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).
A gas explosion in a prison in the US town of Pensacola, Florida reportedly kills at least two people, injures 100 and forces an evacuation. (BBC News)
The Sultan of Brunei has announced a controversial new penal code that will eventually include stoning, amputation and flogging as punishments, as 'Phase one' of Islamic law. (Al Jazeera)
Protesters in the Nigerian capital Abuja hold a "million woman" march over the mass kidnapping of schoolgirls by the Boko Haram terrorist group two weeks ago. (The Guardian)
Oppose parochial racist gets caught. It happens. Just because this particular racist is an NBA commissioner, doesn't make it better or worse or more or less newsworthy, just more disappointing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think this is notable not so much for the reason Sterling was punished but the fact that he was; this doesn't happen every day. This is getting significant international coverage, as well. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are team owners frequently given lifetime bans, though? And are potentially forced to sell their team? I might not support if this was a player or fan, but owners seem different. 331dot (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you're saying this shouldn't be a story, you might be right, but it is nevertheless, and in many places it is a top or near-top page story. 331dot (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - certainly in the news here. While I see it as a huge overreaction to what I don't perceive as racism but rather a sad useless old man more concerned with his own public image than stamping it out, it's still a rare event in North America for a top league team owner to be forcefully removed and fined for remarks, let alone remarks recorded in a private conversation. - Floydianτ¢19:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe team owners were involved with that(and those were not lifetime bans from the sport). As I told TRM, I probably would not support if this was a player. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the biogenesis ITN was relevant, it had an impact on the game, on the results etc, this is just an old man talking crap, blown up because he happens to be an NBA owner. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the Biogenesis scandal was posted, I oppose—apparently this isn't the first time he's done this. He was also investigated and sued in 2006 by the U.S. Dept. of Justice for much more than the current fine levied by the NBA. He was again sued in 2009 for employment discrimination. I see no difference between these previous lawsuits, investigations, etc. and the current instance. Just because the NBA finally realizes that he's racist and takes action does not make this story notable in any way whatsoever. 184.146.110.224 (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A lifetime ban for an owner is unusual for North American sports. The story is very much in the news right now. Calidum20:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Basketball isn't a major sport in the UK, but the story is well reported over here. Significant enough that we ought to feature it on ITN methinks. Mjroots (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose arbitrary action by private entity acting as a law unto itself that will be played out in the courts. Not like he shot his girlfriend through the bathroom door--which we still haven't posted. μηδείς (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Private entities can levy whatever sanctions or punishments upon their members or employees that they see fit, for any reason that is not illegal or against a contract; I don't see why that is a reason to prevent posting this. I haven't read about any pending court cases in this matter yet. 331dot (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sears can ban you from its auto repair shop, but it can't bill you $2.5M and force you to sell your car because you told your girlfriend not to cavort with the pit crew. This will go to court, when it does we can post the results. Until then it's a private entity with a tort claim against a living person. μηδείς (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Major scandal/resulting action at the highest level in the world's best league in a popular sport. Has relevance beyond its setting. Radagast (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The story is unique based on the reaction, not just the racist statements themselves. President Obama commented,[1], major business sponsors pulled out[2], and league took the extreme response of publicly stating they will seek to force an owner to sell.[3]—Bagumba (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless wiki-content improved. This is a hard one. There is nothing that significant about this story really. People get banned from commercial establishments all the time. The president commented, okay, and a very sizeable fine was given by the league. I could weakly support this on those merits, but the wiki-content here is very slim (three paragraphs, and who is "V. Stiviano"?) --hydrox (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Parochial racist gets caught. Oh, somebody already said that. It happens in my country too. Never hit ITN before though. Why is this one important? HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose It's certainly "in the news", but I don't know if this rises to the level of importance to be featured on ITN. Canuck89 (have words with me) 02:15, April 30, 2014 (UTC)
Oppose For me it is straddling the line between a business story and celebrity tittle-tattle. I might be tempted to support the former but clearly not the latter. My position was decided when I read of the supposed "sanctions" that had been applied - he is forbidden from even making contact with any NBA player. Does anyone think that that would be legally enforceable? Or even constitutional? It's not unusual for people to claim authority for actions that they do not possess, but without a rational analysis of what these claimed sanctions mean in reality it has to be an oppose. 3142 (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More than 50 royal mummies have been discovered by Egyptian and Swiss archeologists in the newly opened KV40 tomb in Egypt's Valley of the Kings. (National Geographic)
Microsoft announces a major vulnerability in Internet Explorer versions 6 to 11 that could enable hackers to gain access and user rights to its customers' computers. (BBC News)
The search area for the missing aircraft in the southern Indian Ocean is expanded with any debris likely to be found on the ocean floor with the minimum time anticipated for the search eight months. (TV New Zealand)
U.S. RepresentativeMichael Grimm is taken into federal custody on charges relating to a failed restaurant business and allegations that he made false statements. (CNN)
