Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/December 2015

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.

[Posted] New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany

 * Support widely reported news event and article seems well supported with reliable sources. Not sure about blurb though - it doesn't mention the location of the event, it's quite long and the gender of the attackers is redundant (women don't sexually assault women, it's obvious that men assaulted them) - have suggested an alt blurb. MurielMary (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Missed that the country isn't given. I've added that. Not so sure about ethnicity, but in the sources I'm seeing it's quite heavily emphasized. I don't mind alt blurb, though. Banedon (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support with a preference for a variation of the alt blurb, we don't need to include the purported ethnicity of the assailants in the blurb, but the location of the event is paramount. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Current reportage seems quite confused and this may just be a moral panic. It's a week since New Year's Eve so we should wait to see whether anything comes of this or whether it just blows over. Andrew D. (talk) 12:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. What coverage I have seen on this seems to focus on current protests about it (example, BBC); if we post anything I'd be inclined towards mentioning this. G RAPPLE   X  12:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose at this point. What I've heard from the news is that there were no serious physical injuries, deaths or mass protests. Having surrounded the women, the mob just tried to grope and undress them. Will reconsider in case of serious aftermath, but so far this looks more like a media hype. Brandmeistertalk  13:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Although I realize you're just trying to demonstrate the minimal impact of this event, I hope you realize how flippant and careless "just tried to grope and undress them" sounds, as if it was just an innocent act.--WaltCip (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In terms of ITN, it is. Brandmeistertalk  13:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support  seems like a major news development in Europe. would add fuel to refugee migration debate in Europe. --Saqib (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I have checked. Marvel Hero (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to support this, but how common are sexual assaults in Germany during the New Year celebrations? Are they basically non-existent? Nergaal (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - widely reported. and major news development. But I agree with TRM, no ethnicity needed in the blurb itself.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support as widely reported and of political notability. The ethnicity of alleged assailants is directly related to the significance and impact of the event. It is emphasized in media reports of this subject, and therefore I strongly recommend including it in the blurb. Mamyles (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support but do not mention the ethnicity in the blurb. Let's not give in to systemic ethnocentrism.--WaltCip (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "systemic ethnocentrism." Are you implying that it is inappropriate to expect that those from other cultures abstain from rape, mugging, and assault when in Europe? In any case, leaving out a fact that essentially every reliable source focuses on might seem to be an attempt to right great wrongs through censorship. Mamyles (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My understanding of "systemic ethnocentrism" is the notion that some editors will insist that everything be labelled with an ethnicity/nationality as if it matters. This is a story of mass protests about sexual assault (and to a lesser extent, about police response to it); it is not a story about race/ethnicity/nationality. G RAPPLE   X  15:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This story is so significant and widely reported because of the alleged ethnicity of assailants, given the recent history of migration in Europe. Of course it matters in this case. Mamyles (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The Michael Brown shooting was posted on ITN and it was widely regarded to be a racial issue. Not once in the blurb was it mentioned that the shooter was Caucasian and the victim African-American. Why mention it here?--WaltCip (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Wait – Developing. Generally agree with Andrew D. and Brandmeister, though not with the latter's "just tried to" rhetoric. As far as I've seen in Eng. & Ger., no arrests yet, no one charged. Although Cologne Police say they have identified three suspects, no details released. Thus, the article is necessarily incomplete at this point. Sca (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support but agree to avoid ethnicity mention at this time, since this is only from scattered reports. --M ASEM (t) 15:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait. This is still being quite actively investigated, there have been no arrests yet, and police attention is apparently shifting now to a Düsseldorf crime ring.--Pharos (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support big news item, worthy of our coverage, and the article looks good. --L.tak (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Moved to the correct date. The event time in UTC was December 31. LoveToLondon (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Shocking incident in a civilised society that could have some political implications regarding the influx of refugees. STSC (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Change it to asylum seekers instead of Arab and North African men. Marvel Hero (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources all say something along the lines of the assailants having "a North African or Arabic appearance." Reliable sources do not say that they were asylum seekers. Mamyles (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose, appears to be a case of mass hysteria, and a fuller understanding may merge in the coming days. At this point the narrative is rather confused and based on speculations (i.e. quoting 1 public official on ethnicity and extrapolating on it), and the ITN posting would just push the rumour-making further. --Soman (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Mass hysteria? We have to see notability. Then delete articles about U.F.O. and Yeti  as they are hoax and hysteria.Marvel Hero (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose The article quality is currently very low.
 * The introduction talks about 4 cities, except Cologne the article does not describe what happened (e.g. how many victims) and what the reactions were on a per-city basis.
 * The article is contradicting itself and incorrect even on basic facts.
 * 8 asylum seekers detained and five men from ages 18 to 24 were arrested are not exactly matching.
 * Police confirmed that eight arrested suspects were all asylum seekers, who were known to authorities because of a history of pickpocketing. is pretty much the opposite of what the police is saying - latest information I am aware of is that there were no arrests so far, and the police has not made any statements on whether suspects are asylum seekers.
 * Media reactions and how they are discussed are an important part of the whole topic. The article does not properly discuss this controversy and the relationship to the migrant crisis. The only entry currently in Media is one opinion piece in the Huffington Post (not an RS), and the opinion piece also does not demand what the article claims (publishing CCTV footage would be unconstitutional by a large margin).
 * LoveToLondon (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There are many RS online. The editors must pick them. Marvel Hero (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI, as of 18:00 Wednesday the German Wiki article doesn't mention arrests either. Sca (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Terrible. However, this doesn't reach the global levels of wide interests. Also, the sensationalism on this kind of violence would push away the "periodic table" blurb. We can nominate how many rapes occurred in other countries or worldwide. I'm astounded by so many supports due to article quality and the press's tremendous emphasis on this. George Ho (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Every one of your points is invalid here at ITN. Opposes should not be made simply because the events relate to a limited set of countries; Notability to post is based on the event, not what older event will fall off; This is a notable event, not a statistic; Article quality is already far beyond that required for ITN; and "the press's tremendous emphasis on this" is relevant to why this should be posted. Mamyles (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the quality of the article is currently far below what is required for ITN posting. In addition to the problems I already listed above, I just noticed that the article also fails to explain that according to the police the sexual assaults were largely to distract people and use the resulting confusion for thievery. LoveToLondon (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We would post nothing here if every article needed to be perfect. As described in WP:ITN, the minimum is three well-formed paragraphs. This article vastly exceeds requirements. Your ways to improve the article, while valid and productive, belong on the article's talk page. Mamyles (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not perfect would not be a problem. But we are talking about an article that makes incorrect disparaging claims while omitting known essential information like why it happened. Instead of wasting your time here making incorrect claims like Article quality is already far beyond that required for ITN, you could start editing the article and bring the quality to a level good enough that it could be considered for ITN. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose stale, and depends on a whole lot of alleged crimes for which we have no notable articles. μηδείς (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Stale, hysteria, what else. Notability is ignored. This is more than just news. Marvel Hero (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Posted alt blurb to better adhere with NPOV. Majority of opposing arguments are not convincing to me, article quality is fine for ITN, and there's enough support to post this, for however little it will be up on the main page. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added orange tags and a summary on the talk page explaining the already mentioned problems of the article. LoveToLondon (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I've pulled it temporarily until the orange tags are resolved one way or another. Jehochman Talk 02:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Close - At this point, even if the tags are fixed in time, it's going to be pushed out by a more recent ITN story. We had our chance to post it.--WaltCip (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree re closure – No change Thurs. State interior minister, per BBC: "Three suspects have been identified ... but no arrests." If down the road there are arrests, charges, deportations or other measures, might be ITN material. Sca (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Re-posting now that the tags have been resolved and the article is in better shape. There's nothing to immediately push this off the bottom but it won't be there for long. Stephen 22:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment – Stale. Sorry but have to ask, does an almost evenly split vote constitute consensus? Sca (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * (1) it's not seven days old (just) so it's not stale. (2) Consensus isn't based on counting votes.  You should know that by now.  To think otherwise is simply silly.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel that we have to look at this one a bit differently. The date of the event itself is stale, yes, but news only broke massively (it was relatively local beforehand for some reason) two or three days ago which is when it truly became "in the news" worldwide. Certain opposes don't hold any water in my opinion; quality concerns have been addressed and claiming "mass hysteria" breaches WP:OR. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Wayne Rogers

 * Weak oppose. "Starred on M.A.S.H. for a few years" is stretching it; he was part of an ensemble cast for three seasons, appearing in less than a third of episodes (74 out of 256, according to M*A*S*H (TV series)), and while he had a long career he never appeared in anything else of any particular note. &#8209; Iridescent 18:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose One of several main roles in 3 of the 11 M*A*S*H seasons. No awards ever won, only one Golden Globe nomination (funnily, he lost to Alan Alda who won that Golden Globe for a role in M*A*S*H). Clearly not very notable. LoveToLondon (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose In addition to poor sourcing, agree with above statements that just being on MASH is not sufficient to gain importance, we have to look at the entire career (eg as Alan Alda would likely merit). --M ASEM (t) 18:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Iridescent, a popular actor but nothing more than part of the bigger picture. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - M*A*S*H was an absolutely iconic show and thus he is very well remembered. Should be featured. —Мандичка YO 😜 13:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose – per Iridescent and LoveToLondon. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Natalie Cole

 * Support but good god, that's an awful photo in the infobox. &#8209; Iridescent 17:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support with article improvements - Inportance as her own (not just as the daughter of Nat King) is clear. Lots of unsourced paragraphs, and there's one section that is pure proseline. (And I would agree swapping the 2007 pic as the infobox image, its much more flattering). --M ASEM (t) 18:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support ITN, At the very least she should be listed as ITN "Recent deaths" frontpage especially since she died December 31, 2015 you have look at the previous year to see that she died now that it's 2016. also support swapping pic ▪◦▪ ≡S i R E X≡  Talk 18:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've put in the 2007 pic. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 18:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 'Support ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment there needs to be some serious work on the sourcing before this can get close to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not edit the article, that you have nominated, as part of "some serious work"? It's currently locked so ordinary folks can't even edit it? 86.181.130.136 (talk) 00:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I nominated it as a result of another editor making a request to see it on the main page. As for the page protection, you can always make requests on the talk page.  Cheers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Really? As for "some serious work", you can always make edits in the article page. 217.38.140.9 (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, really. Of course I can always make edits to any page, I have an account and I'm an admin, but thanks for the reminder!  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Or you could not bother and just stay here bossing other people around. Why is that article locked down. 217.38.140.9 (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not at all, I'm just suggesting to those who support it that they may like to help as right now it won't be posted. I don't know why the article is protected, probably due to vandalism.  Feel free to log in and help, since you're so interested.   Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. Meets the criteria as important to her field. 331dot (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - International star. RD for sure, and a blurb would not be unreasonable given the relatively young age. Jus  da  fax   19:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, we had a 47-year-old rejected because death at his age wasn't unusual, so that's not gonna happen here. Either way, the article is in no way fit for main page inclusion.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - Cole passed notability wise, no question, but the article has an orange tag with good reason. It needs more sourcing. It has been updated well and that's good. Add sources and its a go! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Suport on Improvement the entire "music career" and "personal life" sections lack a single reference. Given her awards, hits, and full career, I think there's no question she'd RD material. μηδείς (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - very famous and beloved performer; very newsworthy —Мандичка YO 😜 13:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support for RD only, gained a boost from much more famous and influential father. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Fire at The Address Downtown Dubai

