Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/August 2013

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

[Closed] RD Steven Tari

 * Comment. The article is tagged as an orphan, which makes it unlikely that Steven Tari passes the "very important in his field" threshold for RD. Formerip (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is interesting but his being hacked to death would really need a full blurb, which he doesn't merit. μηδείς (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Medeis. Not significantly important in his field, not a newsworthy enough story for a blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above comments by Medeis and Muboshgu - not hugely significant in his field, so he doesn't warrant an RD, and not a newsworthy enough event for a blurb.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 22:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Medeis and Muboshgu; we're not talking the leader of the Catholic Church here (with around a billion members), just a "cult" of 6,000 people. Not very important in the grand scheme of things.  Not seeing much news coverage of this event either. 331dot (talk) 02:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd actually like to see this posted merely out of interest, but we'd need either a policy change or a huge update or both. μηδείς (talk) 05:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Blurb or nothing The subject was clearly not a notable enough person to qualify for ITN via our death criteria, and is therefore ineligible for RD. But the event was so unusual that with a proper update this could merit an ITN posting. —WFC— FL wishlist 12:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] New world's longest canyon

 * Comment Feel free to propose a better blurb - I know mine is terrible. :-P Jessica Ryan (talk) 11:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The world's longest canyon is discovered under the ice sheet of Greenland. To qualify, that redlink has to point to an article about the canyon.  You might start one and submit it to WP:DYK. Also, the canyon isn't new.  It's been there for a long time. Jehochman Talk 12:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment, are you sure that this is the longest canyon? Once the article is created (and please don't title it "world's longest canyon") that factoid will need secondary sources for confirmation. I suggest that the canyon is interesting enough for having been hiding there all these years, and that the blurbs should avoid calling it the longest. Abductive  (reasoning) 13:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support once the canyon has its own article. -- Ypnypn (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support major discovery, have posted altblurb: "A new canyon discovered under the Greenland ice sheet is the world's longest." μηδείς (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How about "Scientists discover the world's longest canyon under the Greenland ice sheet"? - Ypnypn (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that or "one of the world's" seems good. μηδείς (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this is the best so far. — - dain   omite   20:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. Does the canyon have a name? "Greenland canyon" seems like an odd article title. Formerip (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No name yet. I support posting this once the article has been expanded a bit more. Jehochman Talk 17:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Dangit, your source only says "one of the longest". Abductive  (reasoning) 17:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The source I read this morning called it the longest, and compared it to the current record-holder (in China, I think), but I don't recall where I found it. The one I linked here is just the first hit I found searching, but like I said when I posted I can't actually read it right now. I support rewording to Medeis's blurb, and changing to "one of the world's longest" if it turns out that most sources aren't calling it the longest. Jessica Ryan (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The current article has this ref. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. I just found this article: Greenland's Grand Canyon. Jessica Ryan (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Still, it is not an official name, see my talk:Greenland's Grand Canyon. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Even then we don't have to have an official name. The thing itself is what matters, and we can always redirect. μηδείς (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The article requires two more paragraph's worth, yet I am called to sup. μηδείς (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Yup, dat there be one hugely ginormous canyon. (Great encyclopedia value, article is being made from scratch, new worlds largest...) --Somchai Sun (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait until the article is better updated. This is interesting, but to a casual reader it says very little without an image. I suggest somebody upload this until somebody creates a free version of it. Nergaal (talk) 02:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose File under "...and finally" to fill a slow news day.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 14:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Once the article is a bit more developed. — - dain   omite   20:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support the story, but the blurb would be better phrased as "newly-discovered" rather than "new" as the article notes it is at least 4 million years old, possibly older. Geographical/geological features of this scale do not get discovered on Earth every day, so this is clearly newsworthy. Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted with Thyryduulf suggestion. Secret account 01:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Seamus Heaney RD

 * Support. Viewing his lengthy list of honors and awards, as well as the list of studies of his work, convinces me of his importance in his field. Article seems to be in good shape to me. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong support. One of the most influential poets of the last hundred years. Nobel prize winner. Exactly what RD is for. Modest Genius talk 11:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Post-posting update: I have no objection to a full blurb. Modest Genius talk 11:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for either RD or, since he's generally considered one of the greatest English-language poets of the 20th century, blurb. Formerip (talk) 11:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support agree with comments above Tom B (talk) 11:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I remember studying his poems for my English Literature exams 25 years ago. Looking at the article, so influential that he probably qualifies for a blurb, to be honest. But definitely for RD. Black Kite (talk) 11:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. I'd prefer RD but he may be notable enough for a blurb, though my general feeling his a mentioning on RD is enough.  A Nobel prize winner definitely meets our death criteria but laureates die fairly often (obviously)--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think grouping him with other Nobel Prize winners is selling him a little short. Formerip (talk) 12:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support RD, oppose blurb It takes a true newsworthy death, like Maggie Thatcher, to reach the blurb status these days. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support RD Jheald (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Absolutely & undoubtedly influential in his field. --Somchai Sun (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The Recent Death has been posted already, and it looks like there isn't a consensus to post the blurb. Jehochman Talk 12:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh? No it hasn't, there's nothing on the template (and yes I did try purging and refreshing). Modest Genius talk 12:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for full blurb. Very notable Irish poet. Egeymi (talk) 13:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support (full blurb) Enormously notable poet. --RA ( &#x270D; ) 13:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for either RD or full blurb. Unquestionably one of the most influential poets of the past 100 years. Thryduulf (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted as blurb There is clear consensus for blurb or RD, but I went with blurb instead, as finding consensus for blurbs are extremely rare. Needs a better update however. Secret account 14:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, surprised it's posted before update, but hey. Can you replace the image with the one of Heaney please?  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Post Posting Comment, look, either the blurb has to say that he was a Nobel Laureate, or he should just be in the ticker. Also, I post posting Oppose blurb.  Abductive  (reasoning) 15:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note changed the image, added the link to his Nobel prize to the blurb. Let me know if any problems. Black Kite (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Not Updated wtf, people? The article has one new sentence, that he died.  It needs pulling until it's updated.  μηδείς (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, TRM, for updating (and while I'm here, I'll add my post-posting support for a full blurb given his stature in the world of literature). BencherliteTalk 16:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposed to full blurb for the record, not an unexpected death or statesman in office. μηδείς (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you just point me to that policy that says that ITN blurbs for dead people have to be "unexpected" or "statesm[e]n in office"? (e.g. Margaret Thatcher didn't meet either of those criteria...) Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * (And after all, isn't it a refreshing change to not have ITN littered with American soldiers accused/charged/guilty of mass murder?) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * When RD was set up, I seem to recall what could roughly be called a consensus that Whitney Houston represented a sort of benchmark. I guess her death might have been unexpected, but then (I hesitate to mention) so was Cory Monteith's. Formerip (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Had Houston died at 77 she'd have gotten a ticker. Monteith was posted too quickly for deliberation, as was this blurb.  Given there are only four supports for a full blurb, I think this should be downgraded. μηδείς (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Monteith gets the full treatment, that's a precedent. Here, we're talking about a landmark, heavily awarded poet here, not a kid in a TV show. It's not reasonable to argue against the full blurb now the standard has been set by blurbing Monteith.  And, reiterating my question, where's the policy or guideline supporting the "unexpected" or "statesman in office" appeal?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Cory Monteith was listed as a RD, not a blurb. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, my erroneous comments above struck. As the article states : "Upon his death in 2013 The Independent described him as "probably the best-known poet in the world"." Perhaps worthy of a blurb after all.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose full blurb. My understanding is that full blurbs for deaths are reserved for the very tip-top of society as a whole; a death that gets widespread, immediate coverage(such as breaking into regular TV programming) and is of wide interest.  While clearly this poet is extremely notable in the field of poetry, I don't think he rises to the level of a Margaret Thatcher (I believe the last death to get a full listing) or a Nelson Mandela (someone I often see cited as someone worthy of a full listing). 331dot (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no precedent for such a strict interpretation of the death criteria for blurbs. In fact, we have featured many Nobel Prize winners as blurbs in the past. Teemu08 (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't been here that long, but I believe most of that "past" was before the advent of the ticker. 331dot (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The ticker is irrelevant. There has been some discussion that use of the ticker should indeed raise the bar for a blurb, but to my knowledge, no consensus has ever been reached on the matter. If I am mistaken, let me know. Teemu08 (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. Meidis and 331dot: While you're entitled to post-oppose if you like, you both seem to be doing so on the basis of an imagined set of criteria, which is not a valid approach. We still have criteria for recent deaths and a recent attempt to remove them failed. The relevant criterion here is number 2: "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field". It's fair to say that there is a general understanding that we should apply a higher bar than we used to before the ticker came in. But there's no basis for just pulling new criteria out of thin air. Formerip (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I was merely summarizing what I observed to be the general consensus of discussions I have seen. I wasn't claiming they were specific criteria.  Either way, it remains my opinion as to how I believe blurbs about deaths should be selected. 331dot (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Being a "very important figure in his/her field" gets one on the ticker. There are no criteria that specify how people should determine which people who meet this criterion should qualify for a blurb, but most people apply quite a high threshold, since the ticker was intended to be used for most deaths. Neljack (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that's not correct. The criteria predate the ticker, and there has been no consensus to dis-apply them. Formerip (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If that's true, then it would seem there is little point to the ticker. 331dot (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, we apply a higher threshold in one case than the other. Not a threshold based on different criteria, because there has never been a decision to do that. Formerip (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've never claimed otherwise. I haven't made up criteria, I have given my opinion that the higher threshold you speak of has not been met, for the reasons I gave(primarily the level of news coverage and global interest). This is still "In the News" and news coverage is at least partially relevant to something being posted. I don't believe he is equal in status to Margaret Thatcher. 331dot (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Equal in status to Margaret Thatcher" is not part of the criteria. ITN is supposed to take into account the level of news coverage, but not sit in front of CNN in its underpants nodding. The question is: how important was he within his field? The answer is that at the time of his death there was no-one above him. That's what scores a blurb. Formerip (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I cite Thatcher as one of the very few deaths that have received a blurb in my time here to compare this to, not as a criteria. I believe that taking news coverage into account, this does not warrant a blurb. Otherwise, I could think of numerous others who should have gotten blurbs but have not. 331dot (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to me you're taking nothing but news coverage into account, as well as setting a silly standard. That's a bad approach. Formerip (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't seek to set any new standards, silly or otherwise; simply to state my opinion that this man did not meet the higher threshold that you yourself has said exists for blurbs about deaths, and provide a reason for my opinion. You are certainly entitled to believe that this death does meet that threshold; I simply do not agree. 331dot (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support RD, oppose blurb Clearly a very important figure in his field, but I agree that blurbs should be reserved for people who have had a very significant global impact (e.g. Mandela, Gorbachev, Thatcher). Neljack (talk) 23:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Pull blurb. I believe consensus (which seemed slight in the first place) has turned against having a blurb and I ask that it be pulled.  While more than a notable enough death for the ticker, it doesn't have the level of news coverage needed for a full blurb. 331dot (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do not pull, and think about this. It replaced a very stale item,  there are still items there over a week old, and if it appearing on the main page causes one single reader to go and investigate the work of Heaney, Wikipedia is doing its job here as the provider of free knowledge.  To remove it now would be absolutely ridiculous. Black Kite (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I support it being listed in the ticker, just not a full blurb. The goal of giving knowledge is still accomplished in the ticker.  It shouldn't be present simply for the sake of having a recent event listed, either. Is this man really equivalent to Margaret Thatcher?  I didn't see the extensive news coverage with his death that her's got. 331dot (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The ticker is obviously far less visible, especially as the image is there. And what are we losing by it being there, as opposed to an 8 day-old story about a mass-murderer that disappeared from the news a week ago, or the CW attack in Syria that have since been overtaken by further events? Nothing.  Let it be. Black Kite (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not losing anything by keeping it is not a reason to keep it, especially if consensus changes. Unlike Thatcher, this death did not interrupt TV programming where I live, nor did the funeral receive extensive coverage(or will), nor did talking heads discuss the death for days and days, nor did it get front page treatment. He was important in his field, absolutely, but he was not equivalent to Thatcher in terms of global importance. Again, the lack of new stories isn't a reason to keep this one. New stories should be nominated. 331dot (talk) 00:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Did Thatcher's death really cut into the TV schedule where you live? I didn't think that happened anymore when people die. It didn't happen in the UK. Here Heaney's death is the top story after Syria. I guess Aldous Huxley is probably looking down with a wry smile. Formerip (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Since there aren't a good selection of new stories available, that's pretty moot. And comparing him with the person who happened to be the last one to get a full blurb is simply comparing apples and oranges; we post stories that are getting the most coverage at this point in time, and this one certainly has worldwide coverage. Black Kite (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I truly appreciate this exchange of ideas, but I still maintain my opinion. 331dot (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Admin Note I posted per consensus the blurb. I knew about Heaney's impact on literature but I had no opinion of his death until now. The death ticker was only created for cases in which a blurb discussion would have been the slightest hint of being contentious. It was not created for deaths that otherwise would have been unanimously and universally approved for blurb treatment prior to the ticker (this is rather obvious). Also we aren't talking about a celebrity here, but a poet that many scholars considered was the greatest poet of our generation and who won every major award possible for his field, including the Nobel Prize. Reading all these obituaries, Heaney was not just "very important" to his field, but the very top of his field. The opposition is rather absurd here as his death regards a completely different topic area that is rarely posted (literature), and it definitely won't lead us to a slippery slope of RD vs. blurb unlike a random celebrity death.
 * Support for RD He is obviously very notable in his field. I don't support a blurb as news coverage will probably not be continuous.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 00:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Heaney death is top story after Syria in the New York Times and many other English media news sources as well as Spanish, while this very convincing CNN obituary spoke about Heaney role in the Northern Ireland conflict with condolences from Bill Clinton, among other world leaders , plus ,   and this among dozens of other different obituaries (most obituaries, even of notable people are from the same news agency even if used in different sources) shows his global impact that I don't believe that the (mostly American) opposers are aware of, hell even this level of extensive legacy coverage shocked me. Any further discussion I believe would make a mockery of in the news in general by Wikipedia critics, similar to what happened with Monteith. Take the OMG only politicians who made a global impact on every country should deserve a blurb discussion to the talk page. Secret account 03:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I seek no such discussion; I was only giving the most recent and only example I know of such a blurb being posted, to compare to this one. I have never disputed that he was the top in his field, nor that he received wide coverage; only that IMO he didn't receive the coverage that others who attained blurbs received.  Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I should be dismissed because I'm American, I don't know, but I can only state what I think. I am far less certain than you that it won't be a slippery slope; I hope you are correct. 331dot (talk)
 * I also think that consensus has shifted since the posting as the only persons defending the posting as a blurb supported it initially, while most posts since it was put on ITN have opposed posting as a blurb. That said, I realize this is going to stay, but my opinion remains the same. 331dot (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * oppose full blurb that's for highly notable deaths. Thi s is much more minor akin to the other RDs we post. A full blurb also needs a clear mandate for that with strong consensus. No accusation here, think it was just mis-nominated and posted as such in good faith. Lihaas (talk) 11:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Mis-nominated how exactly? I nominated for RD, that seemed appropriate to me. Others felt a full blurb to be appropriate.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Attention why hasn't this been demoted? There's clearly no majority or rationale for a full blurb. μηδείς (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Because it's one of only two ITN entries that isn't actually stale? (Yes, not a criteria etc. but there is actually still a small majority in favour, and I suspect, like Modest Genius, that some of those who just "Supported" with no further detail may have supported a full blurb as well - it was still advertised as an RD at the time).  And per my comments above; since it's been posted now, we'd gain nothing by removing it. To quote Tariq on the Cory Monteith debacle "It was posted because, at least at the time of posting, there was consensus to post ... why hasn't it been removed? Because there hasn't been any indication that we're doing anyone a service by doing so." Black Kite (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My guess is that no admin has so far felt that a compelling case has been made for removing the blurb. Formerip (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Admins are also ale to express why they oppose a certain change, and none has given an opinion why this needs a full blurb against consensus, FormerIP. μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This one has - per my comments above and because there isn't actually a consensus against it at this point. And more to the point, because no-one has yet pointed out how he doesn't pass ITND criteria 2. Black Kite (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Black Kite (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't randomly post things because there is no consensus against doing so. There is no majority consensus for Heaney being on ITN, he should be demoted to RD--that is the policy decided on with the RfC establishing RD in the first place. μηδείς (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There was a consensus to post it at the time. There still isn't a consensus to pull it now.  This, of course, is added to by the fact that anyone who would support the posting isn't going to comment now, because it's already been posted.  The only people commenting now are the ones that disagree with it.  There's absolutely no way we should pull it on the basis of that, because it's not a balanced discussion.  I'd also point out that Frost is about to be posted as a full blurb (which I'm fine with), but there's no way he was as notable in his field as Heaney was in his. Black Kite (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ITND criteria 2 is not a guarantee of a full blurb. Indeed, there are no guidelines whatsoever on whether or not a death should be a blurb or RD posting: that matter is entirely down to local consensus on a case-by-case basis. —WFC— FL wishlist 12:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Trout Secret, leave blurb - I'll come out of my summer Wiki-break to say this is the second time recently that admin Secret has made what I'd call a glaringly disruptive call to post at the ITN feature. This was not an ITN blurb-worthy death, it was a good RD candidate. Though tempted to join others requesting a pull, it would be more disruptive to ITN to do so at this point, at a time when we need stability. I'd like to personally ask Secret, a compromised admin, to accept a trouting and stand down from any further ITN admin postings for the rest of this year. Now, let's get some new ITN nominations and move forward. Jus  da  fax   09:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * How about David Frost then? (evil grin) Black Kite (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As I say above, neither is suitable for the current standards for a full blurb at ITN, in my view. Before we had RD I would have said yes. Jus  da  fax   18:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Move to RD, in conjunction with a new blurb for David Frost (more blurb-worthy because of the unusual situation of dying whilst doing his job). —WFC— FL wishlist 12:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, if we're going to put Frost in, why not remove one of the very stale other entries (apart from Saudi Arabia and the Ashes, they're all over a week old), rather than Heaney? Black Kite (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Having seen how stale some of the stories are, I agree that having two deaths up wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. To lump two highly interesting writers with consecutive dull and formulaic blurbs doesn't do the subjects justice, but the alternative is to keep up an event which happened nearly a fortnight ago. —WFC— FL wishlist 20:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Lundsberg closes

 * Oppose I wish the school itself had an article on par with Eton College that would truly show how important it is. The article right now is an introduction with 1 body section that's all about the closure. Nonetheless, the closure is temporary and it doesn't appear that the effects on the school are that long-lasting (except for a PR nightmare). If I'm misunderstanding the situation, please let me know and I'll reconsider my opposition.  Spencer T♦ C 22:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Even though the school is closed temporary it is already clear that the school will not open again. These abuses has been going on as a part of the schools system for a very long time but has only been "outed" in the last couple of years. Everyone in the lead of the school has been let go of their duties including the head master.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Spencer. Neljack (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose "temporarily" says it all. μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Spencer and Medeis. 331dot (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Hanamanteo (talk) 04:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The school doesn't seem to be extremely notable and the closing doesn't appear to be a huge event.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 17:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean extremely american or english.. thats cool.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Come on, its article on the Swedish Wikipedia is hardly longer than this one. 71.178.184.73 (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Saudi domestic violence law

 * Support A noteworthy and interesting story in an area - women's rights - that we don't cover that much. Neljack (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. A notable development, not only for Saudi Arabia, but the Middle East in general. 331dot (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Especially notable since this is occurring in Saudi Arabia. The article update is good, so I am marking this nomination as [ready].  Spencer T♦ C 03:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted. Jehochman Talk 12:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Syria Sticky
Looks like majority of news out there is about Syria. The chemical attack is still up on ITN but will fall off soon... i suggest when we add another item on ITN we convert Syria blurb to a sticky given the amount of current and potential upcoming coverage -- Ashish-g55 18:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support headline today was that American strikes are a question of when, not if. μηδείς (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Actions against Syria could come as early as later in this week. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's certainly not true that the majority of news is about Syria - other international news continues unabated despite the attention on Syria. If it is true that airstrikes are merely a matter of time, then we can post them when they occur. I believe we should post stickies when there are too many stories involving something to post; I don't see that there are new stories here about Syria that we would normally post and if there are we can post them since the current Syrian story will be dropping off soon. Neljack (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Syria is currently the top story or near the top on NBC News, CNN, BBC News, The Australian, Irish Times, Times of India, Le Monde, Spiegel, should I keep going? This is something that people might come to Wikipedia to learn more about and we should make it easy for them to find it.  We don't need to wait for actual strikes; this is in the news now. 331dot (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. We don't post stories about things we predict will happen and the same goes for stickies. Formerip (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * we are not predicting anything. All im saying is when syrian story drops off convert to sticky since there is a whole lot of updates coming out of Syria and will continue to come (given the current situation) and the article isnt necessarily easiest to find on wiki. ITN is the place to keep it -- Ashish-g55 22:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There's already a Syria blurb on the template, and we should wait for something to happen before implementing a sticky (again). At the moment there's just lots of chat and speculation. Modest Genius talk 22:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Something is happening; attacks are being plotted. One nation openly plotting to attack another is not a common event. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Attacks are plotted all the time. Any competent general staff has dozens of attack plans ready to go at all times. What we've got is some rhetoric from politicians - and we all know how unreliable that is as a predictor of the future. Clearly if an attack happens that will be news. Politicians saying 'we have to seriously think about doing something at last' is not. Modest Genius talk 22:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Attacks might be planned "all the time" (and there is a difference between purely hypothetical planning and planning an actual attack) but they are not in the news "all the time", and this is "in the news". Part of the role of In the News is "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news" and "To feature quality Wikipedia content on current events", both of which is the case here. 331dot (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Wait for the attacks - The US and its allies will likely begin attacks on Syrian targets on Thursday (see ). Hopefully, an article will be ready for a blurb by then. I don't think there's a real need for a sticky for now. People interested in what's going on in Syria can easily search for the article. And it's already getting a lot of views.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose FormerIP makes a valid point and I agree that posting this sticky now seems speculative. Sticky might again come to question if something fundamentally changes about the conflict, such as major international intervention. --hydrox (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. While FormerIP's point is correct, I think we have enough going on here to post the sticky now.  Aside from the ongoing violence in Syria generally, the US bas basically signaled it's preparing a strike.  David Cameron has filed a UN resolution to authorize action.  These are pretty high level moves.  If the situation cools off we can remove the sticky.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A general sticky is a different proposition. But, regarding current goings-on, a UN Resolution would probably be ITN-worthy and a military strike obviously would be. A sticky simply in anticipation of something we would post as a blurb makes no sense. BTW, I'm certainly getting the impression that David Cameron was "pretty high" when he came up with his plan of action over this. Formerip (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Hanamanteo (talk) 03:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, what exact article would be the target of the sticky? Not the one about the (as yet WP:CRYSTALBALL) airstrikes that everybody will be trying to find.. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, Syria is the global Breaking News Headline to the point that a debate in the British Commons is transmitted live on BBC-World, CNN, etc. so that anything else than Syria is "not in the news", completely being drowned out by Syria. Whether right or wrong, only Syria is "in the news", so it is wrong for Wikipedia to pretend that the oppositie is true. Count Iblis (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - We need to do something on ITN to show that Syria is an ITN concern. A sticky leading to the Syrian Civil War article is probably the best choice as we await further developments. Jus  da  fax   18:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support sticky I don't find it in the best interests to remove the chemical attack article that been posted for nearly two weeks, as that is the only link to the Syria crisis we have which is obviously in the news. We need a sticky posted now, especially after the Arab League asked for Western intervension . Secret account 01:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Million People March

 * Comment Article has POV problems. Describing causes of it in these terms is not neutral: "Outrage against the Priority Development Assistance Fund scam"; "Continued misuse of the Priority Development Assistance Fund by many politicians". Neljack (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone else has apparently addressed the infobox POV problems already. :) --Sky Harbor</b> (<b style="color:#0066ff;">talk</b>) 02:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Hanamanteo (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Amgen buys Onyx

 * Oppose in a story like this the bottom line will be some middle-management jobs lost as redundant. It means a cut in some costs, not a huge new investment or any new technological innovation because of the change in ownership. μηδείς (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure that it's true that mergers and acquisitions are the biggest business news except for scandals. Policy announcements by central banks are very big - we could consider posting important announcements by the Fed and the ECB. As for this story, I don't see anything indicate great importance, but I'd be interested to know what the the dollar values of previous M&As we've posted have been. Neljack (talk) 03:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Did we post the United Airlines/ American merger? μηδείς (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasn't nominated when announced, but I plan to nominate it when it completes. Also Neljack is correct, changes in the interest rate are bigger stories than mergers (but also very rare). The smaller of the two companies in the Publicis Omnicom Group merger was 14 billion.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Are we talking about the American Airlines/US Airways merger? If so, I nominated it when it was announced - it wasn't posted. (I don't think there was ever a United/American merger.) --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I wanted (this was a request for help--not a test. Had I known the name I'd not have asked.) Thanks! μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * To make sure my point is clear, if the United/American merger wasn't posted for its size, this one shouldn't either. μηδείς (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The American/Cactus merger was opposed because it was "only" an announcement. The FAA approved it quietly and it wasn't re-nominated. Corporate mergers take some time, and happen in many small steps. There is no ribbon cutting or fireworks or parade or what-have-you to signal that it's done. The announcement is usually the big event. No comment on the above nomination --76.110.201.132 (talk) 10:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. If this is notable it needs a much better blurb to explain why. Currently my reaction is "so what?" for example there is no context to explain whether $10.4bn is big or small, nothing to say whether this is likely to be controversial (or not), nothing about whether it was expected or not, etc. Why is this merger more notable than any other merger - as it stands the blurb doesn't tell me it even is more than routine. Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Never heard of either companies. Donnie Park (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ....which is likely the case with many of the 7 billion Humans on this planet. There may be other reasons to not post this, but that's not one of them. 331dot (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * When Fairchild Electronics and Honeywell Computers merge to become Fairwell Honeychild I will support the nomination. μηδείς (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose with blurb as it stands. While not trying to quote User:Donnie Park, I've not heard of either company and have no concept of why this is important in the scheme of things that these companies are in. Something like 'major competitors' or 'fourth largest buyout' or any kind of context as to why this is major news may change my vote. 203.45.232.62 (talk) 05:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013 Ashes series

 * The Tests are the only things that count for the Ashes (at least in the men's version). The article could do with a few sentences of prose describing the fourth and fifth tests, and making sure all the records are up-to-date with the latest result. Then it will be good to go; ITNR so no need to support. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh and we usually use an ENGVAR-neutral phrasing and avoid scores, so I've added an alt blurb. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, now that they have actually won. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)... but not required apparently.
 *  Support  per ITN/R. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Events on ITNR do not need support for their posting(since they are ITNR); the discussion is to evaluate the quality of the article and determine if the update is sufficient. 331dot (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * When this was last proposed, consensus was to wait until the tournament was completed; since it is now complete, it should be posted. 331dot (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC):
 * I believe there was a consensus to post earlier when England had retained the Ashes but there wasn't a prose update at all.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus to do anything. The thread was allowed to collect dozens of posts containing completely nonsensical misunderstandings of how The Ashes work, and then allowed to die. If a wise Admin had actually cared, read and paid attention to the thread, England's retaining of The Ashes would have been posted weeks ago. It was a sad, pathetic scene in Wikipedia's history. It's good that this is over and done with now. HiLo48 (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment test 4 and test 5 need some sort of textual summary before the article should be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Since no one has yet stepped up to do the update, I will volunteer if someone can find succinct match summaries of test 4 and test 5. (I know nothing about cricket, so it would be even better if a knowledgeable person did it.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's Tests, not tests. ;-)  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support and marked as ready, it's good to go now, update seems adequate for all Tests. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  21:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent Deaths: Julie Harris

 * Support for RD based on notability - I mean, 5x Tonys and 3x Emmys plus a Grammy. But the majority of the article isn't cited and there's already a couple of cite needed tags in there. Miyagawa (talk) 09:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I fixed the only "cite needed" that I saw. —  Wylie pedia  12:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Notable in her field. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for RD. Multiple award winner in both film and theater, indicates importance in the field of acting. 331dot (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fully support RD. Notable in any acting venue, plus Grammys. Article is translated into many languages. —  Wylie pedia  12:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb The Tony, Emmy, Grammy, and Academy Awards and nominations do nothing for me. The Kennedy Center honors, National Medal of Arts, American Theatre Hall of Fame and Special Lifetime Achievement Tony Award convince me of the significant impact in the field. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Death update needs work. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for RD. So close to the EGOT.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 00:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Dying on the vine two more sentences would have done this. Am not a fan myself though. μηδείς (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Prison riot

 *  Oppose Support unless there's something else notable here this is just another death count-story. There have been two recent prison riots with 60 and 25 dead in the last year in Venezuela alone--although our article on riots doesn't even mention the smaller of the two. μηδείς (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC) The article has been well updated to give the story behind the death toll. μηδείς (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Substantial death toll and plenty of international coverage. Neljack (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I think without something else notable here as Medeis states, there isn't quite enough casualties here. 331dot (talk) 03:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My specific objection is not that this would be a better story with 45 dead, but that death-count alone doesn't establish encyclopedic notability in any circustance. As for encyclopedic coverag, what we have now is a stub of a stub. μηδείς (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that this event does not merit its own article, but we have the article about the prison itself, thus it is an encyclopedic subject. 331dot (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support as Neljack says, substantial death toll and plenty of international coverage.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support if updated. Prison killings are somewhat common in Venezuela, but this may be among the first major prison killings in Bolivia. 31 dead and over 50 injured (plus the extensive international coverage) seem notable enough for the Main Page. I wish I had more time to update the article, though. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 21:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Updated - article is now updated. Let me know if any quality concerns remain. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Technically the Palmasola article is updated. But the news story is about the riot, not the prison town.  The prison town section is astub that wouldn't meet the update requirement on its own.  I am removing the updated "yes" in hopes of bringing to attention my concern below. μηδείς (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment we really need to treat the riot itself as the new article, which would require three paragraphs of update, not the two Thaddeus (good ones) has contributed. AS of now the article explains that the riot broke out between rivals in cell blocks A and B, but we have no idea if the entire cell blocks are at war (two gangs, maybe?) or if this was just a subset of people in each block; why they are separated that way in the first place (a lot of jails in Latin America are run by the inmates); and what exactly the "extortion" going on between the cell blocks amounted to.  Without addressing these questions, we basically have an article section that says "for some reason a riot broke out, and 30+ people were killed" which gets back to the idea that the death count is what matters. If the reason for the riot can be addressed in three sentences that will go a long way toward establishing notability. μηδείς (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think extortion is pretty self explanatory - they wanted money in exchange for not beating up the others. I will change it to say "a gang in cell block A" rather than "members of cell block A" (as some sources say) - it obviously wasn't every person in the cell block.  The inmates do control the prison to a large extent, as noted, but that doesn't mean they don't have assigned living quarters.  I fail to see why the presence of a wall needs special explanation.  More precise explanation probably won't be available until the investigation takes place, but I'll see what I can find. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing with your interpretation. I am saying this nomination fails the update requirement (The article Palmasola has nothing to do with the story--so we need an independent three-paragraph section.  That can be accomplished very handily by explaining why the prisoners were segregated into mutually hostile cellblocks, if the entire blocks or just some inmates were hostile, and explaining the nature of the extortion that was going on. This can be done by adding two or three additional sourced sentences. μηδείς (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Updated further - I have expanded from local sources that (hopefully) better explain the significance of the event. There is considerable local reaction calling for reform in the judicial system and an end of the children living there as a result of the riot. Hopefully that addresses the concerns. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's most excellent, Thaddeus! The only other thing would be whether the riot section should be created as its own Palmasola prison riot article.  I strongly favor that, and would be bold, but don't want to cause a problem.  If there's nothing to fear, it really should be separated. μηδείς (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A stand-alone article now exists, as per your request. I am going to go ahead as mark this as ready now, but of course the reviewing admin should make sure the update and consensus are good. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Great. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Medeis.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 00:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I changed my vote to support, Gamaliel. I still wouldn't support this on death counat alone.  But the update is a very, very good one, and shows what sort of material we can have when people put in the effort.  (The effort here was Thaddeus' not mine.) μηδείς (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Changing to support per Medeis. 331dot (talk) 01:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  04:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Robert Bales

 * Comment. I'm not sure whether I support this or not, but I've written an altblurb that I think gives better context. Thryduulf (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The article needs looking at. I won't tag it, but much of it is "background" outside the actual massacre.  If this is a plea deal, I'd be happier with a "confesses to avoid the death penalty" statement in the blurb.  Otherwise support the nomination, but strongly oppose the original blurb. μηδείς (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb Brandmeistertalk  22:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The altblurb's good, I would just leave out the month, and Afghan is the proper adjective: "Former U. S. Army sergeant Robert Bales is sentenced to life in prison without parole for the murder of sixteen Afghan civilians in the 2012 Kandahar massacre" μηδείς (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Kandahar massacre is a recognized good article.  I would think it would be preferable to bold that page (update presumably should be very similar in both articles).  Subject was discussed a month ago when Bales confessed and consensus seemed to be to wait until sentencing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Whatever the merits of this and the Fort Hood story, we simply cannot post three US court martial decisions in a row. Surely we can't. There are definitely other things happening in the world. Formerip (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to combine this and the Fort Hood story into one posting? The Chelsea Manning story is probably too old and too big at this point to merge? Thryduulf (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment US got some sentencing spree going on... Just like we limit the number of airplane crashes if they happen one after another we should limit these. Pick and chose... cant post them all -- Ashish-g55 00:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Solution? - Post Bales and waiting for sentencing on Hassan (like we did with Bales)? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait on Hassan. The guilty verdict is entirely expected, and the sentencing trial doesn't begin until the 26th, by which time Manning will be leaving the queue.  I can't quite see posting Hassan now, then updating him in 10 days for the sentence. μηδείς (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb. War crimes are notable, and posting the sentence is a good time to. 331dot (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I remove any complaints of undue weight in the article, it seems suitable compared to other mass-murderers. The article is well written, and while the update is only 3 sentences, they are well referenced and quite fulfilling. μηδείς (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Marked Ready Yes, I see there are just two full supports here, but every single comment favors the posting, including comments under Hassan above, insisting this be given precedence. This should be posted with all due haste. μηδείς (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - I've added some details on each phase of the trial to Bale's article, which for an "ongoing event" in principle all counts toward the update. (Sentencing itself is 1.5 paragraphs anyway.)  I nominated this during the last phase (pleading guilty) when it wasn't posted due to ITN's preference to wait for the last step, so obviously I support it now as well. Final end to one of the biggest stories of 2012. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - war crime. notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  13:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Change blurb to "US soldier." The current blurb on the main page says "US sergeant," which is inaccurate, because he was reduced in rank to E-1. In any event the fact that he's a Soldier is more relevant than whatever rank he is or was. -LtNOWIS (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Jayron  32  14:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Fort Hood massacre

