted when there is a premature nomination. JehochmanTalk14:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How does nominating an event prematurely reduce the chance of it being posted? If anything, it increases the chance of the item being posted as more people will see the article and be able to work on updating it and adding more information. Andise1 (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because a tide of "not ready", "fails to meet "criteria""-style !votes overwhelm each nomination, and usually result in potentially good noms being overlooked. There's little to be served by being "first" to nominate something prematurely unless, I suppose, you're involved in some kind of contest like the WikiCup. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. A well-timed nomination with current news + an updated article will generate 5 quick supports, and it's posted. I'm sitting around all day long looking for something to post. When the conversation is long and convoluted, that discourages people from trying to understand it all; they just move along to the next thing, and the necessary supports don't materialize. JehochmanTalk03:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And what you decide to post is usually updated? Like the one below which consists of "Mazowiecki died in Warsaw on 28 October 2013"Lihaas (talk) 09:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I may complete the empty sections in some hours, but even if I do, would it be worthy of "In the news"? Midterms elections (the heads of state of Argentina are still the same) and the FFV keeps the majority at both houses (meaning, everything basically stays as it was). Cambalachero (talk) 10:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it is in the news somewhere, general elections of sovereign states (for heads of state/government and national legislatures) have already been deemed important enough for ITN due to being present on the ITNR list. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done All the sections have now been filled. However, the hook sounds like a FFV victory, but it fails to mention that the FFV has lost in most provinces of Argentina, and certainly lost in all the major and most populated ones. In other words, that the population has clearly rejected the party in the elections. As the linked news source says anyway, "Argentina opposition gains ground in vote". The FFV only retains the majority because the Congress is renewing the legislators from the 2009 election, which had also been a defeat for the FFV, and because it is the single party running in all the provinces (the others have local parties, or parties with limited national influence). So, I propose an alternative hook: ALT1: The Front for Victory lost in several provinces of Argentina but retains its majority in the Argentine legislative election, 2013Cambalachero (talk) 04:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for continuing to work on this. Could you provide your source for the results, please? I suspect before posting some degree of analysis will also be required. The Alt1 you suggest is a bit clumsy; what about
I watch CNN and BBC almost daily and frankly they often focus on English-speaking countries, terrorism in Pakistan or something like that, so the coverage in US or Australian news isn't always a reliable indicator. Brandmeistertalk10:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not, but the nominator DID say "his death was noted and reported by media all over the world". Stuff like that never helps if it's not true. HiLo48 (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All over the world" is one of those phrases not to be taken too literally; there'll always be somewhere that the said event is not happening or, in this case, not being reported. I'd hate to have to forgo the phrase just because reports hadn't reached central Greenland or the middle of the Pacific Ocean. 88.110.90.148 (talk) 07:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support notability-wise, but some serious referencing will be needed. I've also removed or rewritten a bunch of material based of NPOV, and there may still be POV issues. Neljack (talk) 11:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support because he was the first non-communist prime minister in Central and Eastern Europe after World War II. But first, any issues with the article (per Brandmeister and Neljack) must be ruled out.--FoxyOrange (talk) 13:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — His name isn't a household word in the U.S., but Tadeusz Mazowiecki was an important figure in the transition of eastern Europe to Western democracy. Sca (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PULL: WTF?! the update consists of "Mazowiecki died in Warsaw on 28 October 2013". That from an admin who said above not to nominate TILL it is updated!Lihaas (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about me. He died. What else is needing to be updated for an RD listing? WP:BURO. Nobody has yet pointed out an incorrect fact in the article. Are we going to hold that every article must be featured quality before we post it? This discussion is just plain silly. If you don't want to see an article posted, don't vote "Support". The support was (correctly) unanimous before I posted this item. Shall we wait a week for it to become stale? JehochmanTalk20:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pull I have to agree that this should be pulled, not because of some inflexible application of the update requirement, but because the article contains whole sections that are unreferenced. That is not acceptable given BLP. Neljack (talk) 09:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not correct, Brandmeister: "The only exception [to BLP not applying to dead people] would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death - six months, one year, two years at the outside."[4]Neljack (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pull unless every editor gets to post whatever he likes, why even have rules governing nominations and admins worse than any fascist or eastern potentate? Regardless of the poor state of the article, the rules explicitly state an update that merely repeats the RD subject is dead is not an update. We need term limits on admins, and a lottery to choose them rather than elections by a self-perpetuating click. μηδείς (talk) 11:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NotePull is in the majority: "Support once the orange tag goes away"; "serious referencing will be needed"; "first, any issues with the article (per Brandmeister and Neljack) must be ruled out"; "when referenced" plus the nominator's caveat and three explicit pulls, versus two unqualified supports. μηδείς (talk) 11:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please Pull For all the reasons mentioned above. The articles should not be posted blindly. ITNR is very well documented and should be satisfied in word and spirit.Regards, theTigerKing15:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't see any tags, and there are 14 references. The reason references are required is to avoid incorrect material being in the article. Can anybody point out anything wrong with the facts listed in the article? Abductive (reasoning) 15:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I (and I suspect most of us here) are not sufficiently knowledgeable about recent Polish history to comment either way on the accuracy of the article. I removed some statements that seemed non-neutral and likely to be contentious. Neljack (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The admin who posted the article removed the tag. I verified/fixed some facts and I added missing citations, although I'm not an expert in this matter. User:Neljack made a good and competent clean up. Most of editors here discuss the tag, the rules and guidelines, not the article. The article as it was before did not contain any specific [citation needed] tags. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note It is true that most of people who !voted here stated not to post till it is properly referenced (not updated), and their opinion should not be neglected. The media usually don't inform about circumstances of death of an elderly politician, they focus on his/her productive career and achievements. They usually don't write that s/he died in blue pajamas with white strips, so why should we do that? The fact that s/he died is crucially important for posting in the RD section of the ITN. After the death is confirmed and referenced in the article, why not to post it? ... Personally I think that posting of this article was a good service to our readers searching for information. But I respect that others may disagree and I have to agree with Neljack's objection about referencing. The main page serves as a Potemkin village showing to the audience how great articles we have ... it is not good to have orange tags or unreferenced sections in articles which are on the main page - it shows we are not prefect. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it posted I've spent at least five whole minutes improving it, there could be more work applied, but seriously, so many "pull now" hysterics from people here who could have fixed some of the issues they've bitched on about. Try getting on with improving Wikipedia rather than just quoting fake "rules" or "policy". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the pull tag. While there may have been legitimate issues before they appear to have been addressed--the update appears adequate and there doesn't seem to be a reason to pull.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Damage and disruption seems to be minimal - a few uprooted trees and transport cancelations, with few or no deaths, thankfully. European windstorms are reasonably common (4-5 per year), and not usually that serious. Smurrayinchester09:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support with a better blurb For a European windstorm, it still wasn't especially bad (to use deaths as one admittedly imperfect proxy, it was the sixth worst storm of the last 10 years, after Kyrill, Gudrun, Jeanett, Klaus and Xynthia), although this might be because it was predicted far enough in advance. Still, the effects were more or less the same across Europe, which at least gives this some international legs, and I can see a lot of people being interested in the article. The blurb doesn't really convey what happened (since it was written before the extent of the storm was known). Perhaps: "The St Jude storm causes 15 deaths and widespread damage and disruption across northwest Europe." Smurrayinchester08:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. We are just entering the working day in the UK: over the next hour or two the evidence to back up or contradict the statement that this is the worse storm in two decades should emerge. I don't think the wind speed and pre-planned train cancellations alone are significant enough to support at this stage, but equally I don't think opposing without knowing the full picture would be constructive. —WFC— FL wishlist09:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support based on this article; multiple deaths, properties destroyed, nigh on a quarter of a million homes without power and transport in and out of the capital decimated. Disclosure: as someone living in the affected area I may be considered slightly biased, but I hope I have at least explained my reasoning. —WFC— FL wishlist09:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Seasonal weather affecting a relatively small area of the country which the BBC has blown (no pun intended) out of all proportion because it happens to be in the south-east.Optimist on the run (talk) 09:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brushing aside the generally accepted southern-English bashing, and even putting aside whether or not this storm is ITN-worthy, I don't think this can be described as "[blowing] things out of all proportion". —WFC— FL wishlist10:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sitting here in my office in East England I was quite easily able to commute to, the storm simply isn't as bad as it's been "blown" up to be. The many hurricanes and storms which happen at more tropical latitudes have given us precedent for these sorts of weather events, and this is nowhere near making the grade. --LukeSurltc10:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose' two deaths is tragic, but most places suffered minor damage, the disruption is more likely related to the British inability to handle such "emergencies" rather than the severity of the storm. (Which is now heading to Denmark, having cleared England an hour or so ago...) The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said "most places suffered minor damage". The storm came right through where I live, a few branches fell off, lots of horizontal rain, that's it. It's now sunny and dry. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The scale and consistency of damage are mutually exclusive though. My road fared even better than yours: I can't pick out any damage whatsoever, not even branches. Yet within a two mile radius of my current location there are hundreds of homes in the dark, A-roads and motorway entrances impassable due to fallen trees, the most used railway line on the island off limits, and a man dead after a tree crushed his moving car. At the other end of the spectrum, the other known deaths were the other side of London, and hundreds of miles west of here, and the destruction ranges from Devon, to Essex and Kent, and indeed the Cabinet Office in Central London. Far from a local impact. —WFC— FL wishlist11:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definitely not local (in an English sense), the storm path is a couple of hundred miles long, but power cuts, meh, a few crushed cars, meh, our railways stop working when the wrong leaves are on the track so no change there, and yes, as I said, a couple of deaths is a tragedy, but in the big scheme of things, it's nothing major. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Like I said earlier, I probably am biased on this one. Although on the point of southern softness, I'd question how much difference Japanese engineers and bullet trains would make on the West Coast Mainline this morning, how much more the German traffic agencies would have done with the sheer number of road blockages, or how much quicker the New York emergency services would reopen roads entirely blocked by scaffolding, demolished housing, or a national government building in Manhattan being hit by a crane. We're bad at the best of times, but things were bound to be bad today. —WFC— FL wishlist11:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The storm isn't just affecting the UK. France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany are also affected. The storm is heading for Denmark. Assistance in expanding the article from editors who can read French, Dutch, German or Danish would be appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 11:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The main storm hasn't reached Germany yet, but so far German news seems to be treating it as an almost exclusively British storm (though always with a scary postscript like "The storm that ravaged England IS NOW COMING FOR US"). 12 Spiegel reports 1 death in Cologne (a sailor washed overboard). North German news reports that ferries to the islands are cancelled and that there were some train delays (for all that we Brits love to complain that UK trains are uniquely bad at dealing with bad weather, the same is true across most of Europe - the only places where trains do run on time in bad weather are places where it is common enough for it to be economically worthwhile to build stormproof infrastructure and to put enough "slack" into the timetables to cope with small delays.) Smurrayinchester12:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to oppose, quite literally a storm in a teacup. Lots of bluster in a few countries, a handful of tragic deaths, but nothing compared to other weather systems we've experienced in the last couple of decades. Barely notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