Nominator's comments: U.S. and U.K. governments (and their respective agencies: Dept. of Homeland Security and Computer Emergency Response Team) have issued advisories to avoid using Internet Explorer until fixed. The bug could lead to "the complete compromise" of an affected system. --70.26.173.33 (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly cynical comment Having ceased support for Windows XP a month ago, if Microsoft wanted to even more persuade customers to upgrade to a new OS now, a massive security flaw in XP that wasn't going to be fixed would be a great strategy, wouldn't it? Also, I'd like to see a technical source from with the IT world, as well as those more business and public oriented ones. Something that told us more about the real nature and seriousness of the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
However much it pains me to say so, HiLo is correct that IE is a feature of WIN8, not a separate program. Just go ahead and try to delete it using uninstall from your control panel. You can deactivate it following a purposefully arcane process that has nothing to do with any actu deinstallation. It will still be there. They tell you you can then "reinstall" it. It doesn't reinstall fresh, it simply reactivates the deactivated files already on your hard drive. μηδείς (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo was talking about XP, not Windows8. That he can't tell the difference between an operating system and a bundled program that runs on the OS is probably something to do with our systematic bias. Stephen10:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, hard words, but thanks for a good laugh anyway. Note that, while I don't think IE was ever essential to XP kernel-land, it is not possible to entirely uninstall IE from XP ([4], [5]) because Microsoft (deliberately to make it hard to remove?) tied it into some fairly basic user-land desktop components. GoldenRing (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a flaw in your logic - your suggestion would be more plausible if the flaw only hit IE versions 6 - 8, i.e. the ones that XP supports. Then if you were very cynical you could assume Microsoft might be trying to get them to upgrade. However, since in this case it is apparently present in all versions of IE right up to the latest then upgrading to Win7 or 8 wouldn't make any difference, if anything it might turn people off upgrading by showing the same vulnerabilities exist in all the versions of Windows. I think that was what Stephan was trying to get across. 92.30.133.120 (talk) 11:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Whether or not one considers the web browser to be an integral part of the operating system (and Microsoft controversially argued in court back in 1998 that itwas), both IE and MS Windows are published by Microsoft, which obviously controls them both. If this is a marketing strategy though, it seems like a footbullet one to me. So Weak Support. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a good point. You must have missed the point that I have already pointed out that Microsoft will fix the Win 7 and Win 8 versions, for free. They won't fix XP any more.
Comment on process If editors could avoid being rude about other editors as part of their comments, that would be a good thing IMO. I'm not just referring to this nomination. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per Nutlugs, the fact there's a security flaw in IE is never news, it's been a daily routine update service patch nonsense since the dawn of IE. What is the story here? Is it that those users still using XP will be royally shafted or is it something else? I'm not getting it yet.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Microsoft releases critical fixes for all the IE versions almost every patch Tuesday. These do not get mentioned every time, then why this time? It seems the reason for more news coverage is that Microsoft is Not going to publicly release the fix for WinXP. This would be the case going forward. So I think this event is quite regularly occurring, but just because it got wider coverage, we shouldn't include it in ITN. -Abhishikt (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We don't refer to "patch Tuesday" for nothing, this is a monthly occurrence. The only difference now is that it occurs after the end of XP support but that is old news and not the underlying item. 3142 (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What's wrong with avoiding taxes. That's what accountants are for. Does this mean evasion? If so, can we use proper English? μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we're allowed to spin, then I'd go with "Rich man shirks massive tax bill, evades social and moral obligations" or maybe "One law for rich, another for poor". Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Though legal, tax avoidance is widely considered to be immoral (I can provide WP:RS for that if needed, or see Tax_avoidance#Public_opinion). Stories don't need to be illegal in order to be notable here. This is a particularly egregious example of tax avoidance - some sources are reporting this as a record amount for UK personal tax avoidance. Large corporations avoiding tax - and the campaigns against them - definitely do make the news round here, although obviously YMMV depending on the editorial priorities of the news media that you read. IMO this is notable for F1 fans because money from F1 is being channelled into this shady offshore trust. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's all perspective. If what he did is perfectly legal, what we have is "man doesn't voluntarily give a billion dollars to the government which he wasn't required to give them in the first place". That we want him to have given that money over is beside the point. If it is legal to avoid it, that's the exact same thing as saying he isn't required to pay it, which isn't news. People not doing things they aren't required to do isn't news. Now, if there was a law broken, or a fine levied, or a trial forthcoming, we may have something. But being pissed because he's not voluntarily paying money that it's not illegal not to pay is not a news story. --Jayron3212:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That'sonesideoftheargument. RSsaythereisanother. I think it would be too digressive for me to make the argument here, but there are plenty of WP:RS for tax avoidance being widely held to be immoral - it's not a WP:fringe view. Not everything that is legal is right or un-newsworthy (e.g. see lots of our other news stories about legal things).
The other angle on this story is that HMRC was wrong to settle for only £10m on a potential tax bill of £1.2bn. HMRC are pretty much admitting it was a mistake and saying they've changed their process. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Closed] Karachi school explosion
No consensus, no dedicated article, hardly news enough to fit into either of the candidate articles, time to call time on this one.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose I oppose shootings that kill a few schoolkids in the US and, equally, I will oppose a grenade blast that kills a few schoolkids in Pakistan. I can't see why the fact that children rather than adults were killed should automatically confer greater significance on it. Neljack (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - No article of its own, not a significant enough incident to be mentioned in the linked articles, let alone have a lengthy update. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2014 (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.