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


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

[Closed] North American winter storm
28 dead, large evacuations, 18 million warned and in case we've forgotten this is still winter despite the cherry blossoms in the North on New Years so floodwaters are forecasted to turn icy (!). This gauge in my continent's biggest river has recorded the highest flood in 171+ years of measuring. It's supposed to take a winter's worth of melted snow and/or spring/summer thunderstorms to break records, to break flood records in winter is unheard of. The most tropical-like winter airmass in the East and South US which caused the tornados is now causing things like the 3rd highest flood in St. Louis in at least 230 years and the breaking of records a little downstream. This might be worth looking into. My city's December was 7° warmer than any on record (145 years), how cool is that? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Target article would be the December 26–28, 2015 North American storm complex—as it's the system that triggered the flooding—but it's a mess at the moment. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason for this latest fashion in avoiding the use of the nomination template and avoiding a suggested blurb? This isn't really the forum for suggesting that some news item "might be worth looking into"...  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Faux pas fixed. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What's the blurb? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Record and near-record flooding " it must be one or the other. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pending improvements to the article. Added an altblurb to encapsulate the whole storm. Twenty deaths were from flooding, eleven from tornadoes, four from the blizzard, and four from snowfall in Minnesota. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose US-centric blurb The result of the US storms discussion for December 28th was A lot of movement and chat about this and related stories, closing this to see if we can get a better, bigger-picture story. It is not helpful to have yet another US-centric blurb suggested for the same storms. LoveToLondon (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue with the previous nomination was that it was lumping multiple, largely unrelated events into a single article without a solid reason. It was shot down due to lack of cohesion. This article pertains to a single event with widespread damage, significant loss of life, and considerable disruptions to tens of millions of lives. If you can't think of a better argument against a weather event that pertains almost entirely to the United States, I suggest you find something better to do with your time. This anti-US rhetoric on ITN/C is infuriating. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with Cyclonebiskit. We are headed into deep waters, and I mean it in numerous ways. Jus  da  fax   01:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * He's not opposing the nomination, he's just opposing the blurb. Banedon (talk) 10:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The blurb is inherently US-centric because it's a US-centric event. Opposition to such a blurb is inherently opposing the event, unless LoveToLondon forgot to read the entire nomination and previous discussions on the topic explaining why they've been separated. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The current weird weather is inherently not US-centric. Storm Frank hitting the UK, and high temperatures at the North Pole. More than 100,000 people displaced in South America after the worst floodings in half a century. Severe flooding in Northern Australia. Unfortunately the article lacks any meteorological background (it focusses on the effects in the US), but my layman understanding is that at least the high temperatures at the North Pole and the storms in the US are actually confirmed to be part of the same weather event. LoveToLondon (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Except they're not all the same storm and it would be inappropriate to lump them all together. I don't know how many times I have to say this. Just because storms happen around the same time doesn't mean they're the same complex. Nominate whatever other event you want and have it judged on its own merits; having an article and blurb to cover "weird weather" across the globe is an absurd notion. This particular event far exceeds ITN notability standards with loss of life and disruption. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * RS says it is not an absurd notion to lump them all together: The north pole could be hotter than Chicago, Vienna or Istanbul on Wednesday due to the low pressure system that has brought tornados to Dallas and high winds and heavy rainfall to the UK. LoveToLondon (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Whoever wrote that sucks at reading surface weather analyses as the storm system that spawned the tornadoes in Texas moved to the Great Lakes and dissipated over Ontario yesterday. A completely separate system brought the heavy rains to the UK and surge of warm air to the arctic. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Another RS that contradicts your claims: A powerful winter cyclone — the same storm that led to two tornado outbreaks in the United States and disastrous river flooding — has driven the North Pole to the freezing point this week, 50 degrees above average for this time of year. LoveToLondon (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that The Guardian believes the storm in question "reach[ed] speeds of up to 230mph", which is laughably inaccurate—we'd all be in serious trouble if that were the case. It seems like that particular piece should be taken with multiple grains of salt. As has already been pointed out, the North Pole warm surge is a non-story: on December 30, temperatures in that part of the Arctic Ocean briefly approached or reached 0C (the North Pole itself having probably remained a couple degrees below freezing). That's an enormous departure from normal, and worth further meteorological study, but the warm front retreated after just a couple hours and temperatures returned to normal by that night. A storm event involving a meter of snow, one of the most severe December tornado outbreaks in history, record-setting floods, and about 40 fatalities seems to far surpass "weird" weather in terms of both newsworthiness and permanent notability. There have been minor power outages and evacuations in the UK, but nothing that would ordinarily make ITN. Unfortunately, our coverage of Storm Frank (a distinct weather event by all serious accounts) is severely lacking. Instead of opposing this obviously important submission, why not propose your own alt blurb that encompasses the US natural disaster and the UK weather, without giving undue weight to the latter? It doesn't particularly matter how closely the North American and European storm systems are related (and sources do differ drastically on that, regardless of our confirmation biases); one component of this storm sequence has killed dozens of people and broken many hydrological and meteorological records. That it happened to occur in the US instead of a sexier nation is not of concern. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @Cyclonebiskit - I can't explain it, but the blurb feels like it's written by a US editor for a US audience, while the alt blurb does not. That's why I say the blurb is US-centric, and support alt blurb. Banedon (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The alt blurb was my addition as the initial nomination was too focused on a single aspect of the overall storm. I've been working under the assumption that the alt blurb is the focus here as it's the more comprehensive of the two. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that neatly explains why the blurb is US-centric. Banedon (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - Clearly notable and ITN-worthy. Let's get this posted. Either blurb works for me. Jus  da  fax   01:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per Jusdafax --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb - original blurb is too US-centric for me. Banedon (talk) 10:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the orange maintenance tag is fixed and preferably someone actually fixes the sortability of the table etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's weird weather all over the world. To focus on a particular river seems too parochial. Andrew D. (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hence the alt blurb ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This still covers only the US. According to RS (Guardian, Washington Post) the high temperatures at the North Pole are part of this. LoveToLondon (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see much coverage outside North America. Everyone seems to be pre-occupied with their own weather phenomena, and thus no ITN worthy item can be distinguished (unless the "meta" item from below is approved). In Europe the (lack off) water management policy in the UK seems to be the weather news item of the wek... L.tak (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one." ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please do no suggest that an oppose opinion is a complaint. And please note I didn't say it was related to a single country, but about the news coverage not being world wide. L.tak (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So 40+ deaths, millions of lives disrupted, thousands of homes damaged or destroyed in a major country is not notable. Got it. I'll keep that in mind for the future. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I suggested that (did I?). But my problem is the news coverage outside North America that is scarce... There are a lot of cynical news-reporting facts that make the number of deaths not the most important factor (a plane crash in the US killing 20 would create sufficient international news for an ITN item I guess. L.tak (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's how your comments have sounded to me, but my apologies if I'm accidentally twisting your words (and for the unwarranted sass). Regardless, each event is taken on its own merits, so plane crashes and natural disasters are not compared. This is the deadliest and most disruptive natural disaster of 2015 in the United States. Nominations are not just judged by how frequently they're circulated in the news, as if that were the case we'd be flooded with celebrity news and other pointless drivel from Hollywood. It's the large loss of life, significant damage, and millions of lives disrupted that this storm notable and worthy of ITN. As brought up by the nominator, at least 18 million people have been under flood warnings . We've posted events that get maybe a day or two of global coverage before they're forgotten, but kept them because of their local notability. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The US are one of nearly 200 countries in the world with less than 5% of the world's population, and even in the US your claim deadliest natural disaster of 2015 in the United States is either untrue or only barely true. LoveToLondon (talk)
 * Fourteen of those deaths were in Mexico, thus giving a US total of 33 fatalities from that event. Latest tally for the nominated storm is 46. Reading helps. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment this isn't "an American thing". The world is a little screwy right now.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The world has been screwy for decades, what of it? You're opposing a major disaster in the United States that has killed 40+ people, left thousands of homes damaged or destroyed, and disrupted the lives of tens of millions of people simply because "the world is a little screwy"? Would you be opposing the nomination if 40+ people died in the UK instead of the US but everything else remained the same? I highly doubt you'd be so inclined to state "this isn't just a British thing". Sorry the UK floods don't meet ITN standards on their own, but to blatantly go against a nomination of a clearly notable event to add various events across the world simply because they're also weather-related is bordering on being purely disruptive (and this remark pertains to all of the editors from the UK making these types of comments). Do we mesh together various terrorist attacks that occur within a week of each other? No. Do we lump together people who die at the same time? No. If you're not content with it, do as you always say: nominate another item that pertains to the subject because that's how ITN/C works. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the world has been unpredictable for some time. Sca (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, I nominated the US storms a while ago, if you care to look, and in the meantime it's become obvious that we need a more holistic answer to this unusual weather, rather than just focus on America. Thanks.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I know others have complained that lumping these different storms (outside the US) into one article seems improper, but realistically while they may not be all connected outside the common result of the current El Nino, the clustering around these two weeks is what is making all such odd weather notable. TRM is correct that commenting only on the floods in the US while ignoring the flooding in South America (where last I read 6 were killed and at least 150,000 displaced) is poor form. I think it is going to be remembers as the storms around this two week holiday period and that's how we should create the target article, not just the El Nino one, that links in any of the specific unique storm articles that we already have. --M ASEM (t) 20:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Except that the events are easy to define on their own: they're separate storm systems. It's pretty simple. The one being nominated here is the most destructive and fatal of the lot and thus has greater focus. A buoy ~170 miles from the North Pole briefly going above freezing and heavy rain in the UK from a storm upstream from the one in this nomination don't warrant an overhaul to be more inclusive. They're vastly less notable events. Then nominate the flooding in South America for a blurb. It's an almost entirely unrelated event that happened at a similar time, thus it does not get included within the same nomination. That's like lumping two unrelated, non-coordinated terrorist attack in Yemen from Al Qaeda and one in Europe from ISIS into a single blurb for the sole reason that they're terrorist attacks. As for the clustering, that's a normal occurrence that can happen in any year. Conditions became favorable for such events and multiple systems developed. There's only so much I can do as one person, and my focus is on this particular event. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Following what we would do for, say, similar events in sports that happen at the same time (like, for example, I believe a NASCAR finale ends on the same day or nearby with an F1 event) by combining the blurbs so that one type of topic doesn't dominate the ITN. It may be different storm systems, but they are all related to weather and should not be treated separately for ITN posting. --M ASEM  (t) 21:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why the SA floods and this storm system can't be listed separately in our already outdated ticker. The bottom two stories are from December 20 and 21. There's more than enough space for some new stories at the moment and having both up would flush out some of the stale stories. I've yet to see sporting events combined (lest we forget the horse race debacle from not to long ago) in such a manner—I remember the last NASCAR blurb being kept on its own—but it's also quite likely that I simply just missed when it happened. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If memory serves, we merge football blurbs frequently. It's not a big deal and helps provide a more eclectic view of the world rather than just focusing on a single entity when the subject is global rather than parochial.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Crazy weather right now in many countries, no idea why we'd just focus only on the United States. Redverton (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Because that's the location this particular storm system pertains to. This one is the deadliest and arguably the most disruptive of the recent storms across the globe. Opposing on the basis on not relating to other countries is contrary to how ITN operates. Feel free to create articles on other events and nominate them if you feel so inclined. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, that was a suitably patronising lecture on how ITN works. I assure you I'm not new to this.  I simply offered my opinion, take it or leave it. Redverton (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Stop focusing on the US. Our systemic bias is showing.--WaltCip (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Great, based on that logic I can stop nominating items that deal only with the U.S. Oh wait, that's counter to the "please do not's" at the top of this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly valid and logical to dispute the construction of a blurb for meteorological occurrences that have worldwide impact, as stated above eloquently by TRM.--WaltCip (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And your anti-US bias is showing, thus we've reached an impasse. Judge the event on its own merits instead of shoving in other partially related events (UK flooding), or almost entirely unrelated ones (SA flooding). The US-bias is long gone on ITN/C and has been replaced with an anti-US bias. It's utterly disgraceful that people are completely overlooking the large loss of life and disruption simply because this is a US topic. I don't know how many freaking times this can be said, but just because one storm happens around the same time as another, or stem from the same long-term, large scale phenomenons, doesn't mean they're intrinsically linked. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this; the concerns given by editors like WaltCip or TRM are that while the US has been probably hit the hardest, the overall impact of all these separate storms in a short time period across the Western hemisphere means that we should construct a blurb/target that reflects there's multiple systems happening at once instead of just isolating the US system. --M ASEM  (t) 03:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So just because they happen in the same period of time, otherwise non-ITN worthy events get to be shoved into a single blurb for the sake of avoiding a bias that we no longer have. Let's see..."Multiple storm systems since early December cause widespread flooding across the United Kingdom and Ireland while a severe winter storm claims at least 45 lives in the United States all the while another storm system triggers severe flooding in Paraguay; furthermore, surge of warm air brings temperature at the North Pole close to or above freezing." That's the gist of what's being attempted for a single blurb after the past few days. Oh yeah, can't forget Tropical Depression Nine-C and Severe Tropical Cyclone Ula because these two storms also happened at the same time. The only one that could be shoved into the same blurb is the UK & Ireland flooding which has been ongoing for almost a month and resulted from multiple systems. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Clearly with at least 3 "separate" events (1 being the combined US storms consisting of the two tornado storms and the current ongoing flooding; the second being South America, the third being the UK flooding) we can't force full descriptions of each into a single blurb, but it would also be inappropriate to list all three as separate blurbs. And to only include one of these (the US) that would be the seeming bias I mentioned. Instead, something like "Widespread storm systems across North and South America and Western Europe in late December 2015 attributed to the ongoing El Nino event lead to tornadoes and flooding, causing dozens of fatalities and millions of displaced persons" would capture the concept, leaving the only issue of where a good summary article would be. 2014–16 El Niño event would seem to be the one, but there's nothing there. (I would think that we would have a chronological month-by-month of major metrologicial events with links to the very specific events). --M ASEM (t) 03:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to push for such a large, unwieldy blurb for the sole purpose of countering a no longer existent bias then by all means keep on doing so. In any other situation, the UK flooding would be ignored (as everyone seemingly has for the past month despite it being severe at the start of December) and the Paraguay floods would be a borderline event due to "relatively little loss of life". I cannot, in good faith, contribute to an article that haphazardly links various meteorological disasters to an El Niño event and refuse to do so. It's not encyclopedic and just piggybacks off the media hype sensationalizing the ongoing El Niño. Much the same as global warming/climate change, you can't definitively link any single event to an El Niño. Yes it makes conditions more readily present for particular weather patterns, but all types of weather can happen with or without an El Niño present. To avoid breaching WP:OR, particularly WP:SYNTH, you'd have to list every single weather event otherwise you create a claim that's not scientifically supported. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * To stress the issue: to point out significant weather related deaths that occurred at the same time period as other storms elsewhere in the world that had similar destructive nature though perhaps with far lower death tolls, and which may have the same connection to the long-term El Nino event, we create a bad bias at ITN, and to post all different events as separate blurbs would drown ITN. At minimum, for example, the deaths in South America due to flooding from excessive rain are just as important to the deaths in the US from both tornadoes and flooding happening in the same period. To ignore those SA deaths while highlighting the US ones is really bad biasing. --M ASEM (t) 18:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Very unusual situation for winter. Broaden it to include British flooding if necessary. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This (4,000-word) discussion proves the adage, "Everyone talks about the weather but no one does anything about it." Sca (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] The Address Downtown Dubai