 * Support Was just coming here to nominate this. Major incident, convictions are usually posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Yes, this is a highly notable conviction, and is the worst terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11--am not opposed to waiting until sentence is passed. μηδείς (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhpas wait until sentencing - to avoid (potentially) posting 3 US military trials at the same time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait for sentencing. Clearly a notable event, but suggest we wait for sentencing.  If he receives the death penalty he will be the first soldier in some time to get it. 331dot (talk) 03:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See the Robert Bales nomination above, which I have marked ready partially in response to the comments on this nomination. μηδείς (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, but wait until sentencing, per above.--Chaser (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - for me personally I support Robert Bales ITN but this one is an national story of a shooting without any international implications or even major national ones for that matter etc...Not for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * According to his article, he had contact with the late Anwar al-Awlaki whom he said he could not wait to join in the afterlife, at least attempted to contact Al Qaeda, and frequented other terrorist websites. This is not just a workplace shooting. μηδείς (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyone can "attempt" to contact al-Qaeda and frequent terrorist websites, so that's not saying much. And Anwar al-Awlaki was imam at one of the most well-known mosques in the Washington, D.C., area, where Hasan lived, so that's not saying much either. --  tariq abjotu  18:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how you define "much". The "much" here seems to be his victims.  But his actions take place in a world-wide context, which he himself asserted in his "defense".  The fact that he didn't, say, cross the border and kill Canadians is of no relevance to the nomination.  One can't point at Hassan's contacting Awlaki as based on a desire to rekindle a prior friendship based on a shared joy of movies and pop-corn on Saturday nights. μηδείς (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems that ITN is now waiting for sentencing to post. Am I correct that this is the consensus? Abductive  (reasoning) 04:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That is my assumption. The Manning story will be off the queue by then, so we won't have three court martials. μηδείς (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Sentenced Hassan has been sentenced to death, this is ready to go once updated. I will be busy for some time, in case anyone else can get to it. μηδείς (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear (and most of the sources reporting about this are not sufficiently clear on this point): The jury has returned a recommendation that Hasan be sentenced to death. The actual sentencing will be done by the judge, and has apparently not happened yet. In principle, the judge could sentence Hasan to life in prison with no possibility of parole, despite the jury's recommendation; this will probably not happen, but it could happen. Given the decision to wait on sentencing before we feature this item, arguably ought to wait on the actual sentence to be handed down before posting. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt you, and agree if that's the case. Do you have a source?  Because the sources I have read report the jury's sentence as final. μηδείς (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * CNN has a story with more details on the procedure for capital cases under the UCMJ. They are reporting that the judge has accepted the verdict, but that the "convening authority" - a general with authority over the court martial - could still decline to impose a death sentence. This is a recent update since my above comment, hence why it doesn't quite agree with it, but the point still stands. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Brisbane Times article indicates that series of events could take up to four years (unless I'm reading the last paragraph incorrectly). Whether or not the appeals process occurs before the death penalty is upheld & definite is unclear and probably needs a military source. 203.45.232.62 (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The news is that he has been sentenced to death now at the stage where that occurs, not that his heart has stopped beating. This should go up soon as long as we have no reason to believe it will be overturned by the convening authority. Even then it can be corrected. μηδείς (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Medeis, day of sentencing is the main event - so to speak - and an appeals process or potential overruling or overturning (whichever is the proper term here) is a later event to consider when it happens. 203.206.185.55 (talk) 01:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Marked Ready I have modified the blurb to reflect the accurate fact that the jury has sentenced him to death. It will not be news in months if this finding is not overturned--which is not anticipated--just stale.  The story is topical, the article well updated, and the news now. μηδείς (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PS given the hold, this should be posted to ITN as of today's sentencing, not last week's conviction. μηδείς (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  15:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Question, per the other US soldier mass murderer (Bales), has Hasan been removed of his rank, i.e. is it still correct to call him an officer? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Aha, it looks like he was "dismissed". Perhaps, per Bales, this should be reflected in the blurb.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * He was an officer who was an officer at the time he was sentenced. I don't think we need to overworry the technicalities. I greatly prefer Tariq's blurb over the one I gave, which is too worried about technicalities. μηδείς (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * With Bales, his new rank (E-1) has replaced his old rank (E-5). So if you say "Bales is a sergeant," you're wrong. With Hasan, he will never again have a non-officer rank, and the dismissal isn't in effect yet AFAIK. So I'm ok with the current blurb. -LtNOWIS (talk) 04:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Tariqabjotu, Should the link to Capital punishment in the United States be replaced with Capital punishment by the United States military? Since he was tried under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and all? Just wondering, Cheers, —<font face=Verdana> - dain   omite   00:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and "13 people" should link to Fort_Hood_shooting. μηδείς (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * At least for me, that use of ping doesn't work. That being said, I saw this query earlier. I could understand changing that link, but I think adding Medeis' would make the blurb a sea of links. Fort Hood shooting is already linked anyway. One issue, though, is that I feel the blurb seems a bit contrived, shoehorning in the phrase "Fort Hood shooting". I guess it mirrors the Kandahar massacre blurb, but it seems like it would sound much better if it said In that case, I would leave out a link to any capital punishment article (it's hardly an essential link, given death sentences are self-explanatory) to avoid the sea of links problem. I'll add the link you request, but some thoughts on that rewording would be nice. --  tariq abjotu  02:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed current blurb is strained, no objection to TA's suggested blurb. μηδείς (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Norrmalmstorg robbery

 * Oppose I don't find anniversaries to be notable at all, let alone newsworthy. In the case of the Iranian coup though, at least there was a new development (CIA acknowledging their role). – Muboshgu (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Said the american.... No offense.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What does my nationality have to do with this? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what does his nationality have to do with this? Looks a low blow, to be honest.  And no, I'm not American. Redverton (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose, anniversaries are put in the 'On This Day' section. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this is an item for 'On This Day' or 'Did You Know'. Thryduulf (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just an anniversary, which isn't noteworthy enough for ITN. Redverton (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose as should all good Americans. (?!?) μηδείς (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Fuck the Swedes Hot Stop talk-contribs 00:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] WISE

 * Support - I like this nomination a lot, as the article is in fine shape and the information is interesting and of worldwide interest. ThaddeusB, I salute you! Jus  da  fax   01:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator's comment. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Good news for space exploration. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, sure, why not? The failure of Kepler was posted. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and other supporters. No reason not to post this. Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ready - article is updated and ready to go. Altblurb added with direct link to new section. (I have no preference between the two versions). --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support/Blurb I support posting and slightly prefer the alt blurb. Darkest Tree   Talk  23:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Hanamanteo (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  01:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Atomic clock

 * Oppose. Three times more stable than previous clocks is, to me, not a revolutionary upgrade to performance. New technology is always going to be an improvement on old technology, and, in this case, I don't think it's such a huge step-change to be sufficiently notable for ITN. --LukeSurlt c 23:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with your oppose, but remember Windows Vista... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - Seems appropriate for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd like to support anything that doesn't involve random mayhem or violence. But this article has two-updates of a total of 5 bytes.  We'd need a new paragraph or a new article with three of them. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Lemurs

 * Support as nominator. This is a major claim that has a lot of validity given the situation in Madagascar.  Lemurs are very diverse, and the number of species they encompass makes up a very large percentage of the order Primates. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 04:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unfortunately, such a claim is the case with many species. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but last year lemurs are considered the most endangered mammals. Also, earlier this month ITNC supported the listing of a new lemur species, claiming any new addition to the order Primates to be significant.  Certainly the impending loss of 90% of all lemur species is at least equally newsworthy. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 12:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment This assessment may trigger conservation efforts and as such the extinction may be prevented. It would be notable (alas) only if the event occurs. Brandmeistertalk  13:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright... would you rather I word it that the IUCN is attempting to initiate a $7.6 million USD conservation program in Madagascar to save lemurs? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">– Maky  « talk » 03:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The original blurb can possibly be seen to be WP:CRYSTALBALL/predictive (that some editors may feel more strongly against); feel free to add it as an altblurb.  Spencer T♦ C 05:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Alt added, and I tried to make it not sound predictive. Funny... I thought ITNC wanted stuff about nature and conservation following the last ITNC candidate involving lemurs. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 14:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discoveries of species are notable as they can only happen once. Reports and predictions of future statuses of animals per se are not notable as they are by their very nature only predictions and in almost all cases are never fulfilled (probably due to responses to the report). Proposals are not exactly notable either... YuMaNuMa Contrib 14:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, species cannot be discovered *only* once. They can be discovered and made synonymous with existing species, then split off again by genetic tests, and then be made synonymous again by different genetic tests.  A few "new lemur species" in the past 10 years have already been through this.  But major conservation efforts to save the most endangered group of mammals (within our own taxonomic order)—a program that would also (hopefully) improve the lives of millions of humans, too—should be considered much more notable.  It's not like the IUCN just made up the $7.6 million USD number on a whim.  I'm sure there's mountains of research and massive collaborative attempts all coming together to make this happen.  But you guys know what's best... after all, a lowly mayor in a US city resigning over sexual harassment charges is so critically important.  ;-)  <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 18:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

RD: Sid Bernstein

 * Support as the inventor of the multi-billion dollar sports-arena concert venue. μηδείς (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Seems to have had a major impact with the British Invasion. Article could do with some work, though. Neljack (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Call me annoyingly over-sceptical if you like, and please set me straight if you have facts that say I'm wrong. I'm sensing that this guy was a successful concert promoter and a great self-publicist, but I wonder if his key claims to fame really stack up. Firstly, the Beatles first visit to America consisted of their famous performances on the Ed Sullivan show, and concerts at Washington Coliseum and New York Carnegie Hall. Bernstein was responsible for booking them for Carnegie Hall, their third booking in the US. So, while he was not an unimportant figure in their career at that time, "brought the Beatles to America" seems like an exaggeration. And the Beatles performance at Shea Stadium in 1965 was not the first concert to be held in a sports stadium. Elvis Presley had certainly made a number of stadium appearances and the Beatles themselves played 6 stadium venues on their 1964 tour of North America . In any event, the article needs more content and more sourcing. Formerip (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per FormerIP. He seems to be one of several promoters responsible for the Beatles success.  The article doesn't do that much to assert his notability.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Bradley Manning

 * Support. This is major news with national and international implications. Girona7 (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Such a long sentence for someone who thought of himself as a truth-teller will spur global debate over national-security issues vs. free speech and "whistle-blowing." Sca (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I think(?) I may of opposed the initial nom but now he's been sentenced I think the story is suitable to go up. This is definitely news.--Somchai Sun (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support We didn't post his verdict last month In_the_news/Candidates/July_2013. This time let's post his sentence. Let's also make sure the article gets updated in a timely manner.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  15:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. A sentence roughly equal to ten My Lai massacres. Just saying. Formerip (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thue (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The words "classified information" could be linked to United States diplomatic cables leak --LukeSurlt c 18:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. The person is now known as Chelsea Manning (although the official name is still the same).  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  13:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that the name should be changed on the Main Page if that's what the article title is now. The Moose   is loose ! 14:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That the article is titled that now is irrelevant. The move wasn't a result of a consensus-building process, but of a pair of editors' moving and a move-protection keeping it in place. It may be reversed, per WP:RMT. We especially have a problem on the Main Page, where it's a bit of a mouthful to clarify that Chelsea Manning is who everyone knows as Bradley Manning. --  tariq abjotu  14:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As I say below, MOS:IDENTITY says that the proper name of the page is "Chelsea". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose the name change in the blurb until he/she legally changes his/her name and gender. The blurb is confusing and too long the way it is currently. 331dot (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * She asked to go by Chelsea. Standard practice is to respect that request, even though she's more commonly known as Bradley. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you cite that standard practice just for my information? I don't advocate changing the article or article title, just the blurb which could confuse people. 331dot (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * From GLAAD: "Always use a transgender person's chosen name" (scroll down to "Names, Pronoun Usage & Descriptions". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I was referring to a Wikipedia policy; but if we are going to go that route then "Bradley" should just be removed from the blurb. The blurb doesn't need to provide a history of her name change.  Chelsea looks like the displayed image currently anyway. 331dot (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, LOL good point. I don't know if there is a Wikipedia policy on transgender individuals. I work in the mental health field, though, and it is our S.O.P. to refer to transgender individuals as they wish to be addressed. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the name "Bradley" should stay in the blurb, since it is the WP:COMMONNAME, but maybe we can change "legally" to "formerly" to reduce confusion? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You do realize WP:COMMONNAME is an article titling policy, right? --  tariq abjotu  19:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not one that should trump MOS. According to MOS:IDENTITY, "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman"), pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. " – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Request: If we're going to mention Manning's old name, can we say 'formerly' instead of 'legally', please? In a common-law jurisdiction, someone's legal name is generally whatever they call themselves. Thanks. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the state Manning is from, but in most states one must go to court to change their name legally. One can call themselves whatever they want (much like Stefani Germanotta calls herself Lady Gaga and Katy Perry's legal name is Kathryn Hudson) but that doesn't mean they have legally changed their name. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears that Manning has not legally changed her name yet. She is in the early stages of the gender transition. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a federal case. Do you have any evidence that the legal name of an adult at federal law is anything other than what they call themselves? AlexTiefling (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment per the discussion here and at the article talk about what "legal name" means and the lack of consensus about whether it is relevant, I have changed the blurb from "legally Bradley Manning" to "formerly Bradley Manning" as this is factually correct regardless of what their legal name is or what status it has. Thryduulf (talk) 23:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Restore original blurb Can we restore the original blurb, please? Pouncing on today's announcement by Manning is titilating but can we please wait until the issue is settled amongst reliable sources, which still refer to Manning as Bradley. It's too soon and MOS:IDENTITY gives no guidance as to what name to apply to a person. --<tt style="color:black;">RA</tt> ( &#x270D; ) 00:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh? The second bullet at MOS:IDENTITY starts Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman"), pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest "expressed gender self-identification. (italics per original). It is reported in many reliable sources that Manning's latest expressed self-identification is as a female named "Chelsea Manning". Further, as extensively noted on the article talk page reliable sources published since this statement was made are using female pronouns, etc. Finally, the article is currently at Chelsea Manning and the main page link should absolutely match the name of the article. If you wish to express your disagreement with the title of the article, there is a currently open requested move on the talk page for this very purpose. Thryduulf (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Chelsea Manning" is not a gendered noun (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman"), pronoun, or possessive adjective. It is a name. As I wrote, "It's too soon and MOS:IDENTITY gives no guidance as to what name to apply to a person." Also, please don't be picky with reliable sources. For example, this BBC report on Manning's announcement uses "he" and refers to Manning as "Bradley" and is far more typical of reporting.
 * This whole thing is far too rushed and the move (which was obviously going to be controversial) was made without discussion. I have already contributed to the discussion on the talk page to restore the article title. --<tt style="color:black;">RA</tt> ( &#x270D; ) 00:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, given how clear both Manning's statement and Wikipedia's BLP policies are, it was not obviously going to be controversial. Which reliable sources refer to her as male and which refer to her as female is an issue not for here but for Talk:Chelsea Manning. All that matters for this page is that the main page blurb matches the current title of the article. Thryduulf (talk) 01:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In any event, I think the new blurb handles it very well. The Moose   is loose ! 03:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Restore original blurb The revised one cannot be interpreted as correct. His legal name is Bradley, that is the name he was charged and prosecuted under and convicted as.  In circumstances such as this is is usual to use the contemporary name for the events in question, which is Bradley.  If we cast that aside and reflect things as they are currently he is not a US solider.  Therefore your possible interpretation of the blurb are either wrong, wrong or wrong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.241.71 (talk) 03:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's policies are clear that a person should be referred to using their latest expressed gender identity (in this case a female called Chelsea) for all periods of their life. Yes, she was charged and convicted under the name "Bradley" but while the article is at Chelsea Manning that is where the blurb must link. The "(formerly known as Bradley Manning)" gives the necessary context for people who are not aware of her latest expressed identity, so in the absence of better wording for the contextual note (please feel free to share any suggestions you have) there is nothing that needs to be changed. Thryduulf (talk) 10:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose closing this discussion. Manning's sentence was a near indisputable consensus for ITN.  THe debate over the name change is being discussed at many places at the moment--I suggest primarily directing editors to WP:ERRORS.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Any Wikipedia/ITN precedent? - In the past, if an ITN individual said something like "call me "The Pope" did we honor that or stick with using thier legal name? If "Chelsea" (whom I assume still has to use the toilet the way other men do) decided to be Barbara tomorrow or Bob the next - how is the article kept up? Just asking...

OR: Just preserve the news sequencing and say it as it actually played out - "Bradley Manning (who afterward asked to be addressed as Chelsea Manning) is convicted of..." - that way the name at the the time of conviction and the subsequent rename request are both acknowledged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.19.147.115 (talk)
 * Your first comment (Barbara or Bob) shows a stunning lack of understanding of transgender individuals and what they go through. Your latter suggestion adds unnecessary words that are better expressed with the word "formerly". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ITN and every other main page item practice is to match the title of an article in all cases except where pipes are used to avoid dismabiguation or for a more natural flow of words (e.g. today's featured article blurb is: Albert Bridge is a Grade II* listed road bridge over the River Thames in London... ). Precedent is that if an article is moved, the link on the main page is updated to match the new article title. Regarding your comment "whom I assume still has to use the toilet the way other men do", the way any person uses the toilet is absolutely none of your or our business and speculating about it is a gross invasion of their privacy. Thryduulf (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Request to PULL Chelsea Manning from ITN, replace with new news
Hello, first time posting re: the Main Page, so forgive me if I'm not following convention correctly. But I would like to submit a request that Chelsea Manning be pulled from ITN. This item has already been up here for over two (?) days and I think the newsworthiness of this item is fading. There are other world news events that probably merit inclusion (which I am not here suggesting, but merely giving for examples) such as the bombing in Lebanon, wildfires in Yosemite, UN military action in the Congo, and the fires in Portugal. I think that the sentencing of Chelsea Manning has been adequately covered, and the name/gender announcement has been at least reported, even if Wikipedia can't agree on how. However, keeping this item at the top of ITN does serve to continue to draw attention to the ongoing large-scale conflict among editors regarding the proposed move of that article and use of gender pronouns throughout. I think that is detrimental to the overall encyclopedia project, and I think wikipedians need to have this conflict behind the scenes without essentially advertising it to the world on the Main Page. Also, I don't know if I'm reading the red box at the top of this page correctly, but it looks like a new ITN item is some 12 to 24 hours overdue, so, maybe it's time. Respectfully, Darkest Tree   Talk  18:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Things don't get "pulled" just because they're not immediately new. They rotate off when newer items are posted. If you want something else to be posted, nominate it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like a number of good candidate news items have been nominated at this point. It also looks like a rotation of ITN items is overdue. Again, my concern is that the above conflict, and the one taking place at the article in question, are detrimental to the encyclopedia project. Given the circumstances, I believe we should remove this article from ITN at this point. I thought this was the best place to express that opinion. I'm new to interacting with the Main Page, so I don't know what other steps I could take here—I don't want to just re-post nominations for other news items that are already nominated. Darkest Tree   Talk  19:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to argue an article is so egregious on its own it has to be pulled you can do that. But there's no combination dinner "stale pork, pulled chicken".  Articles stay up until they fall off the bottom of the ticker. μηδείς (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to argue that the article itself is egregious, although I do think its GA status has now been called into question, which would differ from when it went up in ITN, I think. But, the point I'm trying to make is, it appears World War III has broken out on Wikipedia over Chelsea Manning. I'm saying that maybe, under these circumstances, an exception should be made to normal procedure, and this article should fall off of ITN now. I'm concerned that keeping it at the top of ITN (newer ITN items are now being posted below it) is among other things helping to drive traffic to the conflict. Witness the canvas tags on the article's talk page. Which is not beneficial to the encyclopedia. Darkest Tree   Talk  23:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ITN blurbs appear in the order they happened, newest at the top, not the order in which they gained consensus for posting. Recent deaths always appear on the bottom line of the template, starting with the most recent on the left. Canvassing is when a person is asked by another to comment in a discussion, it does not happen by people themselves finding the talk page of an article from a main page link. Finally, we do not require articles to be of any particular standard to be featured in the news and in any case the GA review was closed as premature (unless another has been opened?). In short I'm not seeing any reason why this needs to be pulled. Thryduulf (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Pull - The name thing has become ridiculously controversial. Having the ITN blurb just seems to advertise that controversy. NickCT (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Items are not pulled because they are controversial. -- Jayron  32  00:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not even sure where this is 'controversial' in regards to policy, and I am a conservative opponent of most gender-related topics at ITN. μηδείς (talk) 01:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * @μηδείς - Not sure huh? I suggest you take a quick glance at the several pages worth of debate that's developed on this topic. Perhaps you'll understand a little better. @ Jayron - Oh aren't they? Cite please. NickCT (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So, you've made a demand that we do something that's never been done before, and it's now other people's job to prove that you shouldn't do it? Riiiight.  -- Jayron  32  11:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't comment using my signature, NickCT. My user name: User:Medeis is fine per policy.  As for the debate you reference, you'll need to link me to it if you want me to read it.  Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Talk:Chelsea Manning. Like, the whole entire talk page. Or check out WP:ERRORS. Or Talk:Main Page. Or WP:ANI. Or WP:VPP. Or, you know, right here. --  tariq abjotu  04:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I take it, Tariq, you mean he was using "the debate" in the abstract collective sense then, not just referring to one specific discussion? In any case, Jayron has inserted the relative response above.  One doesn't establish a new policy by asserting there's no rule against it and challenging doubters to prove the negative or accept the change. μηδείς (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose pull. We don't pull items because they are not new, too controversial, or solely due to article tags(usually if an article is that bad it wouldn't have been posted in the first place). Unless there was some sort of impropriety in the nominating process, it should stay. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Syrian gas attack

 * Oppose. So far this is only a claim by the opposition, and the regime has denied it. The alleged attack is definitely not the worst since WW1, see Halabja poison gas attack. The UN weapons inspectors are there in Syria and if the attack is confirmed, then I'd support.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  15:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree with Mohamed CJ on this one. --Somchai Sun (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Clearly "if confirmed" are the critical words here. I think we should hold back until then. Also Syrian Civil War is a vast article. Is there a more specific one that could be linked? --LukeSurlt c 15:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nominator's comment: Given the amount of attention this will generate, I would expect the reports to be confirmed or disproved quite soon. I stand corrected re Halabja poison gas attack. Sca (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Approve if modified to have a clearly verifiable fact: The United Nations Security Council holds an emergency meeting after an alleged attack in Damascus with chemical weapons killing over xxx people. L.tak (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nominator's comment: Updated BBC story refers to "chemical weapons" rather than poison gas, but Reuters still speaks of "gassing hundreds of people." BBC asks people on the ground to contribute info with this appeal: Are you in Ghouta or do you have any family or friends in the area? Please share your experience with us using the form below. Sca (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Poison gas and chemical weapons are almost synonymous here (a dedicated poison gas/spray is by definition a chemical weapon, but the latter is the common term I believe...), but the "who has done it", "how exactly" (and even "when") is not likely to be resolved soon. It's war out there, which means none of the information should be relied upon directly; hence my security council proposal... L.tak (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's in the news, we have an article in decent shape here August_2013_Ghouta_chemical_attack - I've change the article linked above to that, it seems like 100 to 1500 people are dead with significant international ramifications. I can't help but support posting. EdwardLane (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Seeing the latest developments, it looks like efforts to try and confirm and efforts to prevent confirmation are also part of the story. August 2013 Ghouta chemical attack is shaping up to be a good article, and, if it can be kept reasonably neutral, I would support main page posting. --LukeSurlt c 13:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Yes, August 2013 Ghouta chemical attack seems a credible summary based on current reports. In view of footage of victims online and general global outrage, posting without unequivocal confirmation seems justified. Sca (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: It's posted, without death toll, in French Wiki's Actualités et événements. Sca (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PPS: Spiegel's English site says "Experts Attest to Use of Nerve Gas in Syria" —
 * http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/experts-chemical-weapons-likely-used-in-syria-attacks-a-917965.html Sca (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support this is being widely reported, and not as a hoax. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this is ready. Please note that EdwardLane's and my bold supports are not nicely aligned to the left hand side and the two original opposes were quite early on in the development of the story. --LukeSurlt c 10:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I still stand by my oppose as I think unconfirmed attacks, especially when alleged by a party in the conflict should be given less attention. The example I recall is the alleged Tremseh massacre which ended up being Battle of Tremseh - I supported it, but we pulled it in less than 2 days (links: 1, 2 and In_the_news/Candidates/July_2012). However, this article as it stands currently is fine and reflects the situation.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  13:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support — Obama on Aug. 23 said the reports constitute "a big event of grave concern." Sca (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - High death toll, a lot of media attention.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Marked Ready this is updated and supported, but I have no opinion on a proper blurb. μηδείς (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support/Blurb I think either the proposed or alternate blurb are fine. The alternate may be an overabundance of caution given all the news sources that are essentially confirming this event. Darkest Tree   Talk  19:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted I basically posted the alternate blurb, but without "unconfirmed"; it already says reported anyway. --  tariq abjotu  20:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * At last! It's not clear to me whether Ghouta is considered part of Damascus or a suburban region of Damascus, but perhaps the blurb should say "in the Ghouta region of the Syrian capital, Damascus" — or words to that effect. Sca (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not in Damascus; it's in Rif Dimashq (which means the countryside of Damascus). If you look at the map on Rif Dimashq, you see a hole in the center of the region; that is the city of Damascus. --  tariq abjotu  20:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, how about "near Damascus" or "outside Damascus"? I raise this question because Damascus is widely known in the English-speaking world whereas Ghouta isn't — not yet, anyway. Sca (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

RD : Narendra Dabholkar

 * Hold: I sense that more would come out on the topic and i guess we can wait till then. As of now, the death is covered sufficiently, but the aftermath in politics and common public is yet to come out and be written about. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 18:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This was an assassination/murder rather than a natural death. As the death itself is the story (rather than an obituary piece) we should be considering blurbs. --LukeSurlt c 18:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Would support this as a blurb rather than RD. Maybe the article could be fleshed out a little first, though. Formerip (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How important is rationalism as a movement in India?  Spencer T♦ C 03:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to get an answer to that. Important enough to get you killed, maybe?
 * The story seems to be leading in today's Indian press, though:    Formerip (talk) 09:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Same here. I have been thinking for a while on how to answer this. Frankly speaking he wasn't someone who appeared daily in news; at least not in recent 2-3 years. But he started his activism in 1980s and that's when he must have created enough ripples. The fact does remain that his assassination has been covered as headline in various newspapers, both regional and national. The city of Pune remained bandh today, although not very strictly. But auto rickshaws stayed away from road from 10am to 5pm. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 12:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong support - As said earlier, killing a person who used non violent means is a news in itself. And world must know about it. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 08:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There may be other reasons to post this, but using Wikipedia just to publicize an event is not one of them. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear 331dot, Thanks for the comment. My duty was to bring the issue to the notice of experienced editors and I guess I have done that. I leave the issue now to the wisdom of the community. He worked in his life to fight against blind faith. He was one of the most important figures in India who are working in this direction. There are very great editors and I am sure that they are reading this. I request them to take the decision as what they think is right. Thanks for listening. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * strong oppose per aboe. WP does not run media campaigns to highlight POVs. He was not known and nor is his death features in international ,edia. Should be an easy oppose considering the hordes we turn down (and approve)Lihaas (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which is worse: supporting something because you personally feel it is important or opposing something because somebody else feels it is important. Formerip (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support His death has also received some global coverage, for example see The Guardian and BBC. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, Australia Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC) and United States  Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment As per given references, it is very clear that he was very important person. Now the question that remains is - are we supporting him or opposing him. Though we support or we oppose, we cannot neglect him. And I would like to state that people who are opposing are trying to oppose his thoughts. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No one is opposing anyone's thoughts here. The question is does this person meet the criteria for inclusion.  No more, no less. This isn't a forum to publicize causes or to be a memorial to people. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Lihaas. μηδείς (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Add the New York Times and Washington Post to papers outside India covering the death. Paris1127 (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Recent Deaths: Elmore Leonard

 * Times obit up now. "Secured his status as a modern master of American genre writing", "reinventing [the thriller] for a new generation and elevating it to a higher literary shelf", etc. Think that should satisfy criterion 2. —  PublicAmpers &#38;  (main account • talk • block) 14:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support RD, a well known writer, the article is updated. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Based on the number of his novels that was adapted into blockbuster films. Donnie Park (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Got to -- I've read probably thirty of his novels. Looie496 (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Article needs work - there are many short choppy "paragraphs", several bare url citations, and the article is somewhat short in general. The update is pretty minimal. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Notable in his field. --Somchai Sun (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for blurb I personally think he's one of the few deaths that is acually blurb worthy, he was one of the top authors of the 20th century especially in the crime/thriller genrue, and paved way to countless authors who are still writing today Tom Clancy, James Patterson, and so forth and won the National Book Award for Distinguished Contribution which is pretty much the top legacy award given to an author outside the Nobel Prize. Secret account 16:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for RD certainly meets the death criteria. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * support per RD criteria--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb Given the awards and tributes, seems to qualify for RD. I don't think he's close to the blurb level, though, and I would have to dispute the statement that the National Book Award for Distinguished Contribution is "the top legacy award given to an author outside the Nobel Prize." It's only open to Americans, for one thing, and I would have said that the Neustadt International Prize for Literature, to give just one example, was certainly more prestigious internationally. Neljack (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The Man Booker International Prize is another example of a more prestigious award for an overall body of work. Neljack (talk) 05:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

TLDNR. Leave on my talk if important. μηδείς (talk) 07:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. As far as I can see, the only thing holding this from getting posted is the article; two of its sections have orange tags.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  15:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment It's ridiculous that this hasn't been posted yet. Looie496 (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What's ridiculous is that people complain about things not being posted w/o making any attempt to improve the article. At current the career section is all of two short paragraphs, one of which is uncited.  The early life section is also almost completely unreferenced.  The adaptations section is unreferenced and full of short choppy paragraphs.  Two of his five awards are unreferenced. The article is in violation of BLP at current (which applies to recently deceased people too) as too much material is unreferenced.   I stand by my assessment that the article is not up to quality standards despite Medeis removing the issue tags w/o actually addressing the problems.--ThaddeusB (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Also the death update is rather weak --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Removing "ready" tags again based on that sound logic. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, "he was 85", is weak, but the section is technically updated. If we are going to get down to aesthetics, then the people who express dissatisfaction would do well to make the improvements they want themselves. μηδείς (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ready, all tags have been addressed, collapsed or removed. μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * While all tags have indeed been removed (and many of the citation needed tags were actually fixed instead of just removed as "unnecessary"), some were not actually addressed. For example, I hardly consider commenting out a perfect valid expand section tag in the career section with the rational "non-essential tag" to be an article improvement. I don't know why it is so hard to write more than 6 sentences (and reference more than 1 of those 6!) on a career that spanned 60 years.  Apparently nothing notable happened in his career after 1960!?!? I won't edit war to restore the tag, but I consider it pathetic that much of ITN (apparently) rather try to force an article through in a so-so state because they like the guy rather than actually work on adding content to the encyclopedia. (And no it is not my job to fix the article because I object to its quality.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb - This is a compromise. Article is on the thin side per Thaddeus but I think if some of his objections were posted to the talk page the issues would be dealt with. Let's run it before it goes wholly stale. Jus  da  fax   19:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please Post unless there's some other problem not visible this is ready to go. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  20:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Very few of my concerns were actually addressed, instead they just hidden or declared invalid by Medeis. However, I am fine with the posting since the consensus seemed to be was was just barely "good enough" given Leonard's high importance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I (mildly, don't get me wrong) resent the accusations of having pushed this through for liking the man. I haven't read a single one of his books, and have seen only "Be Cool" (which he criticized) and perhaps half a season of Justified, which holds my attention, but by no means thrills me or makes me want to try reading him.  I only got involved after 24 hours of this not going up because any objective judgment of him from a critic or fan viewpoint required he be posted on the merits.  Neither is there anything wrong with collapsing or deleting unsupported material.  If anyone is going to expand the article, it should be a fan who knows his work who wants to put in the unpaid effort. μηδείς (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, the pushing it through for liking the guy comment was directed at no one in particular. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Iranian coup d'état (60 years ago, but this just coming in)

 * Weak oppose. I could understand posting this, but personally I think they're just admitting what everyone knew already. 331dot (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support-This is a meaningful admission of unwarranted interference within another nation's affairs. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose the fact the CIA hadn't admitted it didn't mean it wasn't known. μηδείς (talk) 01:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I find affirmation of putative fact to be noteworthy, when the fact in question itself is noteworthy. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, it is a notable confirmation.Egeymi (talk) 05:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, notable correction of history. Been a topic of US presidential debates and influential in US foreign politics in the region. Somewhat akin to admitting there was no WMD after all. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 09:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Sun Creator's missing WMD is a good analogy. Thue (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * oppose its been known and it has no lasting effect. (the admission). IF Iran steps up some measure based on thisS THEN we can consider postingLihaas (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - We need to avoid letting POV creep in here; there is undue and misleading influence on the nomination. Some of the opposes of "everybody knew this already" cannot be proven to be true, just because we surround ourselves with people who share similar opinions. The CIA's statement should serve to remove all doubt, not to merely affirm what basically amounts to conjecture. WaltCip (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Letting precisely what POV creep in here? This is a 60 year-old story, all the principals are dead. μηδείς (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Update is 2 sentences (in the lead only) at current. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. The fact that this took them 60 years to acknowledge it is noteworthy. According to the BBC Arabic radio, American historians documented all of the details of this case, but due to MI6 pressure, this publishing the results was detailed several years.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  15:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a 3-line paragraph at the end of "The coup and CIA records" section. I think this and the lead updates are sufficient and have marked the article updated.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  17:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - mostly due to the limited scope of the update (which is as it should be), but also because I agree that the admission is unlikely to have lasting consequences. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * support. This is a major admission of strong symbolic importance.  There are many things that 'everybody knows'.that are denied by official sources.  I strongly question how anybody can assert this will have no lasting consequences.  Certainly, one can only speculate about the future.  But this could become the starting point of an improvement in Iran-United States relations, particularly if Iran becomes controlled by a more moderate government.  --Johnsemlak (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It WASNT an admission. It was a coerced release by the RTI with CIA ressitance.Lihaas (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if they were pressured it was still an admission. The source you cited says it was the 'CIA's first formal acknowledgement'; it goes on to say that "The 1953 coup remains a topic of global interest."  Just about everything that article states strengthens the notability of this nomination.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The update requirement is not fulfilled; while there have been recent updates to the article as a whole, there is only a one-sentence update on the CIA story. μηδείς (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure this is longer than one sentence. In lead: In August 2013 the CIA formally admitted that it was involved in both the planning and the execution of the coup, including the bribing of Iranian politicians, security and army high-ranking officials, as well as pro-coup propaganda.[8][9] The CIA is quoted acknowledging the coup was carried out "under CIA direction" and "as an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government."[10]. In The coup and CIA records section: In August 2013, at the sixtieth anniversary of the coup, the CIA released documents showing they have been involved in staging the coup. The documents also describe the motivations behind the coup and the strategies used to stage it.[6] The documents also showed that the UK tried to censor information regarding its role in the coup. The Foreign Office said "it could neither confirm nor deny Britain's involvement in the coup". Many CIA documents about the coup were still classified.[9].  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  04:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - Fascinating admission of interest world wide. Someone needs to do a bit of updating to get this posted. Can't be me, other matters compel my time. Jus  da  fax   03:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Major admission, good article, encyclopaedic development. The coup itself has had major effects, and regardless of the widespread suspicions the involvement of the CIA is unlikely to be widely known to readers, at least until they read our article. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Updated. I have re-marked the article as updated. Since I've !voted above, I'd rather not mark it as ready myself.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  15:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 06:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013 China–Russia floods

 * Leaning support, presuming corroboration from non-native media sources that these floods are as exceptional as being claimed, and presuming further development of the article, (as noted by the nominator). —WFC— FL wishlist 17:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * BBC, AP
 * Oppose. The Chinese flood we posted a few weeks ago was also reported as historical in scale. It's very sad, but it's monsoon season. Formerip (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The other one was in a completely different part of China, so both can honestly be said to be the worst in a long time for the region - if China was smaller, we would be talking about two different countries... It has been a bad year for floods globally, but IMO, that should not affect our evaluation of a given flood. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Major disaster with high death toll. Article is updated. -Zanhe (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Apparently floods are everywhere: Pakistan & Afghanistan, Sudan, Philippines and Yemen.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  21:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak support because this involves more than one nation. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose not that unusual, unfortunately. μηδείς (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Death toll is up to 85, article is updated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Clearly a major disaster. Agree with Thaddeus's comments above in reply to FormerIP. Neljack (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * support p per precedence ...though would also support re-evaulting where these should be poste.d Weather incidetns and man-made disasters are very commonLihaas (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 19:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Indian train accident

 * Oppose I dont see this article getting any better. Not much development will happen here since its just too common for people to get killed crossing tracks in India (perhaps not 37 at same time). can change my position if article improves -- Ashish-g55 15:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Article has got much better since your comment. -Zanhe (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support if article is improved. This is on the front page everywhere. 37 deaths is a big deal. -Zanhe (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * oppose its not notable as anything thatn NOTNEWS. It ought not to be an encyopaedic article as it has ZERO impact on anythingLihaas (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure "zero impact on anything" is the phrase I would have picked. Formerip (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting comment from a long-time ITN contributor. Almost all major train accidents have their own articles and they are regularly featured on ITN. -Zanhe (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * oppose for now. The interesting factor is the aftermath which per the NYTimes involved a mob dragging the driver out and beating him up and setting fire to the train after the incident. But if that's the extent of the violence, it pretty much is a non-story, and thus not ITN-worthy (or article worthy). --M ASEM (t) 16:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The similar Castelldefels train accident was posted on ITN with only 12 deaths. -Zanhe (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I dont think these accidents are as common in Spain as they are in India which increases notability. In any case the incident as it stands falls under WP:NOTNEWS in my opinion and unless some more developments take place, should not go up on ITN -- Ashish-g55 17:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose encyclopedia, not newspaper. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Remember this section is called "In the News". If we don't even post major accidents or disasters like this, we may as well cancel the ITN section altogether. -Zanhe (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Remember this is an encyclopedia, and we use ITN to feature good articles of long-term interest, not the daily deathcount. μηδείς (talk) 01:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Daily death count? This is the worst train accident in India in the whole year and one of the worst in the world. IMHO major accidents like this have far more long-term interest than most of the sport events that we regularly post. -Zanhe (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - I certainly think the subject is notable enough for an article (angry mob, contentious debate in congress), but our article would need significantly expanded before I can evaluate it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support subject to update As Thaddeus notes, there are circumstances beyond the number killed that makes this notable, so I hope those who complain that we focus too much on the death toll will support this. Neljack (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's two sentences long. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been expanded. -Zanhe (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Hosni Mubarak