Support - A lot of destruction, certainly in the news up here, death toll isn't all that substantial, but the number of towns levelled seems to be. However, wait until tonight (EST) at least to post or you'll get those stark raving mad Europeans in here (even though sleep is for the weak). - Floydianτ¢17:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' - article is very light on prose and has multiple completely empty sections. It is certainly not fit for posting at this time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, an (unfortunately) far too common event. As I have stated over the years, with at least some agreement from others here, ITN should not be posting every tornado breakout. There will be much worse ones in the coming months. Abductive (reasoning) 02:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support the score or so of people killed here were far less important than the score or so of people killed by Cyclone Ita. Given it only happened in the US, and in Red States especially, lets wait till one of the tornadoes makes it from Alabama to Toronto, then we can reconsider. μηδείς (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. This will probably be a growing story in the next few days with unfortunately many more deaths. Perhaps posting something like a, a series of tornadoes kills xx during a major storm outbreak. (well, not that, but something like that....) Rhodesisland (talk) 10:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Willing to post, however, the article is seriously lacking some prose. At the moment, there's just a big table and many expand tags. --Tone13:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This could use a little more prose, at least two nice paragraphs would be good. People will indeed be coming here for comprehensive, non-sensationalist cover. I'll be busy outside the holodeck today, so forgive me if I can't devote too much time. But this should go up ASAP once we've got the prose. μηδείς (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (a) article is woeful with maintenance tags and entirely out of date (b) if we keep wanting to post regular US weather, we could use an ITNR for such common events with at least one tornado outbreak causing multiple fatalities in the US every year for the past few years. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(a) I concede that the article could use some work and (b) are you serious? You know what else happens yearly but always makes its way onto ITN? The results of sports championships for MULTIPLE different sports and leagues, etc, yet storms that have now caused 34 deaths aren't notable? Give me a break. --Samuel Peoples (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should re-read it. I suggested that commonplace annual weather events should be placed onto ITN/R. I don't recall stating it wasn't notable, just that it happened frequently. Accordingly, I'll give you that break you've requested. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: I believe the notability of this is what qualifies it for ITN, not whether the executions will be carried out or not. And not everyday do 683 people get a death sentence, especially when it is the top leader of the Muslim Brotherhood among those sentenced. --Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think a similar event to this was proposed recently, and the consensus at that time seemed to be that this is only notable if the sentences are carried out. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Badie's article is orange-tagged and a more general target would be preferrable anyway (the other 680 people matter too). Unfortunately, the unrest article is also orange-tagged. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a stand-alone article is a viable solution. We have many articles on individual trials - no reason we can't have one on a "mass trial". --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose as a largely one-off kangaroo court. Don't want to sound oxymoronic, but they've done this fairly frequenctly in the last 1 year and Egypt IS NOT standing out in the news. (as for kangaroo court, I have no idea whats it is upto but can doubt its independence from the executie [7])
Let me partially rephrase tht. Basie is high-profile, but lets wait to see if its carried out. In the latter case, id hugely support it.Lihaas (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: highly notable. To say that it was a "kangaroo court" is to say that it didn't follow due process; but its not having followed due process doesn't preclude its actions from being significant. It Is Me Heret / c20:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Presumably, it's unlikely all the sentences will be carried out, but the handing down of the sentences in this dubious, to say the least, procedure is, in Middle Eastern context, significant enough for posting, IMO. Sca (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: India joins a select club of states with this new capacity...could possibly lead to an arms race noting Pakistan tested its nukes a mere days after India. --Lihaas (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose an interesting story but all I'm seeing is an unreferenced "The first PDV was successfully test fired on 27 April 2014." claim in the "update". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: This is the first time since 1994 the Presidential elections and a Parliamentary election in Macedonia to be held on the same day. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - elections are ITN/R, so its rather pointless to "debate" the item before the results occur. The only factor to whether it is posted or not is the quality of the update, which obviously cant' be judged at this time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Macedonian media have announced victory for Ivanov in the presidential and bare majority for VMRO-DPMNE in the parliamentary election. The official results, however, will be announced tomorrow.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Two well-known and influential former popes; getting lots of news coverage; interesting symbolism with the "liberal" John XXIII and the "conservative" John Paul II canonised together. Neljack (talk) 09:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. The articles are updated. There's a separate article about canonization as well but since it's very short at the moment, I prefer not to include it in the blurb. This can be changed later. --Tone10:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, and post-posting weak oppose. I suppose I don't really care, but I have to wonder if we'd post similar declarations by other large religions, after just 1.5 hours of no oppose !votes. ToBk (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this has been in the news all week. A nice, super rare chance to post religious news. I was planning to nominate it, if necessary. Good work. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above, and we do often post noms that get 4 quick supports and no opposes (that means 5-0 support including the nominator). μηδείς (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning oppose. It appears that in South Korea the president is both head of state and head of government. Seeing that, and consider the article on the ship itself is already linked as part of the new 'ongoing field,' I'm leaning towards opposing this. Also, the article on Jung Hong-won is entirely insufficient for posting on the main page. Calidum02:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support when updated - major development in the MV Sewol story. Naturally, the "ongoing" item will disappear if this succeeds. I suggested an altblurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Change to oppose for now; I have now read that the PM has only offered to resign, it has not been accepted yet [8] so we should wait until it is(if it is). 331dot (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article should say why he resigned (public pressure, etc.), not just that he did. The update is currently inadequate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