 * Support - Major news story. Firebrace (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably Oppose. It is admittedly a very nice building, but it's ultimately still just a very nice commercial building, not a world landmark such as the Louvre or Taj Mahal, or even the Burj.  The wording seems vague - severely damaged as in insurance will be pissed, or as in the building will be demolished?  If it's the latter then I might be convinced to support simply because a building of that size being utterly destroyed is quite rare, but the one source provided seems to suggest that no one was killed, and that while it looked imposing, the building still stands.  I don't think a nonlethal fire that causes damage to one or two commercial buildings quite meets the bar. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 18:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * - I suspect that the insurers will be very pissed (off - Dubai is a dry country), Building likely a write-off. Early reports of zero casualties should not be relied upon. Mjroots (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Major news story. And probably the destruction of a major building in the country.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Support – Partially because the current ticker is excessively stale (one story is approaching the two week mark). Pending on if progress on the multiple natural disasters across the globe is ever made to meet ITN standards. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Rescinding and going neutral or weak oppose based on recent (rather lack thereof) develops. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait I agree with OldManNeptune, a barely notable building getting some fire damage is not sufficient for ITN. However, the event is still in progress, so the situation can quickly change. Mamyles (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. It's a slow news period and we could do with moving the box along, and this is undoubtedly "in the news", being the lead story on sources as diverse as thr BBC and Russia Today. &#8209; Iridescent 18:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait until the dust settles. Brandmeistertalk  19:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Over 300 buildings over 800 feet have ever existed and only 2 have been destroyed. In fact, The tallest building ever destroyed that's not a World Trade Center tower is barely 200 meters and the Address is 300 meters. So utmost support if this edifice turns out to be too risky to inhabit, it would be the tallest building rendered uninhabitable that's not 9/11. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * They have plenty of that already. Nergaal (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Lean oppose; it appears that there were few injuries(worst AFAIK is a heart attack) and no deaths; though a spectacle for sure it still may be early to post this as the situation could change. The fire is currently only on the outside of the building and it's too early to say if it will need to be demolished.  If the situation changes I would be willing to revise my views. 331dot (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless it's determined that it's something sinister, and/or if multiple fatalities occur and/or the building is entirely condemned. I doubt we'll see any of the previous, but I'm just speculating, of course.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support it is on news channels worldwide and has dominated New Years' Eve coverage on multiple networks. Even in the absence of mass casualties, it's still the major story of the day. Buffaboy  talk 21:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't just post things that are big stories, as we are not a news ticker, (otherwise we would post the Kardashians and other tabloid news) we post notable stories (usually) that stand out in some way. If you feel this does, fair enough, but its being in the news isn't enough. 331dot (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. Fortunately, there were only 16 injuries and no fatalities at this point, per The Guardian. I'd revisit once the full extent of the damage is known. Calidum T&#124;C 21:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose As has been said, it's just a big fancy building. Nobody killed, a few injured, it's just money. And at the end of the day, the people who own it will likely make money off the renovations due to them owning the construction companies as well. Okay, that's just my cynicism on that last bit. But even so, it's not a world heritage site or anything. Dismas |(talk) 22:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Iridescent. A news item needn't involve mass casualties to be important. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's 100% accurate, but this is a currently a fire at a big building. Why is it going to change anything?  Do you have more information about why this fire started?  Is it just one of those things?  It's a hotel incident caused by a burning curtain, nobody died, nothing is substantial here in any way at all.  I suppose that if we want to help advertise the hotel we could post it, but beyond that, we're talking about a fire in a tall building.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose If it was a complete loss of the building, or severe damage to an historical building (such as when ISIS damaged/destroyed several of those important ruins), that would be significant. This is recoverable damage with no losses of life. It is not significant enough for ITN. --M ASEM (t) 22:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This should be posted (once there are significant updates to the article) since it is really rare to see fires hundreds of meters high. Nergaal (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Such a rare case in which there is a large fire engulfing a major hotel/skyscraper in a well-developed area with no deaths. It's also making headlines globally. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Dubai might look well-developed, but behind all the shiny facades it is still third-world. 93.215.70.73 (talk) 08:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @TDKR Chicago 101: It has happened before, earlier last year in fact. Didn't make ITN then. - Kollision (talk) 10:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Big flames on the exterior of the building but only minor injuries and the majority of the fire did not make it to the inside. - Kollision (talk) 10:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support per Cyclonebiskit. I don't see a lot of coverage of this and it's not too significant, but it's something. Banedon (talk) 10:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose since there is no way a non-fatal fire like this would be posted or world-wide news if not for the spectacular backdrop of the fireworks. μηδείς (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Ian Murdock