leaning oppose. This storm wasn't as bad as predicted (although I suspect there was significant hyping of worst-case scenarios). It was just a slightly earlier than normal winter storm of a circa once in 5 years magnitude (not the 20 or 30 years that was hyped). If it causes significant damage or disruption on the continent then I'll be prepared to reconsider, but the impact on the UK alone is not ITN-worthy imo. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There was quite some hype, but the actual outcome was not that unusual. The consequences (200 cancelled flights at Heathrow and Schipol, power outage for 65,000 French households, less than ten deaths) aren't special occurences that need to be showcased on the main page.--FoxyOrange (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An overhyped storm indeed. Storms of this caliber really aren't all that uncommon in Western/Northern Europe. One tree blew over near me, and I'm pretty far south.--Somchai Sun (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite a typical weather phenomenon for these parts of Europe for this time of year. A storm like this last occured only 5 years ago. At the levels of material and human loss reported so far, oppose for now at least. --hydrox (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. This is being reported outside the UK (NBC said it's the worst storm in years to hit the UK) and has had widespread effects, even if they were not catastrophic. That said, if users from the UK aren't keen on posting this, that also says something and I could understand not posting it. 331dot (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support, 4 confirmed deaths in the UK, another 4 so far on the continent. 600,000 homes without power in the UK. Major transport disruption. Some reports suggest that the strongest wind on record has occurred at Denmark. I'd say this is notable enough now. yorkshiresky (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it's "in the news", the context being that we seldom have a really windy day around these parts. Having said that, there's a reasonable argument to say "Storm passes over Western Europe causing some disruption and a handful of deaths", but that's a little lame in a population of hundreds of millions and with weather that we see pretty much all the time, just not quite so concentrated (in the UK, at least). First world problem, no big deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Oppose It does meet the criteria of being in the news, but I went looking for anything we might have considered before like this - we posted 2013_European_floods but so far that seems to be a bigger scale event. Overall I think there's probably more newsworthy storied right now. CaptRik (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Initially I was inclined against this, but as the coverage matures, it appears to be an unusual magnitude storm for N. Europe affecting a wide area. The confirmed death toll keeps rising but seems to be at least 13. Gusting wind speeds of 121 mph in Denmark, a record for that country. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support More coverage now in the US than yesterday, especially given the 100ft+ wave surfed off Portugal, not to mention death and damage. μηδείς (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A 37-year-old woman and four children are stabbed to death in Brooklyn, New York City, New York. A man is arrested in connection with the murders. (CNN)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
AGF applies to unknowns. I have read the disclaimer on Count Iblis's User Page (please do if you haven't.) The look at FormerIP's, Masem's, and Jusdafax's comments here, and expalin why my comments are the only ones that stand out to you, Neljack. 05:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Medeis: "AGF applies to unknowns. I have read the disclaimer on Count Iblis's User Page (please do if you haven't.)" But you choose to misinterpret these disclaimers, so AGF also applies to the way you should interpret them. Disagree with them all you like, but it isn't what you claim it is. Count Iblis (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support. Absolutely the sort of person RD was intended for. There isn't anything known about his death other than that it has happened at the moment, but this is a high-importance B-class article for a very popular musician so it will be updated when details emerge. Thryduulf (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only concern I had for a blurb was that his death was not surprising (he was 71 at the time), and while I personally have the same belief that he was an important figure in music, I figured there would be some contest against that claim. That said, a blurb could be: Lou Reed, lead guitarist of the Velvet Underground and considered a major influence on rock music in the last half of the 20th century, dies at 71". (using some of the language in the RS article). --MASEM (t) 18:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as he was definitely one of the most famous and remarkable musicians of the second half of the last century, mostly as solo artist but also as part of The Velvet Underground. Some of his hit songs such like "Perfect Day" and "Walk on the Wild Side" were covered and performed by many other artists through the years and gained wide popularity and commercial success.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be too hard for his fans to get a nice article update--since that's the only thing holding it back at this point. μηδείς (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pull this was posted without an update. Per ITN: "The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable. Changes in verb tense (e.g. "is" → "was") or updates that convey little or no relevant information beyond what is stated in the ITN blurb are insufficient." The sole update to this article is one sentence saying he has died. μηδείς (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More evidence to support the fact that the 5/3 update "requirement" is pure nonsense. We've sufficient precedents now to completely extinguish this bogus criterion. By the way, I've doubled the update by adding a guffy "tribute" sentence with another ref. What more to add? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to policy there was no acceptable update. Not me. Policy. Classy that you choose to speak of maggots, HiLo. When's the last time you updated an RD nom? μηδείς (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blurb this would have been posted as a full blurb without a doubt under the old rules, and while the bar has raised since, this guy is one of the greatest music legends who ever lived. All the obituaries are calling him a music or rock icon in the lead. He's one of the few exceptions for a full blurb here considering is legacy. Also it seems like one of those period of times in which a bunch of highly recognizable figures are passing away on a short period of time, he's the most newsworthy of the deaths so far. Secretaccount19:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer RD - Although I certainly understand the sentiment for a full listing and don't really oppose one, I don't think this is quite important enough (although it's very close). --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb, support RD, oppose pull I believe we should apply a very high threshold for obituary blurbs. An RD listing conveys that the person has died; a blurb adds very little. And otherwise we end up with endless arguments over whether this or that person who has just died should get a blurb. I don't think Reed quite meets my threshold. However, I oppose pulling the RD listing based on an overly rigid interpretation of the update requirement. Neljack (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD at a minimum, and I would not be opposed to a full blurb either. Lou Reed's impact on contemporary musicians of every sort cannot be overestimated. Just as an aside, I was about to say "postmortem support", but then I remembered this discussion and thought better of it... Kurtis(talk)03:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it weren't for the fact that you yourself know exactly which is his one identifiable hit to most people old enough to know him at all, I would take that seriously. No point arguing, although he's prematurely publicated, his article's a mess. μηδείς (talk) 05:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He had three UK top ten hits, all equally "identifiable" as far as I am personally concerned. One of them was quite recent. But not sure why "number of hits" (or any subjective reinterpretation of how widely this is appreciated) should be used as a yardstick for measuring influence or general impact. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Medeis is being deliberately provocative. For all I know she's 18 or 70. I know Lou Reed for A Walk On The Wild Side, others may know him for something else. The BBC covered Perfect Day. Then there's the entire Velvet Underground back catalog (sic); Medeis is yanking our crank I suspect. Mind you, to use the word "publicate" is now beyond a joke.... I know the Queen's English is dead, but that's too much. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blurb I was dubious at first but after reading the article and sources I am ok with a blurb. This was an artist of significant influence and recognized as such, and he received very significant tributes after his death. The article is adequately updated. OK to post.--108.29.65.165 (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per TRM; like him, looking around I couldn't find too many news stories on this, and those I did find were buried in the webpages. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose the notability threshold is at least 20 deaths. No indication this has legacy (bobmingd are not infrequent here). And the article should just redirect to the list of terrorsit incidents pageLihaas (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-western bombings nominated wih less than about 30 or so deaths have not got consensus to post. That the empirical evidence. (there was an outlier of some bombing in india some time ago)Lihaas (talk) 12:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
India is not a place like the Iraq/Afghan/Syria to experience bomb blasts daily. The frequency of bomb blast incident is lower compared to its neighboring middle east. This can definitely be a news that can be in the Front page. - Vatsan34 (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True there is no coherent policy of ITN/R/C but its been cited before that if ITNC passes such motions its basically an ITNR consensus. Anyways, I was just citing precendent as my opionon not claiming it as itnrLihaas (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The notability of this blasts cannot be determined easily because not much is known about it. It might be a terror attack, a political conspiracy, or a plan to assassinate prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi. This is a major news in India, and I think that it is notable enough to get on ITN. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛TalkEmail13:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
No sources listed establishing this is in the news per the instructions on this page: "Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable source."331dot (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have seen many a case where the election isn't really decided or there is some other hitch. A source allows commentors here to understand what is really going on. Abductive (reasoning) 18:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really agree with this even if no one else cares about these elections we should per INT/R, besides just if they aren't in english speaking media that doesn't actually mean that they aren't in news at all. However I do agree that Abductive has a point, and Lihaas should try to find news article about these if at all possible. SeraV (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SupportIff the article is made to reflect exactly how the amendments will change the power of the president. That is the most significant factor here. After reading the article, I have no more understanding of the amendments than I did from the blurb. The blurb makes it sound like the amendments were voted on this year, which is not the case, so that should be changed. RyanVesey20:07, 27 October 2013 (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.
Support no-brainer. And oddly I'm not sure how much more of an update is needed, after all this is a series of races, his article reflects the fact he's won most of them and happens to have won the title today by virtue of the fact that no other driver can score as many points as he has already amassed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A gunfight between Afghan and foreign soldiers on the outskirts of the capital Kabul, kills at least one Afghan serviceman and injures a number of other soldiers. (Reuters)
Iran hangs 16 rebels in retaliation for 14 border guards being killed in clashes on its border with Pakistan. (BBC)
Results of the Czech legislative election are very fragmented, the big winner being the new centrist liberal ANO 2011 which gains 47 out of 200 seats. (BBC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yep, sorry. This is clearly not something important enough to post on the front page. Not that I don't respect this guys achievement or anything. --Somchai Sun (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has race historically been an issue in NASCAR? There are plenty of irrelevant factors that could end up being a "first" (or in this case a second). NASCAR has been traditionally white, but I'm not sure that this is an extraordinary event as it relates to race relations. A Japanese-American won in April. RyanVesey17:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Military officials report that 74 members of Boko Haram have been killed in a combined ground and aerial assault on militant camps in northeastern Borno State. (Reuters)
Disasters and accidents
Japan's emergency agencies declare a tsunami warning after an earthquake of magnitude 7.3 strikes off the east coast. (AP via News24)
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: Storied comedienne, currently active, emmy-winning voice actor, long career in stand-up, noted for Bob Newhart and voice of Edna Krabapple on 25 seasons of the Simpsons; Death reported internationally μηδείς (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Does not meet the death criteria. A supporting part on The Bob Newhart Show and a supporting part on The Simpsons doesn't equate to "a very important figure in his or her field", in my opinion. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Bongwarrior. May be well known from her work, but does not meet ITN/DC. 20:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I can hardly expect everyone to read the article, but this is being internatinally reported, and Wallace was hardly limited to the two roles Bongwarrior points out. There are also her appearances and roles in Merv Griffin (which go her a role specifically designed for her on Newhart, Hollywood Squares, the $25,000 Pyramid, Match Game, Family Feud, Full House, Bewitched, Murphy Brown, The Brady Bunch, Charles in Charge, Murder, She Wrote, Magnum P.I., The Young and the Restless, and Taxi, where she appeared as herself as Reverend Jim Ignitowski's ideal woman.
She was on stage with leading and supporting roles in The Odd Couple (female cast), Same Time Next Year, Prisoner of 2nd Avenue, Plaza Suite, Gypsy, Born Yesterday, Steel Magnolias, and The Vagina Monologues.
She was a cancer activist since her 1985 diagnosis with breast cancer, for which she was awarded along with Gilda Radner.