 * Comment - He was not released from prison. Could be out in 2 days if he will be released at all. He will still be in trial for the 850+ deaths.  – HonorTheKing (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I assume you're referring to the release of Rafael Caro Quintero; that was not posted. --  tariq abjotu  14:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per HTK; he is not out yet and might not be given the other charges he has. 331dot (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A lawyer predicting that his client will walk free from court is not news. Formerip (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This lawyer likes to get media attention, he said before that Mubarak was dead. Oppose.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  21:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now, since it was not an official announcement. But, it will be soon.Egeymi (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Support when it actually happens. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Released he's been released to home arrest pending retrial and is currently being treated at a military hospital. μηδείς (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Entry into force of the Maritime Labour Convention

 * Support Obvious international significance. Thue (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I haven't seen any trace of coverage of this story in any news site I frequent. --LukeSurlt c 13:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not seeing this covered in the news, which is a prerequisite for a posting on "In the News". 331dot (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * support lasting impace.Lihaas (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: as far as I can tell this is just a codification of existing maritime law into one convention, not actually introducing any new practices. If so, I don't think there's enough news here to justify an ITN posting. Or maybe I've missed something? <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see where you are coming from and I think materially not many new norms are introduced. Grouping them in 1 convention is however for two reasons significant:
 * i) the membership of previous conventions was variable, with some with very high and very low membership. Getting it into one convention gets more countries to introduce the same norms; and for most extensive implementation legislation was needed for those things they didn't subscribe to yet. Especially since most of the significant flags of convenience have signed up to this, this literally means that 75% (2014) or 50% (now) have to comply. That is for a maritime labour convention a lot!
 * ii) The compliance mechanism is new. Every ship has to apply that comes to a harbor of a state party and every ship that flies the flag of a party has to comply. In practice, that means that virtually every ship in the word has to comply (the US is as a non state party doing MLC-inspections so its ships can show they comply)....
 * That's the reason I saw enough relevance for ITN.. L.tak (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, OK, so there is a bit more to it, in that it effectively means the accession of many new countries to the previous conventions. However, that information needs to appear in the article, and even then I'm not fully convinced. I won't oppose though. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 22:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Recent Deaths: Dezso Gyarmati

 * Support RD pending update - The most decorated water polo player in Olympic history certainly meets the notability requirements. Article is a bit thin and doesn't have a sufficient death update yet. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support pending update. As per ThaddeusB. – Connormah (talk) 04:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support RD The evidence indicates that he is widely regarded as one of greatest, if not the greatest, water polo player in history. Not quite blurb level though. Neljack (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Water polo is waaaay too much of a niche sport, and I don't consider his proficiency in that sport to be an automatic free pass to the main page. Gyarmati himself is largely an unknown, and his passing would probably be of interest to only a tiny, almost insignificant percentage of our readership - his article's daily average pageviews were in the single digits before his death. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Water polo may not be a big sport where you are from, but it is in some places - it's huge in the Balkans, big in much of continental Europe and growing in the US. It's an Olympic sport too. I doubt Gyarmati is an unknown in Hungary or other countries where water polo is big and I think many people who haven't heard of him would be interested to read about his remarkable career. In any case, this is person is clearly "widely regarded as a very important figure in his field" and that is all that is required. Neljack (talk) 07:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing that he was at the top of his field, but there seems to be some sentiment that we are obligated to post this because he meets the death criteria. We can (and do) decline to post individuals whose field wasn't sufficiently important, which I believe is the case here. Quick, name the second-greatest water polo player ever. See? --Bongwarrior (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You are certainly entitled to your beliefs, but others have the opposite beliefs. What you see as unimportant is seen as very important by others. We are not "obligated" to post anything that meets the criteria just for the sake of doing so, but we are obligated to post something that meets the criteria and gains sufficient support. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably Aleksandar Šapić. Neljack (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * His death was reported in multiple languages throughout the world, which suggests he wasn't a nobody playing unimportant sport. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Article is light and under-referenced at the current time. There are no references in either of the Coach career, Political career nor Family sections. --LukeSurlt c 07:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Article sufficiently updated and referenced. Support RD as per nom. --LukeSurlt c 10:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support RD only pending update. A long successful career with several medals would seem to suggest he is very important in his sport, but article needs to be expanded. 331dot (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support RD only per 331dot, article needs some work (only 2kb prose when I clicked on it), but five Olympic medals (three gold) plus the International Swimming HOF indicate sufficient importance in his field. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * oppose too narrow to amount to actual notability. μηδείς (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Medeis may have misspoken - notability is clear - just for 5 olympic medals. I presume he's asking if water polo is a mainstream sport - so that enough people might want to look for the article - maybe. This chap was part of the 'blood in the water' match between hungary and russia, and his article whilst only a C or maybe B class article links to some interesting politics too. The article is certainly in better shape than some that get posted - if it does get an RD nomination it will get improved. So I think a support for RD is warranted, and I think it's probably ready/close to ready. EdwardLane (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Marking as ready The article has been updated, expanded and referenced; consensus seems clear. Neljack (talk) 12:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't go up with bare url's. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I just fixed those with WP:Reflinks --LukeSurlt c 15:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  20:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Marich Man Singh Shrestha
I agree the death meets our notability criteria. The update is not sufficient as it contains completely unnotable aspects of his death.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support upon adequate update. 331dot (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support pending expansion When I clicked on it, article was a stub with ~1200 characters of prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose not a sitting politician, not significant influence in any field. μηδείς (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Impossible to judge whether he meets the criteria without more information on his political career - the article's coverage is very limited. Neljack (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013 World Championships in Athletics

 * Comment - The event won't be over for another 18 hours or so. The article will need a substantial prose update - most likely a summary of the most notable happenings. (I'm willing to write the update if needed and am open to suggestions on what the update should include.)  --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support when the championships officially end. I'd also like to propose mentioning the most successful nation of the championships instead of the total number of nations winning at least one medal.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * support and it should be ITNR.Lihaas (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to pip you to the post but it was nominated when the games began but its still not too late to nominate. Donnie Park (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you feel that way, propose it. 331dot (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It has already been proposed. Neljack (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Notable sporting event, and agree with the suggestion above about ITN/R.--Somchai Sun (talk) 10:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - when officially finished.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose amy mention of specific medal winners or nations; support first blurb--maybe mention the host city.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not when we did it two weeks ago with the conclusion of the World Aquatics Championships in Barcelona?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. The blurb should include a location. Formerip (talk) 11:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. But would we be better for a blurb to do with who tops the medal table, it look like a tight race between the old Cold War rivals. Please also support my proposal to get both World Aquatics Championships and World Championships in Athletics included in ITN/R. Donnie Park (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Proposed alternative blurb. In athletics, Russia (or United States) tops the medals table at the World Championships
 * It's over. Russia is the most successful nation with 7 gold medals won.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Ready The article looks updated with enough prose for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, I just finished updating it with prose on many of the most notable happenings. Altblurb is preferable I think. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Major international competition. Agree altblurb is preferable. Neljack (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of images we could use if we wanted to. --LukeSurlt c 21:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  22:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Mexican drug kingpin arrested

 * Oppose Regardless of the farce of posting a similar story every other week, Mexicans are subject to the benefit of the doubt in criminal proceedings no less than South African double amputees and former governors of New Jersey. μηδείς (talk) 01:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether he is innocent or guilty shouldn't be the focus of supporting/opposing this nomination, I think. I nominated the article for the significance of the arrest for both the U.S. and Mexico. Just added the word "alleged" to the blurb to address your concern. Thanks for your input. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 01:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So the arrest is important whether he is innocent or guilty? μηδείς (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. This case is likely not going to be resolved this week, this month, or even this year.  It's in the news now.  No judgments are being made about his guilt or innocence. Per the ITN criteria I cite below it is not unreasonable to post this. 331dot (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak support. I'm sensitive to the concern that we might post a Mexican drug lord every week- but we do post the arrest of notable fugitives or wanted criminal suspects, and this man had a $5 million bounty on him from the US. 331dot (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose We rarely post arrests, preferring to wait for convictions, and I think that is a sound practice which should be followed in this case. Neljack (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood, though it would seem that the world media does not hold the same view (this is news in France, UK, US, Australia, India). The first two listed ITN criteria are "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news" and "To feature quality Wikipedia content on current events". Readers might come here wondering who this man is. 331dot (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point about the news coverage, but no doubt a conviction would also get plenty of news coverage, and I continue to think that is generally a more appropriate time to post. A conviction for serious crimes would generally seem to be more significant than an arrest based on (unproven) allegations of such crimes. Neljack (talk) 06:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If it were the arrest of an extremely high profile criminal (e.g. Osama Bin Laden) then I'd support posting the arrest (I agree that generally a conviction is preferable to post). Trevino may be such an example, but looking at the BBC source, he's the 'second high profile arrest since december' and 'one of the country's most wanted drug-gang leaders'.  That doesn't sound quite singularly notable enough for me.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Convictions for organized crime warlords usually take a few years because people have to gather evidences and whatnot. It's not as easy to prove that a man headed an illegal, loose network of criminals than to prove that some guy shot another. In addition, I highly doubt that his conviction will get as much press coverage as his arrest. Thank you for your input anyways. Cheers, ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 18:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ComputerJA, how notable was trevino before his arrest? Was he extremely well-known in Mexico as a target of Mexican authorities and as an alleged gangster?  If we were talking about a crime figure of the stature of, say, John Gotti I'd probably agree the arrest is notable.  But I'm not that familiar with the Mexican situation.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Mmmm, being the top head of the Gulf Cartel certainly means something. But I surely do not think he was as important as Miguel Treviño Morales and Heriberto Lazcano Lazcano (two drug lords who were posted on the Main Page), nor close to the stature of John Gotti. Ramírez Treviño was the top leader of the cartel for 11 months after he succeeded Jorge Eduardo Costilla Sánchez, but I nominated him for the significance of the arrest for Mexico and the U.S. His absence creates a dangerous power void in northeastern Mexico, considering that Treviño Morales was arrested just a month ago. The Gulf Cartel is without a visible leader—there are just a few regional warlords I can count (just one with a Wikipedia page), but none are of his stature. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 00:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm supporting based on ComputerJA's comments.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Someone please explain why a famous white athlete arrested for the admitted shooting of his girlfriend is not posted due to BLP concerns, but there's no presumption of innocence for Mexicans? μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Was Pistorius the head of a drug-based organization, and did he have a $5 million bounty on him? Regardless of guilt or innocence, these things cannot be denied. It is not impossible to post a story about an arrest without declaring the person guilty.  Most legitimate media do this regularly. 331dot (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your point seems to be some accused people are lower than others. That's foreign to my thinking.  I don't think Mexicans lose their human rights, the presumption of innocence, or the protections of BLP because their arrests are "important".  To me that sounds like we are treating these men (one of whom was released no more than a fortnight ago) not as humans with rights and dignity, but as pests with a commercial bounty on their destruction. Who's the last European whose arrest we mentioned? μηδείς (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The point is that the arrest is notable and meets the criteria for inclusion if it gets the amount of supports needed. The blurb does not assert that he is the leader of the Gulf Cartel. It asserts that he is the alleged leader, just like the international media and the government have been handling the case. Thank you for your input. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 04:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? That's how the international media and government are handling it? It looks more like this is Medeis trying to shove the word "alleged" into this (again, just as he failed to do with the Zetas leader), even though most news sources just describe him as a Gulf Cartel leader -- since, you know, that's kind of what he does for a "living". Has he denied that title? No, and he probably never will. And our article treats it as undisputed since, well, it pretty much is. Once again, if anyone wants to play this game that he may not actually be a Gulf Cartel leader, you're going to have to drastically rework the article to say that. --  tariq abjotu  04:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We really shouldn't prejudge the judgment of the court. Stating that he is the leader of this criminal organisation is effectively saying that he is guilty. There is no harm in exercising some caution and restraint by included the word "alleged" if this is posted. Neljack (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If that's the sentiment people want to have (contrary to all seven of the sources used in this nomination), the article cannot possibly go up in its current state. Other than a lame alleged forced into the lead, the article presumes that he is, in fact, a leader of a cartel. --  tariq abjotu  06:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hence my oppose. Neljack (talk) 06:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't prejudging anything to state what he spends his time doing according to most sources, especially if he does not deny it. He doesn't spend his time knitting sweaters. 331dot (talk) 11:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How do we know he doesn't deny it? Do we have evidence that the allegation has been put to him? Neljack (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it is common for people to walk up to suspected leaders of drug cartels and ask them if they are a leader of a cartel of drug dealers, no. At least not without going missing afterwards. 331dot (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point, 331 Dot. Accused drug-dealers are simply just such obvious sub-human scum that we don't bother to presume their innocence (like decent Americans and Europeans) unless they spend their time writing exculpatory screeds and getting themselves arrested on purpose so they can testify to their innocence in court.  And people like Rafael Caro Quintero are never released due to prosecutorial misfeasance.  Who's got the rope?  Let's string'im up. μηδείς (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * One can presume innocence of specific charges while still discussing what sources claim this man does for a living. If he doesn't spend his time dealing drugs what does he do all day?  They wouldn't bring in the Army and Navy to arrest him if they didn't think he was a threat to them. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Rugosodon
Support this is an excellent, well updated article, a credit to WP, for which no reason exists that it not be posted to ITN. μηδείς (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Medeis, your reasoning seems to support this articles inclusion at ITN but your !vote is oppose?--BabbaQ (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I was also bemused by this. Perhaps you could clarify, Medeis; I wondered whether you meant to say "support". Neljack (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: As a recently created article, this should also be eligible for DYK.  Spencer T♦ C 05:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - definitly for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Highly significant. Neljack (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. A large part of the mainstream media is ignoring this. With the exception of the Daily Mail, but I don't know if that's a good thing. Formerip (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'll be in the minority so far and oppose this; it seems a bit esoteric for ITN. Further, as FormerIP points out it's coverage outside of mainstream news is limited at best. At least, I haven't seen it yet on news outlets. Seems better suited for DYK. 331dot (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition to TIME and the Daily Mail, it has been covered non-speciality sourecs such as CSM, Times of India, Herald Sun, and Huffington Post among others. Naturally, it has also been covered by all the "science news" sources. (Coverage can also be found in most major languages, but I don't know if those are mainstream or specialty sources just by glancing.)  Like I said in the nomination, its importance outweighs its interest, which is not surprising given the multituberculate family is extinct and rodents aren't all that popular. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected regarding news coverage; those were not listed as news sources until now. 331dot (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The list of sources that haven't covered it is far more impressive than the list of those that have. You won't find it on the BBC, New York Times, Guardian, CNN etc etc. Formerip (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Which can also be said about most science stories we post. The new lemur, for example, had far less coverage.  I would classify this one as "average" among science stories that gain mainstream attention (which is less than 1% of the total scientific research). --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That we posted the lemur story when the news media was mostly not interested doesn't surprise me, nor does it convince me. The BBC has a subpage for science stories. There's nothing unfair in suggesting that science stories need widespread coverage just like anything else. Formerip (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think I was implying anything was unfair, just providing information on the level of coverage here compared to other science stories... Coverage level is a factor, but typically it is not the main factor in any story we post (if it was ITN would look very different).  I don't see why science stories should be different in that regard.  I.e., we can judge them by importance (high here) and coverage (average here) just like we do with every other kind of story. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's no more esoteric than declaring having found the oldest placental or oldest marsupial mammal would be. μηδείς (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment, it seems to me that the story is really that Rugosodon pushes the Multituberculata lineage back in time. But given that the Multituberculata split off before the Marsupials and after the egg-laying mammals (who split off perhaps about 220 mya), this is unsurprising. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think we've been oversaturating biological history on the main page... and I've got nothing but interest in science news. But unless someone can point out what the significance of finding the oldest member of an extinct infraclass of mammals, I would be very disappointed to see this go up. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  04:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I've removed the [Ready] tag; there is well-reasoned opposition to this. --  tariq abjotu  06:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Query are you voting and adminning at the same time, Tariq? With the nom and not including your oppose this is two-to-one in favor of posting; it's updated; and it's mature. μηδείς (talk) 06:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not oppose the nomination. But the objections by 331dot, Formerip, and Ericleb are meaningful, juxtaposed against supporting remarks that simply say "Highly significant" and "Definitely for ITN". --  tariq abjotu  06:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, when the nomination was marked ready there was no opposition yet. Also, Formerip stopped short of actually opposing (of course his comment can and should still be considered as part of the consensus/lack there of). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand that the tide shift after you marked it [Ready]; I wasn't saying that you were wrong to mark it ready then, just that it was no longer ready now. --  tariq abjotu  20:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'll Oppose and here's why: Every fossil find that gets published expands knowledge a little bit. In this case, as I mention above, the expansion is very limited. It seems that scientists are already well aware of the beginning and end of Multituberculata's tenure on the Earth. The lay press articles are wrong, for instance calling Rugosodon ancestor to rodents and generally missing the point. But if you read between the lines, you'll see "one of the earliest multituberculates ever" (meaning not the oldest), and "even more surprising discovery. Although its bone structure made it clear that the animal ran along the ground — a behavior that usually requires stiff ankles like our own — Rugosodon was incredibly flexible, capable of rotating 180 degrees". So, the most interesting thing about this find is its flexible ankles. I just can't see that being ITN-worthy. Finally, the lack of interest by the BBC and others suggests that those science reporters might be as unimpressed as I am. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Isinbayeva gay remarks

 * Oppose - I don't think this is that big of an issue, and certainly not significant enough for ITN to take notice. Celebrities say dumb things and later apologize for them all the time. This doesn't look like anything that will have any lasting ramifications. Also, the current blurb is a bit too long, but that can easily be fixed if this gains consensus. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per Bongwarrior.  PR gaffes by high-profile celebrities are not ITN worthy.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose First off, that would be the longest blurb in ITN history. Regardless, as Bongwarrior said, I see absolutely no real significance here- just an instance of someone newsworthy saying something offensive, then apologizing for saying it. -- Mike (Kicking222) 00:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No significance here- just someone apologizing for an offensive remark.  If countries try to boycott the Olympics over the Russian anti-gay legislation, that might be ITN worthy. 331dot (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree this isn't important enough, and note that she hasn't actually apologised: "However, she stopped short of issuing an apology or withdrawing her support for Russia's now notorious "gay propaganda" law." Neljack (talk) 03:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Philippine shipwreck

 * Support. A ship sinking with significant casualties is not a common occurrence. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Brandmeistertalk  10:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Tragic accident with a lot of casualties is most certainly worthy of being on ITN.-- Giants27 ( T  |  C )  14:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support-Per Giants27. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Death toll currently stands at 31 and is likely to rise higher. -Zanhe (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * oppose minor incident with minor casualties. (per precedence) Lihaas (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - definitly for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - When this is posted, please consider replacing olinguito and going w/o a picture. That story has been up the longest except for Egypt and Egypt is still very much at the top of the headlines.  It is only at the top of the template because of the picture. (The other 3 stories have been featured only about an hour so far.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted I removed the Egyptian raids blurb and shifted it to a sticky. We can easily just remove it after a couple of days. --  tariq abjotu  01:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice thinking --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Yasuni National Park opened to oil drilling

 * Support per nom. Very disappointing. --Somchai Sun (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, certainly worthy of being on ITN.-- Giants27 ( T  |  C )  14:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Article is now updated and ready to be posted unless there are any objections. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support wonderful to hear a leftist darling sing the praises of economic development and call out developed-world hypocrisy. The blurb should say "aimed at protecting" instead of the awkward "aiming to protect". μηδείς (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  22:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I could not understand the meaning of the blurb "Ecuador announces it will reopen Yasuni National Park, ending a six-year initiative aimed at protecting the rainforest from oil drilling." I read it as "previously closed to visitors, or delisted as a national park, or something along those lines". It would be a lot clearer if stated as "will reopen Yasuni National Park to oil drilling..." -dmmaus (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, much better! -dmmaus (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Rosalía Mera

 * Support as a notable businessperson not just in Spain, but worldwide(on the Forbes list). 331dot (talk) 14:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support when expanded (not just an update but also an expanded lead and bio). Founder of the famous zara chain.  I'll work on the article a bit.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Being super rich doesn't necessarily qualify as "significant contribution/impact". Article quality is too poor at this time to convince me otherwise. I'll revisit this if Johnsemlak or someone else improves the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If she simply inherited her super-wealth, then I would agree, but this person founded and owned several large businesses; she worked for her wealth and it is an indication of her success and notability. 331dot (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Change !vote to support pending article improvement. I did some of my own searching and now see Forbes calling her the "World's Richest Self-Made Woman". When I opposed earlier, the article did not make that clear to me. The article is much better now, and should be postable with a bit more work. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose per Muboshgu. As a business person (the deceased, not me!) I'm not sure if she qualifies for RD.--Somchai Sun (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no prohibition on businesspeople from RD; the only question is if she was notable in the field of business. Forbes certainly thought so, enough to include her in the list of the wealthiest women in business. 331dot (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The article has been expanded a bit, with a full paragraph for the lead summarizing her notability and 3-4 paragraphs describing her career.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support if article is significantly improved. This is a good example of how systematic bias works.  Here we have someone that co-founded a company that grosses nearly $20 billion a year and operates over 6000 stores spanning dozens of countries, but who isn't a celebrity and isn't from an English speaking country.  Thus the article is not great.  However, I would say she certainly very important to her field.  (And yes wealth is a strong indicator of importance in the field of business, as that is how success is primary measured.) --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support obviously top of field. μηδείς (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ready updated and no strong opposition. μηδείς (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * oppose we dint hypocritically (if this is posted) post the death of the founder of Russia's biggest search engine.Lihaas (talk) 05:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Could be wrong but I don't believe he was said to be one of the richest men in the world(as this person has been said to be one of the richest women in the world). Consensus can change as well. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * His article also was never brought up to standards, as I recall. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  05:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Winnemucca Lake petroglyphs

 * I'm a little worried about this one. Have you seen any photographs of the petroglyphs? Abductive  (reasoning) 04:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Nat Geo is giving the pictures Nat Geo now from the source given in support of the nomination. μηδείς (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Something is bugging me about this. Off to do some research. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, see Radiocarbon dating. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I can spell out my concerns a little better. I would need to see their article to see how they address the problems associated with dating carbonate. Even dating actual shells is fraught with difficulty since the organisms may be taking up recently re-dissolved carbonate from the environment. Here they are dating a carbonate film from a rock. Winnemucca Lake is stated to be active, growing and shrinking and consequently re-dissolving sediments. As far as I can read, there is no independent method provided for dating the rises and falls of the lake at that location, just the radiocarbon dating of the carbonate. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have access to the research paper. I haven't read it yet (it is pretty long), but there is extensive information about how they obtained the date range - it is not simply form carbon dating. email me and I'll send you a copy if you like. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would love to support this - but - the above "issues" should be resolved/clarified and the article updated some more if needs be. Obviously not a field of study I'm knowledgeable in! --Somchai Sun (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support this is notable even if we're looking at the lower range of ages. If there's a published challenge to the dates a link would be helpful. μηδείς (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I read the paper now. The researchers used three indirect methods to date the waterline level rises and falls in addition to the direct method of carbon dating.  All methods were largely consistent.  Additionally, the younger date range is consistent with human artifacts previous found in the region (and in one case at the lake itself).  (In the paper, the author argue for the younger date range, but "cannot rule out" the older one.) While I am not qualified to say the evidence is conclusive it certainly looks like a solid piece of science to me.  I have expanded the article to explain all the dating stuff as best as I could.  Hopefully this is sufficient for people to form an opinion about the story now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I support putting the younger date that the authors argue for in the blurb, but not the older date. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that seems like a good idea to me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Per ThaddeusB - thank you, sir! --Somchai Sun (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted Secret account 23:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Kaesong Industrial Region

 * Support-I personally consider a notable-enough news item to be presented on the ticker, but this particular category of nomination does not occur frequently. It is best if we achieve a finite consensus before posting. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 03:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose obviously good faith, and better to read about than a bus crash, but too much like a 12-page insert in Scientific American. μηδείς (talk) 03:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Significant that they have managed to reach agreement; it certainly seems to indicate a thaw in relations. I also really don't see how this is "like a 12-page insert in Scientific American". I wasn't aware that Scientific American ran 12-page stories on diplomatic developments on the Korean peninsula. Neljack (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You put me in the very awkward position of advising you to read the SciAm more often, which is not a place I want to be. μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I confess it has been a few years since I last read Scientific American. Do they publish this sort of stuff now? Neljack (talk) 04:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. The status of Kaesong is central to the North-South Korean relationship. Thue (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd support this, but I don't see much scope for an update. Formerip (talk) 10:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with here. The 2013 closure section is pretty small anyway, and there seems to be little scope for much prose on the reopening. --LukeSurlt c 12:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Notable development, the closing of Kaesong was a big precedent to North Korea's last tantrum. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per Somchai Sun. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Updated - article is now updated to minimum standards; let me know if more is desired. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted. L Faraone  22:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just an idea here but what would you think about linking the word "tensions" to the 2013 Korean crisis article? —<font face=Verdana> - dain   omite   23:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Seems reasonable. L Faraone  01:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Kepler demise

 * Support as consensus follow-up. μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is basically a retirement story, isn't it? Formerip (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose the blurb as currently written as being misleading. Yes they have given up trying to fix the wheels, and yes that means the current mission needs to be modified, but it does not necessarily mean the end of planet-hunting because they have asked the community to propose alternative mission plans "potentially including an exoplanet search, using the remaining two good reaction wheels and thrusters" as mentioned in the NASA press release. One of the proposals that has come back is to modify the software on Kepler to compensate. Instead of the stars being fixed and stable in Kepler's field of view, they will drift. However software could track this drift and more or less completely recover the mission goals despite being unable to hold the stars in a fixed view. For details of this proposal see KeSeF - Kepler Self Follow-up Mission. Astredita (talk) 10:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The final paragraph of the lead states there are options open and that Kepler is not a dead-loss. What has really happened isn't important news. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Astredita. 331dot (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think everyone is missing the point. Yes, Kepler may still be used to do some scientific research in the future, but this is the official end of its primary mission.  When the wheel failure was previously nominated, this is precisely the point that people said we should wait for.  Arguably, the first announcement was the more important news, but ITN likes to wait until things are official.  Well, they are official now.  To say "What has really happened isn't important news" is flat out wrong.  There is a huge difference between hunting for exoplanets and tracking comets within our solar system (one of the proposed future uses), for example. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see the point fine- it is still usable but cannot carry out its intended mission- but was this the only means humanity has to search for exoplanets? 331dot (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It was certainly the best way, and was responsible for finding most of the exoplanets we know of, but that's not really the point. The point is that this is the end of a highly notable 4+ year mission. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. The end of the hugely successful primary mission of a very important telescope. The exoplanet hunt has been all the rage in astronomy lately, and Kepler's primary mission has been front and center of that. (also, I can't believe I am agreeing with Medeis). Thue (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It hurts me far more than it does you. μηδείς (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support I think story is quite a bit encyclopedic, article looks updated, mid-mission failure are decently rare... last one that was this high profile was probably the mars rover getting stuck (i dont remember if we put that on main page...). However i suggest changing blurb to "ending its primary mission" or something similar as im sure there will be more secondary missions to come -- Ashish-g55 17:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I added an altblurb per discussion above. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support this story is about as big as when the Hubble was announced to require fixing to be used. Kepler won't be fixed, but considering that THIS SPACECRAFT ALONE has more than quadrupled the number of exoplanets we know of, and has done so much more for our knowledge, even a "retirement" announcement is worth being posted. Continuing the sports analogy, even if the goals will be extended (like coming back from retirement) that mission will likely be quite different the one it had. Nergaal (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong support per last discussion on this topic, the mission's impact, and the high encyclopedic value of the article. Kepler's secondary mission is still workable with two wheels, but what made it notable is its huge impact on exoplanet hunting. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  01:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Per above, this is most certainly more than your typical "retirement story".-- Giants27 ( T  |  C )  14:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Marked Ready this is updated and has 60/40 support, much higher if we count the three support/waits from May that haven't voted yet. μηδείς (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, any possibility of still using the crippled observatory is just wishful thinking. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted Secret account 23:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Beirut bombing

 * Weak support-The death toll for this occurrence is not quite high enough for inclusion, however, bombings in a national capital are far and few between. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I actually agree with QSL, except that Beirut is no stranger to bombings. Article is also pretty skinny at the moment. 331dot (talk)
 * Support Second story (after Egypt) on the websites of BBC News, Al-Jazeera and The Guardian's world section. Neljack (talk) 01:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:DENY. μηδείς (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing how that link is relevant here. 331dot (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I must ask, which user do you consider a noted vandal? QatarStarsLeague (talk) 03:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The bombers are the vandals and the decision to post needs to take into consideration whether this merits encyclopedic treatment. I think a policy of WP:DENY fits perfectly here. μηδείς (talk) 03:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I really don't think potential terrorists are going to decide it isn't worth it because we deny them coverage here. Heaps of media sources that are a lot more prominent than our little section of WP have already covered it. In any case, I don't think it is our role to censor what we post based on whether it is desirable to deny recognition to terrorists. That is a political judgment that would be inappropriate for us to make. Neljack (talk) 03:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:DENY applies to malicious on-wiki editing and regards non-mainspace Wikipedia content. Cataloguing the horrors of the world is part of the encyclopaedic remit. --LukeSurlt c 12:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You'll have to forgive me if I prefer to go on believing you know what an analogy is. The vote stands. μηδείς (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess we should delete the Osama Bin Laden, September 11th attacks, and Al-Qaeda articles too, since the presence of those articles gives terrorists recognition. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now - article needs to be adequately updated. Blurb needs fixing. Just because it's a criminal act doesn't mean it doesn't go on ITN – DENY is a poor argument; if it was a good one, no terrorist act would ever be posted. – Shudde  talk 09:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This story has had a full 194 views on its own. Our putting it on the front page would be a huge donation in free publicity to the cause of the otherwise unnotable bombers. μηδείς (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As per LukeSurl said above, your argument has no basis in policy. The idea that bombers are motivated by whether or not an article is posted at ITN is absurd. – Shudde  talk 03:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is being covered nowhere, we haven't even got a stub on it. Putting it on the front page would be a ridiculous amount of publicity for a crime designed to elicit publicity. I am sure that is beyond clear.  But if you want to mention a fourth time that denying these killers our site as a forum is not technically the literal meaning of WP:DENY, feel free. μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose I came here to support but after seeing such a short article that is scant on details surrounding the bombing, I have to oppose.-- Giants27 ( T  |  C )  14:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] New mammal carnivore discovered

 * Support - the "first new species of carnivore to be identified in the Western hemisphere in 35 years" is certainly worth posting. Article needs some work. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Came here to nominate this myself. Species of insects are discovered all the time, but mammals not so much.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 16:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per nom - rare, notable, special, wide coverage. Me likey. --Somchai Sun (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. A rare event, receiving wide coverage (currently the top headline story on NBC News.com) 331dot (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per the undeniable notability, and per the fact it's cute. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak support. It's Thursday, so it must be time to post another one of those once-in-a-lifetime animal classifications. Formerip (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What was the last mammal that was posted? As the nomination said, this is the first new one found in the Western Hemisphere in the last 35 years.  New insects, I agree, are not once-in-a-lifetime, but this comes pretty close. 331dot (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't feed it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The last one was the lavasoa dwarf lemur. Twelve days ago. Formerip (talk) 18:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Madagascar is not in the Western Hemisphere. 331dot (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are you telling me this? You asked a question, I answered it. Formerip (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your initial comment made it sound like this sort of thing happens every day; I was merely saying that it does not, and that the most recent posting that you brought up was not from the Western Hemisphere so that's a different situation. That's all. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it happens literally every day, but you can make anything sound a lot rarer than it really is by sticking a few qualifiers on. Marion Bartoli is the first female winner of Wimbledon born in the Eastern hemisphere to retire while wearing a hat, but no-one seems to have taken account of those factors. Formerip (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We live in a world of qualifiers and technicalities, but the question here is whether or not it is notable. If it was headline news that Bartoli was the first female winner of Wimbledon born in the Eastern Hemisphere to retire while wearing a hat, then it might be notable.  In this situation, we are talking about the discovery of a new mammal in the Western Hemisphere (half the world geographically) and how that is a rare event; we aren't talking about one country or even one city. 331dot (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So, the reason for not posting Bartoli is that the media thought it was important enough to run without qualifiers? Formerip (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * People retiring with hats is not a notable category, and neither is one-time Wimbledon winners. I've made my point above, and I won't further stray from the topic on this page.  331dot (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, I guess. The sources call it a major discovery. I think we can use a picture from the ZooKeys article, it seems to be licensed CC-BY. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ready This is minimally updated. I suggest we use the free picture.  Much cuter than that lemur. μηδείς (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ;) . The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. I've amended the hook to reflect the 35 years fact, which makes it much more interesting. We should definitely use the ZooKeys image. Prioryman (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have changed the blurb to reflect the fact this is the "first new species of carnivore to be identified in the Western hemisphere in 35 years (my emphasis), also confirmed by pretty much every other source, and as stated above the lavasoa dwarf lemur was discovered in the Eastern hemisphere less than a fortnight - this is an importnant distinction to make. GiantSnowman 19:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Instead of Western Hemisphere, could we just go with The Americas? (such as this source does) It's effectively the same thing, and landmasses seem more meaningful than arbitrary marks of longitude. --LukeSurlt c 19:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, well we should at least wikilink Western Hemisphere in the blurb if we're going with that, and probably mammal. --LukeSurlt c 20:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And also carnivorous. --LukeSurlt c 20:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Pile-on support A new species isn't discovered every day. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted however I need another administrator for the image to be placed in the main page, as I'm not fully familiar with cascading protection and I don't want to screw up anything. Thanks Secret account 20:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Marion Bartoli retires

 * Support world known tennis name, current Wimbledon champion, her retirement has been reported worldwide. The article is updated. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * oppose she has not lasting legacy in tennis. Looks like she trying to go on a high knowing it was a fluke. This would set precedence for a whole bunch of mid-ranked retirees in other sports too.Lihaas (talk) 09:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 7th in the world is not "mid ranked" and the retirement is due to injury, if she wanted to go out on a high she'd have retired straight after Wimbledon not after losing in the second round of a minor tournament a month and a half later. If this sets a precedent for covering other sports professionals who make international news for unexpectedly retiring young while ranked in the top 10 and being the reigning champion of one of their sport's major tournaments, then I'd say that's a good precedent to have. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. We generally don't post retirements, especially from sports, unless they were at the tip-top of their field usually with a long career.  Even then, we do so only rarely; the last one we posted was Alex Ferguson (which I opposed) who was regarded as the top of his field (soccer managing).  I'm not convinced this tennis player is (she only won one major and is retiring at only 28 due to injury). 331dot (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I too opposed Alex Fergusson as an old person retiring after the second or third time he said he would didn't strike me as news. It turns out that I was wrong on that and it was a massive news story. This is a young professional and reigning champion unexpectedly retiring young due and not the same thing. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * She is still not at the tip-top of her field, which seems to be the unwritten criteria for a posting of someone's retirement. It sounds like this would be a better Did You Know item (Did you know Marion Bartoli retired at just 28 due to injuries sustained over her career?) 331dot (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, retirements are not posted (I could not forget the case of Gabriel Garcia Marquez). Egeymi (talk) 10:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't remember that case, have you got a link? Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I could not find archives for 2012, it should be July 2012. If I can find put here.Egeymi (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Link is here. That person retired due to dementia. 331dot (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * He was 85 at the time and had not published a book for 8 years. His 2012 "retirement" isn't even mentioned in his article Gabriel García Márquez. I don't think his case deserves being viewed as any kind of precedent for not posting retirements. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not mentioning his retirement or dementia is about editors' insufficient coverage. Egeymi (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The point is that we don't usually post them, especially with sports. Even the Ferguson one was hotly contested. 331dot (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks 331dot for both the link and your last remark which I tried to say. I did not want to show Marquez's case as precedent for not posting retirements. Egeymi (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose The article has been reasonably updaed, and as the current Wimbeldon Ladies Champion she's fairly high profile. Also, as the nominator ponts out retirement at 28 is quite young so newsworthy. However she's ranked 7 in the world and can hardly be regarded as at the absolute top of her sport so I don't think this cuts it for me. Pedro : Chat  10:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Her career high rank is 7 and she only has one title in the 14 largest tournaments. Female tennis players often retire relatively young. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose any and all sports retirements. – Muboshgu (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose this specific retirement. It's mildly interesting, but people retire from injury early every single day.  People, like Alex Ferguson, who aren't one-hit wonders, far from it, don't retire every day.  That's the difference.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If we'd posted Ferguson every time he said he was going to retire it could have become embarrassing. HiLo48 (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * For me, the minimum bar for posting sporting retirements is not being a great. It is not even being exceptional. It is being peerless in your field for the vast majority of your career. —WFC— FL wishlist 23:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Bahrain Tamarod protests