 * Strongly oppose until sourcing improved, regardless of any arguments about notability. I can think of no circumstances in which either TechCrunch, The Register or Twitter would be considered acceptable sources for a claim as contentious as this. &#8209; Iridescent 15:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Unexpected deaths, where the death itself is the story, typically get blurbs, and I don't think one is warranted here. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Iridescent's comments are important, plus not sure this is really getting the "in the news" coverage we'd expect to see. I grant you that our "regular audience" may be interested in this kind of tech-geek individual (no disrespect) but I don't think it's hitting the real headlines.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I was considering nominating this but realistically, most people even tech savvy ones knows what Debian is. He was important in the open-source software field but he is not of the caliber or importance of Linus T. or the like. Also, the circumstances of his death (at least, when I saw the story last night) leave me in doubt how much encyclopedic aspects we can say about this. --M ASEM  (t) 22:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] ASEAN Economic Community

 * The news seems quite highly notable, although a rationale from the nominator would be nice; exactly what's happening is unclear, the Australian ref is behind a paywall and the Straits Times article says the Asean Community is set to be formed, which in American English means it is only in the planning stages. The general ASEAN target article is a mess, and the economic community section should be moved into its own article. μηδείς (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mηδείς. This seems interesting, but -as always with ASEAN- they are so preoccupied with big words that it is hard to find the real news-worthy facts. Was this a convention entering into force, or concluded. Or a mere announcement? And is this a framework convention that will lead to later implementation of real measures, or are real things changing? How? and when? I looked for details to update the article, but unfortunately couldn't get clear what was happening. L.tak (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Four new chemical elements

 * Support ITNR. Surprised it flew under the radar so much. Nergaal (talk) 10:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per Nergaal LoveToLondon (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support well ITNR says to post confirmation and naming. So we can post both. --Jenda H. (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Added an alt, as these are not the most useful names and they are temporary anyway. Furthermore good to change elements-->chemical elements, as elements is used for all kind of things. L.tak (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - ITNR, also the alt seems appropriate.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Doug Atkins

 * Weak support looks good for notability but referencing is poor - ref 1 which is used to source a whole section is also dead. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's better now. I removed the dead link and added more. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. College and pro Hall of Famer.  Article seems reasonably well referenced to me. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 23:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Hall of Famer and appears to be a college football legend in some aspects. Article is in good enough shape. On the side note it's nice to see a variety of people, nice break from the usual actors/musicians/politicians on RD tags. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: At a glance, this looks like it's ready to go. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What kind of rationale is this? Come on....--BabbaQ (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * what part of this consensus to post do you not understand? Would you like further explanation?  Perhaps we can translate it to a language you can better understand?  If you'd like to find a project better suited to your communication skills, Simple English Wikipedia would be grateful for your contributions.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Bill Cosby charged with sex crime

 * Strongly oppose. "Convicted" or "acquitted", fine, as and when it happens, but not this. "Innocent until proven guilty" is just as much a principle on Wikipedia as in the real world. &#8209; Iridescent 17:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I submit that the fact of criminal charges being filed for the first time by a prosecutor is highly notable, coming as it does after years of controversy. And this will be in the news, and be huge, all over the globe. Jus  da  fax   17:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose nominator should know better. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I ask you to strike your comment, which I regard as a personal attack. Jus  da  fax   17:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a personal attack, and he's right. You should know better. Resolute 17:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. George Ho (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2015
 * Oppose – Until outcome of trial, if there is one. (Or guilty plea.) Sca (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC) (UTC)
 * Oppose per above: just being charged is not the point we post a crime at BLP (unless perhaps we're talking a major world leader); it will be the determination of guilt or innocence that will set the ITN point. --M ASEM (t) 17:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I had closed this myself earlier, and just want to support CB's action. When the convicted murderer Oscar Pistorius was arrested for killing his girlfriend in a case where there was absolutely no doubt about the physical facts, we did not post it.  This is an indictment based on an allegation of an act which is supposed to have occurred 11 years ago.  BLP and UNDUE make posting this hype, not encyclopedic. μηδείς (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] North Pole will be above freezing point in winter

 * The North Pole is supposed to be above freezing point of water in winter only for the third time since 1948 (previous dates Dec. 4-5 1959, Dec. 25 1990, Dec. 1 2014). The North Pole has been enveloped in a 24 hour darkness since September, and it is usually around -25 Centigrade at this time of year. Not sure what article should be linked to. Nergaal (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Time to call Santa and interview the jolly old elf about global warming. Sca (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This must be part of the same unusual weather pattern which has caused flooding in the UK and storms in the US (see below). If it's due to El Nino then it may last a while and so perhaps should be an Ongoing entry.  Andrew D. (talk) 14:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The pattern appears to be different from the NA weather issues (they do connect it to the North Atlantic and the UK flooding, though that itself is not as unusual as what happened in the States) - though the weather pattern in NA may be feeding into that since it's warm air brought up by El Nino to the northeast that is causing it. That said, this says "may", not yet confirmed, so I'd be hesistent to post, and suggest wait. --M ASEM (t) 14:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This nom should be properly templated, the target be El Nino, and the blurb be combined with the related weather nominations listed below. I am on my way to an appointment, otherwise I'd do it. μηδείς (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Only a forecast, hasn't actually happened yet. Some media outlets are also idiotic and don't know how to read state names: TIME cited North Pole, Alaska, for example. Some of the comments here seem to insinuate that El Niño is a storm system, which it is not. It's not the direct cause for anything but rather a factor influencing global weather patterns. Also keep in mind suggestions to lump half a dozen damaging/deadly weather events together into a single blurb is not helpful. Should we also toss in the flooding in Paraguay and the developing cyclones over the South Pacific since they're also connected to the El Niño event? Maybe the rain over my neighbor's house while we're at it? Obviously not. Judge events on their own merits instead of trying to connect them together for the sake of reducing the number of blurbs. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The BBC is certainly combining all these events together. That's what they said in a extended news report I just watched and here's an online equivalent – El Nino may be increasing rainfall across the world, "The temperature rose above freezing at the North Pole at one point in December, a very rare occurrence..." Andrew D. (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll just copy/paste my comments from Talk:December 2015 storm system: There are at least eight systems involved here for North America and Europe. Extratropical cyclones are complex and often break apart into multiple systems. (1) The first system involved in this article pulled into Canada and dissipated near Greenland on December 26. (2) A frontal boundary from the first system spawned a separate low south of Greenland on December 26, ultimately merging with storm 5 listed below. (3) A completely separate storm, dubbed Storm Eva, formed off Atlantic Canada—well east of the first storm—and raced across the Atlantic, impacting the British Isles, before pulling north of Scandinavia. (4) A weak system developed behind Eva and impacted the British Isles on Christmas. (5) Yet another system developed from a frontal boundary extending from the third storm and it rapidly pulled north toward Iceland. (6) Another system over the southern United States developed behind the first system—originating from an upper-level low—and is presently a weakening system over the Great Lakes. (7) A lingering frontal boundary left behind by a combination of storms 1 and 2 led to the formation of another storm off the Mid-Atlantic States on December 28. This system exploded into what's now known as Storm Frank, which is presently over Iceland. (8) another system recently developed over the North Atlantic on the heels of Storm Frank. At best, there are at least three "families" of storm complexes, with some having multiple degrees of separation from the original. The media is simplifying the complexity of these storms due to their rapid succession. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) The first several words in your link show it to suffer a severe misunderstanding of how ENSO works; El Nino is most certainly not a "weather system". That El Nino influences precipitation climatology is not in dispute, but the BBC has not, near as I can tell, said anything about linking a particular sequence of storms that happened to take place in the same multi-week period. We can't just lump together a bunch of marginally notable weather events for the sake of milling one newsworthy submission. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Our job is to report what the sources say, not to engage in our own amateur analysis. Here's another fresh source which ties all these global weather events together. Andrew D. (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That source does nothing to conclusively tie these events together. It just mentions the weather of 2015 and the El Niño event present throughout. It's more or less informing readers of what an El Niño influences. All weather events are inherently linked together; the atmosphere is dynamic and fluid. But to go so far as to say these separate events should be considered the same is incorrect. My own comments were not analyses of my own, they were taken directly from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration surface weather analyses over the past 7 days. I don't mean to toot my own horn, but it would be wise to lend more credit to those whom actually follow weather on a daily basis—in fact, meteorology is my profession—rather than the words of newspaper authors whose job is to catch your attention and give a general idea of what's going on, regardless of whether or not it's factually sound. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I have expanded the original US storms article to December 2015 storm system to be more global and included this North Pole temperature as part of that. --M ASEM (t) 18:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that, depending on your model of choice, temperatures at the North Pole have briefly surged to a couple degrees below freezing, and will be returning to bone-chilling cold by tonight. This seems like a non-story. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Julian's recent intervention. Don't believe the hype.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It was reported today as 34 degrees F. - which is above freezing. Here is a source for it being above freezing today: ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that was not an observation but merely a model analysis (GFS), and one with a margin of error at that. Most other models, including the ECMWF mentioned in that link, analyzed the temperature below freezing. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's an observation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That wasn't in the first provided source. Either way, that buoy—87.4572°N, 153.8978°W at the time of the observation—was 176 miles from the Geographic North Pole or 184 miles from the North Magnetic Pole and not in any way an accurate representation of the temperature at either location. Temperature can vary dramatically over such distances, as reflected by the model analyses showing temperatures of –6C at the North Pole whereas the buoy had +0.7C over 170 miles away. That's not to downplay the anomalous nature of the event, however. It falls under media hype as the observation was near the North Pole, which in their eyes in close enough to be the North Pole. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's another source based on the views of a German meteorologist. This says that the anomalous weather in the northern hemisphere is connected to a change in the jet stream, not El Nino.  So, UK, US and North Pole would go together, but not the floods in South America. Andrew D. (talk) 09:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ...and the Met Office links it all to El Nino. It does no good to cherry-pick your sources. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Kim Yang-gon

 * Can you tell us which of the RD criteria this person meets and how? 331dot (talk) 10:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - person was top of North Korean politics. RD seems sufficient.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per TRM, it's a stub. It needs to be an article of reasonable length before any other considerations. Challenger l (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No longer a stub as it would have qualified for DYK at the time of article creation. --George Ho (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Stub or not, the article has but two references.  More importantly, the text does not make a strong case that his political achievements put him at the top of a field, however you define that. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 23:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Pavel Srníček