She certainly counts as at the top of the field in character actors, although we haven't given too much credit to female comediennes at ITN. Readership interest alone will justify putting her in a now blank spot at RD. μηδείς (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect her role in The Simpsons should swing this, and, after all, if the article is updated adequately, why not. The Simpsons is a global phenomenon, characters from such (or voice actors) are often considered globally significant enough to post here. (NOTE to those opposing, this is a two word update to the main page, and might be of interest to a large number of our readers.... But then again, why is that important?!) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being "internationally reported" isn't one of the death criteria. This death is not likely to have a "major international impact that affects current events (DC#3). – Muboshgu (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let this be a reminder that the RD criteria is waaaaaay too strict. She isn't top of her field at all. However, readers are probably more interested in her then Anthony Caro. Check the latest 90 page views. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits21:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't that be a weak support, Taylor, rather than a flat oppose? Marcia Wallace has averaged three times the interest of Anthony Caro: Caro vs. Wallace. (Although I am sure Caro's sculpture has also made people laugh.) μηδείς (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like Somchai said this is honestly really annoying, we don't post anything based on how popular it happens to be, and we really shouldn't either. SeraV (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of the stated reasons for having ITN is to provide links to items of reader interest on the front page. (And no one has said it should be the sole criterion.) But how reader popularity could be irrelevant to that is beyond me. 18:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Neutral. She's had a substantial career but I just can't see a person playing a recurring character on the Simpsons and a supporting character on the The Bob Newhart Show as significant enough. Guest appearances on TV shows should not count that much towards notability. I agree that the Simpson's is a global phenomenon and a 20+ year run in her role there is pretty significant. I've often wondered if one of the actors playing supporting characters on Star Trek TOS died, would they be posted (George Takai or Walter Koenig or Nichelle Nichols) I guess this is comparable, so it's close.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Honestly why not. Trying to determine who should be included in RD has yet again proven itself to be a murky affair. Wallace had a long and successful career, not to mention being a notable character in the one and only The Simpsons. Her death was also sudden and unexpected. She passes the RD grade for me. Maybe she won't for you, but that's your opinion and coi isn't handled at ITN/C. Somchai Sun (talk) 10:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The level of coverage this is getting would seem to indicate that she was important in her field, even if limited to mostly supporting roles. An actor playing one or a few supporting roles would not be noteworthy, but she did so throughout her career and was notable for some of them, and recognized for one (won an Emmy for her Simpsons work). 331dot (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marked Ready five explicit supports (including the nominator) plus implicit support of TRM, well updated, large reader interest. μηδείς (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is in the news and page views indicate that people are interested. She might not meet the letter of the criteria, but firm rules are rarely appropriate on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2013 (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: One of only three people in the Basketball Hall of Fame as a player and a coach. Won four titles as a player. Played in 8 all-star games. Still holds the record for consecutive free throws in the playoffs. Coached the LA Lakers to the (still) longest winning streak ever, 33 games. Credited with creating the morning shoot-around warmups. Seems to be notable in basketball. --331dot (talk) 01:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Though helpful, there is no requirement of international coverage, only that a death be in the news and meet the death criteria. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, does not appear to meet RD requirements at all. Not a very important figure in his field. A film director died, Hal Needham, and is showing up in the news, but no sign of the nominee. Abductive (reasoning) 04:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff exists, if you want to see a nominee here, then nominate them. That's not a reason to exclude other nominees. How exactly does a hall of famer(twice, only one of three people), championship winner, and person credited with creating a now-common aspect of the game "not meet RD requirments at all"? 331dot (talk) 11:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meets RD requirements for being significantly important in his field, which is basketball, as noted by his accomplishments and bestowed awards/honors. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as he doesn't appear to meet any of the RD requirements. Most of the arguments given by the nominator are not even records in basketball and those who really are do not show any extraordinary significance in the sport. Who cares if he holds the record for most consecutive free throws in the playoffs or if he is credited for creating the morning shoot-around warmups? I'd have been inclined to support this if he were the player with most titles won either as player or coach, or the one who was voted the greatest player in the NBA history. Being one of the 50 Greatest Players in NBA History only waters down his relative significance. Please also note that he's not West, Jabbar or Jordan.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DC#2: "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." How does he not meet that criteria? Who says he has to be considered the best basketball player ever, or have X, Y, and Z records? Funny that you do then disregard whatever records he does have. Being one of the 50 greatest should be sufficient, considering how many that list was chosen from. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's very subjective to say that one person qualifies for any of the DC and that other does not. As for the note of being one of the 50 greatest in NBA history, this category is too broad to refer to it as a convincing argument. If we agree upon it that the 50 greatest players in NBA history should be sufficient, then this broadens the list for basketball to about, say, 100 players. Provided that basketball is only one of many other sports, this number can be easily inflated to over 1,000 for sportspeople only. By introducing the same logic for all other occupations, wherein some of them such as politicians, diplomats, actors, writers, singers, musicians, different kind of scientists are considered more popular than the sportspeople and generally enjoy lower criteria for inclusion, the same figure could easily reach 15,000 or 20,000 people whose death at the same time should qualify for inclusion in RD. That's why I usually disagree with such broad category of people considered 'greatest in something'.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mainly per Howard, also per Kiril, he may have been a half-decent player/coach, but if we start posting all such "record holders", we'll be here until Christmas. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'd never heard of the guy, but someone who was elected to the Basketball Hall of Fame twice clearly isn't just some random nobody, and was probably a bit more than just "a half-decent player/coach". --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Inducted into the hall of fame twice is evidence enough that he was important in his field, and basketball is a big field. Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So being named twice to the Hall of Fame means he isn't important in basketball? I guess we have different definitions of importance. 331dot (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support one of the greatest basketball players of all-time, his impact to the sport is quite great, him along with Bob Cousy redeveloped how the guard position is played. Secretaccount19:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The NSA spying has already been posted once, and we don't need to keep bringing this up every time there's a new leak of information. And yes, I think a lot of this is shameful, but we don't do causes here. μηδείς (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Maybe it has. But long before such revelations as these were even dreamt of. Less "a cause" I'd say than probable wholesale re-negotiation of mutual security agreements between both France and Germany with USA. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]