 * Support Update is definitely sufficient, but the blurb is somewhat unclear. What where the protests about: were they religious? political? etc.  Spencer T♦ C 05:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * They were pro-democracy (per the Reuters link above). Would this be clear enough: Bahrain security forces crackdown on pro-democracyTamarod protests  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  08:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment No comment on the nomination, but that's one hell of an article for an event that just happened two days ago. --  tariq abjotu  07:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, maybe significant if it took place in other regions but it is not so significant in a region where events in Egypt and Lebanon are much more violent, unfortunately. Egeymi (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak support - event has not attracted all that much attention (probably due at least in part to Egypt), but article quality is exceptional and the event is clearly highly important locally. Article is DYK eligible, so I urge you to submit it there as well in case this nomination fails. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's getting posted soon. Anyway, I still have one more day to nominate it. Nevertheless, thanks for your concern.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  16:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support This seems like a classic case where an exceptional update should tip a marginal story over the line in favour of posting. This is just the sort of article we want to showcase through linking it on the Main Page. It certainly fulfils the ITN purpose of "featur[ing] quality Wikipedia content on current events", and also that of "point[ing] readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them" - I found the article a very interesting and lucid explanation of what was going on in Bahrain. The protests and crackdown have also got a fair bit of international media attention - more that I expected. The blurb could perhaps mention the injuries too. Neljack (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted, however an image could be useful here for the Main Page. Secret account 23:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Egypt declares national emergency

 * Support. I have added suggested wikilinks, but I suspect there are other possibilities. Think we should be vague about numbers of dead for now, which are sadly rising as we speak. Formerip (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Significant escalation. Actaully, the article that needs to be updated is probably this one: Aftermath of the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - But change the article linked from the protests article to Aftermath of the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état. Hello32020 (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I started the update before noticing this nom, see Aftermath_of_the_2013_Egyptian_coup_d'état (14 August). --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Update at Aftermath_of_the_2013_Egyptian_coup_d'état needs a bit more info to warrant posting. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Question. We previously had to pull a story about Egypt because the article title included the word "coup". Has that now been resolved? Formerip (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it relevant? This blurb doesn't include the word "coup". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not the blurb, the bolded article. That was what previously got the blurb complained about and pulled. Formerip (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh, since when do we let politics (in this case that would be the Obama administration not wanting to cut of funding to Egypt, at least they want to be able to do that at their own discretion), get in the way of simply reporting the news, which does involve calling a "coup" a "coup" but of course, without taking a position on whether or not this coup was justified or not. Count Iblis (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Since when, I'm not sure, but I believe its what happened. I think it may be that the appearance of the article on the front page led to a dispute about it and the article becoming unstable. So my question is possibly about whether there is now an established consensus behind "coup" which makes that less likely to happen. Formerip (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * it is a coup by definition. i dont think any consensus is required for that. If after posting people think otherwise then thats really more for article talk page rather than ITN. I think we are OK to post it as is. BTW its 149 deaths reported now with the brotherhood saying 2000! WTH. Nobody knows who is right but both numbers are pretty high. -- Ashish-g55 18:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It was removed because of an orange tag at the top of the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état article noting that the article's title was disputed, which is very much was. (The article had been up for awhile though, and was basically at the bottom of the template.) I think article title tags should be used sparingly, but the use of the term "coup" was a major article-wide issue. Regardless, that tag is gone now, so, presumably, consensus has been that the use of the term is accurate and neutral. --  tariq abjotu  20:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The article now has the title Political violence in Egypt (2013) (stable for the last several hours), so the "coup" issue is no longer relevant. --Orlady (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a different article. 2013 Egyptian coup d'état remains the title of the article in question. Neljack (talk) 03:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. A state of national emergency, severe clashes, 200 people dead etc. in a major city is a huge event.--FoxyOrange (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Agree that we should be vague about number of dead, since it seems there isn't clarity on that at the moment. Neljack (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - there is now a stand alone article, August 14th clashes. It is a bit stubby at the moment - I will work on it within the next couple hours if no one else gets to it first. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have nominated that for deletion. At best it should be a redirect.  Imagine someone looking at wikipedia a year from now and finding that August 14th has its own lone article. This is not the news, and we do not need to be creating articles for the sole purpose of supporting nominations. μηδείς (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose using the term pro-Morsi supporters. We haven't yet identified any dead in any post as anti-Morsi supporters. μηδείς (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your point, but if it is about the redundant "pro" in "pro-Morsi supporters" the blurb actually uses the word "protesters". Formerip (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, this appears to be a major event in Egyptian history. I hope the situations with the blurb and the articles gets sorted out soon. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted Feel free, admins, to tweak wording per subsequent discussions. Jehochman Talk 01:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We should not be identifying the dead as pro- or anti- anything. We haven't done it before when the protestors were against Morsi and we shouldn't be doing it now.  Just scores of protestors killed is fine. μηδείς (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What event are you referring to? --  tariq abjotu  01:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Change target? - there is a standalone article now (August 2013 Egyptian clashes) that is in decent shape and provides much more information. However, it has a (malformed) AfD on it, so not sure what to do about that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Given you know it is malformed you could fix it. Even better, remove "supporting former president Mohamed Morsi" from the blurb as an odd time to forget neutrality here. μηδείς (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Or you could read the instructions on how to nominate an article for AfD. It is not something I do often so I'd have to read them myself to fix it...  A have no idea why describing the protestors as supporters of Morsi (when that is the way every source describes them) is supposedly non-neutral.  Unnecessary, perhaps, but POV I think not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What's POV about "supporting former president Mohamed Morsi"? --  tariq abjotu  01:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no POV when the protesters were in FACT supporting Morsi. Both camps were entirely there to support him. Thats the reason this whole thing went down... -- Ashish-g55 04:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * comment please move the bold link to the article that now exists August 2013 Egyptian clashesLihaas (talk) 07:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, after closing the AFD as a blatant WP:SNOW keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Change Blurb: The blurb is biased saying that security forces moved in to kill 100s of demonstrators is clearly not what happened. The main news event is that the security forces cracked down on the 6 week long sit in by the brotherhood. The sit in included many firearms, molotov cocktails and many videos and pictures show that these "protesters" fired at the security forces with klashinkovs and other weapons. The word used by most media is a crackdown not the killing of demonstrators. You can clearly see that here for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diaa abdelmoneim (talk • contribs)
 * That's a POV issue; you see it that way, the other side sees it differently. What is factual is that people were killed by security forces. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You should also know better than citing ayoutube video as encyclopaedic fact here.Lihaas (talk) 12:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Change blurb. The blurb should be changed to say "hundreds" dead instead of scores, now that the death toll has gone past 400.  331dot (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed.Lihaas (talk) 12:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh? The blurb has said "hundreds" almost since it was posted to ITN. The blurb here is not the blurb on the Main Page. --  tariq abjotu  13:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, guess I looked at this posting more than the main page. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] INS Sindhurakshak (S63)

 * Support - significant accident, minority topic too. Mjroots (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support but wait till some more info is available like the number of dead... i dont see that anywhere. And i dont think we should say "explosion sinks" since its sort of sitting on the port slightly under water. just damaged with casualty figures would be enough. -- Ashish-g55 13:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support + add an image of the submarine to the main page. Significant accident, "one of the worst tragedies in the history of Indian Navy", covered by media worldwide. The article is updated and gives a good information to our readers. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support-Just as soon as we have a reliable casualty total. It seems to be that up to 18 could have been killed or are currently trapped, potentially more. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The article mentions that 18 sailors are trapped inside. Why do we need "casualty total" to display the article at WP:ITN? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Many sources seem unsure if they are trapped or dead... its too breaking right now. -- Ashish-g55 14:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, but it's for sure that INS Sindhurakshak sank, which is what the blurb says. The rest is explained in the article, with a possibility to update/improve it. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether to support or oppose this, since we already have one story about the Indian Navy in the box, and this doesn't seem to be getting really major coverage. The article seems to be updated, though. Formerip (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * IMO, this is clearly more important news compared to Vikrant..  <font color="#F62817 ">ƬheStrike <font color="#1673F5">Σagle sorties  16:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe. I'm not sure. But it wasn't really my point. Formerip (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * well indian navy managed to produce two news events in a week. its a rare case and doubt we'll be seeing two items from them anytime soon if ever -- Ashish-g55 16:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Significant coverage...described as one of the largest disasters of the navy...  <font color="#F62817 ">ƬheStrike <font color="#1673F5">Σagle sorties  16:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - A tragic and signficant, newsworthy event. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support it's reporting worldwide and is indeed a tragic and significant event. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ready well updated and supported. μηδείς (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've posted the sinking; we can add the casualty information to the blurb when we have it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There's something about "a pair of explosions" which reads weirdly. Could we maybe just say "two explosions"? Formerip (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I had used "a pair" rather than "two" because I thought it sounded a little more natural. I won't stand in the way if someone wants to change it, but I still prefer "a pair". --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Question: why "a pair of explosions"? All sources I've read only mention one explosion. There was a more minor explosion in 2010, but there's no indication it is related to the recent explosion and sinking of the vessel. -Zanhe (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support. Tragic accident, and subs sinking is a rare event. 331dot (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Request. Please resist the temptation to add casualty figures when known. This incident is so obviously serious and unusual that its Main Page worthiness is independent from the statistics – I think keeping the blurb short and sharp makes it all the more poignant. —WFC— FL wishlist 00:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Our blurbs are not there to be poignant. They are there to provide information to our readers, who are likely to want to know whether people have been killed and, if so, how many. Neljack (talk) 02:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The question for me is whether the death toll will make the reader more or less likely to go to the article and learn more about the event. In the case of a school shooting or mid-sized earthquake, the toll is very important – events of that nature happen multiple times per year, and the toll helps to emphasize that the impact of that particular event is exceptional. An explosion on a submarine achieves that on its own; adding the toll would in my opinion make the reader less likely to go through to the article. —WFC— FL wishlist 23:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Saw the huge ball at midnight with orange flams. And I was not even near it. It was massive. Forget to get a pic for WP though ;(Lihaas (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Mali election

 * According to that BBC report, the results aren't official yet - though Keita is almost certain to be declared the winner when they are. --LukeSurlt c 07:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support-Per ITN/R as soon as they become official. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * While I can't see any official figures, the other candidate in the two-candidate run-off election has conceded defeat. --LukeSurlt c 00:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as per WP:ITN/R and obvious importance of any national presidential election, but I have to say that the article Ibrahim Boubacar Keita needs more thorough update. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Results in. The article is not sufficiently updated, but the percentages have been added. Anyone care to add a few lines of prose? Formerip (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] NYC stop-and-frisk

 * Oppose - Municipal legal matter, combined with an intensely POV article. By no means suitable for ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Purely a local legal matter. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is a Federal judge's ruling, but her remedies are absurd, the policy should just be made illegal, not justify a whole new federal oversight regime. When this gets to the Supreme Court simply outlawing the policy as violating the 4th Amendment without any suggestion it can continue as long as it's filmed it will have my wholehearted support. μηδείς (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, because it is extremely local.Egeymi (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, a local matter. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Clearly this one won't get posted (I didn't think it would, but decided to give it a shot anyway), but the issues of profiling go far beyond the "local matter" of the NYPD policy. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The objections are all off though. This has been a federal matter for a while.  The one's calling this local have either not read or do not understand the law. μηδείς (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because a local law is being challenged in federal court does not mean it isn't anything other than a local issue. 331dot (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * False. It sets a federal-district wide precedent, to which all locations in the federal district must adhere, and if challenged to the SC a final, national precedent.  The NYC policy has been challenged locally before this, although our article doesn't mention it.  This is the first federal case. E.g., one state judge decision not in our article: . μηδείς (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If this case gets to SCOTUS (possible, but not too likely) then it might be worth posting the ruling on, since there would indeed be a national precedent, but not the ruling from a single federal district within one state. 331dot (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Whitey Bulger conviction

 * support a decades long most wanted story in the US, with dozens of books written and one man basically running organized crime in all of New England with a huge amount of police and FBI corruption to boot. Biggest criminal story in the US since ABSCAM, Gotti, or the murder of Jimmy Hoffa. μηδείς (talk) 4:41 pm, Today (UTC−4)
 * Support Significant figure within the America crime world. Significant conviction given the former protection Bulger received from the FBI (which he had infiltrated). Also given the length of time he was on the run and on the FBI's most wanted list. Alt blurb provided. --<tt style="color:black;">RA</tt> ( &#x270D; ) 22:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per RA.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per RA. 331dot (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Article has two "citation needed" tags in the lede, which need to be remedied. Neljack (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Better update needed - two sentences in a very short trial section isn't really going to cut it given the amount of attention the trial has drawn. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * strong ioppose not in the news outside 1 country and intensly local issue.Lihaas (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow. Lihass I respect your aim to maintain a cosmopolitan outlook at ITN but this is a classic example of why our guidelines prohibit an oppose based on that reasoning.  Leaving aside that your !vote violates the rules at the top of the page, this is only a local issue on the surface.  First off, this was previously the TOP headline at the BBC.  But looking at the substance,  yes, Whitey Bulger is a Boston based mobster, just as Manchester United are a Manchester based football team.  But Bulger had influence and effects well beyond Boston (and certainly commanded interest).  He was convicted on federal charges, and was an FBI informant.  One of his alleged murders took place in Oklahoma.  He supported the IRA.  He spent over a decade on the FBI's most wanted list and the reward for information from the FBI was the second largest ever (the first being Osama bin laden).  He and his gang have been the subject of numerous bestselling books (certainly read outside Boston).   He inspired a character in an Best Picture winning movie played by Jack Nicholson.  There are upcoming big budget movies based on him.  To describe this as a little parochial matter of interest to a small portion of the Northeast of the US is to look at the mere surface of this story.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Amazon's got almost twenty books with Bulger's name in the title. μηδείς (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've updated the article with info on the trial, which is now at the racketeering trial and conviction subsection. I would be hesitant to say he was convicted of murder, however, since he was in fact charged with racketeering.  Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted w/o mentioning the murders since he was not charged with murder. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

RD: Prince Friso of Orange-Nassau

 * Support, he meets the criteria for RD.Egeymi (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose under the current RD requirements he is neither a sitting dignitary nor ver important in any field. There is a discussion about the requiremets on talk, but unless they change he in no way qualifies. μηδείς (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A senior member of a major royal house may fit under #1 or perhaps #3. Regardless, we don't need to follow the rules without question if there's a good case for improving the encyclopedia by ignoring them. --LukeSurlt c 16:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak support. Because I like his name. It sounds fictional. And because we have an imbalance of US:non-US stories at the moment. Formerip (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for RD, also worthy of posting on ITN. Death of a member of a Royal Family is newsworthy. Mjroots (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Friso was actually removed from the Royal House which you will see if you read his article. He was neither sitting, nor an heir to the throne, nor part of any international marriage alliance, nor of any importance beyond maybe his holdingsas a private businessman. μηδείς (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Royal House and Royal Family are not the same thing. Friso was the brother of the King. Mjroots (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Friso was actually removed from the Royal House which you will see if you read his article. He was neither sitting, nor an heir to the throne, nor part of any international marriage alliance, nor of any importance beyond maybe his holdingsas a private businessman. μηδείς (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Pretty shitty of you to just copy and paste the same comment. The Dutch royal house is separate to the royal family, so no need to be a dick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.61.72 (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Bet we would post if Prince Andrew carked it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.61.72 (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We probably wouldn't if he had been removed from the line of succession, as this Prince was. Since Andrew is still in the line of succession(even if further down) that rationale doesn't apply. There may be other reasons to not post him, too. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. From reading the article it seems that though he lost his membership in the Royal House he did not lose his titles; he simply was no longer in the line of succession.  That said, however, that does mean he is not "in a high-ranking office of power at the time of death", failing #1.  I would think it would also mean he was not important in his field if he could not succeed to the throne (the Royal Family, if you call that a field), failing #2.  I also don't see a wide international impact here, failing #3. I also think even if we removed the criteria as proposed that he still might not qualify. 331dot (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think we should post the deaths of members of royal families just because they are royal. There are lots of royal families out there and many of them have lots of members. There is no indication that Prince Friso has a significant impact on the Netherlands, and - as has been noted - he renounced his rights to the succession. Neljack (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Indian aircraft carrier

 * it is NOT india's first aircraft carrier. and the page is not updated as the lead says it will be launched in 2018 (unless you mean the table with 3 words for the date, if so that's an insufficient update). See List of aircraft carriers in serviceLihaas (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you see the box above where it says "article needs updating"? 2018 is the date the ship will enter service, though, not a prospective launch date, as the article makes clear. Formerip (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Ideally we would want an article on the INS Vikrant itself (INS Vikrant currently redirects to an article for a decommissioned ship). To clarify Lihaas' first point, INS Vikramaditya (a purchase rather than a new build) is currently undergoing sea trials, so we have to avoid the words "India's first aircraft carrier" without qualification. --LukeSurlt c 13:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There are several stages for a warship before it is a fully-fledged vessel in a navy. Launch is one such milestone, however I would be more inclined to favour the commissioning. --LukeSurlt c 13:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've nominated this as an industrial achievement, rather than a military achievement, hence the launch is the key event. Plus it's the bit that is traditionally seen as the "birth" of a ship, with the whole dignitary's-wife-wastes-good-champagne hoopla (assuming they do it that way in India). Formerip (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. Sounds reasonable. --LukeSurlt c 13:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Altblurb suggested which points more to an industrial rather than military angle. Support as per FormerIP, though I would still like an INS Vikrant article. --LukeSurlt c 15:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support we really need a new item... i dont think ive seen a new one in a week now. will go lenient on this since the actual commencement is far away. no need to reject items for something that will not come for 5 years. its still a notable achievement -- Ashish-g55 15:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support when updated--a significant military development. μηδείς (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Posting. INS Vikrant (Vikrant class) has been well updated.  Spencer T♦ C 18:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Attention required. It should be Cochin Shipyard, not Cochin port. My bad. Formerip (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose. We should post when it is commissioned and put in service. Merely launching the ship does not guarantee that. 331dot (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It may depend on perspective but, like I said above, I see this as being about industry and economic development rather than in military terms. Today India formally marked a change from being a country that had never built an aircraft carrier to being one that had. When it subsequently sticks a radar antenna on top, installs the captain's jukebox and sticks the thing in its navy, I think that will be less significant. Formerip (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your views, but I don't see it in military terms so much as usability- anything can happen between now and the expected commissioning date to prevent its commissioning and use- in which case this landmark in industry means nothing. What you said, however, is why I didn't suggest pulling it. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support. Unless this wasn't the day it was launched with the bottle of champagne, this is a fine ITN item. Very few nations have ever had an aircraft carrier. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Darfur clashes

 * Support-Immense death toll, needless to say it is uncommon to see this high a death toll outside of war zones. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * War_in_Darfur needs an update, and I wonder if a separate article might be a better update candidate.  Spencer T♦ C 18:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - While these conflicts are not uncommon in the region, ones that kill 100+ are rare and often have lasting consequences. Article is now updated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  03:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * With 2 supports? Theres plenty of other nom's with more consensus that don't get posted.Lihaas (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Two supports and no objections. I can add that I support this as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, consensus is not determined by vote counting. Second the vote was 3-0 (nominator counts) at the time (after 24+ hours), now 4-0, which is consensus to post by any reasonable definition. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] László Csizsik-Csatáry

 * Support for RD Once the last two uncited parts of the article are referenced. Miyagawa (talk) 09:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for RD per Miyagawa. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like everything is now sourced.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How does he meet any of our criteria? SeraV (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * At the time of his death, he was included on the List of Most Wanted Nazi War Criminals according to the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Miyagawa (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How do we judge his importance in the overall scheme of things, though? The article isn't very clear about what he actually did. Isn't a list of war criminals from 70 years ago going to be focusing mainly on the criterion of being alive? Formerip (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is quite enough, there was after all quite lot of nazi war criminals. How was he a special case amongst them beyond living longer. Therefore I Oppose SeraV (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose what in the world criterion does this meet? What field is he at the top of? μηδείς (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, he might be at the top of the field of Nazi war criminals, although it is not at all clear. Formerip (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * More like at the bottom. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Please DO NOT mark as updated articles that plainly aren't. SEe RD requirements at the top right of the page if confused. μηδείς (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read the article next time.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Death notices are based on a five-sentence, three source update of the death section, not on updates of the rest of the article. That can be changed, but it hasn't been yet. μηδείς (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * He has the right to point out an issue without being pressured into fixing it. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  01:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral on RD, opposed to blurb. The name will be well known to those with a view on the 21st century attempts to track down surviving Nazis. But to die of natural causes at 98 is unremarkable, and I don't think the article goes into enough detail on his pre-2012 life to justify the additional exposure of a full blurb. —WFC— FL wishlist 17:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A quote from the article: "Csatáry was a small fish. I could name 2,000 people responsible for worse crimes than he was." μηδείς (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose A relatively minor Nazi war criminal.  Spencer T♦ C 18:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose His only significance was living so long after WWII, had he died 10 years ago no one would have noticed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, how can we be sure he didn't? Formerip (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose The reference to him being "a small fish" seems accurate. He can thus hardly be regarded as a very important figure in the field of war crimes. I also note that, while the blurb refers to him as a "suspected war criminal" (I would have thought that just being a suspect would make the notability case even weaker), the article refers to him as a "war criminal" on the basis of his 1948 conviction in absentia in Czechoslovakia. I am concerned that there is a NPOV issue with that (others have raised the issue before on the talk page without agreement being reached). Neljack (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The International 2013

 * Would need an article on the specific 2013 event, rather than just the over-arching The International (video gaming) article. --LukeSurlt c 16:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral The biggest Electronic sports ("esports") prize ever awarded, which should probably be mentioned in the blurb if this is posted. However, the Electronic sports article needs attention. --hydrox (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Maybe significant itself but how does this compare itself to MLG (the only esport event I ever heard of) other than prize money. Also I cannot see what is significant to this so called "sport" that struggles to get itself nominated, for example the two IPC athletics and swimming, and even if I would support the two, there are plenty of people who will press for an oppose. Even the nomination for the FIFA Club World Cup final was opposed last December and that is supposed to be the most significant event for any football clubs. Donnie Park (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for 2 reasons: the prize is shockingly large (unless the largest is not mot larger, I don't care too much if it is not the largest-since $1.4M seems much above the top prizes offered in most olympic sports for example); and esports are shockingly under-represented throughout the wiki AND on ITN. Nergaal (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Currently we do not have an article update which would be considered sufficient for a more 'traditional' sporting events. The article offers no information on the actual games that occurred in the tournament (not even scorecards), and nothing about the competing teams apart from the teamnames exists on the wiki. The lack of this information is indicative of the fact that eSports aren't quite at this level of notabilty (yet). --LukeSurlt c 15:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Argentine mid-term elections, first round

 * Question. Would this be ITNR, or just the final round? I think in elections with runoffs we only post the final election. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This was the first of two rounds, designed to keep very minor parties and ad hoc splinter groups - which in the past were often created solely to wedge the vote for larger parties - from influencing the final results (GOP efforts to draft Green Party candidates - sometimes even the homeless - in past House races is the closest U.S. analogy I can think of). This may not qualify for inclusion in the headline 'In the News' ticker, but I thought you might like to mention it in the 'Politics and Elections' section of the Current Events portal. 98.166.186.191 (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe you can add it to the portal yourself without needing permission. Formerip (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Much obliged. 98.166.186.191 (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose First-round elections are very rarely put up on ITN unless there's something extremely special about it, and I see nothing particularly special here. Best to try again when the second round happens. Redverton (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please refer to my comment above where I mention that This may not qualify for inclusion in the headline 'In the News' ticker, but I thought you might like to mention it in the 'Politics and Elections' section of the Current Events portal. As it happens, these news have been in the Current Events Portal for a while now as suggested - so I think it's all been said already. Thanks. 98.166.186.191 (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] PGA Championship

 * Rremove nationalisty, we don't post that for other such events like Tennis/Lihaas (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Done.  Spencer T♦ C 04:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not true. We often post nationality, especially as it's more natural to say "American golfer Jason Dufner wins..." than to say "In golf, Jason Dufner wins..." --  tariq abjotu  04:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment' - updating the PGA article is preferable to Dufner's page. In any case, I do not find the current update at eitehr page to be adequate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Both articles have significant updates to them, and it has to include his nationality.HotHat (talk) 06:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, the blurb most certainly does not have to include his nationality. One option may be preferable to the other, but neither is required. Update is sufficient.--ThaddeusB (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - ITN/R and updated. Good work. 2013 PGA Championship should be the bold article. --LukeSurlt c 11:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted And, yes, the blurb doesn't need to mention nationality, but I generally believe the alternative blurb sounds more natural. I suppose "American" could still be omitted, but I don't think mentioning nationality is odd or unusual, particularly when the golfer is not particularly well-known. --  tariq abjotu  15:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment when posted, the article (Dufner) was packed with unreferenced claims, and an inadequate lead. Some of the rot has been deleted, but it's still in an appalling state.  Why would anyone consider this article to be ready for main page inclusion?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Jason Dufner isn't the bold link --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

New shark species

 * Intereting but the article doesn't exist and mention on the main page would be useles to our readers. Do you plan to start it? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Stale, sorry. (June 2006) Would have been good. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, firstly, there is no article at the moment - and also the point about the initial annoucement coming some seven years ago is quite significant. I think all that has happened recently is that the species has been named. Miyagawa (talk) 08:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent Deaths: Eydie Gorme

 * Oppose Reading the news articles and her WP article, she seems to have been a popular singer, but there is nothing to indicate that she was a very important figure in her field. If anyone can provide evidence to the contrary I will, of course, reconsider. Neljack (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Neljack. She won one Grammy in 1967 for a solo performance and won another later as a duo with her husband. While she had a long career I'm not seeing how she was very important either.  I also cannot find a mention of her winning an Emmy in the sources given or her article. 331dot (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In her singing partneship with Steve Lawrence: ""A prolific 93 albums, 12 Emmys, 2 Grammys and innumerable national tours.. ": People obit? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Definitely more important in my life and had a longer, more diverse and more successful career than that recent dead non-entity from Glee, but we must do something to restore our standards here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Can we stop bringing up what happened in the past and move on? Or at least bring it up more tactfully(in a way other than "dead non-entity")? 331dot (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would really find an essay "My Standards" by HiLo quite. μηδείς (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing formal has changed since the posting of that recent, one-show-wonder from Glee. I will keep highlighting it's stupidity until something happens to prevent such postings in future. HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That is unbelievably unhelpful. What exactly do you want - a rule that says "thou shall not post Glee actors?" or perhaps we should add "Don't post anything HiLo disagrees with or else be prepared to be reminded of it forever" to the rules?  There is a time to express your disagreement with a post, and there is a time to drop the stick and move on.  The latter is here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * While it's not an official policy, precedent obviously plays a part in what we post here. Until that Glee precedent is publicly ruled incorrect, and policies put in place to stop such errors ever being made again, it exists as a precedent, so of course we should post Eydie Gorme. Those saying to forget obviously want it to be forgotten, but haven't done anything to fix the problem. I have more principles. I'm not that kind of person. I have more principles. HiLo48 (talk) 04:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if it was a precedent, which it is not, part of the reason it was posted was the unexpected nature of the death leading to widespread coverage. That obviously isn't the case here.  Again, what policy "put in place to stop such errors" do you want exactly?  Maybe you should propose something in an appropriate venue (such as talk page) if you feel so strongly about it instead of repeatedly bringing it up in other nominations. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Referring to Cory Monteith as a "dead non-entity" and a "one-show-wonder" is crass and rude. Yes, the man died of a drug overdose, but that doesn't mean he should be denigrated.  God forbid one of his family members stumbles upon this page. 204.111.20.10 (talk) 04:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you don't like the truthful negatives, did you argue against the absolute nonsense positives written about him after his death. That thread was sickening in its dishonesty. And the death got posted. I believe in telling the truth. We could do with a lot more of that on Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 06:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between 'telling the truth' and 'being needlessly crass'; you are doing the latter. One can tell the truth without doing that(which was really my main point)  There is also a difference between truth and opinion; you are also giving the latter there. I'm not saying "forget" about it, I'm saying bring it up, if you must, in a manner with basic human decency and respect. You don't need to beat the dead horse to do so. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would also think that threatening to bring it up in perpetuity is essentially a WP:POINT issue. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * User:331dot, it's only WP:POINT if brought up *after* reform (or when reform is expressly ruled out). Because of the precedent created by the Glee nomination, reform to RD is clearly a long way off. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree; the first example listed on WP:POINT is somewhat close to what is going on here. (swap out a few words) A threat to bring up something in perpetuity until one gets their way, especially in a crass manner, is nothing but disruptive. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Allowing crap items to be posted, and refusing to do anything about it in perpetuity, is disruptive AND destructive. Oh, and we have no policies demanding something YOU define as basic human decency and respect. Showing false respect is, in fact, quite disrespectful. HiLo48 (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly whining about a past nomination in other nominations is not "doing something". We, in fact, have a discussion on the talk page about the Death criteria and neither you nor Doktorbuk nor The Rambling Man have contributed, opting instead to bring up "that Glee guy" here [again] as if he has anything to do with this nomination. --  tariq abjotu  21:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Saw that discussion. It's pointless. Wrong proposal. HiLo48 (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Then start the "correct" proposal. As Tariq said, complaining endlessly is not "doing something" and is borderline being purposely disruptive. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What you call a "crap item" is called a worthy ITN item by others, per consensus. We actually do have a policy about basic decency and respect. Are you the sole arbiter of what is "pointless" on Wikipedia or not? You can either call it pointless and refuse to participate, or you can participate and work to get your point across. 331dot (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's quite a brief two word appraisal of the entire career of Eydie Gorme.Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose And I use the "Glee Precedent" as created by User:Tariqabjotu as my basis for wanting reform of RD and admin powers, too. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As implied by Thaddeus, something is only a precedent if we allow it to be; content here is posted by consensus. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Support A notable award-winning popular singer. Difficult when one half of a well-know duo dies (Steve Lawrence still alive, of course). Personally I'd have supported purely on the basis of Goffin and King's 1963 "I Want to Stay Here" (and that only reached number 28!) Martinevans123 (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Duh! --85.210.101.50 (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Intentionally being obnoxious; see contributions. --  tariq abjotu  17:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought "Duh", "Meh" and "Who" were quite reasonable reasons actually, if a little on the brief side. I see that you actually oppose. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What? Was any part of that comment meant to be serious? --  tariq abjotu  18:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Only the bits between "I" and "oppose". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok... but I haven't opposed this nomination. --  tariq abjotu  18:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no you haven't. You just appear to have. Now's your chance! But why do you think those one word reasons are "obnoxious"? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * He was clearly just mocking the ITN/C instructions that say He even made sure to edit in the exclamation point. --  tariq abjotu  18:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably not a coincidence, then. How ironic. And I always thought those were some of the most sincere reasons. Of course, they may still be useful...but apparently not when all used in rapid succession. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support per Martin Evans. μηδείς (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as Martin has made a good case. It's not quite the Glee guy (after all, it hasn't been posted within moments against criteria), but I've noted this passing has been main page on the BBC on my iPhone this morning and is still there some 12 hours later.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Very minor figure in pop music history.  (Sorry, Martin.)  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Seems to tick all of the boxes for RD notability as an important figure in the field. Eight top 40 hits in the US (and four in the UK), member of the Songwriters Hall of Fame, and won an Emmy and two Grammys. Teemu08 (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

10 August 2013 Baghdad bombings

 * This isn't the forum to request the creation of an article; I further suspect that the event would probably get added to an article about the ongoing conflict there. Given the ongoing status of the conflict and bombings there, I suspect this would not win consensus to get posted, as it is (unfortunately) not an unusual occurrence in Iraq. 331dot (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Indonesia Paluweh volcano eruption

 * Support this source Wired will give enough for an update. Five dead in a pyroclastic flow. μηδείς (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't see this as important enough for us to cover. The volcano has been erupting continuously for over a year; this was a spasm that happened to find a few people in the wrong place at the wrong time. Looie496 (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Searching Google News I haven't been able to find anyone else killed globally by pyroclastic flows in the last decade. The prior reported eruptions of this volcano this decade have just been spewed ash, not pyroclastic flows. μηδείς (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "cough" 2010 eruptions of Mount Merapi, for instance. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That is the reason I said "I haven't been able to find" instead of there weren't. μηδείς (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I noticed the careful wording, although honestly I'd have gone with standard Google since Google News purges itself in regular intervals. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I used the date range function. Are you implying even then it is not a complete record? μηδείς (talk) 02:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The date range function will not pick up sites which have gone dead, naturally. I remember reading that most pages go offline within a year. My experience with Google's cache is that it goes down within a month. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Because this is an Indonesian news, added by I comefrom Indonesia, I like it! Indonesian language (Karena ini adalah berita Indonesia, ditambah lagi saya berasal dari Indonesia, maka saya menyukainya!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanamanteo (talk • contribs) 07:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Note:This news can be see in Ini Nama Korban Tewas Letusan Gunung Rokatenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanamanteo (talk • contribs) 08:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Being from the nation where this news is occurring is not a reason to post this story to ITN, nor is "I like it". 331dot (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Really does, but I comefrom Indonesia...--Hanamanteo (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to see this posted, updating the article with info from the eruption will help a lot. μηδείς (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Marginal support How common is the eruption of this volcano? I can see the death count being an issue (if you know what I mean) but it's a rare enough event to be notable. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Number of deaths is somewhat marginable, volcano has been erupting for the past several months according to the article. Certainly nowhere near the scale of the Merapi eruptions (which did make ITN). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Meh. --85.210.101.50 (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Intentionally being obnoxious; see contributions. --  tariq abjotu  17:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose With only few deaths and 3000 evacuated (which really isn't that much), I don't see this as being that significant. Article quality is also rather poor. SeraV (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Boni Yayi dismisses entire cabinet

 * Support This is indeed a rare and significant event. Neljack (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. From what I see, we generally don't post cabinet changes, as cabinets typically serve at the President/PM's pleasure.  Would be willing to reconsider if it is made clearer why this is significant. 331dot (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment' - I believe 331dot's comment accurately assess previous decisions. Consensus can change, of course, but I would like to see an explanation as to the importance here above and beyond "its rare". --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would think its notable, btu per precedence it was not approved for South SUdan (and that was more notable as a first) so opposeLihaas (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Rafael Quintero released from prison

 * Comment. I think we should have debated posting the overturning of his conviction, and not just his release. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposed this story as the blurb shows is tortured, esoteric and obscure. μηδείς (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose looks like a non-story. Certainly not ITN-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Big news in Mexico, but I don't see how this story has an impact across the world. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 22:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * From the blue box above: "Please don't... complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I should have read that before posting. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 22:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the Mexican drug war is important enough generally for ITN and key events are ITN worthy. Certainly it gets a great deal of press in the US.  However, as said above we probably should have posted the decision, not the actual release.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * According to this Washington Post article, there are some impacts in the US as well.  Spencer T♦ C 22:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't really get the impression the OP was saying "This is not important because it only happened in Mexico. Rather, the implication seemed to be a worldwide impact would be more impressive.  That being said, this sort of thing has happened before in reverse, where people have gotten off in America when they are wanted in other countries.  The bottom line is it is a very recondite issue.  The will be no general interest; just a very emotional response by those very closely related to and invested in the issue. μηδείς (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I was thinking, but I would have never been able to express it as well as you did. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 04:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent Deaths: Jack Clement