 * Support. Highly influential player in his country, died way too young.  Article may need improvement though. EternalNomad (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not seeing how this meets either RD requirement, unless the narrow field we're discussing is Newcastle United icons. A long career is not the equivalent of a distinguished one - with no individual or team honours, as far as I can see. Newcastle nearly won the Premier League and the Czechs nearly won the Euros. His death was unexpected, but long after his professional retirement. Fuebaey (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Certainly top of his field so it seems and has died suddenly. Article is in good shape for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Typically, goalkeepers made soccer matches tied or barely scored with one or zero points. This guy is no exception. More than that, he was also a coach and an international sensation. Too bad he died so young. His autobiography will be posthumously published. --George Ho (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Are we talking about the same person? Newcastle under Keegan had a legendarily leaky defence; they were famous for scorelines like 4-3, not "soccer matches tied or barely scored with one or zero points". &#8209; Iridescent 21:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. He wasn't even first choice at Newcastle for much of his time there (150 appearances in seven years really isn't that much; Peter Schmeichel made about 280 appearances for NUFC's rivals Manchester United in the same period, for comparison), he never won even a minor trophy at Newcastle, and his career outside Newcastle was a procession of nondescript mid-table strugglers. A nice guy, but nowhere near the top of his field unless the field is defined absurdly narrowly as "Czech goalies of the 1990s". &#8209; Iridescent 21:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support the domestic appearances stat isn't that big a deal, he played 49 times for his country which is impressive by any standard. His sudden and untimely death enhances the nomination.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Iridescent. I don't see how he qualifies as a "very important figure" in the sport. Neljack (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support Per Rambling Man, his untimely death makes it notable, article is sufficient. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * support - article is in good condition. person is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Many support opinions only prove that the person does not know anything about football.
 * Certainly top of his field Top of his field would be IFFHS World's Best Goalkeeper. He had one season as undisputed first-choice goalkeeper at a non-top team in the Premier League, and his 146 Premier League games are less than the number of games a team has in 4 seasons.
 * he played 49 times for his country which is impressive by any standard 49 caps are the 20th most in his national team. His national team only exists since 1994. In most countries (including his country) the goalkeeper with most caps has over 100 caps (100 caps equals roughly 10 years as first-choice goal-keeper of a national team). 100 caps is also the most common measure for having many caps, and there are over 300 players who have reached 100 caps.
 * his untimely death makes it notable If someone would nominate Alfredo Pacheco that rationale would make sense. Cardiac arrest at age 47 is nothing extraordinary.
 * LoveToLondon (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, I don't know anything about football. Stupid me.  If you knew anything about anything, the cardiac arrest of an athlete aged 47 is extraordinary.  Now please, feel free to continue your "testy editing".  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You are the person who claimed he played 49 times for his country which is impressive by any standard (I clearly proved it is not), and I am glad to see you finally admitting publicly that you are stupid.
 * Regarding his cause of death, everyone who has a clue about mortality statistics knows that heart problems are a relatively common cause of death for men in that age group in the first world. Most people don't die that early, but dying due to heart problems at age 47 is nothing extraordinary (and having been an athlete does not decrease the risk).
 * LoveToLondon (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So glad you're back to your normal testy editing. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have done the Alfredo Pacheco nomination, LoveToLondon. George Ho (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Seems to have a good and long career, but nothing that indicates enough importance for RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose his domestic and international career, even coupled with his early death, did not rise to the level that merits a mention in the RD section. BencherliteTalk 08:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Ebola virus epidemic over in Guinea

 * Wait until the the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa will be declared over in in all countries on January 14th (3 people in one family in mid-November were the only cases in Liberia during the last 5 months, so that's very probable). LoveToLondon (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. It's even bigger news. --Tone 16:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted (RD)] RD: Lemmy

 * Support this. The archetypal heavy metal frontman. Guy (Help!) 01:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait - He certainly meets criteria. Article seems in good enough shape and he's notable, but since news just broke we should wait until his death has been reported by major news outlets so that his article can be updated with the right information regarding his death. Support article in good enough condition and has been updated appropriately. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Confirmation from major sources is in. Here's NBC News. Side comment: should be listed as "Lemmy Kilmister", as that's what's being used by the news sources (of course, I've long thought that should be the article title too). oknazevad (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. First glance shows a couple of citation needed tags here and there, easy enough to sort out. Definitely notable and influential enough - considered as one of the standards of heavy metal for many years. Challenger l (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. The real question for me is whether he deserves a blurb. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This guy doesn't deserve an obituary blurb. He doesn't seem to be well known in North America. Also, what else is there other than being a rock star in multiple bands? --George Ho (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've lived all my life in North America, and I knew who he was since I was in high school in the 1970s. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per TDKR Chicago 101. &mdash;Jonny Nixon (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Meh opposed of any listing on the basis that I oppose the Stevie nomination below (who at least charted) while I am a huge fan of Lemmy, but seriously don't see him as more than a very tight niche occupant. μηδείς (talk) 05:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, At the top of his field for many years, probably deserving of a blurb too. Mjroots (talk) 07:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD - I have not even looked at the article, but the notability appears clear. An RD is the middle path between nothing, and a full blurb. Suggest we take it, assuming the article is decent. Heavy metal is not my field. Jus  da  fax   07:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - he certainly occupied his niche with success, but it's that a niche. Not top of his field. 87.154.209.127 (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Full blurb. Both his and the Motorhead article are in good shape and he was a fucking legend.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. --Tone 09:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support highly notable, highly influential. Lemmy and Motörhead are both very well known, even to those without an interest in rock. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mean RD or blurb, Spacecowboy? George Ho (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support full blurb; the notion that he or Motörhead are famous only in a niche or a given country is pretty ludicrous. He has charted in the top 10 in multiple countries' mainstream charts, and was still doing so less than six months ago; his music has been featured in cult TV, Hollywood films and even Wrestlemania. The guy's well-known. G RAPPLE   X  09:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose full blurb - See my above response to Ihcoyc. George Ho (talk) 10:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose full blurb He is only a musician, and not even top in that field on notability. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yo, check out the BBC quote "as he became one of music's most recognisable voices and faces." That doesnt soudn to me like only nor not even in the top of his field. Nergaal (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support full blurb it is rare that an Ace of Spades of the Big Four dies. Nergaal (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose full blurb Important enough for RD but not a death that is going to impact the world nor unexpected. Moorhead and Lemmy's contribution are important to music but they aren't the Beatles, for example. --M ASEM  (t) 12:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Nigeria bombings

 * By "hight" do you mean named or have you simply misspelled height? μηδείς (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Corrected.Lihaas (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, but would change the blurb to make it clear that this was an assault on Maiduguri, not just an attack. And using Press TV as a source should be a big no no. 87.154.209.127 (talk) 08:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose no target article specified, flawed nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] US storms

 * I can't believe TRM hasn't come to oppose this yet based on lack of sufficient update to the article. Nergaal (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe he came did oppose it in nomination ;) (now watch the vitriol in personal attack).
 * Anyways, death count alone doesn't make it notable and since there is no reason given here for the nomination but mere "shock" that for some magical reason we don't have it, oppose.Lihaas (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I nominated it.  The reason is obvious, 43 people have been killed in the last couple of days.  Perhaps next time you could write in English?  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment, , please try to take time to write your comments in readable English, both of you are so keen to contribute, which is really nice, but mostly your contributions are illegible. Thanks!  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about contributions. I was just reminding some rambling guy I know to come shoot down another fine nomination. Nergaal (talk) 12:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You're not making any sense, but never mind! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Besides the death toll, the weather effects are almost unimaginably weird. Deserts are buried under a foot of snow (or more!), the northeast has a nearly summery Christmas, and countless local/regional meteorological records - to say nothing of tornadoes in Dallas.  Several major cities are declared disaster zones.  I considered nominating this a day or two ago, but the article was still a stub and many of the present effects had not hit yet. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 20:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * When you say "the article was still a stub" are you referring to another article that I didn't discover? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - pending update Of clear international interest, death count is significant and likely to rise and is almost certain going to break records as shown on this WUnderground blog. yorkshiresky (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Conditional support pending update. With tornadoes and blizzards in Texas and record high 75F weather in the Northeast over the Christmas holidays the event is noteworthy and will be remembered for quite some time. (Many flowers and leaves are budding 3 months early, which will spell disaster when a freeze kills them.) The target article should be tied in with the unusual strong, if not record-breaking El Nino, which might actually be a better target. μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose target article, support event – Extremely disruptive event with large loss of life, the deadliest series of natural disaster this year in the United States if my memory serves. As of now, this event is splintered across five articles: the nominated one, December 23–25, 2015 tornado outbreak, December 26–28, 2015 tornado outbreak, Tornadoes of 2015, and 2015–16 North American winter. Meteorologically, this event is comprised of two wholly separate extratropical cyclones, which is reflected by the two separate outbreak articles. The second system, December 26–28, has been far more disruptive than the first, being the cause of blizzards over Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico, as well as the deadly flooding along the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. The first one, however, resulted in a record "heat wave" for Christmas-time, with record highs falling across the entire Eastern Seaboard. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this a better target article Cyclonebiskit? It has nothing about these events but that could be fixed. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure at the moment, really tired and can't think of much. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – I live at a latitude of almost 65 degrees north, where severe winter weather is a way of life for half the year give or take, and we've had up to 15 ft of total snowfall some winters. Roughly 24 hours ago, the closure of I-27 and I-40 was all over the news for X number of hours.  When I later visited a friend who was watching The Weather Channel's report from Amarillo, we couldn't stop laughing uproariously over how little actual snow there was on the ground.  That was before they got to the live report in which the roads behind the reporter were completely devoid of snow.  Here, if someone said that they couldn't drive with that amount of snow on the road, we'd tell them that they're living in the wrong place.  Sounds to me like another case of the media making a mountain out of a molehill. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  03:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * They're clearly reporting from the wrong location; several areas of seen multiple feet of snow, and these areas don't get storms of this magnitude that often. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The northern latitude has frozen your brain. Why would West Texas cities have equipment for dealing with snow at all?  It costs millions a year to maintain and would get used once every couple decades.  Desert cities don't even have storm drains in many cases.  Ergo, many affected cities have zero preparation for these conditions, much the way your city likely has zero preparation for sandstorms and heat waves.  What you're laughing uproariously over is in fact a disaster that's pulling power lines down, grinding transportation to a halt, and threatening floods when it melts. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 05:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the part about heat waves is somewhat misleading. Interior Alaska is a special case, shielded from coastal weather by multiple major mountain ranges.  Temps in the 90 - 100 F range are about as common anywhere from June to August as -40 - -60 F or colder temps are between December and February.  The lack of humidity comparative to many other places keeps the former from being much of a problem. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  14:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pending updates The systems and their impact are notable. Per Cyclonebiscuit, I think that we need one good article here, likely the current Christmas storms one, but that links in the two tonarndo events and the summary article, and links in the El Nino factor, as well as including the temperature inversion that we saw. --M ASEM  (t) 12:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – Fairly high death toll, but though I'm American, to be honest I don't detect great global interest. (Perhaps I'm biased against weather news?) Generally, wars and terrorism, i.e. human-caused disasters, are of greater significance. Sca (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If this were deaths from winter blizzards typical of the States, with the same death toll. I'd agree. What is unusual is the toll being from floods and tornadoes which very rarely happen in this season. --M ASEM (t) 15:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The news in the UK lately has been dominated by flooding. This followed an unseasonably warm Christmas.  There has also been heavy flooding in South America.  All these unusual weather patterns seem to be due to El Nino and so this should be the focus of the blurb, with a global background, not just the US.  Here's a source which ties all this together:  El Nino weather 'could be as bad as 1998', says Nasa.  Andrew D. (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - I'll get behind either a U.S.-oriented blurb or a broader worldwide "El Nino" one. There is no doubt that we have notable weather-related events in the news currently. Let's acknowledge that at ITN on our Main page. Jus da  fax   15:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, perhaps in conjunction with North Pole temperature, oppose American-centric blurb – the weather systems are just as destructive across the Atlantic, thank you very much. Sceptre (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I have expanded the article to a degree and moved it to December 2015 storm system to allow the broader coverage that has been pointed out in this nom and in the above North Pole temperature nom. I also tried to include the South American flooding and the expected UK flooding. --M ASEM (t) 18:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support – Per revision by Masem of main target article, which however is still comparatively brief at 450 words. Sca (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, faded from the news, not important enough. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Meadowlark Lemon