List of Prime Ministers of South Korea shows there's some significant turnover on this position; Park's 2 immediate predecessors bad an average of 4 PMs each, although this would be Park's first replacement since she took office more than a year ago. –HTD04:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Officially throwing Tsvangirai out of the party "fractionalizes" the opposition and will increase Robert Mugabe's political hold --Mvblair (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Unless it is a party actually in power, I don't think we typically post changes in leadership of political parties, especially if effects in the relevant nation are minimal.(Mugabe is still running the country and will continue to do so) I think that's the case here. I'm willing to reconsider given more information, but I don't support this right now. 331dot (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support because he's one of the few possible rivals to Mugabe, who is in effect a dictator. IMO it's more notable than a change of leadership for an opposition party in most countries because the political situation in Zimbabwe is different to that of more democratic countries. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose internal factionalisation and bickering within a party is hardly notable news. Nevermind that the MDC is now delegitimised as an "official opposition".Lihaas (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality - article needs work (short lead, orange tagged section, infobox still says Tsvangirai leads the party). Tsvangirai's article could be an alternate target, but it is not updated and has serious issues, so probably not. Since we do not normally post political infighting, I would at least expect a high-quality article if we are going to make an exception. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how I feel about this. It's definitely interesting, but I'm not sure the news is important enough for ITN. DYK wouldn't appear to be an option here, I don't think. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because finding this type of trash doesn't seem that important, even though it's kind of cool. Like, ahem, Bongwarrior said, it might be a great topic for "Did you know...?" if it were expanded quite a bit. Mvblair (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's not really helpful to suggest something would make a good DYK when the article is already large and not new. The only way such an article could hit DYK is by becoming a Good Article. DYK is about recognizing content work, not merely interesting facts. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is interesting, different and a big story in the history of video gaming. It is in the news and the article is in good shape, we aren't taking away a DYK, and there is no more important story this would be denying space to. To my mind it is therefore exactly the sort of thing that we should be posting on ITN. Thryduulf (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to support this as I'm one of the editors for it and it does reflect a major event in the video game industry, but I would want to see more international coverage of the event to justify it better for ITN. (It is a shame this is unable to go DYK , that's where I would have pushed it.) --MASEM (t) 00:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a classic example of the interests of a typical Wikipedian, rather than the general public. Archaeologists find all sorts of fascinating things in past peoples' garbage all the time. We ignore almost all of it. To post this trivia would put our systemic biases fully on display. HiLo48 (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that women, non-technical people, non-college graduates, young and old video game players, non-Christians, (you get the point) wouldn't be interested in this? How do you know that? (English speaking is kinda required). 331dot (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Further, systemic bias is an argument to post stories relevant to those groups, not to prohibit ones that the "average wikipedian" might be interested in. They are here, too. 331dot (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the point is that, not surprisingly, an internet project like this attracts a disproportionate number of people who are interested in tech stuff. Neljack (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And that means we shouldn't have the occasional story that might interest them? It's not like we post video game stories every day, or even once a month. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We have a decent article on this, a news story to highlight it, and a subject that many readers are interested in. Seems like a good candidate for posting. 331dot (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sure, it's not the most important story going right now. But it's getting pretty good coverage as 331dot's links show. We have a pretty good article on the subject. And it would be nice to post something that doesn't involve mass deaths or kidnappings. Calidum03:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Considerably wide interest from an industry which we rarely post (even then only the greatest successes). That a company considered it more profitable to bury games and systems rather than sell them... well, I'm sure those who are versed in business theory could find something to analyze. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As a counter to systemic bias claims: according to the archives ITN very rarely posts stories about about video games, the only ones I can find were Call of Duty: Black Ops in 2010 and Grand Theft Auto V in 2013, both for breaking sales records. Of course video games appear more often in other sections of the Main Page, but how often is there going to be news from this sector to post, especially news that isn't just one game making more money than a previous game...? 92.30.173.5 (talk) 08:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As far as archaeological discoveries go, this would not appear to be a particularly important one. I don't think it gives us any great new insight into the past. In fact, I suspect it will have very little impact. So I can't see how the significance criterion is met. HiLo48 is also on the money with his comment about the average Wikipedian v. the average person, something that particularly needs to be borne in mind when evaluating tech stories. Neljack (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement that "life on Planet Earth" be affected to be posted to ITN, only that something be in the news which can highlight an article that readers might be interested in. My point was that video games are not an "obscure" subject. 331dot (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Atari led the home videogame revolution, and its demise in 1983 was huge news that would certainly have made ITN when it happened. This is like "finding the body". Opposes because it is trash are like saying we shouldn't post 9/11 because the towers were then just ruins, or if Jimmy Hoffa's body were found it was just a run of the mill skeleton. The story here is the illumination of a very notable 31 year-old mystery. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you've graduated at least secondary school, you might ask for a refund of your tuition on the basis of not having been taught the difference between an analogy and an equation, Doktorb. μηδείς (talk) 04:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should consult a dictionary to discover the difference in meaning between "link" and "equate", μηδείς. And does the government really charge schoolkids tuition fees in America? Surely even the US isn't that crazily right-wing? Neljack (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding that the U.S. has private colleges, governments in other countries charge for tuition as well. The only difference is that they do so in the form of across-the-board taxation. 