 * Comment Looks like he probably meets the death criteria, but the article is seriously lacking in references. Neljack (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support in pricniple - when I saw the death earlier today, I was too busy to nominate it or I would have. (Member of multiple Hall of Fames, Life Time Achievement award winner, etc.)  However, the article is in poor shape and will need substantial work to warrant posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Lean towards support But one look at the article dismantling itself into a string of single-line asides suggests this won't go through quickly doktorb wordsdeeds 07:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on article quality. At the very least a biographical article posted to ITN should have a decent lead which summarizes why this person is notable enough for ITN.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment agree the article is so substandard as to make it difficult to judge his importance, but I lean opposed. μηδείς (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Who?--85.210.101.50 (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * From above, "... add simple "support" or "oppose" notes. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached." Andise1 (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Intentionally being obnoxious; see contributions. --  tariq abjotu  17:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support in principle - if the article was fully referenced. Which it isn't. Miyagawa (talk) 08:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Recent Deaths: Karen Black

 * Support was considering whether to waste my time nominating this myself. She's not only a double golden-globestress, she was grammy and oscar nominated.  Her work is mostly far far to the horror/schlock B side of Brennan's though. Bottom line is posting her beats empty space. μηδείς (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't care if this is posted or not, but your "empty space" argument is no argument at all. The availability of space on the death ticker isn't one of the death criteria. If they are notable enough, they'll be posted. If they aren't, they won't. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am of the opinion we place the bar too high when, of recent noms, for example, Brennan, Black and Admiral Woodward don't get posted. In effect we are saying we prefer empty space to their names. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The bar we go on is the ITN/DC, which is the one area in which the criteria for ITN are spelled out. Also, the deaths of suitably notable individuals are a bit random; we usually have several names on the template.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Having no recent deaths doesn't actually lead to any empty space anyway. Formerip (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

*Oppose. I don't see how she meets the death criteria.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC) The article is improved. I'm switching from oppose to neutral. Still seems like a weak case but she may have seemed a very high profile actress at the height of her career. However, the update is still insufficient (so I'm naturally opposed on those grounds). I'm removing the part I referred to above, the quote by her husband posted on facebook, right now.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support (pending update of course) her role in Five Easy Pieces is probably one of the more iconic movie roles ever, top actress of the 60s and 70s where she was either in the main cast or supporting cast of dozens of top films. Rather common sense RD here. Secret account 23:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Pending support The article doesn't say much about her death yet, but I'm supporting this when it gets updated - a long career with recognition seems RDworthy to me. <span style="font-family: Verdana, monospace;letter-spacing:1px;color:#ECCA61;padding-left:5px;">Beerest355 Talk 00:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not seeing the evidence that she was widely regarded as a very important figure in the field of cinema. The news stories/obits don't seem to provide much evidence of her influence/impact. Seems like an important figure, but probably not a very important one. Will reconsider if further evidence of her importance is provided. Neljack (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Long career, combined with wide recognition for performing one role and two awards with other nominations, suggest she is important in her field. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per above and although she had long career, it does not mean she meets the criteria given that many influential figures with long career in their fields have not been posted.Egeymi (talk) 13:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Veteran character actor with a couple awards and nominations, but does not meet the death criteria as significant in her field. Not every Golden Globe winner is automatically qualified for RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak support 2X Golden Globe winner and a fair career seems just about good enough for RD. --Somchai Sun (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm considering changing my !vote to neutral as Karen Black's death has gotten some reasonable coverage though looking at the page the update needs work. Most of the update is a quotation from her widower husband posted on facebook, which ought to be removed.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was one of the most read about stories on the BBC yesterday. --Somchai Sun (talk) 08:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Award winning actress with a long list of films who worked with major names in the industry. Article is decent for an ITN RD nom. Article fails to note she had a role in the iconic movie Easy Rider. Jus  da  fax   19:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Seeing consensus then, I am marking as ready. Jus  da  fax   01:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm removing the ready tag. The article isn't updated.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Re-marking as ready. Also: I've also expanded the main section a bit more and added a quotebox. Jus  da  fax   04:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Question I am genuinely confused. Sandy Woodward commanded the forces on one side in a conflict that is in the 10 largest since WWII (at least those involving Western nations) and is regraded as important but not very important.  Winning a science Nobel prize is not sufficient to be regarded as very important.  However this case is supported with comments like:
 * "Award winning actress with a long list of films who worked with major names", not was a major name but worked with major names.
 * "2X Golden Globe winner and a fair career".
 * "Long career, combined with wide recognition for performing one role and two awards with other nominations, suggest she is important in her field", one role, two second tier awards and important so presumably not very important.
 * "probably one of the more iconic movie roles ever, ... she was either in the main cast or supporting cast of dozens of top films", one role and appeared in many major films - which could be said of loads of people.
 * I totally accept that these comments are sincere but not one of them suggests to me that she was very important. In fact many of those phrases could, with the addition of only here and there, be associated with an Oppose.
 * It seems to me that quite a lot of opinions are based, I am sure subconsciously, on whether the editor knows about the person or not.  Hence media & sports people get an easier ride than, say, scientists.
 * I suppose that this amounts to a particular instance of systemic bias.
 * FerdinandFrog (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well with Black we are dealing with one of the most iconic actresses of the second half of the 20th century, and it is (if its posted) the first recent death listing in nearly a month. In this exception, I wouldn't call this case of systemic bias, just that her notability proved to be too strong. Everything else, athletes/actors/scientists and so forth nominated for recent deaths has been shut down lately, (hell we shot down Donna Summer last year) not to mention it is almost impossible to post a media article or a sports related article unless its WP:ITN/R or the significance is too great to ignore. We do post the deaths of Nobel Prize scientists and major politicians every so often in RD if it occurs, and there is rarely a day that in the news does not have any science articles there. It's unfortunate that Woodward was shot down (and Rex Hunt was posted), but it happens, also the condition an article is really important as well. Woodward article was a mess before he died, and it took days to fix it, by that time the nomination got rather stale (I did support btw). Secret account 16:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "one of the most iconic actresses of the second half of the 20th century" - Do you actually have any justification for that? None of the Support !votes said anything like that.
 * "her notability proved to be too strong" - how is that reflected in there being 4.5 Supports, 1 Neutral and 3 Opposes?
 * "We do post the deaths of Nobel Prize scientists" - every time one is nominated there seems to be an immediate comment that winning a Nobel priize does not automatically make someone sufficiently important to qualify.
 * "It's unfortunate that Woodward was shot down ... also the condition an article is really important as well. Woodward article was a mess before he died, and it took days to fix it" - days as in less than 22 hours (proposed 5th 21:30, updated 6th 18:54).
 * Also you have completely ignored my, implied, question of why this case is being considered when the Support comments say that she was not in the top tier, "worked with major names", "a fair career", etc. FerdinandFrog (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I really don't want to be uncivil here (which I could easily), as I replied to your question in good faith and next thing I know is that I'm being attacked like I'm the villain despite supporting Woodward. Can you give me an example that Nobel Prize winners get "shot down" all the time? I been working in this area for several years and the only times a Nobel Prize winner was not posted was when the article wasn't updated and in poor shape, or the October 2012 era which we had such high standards of posting. Before October 2012, almost every death proposal that weren't a sitting head of state or some highly important figure like Steve Jobs and Robin Gibb (and yes well-updated Nobel Prize winners) was shot down quick. Also when it was nominated Woodward was a mess, thus some of the early oppose votes. I didn't ignore your question, you ignored the other parts of those comments including the award winning mentions and so forth to make a point. Secret account 17:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that you interpreted my comments & questions as an attack. However a number of the points that you made were factually incorrect (how long it took to sort out the Sandy Woodward article) or did not reflect the discussion above (her iconic status).  Also you have repeated the comment about the Woodward article being a mess.  After it was nominated it had two short paragraphs (three sentences) added and then seemed to be acceptable.  That does not sound like a mess to me.
 * I'm sorry but I don't have time now to trawl through the archives but I am certain that at least one Nobel prize winner had had a comment about that not being a mark of sufficient notability but noone seems to object to a Golden Globe award (or even a nomination) in the same way. Possibly the Nobel prize winner may have been rejected for other reasons but that is not really relevant.  Winning an acting award seems to confer notability but winning a Nobel doesn't.
 * I really don't see what you mean by "you ignored the other parts of those comments including the award winning mentions and so forth" In the list of, IMO, poor Supports I included one of the two that mentioned her winning a Golden Globe.  That also said she had a "fair career".
 * I do not at all see how my comments can be regarded as make a point. The discussion was moving towards posting and I wanted to question if we were acting in a consistent manner.FerdinandFrog (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Donna Summer died in May 2012, but Recent deaths wasn't introduced until October 2012. --  tariq abjotu  16:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  16:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on what reasoning? I don't see a consensus in the above discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, and I do. What's your point? --  tariq abjotu  17:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You could assume good faith and explain the reasoning that led you to see a consensus. FerdinandFrog (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In what way did I not assume good faith? You and Muboshgu (opponents of the nomination, mind you) don't see consensus. I disagreed, obviously; that's why I posted. What's so complicated about that? --  tariq abjotu  17:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Muboshgu asked a specific question, "Based on what reasoning?" asking how you had come to believe that there was a consensus to post and your response was just to say that you saw a consensus without giving any reasoning. To me that seemed you were ignoring his question. FerdinandFrog (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Muboshgu, there is no consensus above, even if we ignore that many of the Supports are half-hearted. FerdinandFrog (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't criticize Tariq's posting this, but it is clear the support is far from overwhelming. I voted support, but my wording sounds like a weak oppose.  Black's work since the mid 70's has consisted of dozens of horror and B movies: Burnt Offerings, Killer Fish, Invaders from Mars, Plan 10 from Outer Space, Children of the Corn IV, House of 1000 Corpses....  there is no objective comparison which makes this superior to Eileen Brennan's work.  Sandy Woodward may not have been the most important military man of the 20th century, but he was certainly more "important" than Ms. Black. I'll repeat that all three probably should have been posted (Woodward can still go up--you can make my vote there a support if it helps).  The problem is not really in the nominations but in the way important is being used in judging them.  See talk. μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no objection per se to Black being posted but I don't see a consensus, or even any very good aguments, that she was very important. I agree with your point that there is problem with the way that important (or very important) is being interpreted.
 * Counting dead bodies is a bit ghoulish but please excuse me. It seems odd to me that a bus crash that kills 20 people is important enoght to get several lines in ITN but the commander in a conflict that killed over 900 people is not important enough to get two words in ITN.  Also I am pretty sure that in, say, 10 years time more people will read about Sandy Woodward than about most bus crashes.
 * "you can make my vote there a support if it helps" - Thanks but (pardon the pun) I think that boat has sailed!
 * FerdinandFrog (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * While I remain neutral on this, the current !vote count is 6-3 with one neutral (yes it's not a vote yadayadaya) so I think this was a reasonable consensus. The comparison with Sandy Woodward is pointless--he's a general and she's an actress so it's not a like to like comparison.  Honestly famous generals don't seem to die that often so there isn't much agreed-upon criteria on what makes a General a worthy RD.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

[Pulled] Lost Orson Welles film rediscovered

 * Hmmm. The porn remake won't even need a new title. Support. Formerip (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for a variety of reasons. Newsworthy, article is updated reasonaby well, unusual event as the nom. points out, secondary links go to a variety of good quality articles, provides added value to the readership and variety to the ITN section. I'm fully aware that most of these reasons are not in the criteria guide before anyone points that out :) Pedro :  Chat  11:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support clearly newsworthy and the article is in good shape. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Interesting and unusual story in the world of cinema/film history/Orson Welles. This film was lost, then found, then presumed destroyed, so yeah - I think very few people saw this coming. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per Pedro. SeraV (talk) 11:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per Pedro. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 12:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Pile on support. A rare event dealing with a historically notable film. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - the update could use some work. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ready the third paragraph of the loss and recovery section is well updated. μηδείς (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Agree this is ready, good work on the update. Note to posting admin - to save you checking the image is not free so can't be used. Pedro : Chat  16:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is, however, a PD of Welles himself. Teemu08 (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yay! (support) μηδείς (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent, suggest we use that and loose Mugabee. Pedro : Chat  16:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support per established importance of Welles' work. --M ASEM (t) 16:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Rosebud Awesome Wells.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. You all are aware that this film was never screened, never finished, and was an experimental piece meant to be played along with a stage show? It can hardly be said to be "substantial" or "historically notable". Abductive  (reasoning) 18:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A lost work by Orson Welles is a lost work by Orson Welles. His pea commercial outtakes are classics.  The issue here is that because we don't really expect lost works of great artists to be found we don't include that as a category. Instead we have WP:IAR. μηδείς (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I know. I'm not opposing posting, just trying to set the record straight. For instance, it was not a copy of the film that was discovered, it was the film. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  19:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think the blurb is misleading. I was trying to figure out why this was in the news now, when the article clearly states the film was found in 2008. If the recent restoration announcement (buried way at the bottom of the article, and not visible in the opening section) is the newsworthy event, then the blurb should reflect that, not a discovery made 5 years ago. - dmmaus (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The canister was found in 2008, it's contents weren't discovered till recently. μηδείς (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * According to the article, it was discovered in 2005, and was found to contain TMJ in 2008. The only news here is "film house announces the completion of a restoration", which probably wouldn't have been posted if that had been made evident from the beginning. I have reworded the blurb - it's now boring as hell, but accurate. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This would still have been posted in October when it is to be released. We can pull and repost or leave it up as still notable and still in the news. μηδείς (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Would it? I'm less that 100% sure about that. I think maybe we need to just quietly file this under "oops". Formerip (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Pulled At the very least, the story nominated here wasn't the story actually posted, and there is reason to believe this wouldn't have been supported had people known what actually happened recently. --  tariq abjotu  22:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Incredible! I am glad Tariq knows how people would have voted without giving them time to comment. I am not sure why we bothered to have the nomination in the first place given his prescience.  Can Tariq let us know whether this will go back up automatically in October?  Or will he post it for us in 2008?  This is getting tiresome in the extreme. μηδείς (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In fairness, he was only undoing himself. A pull in no way says the story can't be reposted now or later, just that Tariq was no longer confident in his own reading of consensus.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Having given Tariq some grief myself over the Glee affair, he's quite correct to pull this in my opinion. Black Kite (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm yeah it seems blurb was misleading, I think pulling was correct choice. I don't think restoration in itself is some huge news, perhaps when this is shown in public. SeraV (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I support the pulling. <span style="font-family: Verdana, monospace;letter-spacing:1px;color:#ECCA61;padding-left:5px;">Beerest355 Talk 00:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not opposed to the pulling. 331dot (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Good call to pull. As Sera V says, perhaps when this opens. Jus  da  fax   20:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Recent Deaths: Margaret Pellegrini

 * Oppose She's not a notable actress on her own.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - unless there is something more to this. Being a Munchkin alone is surely not enough. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. She is notable for one role only, or at least the article only mentions her association with that role.  Also agree with Johnsemlak. 331dot (talk) 03:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose, as already pointed out she really isn't notable enough for RD.--Somchai Sun (talk) 11:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Follow the Weak Oppose Road. Wizard Of Oz may very well have been a ground-breaking film, but a single role is not part-and-parcel notable for RD; compared to Judy Garland who had the leading role but was also in other movies at the time.--WaltCip (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would probably support a full blurb when the last munchkin dies, like we did with Millvina Dean, the last Titanic survivor. Secret account 23:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Other than one role (of which she was one of many scores of actors), what else did she do? Anything of note for the front page? RD was not supposed to be an open door for anybody doktorb wordsdeeds 07:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Fire Hits Kenya's Main Airport

 * Update needed three sentences on one reference doesn't make an update. μηδείς (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - An apparently accidental fire now contained with no casualties is a news blip, not an ITN. --M ASEM (t) 21:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral now, support if there is a significant update the amount of coverage in the article has actually decreased since earlier in the day when there was about 4-5 sentences supported by 2-3 references (based on memory). There would be a lot more coverage if this had happened at a European or North American airport (for example) but major fires at major international airports are rare and Kenya is under-represented here. I'll definitely support if there is a significant update to the article but at the moment I can't decide whether I'm a weak support or weak oppose, so I'll stay neutral for now. Thryduulf (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Accidental fire with no casualties. The disruption caused by the damage to the terminal is being managed. 331dot (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose flights already back up and running within a day or so. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] The Washington Post

 * Comment We usually post such deals on the completion of the deal, which in this case does not sound like it is completed yet (BBC says "60 days"). --M ASEM (t) 01:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not ready to oppose yet, but I don't see the significance here.  A newspaper was sold- the Boston Globe was just sold a few days ago (also for a miniscule price) and we didn't post that. 331dot (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The Boston Globe and associated papers, which were purchased for US$1.4B ($1,400,000,000.00) by the New York Times in 1993 were just sold for $70,000,000.00--far less than 5% of the original investment, about the value of their real estate holdings, if one accounts for inflation, with the NYT still holding $100,000,000.00 in pension liabilities. This is much bigger, more notable, and sadder news. μηδείς (talk) 02:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Point taken, but such a well known newspaper being sold at such a loss would seem to be notable IMO. 331dot (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If posted, the two (Post and Globe) should go together mentioning they've been sold below asset vallue. Being as I almost always oppose business news, I'll not support the Post sale as an item by itself. A supportable blurb could be something like "In separate sales The Washington Post is sold to Amazon's Jeff Bezos and the Boston Globe to Red Socks owner John Henry at considerable losses." Or, perhaps, "In unrelated sales the Washington Post and the Boston Globe are sold at $US losses in the hundreds of millions." μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support only the Washington Post sale. An iconic newspaper being bought by a very notable individual.  The Washington Post is much more notable than the Boston Globe.--24.90.93.88 (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyone who is able to buy a major newspaper will probably be notable, so I don't think that aspect of the story gives it anything extra. Formerip (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The blurb should explain who Jeff Bezos is, as he's not a global household name. --LukeSurlt c 09:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We could write 'Amazon founder Jeff Bezos' though I'd be concerned this would mislead viewers into thinking Amazon bought the newspaper.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What about "Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon.com, purchases the Washington Post for $250 million in cash." Having the reference to Amazon after his name and not before might reduce confusion. 331dot (talk) 10:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support with article updates and blurb that mentions Amazon. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Opppose as nominated. The Boston Globe fire sale is the much bigger and still fresh story.  The collapse of the industry may be worth covering, but one vanity purchase with no managerial or policy changes promised is not. μηδείς (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - A very big story regarding what is effectively "new media" that has bought up the old media: the newspaper of record in the capital of the USA. I do believe it is a good idea to mention Amazon in the blurb. Suggest we leave the Boston Globe out of this, as the Post is, or perhaps was, in a class of its own. Iconic is not too strong a term for the Washington Post. Jus  da  fax   07:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * oppose per Medeis.Lihaas (talk) 10:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support — Ever since Watergate, the Washington Post has been a print-media beacon. In U.S. journalism, only The New York Times has had more clout. Sale of the Post far outweighs that of the Boston Globe in significance — and the buyer being a cyber-mogul of sorts may be significant as well.
 * PS: It's listed today in German Wiki's version of ITN, In den Nachrichten. Sca (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't understand opposition based on the fact that the Boston Globe is a bigger story here. Anybody remotely familiar with the US media landscape will understand that the Washington Post is second only to the NY Times as a mainstream broadsheet.  The Boston Globe isn't even in teh top 5.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's the case if you are part of the nattering class--the Times, Post, and Wall Street Journal are bought outside their areas for political, cultural, and financial reasons. But the Globe is/was a top-rate paper which the Times itself bought for $1.1 Billion.  As papers and not, say, flagships of a certain political party, they are quite comparable.  The WaPo has 47 Pulitzers since 1936, The BoGlo 22 since 1967.  On your reasoning there should be a lot more support for a combined posting. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard the word nattering since Spiro Agnew was vice president! Sca (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Medeis I think you've answered the question of why the WaPo is more notable than the Globe--it is one of the few papers in the US to have a truly national profile.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

This story is updated so I'll mark it ready.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Sale of one of the world's most influential newspapers to one of the best known entrepreneurs. -Zanhe (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted by King of Hearts.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  09:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per User:Medeis. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Recent Deaths: George Duke

 * Oppose - sorry, but this man is not "worldwide known" enough to justify an inclusion at ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement that a candidate be worldwide known; the only requirement is that it meet one of the three criteria. 331dot (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose a good working musician but no awards, or major hits and only one album with its own article, on which his trio is listed second. μηδείς (talk) 00:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Medeis. 331dot (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just not important enough for the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 07:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Spanish sex offender

 * Comment. There is no article to evaluate, nor is the scale of this person's alleged crimes given(one victim, a hundred, etc.) 331dot (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am closing this under the bold policy of WP:BLP. It can be reopened if we get an article with sources to support otherwise defamatory claims. μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Way too premature. Nominations are made here all the time without associated articles, and he is a convicted child rapist, as nearly every source on this story corroborates. Oppose if you feel there's an issue. --  tariq abjotu  03:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, he was apparently convicted and then pardoned, and the pardon was withdrawn(part of the reason this hit the international news, I think). Still need an article but I could potentially support this. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyone want to help creating 2013 Moroccan protests?Lihaas (talk) 11:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This really should be closed if we are not going to have an article on which to pin the accusations. He's not notable, and this violates WP:EVENT. μηδείς (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have created a stub on Galvan atleast.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And now also on the protests. Take it or leave it.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Turkish trial

 * Support if updated. Also, can you provide some sources ? -- Ե րևանցի talk  06:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support only if article gets significantly worked on. It's currently in poor shape and very much outdated, and doesn't even mention the recent convictions yet. The event is quite notable though and definitely has had international news coverage (e.g. top news item on German "Der Spiegel" online edition yesterday). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Seems a serious political attack on the Turkish military, hitherto guardian of secular republic. Here's a source for the Spiegel article in English translation:
 * http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/verdicts-in-turkish-ergenekon-trial-reflect-deep-divisions-a-914924.html
 * Sca (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I oppose to the blurb in this form, since none, except the Turkish government and the judges, thinks that all these 200 people were really part of a plot (people who speak German can read for example here). Alex2006 (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that this would make the story more significant, not less. Formerip (talk) 12:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe I was not clear: the story is very significant, is the form of the blurb which is wrong. According to the news that I read (Repubblica, Corriere della Sera, NZZ) the existence of Ergenekon is real, but the government used the plot as an excuse to get rid of opponents who had nothing to do with it, manipulating evidences. So, we cannot write "Over 200 Ergenekon members", since the large majority of them were not part of the plot. Alex2006 (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How about "convicted on charges of..." as a form of phrasing? --LukeSurlt c 11:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No. The point is that according to most of the press (at least here in Europe) many of them are not members of the plot at all. Maybe "Over 200 alleged Ergenekon members..." could be a solution. BTW, IMHO a putsch attempt which involves directly so many people would be suicidal. Alex2006 (talk) 07:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The Ashes

 * Far WP:TOSOON wait until 25 August, when the result of the whole series is known, the Blurb can then be either "In test cricket, England win the 2013 Ashes series against Australia by 4-0|3-1|2-1|2-0" or " In test cricket, England and Australia draw the 2013 Ashes series as holders England retain the Ashes."  LGA  <sub style="color:#8B0000;">talk <sup style="margin-left:-4ex"> edits   09:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * post now. We did the same for the last series. I don't think it can be argued that the retention of he ashes is not the single most notable result in the series, even if the final result is also notable.--24.90.93.88 (talk) 10:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support A retention is as good as a win, so it's good enough for me. I assume we're not going to get an easy ride because of the inherent USA-bias and dodgy admins but a man can hope...... doktorb wordsdeeds 10:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think precedent has been to post at the conclusion of the series, just in case of the extremely unlikely event that this is somehow reversed or cancelled. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The result cannot be reversed or cancelled. The British have won the Ashes.  What's not determined is the final score.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Things can always be reversed or cancelled, unless the league decides to stop playing. The last stage of the Tour de France is always run even though 99% of the time the winner is not in doubt, because it is still part of the race and needs to be completed to win- the potential winner could crash or have a freak accident to prevent them from winning. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In this case it can't be, while they are not lost we can't win them. Sill we should wait till the concussion of the series.  LGA <sub style="color:#8B0000;">talk <sup style="margin-left:-4ex"> edits   11:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no league to talk of here. There are two more matches to play, and England lead 2 - 0. Australia winning back the Ashes is literally impossible at this point. --LukeSurlt c 19:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes for clarity if the last 2 matches are cancelled or if Australia win them England will retain the Ashes. This is different from the Tour de France since in that case, no one has won the Tour until they actually win it no matter the lead. A better example in racing is perhaps Formula 1. There comes a point where it is mathematical impossible for anyone else to win the world championship (or constructors), this often isn't the last race of the season. However when it happens it's still the time the world championship (or constructor's) is won, which is distinct from say when Schumacher was dominating and was widely expected to win but hadn't actually won yet. (Of course when it comes to the World Championship you generally need to win it outright rather then just retaining it.) Of course it's generally possible for any result to be reversed or overturned in most sports, but this is different an can usually happen at any time, even long after the tournament or whatever is finished. We don't avoid mentioning the Tour results simple because the winner may lose their results years later due to doping, nor do we avoid mentioning the NRL (presuming we still have consensus to post this) winner simply because they could one day lose the premiership over salary cap breaches. Nil Einne (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, "mathematically impossible" unless there were to be a fatal crash in one of the remaining races. I'm not sure what would happen in that case. But I agree your example is a better one. Cricket is not quite so prone to such dramatic twists. I suppose one team might still be disqualified for some reason and the series never complete. But that does seem somewhat unlikely. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * post now. "England retain the Ashes" is the result, everything else is unimportant. DW meter (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * wait Aus can still tie, fgranted England have retained it. Nevertheless, precedence is to post after sports tournaments ends.Lihaas (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hilarious. Evne though someone above had already said "post now. We did the same for the last series.", the precedent is somehow to do the opposite? Wow. If Australia tie, which in itself is a pretty long shot, literally nobody would care. Not even the Australians. DW meter (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support/post later Could be posted as the final outcome is now mostly irrelevant, news-wise. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's Test cricket, not test cricket.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Amended. --LukeSurlt c 18:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Wait It is incorrect to say England is leading the series (more like crystal balling) as if the next 2 games are won by Australia they will tie it. England will keep Ashes by default however this particular series would still be tie... i would wait till we know which one it is. Even if we posted it earlier last time, i see no reason to follow an incorrect precedence. -- Ashish-g55 18:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "England retain Ashes" has been the headline. Unlike pretty much any other case in any other sport, in this case a draw is effectively as good as a win for England. Test cricket is weird. --LukeSurlt c 19:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess ill be ok with it if we dont say anything that suggests england won this series or is leading the series etc... as we need to wait for series outcome. just stick to the urn -- Ashish-g55 19:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support posting now The most important result that will come out of this series has now occurred. England has retained The Ashes. Those who don't understand can check out that article. HiLo48 (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support now. The newsworthy item is that England have retained the Ashes, whether that is 2-2 or 4-0 is irrelevant because even in the latter case England will also have retained the Ashes, not won them. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait And post the final results of the series along with England retaining the Ashes.  CaptRik (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? Without a reason, that's just a vote. [And there's a BIG discussion on about voting rather than discussing here.) And votes must be ignored by the closer. HiLo48 (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair point, I voted to wait as the result of the Ashes is not yet clear. England have retained them by the fact that they are guaranteed a draw but they can still win them outright.  Comparison with another sport - I'm sure we don't post the winner of the Premier League as soon as it's mathematically finished, we post at the end of the season.  With the same logic, we should post this at the end of the series.  CaptRik (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that's wrong. The result of The Ashes is completely clear, now. England has retained them. Comparisons with other sports are pointless. The Ashes is a unique competition between two countries which never change. Nobody "retains" the Premier League cup, or whatever they win, in the same way. HiLo48 (talk) 08:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * RE EPL we would post the Premier League winner after the clinched it, not necessarily after the end if the season.--24.90.93.88 (talk) 10:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Wait by default. The optimum time to post was two and a bit days ago. The second best time to post is the evening of the end of the final test, and we can get that done pretty quickly. And regardless of that, how do we succinctly explain in a blurb to the wider readership that England have The Ashes in the bag despite the fact that the series could end 2-2? —WFC— FL wishlist 00:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there's really a problem for the wider readership. We don't have to report the score in teh blurb--merely state that England have retained the Ashes.  The details of the fact that a draw is enough for England can be left to the article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I agree with WFC's assessment of the situation. --LukeSurlt c 09:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support posting now As a cricket fan, I can assure you that retaining (or winning) the Ashes is what people care about - the precise result of the series is less important. Even if the Aussies manage to draw the series they will still regard it as a failure - they were here to recapture the Ashes. Neljack (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support the point is the Oz can't gain the Ashes back. A win in the series would be a bonus, but the retention of the trophy is the fundamental note here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Wake up call This nomination has had plenty of posts, but has been sitting seemingly unnoticed for two and a half days. Will anyone make a decision? Or will we wait until it's too late be posted? HiLo48 (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Go back to sleep call Surely, the appropriate time will be when that ridiculously tiny trophy is held aloft by the victorious captain. Anything else just isn't cricket, old chap. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You have every right to have and to express that opinion here. Although that reason doesn't cut it for me. The Ashes is more of a concept than that silly old urn. And England has retained them. But what concerns more me is the failure of process here. Why was this thread allowed to sit idle for so long? HiLo48 (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * For many people the silly old urn is what it's all about, i.e. the full series. The urn isn't a crystal ball, is it? That said, the current plot-spoiler blurb can't be denied as true. When was it decided that Chris Froome had won this year's Tour de France? I suppose in that case he could have easily died before reaching the finish line. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't understand how The Ashes works. Froome could have done something to cause him to not win the TDF at any moment up until the very end, but England has already retained the Ashes. It cannot lose them in this series. And that's what's sad about this thread. Too many posts based on ignorance. A closing Admin MUST understand how it works, and ignore posts like that. HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out my pathetic stupidity. I had thought they all played on bicyles. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have tagged the nomination as needing attention.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  14:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but why did our process fail (yet again) here? (ITN is dying.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently, it's because we're ignorant. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hilo I don't think it's necessarily ignorance. It seems to me (not only based on this discussion but on the discussion for the last Ashes) that there's a disagreement even among editors familiar with cricket over when exactly to post the Ashes result (when it's retained/lost, or when a definitive series result is clinched, or even after all 5 tests).  It's probably something that should be resolved later on at the ITNR talk page.  Of course, there's also the lack of an update....--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's ignorance alright. I can accept discussion about when to post, but there can be no disagreement that this is a very different situation from someone leading near the end of the TDF. That involves someone not knowing how The Ashes works (while thinking they do). Given that it's already been explained several times in this very thread, That's ignorance. Fortunately, as many wise people have pointed out, ignorance can be cured. HiLo48 (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Only one person objected along the lines. That objection, based on a bit of misunderstanding, is not what's holding this up.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Before anyone accuses me of being uncivil here, I must point out that I have used the word "ignorance" here to simply mean not knowing something (and in this case, acting as if they were certain they did.) It's a fact, not abuse. Posts here based on ignorance (and there are several) must be be ignored. It's a basic concept. (Oh, and I did not use the term "pathetic stupidity" anywhere to describe anyone. Implying that I did is blatant misrepresentation.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know what "admin attention" is needed: the article has a very poor update (just a couple sentences in the lead). I also don't understand how one can feel the ITN process has "broken down" here; as always, items can be marked as [Ready] if they are ready (which this is not). --  tariq abjotu  23:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What kind of update would you expect to find? That third paragraph in the lead says pretty much all that needs to be said and all that can be said, without going into a detailed explanation of why drawing the third Test meant that England had retained The Ashes. That would be inappropriate. We don't go into details of the rules of a sport when describing a particular instance of that sport. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps something about the series itself? The article provides very little prose about the matches; almost the entire article could have been written before the series began. --  tariq abjotu  00:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's true. There's usually enough cricket obsessives around to fill articles like that full of all sorts of trivial nonsense. Dunno where they are this time round. HiLo48 (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you look at the 2010-11 Ashes Series article, there's a prose summary for each test. I'd be reasonable to expect that for this article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be nice, and I don't understand why it isn't happening, but that doesn't change the fact the England has retained The Ashes, and the article says so as clearly and completely as it should. HiLo48 (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact is a prose summary of the actual match (or test match for cricket) is pretty much the absolute standard for sporting events at ITN. The Super Bowl or the Champions League are not posted until the update is made despite the notability of these events--there's no reason to not hold the Ashes to the same standard.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If only I could be cured. My observations were questions of most appropriate timing, not of fact. So sorry if you feel have been so "blatantly misrepresented". (They should probably give up on the series now, shouldn't they. Has no-one told them?) But apparently I was only acting. Or thinking, alas. Just off now to add some trivial nonsense... Martinevans123 (talk) 09:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You clearly still don't understand The Ashes. HiLo48 (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for explaining everything there. Hardly worth my while watching the Oval match then. Do you think Bells' 105 will be enough? What happens if the goalie gets a burst tyre? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * All good cricket is worth watching,but England has already retained The Ashes. HiLo48 (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Opppose until somebody show me that this is a big event in the International cricket in 2013, I am not a Cricket fan, but this look like the same game played too many times, this is not a World Cup or a World Championship, and we do not post every time that Pakistan defeat India in cricket, why England-Australia deserve it? we do not post each time that England defeat his brother-enemy Scotland, or each time that USA-Canada play a exhibition ice hockey game; we do not post another game of the eternal Argentina–England football rivalry, Argentina–Brazil football rivalry, Chile–Peru football rivalry, England–Scotland football rivalry, England–Germany football rivalry, the catchy name of England-Australia is not enouch to me.--Feroang (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an ITNR item This WILL be posted. The only matter under discussion is when, not if. HiLo48 (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It might be argued that, since the weather played such a decisive role in forcing at least a draw, this Ashes series result should be seen as less significant than in other years. That question can only really be answered by considering the quality of play in the remaining matchea. Of course, England could still win the series 4-0, or 3-1, couldn't they? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You could argue that, but you would be wrong. And I know the players and true fans won't see it that way. HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support waiting - They may have technically won now. But they haven't lifted the trophy. Miyagawa (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody lifts the trophy. There is no trophy. The Ashes stay in a special cabinet at Lord's. Please read that article. Sadly, this thread is chock full of misapprehensions. So many posts based on falsehoods. (Is that nicer than saying people are ignorant, even though it means the same thing?) HiLo48 (talk) 10:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Much nicer, thank you. p.s. when does the team celebrate its victory? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What victory? There have been victories in two Test Matches, which I'm sure led to small celebrations, but no victory in the series. Again, that question doesn't fit The Ashes, which England has retained. HiLo48 (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't retention regarded as a victory? p.p.s. when will England celebrate retention? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC) (there is no trophy?)