 * Weak oppose I can see the notability of a 22-year-experienced Globetrotter, but the article is really poor and needs a lot of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support The NYT obit describes him as "an American institution". I'm not American but he was clearly one of the big names in 20th century sport.  The article could use some work but I expect it will get it now. Andrew D. (talk) 10:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A big name in 20th century exhibition American basketball perhaps. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * According to The Scribner Encyclopedia of American Lives, "In 1978 a nationwide poll named Lemon the fourth most popular personality in the United States (after John Wayne, Alan Alda, and Bob Hope)." That makes him a big name, period.  Bigger than Jimmy Hill who is our most recent RD. Andrew D. (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The comparison with Jimmy Hill is irrelevant and misleading. But thanks.  You might like to add that to the article though, and clean it up while you're at it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've done my bit and will be working on his high school – a significant institution which was not covered at all before. I'll leave the Meadowlark topic to the basketball experts for whom it should be a slam dunk. Andrew D. (talk) 13:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought you were interested in this article being on the main page. My mistake, sorry. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I was expecting it to be on the main page the same day but, as it is, it only took 24 hours. In the meantime, the page had already attracted more traffic than Jimmy Hill.  Putting such cases in RD is just a formality. Andrew D. (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * More traffic? No surprises there, unless you live under a rock.  It's called systemic bias.  ITN RD is not just a formality, it ensures that we have some level of quality control before posting garbage to the main page.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on the merits but, as already stated, the article needs work so I oppose on quality. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - if article is fixed. Merits alone is enough for support.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – Per BabbaQ. Famous comedian-athlete, entertained millions. Sca (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment it's clear this has consensus to post, but if not one of the supporters is going to sort out the issues with the article, it'll just get stale and drop off. How about you guys doing something about this?  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not qualified to edit sports. Sca (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We're all "qualified" to find sources for dubious statements, you know that. But no-one is under any obligation, of course, just a shame this will drop into stale territory before too long, despite the keen supporters who aren't prepared to do anything.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I the untechie made a few attempts. Sca (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Ready the article has been expanded from 6 to 10kb as of this edit and all the tags addressed. Added is the fact that in 1999 Wilt Chamberlain described Lemon as the best player of all time. μηδείς (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - An all-time great player and entertainer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks ready to post. Sca (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: Good work on this, folks. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Japan-South Korea agreement on 'comfort women' issue
if I understand you, you have created a new target article? If so, can you at least link to it, if not do what would be preferable, post a new, properly formatted blurb? I find it hard to know aht WP material I should be judging, while I agree the event as described is quite notable. μηδείς (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Update is required but otherwise this seems to be an end to a long-lasting dispute which merits an ITN blurb. --Tone 09:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see either linked article to have been suitably updated, and that would include checking existing material as some of it is written such that no further action was ever likely. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * support - when a adequate article is presented.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on the merits(just read about this agreement in the news) as the resolution of a long time dispute, but we need an updated article so I oppose until there is one. 331dot (talk) 11:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support once the Comfort women article is updated. Abductive  (reasoning) 14:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If the blurb as worded is true, I could happily support it if a clear rationale and target were given. The blurb has no bolded link, and "Japan–Korea disputes" is quite a broad issue. μηδείς (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as a significant milestone in the history of the dispute. Banedon (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've copied the update form one article to the other. I guess it's ready to post. --Tone 09:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support but need better blurb I suspect not many western readers know what comfort women mean or how this directly factor into these countries necessarily (I didnt). Perhaps "Japan offers to pay over one billion yen to surviving 'comfort women' (forced prostitution) from its occupation of the Korean pennisula, improving relationships with South Korea." --M ASEM (t) 13:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I just duplicated the update from one article to the other. Anyway, I think the blurb is fine and it goes along with what the media said. Posting. --Tone 10:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Alfredo Pacheco

 * Weak oppose support Indeed, per El Salvador national football team he has the most caps. However, top scorer looks more significant, also per our article Pacheco was banned due to match fixing. Brandmeistertalk  17:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * He was a left back—if he were "top scorer" that would be earth-shaking news. You realise that restricting football noms to "top scorer" would instantly disqualify nine out of every eleven players (the "four" and "four" in 4–4–2, plus the goalie), since it's only the two forwards whose job it is to score goals? &#8209; Iridescent 18:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Most capped player in the history of a nation with a long football tradition is clearly "at the top of his field", even if Central American football isn't as well-known as its cousins to the south. &#8209; Iridescent 18:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Support South America is a powerhouse in football, and Central/North America countries are quite weak in comparison. El Salvador is currently at place 99 in the world in football, and playing many games for a weak team is comparably easy. His ban for life for match fixing and his murder are actually the parts that make him notable. LoveToLondon (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support anyone who believes that FIFA rankings count for anything "only prove[s] that the person does not know anything about football." It bears little relevance to this nomination.  More testy editing.  This individual was certainly notable enough within his sport and his untimely death makes the nomination even more notable.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Aren't you a bit schizophrenic when you first claim a reasonable discussion I started would be a waste of community time and effort, and then start spending time and effort on stalking me with nonsense comments? LoveToLondon (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you accusing me of being mentally ill? Please clarify your statement so that I can make sure exactly what it is you're accusing me of.  Your RFC is a complete waste of time and effort, as already demonstrated.  Your recent edits however seem to be as testy as ever. If you'd like to retract the questioning of my own mental health before you and your other accounts get indefinitely blocked, that would be wise.   The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you again wrongly accusing me of having other accounts? Please retract that lie. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, of course not, you missed the point where I asked if you were suggesting I was mentally ill. Are you going to continue this testy editing again?  You have been advised time and time again to improve, clearly it has fallen on deaf ears, and now to accuse me of being mentally ill, you've taken it one step too far.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Check your dictionary for all meanings of the word schizophrenic. You seem to have (deliberately?) picked the one that fits best your agenda to block me. Please retract your lie regarding other accounts. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)\
 * Nah, you can dance for that. Calling me mentally ill is beyond the pale pal.  You need to sort your life out before your ongoing testy edits can be tolerated.  Funny that I'm not alone in asking you to stop contributing in your own "testy" way, both then and now.  If you could stop that altogether, it would be great, if not, it won't be long before you can't.  Good riddance.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Knock it off, both of you. This is not a productive conversation. Prodego  talk  22:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed; as with virtually everything else Blatter's goons churn out, FIFA rankings are not to be taken remotely seriously, unless you really believe Belgium is the best team in the world, Wales is a more important team than Russia or France, and England is roughly on a par with Brazil. &#8209; Iridescent 21:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, even footballers and football managers deem the FIFA rankings to be a complete joke. For someone to claim that the ranking of El Salvador is in some way relevant is abjectly clueless.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @Iridescent Despite all its shortcomings, the FIFA ranking are the best available RS for the approximate strength of a national team - especially for lower ranked teams that rarely make it to big tournaments. 8 wins with 1 loss and 0 draws is a good record in 2015, and when you consider that the FIFA ranking is half based on the 2015 ranking it is not unreasonable to have Belgium at the top. Germany might have won the World Cup last year, but this year Belgium clearly had a better performance. Wales has a good record in 2015, and Brasil had non-stellar performances in 2015. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone who thinks that FIFA rankings are a reliable source "only prove[s] that the person does not know anything about football". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Seems that he was a decent player, but not important enough for RD. It's lowering the bar too far to say most "caps" for El Salvador is enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose and for that matter, give a rationale in your nomination template, not a snarky "in response to otherstuff" wisecrack. μηδείς (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Ellsworth Kelly

 * Weak support half decent shout at notability, half decent article could use some improvements on sourcing. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * support - after some improvements has been made. overall notability is enough for RD mention.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support once improved Some unreferenced material and cite needed tags still remain. Once fixed, I'm happy to support. Miyagawa (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Article needs to be fixed. Sourcing wise. Kelly himself is notable and would pass on notability. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Three basically self-congratulatory awards, not a single work any layman could name or recognize if it were named, derivative works, no influence at all on the wider or later culture. μηδείς (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - His works were inspired by previous works. Not worldly known or inspiring, unfortunately. His artwork is very abstract and simple; nothing wrong with that. But I can't think of a best-known artwork. --George Ho (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Corsica protests

 * Oppose An article about an attack on Muslims in France that does not even mention the Paris attacks? The nominator claim done the background makes it clear that the nominator has no understanding of the subject of the article he is writing. Before discussing the question whether this is ITN material (which I doubt), this article first needs someone who reads through French sources and properly describes how Corsican nationalism and the many recent attacks on Muslims all over France interact. LoveToLondon (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Instead of being a whingeing tendentious editor, you can go ahead and draw the connection. I don't WP:OWN this article. btw- it also already cites racial tensions and the circumstances this month in CORSICA. where the winners want to be SEPERATE from france. Maybe you have "no understanding of the subject of the article". No need to insert your own synthesis that it has to mention the pris attacks and be related if you haven't read it.Lihaas (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Lihaas, I have no opinion on the event as of yet, but the article has things like "lingeres" for "lingers" and mentions breathlessly that "a part of a Qur'an" was burnt--(is this surprising in a mosque arson?)--although with no source. And even the blurb above isn't grammatical.  I suggest a better presentation up front, before rushing to a nomination will have better results. μηδείς (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose no injuries, no deaths, a few hundred angry French people marching around shouting, sounds like every day ending in the letter Y. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Considering below you [rightly] cited the ITN criteria and being in the news...how then does the mere build up in a morue constitute a criteria?Lihaas (talk) 12:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're saying at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - minor altercations, not some sort of deadly pogrom that ends the entire Muslim population of Corsica. Also, blurb neglects to mention the attacks on firefighters which were followed (completely undeservedly) by the vandalism of the mosque. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggest a snow close by an uninvolved editor. None of the above concerns by me or others have been addressed. μηδείς (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, closing myself now, given no further support 24 hours after my suggestion this be closed. μηδείς (talk) 05:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Stevie Wright