You may not have dreamt of them, but I assume they happen all the time. Spying has been part of international dealings for as long as we have had nations. The loud responses now are all part of the perpetual game. No real news here. I strongly Oppose this. HiLo48 (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. I can guarantee you that Angela knew (or at least assumed) they were spying. It's just that some of it's become very public, so she has be seen to be loudly protesting. It's all part of the script. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't we keep bringing it up every time there is a notable revelation? We haven't stopped posting science items because we posted too many science items already, so why should there be a quota on spying items? Btw, by my count we have posted 3 Snowden-related stories now, which is not a lot. Thue (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a general blurb like this one, it's old news and we are not an Edward Snowden or anti-NSA ticker; I would support posting news stories about specific changes in relations between the US and other countries resulting from this, such as the cancellation of a summit or other ramifications. 331dot (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that I will second HiLo's comment about spying being a standard part of international relations; the problem here is simply that the US got caught out in the open, not that it merely occurred, as it has occurred in the past and will even after this revelation. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb is needs adjustment, true. And we are not an Edward Snowden or anti-NSA ticker, but we are considering posting this story because it is notable in itself, not because it is anti-NSA or related to Snowden. An embarrassing episode where a country is caught spying on another country is notable, and this is 35 of those rolled into one. Thue (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except that Snowden and his allies are going to trot out the information he possesses a little at a time (and he has been) to stretch out the newsworthiness. This isn't a one off story; in a week or two he or others will reveal some "new" embarrassing information. As I said, we are not a Snowden ticker. 331dot (talk) 02:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We haven't actually posted anything from Snowden's revelations for quite a while, so I don't see that we're in any danger of turning into a Snowden ticker. And the way he reveals his information is not relevant to whether to post. Neljack (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant. If Snowden is drip-drip releasing the information over time to stretch out the newsworthiness, that makes it less newsworthy. Only if something new and specific comes out of this(such as a UN complaint or other problem) should result in something being posted here. 331dot (talk) 11:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snowden had handed over all he had when he was in Hong Kong. The information is coming out slowly because it's contained in enormously large files, Snowden did not write a report about it, it's all raw data. Also whatever is published by newspapers will first have to be vetted to make sure it doesn't do harm to national security. But whether or not something that comes out is news worthy is determined by the current media attention. And that in turn is determined by the World's reaction to what comes out. That many people already knew that World leaders were spied on, isn't relevant if the reaction tothis story is not compatible with that attitude. It's similar to saying that "everyone knew that all Tour the France cyclists, including Lance Armstrong used doping". Whether that's true or not (or that everyone could have known this), doesn't change the fact that when the news about this broke it was a big news story. Count Iblis (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Something like this has been coming out every few days. We just had Snowden's claim every call in the US is recorded. A week back it was that 70 million French calls had been recorded in a one-month period. It's obvious this is being reinvigorated every new news cycle to keep it on the front pages. That being said, I would immediately support posting if we had some sort of actual action, like a formal UN complaint or a NATO summit being called or something. Until then, a mere complaint is simply the latest drip. μηδείς (talk) 02:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will repeat that I too would support posting a story about a specific action resulting from this information, such as the ideas Medeis suggested. 331dot (talk) 02:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - If the United States, Germany and France (for instance) enter into an agreement to stop spying on each other, we can post that as news. For the moment it is not very surprising or exciting to learn that countries spy on each other. The United States routinely spies on, and is spied on by, every country except England, Canada, and Australia (our special friends). JehochmanTalk02:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain why NZ is omitted. Perhaps that's one of the countries we don't bother spying on because the only have hobbits and sheep. JehochmanTalk04:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now it is my turn to ask if you are being silly. :) I did read in the last day or two that there was a mutual agreement after the war between five nations, including UK, US, CA, AU, and somebody not to spy on each other. Are you implying NZ was not one of them, or pulling my leg? μηδείς (talk) 04:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once upon a time Australia, New Zealand and the US had a happy little treaty called ANZUS. In 1984 New Zealand took a strong stand against American nuclear powered or armed warships. The US didn't like that. ANZUS effectively became just AUS. The antagonism lasted well into this century. HiLo48 (talk) 04:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I remember that silliness--protect us, just don't expect us to fuel you in return. But is that actually relevant? The non-spying pact seems to have been five-way, not three. μηδείς (talk) 05:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the non-spying is a little white lie. Call me cynical, but I suspect each player is doing as much spying as it can against everybody it can. HiLo48 (talk) 05:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support What is relevant is that this has caused a significant diplomatic incident. It is being treated as important by political leaders and the international media, and I don't think it's our role to second-guess this based on our personal political judgments of whether it's a major scandal. Neljack (talk) 03:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Big and relevant story that is reported and relevant worldwide and a serious hindrance to US-EU relationships. Yes, this is a "recurring event"; and in 15 years or so I am sure we will have an incident again (as we had 15 years ago); but that doesn't make this less news worthy. I suggest to use the term US also in the blurp for those less familiar with local security agencies. L.tak (talk) 07:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to say that a big scandal will pop up every now and then; I can imagine this will expand with info from snowden, the US, EU, DE or FR; and agree we can't keep posting it. But this is front page news (literally) in a lot of countries; that's what ITN seems to be created for... L.tak (talk) 12:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one is arguing otherwise, but there should be specific effects in order to post this somewhat old story; it is known and not news that embarrassing information about the NSA and US spying is out there. 331dot (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite lot has happened in this particular story since last time something about this was posted. And it is quite clearly new news that nsa has been caught spying on dozens of world leaders. You could make the argument that world leaders expect to be spied, but it is entirely different when someone is caught doing it for real like in this case. SeraV (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support major news across a number of European countries, someone once said "spying isn't the issue, getting caught is", and damned straight the NSA have been caught with their pants down here. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They were caught with their pants down from the moment Snowden started releasing the information he took. Nothing new to see here. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Countries spying on each other is not news, it has been done for centuries. Many of these same countries critical of the US do it too. Now, if one of these world leaders does something about it, like canceling a summit, expelling diplomatic staff, breaking off diplomatic relations, complains to the UN, etc., then we have something to hang our hat on. In a week or so Snowden and his allies will release more "information" about some embarrassing activity the NSA did. We are not a ticker for his information. 331dot (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's news, whether you and the NSA etc like it or not. Being caught spying on your "special friends" is highly embarrassing. We are ticker for news, remember? And please 331dot, stop badgering each and every supporter here. It's most unbecoming.