 * Oppose until updated at least: Other than a discussion of the squads, and the lead, the article has not been updated or expanded sufficiently. There should really be at least a few sentences of prose on each match – at the moment there are just bullet-pointed lists of comments. It doesn't need to reach same level of prose as 2010–11 Ashes series, but should really be expanded before posting. Regarding whether it is posted now or once the series is over, that's really moot while the article needs an update. - Shudde  talk 11:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, England have now won the Ashes, pending an update, this should be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yet another wrong post. England already held The Ashes, so they couldn't win them. If every wrong post here was struck out, this thread would be half the size. I don't care when it's posted, but I do care about getting things right. When most of the Not yet posts (and this one) are based on falsehoods, DESPITE considerable efforts at education by me and others, plus pointers to the relevant article, I really do worry about the comprehension of other editors here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Biogenesis baseball scandal

 * Oppose Drug scandal in a sport with a history of drug use. Besides which, the right time to post would be if the appeal fails. If we were to post now and the appeal were to succeed, we would be duty-bound to post that as well. —WFC— FL wishlist 23:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually baseball never had a player, especially a star like Alex Rodriguez being suspended such a long period of time (two years in this case) because of a drug/doping scandal. This is easily the biggest doping scandal to hit sports in general since Lance Armstrong which we posted, and probably rank among the top five ever. This has widespread implications in multiple sports, and should end the "doping era" in baseball. Support Secret account 23:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, good suggestion. Although it's a sports item, an area where I think the bar should be held a little higher (along with most other entertainment-related noms), I think this easily meets that bar and will have a more meaningful impact than many of the routine sports items that we usually post. This is a huge deal for a sport that is several orders of magnitude more significant as an entity than swimming, for example, another currently-nommed sports item (and I'm not hating on swimming; that one should and probably will be posted). AP called it "baseball's most sweeping punishment since the Black Sox scandal." --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My opening remark was intended to be facetious (apologies if it didn't come across that way), although in my defence it was a fair comment. But A-Rod hasn't even stopped playing yet: this surely only meets the bar if he is actually suspended? Otherwise we have a handful of players who have pleaded guilty to doping missing less than a third of a season. Significant, but hardly earth-shattering. In cycling and athletics you generally get one or two years, yet the problem is still widespread, so I don't accept the premise that this will mark the end of drugs in baseball. And to reiterate, if this is posted and A-Rod suspension is overturned on appeal, we would surely then need to post that. It simply doesn't make sense to go now. —WFC— FL wishlist 00:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's an internal league matter. Far worse, the comissioner is making what are essentially criminal allegations, without any of the protections of the actual criminal system, or liability for other parties like coaches and owners who would be subject to conspiracy charges were these real criminal proceedings. Imagine trading houses that knew of their traders' activities demanding they stop trading and forfeit their salaries while the brokers kept their profits. μηδείς (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. This is the top headline story on NBC News.com and CNN.com, and near the top on BBC's news page. Also covered in other countries.  This being "an internal league matter" is irrelevant to its status as a news story. 331dot (talk) 00:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not "top of the news", and we have a policy called WP:BLP. These people are being accused of essentially criminal activity by a private organization.  We shouldn't touch this unless there's a court verdict. μηδείς (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My point was that this is a large story receiving a lot of coverage. Again, it is not illegal to use a PED so a court trial is unlikely unless A-Rod or the others lie under oath, but a private organization can discipline its members as it sees fit and as unfairly as it wants to. If we need to wait until A-Rod's appeal (I believe he is only one appealling) is exhausted to avoid a double post, okay, but this isn't yet a criminal matter. Not even sure if he is under investigation by the criminal justice system. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Question having a bit of a issue in getting to the bottom of this; some background .... Am I correct in the following, MLB paid for information from a informer from a now defunct company to provide them with details of who this company supplied. Last month Ryan Braun took what amounted to a plea bargain, today it has been announced that 12 others have also taken a similar plea deal and one other Alex Rodriguez was suspend for 211 games, that suspension was it's self suspend pending the outcome of an "appeal". Now to the question, I cant find anything which indicates there has been an interdependent hearing on this; if that is the case this would be a the same as a 100m sprinter being charged with taking a performance enhancing drug, as we would never post that until all legal avenues have been exhausted why would we consider this one .  LGA <sub style="color:#8B0000;">talk <sup style="margin-left:-4ex"> edits   01:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We have no independent documentation on any of this. If you read Braun's article, there is plenty of ESPN speculation.  (ESPN is a TV sports network, not a branch of The United Nations.)  He's not exactly taken a plea, but stopped fighting his 50 game suspension, and had an extra 15 game's suspension added on, which would be illegal for a US criminal court to do.  Likewise there have been reports that Alex Rodriquez was threatened with a lifetime ban, and that he has gotten a longer suspension (211 games) because he didn't cooperate with the commission, which apparently saw him as an easy-to-go-after whipping boy . μηδείς (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't illegal to use a PED(criminally, at least), though it is illegal to lie under oath about doing so. This isn't a legal matter(yet, at least), just a personnel issue. 331dot (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course there are no criminal penalties because there are no criminal charges or protections of the criminal court, just untestable allegations which amount to defamation per se by the league. Most people assume there is some sort of demonstrated or admitted criminality here, but there is nothing other than the bosses deciding an arbitrary number of employees will lose an arbitrary amount of pay, while the managers and owners who were aware of the alleged activity face no sanctions.  As in Braun's case, they have shown that if you don't accept these penalties without appeal you will face worse.  Compare this to the Cumberland Farms case where the convenience chain settled  for having regularly accused cashiers of stealing from the till and forcing them to sign confessions to avoid criminal prosecution.   Supports for this nomination because it is "in the news" show our WP:BLP oversight function here is fatally flawed. μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support this is currently the biggest new item in profession sports and involves some of the biggest names (and even formerly-possible hall-of-famers) in baseball. It is also rare in North American sports for there to be such a huge crackdown on players using perfomance enhancing drugs. This has been in the news for several weeks, and will no doubt be in the news for some time as it continues to unfold. -- Plasma Twa  2  08:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait We need to wait on this, in the same way we did on the Silvio Berlusconi and Bradley Manning cases until the FULL process has been completed (i.e. when all the appeals have been completed). From what I can see up to now MLB has been acting as both prosecutor and judge, and as now that Alex Rodriguez's has announced he will appeal posting risks the requirement for us to post a correction later.  LGA  <sub style="color:#8B0000;">talk <sup style="margin-left:-4ex"> edits   09:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As a private organization, MLB can discipline its members as it sees fit (in keeping with any labor contract provisions and the law). 331dot (talk) 10:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose A minor internal incident in a minority interest/one-nation sport doktorb wordsdeeds 10:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Objections relating to an event dealing with only one country are not valid; and MLB operates in two countries (Canada), has players from many different countries, and is seen around the world. As I linked to above, foreign media has covered this (including France, where baseball is not that popular). 331dot (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "One nation"? Which nation? Japan, Cuba, or the Dominican Republic? – H T  D  18:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. Ignore the armchair lawyers, their arguments are irrelevant, if not completely uninformed. This is worthy of posting now because the announcement made the news all the way to the UK, even though we don't give a shit about the sport, precisely because it's a very newsworthy sporting scandal in of itself. DW meter (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Largest scandal to hit Major League Baseball since the Black Sox in 1919, and seems to be in the news on a wide scale. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 12:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Minor comment: If used, "Biogenesis" should be capitalized. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support this is a major league story (pardon the pun) Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. On my scandal scale, this is on par with Ben Johnson.  And honestly, if we posted Lance Armstrong, this merits inclusion as well.  The story here is the announcement of suspensions, but I would note that some are pending appeal. Resolute 15:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As a note, reading a Reuters story on it, it appears that only one player is planning to appeal. The rest have accepted their suspensions. Resolute 16:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support A serious scandal, worthy of the front page. --Somchai Sun (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support the suspensions are a joke really (not even a 6 month suspension?). However, considering that baseball is likely even more notorious about drugs than cycling, it it noteworthy that their governamental bodies decided to DO something. Nergaal (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposed. Steroids in baseball?  Next you'll tell me that there's gambling in this casino.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would liek to see a more substantial article/update before posting. It is a little light at current. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Suspensions in a sport are most certainly not worthy of being on ITN.-- Giants27 ( T  |  C )  21:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if it's one of the longest suspensions ever handed out by MLB for any issue? (the media called it "the most sweeping punishment since the Black Sox scandal" in 1919) 331dot (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment we have extremely uninformed comments above. There is no governmental body here.  There is a commission of owners who are covering their own arses by punishing their employees, but not themselves or their coaches or managers.  There is no criminal admission of guilt in accepting a 50-game suspension.  If one doesn't "accept" such a suspension one faces retaliatory action for appealing, anywhere from 65 to 211 games as in the case of Braun who appealed, and Rodriguez who wouldn't settle. This "scandal" involves players attending a clinic the nature of which the owners and coaches were well aware while it was happening.  Calling this the greatest scandal since the Black Socks is simply absurd, looking at the cocaine scandals of the 1980's.  But those happened long, long ago in a nation far, far away. μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't have an opinion about whether the event is significant enough for posting but, if so, the article needs work first. Formerip (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per Secret and Resolute. AutomaticStrikeout ?  19:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - biggest doping scandal in several years. Article is now updated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. A massive drug ban, and also the ruling affects players from four different countries and implicates a player from a fifth.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with those who have said that we should not post this until the full process has occurred. Neljack (talk) 05:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support: Baseball news being reported in my country is exceedingly uncommon. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  19:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] RD:Admiral Sir Sandy Woodward

 * Oppose Grenada has 30 times the population of the Falklands, MacArthur's invasion of Korea falls during the period mentioned and is considered brilliant, not to mention the size involved, the first Gulf War, concluded in 30 days, is ignored, the target article has a whole three sentences on the Falklands era.... μηδείς (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Question I'm not really sure what point(s) you are trying to make. AFAIUI in neither of the the invasion of Grenada nor the landing at Inchon was there a naval opposition, certainly not one of any note so there cannot have been any naval battles.  The first Gulf War took place entirely on land so I am sure that there was not a naval battle there. FerdinandFrog (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality grounds; would support upon improvement per nominator. 331dot (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple of, IMO significant, reactions. How does it look now?  RL means that I have to stop now and won't be able to do any more for 24 hours. FerdinandFrog (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll support now, improvements have been made. 331dot (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality grounds alone. —WFC— FL wishlist 21:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support quality has improved significantly since the last few comments were made, reaction from the prime minister, we also posted Rex Hunt a while back. Secret account 23:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The Falklands War section is still a whole three sentences. The rationale (biggest naval battle since WWII?) has no serious support. μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the Falklands War section with a couple of significant items.
 * I never said that the sole reason for posting was the size of the naval battle and I certainly did not say that it definitely was the largest since WWII. I mentioned that it was the largest for a long time, possibly since WWII.  However I cannot think of any other naval combat since WWII when the opponents were trying to (and succeeding in) sinking each other's ships.  If you can then please enlighten me.
 * However a quick search found
 * this which starts by saying "The Falklands War was by far the largest and most extended series of naval battles since the Pacific campaign in World War II."
 * this which includes "As the largest and most significant series of naval engagements since World War II, the Falklands War ..."
 * and this which includes "Militarily, the Falklands War remains the largest air-naval combat operation between forces since the end of World War II."
 * I am not saying that these are all RS to support including that in the Falklands War article (however it is already there but I do think that they show this is a common belief.
 * FerdinandFrog (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Falklands campaign had the largest naval losses since WW2 in terms of ship displacement. US Navy lost more personnel in Vietnam, though. In any case there seems to be very little coverage outside UK. 88.148.249.186 (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose - article quality is adequate but I have concerns about importance. Woodward's death doesn't seem to have been covered outside of the UK except for a few wire reprints.  That tells me the world doesn't seem him as all that important of a general commanding officer. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe because he's an Admiral, not a General? DW meter (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. Woodward is one of a rare breed, a post World War II military figure who actually had to make wide-scale life and death decisions in an armed conflict between sovereign nations that was not a foregone conclusion (Stormin' Norman was a great leader, but it can hardly be said the outcome of GW1 was in any doubt, somewhat limiting the notability of his actual wartime decision making). Some might say his decisions affected the UK after the war, right up to the presnt day, given the fact that Thatcher's election win and the subsequent shift in UK politics, is often put down to the feelgood factor after the victory. Lack of coverage outside the UK (if this is even true) is irrelevant - it says so right at the top of the page. DW meter (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I see the Falklands War section has been nicely updated. But I take three things away from the article.  He ordered the sinking of the Belgrano.  He was later appointed NATO commander of the submarines of the East Atlantic.  He was knighted.  Not given a baronetcy, but knighted.  None of that amounts to "top of the field" or "highly influential". μηδείς (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Being knighted for military service, historically the primary purpose of knighthoods, is relatively rare in modern times, I believe. Sinking other large naval vessels is also a rarity since WWII (the Belgrano was only the second vessel sunk by an enemy since then). 331dot (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually it is customary for any British officer who reaches the rank of Vice-Admiral, Lieutenant-General or Air Marshal (i.e. the equivalent of a three-star general in the US) to be knighted. There are lots of them. So it's not at all uncommon. Neljack (talk) 05:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am not convinced that commanding the Falklands task force means that he is a very important figure in the military field. Important yes, very important no. It was a significant conflict but not a huge one. Neljack (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Tuvalu Prime Minister

 * Support either blurb pending update. A change of head of state is ITN/R I believe. Thryduulf (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A change in head of state is, but not head of government (Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state of Tuvalu). 331dot (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. It may be smaller and less populous than my borough, but my borough is neither sovereign nor a member of the UN. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The jurisdiction has a population under 12,000. In most areas this seat would be called Head of Parish Council, not Prime Minister. I'll omit the clips from Vicar of Dibley and The Mouse That Roared. μηδείς (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Tuvalu is a sovereign state so their head of government is somewhat notable (though I don't support this as strongly as those of other states due to its population). 331dot (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * support. per user 331dot who covers my opinion as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this election affects very few people. We would never consider an event of an other type that attracts so little attention.  Elections are not that special as to receive a free pass on reader interest. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Where would you draw the line? I find that unless we do so quite high (i.e. elections with large international interest), the only reasonable (non-arbitrary) spot is below them all. Of those two I prefer the latter. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to decide on a case-by-case basis based on the level of interest (media attention). Often drawing a bright-line is not the best way to handle things. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Possible, but roughly equal countries differing in internet penetration or continent could be treated differently. There are rather few "Tuvalus" and many "Djiboutis" and "Icelands". 88.88.162.176 (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as it's ITNR and significant for a nation, despite population size. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Point of order: It is not ITNR; only changes in heads of state are ITNR, not heads of government. 331dot (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Point taken, stricken. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

– HonorTheKing (talk) 08:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is one of three of the highest rank in Tuvalu political ranking, have little to do outside and inside his own country. The British queen and the elected Governor General are high ranks aswell. Not to forget this is only about a country that is less than 12k people.
 * Support-The results of mayoral elections have been posted, if I am not mistaken. Why we neglect to post the highest governmental change in a sovereign state I cannot comprehend. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not believe any mayoral race was posted - In a quick search I found a couple that were rejected, but none accepted. That said, I guarantee the mayor of New York City or London or dozens of other cities has a larger impact on world events than the PM of Tuvalu. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The mayors of New York and London should be posted as they "are vastly more integrated with the global economy than any other cities". 88.88.162.176 (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Non-ceremonial head of a sovereign state.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Thaddeus Secret account 18:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support we do usually post these right? If we do I see no reason not to post this based on how populous the country is. Tuvaly is a sovereign territory with spot in UN after all. SeraV (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong support - A head of state change is significant both for the country in question and in international relations. Arguments that the population size is small overlook the significance of the event in regional and global affairs. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please explain what "significance of the event in regional and global affairs" of story is being overlooked exactly? Pleasde name one way this significantly impacts anyone outside of Tuvulu.  That Tuvulu is a sovereign state means it sets its own laws.  It does not automatically mean that it has any influence over anything that happens in any other country.  If this selection is truly going to have an significant impact on the world, why are so few reliable sources covering it?  Normally, we expect analysis of the impact of an election, but that is not possible here because no reliable source cares enough to provide any as far as I can see.  Most US states (for example) have a far bigger impact on international affairs than Tuvulu; even a mayoralship of a large city has a bigger impact.  Sovereignty is not equivalent to influence. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've seen the number 50,000, as in votes for a candidate, bandied about as a threshold for notability. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You can compare this to other changes that have a "far bigger impact" on international affairs, but I never said that this event will have a super-uber-mega impact on international affairs, only that it will have an impact--which is more than many strictly domestic topics of other countries that make it into ITN. As far as I'm concerned, this is sufficient for inclusion, arguments of small population size notwithstanding. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You didn't really answer my question at all. I asked you to explain what significance people are allegedly overlooking and your reply was basically well it might not have a huge impact, but it will have some.  Well every story nominated on this page - even those roundly rejected - will have some impact on the world.  As a "strong" supporter, surely you can provide some concrete way that this particular election might impact the world.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is self-evident that the change of the head of a state of a sovereign country will effect how that country is perceived by other countries and how it will interact with other countries. And again, this is more impact that many strictly domestic topics that make ITN. You're asking for specific instances of how this will affect international relations, yet I highly doubt that you would be demanding such level of detail if it were the head of state of a larger country, and either way such level of detail is unnecessary because this type of event happens often throughout the world and its general effects (even if not its specific effects) are self-evident and well-known. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Analysis of what an election means is a standard part of election articles. None exists here.  Granted, this isn't a real election - just the existing MPs selecting a new leader - but still, the lack of analysis speaks volumes as to its importance in the eyes of the rest of the world.  That this will have any material impact on international affairs is an assumption, not a fact.  More likely, IMO, the vast majority of the heads of the other 205 sovereign states couldn't care less who the PM of Tuvalu is.  If we posted every domestic story that affects 12,000 people, hundreds of stories would be eligible everyday.  --65.60.163.84 (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral - im not gonna support or oppose this nomination but i would like to point out that we did post the change in leadership in what is considered to be the smallest state in the world. However im sure most people would agree to that one going up since it was the Pope and the Vatican City. It is also interesting to note that the Prime Minster of Tuvalu has instructed lawyers and threatened to sue certain countries including Australia and the USA before now.Jason Rees (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong support This is particularly notable because it comes after the previous Prime Minister was dismissed by the Governor-General. This is an extremely rare constitutional crisis involving the use of a reserve power. No Prime Minister has been dismissed a Governor-General or monarch in any of the Commonwealth realms since the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975. Contrary to some claims, there has been a fair amount of coverage of the crisis. Three major British newspapers have covered it , as have Australian   and New Zealand   media. In response to Thaddeus's comments, I would note that, despite its small size, Tuvalu has played a significant role in climate change diplomacy. That is only likely to be increased by the fact that the new Prime Minister was formerly Tuvalu's lead climate negotiator and Vice-Chairman of the Alliance of Small Island States. Neljack (talk) 06:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Marked as ready The article is very good and well updated, and there is consensus to post (11-4 in favour if you want to vote-count). Neljack (talk) 06:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - per Neljack. Jus  da  fax   08:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  19:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Swimming World Championships redux

 * Support posting the championship in some form. This also goes for the upcoming athletics championship. Together with gymnastics they are the most popular Olympic sports. None of them have ITNR items as far as I can see. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support definitly for itn. major sporting event.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support either blurb, but with a mild preference for the alt. The most medals by a single competitor is not something that happens routinely. Thryduulf (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC) (restored Thryduulf (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC), not sure how it got lost but it did)
 * Oppose - at present there is zero prose on the actual event, will support once updated.  LGA <sub style="color:#8B0000;">talk <sup style="margin-left:-4ex"> edits   22:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose posting until the prose is there. I *support* the story, it arguably should be ITNR, but it must not be railroaded through without the sort of update we would expect of non-sporting articles. No objection to the current blurb, although I don't see grounds for Missy Franklin to be bolded. —WFC— FL wishlist 23:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Updated and marked ready since opposition was based solely on lack of update which has now occurred. (I wasn't trying to railroad anything through, as evidenced by my "Article will need a significant prose update" comment in the nom - I just didn't have a chance to write the article until this evening.)  I prefer the altblurb, for the record, but unbolded Franklin (her page is updated but w/o refs for the WC stuff). --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Thanks to ThaddeusB for the update. Not sure on the picture though, it is not the best as it is a single person coped from a multi-person shot but on the other hand it is better than the current image.  LGA <sub style="color:#8B0000;">talk <sup style="margin-left:-4ex"> edits   05:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Change main blurb... to [2013 World Aquatics Championships if we are going to go for the medal table blurb unless we want to ignore diving, water polo, synchronised swimming and everything else that is not won by the Americans, though regardless tops the medal table. Donnie Park (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted I omitted the picture for now. Yeah, it just looked too strange cropped for Main Page viewing. As LGA said, it's a picture from another picture already (with her head chopped off and those words in the background). I don't think I agree that's better than the Mugabe photo; while the latter is also cropped from a larger photo, it shows his whole face and the background is muted. That being said, I wouldn't object if someone swapped the Missy Franklin image in, especially since it would be nice to get some female representation in ITN photos for once. --  tariq abjotu  11:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * THe ITNR typ event would be the whole event 2013 World Aquatics Championships not the focus of ONYL swimming (there was more than that) and the individual nomination. We don't mention that for any event (ie who won how many medlas). No need to do so here. Some of the supports above also mentioned the entire tournament in supporting.Lihaas (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reworded the blurb to include more of the overall results. It seemed opinion was divided on whether to write the blurb about the overall results or Franklin's achievement. I feel this formulation appropriately notes both. --  tariq abjotu  11:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Afghan - Pak floods

 * Support. Article is no longer a stub and while more detail wouldn't go amiss it's OK as it is imho, Thryduulf (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support-Most certainly notable. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - significant disaster; article now of sufficient length/quality. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Notable disaster with wide effects. 331dot (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose as typical "Pakistan and Afghanistan [are] frequently hit by flooding during monsoon season. Every year since 2010, the region has suffered devastating floods that left hundreds dead.[2]" unfortunately. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A cleanup tag needs to be taken care of before posting. Secret account 00:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted Secret account 01:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Belated Support As others have said this is a complete disaster. The oppose citing the regular occurrence of these disasters do not convince me, seeing as we usually post hurricanes in the United States which do not get even nearly as large of a death toll.75.73.114.111 (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

RD:Art Donovan

 * Oppose. I don't see any evidence that he was one of the best at his position (and I'm not sure that would be enough--one of the best defensive players ever maybe).  I just did a search of 'Best defensive NFL players of all time' and I came across this link at Yahoo sports which ranks the 10 best ever and doesn't include Donovan.  This list at the Bleacher Report doesn't rank him in teh top 25.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Johnsemlak's compelling evidence of him not being that highly regarded by those who know about such things. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. The latter list cited by Johnsemlak is a list of defensive players since 1965; Donovan played until 1961.  Both lists are just the opinions of the writers of the lists.  He is a Hall of Famer with other achievements that ThaddeusB mentions which meet the "notable in their field" criteria. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per 331dot. Pro Football Hall of Fame is a much better indicator of significance in his field than Bleacher Report, which is a terrible website that I delete references from whenever I see one, or Yahoo Sports, which isn't much better. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose 331Dot is right that these are just oppinions, but there is no way he can be said to have been influential in his field as far as playing style, etc.  Compare Joe Namatah who was revild by mant during his time precisely because of the influence he had on the sport, and ask whether today's players resemble Namath or Donovan. Donovan's TV presence simply followed from his beening able to speak articulately, not his skill at tackling TV producers. μηδείς (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Simply not notable enough doktorb wordsdeeds 10:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In what way? 331dot (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Pro Football Hall of Famer. Member of the official 1950's All-Decade team. The first defensive player inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. That last one in and of itself should be enough. --12.41.124.5 (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not notable in that the sport itself is in my opinion not a world interest sport. secondly he doesnt seem to be an outstanding sportsman within his sport. sorry--BabbaQ (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I can accept the second rationale, but football is seen all over the world by tens of millions. The last Super Bowl was broadcast in 25 countries. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I can not agree with that personally I find this sport to be at best an American national sport that is seen as a "show" by other countries considering super bowl final each year.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We have many "national sports" on the ITNR list; personally I don't understand why cricket and rugby are listed, but others find them important. As stated at the top of this page, we have many events that only relate to a single country; if we prohibited events from being posted based on that, we would have very little to post. The NFL has also recently been playing at least one game a year at Wembley Stadium in London which draws a crowd and is also considering having a permanent team there. 331dot (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Lab-grown burger

 * The target article is a shambles, written mostly in disjoint sentences, with material duplicated in various places (e.g., the PETA prize). Where it's not hagiographic it's POV-laden and where it's not POV-laden it's pure speculation.  Might be easier to start over with a new article, but this "burger" is apparently unpalatable and the press event is a press event. μηδείς (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I assume this is the first time lab produced meat has been eaten. The blurb should make that clear. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The Dutch lab has been making announcements since 2009. I don't believe we have any independent sources.  I find it extremely hard to believe they will actually be risking a live first tasting Saturday. μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This has been widely reported in the news sources I frequent. That said, it is clearly a publicity stunt (they've tested and eaten a few less lavishly prepared pieces of "meat" already with fewer camera's pointing at them) so its debatable whether anything particularly significant actually occurred today. --LukeSurlt c 13:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "First" is always going to be a bit of a wooden lie with a story like this. If we were posting Elvis's first live performance in 36 years (or however long), we would be discounting him singing in the shower and the fact that he is likely to have rehearsed. As far as I can tell, this is the first time lab-grown meat has been eaten by non-scientists or in public and also the first time it has been prepared so that it tastes like a commercially viable product rather than a gimmick. Formerip (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Overall I am neutral on this item. --LukeSurlt c 15:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Leaning support. I acknowledge all of the concerns above, but the progress of in vitro meat is to food what putting a human on Mars is to space exploration. By no means the holy grail, but as big a leap as we have ever taken. Although I'm mindful of straying into an WP:OTHERSTUFF-style line of reasoning, it is fair to say that this is a bigger milestone for food than the launch of a random orbital spaceflight is for space exploration. —WFC— FL wishlist 15:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment It's also the most expensive burger ever made at £200,000. --Somchai Sun (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support if a good update occurs - the press is treating this as a historic first, so that should be good enough for us. "First" will almost always be debatable in the context of true innovation, as noted above, but that is insufficient reason to deny a story. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose this is a press conference by a private company not doing peer-reviewed work. Whether some of us find the concept morally praiseworthy doesn't affect the fact that this is a commercial stunt. μηδείς (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your point being? —WFC— FL wishlist 20:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My point is that I oppose this nomination as a press conference by a private company not doing peer-reviewed work. Whether some of us find the concept morally praiseworthy doesn't affect the fact that this is a commercial stunt. μηδείς (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Article is now updated (not by me, although I've given it a bit of a short back and sides).
 * The "commercial stunt" aspect of this is really what makes it historic, I think, not a limiter on its significance. If you think about it, the basic technology (cultivating animal tissue in vitro) has been around since the 1990s. The technological bridge between that and saying you've produced meat is really just a few seconds in the microwave and a nice Chianti. In vitro tissue was first eaten a decade ago - a tiny morsel of frog, although it apparently tasted nothing like frog. The step forward today is producing enough tissue with enough similarity to natural meat so that it can undertake (and pass) a taste-test. So it's a culinary/commercial milestone, rather than a strictly scientific one. But it's pretty massive as a proof-of-concept.
 * Incidentally, not that it's very important, this is a university project, rather than a corporate one. It doesn't even appear to have a corporate sponsor, which makes it less "corporate" than almost all science. Formerip (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So the fact that this is just a stunt is what makes it not just a stunt? I am glad you found the source on the artificial meat from the 90's.  I looked but couldn't.  The bottom line is we have people reproducing work from the 90's, but in the form of American fast food, given the $300,000 in grant money they got to do so. μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that Christopher Columbus was sponsored by the Crown of Castile does not change the fact that he increased European awareness of the New World. The fact that the space race primarily happened because of the intense political and ideological rivalry between East and West does not lessen the achievement of Yuri Gagarin going around in a large circle, or of Neil Armstrong's small step. And it's the same story here. The way of invalidating the supporting arguments here is surely to refute the culinary and/or scientific achievement, rather than to play up the fact that a sum of money equivalent to second or third prize in the lottery was involved. —WFC— FL wishlist 21:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose, basically a publicity stunt rather than a new scientific achievement. Nsk92 (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is a publicity stunt; the actual announcement that they had grown meat in the lab was quite some time ago. -- Plasma Twa  2  07:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose as a publicity stunt. As Plasma said, this "meat" had already been created.  Perhaps if this product is approved for commercial manufacture/consumption by a government, we could post that. 331dot (talk) 10:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Embassy Closings / Terror Threat

 * I think such a large-scale closing of embassies is notable, though like the nominator I'm not sure what article should be posted. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do we have an article on ostriches? We do have one on cheese eating surrender monkeys, quite ironically.  This should go up some how if we can get a target article. μηδείς (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps List of terrorist incidents, July–December 2013 could be used - I see no reason why a credible threat with large reaction can't be called an "incident". I'm not sure something like August 2013 terrorist threat would survive an AfD challenge :/. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Doctor Who