 * Oppose His band was internationally a one-hit wonder (two-hit wonder in the UK), and in his solo career he had no international success. Any claims he was an international star are therefore not trustworthy. LoveToLondon (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support whether or not he was "international" is actually irrelevant here, as we all know. The article is in good condition, notable singer, important in his field.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose From reading the article and discography, I do not believe that this singer meets the RD criteria. He seems to have had a successful career, but average nonetheless. Mamyles (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seems to have been the frontman for three singles for which we have articles, but is very derivative and no indication of acclaim or influence. μηδείς (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A one or two-hit wonder that doesn't seem to have been the most influential or successful of their field. One that has their fans, but doesn't really meet the RD criteria, IMO. Challenger l (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Haskell Wexler

 * presuming that's the highest award for cinematographers, then obvious support.Lihaas (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing this. The last thing I would mention in recommending One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest would be the cinematography. Is the filmography in the article complete? That, In the Heat of the Night and American Graffiti seem to be his best works. μηδείς (talk) 00:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on notablility but Oppose on article quality. Some semi-obscure vote more than 10 years ago is used to claim his importance in the lead section of the article, but clicking on the IMDb link is the only reasonable way to get an overview of his Academy Award wins and nominations? Two Academy Award wins for Best Cinematography is clearly enough for RD, but a properly structured (and sourced) article is needed before this can be posted to RD. LoveToLondon (talk) 01:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Notable, influential and honored, and a good RD nom. But as noted, article needs work. Jus  da  fax   04:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support placing personal opinions of his work aside, of course, the man was clearly highly important in his field. The article, however, is a mess.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - The article needs to be fixed. More sources and the format needs to be organized. Wexler is notable and certainly the top of his field no question. Fix the article and I'd support it. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support once improved There's sizable chunks of uncited information in the article at present. That'd all need to be fixed before this could go on the front page. Miyagawa (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Even when well known and prominent in cinematography field, I haven't seen one cinematographer honorably mentioned in ITN or RD. Also, the article doesn't well explain importance of his cinematographic skills in well-known movies. I'm astounded by supports here. --George Ho (talk) 10:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose two Academy Awards doesn't count for much these days. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * One for Woolf I can count. Bound I am unsure aside from using first "Steadicam", which is just... eh at today's standards but impactful at its time. Same for the documentary. Of course, the documentary is related to well-known massacre, not Massacre at Huế, which has higher death toll than the other. --George Ho (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all sure what you're trying to say. Your oppose is bizarre and ill-founded, but it is, after all, your opinion and you are, after all, entitled to express it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly certain Gordon Willis was there and he never even won an Oscar. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to be 100% certain. G RAPPLE   X  20:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. "Wexler was judged to be one of film history's ten most influential cinematographers in a survey of the members of the International Cinematographers Guild", sourced in the article's lead, seems justification enough for me. G RAPPLE   X  11:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Liberation of Ramadi

 * A combined blurb might be good if someone wants to suggest one. μηδείς (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Tried one. Feel free to tweak. (the blurb is not showing up, but you can see it when you hit edit)Lihaas (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem was that the altblurb field was there twice, with one of them blank. μηδείς (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do you want to combine completely unrelated events from different civil wars in different countries into one blurb? There is no relation at all between the two. LoveToLondon (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose If we post every major battle in the ongoing civil wars in Syria and Iraq (and Yemen (and soon Turkey?)) that would be several blurbs per week. If anyone would turn Iraqi Civil War into a good article that would be a good addition to ongoing. LoveToLondon (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In recent weeks too many blurbs has not been our problem. We are often criticized for a lack of turnover. 331dot (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think newsticker blurbs about the latest battles in these civil wars, or newsticker blurbs about the latest rebel leader killed, are an improvement. And turnover is expected to become better when the Christmas time is over. LoveToLondon (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support it's a major development. Oppose vote fails to convince. Major developments happen, by definition, quite rarely. Offhand I don't recall the last major battle from the Syrian, Iraqi and Yemeni civil wars we posted to ITN; it's probably been months or at least weeks. Banedon (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Last one was the Liberation of Sinjar in mid-November. --PanchoS (talk) 09:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Did anyone you actually check the article quality? In it's current state Battle of Ramadi (2015–Present) does not even properly describe the whole background and significance of this battle. And any reader trying to find that by clicking on Iraqi Civil War (2014–present) will get an article that is an awful state. Is WP supposed to be an encyclopedia, or a random collection of articles about battles posted to ITN without any proper overview of the whole wars? LoveToLondon (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Soemoene changed the link from the one I nominated.Lihaas (talk) 03:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I did that, thought it was obvious? The one you nominated was to a battle that was fought from 21 November 2014 – 17 May 2015? Banedon (talk) 03:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The contents was moved to an own article during the nomination. The nominator doesn't seem to follow the talk page of the article he nominated (and got his only edit in the article he nominated reverted due to violating existing consensus). LoveToLondon (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Go humour your ad-hominem NPA someplace else. I nominated...someone changed the onus is on them to inform of this!Lihaas (talk) 12:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Reuters says it's not confirmed what's going on in Ramadi, so I won't !vote on this just yet. And as noted the article condition situation isn't much better. Jus  da  fax   07:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree that the article needs some improvement and expansion first. It's an extraordinarily relevant development though, so should be promoted to ITN. "Iraqi Civil War" can use improvement, too, though it is no particularly common term as it remains a diffuse mixture of different conflicts. The altblurb doesn't seem to be a good idea, as the two events aren't really connected. --PanchoS (talk) 09:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: George Clayton Johnson

 * Support as nominator Like I said, I was initially unsure until I saw the coverage, then when I saw the awards I felt that he met the criteria to have been at the top of the field - which he was, at least for a time. Miyagawa (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support but article needs clean up. Just for interest, the Academy Award nominations for Logan's Run didn't really have anything to do with Johnson (one for cinematography and one for visual effects).  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, that explains the loose Oscar line that I couldn't find a cite for. I've now cited the rest of the article and removed what I couldn't find evidence for. It could still do with a hefty expansion which I might be tempted to do at some point having been working up "The Man Trap" prior to his death. Miyagawa (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Accomplished writer and has contributed to some well known programs. Article seems to be in good enough condition. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support A contributor to two TV shows considered among the most influential, nominated for two of the top awards for his field. His influence among writers is also notable and very clearly cited. Challenger l (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I don't get supports. Reading his article, it looks good. However, at the top of his field? You wish. People say mention his name just because he wrote the aired pilot episode of Star Trek (original). Awards that he won are just minor. George Ho (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Marked ready, article is well-reffed after work by Miyagawa. μηδείς (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted good work Miyagawa. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Robert Spitzer

 * Support An overall well-sourced article. The man himself is established as at the top of the field of psychiatry, and his work on homosexuality is groundbreaking for the Western world as we know it today &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Decent article condition though a death section needs to be created. Notability and ITN-worthiness is clear. Good nom.  Jus  da  fax   20:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added a very brief section about his death. 331dot (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As of this edit a lot of the article is written in the present perfect, rather than the past perfect or simple past. The article itself seems overwhelmed by the orientation controversy.  I am not sure we should be posting the death at ITN if that controversy is what makes the subject notable. μηδείς (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose RD nomination advertised with most influential psychiatrist, but the only entry in the Awards and prizes is from the city where he seems to have lived his whole life? If the claims by the nominator are true, he surely got many awards in his field and honorary awards from several universities all over the world. LoveToLondon (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not me advertising, it is what the reliable sources are saying. He essentially wrote the book of psychiatry.  If that doesn't make one "very important" to a field, what does? Awards are not the only measure of notability. Not every field has awards. 331dot (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's simply inaccurate. Spitzer didn't create the first DSM in the 50's, he chaired the committee crafting the DSM III published in 1980.  Then absolutely nothing of great note until 2001 when he said that some people can have some success at changing their sexual orientation.  Except for the "betrayal" (the word is in our article) the gay community felt, and his rather belated retraction of that paper, he'd be a footnote. μηδείς (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you feel that way, fair enough, but you might want to speak to the reliable sources who are saying otherwise. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Who exactly is saying exactly that? A journalist citing his successor with a blurry claim that he was the most influential psychiatrist is the opposite of a reliable source.
 * Even one of the sources you gave disproves your claim: From 1980 to 2001, he won many of the field’s most prestigious awards, including one for patient care and one for teaching. This is still too vague to be useful, but proves that the article is incomplete at this critical point.
 * Is there actually any person not from the US claiming (opposed to citing a claim) that he was the most influential psychiatrist, or was he only important in his field locally in one country with less than 5% of the world's population? What you call the book of psychiatry has zero WP articles in other languages, which seems to hint at the latter? Awards and honorary doctorates (and their geographical distribution) are objective facts that are much more useful than his successor telling a journalist a blurry claim that he was the most influential psychiatrist.
 * My oppose is primarily about article quality. There might be enough objective facts proving his importance in his field in the US, and I am curious whether he was also considered important in his field outside the US - but with the current incomplete state of the article there is not enough information for judging whether you or Medeis are right about his importance. LoveToLondon (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As I stated, fair enough. You are entitled to your views. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - The "book of psychiatry" actually has 40 different language articles and it is "the book". GuzzyG (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you just make this up, or can you provide links to WP articles covering the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 40 different languages? The article itself contains 0 such links. LoveToLondon (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Well sourced article and the subject appears to be top of his field. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am queer, and I remember when the DSM III was published, and homosexuality itself was removed as a disorder. I also remember when Spitzer said that it was possible for certain homosexuals to have successful heterosexual relationships (something I can attest to myself) in 2001.  Finally, I also remember the shemful campaign against Spitzer, and his qualified withdrawal of his claims as scientific fact.  That being said, Spitzer in no way reaches the level of acclaim of others in the general field of psychology who have been posted, and besides the three controversial declarations on homosexuality, I see no notability here.  I honor the man for his integrity, but not his personal notability. μηδείς (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support His involvement in the DSM demonstrates significant importance to the field of psychiatry. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Zahran Alloush death

 * Oppose Leader of one of the many rebel groups. Delay of a minor event does not create importance. Instead of RD, the death should be covered in the Syrian Civil War article that is already at Ongoing. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'd consider it to be included already in the Ongoing article. Miyagawa (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] December 2015 Hindu Kush earthquake