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "badgering" anyone; like you, I am free to reply to any comment that I wish. You are free to not respond to my comments if you don't want to. 331dot (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And as others have pointed out to me, merely being in the news has never been sufficient on its own to get something posted. When it is, I'll line up in support of this. 331dot (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's convenient. Hopefully you remember that next time you are trying to use that line to get support for something you want. And anyway this story has enough support to be posted without your input as soon as it is ready. SeraV (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not Ready I don't disagree this has support, but it has an entire one sentence toward an update: "The NSA has been monitoring telephone conversations of 35 world leaders" which isn't even in paragraph form, but is a bullet point. One sentence that repeats the blurb is an explicit fail according to the update criteria. This needs an extended prose treatment, not a listing. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The fuss and bother from European leaders is all part of a big game. They would have assumed they were being spied upon. What's news is that someone has made it public. Now that that's happened those leaders have to profess dismay and offense, even though they expected the spying. The news coverage of that seeming dismay and offense is all part of it. If we post this we become part of the game too. Those wanting to know more about this kind of thing should read The Great Game. HiLo48 (talk) 03:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's your interpretation based on your OR. It's possible to have an alternative interpretation. The intelligence services collaborate with each other, so Merkel would have had an idea about what the US were interested in. But the latest revelations could have pointed to something that she did not know about which would be incompatible with agreements with the US. You can e.g. imagine that in 2002 the US wanted to manipulate the EU into believing in the threat posed by Saddam's WMD and that they continued with such tactics to get EU support for sanctions against Iran. Count Iblis (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update? This BBC report, citing Spiegel, seems to broaden the extent of the issue and lengthen its duration. [12] However, current Spiegel online interview with Westerwelle doesn't seem to add much. [13]
The BBC source looks to be a good one. I was trying to determine how much of an update was required and whether or not the small addition I made already was enough. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Today's Guardian story looks to be broadly similar to BBC. [14] I'd support posting now with these two sources (and a mug of Merkel). You could also cite opinion piece in The New Yorker. [15]
This is still not updated--it has one sentence on the 35 countries being spied on. The update criteria explicitly say that an update that says no more than the ITN blurb is insufficient. μηδείς (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Truth be told, a separate, much shorter article is needed dealing mainly with the October reports of surveillance of heads of state, esp. Merkel — who at least according to some reports is really, truly, genuinely upset & not just engaged in "outrage theater" — or now, "indignation theater" — as some NSA apologists have smugly asserted. Sca (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This should already be posted. Huge international story in the news with multiple repercussions. Not having this story on ITN makes the feature look dysfunctional. Jusdafax02:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently "five sentences" are not enough. (Indeed, why should they be). A hew article is required? I see Spain has now officially joined the growing throng of discontent. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And in less than a week we have this revelation from Snowden's information: [17][18] Are we going to post that too? If we're going to be Snowden's news ticker let's just admit it. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article appears updated, now including a paragraph on the FBI spying on Marilyn Monroe and a section on world spying from 1940-2000! This article is, simply, an unloadable, unreadable disaster. In the meantime, the new cycle has begun, with Spain today summoning the American ambassador over 60 million intercepted calls in a one-month period. Shall that be part of this blurb? or a separate one? I think it's time for a sticky
But wait, there's more! — Reuters says "Germany's parliament will hold a special session on reports the United States tapped Chancellor Angela Merkel's phone" and "left-wing parties demanded a public inquiry calling in witnesses, including former U.S. intelligence operative Edward Snowden." (Reuters was so breathless over this it ran it all into one sentence with no punctuation. Ha.) [20]
When last I looked at our article, it weighed in at a bloated 19,000 words — roughly 10 times the length of a long newspaper story. That's why a new, separate article is essential before Wiki can (belatedly) post this topic on ITN. Sca (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, and in doing so, it'll fall foul of the timeliness required to post it here. Oh well, what a shame, heads of European governments being spied and being exposed has suddenly become unimportant. I guess those embarrassed by such indiscretions live to spy another day (sounds very Bond-esque). We don't need a new article for ITN, where has that ever been required for ongoing stories? No systemic bias here then. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, what is the point in the ITN section if not to demonstrate "news"? Oh well, let's not publish global news which might embarrass "the management".... who said "systemic bias"? Who said it? Hands up!!!! (I'm Spartacus.....) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alack and alas, I agree — I just don't feel like tackling the writing job myself. It's not my topic. Sorry!
Detail — This German Reuters story says special session of Bundestag is set for Nov. 18. [21] English Reuters conveniently left this 'W' out of their story. Sca (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snowden flying in to Berlin to give evidence in person would make a much better ITN entry candidate, I'm sure. And surely we could all use those extra weeks to get three-articles-for-the-price-of-one! (... funny I'd always seen Rambler as more of a lion-tamer than a blood-thirsty rebel). Martinevans123 (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Algorithm: check the news to see what's "in the news" now; find the relevant article; make sure it is updated; post a new nomination. This nomination has become a hopeless mess because the target article is unfocused, and the news stories no longer match the proposed blurb. The nomination is already moldy. Please try again. I would support the right story and the right article. JehochmanTalk03:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You took part of this discussion and you're biased against this nomination. You should stay well away. That said this should be posted as soon as possible, this should have been posted days ago really. I really have to start wondering soon if all our admins are biased. SeraV (talk) 04:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is hardly fair to Jehochman. When the target article covers a period from 1940-2013, and mentions FBI spying on Marilyn Monroe (In The News?!?!?), and you have an SSD on a fiber-optic internet connect, and loading the traget article still makes you crash, it's time to break the article into ten pieces. Then an update is easy. μηδείς (talk) 05:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, perhaps User:Martinevans123 and I could renominate with a more "appropriate" article since the conclusion to this has now lead to the precedent that certain editors can demand a new article be written rather than an existing article be updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just chop out the relevant section to make a focused article that aligns with the news. That's only one problem. The other problem is that the news has proceeded since the nomination. Please consider a fresh nomination with better focus. JehochmanTalk20:52, 29 October 2013 (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. Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Comment. It would be nice to see evidence this was in the news per the instructions on this page: " Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable source."331dot (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CALL FOR ATTENTION This is the kind of item that's been unnecessarily waiting for days to be posted, or falling off the bottom of the page unposted, simply because our posting Admins seemingly don't care about things in these funny foreign places. It's in ITN/R, for fucks sake. We have the result. POST IT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!HiLo48 (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Admins hate posting elections. Fifth time this happened this year.