 * Oppose - Big entertainment news, but not big news news. I doubt that we would post the selection of a new James Bond actor either. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support (subject to update) Would appear to be in the news, judging by the 5 mins that ABC Breakfast has just given to this.  LGA <sub style="color:#8B0000;">talk <sup style="margin-left:-4ex"> edits   20:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Seriously? A casting decision for a television show? How is this a "significant development" in world events? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I actually think this is fine for ITN, but the precedent it would set, the pointy follow-up nominations etc is probably not worth it. Formerip (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I like it for its uniqueness... all entertainment news we ever post is awards, film festivals and more awards. You will not get a new doctor every year... and to comment on FormerIP's concern, being afraid of future moron's may not be the greatest reason to not post it -- Ashish-g55 21:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on that reasoning, we could post all sort of stupid news stories from all sorts of disciplines. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You must not really know what Doctor who is or the influence it can have over British audience to call this stupid. My point is we do not really ever post TV related news and this definitely has worldwide interest. Just because its a topic that we dont post regularly doesnt make it stupid -- Ashish-g55 21:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the show. It's long running, but just a television show. Who they cast for the part does not matter relative to ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said in the nomination, the only comparable character would be James Bond (which I would also support). Otherwise I can't see what this would open the floodgates to. --LukeSurlt c 21:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * DYK I won't oppose, since I would surely go to hell if I did. And I would love to see this on ITN personally.  But there is no way this meets ITN requirements, and it belongs on DYK under Twelfth Doctor anyway. μηδείς (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - there is no question this is big news to the public (i.e. our readers). There is absolutely nothing wrong with posting important entertainment news (NOT gossip - there is a difference) despite some people's extreme bias against it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opppose No, absolutely not. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * please read guidelines above and refrain from opposing/supporting without providing a reason for it. "absolutely not" is not a reason -- Ashish-g55 21:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - There is unusually broad interest in this item. The speculation about the new Doctor was mainstream news here in the U.S., and the level of editing activity on Peter Capaldi indicates that this news is something that many Wikipedia users are very interested in. --Orlady (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What that says is that our editors are 50% under 22 years of age and 87% male. μηδείς (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ding ding ding! This nomination is an example of systematic bias at work. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not those editors' fault that other socioeconomic groups aren't as numerous in editing the Capaldi article. Their views are not irrelevant. 331dot (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. I thought about this, and had the initial thought that it was a mere casting decision- but as the nom suggests, a very small handful of roles (such as James Bond) have heavy interest in them and are covered by mainstream media (not just entertainment news). I think this rises to that level Part of the role of ITN is to direct readers to stories "in the news" if they are sufficiently covered and of wide interest- and I think this qualifies.  It also doesn't hurt to have a variety of stories in ITN. As such, I support. I think any precedent here is limited; I think the number of similar roles can be counted on one hand, or close to it. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support The longest running sci-fi TV show of all time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So "long running TV show continues to run", then? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Twelfth Doctor is not a very good article yet. It may be better to link to Doctor (Doctor Who) instead (see alt blurb). --LukeSurlt c 21:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Doctor Who and James Bond are clearly exceptional casting news in terms of cultural impact. I cannot think of a third example of similar, for lack of a better term, "importance". As this prefix search seems to agree. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. I'm as much of a science fiction fan as anybody but this is way below our notability standards.  A permanent cancellation of the show would be notable.  This is fancruft, and is far less notable than many stories we do not post.  Also, I think some leeway would be given to above opposes who simply wrote 'absolutely not' or something similar.  This shouldn't require discussion.  I'd even be bold enough to nominate this as a SNOW close.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Fancruft" is a good term for this. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There are no grounds here whatsoever for a SNOW close; given the support it clearly has at least a chance of success. The suggestion is, frankly, outrageous. Your opposition boils down to I don't like it as what is notable is determined by consensus. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see "I don't like it", I see "why are we discussing this?" because it falls far short of the significance required for ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The supporters of this would seem to disagree. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not 'I don't like it'. I do like the subject material, even if I'm a trekkie.  The matter is this falls way short of our notability guidelines and I think that's plainly obvious.  If SNOW isn't teh appropriate policy (I don't see why not--there's a snowball's chance this can meet the notability guidelines), then perhaps IAR is the right policy.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are citing IAR then you need to establish how dismissing the views of those who support this and ignoring any potential consensus that this is notable is somehow beneficial to Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * IAR is Ignore all Rules. As i see it supporters are ignoring a few rules to try and get this story onto ITN in benefit of the encyclopedia. So how in the world is IAR going to be invoked to keep it out of ITN lol. what rule would we be ignoring... consensus? -- Ashish-g55 22:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Which rules are being ignored by supporters? 331dot (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Added comment--teh blurb is a classic example of systemic bias--the overwhelming majority of people in the world have no idea who the 12th doctor is. And I'd strongly contest teh notion that Dr Who is anywhere near James Bond on global notability.  If Dr Who get's a big blockbuster movie franchise, then I'd consider that thought.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to add on the "James Bond" thing, if Daniel Craig gets replaced and someone else is cast as Bond, I would oppose that nomination too. James Bond is far more culturally significant than Doctor Who, and still not ITN-worthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely right. I'm not going to be bold enough to close this via WP:SNOW but if a third or forth editor agrees I hope they do so.  This is really beyond ridiculous that this is getting this much discussion.  A little broader perspective is required here.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Some people would think a royal baby getting attention was also ridiculous... infact i think that was more ridiculous than this, however consensus was to post and hence it was posted. Suggesting SNOW close for something with heavy support is taking the discussion in a wrong direction. You should oppose if you feel so since thats what ITN/C is for, however this discussion right here about snow close is frankly the only ridiculous thing here -- Ashish-g55 22:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with a SNOW close (and really, the royal birth, as stupid as it was, did relate to the British monarchy, so it's a lot more relevant to "news" than this"), but with all of the opposition that has been raised, I'd be disappointed if an admin found anything other than "no consensus to post". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The update in Peter Capaldi is currently insufficient. --  tariq abjotu  22:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose like others has said this is a casting decision in a tv show. It can't possible be important enough for us to post. Like Johnsemlak said, little perspective here please. SeraV (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, a little perspective that this is no ordinary TV show. 331dot (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A sci-fi show, that, if I'm reading the page correctly, wasn't broadcast outside of the UK until 2005. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, my bad, has been broadcast out of the UK longer than that. But still this nomination is built on a UK-bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes well I disagree with you on that 331dot, and I even like doctor who quite much if you think that is relevant. SeraV (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. When this gets posted, we should deliberately not replace the photo of Robert Mugabe with one of Peter Capaldi, just to see how many confused people post at ERRORS. Formerip (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Just a niche interest, in no way significant enough as world news. <span style="font-family: Verdana, monospace;letter-spacing:1px;color:#ECCA61;padding-left:5px;">Beerest355 Talk 23:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose A new actor on a TV show is not worthy of being mentioned on ITN at all.-- Giants27 ( T  |  C )  01:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose We don't generally post pop culture stuff of this ilk. Major award winners, deaths of significant actors are probably fine.  But actors getting roles, even iconic ones, fall well below common standards here.  -- Jayron  32  02:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just how much money is involved in all of this? – H T  D  04:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Light-hearted Support. Dr Who is an icon and British institution, which marks this as an important appointment, more so than a number of appointments of prime ministers of island states. Arguably more important and impactful than the expected (re-)election of a tin-pot dictator. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 06:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Featured on BBC homepage, front pages of the Guardian, Telegraph, Times etc etc. It might be pop culture news, but it is exceptional pop culture news.  Plus, Capaldi's page here on Wikipedia got 431,325 visits yesterday - yes, nearly half a million -  so people want to know about him.  So why not put it in the news where they can find it easily? 86.133.51.86 (talk) 07:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted. Most everyone agrees that it is in the news, with the main opposition coming from the perspective that it is not a significant enough event. Even among the opposition I see mentions that this is an iconic role above and beyond the significance of a usual casting, and so after sitting here weighing it all I find that there is consensus enough to post. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 08:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You've gotta be kidding me (i.e. strong oppose). How did you think this was consensus enough to post?  Please remove.  Casting decisions do not even reflect actual time spent acting. Teply (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought there was consensus enough to post because there was (I gave a short explanation of my analysis in my posing comment). If consensus swings in the opposite direction rather rapidly I'll be more than happy to remove, but as it stands it stays. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 08:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I have undone the posting of this item, has no consensus so far. If there are other formalities to do in such an unposting, please let me know. No objection to this getting reposted if it actually does get consensus, but let's wait until then... Fram (talk) 08:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Consensus doesn't really exist at ITN for this sort of situation. The decisions are basically binary (post or don't post) with no latitude for compromise. We don't have the luxury of time for the "grind down opposition by attrition" form of "consensus" that exists elsewhere on the wiki. Controversial items have to be decided one way or another and those who object have to just have to deal with decisions not going their way from time to time. --LukeSurlt c 09:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the posting admin claimed consensus (which seems to be lacking though), and In the news/Administrator instructions starts with: "Make sure the item has consensus for posting at WP:ITN/C." (bolding in original). Determining consensus doesn't mean that the decision can't be binary, but it does mean that in more unclear situations ("no consensus" discussions like this one so far), one group will be unhappy. Anyway, the page I linked to above continues with " If the consensus is not entirely clear, consider letting the nomination run for more time, especially if the nomination is less than 24 hours old." I see no reason not to do just that in this case. Fram (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I nominated this for DYK, my suggestion is that we wait until Christmas, when he starts, to put this up. Mat  ty  .  007
 * I believe that, according to DYK rules, it's not eligible because the article has already been posted to ITN, even though only for half an hour. See 1(e) of the eligibility criteria. --  tariq abjotu  09:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that would fall under IAR. It's purely because it was posted at ITN with Twelfth Doctor bolded rather than Peter Capaldi that technically make it fall foul of the criteria; assuming the article meets all other DYK criteria I think the ~ 30 minute appearance is neither here nor there. Pedro : Chat  10:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, we shall see. But I have seen someone from DYK mention this precise point here when someone suggested a pulled article be nominated at DYK instead. --  tariq abjotu  10:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, if this doesn't get posted to ITN now, it's certainly not going to be posted at Christmas. --  tariq abjotu  09:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there's this DYK "rule" where the articles have to be "recent" at the time of posting. This article can't be possibly new by December. And unless it is posted again at ITN, this can no longer be posted at DYK, which screwed any chance of this article getting on the Main Page. – H T  D  10:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In the DYK queue you're allowed to delay the submission for a calendarically meaningful release. Beyond that, DYK has become rather absurdly bureaucratic over the last few years.  The intended purpose of DYK is to bring public attention to new articles, even if they're not quite polished.  You can probably bend a rule or two there if you're persuasive enough.  As much as I oppose this for ITN, I don't see any significant problems for DYK. Teply (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, there's some rule that disallows a potential blurb languishing at the queues for a long period of time. In any case, an argument is to post this at DYK now (or after it is approved). – H T  D  18:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe Matt was suggesting putting it on ITN, not DYK, at Christmas. --  tariq abjotu  10:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Noted. – H T  D  18:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Restore the posting. The admin's decision to post was sound; most (not all) of the opposes boil down to IDONTLIKEIT and even a lot of those concede this is a unique, iconic role/situation. It is being covered by mainstream news in several countries, it is clearly "in the news", whether we disagree with the merits of them doing so or not. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Twelfth Doctor has been improved and would probably be the better bold article now. --LukeSurlt c 10:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Google gives me 685 fresh news sources for "Capaldi". The comparable figure for "Mugabe" is 398 and "super rugby" is 351.  This is big news. Warden (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Come on guys, this is a british-american-centric matter. I mean Dr Who casting is definitly NOT of world interest. Had this been a series of any other country than the US or the UK every single one of you would have said Oppose.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The show is broadcast in more than fifty countries. Warden (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And this is after all the English Wikipedia. I'm personally opposed to this being posted, but being a "british-american-centric matter" is not a good reason why something should not be posted. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This show is not all that important in those 49 other countries, it is just another tv show. Fairly good one certainly. Who plays next doctor does not get that much interest outside UK. SeraV (talk) 11:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey at least the Glee dude who died stayed in the news for a week in my neck of the woods. This? Zip. – H T  D  18:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ABC Breakfast news had this second only to the election.  LGA <sub style="color:#8B0000;">talk <sup style="margin-left:-4ex"> edits   11:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) Not if the article on said hypothetical series established that it had been on (with one interruption) since 1961 and the role was as iconic as a James Bond. If you can find such a comparable role, I would be happy to support it. Objections about an item relating to a single country are not valid(see top of page). 331dot (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ireland, Australia, and India are hardly "british-american". 331dot (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * At 4.00 a.m. today Australian Broadcasting Corporation television had a live link to the the announcement in the UK. (No, I didn't get up to watch, but a couple of friends did.) Exclusively British-American? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How is this American? --  tariq abjotu  15:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, how is this American? The Deadly Assassin (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The phrase you are looking for is "exclusively angliloquent." μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Is that what you're going off of? An episode that took place in New York? Is this also French too because there was an episode in Paris? I don't watch this show and know very little about it, but if that's the closest connection to the U.S., that's really pushing it. Unless we're going with Sex and the City 2 being an Emirati film. --  tariq abjotu  17:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * One doesn't always know what one's looking for, by Jove. But if I find it, I'll certainly pass it on to "the management". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Ultimately, to claim this is some kind of jingoistic nomination is flawed. Doctor Who has been running for decades, it's popular in all corners of the globe.  I have no real interest in whether this is posted at ITN or not, but it's a good test of how defensive various nationalities become when it comes to something as straight-forward as this.  It's made massive news across the world (for whatever reason, you can consider it like the royal baby if you find it hard to envisage), and, after all, if it has consensus to post here, it should be posted, regardless of criteria etc (see Cory Monteith).  Oftentimes, Wikipedia is critiqued for not going with modern popular culture.  Perhaps this is an example of such.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to say, a lot of the opposes have had some strange notions. The show's been syndicated world-wide since the 70's and earlier, with lost episodes being retrieved from tapes sent overseas for viewing.  I started watching it in the US in 1978, not 2005.  That being said, this is a casting decision for a TV show.  Posting this would be like posting Tim Tebow being traded to the Cowboys. μηδείς (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sort of. The difference being Tebow won't be cast again and again, in different guises, over a 50-year period, and have a worldwide popularity.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Pull I can't believe this was posted with 50/50 support. Had my suggestion it is only fit for DYK been counted it would have been under %50.  Now it is not even eligible for DYK, brilliant!  We have a continuing serious problem with admin prerogative. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well at least we had some chance to comment on it, unlike Glee guy. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're still on that? --  tariq abjotu  17:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, check out precedent. You set it.  No going back now.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The "precedent" is a self-fulfilling prophecy you manufactured. No one is forcing you to bring it up in every nomination, especially ones beyond comparison. It has no relevance to this nomination whatsoever, but you choose to raise it here twice (once in response to, again, an irrelevant comment) to rile me and hopefully attract more of my critics to join you in your game. Pathetic. --  tariq abjotu  17:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The precedent is one you made of your own volition. Pathetic is correct.  A shame you didn't think about it before you set the precedent itself.  Now deal with the consequences.  Popular culture is now ready to go, with little discussion.  This is as notable, if not more so, than the death of a Glee actor. You know that.  I'm not here to attract any more of your critics, you're doing a marvellous job of that yourself.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * TRM, as you well know Wikipedia doesn't work based on a "precedence" system. First, mistakes can and do happen.  Second, consensus can change.  You repeatedly bringing up a posting you disagreed with in unrelated topics is very much not helpful. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Firstly, it clearly does work on precedents, if it didn't, it'd be unique. Secondly, are you suggesting Tariq's posting was a mistake?  Thirdly, there was no consensus (other than the rapid fanboy ex-criteria supports) for the Glee kid.  I'm afraid the stall has been set out that certain posting admins apply different criteria to those agreed at ITN.  Your tacit acceptance of such is very much not helpful.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am neither approving or disapproving of Tariq's posting - I am disapproving of your repeatedly bringing it up to make a point. Doing so serves only to turn ITN into a battleground.  The posting of an unexpected death of one person is not going to decide any other ITN nomination ever, especially not ones that aren't even RD noms.  Every situation is unique and even if they were not we are under absolutely no obligation to respect precedent.  This isn't a court of law. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Question' how did pulling (as in posting and removing) this make the encyclopedia any better? Pulling items should be done only if there was major consensus against posting... i see about 50/50. Im ok with waiting for consensus if its that unclear and then posting but really pulling just makes ITN and wikipedia in general look bad. A normal person viewing the main page doesnt know what goes on in background... -- Ashish-g55 17:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ..., thank goodness. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't have been posted in the first place. Pulling is the only option when a bad posting is made. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In your opinion. There's no doubt it's world news.  There's no doubt it's popular news.  But no, it's a "bad posting".  Well done!  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * By your logic, half of the shit on TMZ.com deserves to be posted on ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Muboshgu for confirmation that you cannot participate civilly or articulately in this debate. Noted for future reference.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're the one who has sunk to personal attacks. I'm dealing with content. And calling TMZ "shit" is neither uncivil nor inaccurate. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - It would be an encyclopedic embarrassment to post about a new actor in a television show, especially given the number of much worthier national and international topics that never make ITN. If this project truly is an encyclopedia, then the proper criteria to judge whether something should be included ITN isn't merely the popularity of the topic in Western media. Even the discovery of a new ant species is more noteworthy on an encyclopedia. And I'm sorry to be "that guy", but if something this trivial to most of the world is posted when topics like the resumption of peace talks between Israel and Palestine, the US Voting Rights Act being struck down, or the dismissal of the Tuvalu Prime Minister are ignored, we might as well be honest with readers about Wikipedia's content priorities and redirect the Main Page to WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree some people seem to think that we must get as many page views as possible by posting these popular culture pieces, like some sort of common tabloid paper. Frankly I find it annoying. SeraV (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment There is probably an ITN eventually on Doctor Who, but that it likely when the BBC offically say they've concluded the complete series (ignoring side media), and thus hallmarking the end of the longest-run scripted shows on television anywhere. But that's not this point. I would be quick not to have ITN dismiss anything pop culture (we run sports stories all the time, and that's pop culture too), but we have to be more selective about it. --M ASEM  (t) 18:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the final end of the entire Dr Who series is notable for mention at ITN absolutely. But a cast change even if it is Dr Who himself is at best "national news of national interest".--BabbaQ (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of not having this particular item to be posted and I agree it should have been pulled, though I will point out that the show has a wide international audience and not really restricted to a national story as claimed. --M ASEM (t) 21:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been 24 hours, every timezone has had a chance to chip-in here. Let's make a decision and then move on --LukeSurlt c 21:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * From what I can see no majority wants an inclusion of this at ITN so I say a decision has already been made.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A decision about a casting change in a TV show for ITN? Give me a break. Nsk92 (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted After much consideration, I believe that there is consensus for this to be posted. Unlike several people above stated, consensus is based on policy based, or in this case, reasonable arguments which many of the support commentators had. CONSENSUS IS NOT A VOTE COUNT Many of the oppose votes read like WP:IDONTLIKEIT simply because is a television show and not a bus accident or a election. There is a few comments above that this might lead to a slippery slope which I took into consideration, however Masem is correct that we shouldn't dismiss anything related to pop culture. Note I never seen a Doctor Who episode in my life, and wouldn't care less about the show. I recommend any concerns about the posting to be mentioned in the ITN talk page and not here. Thanks Secret account 00:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "I recommend any concerns about the posting to be mentioned in the ITN talk page and not here." So the correct place to discuss whether a candidate should go on ITN is not the ITN candidates page? That's... very interesting. - BanyanTree 00:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant on how we treat future candidates related to pop culture that isn't an obvious pass (death of iconic celebrity) or fail (celebrity X married to celebrity Y), such as this case. The discussion started getting off-topic, and soon afterwards out of hand, and that should be discussed on the talk page, not here. Secret account 00:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, Secret, consensus is not based the number of !votes, but as summarized on WP:CLOSE, Consensus can be most easily defined as agreement. There is no such agreement here to post this article; in fact, disagreement has escalated since it was originally pulled, and the discussion continues. Furthermore, your statement that "we shouldn't dismiss anything related to pop culture" is just as susceptible to a WP:ILIKEIT response as contrary views are suspectible to a WP:IDONTLIKEIT response; neither citation makes any sense, however, given that unlike most of Wikipedia, the ITN nomination process is almost entirely subjective because such little objective criteria exists to guide editors in it. And certainly, none of the criteria that do exist state that "we must accept pop culture topics" and dismiss all arguments to the contrary; that is simply you imposing your own view on this conversation and taking consensus into your own hands. I ask that you reconsider your decision to post this article in light of the fact that no consensus exists to post it; if you refuse, then I ask another admin to do so. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Once the "Opppose No, absolutely not" votes with no reasoning, as well as the "unencyclopedic" arguments about an article in this encyclopedia are weeded out, there is indeed consensus, as Secret said. 331dot (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And once the "Support just because it's covered a lot in the media" arguments are weeded it, there is a consensus in the other direction. That's not the point. Neither argument is against the ITN criteria or Wikipedia policy, and therefore an admin should not discard either argument when determining whether consensus exists among editors. When both arguments are properly considered, it is clear that no consensus to post exists. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is "in the news"; what is actually "in the news" is relevant, and no one can deny that this event was. This page specifically states that simple "oppose" or "support" votes without any reasoning are discouraged and should not carry as much weight. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose/pull. As a fan of the show who checked on the news first thing this morning, this is far outside the boundaries of what has historically been considered ITN-worthy. Wikipedia has around for two of the previous "regenerations" and, IIRC, there was never even a serious suggestion it was worth a post. I've certainly not seen why this regeneration is more notable than the other two. - BanyanTree 00:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Something not happening in the past is not a reason to keep it from happening now. Consensus can change. 331dot (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose this is pop culture stuff, and the show is well-known and newsworthy only in few countries around the world.--Nero the second (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no prohibition on "pop culture stuff" on ITN, (and it was covered by mainstream news, not just pop culture sections) and an event relating to one or a few countries is not an argument against an event(see top of this page). It's also broadcast in many more than "a few" countries. 331dot (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I make no comment on any of the three admin actions so far, and have no problem in principle with a bit of pop culture on the Main Page. But my jaw drops when I see some of the ITN nominations this has been taken more seriously than. —WFC— FL wishlist 00:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. We need to think about precisely what, precisely, is the relevance of this posting. Essentially, it reports a plot development within the Doctor Who Universe; it's akin to posting in 1980, as a major news story, "Darth Vader is revealed to be Luke Skywalker's father in the latest Star Wars film". So what's the relevance of this posting outside of the Doctor Who franchise? What's the relevance for parties outside of the niche? Even postings on teams which have won sports tournaments or actors who have won awards have some widespread interest, because they've reached a significant achievement. Even if regular people don't read about the achievement when it is a news item, they might encounter it in a record book. But why would anybody who doesn't watch Doctor Who care about who plays the Doctor?theBOBbobato (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Pull I have been watching Doctor Who since 1978, I have a hand knit Tom Baker scarf for fuck sake. This being posted against majority opposition is a shameful farce.  Why we even go through this when admins will just do what they want is beyond me.  Please notify me if there's an ANI over this.  I'll contribute a comment there too, even if it won't matter. μηδείς (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The opposition largely consists of "I don't like it", not logical arguments. 331dot (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose/Pull mostly thanks to Prototime's comment. Come on, really? 75.73.114.111 (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you feel that there are not enough subjects relating to certain countries or socioeconomic groups, then I suggest you nominate some for posting. That's not a reason to prevent this one. 331dot (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I enjoy Doctor Who, but to call this "news" is astounding. How will this affect the world? Or anyone? I don't like it? No, I'm thinking critically. I don't see why this was posted when consensus is clearly against. If an admin disagrees with the opinion, fine, but don't go posting it because you don't believe the arguments to be logical. <span style="font-family: Verdana, monospace;letter-spacing:1px;color:#ECCA61;padding-left:5px;">Beerest355 Talk 01:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you don't feel this is news, then speak to the numerous media outlets around the world who ran this story(and not just entertainment news outlets). If we're not going to base what goes on here on logical arguments, then we should just take straight votes on everything. 331dot (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We may as well embed Google News as ITN, then, if we're going to treat newsworthiness as the only relevant issue.theBOBbobato (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry 331dot, but you have not convinced me to change my mind. I don't think you understood the point75.73.114.111 (talk) 01:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So 331dot, "being covered by a lot of Western media" is a more logical argument than "it is not an encyclopedic topic"? Last I checked, this is an encyclopedia, not a news outlet. If we're going to let articles come in based solely on the fact that they receive a lot of media coverage irrespective of their encyclopedic value, then we might as well replace the "In The News" section with a Google News feed. And you can batter people's arguments with WP:IDONTLIKEIT all you want, and they can just as easily cite back to you WP:ILIKEIT, but both arguments would be irrelevant in this context. The entire ITN nomination process is subjective; there are hardly any objective criteria that guide the process, making that essay's relevance to this conversation negligible. Judging a topic to not be sufficiently encyclopedic in nature to be on the main page because it is pop culture topic of limited interest to most in the world is at least as logical as the blanket argument that that something should come in on the main page simply because "a lot of media covers it!" –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is "in the news"; what the media covers is certainly relevant. I'm confused as to what "encyclopedic topic" means; does that mean ITN can only contain stories about new species, governments, and politicians? If Doctor Who is not encyclopedic then I suggest you propose its deletion from this encyclopedia. Saying "it's not important enough" is not an argument against an event without something to back it up- "it's a TV show" doesn't count. Statistics or information does. Some tried to say it's "british-american centric" which aside from being specifically listed as an argument to avoid on this very page, isn't true as this show is seen in dozens of countries by millions and has since the early 1960s. How many programs can you say that about? This page is also concerned with what readers might be looking for, and whether any of us like it or not that includes this event. 331dot (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * India Today might be disappointed in being lumped into "Western media" by you. If you think there are too many "Western media" stories, then nominate some Eastern media stories. 331dot (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Statistics and information are important, yes, but ultimately we are the ones who decide which statistics and information to give value to. You clearly only give value to information relating to the amount of media coverage a topic has. I and others place more value on consistency and fairness in the ITN process, and here, that value is being discarded. The information I base my argument on is the number of encyclopedic topics that are nominated and never make it to ITN despite being of greater relevance to more people in the world than an actor change in a television show, and also on the traditional purposes of a general encyclopedia, which has never been to specially highlight popular culture topics of interest only to their particular fans. –Prototime (talk contribs) 02:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, if this subject is "unencyclopedic", then propose its removal from this encyclopedia. Something in this encyclopedia cannot be unencyclopedic. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

....which is two people, not most of the oppose votes. 331dot (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * pull. I think there's a consensus that this doesn't belong on the main page. The rationale for going against WP:consensus was that the opposes were IDONTLIKEIT votes.  Prototime and Bob bobato's rationales are hardly IDONTLIKEIT.  --24.90.93.88 (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * More editors than just Bob bobato and myself, such as 24.90.93.88 in this very part of the conversation, support the rationales we have been giving, or have made other legitimate points. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support retention: when I saw it, I initially thought it not newsworthy enough, but after thinking it through I've come around. Certainly, this is more newsworthy than Cory Monteith dying. The casting of a new lead actor for Doctor Who is typically very big news, particularly in Britain; in 2008, in 2009 when Smith got cast, and this week, there has been a lot of coverage. That the casting show was simulcast in at least four countries (UK, US, Australia, Canada) also lends credence to it not being just a provincial thing (although being provincial is not a disqualifier for American stories). Sceptre (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Pull. And people complain about US-bias:one of the reasons for posting was, "it's a British institution." 75.156.68.21 (talk) 04:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * pull Consenses has clearly been against posting this. Being provincial is disqualifier for pop culture things from any other place on the world but UK US apparently, with lack of support. Most likely same people who are supporting this arguing agaist them even. I feel it seems pointless to even discuss things here when administrators can post these things with completely backward reasoning (most of the supports are basically ILIKEIT after all) even against consensus. Usually when it comes to stories from UK/US only I might add. SeraV (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * While I assume good faith, I agree with you that in this instance the posting administrator discarded opposing views simply because he or she disagreed with those views and not because they were invalid arguments that disregarded Wikipedia policy or the ITN criteria. Once all views are properly considered, it is clear that no consensus exists to post this. The article should be immediately pulled. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Look at the serious and quite substantial opposition to this blurb, both before and after posting. Supporters of this one are just bending Wikipedia terms and guidelines to get what they want. Consensus is now clearly in favor of an immediate pull. If that doesn't happen pretty quick I'd actually be in favor of going to a noticeboard, and that is something I very rarely advocate. Jus  da  fax   05:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Pull I usually try to stay out of these arguments but this stands out, in my view, as deeply unencyclopedic and an embarrassment to the encyclopedia. Is ITN now to become become a popular culture fan site? We can't post the nomination of a new CIA Director but we can go with this blatant fancruft? I question the taste and good sense of everyone involved in supporting this nonsense, especially the posting admin. Shame on you, sir! There is now more opposition than support by far, and I strongly suggest that an admin pull this at once. Jus  da  fax   04:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment First off the disclaimer : I supported the inclusion within 10 mins of the nomination. Now for the observation, let us not loose sight of what ITN is for, it (in my view) is a set of links to articles that have recently been updated in response to some developing news story, that assist visitors who may be looking for information on a topic (you can reed the official version here), this is a fine balancing act because as everyone knows Wikipedia is not an online newspaper and we cater for a global English speaking world. Now lets look at was this story in the news, well yes it was, there are numerous links above to major news outlets covering this; I happened to be reading the nomination with the main breakfast news on in the background covering it live from the UK, it was second only to the election; as Colonel Warden pointed out "Google gives me 685 fresh news sources for "Capaldi". The comparable figure for "Mugabe" is 398 and "super rugby" is 351. This is big news". So what item did it displace ? well that was a seven day old link to the Cambodian general election, 2013 so to all those that are asking to pull this because its fancruft or that there is no consensus; why is it more important to have that link on the main than the Dr Who one and how does that serve the encyclopaedia ?  LGA <sub style="color:#8B0000;">talk <sup style="margin-left:-4ex"> edits   05:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If the argument "it's already there, so let's keep it even though there's no consensus" were the rule, then Wikipedia's fundamental policy of consensus would be meaningless, and we might as well grant people the right to post whatever they feel like on ITN irrespective of the community's views. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, the default in absence of (new) consensus is always the status quo on Wikipedia. The posting admin (Secret) assessed that there was consensus to post at that time.  You are welcome to disagree, but as an interested party you aren't really qualified to judge consensus (neither am I).  Assuming good faith, Secret's comment that he had no opinion of his own is true.  If a decision is not out of process (and there is no evidence this one was), it remains intact until a new consensus forms.  Consensus can change, but keep in mind any late comments will always be biased against posting since people are substantially less likely to come here to say something after seeing the post if they are fine with it than if they are not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Although unrelated to my point, I agree that both of us are interested parties and it would be inappropriate for either of us to be in a position to post, pull, or close the discussion, but we are not inhibited from highlighting the flaws in how someone else determined whether consensus existed. Here, Secret justifies the determination of consensus by stating that the views of opposing editors should be ignored because "we shouldn't dismiss anything related to pop culture". However, that pronouncement exists nowhere in Wikipedia policy or the ITN criteria, nor is there any contention that the opposing views in this discussion violate Wikipedia policy or the ITN criteria. An administrator should not dismiss legitimate views when determining consensus even if he or she disagrees with them (per WP:CONSENSUS, not my biased opinion). And when the opposing views in this discussion aren't dismissed, it becomes clear that agreement to post does not exist now nor did it exist at the time of posting. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This was pulled once already by Fram, who assessed that there was no consensus. Then this was posted again after this got 1 more support vote and 3 more oppose votes. How are you saying that those 4 votes somehow build a new consensus to post? Or are you saying that Fram somehow make a mistake in his own assesment? SeraV (talk) 06:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you read why people are against posting this, some including me are against this because this is such a great example of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. If we start to put pop culture pieces in the news section only ones there will be from UK/US. I personally don't find it very endearing. Yes there are sports but they are generally INT/R which makes them much more fair because people can't oppose or support them based on their geographical location. Basically this nomination makes a very very poor precedence. SeraV (talk) 05:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be blunt but not to post this because of any perceived WP:SYSTEMICBIAS is just another way of saying it only applies to one or two countries (please see big blue box at the top of page as to why we don't do that). I also don't think that it is an example of that, look at Doctor_Who to see where this show gets shown. (for the record I am not a fan, have probably only watched a handful of episodes and none since the revival).  LGA <sub style="color:#8B0000;">talk <sup style="margin-left:-4ex"> edits   06:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The systemic bias point isn't merely that Doctor Who is relevant only to a few countries; it's that similar pop culture material of relevance to other countries is not included ITN. This disparate treatment of subjects is a clear manifestation of systemic bias and the blue box at the top of the page does not address this issue at all. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to see pop culture events from other countries, then nominate them. I don't think there are as many that rise to an equivalent level as this one, though(a show on for roughly fifty years, seen in 50 countries and with millions of viewers) 331dot (talk) 09:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not the fault of WP that this received the level of coverage it did (again I should point the stats posted by User:Colonel Warden above) if there was a similar level of reporting for a TV show from a non-english speaking country and we did not post that, then that could well be WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, but to use any perceived WP:SYSTEMICBIAS as a reason to pull this is wrong. It also should be noted that this is the English language version of WP and our readership by its nature is drawn from the English speaking countries so the content of ITN will reflect what the English language news sources are reporting our job here (I am not talking about in articles) is not to try and correct any imbalance or bias.  LGA  <sub style="color:#8B0000;">talk <sup style="margin-left:-4ex"> edits   06:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the systemic bias isn't a good reason for it to be pulled, but I still think it ought to be pulled. The systemic bias is more from an insufficient number of non-English articles getting nominated.  I have no personal objection to occasional pop culture passing ITN.  If you'd like to see more non-English pop culture also passing ITN, then you should help edit the relevant articles and nominate them.  The reason I do not support this on ITN is as I stated before, that it's a mere casting decision, which does not reflect any actual achievement.  These are prone to change for a variety of reasons such as contract disputes and are therefore of low lasting encyclopedic value.  I'm no big fan of the show, but I could easily imagine some more ITN-worthy details that would make me think "gee whiz" if I saw them on the main page: the airing of the 1000th episode, the 50th anniversary, heck, even a blurb about Capaldi's first appearance in the season premiere when that happens would have more value than a casting decision. Teply (talk) 07:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes it is just a casting; but we as WP don't get to decided on the value of that; our job is to look at what others are saying, and in this case for better or worse it got a significant news coverage, at the risk of repeating myself ABC News Breakfast (notice not US or UK) ran it as their second story Monday morning (due to the time zones about 3-4 hrs after the announcement) devoting more screen time to it than the first item which was the calling of the election. It was written about and covered in main stream news reports in numerous countries. Are there more ITN-worthy stories out there that wont get the level of coverage and wont get posted - Yes; but that is not WP's fault and it moist defiantly not the fault of ITN.  LGA <sub style="color:#8B0000;">talk <sup style="margin-left:-4ex"> edits   07:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is the fault of WP. It's the Wikipedians' job to be "above" the mainstream media and winnow out what really is of encyclopedic importance.  Then again, maybe that's just my idealism showing.Teply (talk) 07:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * English wikipedia is far more international than any other language wiki, that's why we should strive to be as balanced and neutral as possible. I agree that some bias here is a necessary evil. But we should still try to be something else than merely a soundhorn for british and american niche interest. SeraV (talk) 07:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In your view it is a niche interest; you may be right but the issue as far as I see it is news editors did not think so.  LGA <sub style="color:#8B0000;">talk <sup style="margin-left:-4ex"> edits   07:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Media coverage is not some sort of gospel that we should blindly follow here, we make our own decisions. At least we should. Newspapers do write stories about things that are important to their own citizens, but those aren't necessarily (and often aren't) important enough for us to put in the news here. This is niche in a way that it only is mostly important to british and then only a certain group of british, those who are fans of the show. This has no international importance whatsoever, sure it has been coveraged in other countries, but then most stories are. SeraV (talk) 08:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * For almost everywhere else on WP you are 110% right, but here in "In the news" we do have to look at what the media (across multiple countries) is covering and give the amount of coverage full weight.  LGA <sub style="color:#8B0000;">talk <sup style="margin-left:-4ex"> edits   09:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Pull This isn't major news. We have an very high bar for other things (national elections, almost never regional ones; accidents only if there's a high death toll or some other significance; etc.). Doctor Who is culturally significant, but unless it's cancelled or something similarly momentous happens, I don't think it should be on ITN. wctaiwan (talk) 05:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral I'm not sure here if it's "major news" or not. I don't pay attention to this kind of stuff. YE Pacific  Hurricane 05:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Pull The clear consensus (definition: majority of opinion) in this discussion is for this to be removed from ITN. I don't know if I have ever seen so many pull votes for an item as this one has. -- Plasma Twa  2  07:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It would appear to me that the consensus has been established for this item to be pulled. --Tone 09:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * On what grounds does it need to be pulled ? - is there a error ? is it not in the news ? is there a WP:BLP problem ? You should reverse that and discuss it here and not take a unilateral unannounced action.  LGA <sub style="color:#8B0000;">talk <sup style="margin-left:-4ex"> edits   09:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I also call for the pull to be reversed; the opposes are mostly "WP:IDONTLIKEIT and have no logical reason for their opposition; "It isn't major news", the news would disagree; "it's not important", in your opinion"; "it's unencyclopedic", something in this encyclopedia cannot be unencyclopedic. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This is insane - as an observer and reader, can I just say how insanely unprofessional this makes WP look. I don't have strong opinions over whether it should be posted or pulled or whatever, but at this point I'd strongly oppose posting it again purely on the basis that constantly deleting and re-adding something to the main page makes us look crazy. Organics LRO 09:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What makes us look particularly crazy is the high number of Opposes that are just factually wrong. These especially include the claims of it only being a US-British thing. That's clearly wrong, but none of the several people pushing that line have yet apologised, nor changed their vote to Support. If the Oppose school cannot get facts right, nor apologise, nor recant, THAT'S a very bad look for Wikipedia. (Oh, and I neither support nor oppose this. I just HATE poor argument!) HiLo48 (talk) 10:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous wheel warring This does make a mockery of the whole page, has "In the news" finally outlived usefulness.  LGA <sub style="color:#8B0000;">talk <sup style="margin-left:-4ex"> edits   09:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Ladies and gentlemen, per WP:WHEEL we can bring, at the very least, Tone, to Arbcom for a desysoping for wheel warring. Tone, could you please give reasoning more than just "consensus has been established" to foreclude that? There needs to be discussion here, people, especially from those who are playing keep-away with WHEEL. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * According to rules at WP:Wheel Tone wouldn't be the only admin to be taken to Arbcom. I think it's rather rude to start calling for an admin to be punished because they made a decision you do not disagree with. Why not try changing the minds of the thirteen people who called for the item to be pulled after it was reposted instead of immediately going after the admin? -- Plasma Twa  2  10:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced any admin here needs to be punished, but the thirteen people need to have a better reason than IDONTLIKEIT. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think IDONTLIKEIT is applicable to every oppose given, just the same as how not every support is a logical, well thought-out piece of critical analysis (WP:LWTOPCA?). Many of the pulls have given legitimate and logical concerns based upon the conventions ITN has ran upon for years and others question the true significance of the item, which I think is a legitimate argument to be had. --10:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * By my reading, the only one who has not tried to make his or her point absolutely clear (i.e. initiated or offered discussion regarding post/unpost, rather than just "it's done") is Tone. I couldn't give a rats what happens to this nomination, but the admins here need to stop the wheel warring. If all of them come up in front of Arbcom, so be it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but I don't think there was any malicious intent here by any admin(even the ones who improperly pulled this) so I think a desysopping is not appropriate. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping such an act will not be needed either. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Consensus was, in my opinion, not totally clear when this was posted by User:Secret; however it's certainly not clear that there was no consensus either. I don't think Secret was wrong to post it. Given the blunt number of pull comments (and we can have a seperate debate about wether the arguments to pull were good, bad or indifferent) since the seond posting, I think Tone was quite right to pull this as well - in fact I was considering doing so myself (FWIW). Those calling for desysopping per WP:WHEEL need to get a sense of perspective over what we're discussing. This isn't some punitive block or deletion. It's two lines on ITN - and the presence or absence of this bit of news there does nothing particularly to either promote or damage the encyclopedia. Pedro : Chat  10:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep it pulled I would had strongly opposed it had I not being too busy with other things and since this came on in ITN earlier today, I think Wikipedia have brought themselves to a new low. I mean there have been so many blurbs that deserved better than this, talking about significance compared to other sci-fi shows, have this won any serious awards that is non-British (Golden Globes and Emmy). Donnie Park (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I completely support Tone's action, obviously, and have already given my reasoning why I felt the tv show actor blurb should be pulled. It was posted, then pulled and unlike Pedro, above, in my view this never should have been re-posted by Secret, with what I'd call highly dubious reasoning - and if need be I will go to any civil lengths needed to defend Tone's appropriate corrective action for listening to a clear consensus. Calls for sanctions are way out of line, as Pedro notes. I am hoping cooler heads will now prevail: editors on both sides really need to drop the stick and walk away. Jus  da  fax   10:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is very little opposition that isn't IDONTLIKEIT, and a lot of that has been refuted. If we're going to include those kinds of opposes, then we should just hold actual binding votes on this page and forget about reasoning and logical arguments. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep pulled. Nowhere near any of the other current events in actual importance, and of very narrow regional interest only. And the show of consensus against this item on this page is overwhelming. Trying to dismiss these oppose votes as mere "don'tlikeit" opinions is misguided, because ITN selection is, by its very nature, largely and unavoidably a matter of subjective judgment of importance, so subjective opinions about what we as editors find important, and, even more crucially, what image of Wikipedia's editorial priorities and principles we want to see projected on the main page, do have a legitimate place in this discussion. As such, the oppose votes are legitimate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So we should just hold binding votes then, if arguments don't matter or this is about "subjective judgement". 331dot (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is sad. We have abandoned aiming for quality discussion, and are just counting votes. Depressing. HiLo48 (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, clearly this is helping. -- Plasma Twa  2  11:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't re-post I didn't give a very good explanation as to why I opposed above...simply put, this should of never of been nominated. This is simply not front-page news to begin with, and re-posting a story that is now stale...plus the fact there isn't enough support...? No no, put this to bed. And I was waiting on tenterhooks for the announcement on Sunday, so stick that up your bias pipe and smoke it! Hehe. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement that something be on the front page in large print(I did see this on a few front pages, if not near the top). 331dot (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Ad that's where the facts get in the way of the Oppose and WP:IDONTLIKEIT VOTES. Read the thread properly. It was major new all around the world. This discussion is appalling. I didn't think we had so many incompetent editors here. HiLo48 (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Get a grip and stop attacking people based on the fact you don't like their reasons for opposing. "It was major new all around the world." No, it wasn't - an outright, distorted half-truth and you know it. You are confusing major hype of non-importance with real news. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * if we are making the benchmark "front-page news" (or for sports - back page) then we need to start to scrap a lot of things from ITN/R and lets start by pulling Lavasoa dwarf lemur off now.  LGA <sub style="color:#8B0000;">talk <sup style="margin-left:-4ex"> edits   11:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support This 'casting decision' was worldwide news, precisely because it affects the future direction of TV show that has major cultural significance to millions of people spread across several countries around the world. Anyone who claims otherwise is either being deliberately obtuse, or is just too incompetent to be even commenting here. Alongside the factual programme Top Gear, it's basically one of the two crown jewels of the BBC, a worldwide broadcaster, which is why both shows make them millions through BBC Worldwide. If you don't like Wikipedia posting stuff like this that is so clearly "In the News", why not change the title to something more appropriate, like stuff that I like and you might too?. The title "In the News" is clearly wrong when things like a new bat species, a new leader of a tiny island, or a new ISS rotation, are posted, despite the media not giving a tiny rat's ass about any of those 'events of global significance', certainly not when compared to the coverage announcements like ths get. As for the people claiming Doctor Who is not 'encyclopedic', what are you smoking? If that was really true, then why the hell does Wikipedia, the "online encyclopedia", have 1947 articles on it? It's stupidity like this that takes a lot of the gloss off of Wikipedia as an otherwise fine project. DW meter (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose: it's ridiculous to post on ITN a casting decision of a show that's mainly popular in the UK. There's got to be hundreds of popular TV dramas in India, China, Brazil, Mexico, Egypt, etc. that get higher viewership than Doctor Who (and many of them are popular in multiple countries). Are we ready to post casting calls of all those shows as well? -Zanhe (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New species of cavefish

 * Unfortunately cavefish redirects to Amblyopsidae, an unrelated family of cave-dwelling fish from the United States. There is no article on cave fish! So to be posted an article on Typhleotris mararybe would have to be created expanded (and perhaps one on fish who live in caves). As for ITN-worthiness, there are 150-170 known species of cave-dwelling fish in the world, a nice low number and roughly the same as the number of described lemur species, so finding one more is rather significant. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Cavefish should probably be turned into a dab page. Any idea what other taxon(s) are commonly referred to as "cave fish" besides Amblyopsidae? Obviously there is at least one, but it is not immediately apparent to me what level of classification Typhleotris mararybe and related cave fish share in common. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I decided to make cave fish as dab page and leave cavefish as a redirect. Still looking for an answer to my question above if anyone has any insight. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Cave fish evolve from whatever surface species there happen to be in the area, so there is no connection (other than they are all freshwater, as far as I know). I have other stuff to do irl but I'm thinking about this situation. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yah, I should have been more clear... The linked article implies there is some relationship between this fish and the otehr cave fish mentioned (which is not all by any means). The question is not what all cave-dwelling fish have in common but what taxons are commonly called "cavefish".  Please review/expand/fix the cave fish dab page if you get a chance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, unfortunately, as I have begun the article it seems the fish was described in 2012, meaning this nom is stale. No idea why it is hitting the lay press now. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Stale per Abductive. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