98.180.53.48 (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Too trivial" is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT and shouldn't be enough to prevent this from being posted. This is a news item with (what even some who oppose this concede is) a decent article to highlight, which is the purpose of ITN. 331dot (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, "Too trivial" is a judgement we frequently make here. Mainstream media frequently cover Hollywood romances and babies, and in my country recently, royal tours. Thankfully, we don't post them here, They are too trivial. HiLo48 (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big difference between opposing something because we are not a tabloid news ticker and opposing something because it deals with video games, which is essentially how I interpret most of the opposition here. I don't see why video games are any less valid a subject to post about; millions play video games of all nationalities, ages, races, and genders. Further, in dismissing this as "trivial" the fact that we have a decent article to highlight about a notable historical event (the main purpose of ITN) is being ignored. 331dot (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can certainly hold that opinion, though I disagree. Without an explanation as to why, "not notable enough" could also be IDONTLIKEIT. I won't regurgitate the arguments that have been made already. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I guess I just don't get it. Atari couldn't sell a rotten title so they sent the ones they couldn't sell to landfill. Someone's dug through the landfill and found them. What's the story here exactly? GoldenRing (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was not certainty that this dump of games existed, and it is representative of a notable time in the history of video games, the 1983 crash. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At least 25 people are killed and several injured in a series of bomb blasts targeted at Shi'ite rally in Baghdad, Iraq. The attack comes less than a week before Iraqis are due to head to the polls in parliamentary elections. (BBC News)
North Korea announces that it has detained a 24-year-old US tourist, Miller Matthew Todd, for "rash behavior" during the immigration process. (BBC News)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose - Not in the Hall of Fame, so I don't see how he could be considered a very important figure in football. A pretty good football player, nothing more. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I nominated the death of a great Australian footballer (whose version of "football" I at least clearly identified for the rest of the world), who had also done far more outside the game, on several fronts. He was far more deserving than this guy, and was allowed to simply fall off the bottom of the page.. So, no way for this bloke. HiLo48 (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My submission was ignored because of our systemic bias. That same bias means that this nomination will at least get plenty of attention, so me ignoring it would have no effect. So I have to say something. My post is valid in the interests of fair treatment. If people don't like my comments on this nomination, they should have at least commented on my nomination instead of ignoring it. That this was even nominated is probably an example of our systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mistakes are made all the time for various reasons. We should learn from them, not seek to equal out the bad feelings. The only thing this nomination is an example of is a non-ITN regular nominating something they personally think is important. How exactly is griping at someone for something they had nothing to do with going to get more comments the next time you make a nomination? We need more participation if you don't want nominations to fail for lack of comments. Creating a unwelcoming environment where nominations are shot down because of past injustice is not the way to get more participation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may have a point on this nominator being new here. He is to be welcomed. But the comparison is still valid. If my nomination wasn't good enough, then nor is this one. And I still see no new real mechanisms in place that would prevent that wrong from the past being repeated. Drawing it to others' attention seems to be the only tool available. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We definitely could use more participation. Three items on April 21 & April 22 are going to roll off with minimal discussion (0-2 comments each), even though all were at least partially related to the USA. It's a shame when any nomination isn't properly discussed, but I don't know what the solution is. (For the record, can you tell me the footballer you were referring to so I can look up the nomination.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that users are likely to hold back from posting 'Oppose' !votes for nominations coming from admins whom they know to be the ultimate decision-makers for what gets posted and what doesn't. One way to test this would be for you to make nominations under a legitimate second-use account, and see if the discussion is so quiet about them. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's what does it. I know I often show no interest in an article because I don't really care if it's posted or not. If I was pushed to a position, they would all be 'oppose' but I'm much more likely to post support than a opposition - I guess I figure if someone cares a lot about it, they'll support it; if not, it'll slide. GoldenRing (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose This is merely just another snowball nomination. Given that American football is way far behind the most popular sports in the world, there would only be chance to post a death of an exceptionally skilled and admired player at the time of his career peak.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The limited international impact of American football is completely irrelevant, as "world-level notability" is not an RD criteria. Morrall not being at the top of his field (as evidenced by no HOF induction, for example) is a valid oppose. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the importance of the field itself has some relevance. A world Tiddlywinks champion is not a particularly important figure even if they are at the top of their field. I echo WP:BIAS concerns, although the way to combat this may be for us to nominate more Sumo wrestlers and Kabaddi players rather than less American football and baseball players. (In this particular case the guy doesn't seem particularly notable even within American football). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure American Football generates more interest outside the US that tiddlywinks does world-wide... A large percentage of the stories we post are of interest only to one country. The only time people complain about that is when the country in question happens to be the United States. And yes, the way to combat systematic bias is to propose stories from underrepresented areas, not to judge US stories extra harshly. (Incidentally, baseball is bigger in the Caribbean, Japan, and parts of Southeast Asia than the US.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing that American Football is as insignificant as tiddlywinks (that would be silly); I'm arguing that the level of importance of the field itself matters for our purposes.
Some fields - particularly in sports - are more international than others. Being in the Olympics is a pretty good indicator that the field has interest from a range of different nations. I'd count that as a point in its favour.
It's unsurprising that people don't complain about bias in respect of the countries that Wikipedia doesn't have a systemic bias towards! The reason that people complain about pro-US bias - rather than for example, pro-China bias - is that English Wikipedia does not have a pro-China systemic bias.