Oppose, simply because the article has not been updated. A "results table" has been added, but this is not enough. Some prose text is needed to describe the outcome and its political consequences.--FoxyOrange (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've looked at this three times now with a view to posting, but it has not been properly updated. There is a results table but no discussion of what the results mean (by no means obvious), and the result has not made it to the lead. Also, posting essentially that the Social Democratic Party has 'won', when they are not as far as I can see in any position to form a government, might be premature. A more nuanced blurb might be appropriate. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've written a summary for the lead, but knowing no Czech is a hindrance towards reporting the ongoing discussions about forming a government. Could someone propose an alternative blurb? Espresso Addict (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marcia Wallace
double nomination, see above
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Legendary India playback-singer. Recipient of highest Indian cinematic award in 2007.Making headlines in India. Respected figure in music. Padma Vibhushan awardee.
I've added a {{ref improve}} because the biography is very under-referenced. It is also overlong. This would be a good opportunity to see what obituary writers consider to be the most significant events of his career, and to trim and organize the article accordingly. --LukeSurltc15:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman has removed the {{ref improve}} tag (I disagree, and have opened a discussion at Talk:Manna Dey). Regardless of tags presence or not, this should not be posted until the biography is substantially improved with references. --LukeSurltc15:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Support. Looking at his accolades and awards, as well as his extensive body of work, it would seem he is very important in his field(Indian music). Good chance to post something from India. 331dot (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As Jehochman said, we are looking for stories from any country. I often see complaints about systemic or geographical bias here; this is a chance to briefly counter some of that. I'm sure some of the 1 billion plus people in India come here and might want to read about this man. 331dot (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, a kind of affirmative action for India-related articles? I'm not against posting news stories from anywhere, but to give them special consideration or promotion because they are from somewhere rarely reported on, doesn't seem right to me. 212.139.255.54 (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not giving it special consideration or saying that we should favor this at the expense of articles from other areas; I'm simply saying that this is a good chance to post an Indian story. I am not suggesting weakening the criteria or otherwise favoring this story; I believe it meets the criteria. I have stated several times that I am staunchly opposed to any sort of affirmative action program for posting articles to ITN. That's not what I've suggested doing here. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not addressing the issue of whether this nomination meets the criteria. And since ITN is not a zero sum game you obviously can't be favouring this nomination "at the expense of articles from other areas". What I'm questioning is the tactic of promoting this nomination, in part, because it "is a good chance to post an Indian story". Is posting an "Indian" story (or stories from any country) a goal of ITN? Why not sell it as the death of a popular, highly-awarded playback artist and let editors weigh in on the newsworthiness of that? Genuine ITN "news" stories should be universal and not in need of special consideration and promotion based on geography. Or so it seems to me. There; peace said; I'm out of here. 212.139.255.54 (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what the objection would be to 331. We do both want to give the readers what they want and have a variety of listings--something that was once indicated in part by the minority top field. μηδείς (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD subject to article being improved sufficiently. Several highly reputable news sources (the Times of India, the BBC, Reuters) describe his as "legendary". That's enough for me. Neljack (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Post it now. Citations? You think somebody just made up all that info about the guy? You're not going to get any more citations. Post it now. GroveGuy (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support when updated. Widely known and innovative sculptor whose death is being reported internationally. The date of death appears to be 23rd in sources I've seen. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems to be important in the field of sculpture. Article seems good to me as well. Getting coverage outside the UK as well. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support when expanded. Article at a minimum needs a suitable update and an expanded lead section, and perhaps a bit more detail on his career.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD. A very important sculptor whose work is known worldwide. I heard news of his death on NPR in the U.S. The article has been edited, and I believe it is ready for posting. --Orlady (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
inquiry What was the last holder of this record, and whne was it announced. There have been several such announcements over the last few years, haven't there? μηδείς (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You realize that's as helpful a non-answer as saying "it's in the stars"? When was this discovery made? The article doesn't say. What was the previous record holder? The article doesn't say. How much further back is this? 500 million years? 5 million years?
Oppose until those facts are in the article. At this point we have filler and a picture of an unrelated galaxy, but no basis upon which to jusdge the claim of this being a record. μηδείς (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative support. Not an area I know anything about but this appears possibly significant, and we're not exactly overrun with suggestions atm. The article could do with expansion to explain the significance more clearly. My (utterly uninformed) reading of the Nature abstract is that the star formation rate is the most interesting feature. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've removed the image, though, as it did not depict the galaxy mentioned. Also, as always, more meat to the article would be nice - though I imagine it'll be hard to get anything to add due to the limited sources available. m.o.p05:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the third paragraph is mere filler that is a general tutorial in astronomy--we need three paragraphs on the news itself. The question of when this was first observed and announced, and what was the previous furthest object have neither been answered here or in the article. μηδείς (talk) 05:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad to see this was finally posted with a whole two paragraphs of relevant text (one of them the lead) and no mention of the date of actual discovery or what the prior record holder was. Real top-notch, informative work. Almost as good as just posting a direct link to the BBC article. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From what I have read, the astronomers have estimated that it is now 30 billion light years away, but it was observed when it was 13 billion light years away.[31] So the blurb is in fact correct. Neljack (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Comoving distance. The galaxy is estimated to be 30 billion light years away now (plus or minus a small amount for its proper motion), but the light has only traveled through 13 billion light years of space to reach us, because space has been expanding over the life of the universe. Over really large distances the expansion of the universe is the dominant factor to determine red shift. That's why we can use red shift to measure cosmological distances. JehochmanTalk02:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
.jpg)
![[22]](http://api.ning.com/files/iRhh93x186kq3YEq6Tj0RCrcpSL3OvQdtbwchc04sZTEH*dDTiI18*jIZaAzy9XsZVInwk1aB5SKywdbwOhLYdUjlIQc5*pL/soapbox.jpeg){kind=link}