West Germany systematic doping

 * Wait - right now this is unsubstantiated allegations by a newspaper about an unpublished government report. If the story proves to be accepted as plausible when the report is published then of course this is huge news.  However, it is probably too soon for ITN given the extraordinary nature of the claims (no athlete or official has ever come forward with such allegation before as far as I know; keeping such a large scale conspiracy quite for 40 years is improbable to say the least).  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and we aren't there yet. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Huffington post article

John Palmer

 * Oppose Nothing personal, but this guy was on the C-end of the B-list, and he was on air during the time I actually watched broadcast news. There won't be a single iconic clip or accomplishment on youtube or elsewhere to demonstrate his influence, notability, or markworthiness. μηδείς (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How many "B-list" people have won two emmys? 331dot (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Plenty of people in all fields win awards and then fade out of focus. So with regret, it's a no. doktorb wordsdeeds 14:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement that someone be recently notable in their field. I also would disagree with that contention, given the many comments from current journalists that have been mentioned in the media. 331dot (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Super Rugby

 * This still on ITNR? I've seen page views way better than this one, even on countries where whites are not a majority... – H T  D  03:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Since we don't really care about page views here, this is hardly relevant. SeraV (talk) 08:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Needs more of an update on the final before it can be considered.  LGA <sub style="color:#8B0000;">talk <sup style="margin-left:-4ex"> edits   04:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Please drop the silly nicknames from the blurb and tell us where these teams are really from. HiLo48 (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Those are their names. We can't decide to call them something else. We could say Hamilton-based Chiefs (rugby union), and Canberra-based Brumbies, but I think it's pointless. - Shudde  talk 07:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is it pointless? Are you saying that these teams don't really represent anybody or anywhere? Are they just the playthings of some rich bastards who just buy the best players? (Like Manchester United?) If they don't represent anywhere, what does this even prove? And why should we post it? HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The Chiefs represent Bay of Plenty, Counties Manukau, King Country, Thames Valley and Waikato – that might be a little verbose for ITN. Why don't you click the Chiefs article rather than just asking questions? This information is in there. They are based in Hamilton, but do play outside of the city sometimes. So Hamilton-based is accurate, but it paints an incomplete picture. I'm happy leaving the blurb as is. You offered no suggestions, just a complaint (that you didn't like the names). -- Shudde  talk 07:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Strewth, these teams are from different countries! Surely that's worth a mention? Or is this a refreshing acknowledgement that many modern sports teams are just collections of players bought by a wealthy person or consortium to play together to satisfy a TV audience, and don't represent anything at all? Should we follow that lead for all professional sports? Leave out the localities? HiLo48 (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support -- Has been updated. On ITNR. - Shudde  talk 07:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted I omitted the city names because they're not part of the team names and I don't feel they add much to the blurb. It's also unlikely people will know where "Hamilton" is without having to click on the link to the city name. --  tariq abjotu  08:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

[Updated] Fonterra recall

 * A dollar/Euro value figure would be more convincing than the national origin. The NYT doesn't mention one. μηδείς (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1,000 tons of product - not sure what that equates to in money, but it is obviously a lot. Nomination is based primarily on it affecting 7 countries. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd have thought that we would care more about the babies than the dollars. HiLo48 (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you know me, always trying to kill the babies to earn the shekels. Don't be silly, HiLo, some sort of objective measure is helpful, and 1,000 tons is really not that much in the scope of things. μηδείς (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. SeraV (talk) 08:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support; event affecting many countries. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for the reasons above doktorb wordsdeeds 14:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose If we assume the wholesale value of this product is $1/kg we are looking at a total market value of $1 million, which as far as recalls go is nothing. μηδείς (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Our food-recall category seems a bit scattershot, but the Peanut Corporation of America recall accompanied 9 deaths, almost 1,000 salmonella cases, and did an estimated US $1,000,000,000.00 in damage. The 2008 Irish pork crisis did an estimated Euro 100,000,000.00 in damages and may have shortened the lifespan of the average Irishman by a year (i.e., 20% of the population by five years). μηδείς (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: A stand-alone article now exists, and work is currently underway --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The article itself is not objectionable, but almost every other sentence needs some sort of attention. μηδείς (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Medeis. At the moment there appears to be no effects of the contamination besides the recall, fortunately. Hot Stop talk-contribs 19:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So you think this is not news if no-one has got sick or died? I can similarly argue that if we post this it might stop some people from buying or using affected products. SeraV (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Which is an entirely invalid reason to post (or will we start posting Tornado warnings and nutrtional adviceto save lives?) and as worded "so you think" amounts to a personal attack. Try assuming good faith and focussing on the topic--not motives and editors. μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not very good reason either to oppose just because there are no victims in cases like this. And well if hot stop took that as a personal attack he can tell me and I apologise. It certainly wasn't meant as one, and since he agreed that that was his argument your opinion about this just seems petty. How about you try assuming good faith before you start throwing around accusations. SeraV (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is my argument at this point. Hot Stop talk-contribs 20:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * China banned the import of powdered milk products from NZ+Australia today. 90% of China's imports come from NZ.  Its unclear how long teh ban will last, but say it is one month - that amounts to $140 million of lost sales for NZ/$140 million of product China needs to find a new source for.  I'd say that is a pretty significant effect above and beyond the recall itself.  Russia which wasn't even part of the recall is also blocking Fonterra imports temporarily.  There are ways to measure impact besides deaths. Here it seems the problem was found before much product got into the hands of consumers, but that doesn't mean there are no consequences. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose A 1,000 toms sound like a lot without any frame of reference but some quick checks show it is a fairly small quantity.  A 1,000 toms is roughly equivalent to 1 million kg (long tons are a little more, short tons a little less, and 1,000 tonnes are exactly 1,000,000 kg).  This compares to 1.3 billion tons of production for New Zealand in 2007 (as shown by Dairy farming in New Zealand), of which Fonterra controls ~94.8%.  The math is a little rough due to rounding in the available numbers, but the recall volume works out to a little less than 30% of a single day's average volume for the company.  This in turn could be caused by problems with one day worth of production at one of the company's four processing facilities. --Allen3 talk 20:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but the 1,000 tons are diluted product. It is actually only 42 tons of whey protein, not 1,000, compared to the 1.3 billion total tons of milk solids. μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I still oppose this, but it is well updated. μηδείς (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Question, was that business with the adulterated Chinese baby food ever posted to ITN? Abductive  (reasoning) 03:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to 2008 Chinese milk scandal, it was posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Shanghai Tower

 * Support - It's more than twice as tall as The Shard, which was on ITN last year. The blurb should probably also mention that it's the second tallest building in the world. -Zanhe (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support but the blurb should simply state that it is the second tallest building in the world. 331dot (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support and agree on blurb that says second tallest in world. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Question. So is the tallest or the second tallest? I think that makes a big difference to whether it should be posted. A new worlds-tallest-building seems to come along regularly enough that even that might be questionable, without us starting to post just any really tall building. Formerip (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * When completed, it will be the second-tallest building. I don't, however, see the need to stick to superlatives. For one thing, the Burj Khalifa set a very high mark; Shanghai Tower is about three-quarters the height of Burj Khalifa, and it will still be the second-tallest building in the world. It took more than twenty-five years for the Sears Tower to be surpassed, and it wasn't much taller than other buildings at the time. Among buildings currently under construction, only one -- Kingdom Tower -- is taller than the Burj Khalifa. It won't be completed until at least 2019, if it's completed at all. (We also have Sky City, which China hopes to be constructed in less than a year next year, but I'll believe it when I see it.) So, second-tallest building is about the best feat in this field we can expect for awhile. --  tariq abjotu  23:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment To the above, despite reports in the media, it's not the second-tallest building in the world until it's completed and habitable (see the last two pages of this document). And I believe that's generally why we wait until the building is open for business, not topped out. That's what happened with The Shard and the Burj Khalifa (although I believe we may also posted the latter when it became the world's tallest structure during construction), and what seemed to be the consensus for One World Trade Center. --  tariq abjotu  23:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The second-tallest building in the world is obviously notable enough for ITN, but since the topping out height isn't a record, we should probably wait for completion of the building as we usually do. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:TOSOON Come back when it is finished and open (as with the The Shard) we don't post construction milestones.  LGA <sub style="color:#8B0000;">talk <sup style="margin-left:-4ex"> edits   23:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * oppose tallest only in 1 country and also per LGA.Lihaas (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * An alt. blurb has already been suggested to make it about the world in general, but the fact that it only deals with one country (the most populated in the world) is not relevant: "Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." 331dot (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per precedence. When I nominated the topping out of One World Trade Center a few months ago, it was shot down with no supports, and I agreed to withdraw and wait until the building opens. What's the difference here? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Talking robot in space

 * Oppose according to the "features" section of the article the construct serves no actual purpose whatsoever. μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, gimmick with no relevance to robotics or to space exploration whatsoever. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the above reasons. 331dot (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Missy Franklin and Swimming at the 2013 World Aquatics Championships

 * Comment. The World Aquatics Championships does not mention Missy Franklin.  Would the relevant article about swimming at this event be a better target?  FerdinandFrog (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Made the amendment. Donnie Park (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm game. It is a record achievement at a major world championship event.  It should be "Missy Franklin wins a record-equaling fifth gold medal...", however. Resolute 18:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support now - The World Aquatics should be ITN/R and I was planning on nominating it at the conclusion. Even ignoring that, the record makes this year especially notable and should be posted now (it can be adjusted if things change - I assume she will swim the 4×100 m medley relay which the US has a good chance to win).  I would leave off "at age 18" though as that is of little importance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note - Event article would need a significant prose update. Franklin's article is sort of updated, but the new section is completely unreferenced. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * oppose individual mentions but support the overall mention of the tournament in line with all sports tournamanets we list. and yes, it should be added to ITNR\Lihaas (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Neutral while it's interesting, it's not record-breaking until the record is broken. Perhaps then it'd be worth a punt at nomination.  Right now it's just trivia.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Question and Comment Are we sure this is a record? I'm sure I've heard claims like this in the past. Of course, these days, there are a lot more events than swimmers decades ago had the chance to compete in. And, only swimmers from countries with lots of competitors near the highest level have a chance of winning relays. A great swimmer from a lesser nation in swimming will never have that opportunity. To count relay wins as part of a swimmer's total glory is discriminatory. (And I say this as someone from a strong swimming nation where the media does this all the time.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "X nearly breaks a record" doesn't cut it. Formerip (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Update. Franklin have broke the record with a sixth medal, new blurb as below. Donnie Park (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In swimming, Missy Franklin wins a record-breaking sixth gold medal at the World Aquatics Championships.


 * Neutral to the story, but opposed to any blurb which does not clarify what record Missy has broken. —WFC— FL wishlist 20:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent Deaths: Venkateswaran Dakshinamoorthy
Even if I would support this, article is not good enough to be posted. Is there actually any change that it might be updated enough to post? SeraV (talk) 08:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Long career with recognition suggests he is notable in his field. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't see evidence in the article of major awards or achievements of the kind we often consider in judging someone for RD. He doesn't seem to have ever been nominated for the Filmfare Awards (or Filmfare Awards South), for example. What is it that might put him at the top of his field? Formerip (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Lean towards support I have a sneaking suspicion that there's a decent nomination in this somewhere. The article suffers from over-heading syndrome. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Robert Mugabe

 * He's the recognized head of state of Zimbabwe, regardless of how he carries that job out, so this is ITNR ("The results of the elections for head of state, In the those countries which qualify under the criteria above, and where the head of state is an elected position.") 331dot (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe the most relevant article would be Zimbabwean general election, 2013, which has some decent background but has no update on the results. - 20:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose any opposition would be jailed or shot, no? μηδείς (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Possibly true. I'm going with reliable sources.  You?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's still nominally an election, even if the outcome is predetermined due to intimidation or outright rigging. 331dot (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, we have outside observers saying it's a fair election, and mainstream news outlets declaring a massive win for Mugabe. How odd is that? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The Telegraph article you've quoted cites a state of almost hysteria on the part of actual interviewees, and quotes the Marxist front organization Southern African Development Community, dedicated to black rule, as declaring the election free and fair. μηδείς (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Point of information: I didn't quote any article from the Daily Telegraph, you must be mistaken, or else you're talking to someone else, either way this comment is incorrectly indented and confusing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just for everyone's information, apparently the African Union has also called it free and fair with only minor issues, though the EU has said their were big problems. 331dot (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * In all seriousness, I don't think this would happen this year. 15 years ago, yes, but since there have been steps toward more power sharing, especially since Mugabe realized that it was freer elections or a big crackdown by other nations in Africa. In addition, regarding this election, the Southern African Development Community election observers said "the elections had been free and peaceful". However, the article also states that massive fraud was suspected. So even though the opposition wouldn't be jailed or shot, it's not as if ZANU-PF would simply let them win.  Spencer T♦ C 15:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My impression the key to this is that Mugabe would quite probably have been inclined to rig this election had he needed to, but the MDC have spent the past five years blowing their credibility. Whatever anyone's take is, though, there's no clause in ITNR that we post general elections provided we are happy about the outcome. Formerip (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I second the directly above. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Changed both the focus article and the blurb, as elections should have as the primary article that for the election rather than an individual. By the way, I don't think the presidential result is official yet.--LukeSurlt c 20:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently it is official now; despite our collective misgivings, it's not really Wikipedia's job to call foul on election proceedings.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Its ITNR so it WILL be posted when updated. Medeis' non-reason presumption aside. Also the AU sanctioned it . V.s. partisan opposition parties crying foul. alone.Lihaas (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Updated - I updated/cleaned up article to (hopefully) meet minimum ITN standards. Unless someone objects on quality grounds, the article is ready to post.  (For the record, I am against blindly posting all elections but this one is actually quite important.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The results section has only two sources. If the accusations section is to be added then the blurb is no good.  (Given the huge coverage of corruption) We need a more neutral blurb in any case, so I don't think a full 3-5 sources in the results would actually be enough. μηδείς (talk) 04:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Reactions would also be considered part of the update and is where all the Western concern went... Not including any accusation in the blurb is kind of the definition of neutral; I fail to see how adding accusation would make it more neutral. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Posted I went back to the original blurb as results of elections for legislative bodies are not ITN/R and, thus, are usually not posted unless it's for a prime minister position or where the nomination is specifically for that. I dated the event August 3 as that appears to be the date that the official announcement came out (even though this nomination is dated August 2). --  tariq abjotu  09:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Question how does the Cambodian election get the "allegations of irregularities" treatment, but Mugabe gets a pass?   --76.110.201.132 (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Adam and Eve

 * Comment. The topics are Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve.  These have no real relation to the Bible story, and I don't see how the reference to Eve in this context is even relevant.  Dragons flight (talk) 03:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoops, my bad. feel free to modify the blurb to correct it to a version you think is suitable. I did not intend to link to the bible Adam and Eve but I must have not been paying much attention. Andise1 (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. We did a story on Y-chromosomal Adam a few months ago when there was a major revision to the date. That Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve were probably separated by thousands of years has been an established part of the science ever since those terms were coined. Also this doesn't seem to be a new discovery, only a minor refinement. The date quoted in these new stories fall within the established range for the non-A00 Haplogroup Y-chromosomal Adam. --LukeSurlt c 07:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Request Get rid of the POV religious nonsense. Then I'll think about this. HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Unlike Y-chromosomal Aaron, Y-Adam and mt-Eve have literally no connection with the biblical figures of the same names, and it was already well-known that they could not have been contemporaries. The blurb misrepresents the story, which in turn is not that interesting. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per AlexTiefling. Besides, these two conceptual humans in anthropology have nothing to do with the religious figures, and should never be confused. Linking to that article would be wildly inappropriate. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Stale this is a rehash of the story on a new Y chromosomal adam date from a few months back. μηδείς (talk) 13:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, nominator has mistaken a resurrected story in the popular press for news. Abductive  (reasoning) 14:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible oppose A disgusting attempt to shoehorn religion into old science. Fgf10 (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per reasons above - I actually got a bit worried there, thinking whether my world's been toppled onto its head. YuMaNuMa Contrib 15:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Simply not good science. And please, Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. I personally think Evolution is a Satanic lie as do many others, so keep it off the front page. God bless. --85.211.118.34 (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read ITN to learn the criteria by which ITN nominations are judged. Note that Wikipedia is supposed to have a neutral point of view when discussing a notable topic; neutrality does not mean Wikipedia censors certain topics because some editors are offended by them (see WP:UNCENSORED). –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Edward Snowden

 * Support - Sure, we're probably all sick of Snowden, but this basically brings a conclusion to a story that had international ramifications, at least until his asylum expires or he gets nabbed by the CIA while in Russia.--WaltCip (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment If this is posted, we should probably avoid the use of the term "whistleblower". We can use "dissident", used in the lead of the Edward Snowden article. --  tariq abjotu  16:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - previous stages of this story were rejected with rationale "wait for asylum/arrest". That point is now here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per Thaddeus. μηδείς (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per those above, this is a milestone in the story. Next up, what happens in 364 days?  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - Sorry, his 15 minutes of fame was already up a month ago, Wikipedia is not a place to give him his own platform of fame for another 15 minutes of fame. Donnie Park (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with "fame." (I should have said "controversial" rather than "now famous" above.) Whatever anyone thinks about Snowden's actions, it's a fascinating and complex personal story dealing with issues that could have extremely important political consequences.
 * Further, Snowden has been associated, at least tangentially, with Wiki, and for that reason has been very conspicuous by his absence from English Wiki's "In the News." Sca (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikileaks has nothing to do with Wikipedia other than the parasitic use of a morpheme. μηδείς (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Good to know — I wondered about that. But I venture to say that because of its use of Wiki, Wikileaks probably is associated in many peoples' minds with Wikipedia.
 * PS: Learned a new word: morpheme. Sca (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, wiki- is a free morpheme at this point, since we can say there are various wikis, such as Wikipedia, Conservapedia, and Wikileaks. The latter two I would say are obviously glomming off the prestige of Wikipedia.  Unfortunately for those of us who do not want to be associated with conserva- or -leaks, Wiki- and -pedia were not trademarked. μηδείς (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Some smart lawyer should look at the possibility of still trademarking Wiki. Sca (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Put him on the frontpage when this traitor is convicted, not before.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ready this is well-updated after several "wait" nominations and well supported; a few political opposes are not valid for ITN purposes. μηδείς (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Undisputable coverage and "asylum" was pointed to as the postable time in previous discussions. Traitor would normally imply co-operating with or leaking something to enemies, rather than to allies and fellow citizens. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  18:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Provoked a strong reaction from the US this one. (And can a certain editor give it a rest with the "traitor" crap?) --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Point of order. I object to the use of "dissident".  This is a violation of NPOV.  The article no longer used that term in the lede as of a few moments ago when I went in add the word "fugitive", which is how the New York Times describes him.  I believe the admin who posted this blub inserted his own personal editorial judgment in lieu of consensus.  Can we please fix this now?  Replace "dissident" with "fugitive".  "Fugitive" is a very nice, neutral, factual term for a person who has been indited and is fleeing (and seeking asylum). Whether he is a whistleblower or a traitor is highly debatable and won't be settled until he faces a court of law.      Jehochman Talk 02:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Whistleblower is correct, he was travelling before he was charged, and he is revealing unconstitutional activity condemned by just about every authourty outside the Obama regime. μηδείς (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * He's been charged with a crime. Because he has run from the law, he's a fugitive.  The article explains who things he's a whistleblower and who thinks he's a criminal or traitor.  There are some of each.  It is definitely not for us to decide.  We just report the facts in the most neutral way possible. Jehochman Talk 02:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jehochman that fugitive is the least objectionable term here. It's 100% accurate, since he is evading arrest by legal authorities, regardless of whether you support or oppose what he did, or whether you support or oppose what the U.S. authorities are doing in response, he is a fugitive.  Whether he is a dissident or not, and whether he is a whistleblower or not, depends on which political tribe you get your talking points from.  But he is wanted by legal authorities, and he is evading them.  -- Jayron  32  02:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've taken out the word "dissident" because it's just unnecessary and controversial. The article explains all the nuances: whether he's a dissident, whistleblower, criminal, traitor, etc.  If there is a consensus to insert "fugitive" or "fugitive intelligence analyst", one of those could be added, but I don't feel comfortable doing that until there is a stronger consensus. Jehochman Talk 02:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine too. Less is more; in the sense that no word is better than the wrong word.  -- Jayron  32  02:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There was nothing npov with the word dissident, our own definition of dissident is "A dissident, broadly defined, is a person who actively challenges an established doctrine, policy, or institution". Who can really argue that Snowden is not one. I feel that Jehochmans oppose of the term is based on that it doesn't have that much negative connotations. However i think current blurb is also fine but I oppose putting fugitive in it, if dissident is npov then certainly fugitive is as well. I also object accusing Tariq of anything here. SeraV (talk) 08:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless Medeis is on the US Supreme Court, no activity Snowden has revealed has yet been adjudicated to be unconstitutional. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if this stuff is not illegal in USA, which would be a shame indeed for USA, most of that activity is illegal in other countries, including mine and Germany, which still makes Snowden a whistleblower. SeraV (talk) 08:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * (1) Laws of other countries do not apply in the US. For instance, in Germany it is illegal to walk around in a Nazi uniform.  In the US this activity is protected as free speach.  (2) Whether Snowden is a whistleblower/dissident or a criminal/traitor depends on whether he chooses to stand before a court of law and justify his actions, or perhaps Congress will pass a law or the current or future President will pardon him.  We, Wikipedia, cannot decide which term is accurate.  It is entirely possible that he will eventually return the USA and be acquitted by a jury of 12 citizens.   For the moment, he is a fugitive because he chose to run away rather than to justify his actions.  If you look at the biography of Nathan Hale you will see a different type of behavior. (Disclosure: My personal belief is that he needs to take responsibility and face the jury.  Delivering those computers to Russia was the worst possible thing he could have done and will undermine his position severely.  If he's not a traitor, he should stop acting like one.) Jehochman Talk 13:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * He has been granted political asylum, with your logic we could just as well call him political dissident who is persecuted by his own government, but that would be biased. It is just as biased if we use the word fugitive, exactly since it it not our place to decide which term is accurate. With the word fugitive we would be taking the side of US government. And my point was that even if US goverment doesn't see him as a whistleblower other goverments might since he exposed illegal activity towards them. SeraV (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The mistake you are making is that you are applying your own logic or analysis. Instead, just look at the words being used by reliable news sources, and use those same words.   Jehochman Talk 15:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * He has been called whisteblower quite often in reliable sources, you can't claim that most or even majority use the word fugitive. But seriously current wording about this is fine. I just wanted to say that I oppose the use of fugitive. SeraV (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? I request that you strike that comment immediately. There is no basis for that accusation. I have never in my life edited the Edward Snowden article, or any articles related to him. If the first sentence had said "Edward Snowden is an American whistleblower", I wouldn't have objected to the term on the Main Page. And subsequent to my comment, no one commented on the suitability of the term "whistleblower" or objected to my comment about "dissident". The reason I mentioned dissident is because it was in the first sentence of the article, and content on the Main Page defers to article content. Why is it acceptable for you to use the same rationale to promote "fugitive" (also not from the original blurb!), but my use of the same rationale is "personal editorial judgment"?
 * Excuse me? I request that you strike that comment immediately. There is no basis for that accusation. I have never in my life edited the Edward Snowden article, or any articles related to him. If the first sentence had said "Edward Snowden is an American whistleblower", I wouldn't have objected to the term on the Main Page. And subsequent to my comment, no one commented on the suitability of the term "whistleblower" or objected to my comment about "dissident". The reason I mentioned dissident is because it was in the first sentence of the article, and content on the Main Page defers to article content. Why is it acceptable for you to use the same rationale to promote "fugitive" (also not from the original blurb!), but my use of the same rationale is "personal editorial judgment"?


 * Now that the term has been removed from the first sentence (with "fugitive" added at your hands, but never mind), I have no objection to it being removed from the Main Page and no objection to the use of the term "fugitive" as now in the article. But, I do firmly object to your baseless suggestion that I usurped consensus in favor of what I wanted, and request that you strike that comment (which was entirely irrelevant to the rest of your comment) immediately. --  tariq abjotu  03:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, since people continue to comment, post-posting oppose. I don't care about the political and emotional furor in the US. My concern is that this is nothing more than an incremental update. There's nothing here except the fact that a man who was in Russia can stay in Russia. Resolute 18:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support - I must say that those opposing from a personal POV with personal attacks and heated rhetoric are editors who should really get a grip. Jus  da  fax   03:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support High profile case with potential important impacts in Russia-US relations.  Spencer T♦ C 16:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. The blurb as it is currently written suffers from goes-without-saying-everything-is-about-America-unless-otherwise-stated syndrome. Could we possibly replace "Former NSA contractor" with something line "Former US intelligence contractor"? Formerip (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I can make the modification, but is the NSA really not recognizable here? I don't think it's "everything is about America" syndrome, more "NSA is recognizable with the link and without further context, especially considering this story has been in the news for two months" syndrome. I'd like to think there are some intelligence organizations -- FBI, CIA, Mossad, MI-6, etc -- that could suffice without beating people over the head which country is being discussed [in ITN headlines]. --  tariq abjotu  00:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I recommend dropping "American" and using "Former intelligence analyst". That's what the most reliable local media are calling him.  We've discussed this at length at the article talk page. Shorter is sweeter.  Jehochman Talk 00:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, being American doesn't make his activities more or less significant. And Tariq..., I'd agree that CIA, FBI, Mossad & MI-6 are well known, but NSA is no better known than ASIO. HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly the vast, vast majority of British people (I can't speak to anything wider than that) will have no idea what NSA means. Formerip (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We provide links in blurbs for a reason. I bet a large number of people don't know the National Assembly is the lower house in the Cambodian Parliament, but they can click on a link and find out. There is always information omitted from blurbs: for a brief time yesterday, we omitted that he had any ties to the intelligence community, for example. We have to draw a balance between being informative and being brief. (In this case, we have a well-known story with the title a basic formality; the former formulation provided a link to a relevant article.) I think the alternative you suggested is fine, as it's informative (perhaps more so?) and brief, but we face this issue on all blurbs, regardless on origin, and we don't need to levy accusations of bias. --  tariq abjotu  01:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I feel like the connection to the U.S. is very important to the story, and thus the blurb. It's an American being granted asylum in Russia, after all, and it's only five more characters. I don't understand how one can make the argument that "NSA" can't be mentioned in the blurb because people don't know that's an American intelligence organization, but then state the fact that he's American is not relevant. At least some connection to the U.S. should be made -- by saying he's from the NSA, by saying he was a contractor for U.S. intelligence, or by explicitly saying he's American. I do agree "analyst" sounds more natural than "contractor" though. --  tariq abjotu  01:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Terms: If I may add my 2 cents' worth, it seems to this ex-journalist that whether Snowden objectively meets the criteria for whistleblower remains to be seen — and the jury is likely to be out for a very long time. To call him a "dissident" sounds very odd in the U.S. context, since that word usually is applied in single-party states and dictatorships. The term "leaker" hasn't been used much historically in U.S. English, although it is in the Merriam-Wesbster online dictionary under the noun "leak." While "leaker" seems a rather inelegant term, it appears to be the most accurate one to describe Snowden's recent history and resultant status.

I note that the Guardian, for example, refers to Snowden simply as "the American whistleblower." However, if WP is to call Snowden a "whistleblower" it should be qualified, i.e. "self-proclaimed" or "putative." Sca (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Silvio Berlusconi

 * Support, convictions of former heads of government are notable, but remove "finally" from the blurb. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support with alt blurb. As per 331dot. --LukeSurlt c 09:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Ditch "finally" and you've got yourself a perfect nomination doktorb wordsdeeds 09:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, and feel free to change the blurb (my italo-english deserves it :-))! "Finally" means "definitively", "irrevocably" because in Italy we have three degrees of judgments (trial, appeal, appeal to the supreme court): he has been condemned several times in trial and appeal, but this is his first definitive condemn, and IMHO this should be pointed out in some way. Paraphrasing Churchill, maybe this is neither his end, nor the beginning of his end, but for sure the end of his beginning. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 09:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The Italian Supreme Court sentences former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to four years in prison for tax fraud.
 * Support, as I believe that exhausts the legal system and he will now actually go to jail. Another blurb suggestion, which attempts a middle ground between the two above:
 * <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support per Doktorbuk. Must lose the word finally.  CaptRik (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. I hope that English speaking readers understand that no appeal is possible. Alex2006 (talk) 12:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I think for the news blurb the clarity is not needed and possibly even lost on readers from some countries. The article looks like it covers it adequately.  CaptRik (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose unless maybe we have a picture of him hanging in effigy? He was just posted a few weeks back. μηδείς (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not Updated curious who marked this updated with one sentence. μηδείς (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Updated and marked ready - article is now updated. I adjusted the blurbs to make it clear that this is a denied (final) appeal, not a fresh conviction. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  06:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Post posting Support - Berlusconi's final appeal being denied is a big deal, so even though there was a recent post about his legal issues, this is again an ITN-worthy blurb in my view. Jus  da  fax   06:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Tuvalu Prime Minister

 * 'Oppose He's only the acting Prime Minister. Maybe something more permament would cut it.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Oppose acting PM, support if permanently installed. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - only acting PM.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose if only an acting PM; would support if this person is made the actual PM. 331dot (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support He is the actual Prime Minister, not just an acting one. What they mean is that he is acting subject to the caretaker convention until an election is held. It is very unusual for a PM to be dismissed by a Governor-General (or monarch) in a Westminster system - it hasn't occurred in decades. Neljack (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose this jurisdiction has a population of less than 12,000. μηδείς (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Objection - according to the article I read in the Sydney Morning Herald, the (?) former PM notified the Queen that he was dismissing the Governor-General so it is not clear whether the PM or GG has been dismissed and a constitutional crisis brewing. To me, that makes the story more noteworthy but also presently unclear whether a new PM will be needed.  EdChem (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Lavasoa dwarf lemur

 * Are these things really in the news? Maybe it's just me, but I couldn't care less every time a new species of mole rat is discovered wherever. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bongwarrior, it is always interesting and highly encyclopedic that a new animal species is discovered wherever. But main news? Unlike the ant story below in which its getting massive headlines for some reason (front page in Yahoo, CNN, etc...), I think this, and other similar articles should be discussed in DYK instead. Secret account 04:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not vaguely familiar with zoology but according to a few studies only a minute number of mammals (estimates place it between a dozen and 3% of all known and unknown species) remain undiscovered, so perhaps discoveries as such are more notable than we thought even though there seems to be a spike in discoveries. YuMaNuMa Contrib 05:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong support yeah, I understand the skepticism about what seems like literally every-day report of a new species, however, if there is one thing in biology that I genuinely believe should be ITNR, is a new species of primates is discovered. Nergaal (talk) 06:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheirogaleus lavasoensis would need to be created. --LukeSurlt c 07:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support if someone creates the article. Per Nergaal, a new species of primate is fairly significant. But, seriously guys 'n' gals, we need to establish that there is a high bar for new species stories. Formerip (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, lemurs are speciose. According to Wikipedia's own article, List of lemur species, "From 2000 through 2008, 39 new species were described and nine other taxa resurrected" and it is continuing; Mar 2012, two discovered. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, that's helpful. Make mine a very weak support. Formerip (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Dwarf lemurs are sublime. The discovery of 39 species is irrelevant unless we've posted them all. Most will be splits from existing species anyway, not real discoveries. μηδείς (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support If we refuse to post new species, mammals especially ITN will only have post about deaths, politics and sports. As an encyclopedia we really should look bit further than that. SeraV (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support if there's an article, per Formerip.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support in order "to point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them." A new mammal is "encyclopedic news". Even without any traditional news coverage discoveries like this meet our criteria when the relevant article is created/updated. 85.167.110.98 (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose As some of you know, I write extensively about lemurs on Wikipedia, and though I will probably end up writing this article as well, I have to agree with some of the early comments. Many of the small, nocturnal lemurs are being split into new species, and some years as many as 10 or more may be "discovered"... and it's done almost entirely based on DNA.  DYK-worthy, yes.  ITN-worthy... I'm not so sure.  Personally, I only nominate new primate fossil discoveries and maybe a truly surprising lemur species discovery.  Extinctions are another one I would definitely nominate.  But not this. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 03:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify that I'm primarily concerned that frequent new lemur species being listed on ITN may make it more difficult for genuinely important discoveries to get mentioned. If, for example, 10 mouse and/or dwarf lemur species are described this year (and there have already been 3, including this one), will anyone support a related but more significant discovery if I bring it to ITN?  At this point, I am weakly opposing because, yes, I would like to see lemur discoveries mentioned on ITN.  However, professionally, I favor reserving ITN for more significant discoveries. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 03:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am curious now, what do you think is the biggest discovery when it comes to lemurs in the past 5 years? Nergaal (talk) 03:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Although it was in 2006 (7 years ago), I think the explosive jump in sportive lemurs was pretty big, especially since hardly anyone studies them. Otherwise I think some of the fossil discoveries in Africa regarding Algeripithecus and others were quite significant since it helped begin to establish the evolutionary history of lemurs (beyond speculation).  The same can be said of some of the cognitive studies that are slowly debunking long-held views about simian cognitive superiority and cognitive evolution.  Also, the 2010 study by Ali & Huber that helped clinch some evidence for oceanic dispersal for the colonization of Madagascar was also very big.  However, these latter cases don't get as much press.  But then again, our news media is actually for our entertainment, not our enlightenment.  People are more entertained by new, cute species than complex cognitive studies or primate fossils that aren't human ancestors.  I guess it then becomes a question of what ITN is.  Are you like the news media and primarily serve an entertainment role, or do you care about educating the public?  I'm not trying to be combative—I'm asking a serious question that I've never seen addressed on ITN before.  <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 03:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In the "news" is a misnomer. The requirement is that the article is sufficiently updated to reflect sufficiently important recent events. 85.167.110.98 (talk) 06:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So in that case, if a pivotal research article in the study of lemurs (or primate evolution) is published but doesn't get mentioned on any major news sites, then can I still nominate a sufficiently updated article reflecting these important recent events and expect support? Or does it have to directly involve something cute and fluffy and/or relate to the popular topic of conservation (in which case it might get some press)?  I'm just playing devil's advocate.  Please understand that I if this nomination passes, then I will happily bring every new lemur species that gets announced to ITNC, even if it's 10 in one month, and I will not be happy if all the reasoning thrown around here in support gets tossed out the window.  I want people to think about this fairly and proactively.  Again, I'd be very happy to see this one on ITN rather than DYK.  I just want this nomination and all future nominations judged evenly, and I don't want more important nominations knocked because less significant articles like this got approved too often. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 07:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - new living mammals are sufficiently rare and sufficiently important to post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Two species of mouse lemur were described earlier this year, and were not considered for ITN. Three new species of slow loris were also discovered this year (and got a lot more press coverage), and they only made DYK.  The same goes for a sportive lemur in 2011, another mouse lemur 2012, and two more mouse lemurs in 2009.  Important, yes.  Is it a huge event?  No.  And so far, no major news organization has covered it, as far as I can tell. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 05:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we should cover all of them. They may not be "news", but they are "encyclopedic articles updated to reflect recent events". I would consider this a near-perfect case of "subjects [the readers] might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them." 85.167.110.98 (talk) 06:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Btw, I'm reading the research article now, and the authors note that 3 other new species were also discovered, though not officially named. Expect more in the future. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 06:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked it up - about 25 species of mammal have been described each of the last few years (sometimes more than 1 at once, which would mean even if we covered all it would be less than 25 postings). That quite a bit more than I expected, as I was relying on old information of ~2/year before genetic testing caused the recent increase.  Even so, I personally would support posting most or all of the new mammals (bats and rodentia make up the majority of the new species, so if we were to exclude some those would be good choices).  Certainly, we have room for 2 primates (lemurs)/year on average if the trend holds - and it probably won't since at some point the genetic testing possibilities will be exhausted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, the data for small, nocturnal lemurs, lorises, and galagos is suggesting that the new species descriptions are only just beginning. The inaccessibility of their deep, dark, wet forests is the only thing holding back the research.  Well... that and a relative lack of academic interest in lorises and galagos.  But in truth, we are only entering a new stage in taxonomic expansion, similar to what was seen during the 1700s and 1800s.  Worse, there will probably be just as much of a mess to clean up afterwards.  (In other words, some of these species will be erased and made taxonomic synonyms.)  Again, I'm fine with it as long as everyone understands what kind of precedent we're setting.  I will be citing this nomination in the future—that's why I'm playing devil's advocate so fervently. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 16:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In my opinion it would be remiss of an encyclopedia with a "news" section to not use it for the discovery of new species of primates. Personally I would extend this beyond primates as well. A higher turnover rate is desirable, and an increase in "deathless" stories would be even better. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well put. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks 88.88.162.176 (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  18:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)