We get plenty of improbable UK (which has a population less than 1/4 of the US) and no one pulls out the bias card on those. They simply oppose them as not notable enough. The same should be done for not notable enough US nominations (like this one) - there is no need to pull the bias card constantly. When something is very important to "only" one country (which isn't the case here), it is a perfectly valid nomination. Crossing multiple small country boundaries (i.e. Europe) doesn't make something more important. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We get plenty of improbable UK ... and no one pulls out the bias card on those. Then perhaps we should. There are more English-speakers outside USA+UK+Ireland+Canada+Australia+New Zealand than within (source: List of countries by English-speaking population). India for example has 4x as many English-speakers as the UK; I'm fairly sure it doesn't get 4x the news stories here. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to me a classic example of bias, I'm afraid, Thaddeus. The argument amounts to someone saying, "It's not a significant field; the rest of the world doesn't care two hoots," to which you, effectively, respond, "Yes, they must do, because look how popular it is in the USA." You might be surprised to find out just how seriously some people take tiddlywinks. The seriousness of the field has to have some impact on assessing RD nominations and North American Football just isn't up there. GoldenRing (talk) 11:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um, that is not even remotely what I said. I said the international impact of a story is not a criteria, which is correct. I never said that only applies to US stories. Whether we are talking American football, Australian football, Canadian football, or Gaelic football - the lack of international appeal of the sport is not a dis-qualifier to RD candidates. When people start paying money to watch professional tiddlywink competitions, let me know. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was, admittedly, rather a caricature. My point, though, is not that tiddlywinks and American football are on a par, but that there has to be a line somewhere for which fields someone can be at the top of before we consider them for RD, and that line is above American football, IMO. GoldenRing (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about this a little bit, and I'd like to clarify what I meant above - I'm talking about bias between (on the one hand) the first world English-as-a-first-language nations (considered as a bloc including USA, UK, Canada, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, etc) and, on the other hand, the English-as-an-additional-language nations and in particular the third world countries where English is widely spoken by a very large number of people (e.g. India). WP:BIAS is pretty clear that this bias does exist. I'm not blaming anyone here for it.
Just wanted to be clear that I wasn't talking USA vs UK bias.
Why is the number of English speakers the relevant factor? Seems to me, it should either be people period, or reader interest, or a combination of the two. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right.
The argument goes that we're English Wikipedia and therefore a bias in favour of those able to read our output (and against those not able to read it) is reasonable.
But I agree that doesn't make events in countries where English is not much spoken necessarily irrelevant or uninteresting to our readers (or unimportant full stop), so it is a balancing act (which is partly why I think it's worth discussing).
It's not a straightforward issue at all: one could argue that there's no point in us treating people in the third world who do speak English but can't afford internet access as potential readers. That's a pragmatic approach but it doesn't appeal to me on an emotional level as it seems a bit dehumanising.
As we're now talking in general terms (rather than about this specific story) we should maybe move this discussion to the main talk page.
Oppose The most that I've seen said about him was that he was "one of the greatest backup quarterbacks in NFL history". I don't think that's enough - if he'd been one of the greatest quarterbacks in history, sure, but here they're basically saying he was one of the best quarterbacks who wasn't good enough to claim the starting position for his team. And he wasn't in the Hall of Fame. Neljack (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As said above, the best ever backup QB does not meet DC#2, and not being in the HOF is also a problem. Not much news coverage either.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As a major American football fan, and editor of many top-level articles on the subject, I don't see Morrall as the sort of player who usually merits an RD nod. He was, as noted by others, a really solid QB, but spent his career as either a middling starter or really good back-up. --Jayron3211:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Another major American football fan here, but I agree with Jayron. Moreover, doesn't his being a back up QB automatically mean he wasn't at the top of his field? Rhodesisland (talk) 10:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: This is the first adjustment to environmental policy in China since 1989. The new laws are seen as a big move by a country known for its poor environmental protection and high pollution. For people living in China, the pollution problems is one of the biggest issues, yet counter-measures threaten economic growth. Thus, this is/was a highly contentious issue that took years to achieve reform on. Polluters will now be subject to large fines (and also prison sentences for their executives), so there are significant chances of large economic impacts for the many countries that rely on Chinese exports. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This affects enough of the planet's population to be noteworthy. The sources refer to "law", so I've suggested that as a blurb. 331dot (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support because of the far-reaching impact this law could have if it is implemented as written, in terms of economics, environmental/health sciences, and international politics. Mvblair (talk) 02:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Huge news for China and the rest of the world. This is a big step in the right direction for regional cooperation/global politics. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 15:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have created a brand new Environmental policy in China and hacked it into shape. The article isn't ready for posting, as I haven't added the material on the new law yet. I will do that tomorrow - I just wanted to update the situation now in case anyone was wondering. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Considering his passing is big news, plus his accomplishment, such as winning the la Liga in his first season in his tragically short career, adds further to the nomination. What more, we had people who have achieved less greater things to him and they managed to get into ITN. --Donnie Park (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no evidence to suggest this man was even near the top of his field, not sure how it meets RD criteria. Note: I am aware other stuff exists. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose"After a professional career which consisted of 26 La Liga games in three seasons combined, all with Celta, he went on to work with Barcelona as an assistant coach under Pep Guardiola, being part of the squads that won 14 titles" - not exactly top of his field. If he was the head coach then maybe...--Somchai Sun (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — per Somchai Sun. Shocking and unfortunate news for football. But I don't think this person meets the RD requirements. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 20:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FC Barcelona are a world-class sports team: Spain's most successful, top of UEFA club rankings, 1st in all-time club world ranking, third-most-valuable sports team (not just football but all sports) in the world, has largest fan base of any sports team (not just football) on social networks (50 million facebook fans) - all this is according to our article,
Vilanova is (again according to our article) their most successful manager.correction, see below
Therefore he's notable IMO.
Article looks good.
Somchai Sun, ComputerJA: He was manager, according to our article which says at the press conference in which Barcelona confirmed Guardiola's departure, it was also announced that Vilanova would be his successor [as manager]. He joined the coaching team as assistant manager but was subsequently promoted.
@Balaenoptera musculus — Though this is not the reason why I am opposing this, his tenure as the team manager was short-lived and not as successful to consider him a notable figure for this nomination. Had Guardiola passed away, I think this nomination would be a no-brainer. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 16:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - I think I may have misunderstood the article - seems like it would be more accurate to say Vilanova's first season [as assistant manager to Guardiola] at the Camp Nou was the most successful in Barcelona's history, with the club winning six major trophies, becoming the first team in Spain to win the domestic cup, league and European club titles (the treble) in the same season. (Tito Vilanova) Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: As the oldest pterosaur, Kryptodrakon is also be the oldest non-insect flying creature. This is a significant fossil find that will further our understanding of the evolution of flight. Article is in decent shape already, but of course further work is welcome. ThaddeusB (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support And noting these reports are on the event of a peer-reviewed publication in a scientific journal. --MASEM (t) 18:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But according to National Geographic, bits were discovered in 2001, so this is more an announcement about the discovery rather than the actual discovery itself, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. Strictly speaking is it is classification (and related analysis) of the bones that is the news. I am fine with either "announced" blurb, but an alternative would be "Kryptodrakon is classified as the oldest pterosaur discovered to date." or "The newly classified Kryptodrakon is found to be the oldest pterosaur yet discovered." --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a fine ITN material. We definitely need to post more scientific stories and I'm really happy that their number has significantly increased in the most recent period.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the attention given to a paleontological subject, but I must point out that Kryptodrakon is not the oldest pterosaur discovered so far but the oldest pterodactyloid. The discovery was important because the Pterodactyloidea are a major subgroup. There are however, pterosaurs known that were about sixty millions years older.--MWAK (talk) 06:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please use the altblurb with "pterodactyloid" ("pterodactyl" is imprecise as it can refer to a specific genus or the suborder in question). My apologies for using the wrong term. I stand by the nomination, as this is still an important find that will further our understand of the evolution of flight. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can affirm that the discovery is of great importance. The term "pterodactyloid" is to be preferred. "Pterodactyl" is indeed a vague concept. On the other hand it is well known and the vagueness might be useful here, so it might be a viable alternative. To answer user Abductive's question: Yes, they do. So it is not a merely presumed ghost lineage that is sixty millions years older.--MWAK (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where have all the admins gone? Once again, I am forced to declare I will post a nomination I have a COI in if no one posts or objects by tomorrow. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Ukrainian government says it's regained control of the city hall in the eastern port of Mariupol from pro-Russian separatists. Administrative buildings have been taken over in at least a dozen towns in Eastern Ukraine. (BBC News)
Washington accuses Moscow of fomenting unrest in the east, with Obama threatening the possibility of applying additional sanctions on Russia. (Reuters)
A battle between pro-Russian separatists and Ukrainian troops in Sloviansk, Ukraine, leaves 5 pro-Russian militants dead. (Reuters via Yahoo! News)
A policeman shoots dead three American medical staff in the Afghan capital of Kabul. The policeman is reported to have shot himself after the attack. (BBC News)
In Nevada the Bundy standoff continues; politicians who had voiced support for Bundy began to distance themselves after the rancher controversially suggested that African Americans might be better off picking cotton as slaves than "under government subsidy". (Fox News)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose until article is longer. At present the article says nothing about his style, influences, his impact/legacy, nor his cause of death. Who were his professors? What design work did he do? Abductive (reasoning) 22:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can say is succinct, but not that it says "nothing" about his work. One can spend easily half an hour by reading the article carefully, following the links to his works (all key works are listed), looking at the pictures. Will add to it as I find time, as will others, but this is a good start class article. Precise cause of death hasn't been specified other than 'severe illness', but at age 80 is not a surprise, nor very relevant. --ELEKHHT23:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The readers are not going to look through the links. ITN and ITN/RD are supposed to highlight Wikipedia's best work. ITN and RD are not an attempt to be a news service, nor a way to draw attention to articles that are half-finished. Abductive (reasoning) 01:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it's my first RD nomination, so I wasn't aware that "ITN/RD are supposed to highlight Wikipedia's best work", particularly as I couldn't see that in the criteria. --ELEKHHT09:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please, don't be sorry - thank you for your useful nomination. The purpose of ITN is * To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news. * To feature quality Wikipedia content on current events. * To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them. * To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource. (WP:ITN). The 'featured article' section is for highlighting wikipedia's best work; Your nomination was entirely appropriate in my view. Looking forward to your future nominations! Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some interesting little buildings, but no major office building, apartment complexes skyscrapers--mainly just art museums and the conspicuous consumption of bank--i.e., no real effect outside a self-selecton pretigious clique. μηδείς (talk) 05:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a bank headquarters is a corporate vanity project, as are museums. No one seems to have sought him out for money making commercial and residential products. It's like homoring the pink mohawk rather than Vidal Sassoon's invention of the elegant bt practical ready-to-wear haircut. μηδείς (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just follow the link above. Interestingly that's a shorter article, but you considered it "decent start-class article, it is ready for posting". --ELEKHHT01:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is almost exactly the same size - 2250 bytes of prose vs. 2350. More relevantly, an article's class is not determined by length, but rather completeness. A very notable subject could be incomplete even with 20k of prose. I expect a RD candidate to be reasonably complete (C/B class), whereas a breaking news story can't be complete by nature and thus a start class article is the expectation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining this. Good to understand the logic behind. So the measure of being worthwhile for placing an item on the main page is not how much useful information is there, but how complete the article is relative to its potential to be complete. --ELEKHHT01:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Notable architect, though the article needs work. "Vanity projects" make ITN all the time; how about all those national competitions or tournaments? "Canada has the best hockey team". "The US has the best basketball team". "Kenya has the best runners". All possible "vanity project" interpretations of such competitions, yet in no way disparaging their news value. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the fact that Kenya has the best runners is a vanity project I do not think that word means what you think it means. μηδείς (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What does Kenya have to do with this nomination, other than delaying the discussion until the RD is no longer news? And what does the alleged "vanity" POV has to do with it? Anyone who reads this succinct article with a bit of attention would realise that your assumptions above are factually wrong: (1) of course many of his commercial clients sought him out for a profit, (2) museums can and are often public projects - not corporate ones, and (3) besides shops and museums he also designed apartment buildings and commercial office buildings. I understand though that the average person's attention span is constantly decreasing (currently average time spent on Wikipedia is less than 5 minutes, compared to 30min on facebook), so readers can't even bother reading until the end a compact article. --ELEKHHT07:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose not clear to me how he meets the RD criteria, but like you, I know nothing about baseball. As for being the oldest living, someone has to be.... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The "oldest living..." is always going to be one of the most likely to die. Otherwise, obviously a good baseballer, but not outstanding in the league. HiLo48 (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unremarkable baseball player, played 4 mostly unremarkable years in the Major Leagues, and some good years in a Cuban league. Someone's got to be the oldest at some point, and that person also has to die at some point. Neither is particularly remarkable. --Jayron3209:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Being the oldest isn't by itself enough to meet the RD criteria, unless that fact alone somehow makes them very important in their field, which it doesn't here. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose Not big news here in the UK (e.g. it's not in the BBC News top 10 most read stories right now). I don't think we should give stories extra credit for involving wikipedia. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We're looking at the same one, I see it at number 4 now too. I'm still not sure it's notable for our purposes though - this obviously isn't a government spokesperson or the official government position. Story is just that someone using a government computer has vandalised a wikipedia page in a way which disrespects the dead. This is a PR problem for the Cabinet Office, but is it really any more than that? Nothing - outside of Wikipedia - seems to have actually happened. IIUC the edits were made in 2009 and 2012, the story is happening now because the Liverpool Echo has just noticed them. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not terribly relevant to the UK government, Wikipedia or the Hillsborough disaster. Many news outlets in the UK are running a "new" Hillsborough story everyday it seems, for reasons unknown. --Somchai Sun (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid it's bloody obvious why "new" stories are running every day, but it still doesn't make this article suitable for ITN. It is creeping up though (second on the UK BBC News homepage)... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it in the sense of "they're really making too many stories about this". Every tearful testimony about a victim gets reported on the BBC in great detail, for some reason. Not being insensitive here but it's just...excessive. --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noted COI on Wikipedia is not a news-breaking story. I'm sure there's a proper page on WP that has, as Resolute put it, navel gazing for this type of stuff. (This is ignoring the time frame issue, simply that this is not an ITN) --MASEM (t) 18:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any story with 'may have been' blurb is an oppose for nothingness. I 'may have been' on the moon while making this post. Regards, Sun Creator(talk)19:59, 25 April 2014 (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.
Insufficient article at this time. I would expect a minimum of three well developed paragraphs before it is featured. I may work on it in the morning if no one gets to it first. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support because the article seems to have been fleshed out a little more. Despite it still being small, it is noteworthy, well-sourced, and has a nice infobox. Mvblair (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article is exactly the same as it was yesterday when first nominated - one paragraph plus one sentence. Writing a start class article is not very hard, and is not too much to ask. Since no one can be bothered to improve the article, I guess it is up to me... Please do not post this until it is expanded. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ready - now that the article has been built into a decent start-class article, it is ready for posting. The death toll has been revised down to 48, so I changed the blurb accordingly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article 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.
Headline UK news, the Duchess of Cornwall's brother, wrote a BBC documentary, fairly high up in his field from what I can gather. Matty.00718:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but this nom clearly doesn't meet the RD criteria and I see no justification for a blurb either. Pro-Monarchy British news sources do not change this. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Does not meet the death criteria. "Brother of a royal" doesn't count, and his career doesn't seem to make him "top of his field". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: As far as state (or whatever you want to call it) politics go, this was a pretty notable rift that seems resolved after years and a war. And the talks for notability. Lihaas (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support in concept, awaiting article to judge before actual support. The event is surely ITN worthy, we just need an article and update which is likewise. --Jayron3215:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because I don't see where the article was updated. It's notable and important, but the article does not reflect any recent developments. Mvblair (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is not the first 'agreement' to heal this rift that has been announced. Similar agreements came out of conferences in Cairo and Doha over the past few years; this seems just another in the same line. What will be significant is if the deal actually comes off; I think the right time for posting this will be when the unity government is formed, which is supposed to be within the next six weeks. GoldenRing (talk) 09:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox_4K-AZ65_Antalya_Airport_June_18,_2016_(cropped).jpg)