 * Oppose there were six stronger earthquakes this year, did we post every one of those? This one seems to have relatively minor consequences (at this time). The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes you can say (at this time) this is a minor consequence but first one is not a good excuse life of a single person is as important as of 10 or 20. Anjana Larka Talk 10:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No one is saying that a single life is not valuable, but we are not able to post every single earthquake in the world. There must be something notable or unusual about it, such as a large number of casualties or damage.  This earthquake doesn't appear to have even killed one person as of right now.   331dot (talk) 10:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you 331dot. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose as of right now per my above post. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Nothing unusual about this earthquake nor did it cause major damage/loss of life (thankfully). The epicenter's considerable depth lends me to think we wont be seeing any either. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Sadhana Shivdasani

 * support - indeed, seems like a top actress in Bollywood at her time. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article says it better than I can: "she did not receive any of the leading awards of the film industry" - popular does not equate to notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - if she would have worked in Hollywood we would discuss whether her death warrants a blurb or not. 93.215.94.29 (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I doubt that very much. Just because she was "highly paid", it doesn't mean her not-particularly-unusual death would warrant a blurb, ever.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Reading her article, her notability seems to come from how she appeared in her films rather than her acting ability- and even there she seems average.  She did get a lifetime achievement award, but it seems to recognize her popularity more than her ability, and as TRM states, popularity does not equal notability. 331dot (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should go ahead and propose for this article to be deleted if she is not notable? 87.154.217.17 (talk) 10:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you being deliberately disruptive? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support We put up Paul Walker did we not? Samuel L. Jackson has not won any major American awards but is very popular and are you going to say that we would not put him up? She was nominated for India's academy equivalent twice twice. Unfortunately we don't have edtiors that specialise in 1970's Indian Cinema to make her article up to scratch, especially compared to our coverage of internet celebs or the likes. GuzzyG (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Jackson's lead puts it better than I could: " has achieved critical and commercial acclaim, surpassing Frank Welker as the actor with the highest grossing film total of all time in October 2011,[1] and he has received numerous accolades and awards." and not just "he was third highest paid actor in the 1970s". Posting Walker was a gross error, as we know, to repeat it would be negligent. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You fail to mention that it also says "... was one of the top actresses in the 1960s and the early-1970s, a period regarded as Bollywood's golden era". Nice try. 87.154.217.17 (talk) 10:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a "nice try" at all, I simply stated that Jackson would be obvious because he actually won awards and set records, unlike this individual who was popular and according to one single source "one of the top actresses". Now give it a rest.  Oh, and that reference to the hagiographical Hindu page, the article is so poorly written, one wonders if it really could be used as a reliable source.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I do think it's a bit of a stretch to include her but Jimmy Hill has been on the page for a week and i am positive that if this actress was British or American and of equivalent status in those countries cinemas that she would qualify. Indian cinema is one of the top three worldwide so i have no problems with posting one of it's top stars, especially when you can guarantee that people will get Pamela Anderson up here. The quality of the article is weak i do agree with you. GuzzyG (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Jimmy Hill fundamentally changed the way football worked. This actress was reasonably popular and well paid.  Yes, Pammy would get some support, but there'd also be a huge backlash against it too.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As a huge Football fan i am quite aware of Jimmy Hill's accomplishments and i am not downplaying them, i was more pointing out in nice terms that seeing a fresh name might not hurt. GuzzyG (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per GuzzyG. &mdash;Jonny Nixon (talk) 05:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - As long as this person is not blurbed and the article is in good shape, mentioning and honoring her name are fine for me. Also, regardless of popularity, she has been prominent to the industry, especially due to her award nominations, though she did not win awards. George Ho (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. When you're an actress whose name is a household word in your country, that sort of popularity puts you at the top of your field even if you didn't get a single Oscar. The article easily qualifies her. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 06:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment before an admin posts this, could they read the article please. We have unreferenced puffery such as "The Rafi – Asha duet "Abhi Na Jaao Chodkar" remains evergreen.", "to make their famous suspense thriller trilogy.", "she played her remarkable double role ", " Madan Mohan’s all time classics like", "thus making her famous as the "Mystery girl"." etc etc, all in one section.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * not ready there are 2 sentences of her death as of this month...and one is the general illness, but I 'spose it counts as a reaction of sorts. Plus there is an orange tag in the article.Lihaas (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: The orange tag was more a drive by tagging with no rationale provided on talk page or elsewhere. I removed that. And "Abhi Na Jaao Chodkar" is indeed notable, included in 47 seleted duets of Asha-Rafi in Golden Collection pack. Anyways, the sentences are now altered a lot. The Hindu called her "the woman who defined elegance and grace for Bollywood" (ref) and that conveys her notability. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It was pretty obvious (a rationale was given in the edit summary), so I've replaced it and added a note on the talk page just for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ All films refed/blue linked. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Posted good clean up. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank

 * support - significant and article seems ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment a quick breeze of the article, I'm not sure of the significance of this agreement between a handful of countries. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support 56 countries already signed, this is much bigger than local agreements with only a dozen participants like the Trans-Pacific Partnership. LoveToLondon (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe that's why it's partly confusing since the blurb only mentions 17.  And the article you mentioned was posted with a blurb that included "amounting to about 40% of world's GDP", which was a clear indicator of the significance of the agreement.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The US alone has 22% of the world's GDP, so that's not a good measure - even a bilateral agreement between the US and a tiny country always amounts to more than 20% of the world's GDP (the signatory countries of the AIIB are also over 40%). I've added an altblurb without any confusing numbers based on the wording on the AIIB webpage - apart from what the name of the bank already tells, it is hard to put the significance of the bank in a NPOV way into very few words. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - China is one of the signatories and will be most influential to the Bank. So is South Korea, which is geographically smaller. Of course, the creation of the Bank is big news, even when the press doesn't emphasize it that much. George Ho (talk) 09:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * neutral for now I considered coming here for this but am not so sure. If we posted its announcement then we should probably wait till its operationally functional in a few months.Lihaas (talk) 13:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I see the point, but the problem with that is that there is no true "moment" for that. The board of governors will meet early January. At some point it will hand out its first loan etcetc, but there is no clear-cut "start of operations", except for its formal establishment as a bank (which now has happened on the 25th). So it probably is now, or 6 months ago (signing the articles of agreement), or... probably not at all...L.tak (talk) 14:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * its not. they were to formally begin operations in April or March.Lihaas (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The point where it is confirmed that the AIIB is actually being founded is now. That is the big news. A first board meetings or staff hiring (they won't have much staff) will not be big news. LoveToLondon (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - formation of a big supranational organization makes posting this seem obvious to me. Banedon (talk) 03:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - It's a big international deal. Per above supports, let's post it now. Jus  da  fax   06:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted alt blurb. For amendments, please take it to WP:ERRORS.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Santa is on his way

 * Supported by NORAD. However, the target article has one orange tag, this is a BLP issue. Brandmeistertalk  20:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry,, can't be a BLP issue as BLP is Biography of Living People, and Santa Claus = Sinter Klaas = Saint Nicholas, whose bio article tells us he died on December 6th 343 AD, so to claim it as a BLP issue is to blasphemously doubt the inerrancy of Wikipedia and/or its Reliable Sources. Incidentally we may first need to update the Norad and Ghost articles, as Norad's tracking clearly means that Norad has proved the existence of at least one ghost, unless you are a wicked conspiracy theorist who blasphemously doubts the inerrant truth of the utterances of an agency of Uncle Sam. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, more seriously, per WP:IAR, the presence of the tags should not be used as an excuse to avoid posting. There are potentially major benefits for kids who read the article and learn that Santa is a fiction inflicted on them by lying adults, and potentially major long-term benefits for Wikipedia in the form of the long-term gratitude of some of the kids who realize they have learnt the truth thanks to Wikipedia. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Cute, but DYK.--WaltCip (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Humbug! NORAD Tracks Santa is currently on SA/OTD.  I also wish to avoid all the questions as to why the info from the Google web site does not match with NORAD's website (As I type this, Google shows Santa in Tanzania moving south along the east coast of Africa while NORAD indicates he is moving north  along the western coast into Nigeria). --Allen3 talk 21:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support — Tossing in something fun and cute is a nice touch, especially if that orange tag can be dealt with. Can't be excessively serious all the time, after all. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support "Santa's sleigh shot down over rebel-held territory in Ukraine."--81.157.117.60 (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - I met him a few hours ago in Sweden. Nice guy.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice guy, ? Nearly 60 years ago I used to meet him every year in my local department stores, and I found him more boring than nice. But he's obviously got a picture in an attic somewhere, as he hasn't aged a bit in 60 years. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Is there an Islamic and Jewish counterpart of Santa Claus? Also, is this a serious nomination? The usualness/unusualness criterion is already useless. --George Ho (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, Mr. Grinch: "You may hear some reindeer on your rooftop / Or Jack Frost on your windowsill / But if someone's climbin' down your chimney / You'd better load your gun and shoot to kill!" -- Weird Al Yankovic. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there an Islamic and Jewish counterpart of Santa Claus? Possibly, but presumably not one who delivers gifts to good kids at midnight as Christmas Eve turns to Christmas. And there presumably isn't a Confucian, Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu, Shinto, animist or atheist equivalent either, and I'm my own eccentric variety of agnostic ignostic sceptic humanist and I'm not aware of any equivalent among any of my 4 labels, but I've still supported the nomination. I don't even want to be ecumenical by having us point out that Santa is an anagram of Satan to try to broad-mindedly keep a few Satanists happy. The relevant rule that supports posting is WP:IAR. I should add that any kid who is old enough to read and understand the Santa Claus article, and proceeds to do so, will presumably learn that Santa Claus is a fictional character  (and that adults must therefore sometimes be shameless liars), and he/she may also pass on this info to his/her friends. And I don't think the purpose of Wikipedia is to prevent kids finding out useful info like that. Tlhslobus (talk) 01:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - but switch to something like the alternative blurb once it's past midnight in California (or maybe Hawaii). Tlhslobus (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - clearly a joke nomination made in the spirit of Christmas, and then it becomes a judgement call whether we want to be serious all the time or not. I favour "yes we do". Banedon (talk) 01:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So you think there is nothing serious about helping kids who are old enough to read Wikipedia to learn that Santa Claus is a fiction inflicted on them by lying adults? Tlhslobus (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And do you also think that there is nothing serious about potential long-term benefits for Wikipedia in the form of the long-term gratitude of some of the kids who realize they have learnt the truth thanks to Wikipedia? Or do you think that the encyclopedia is improved by depriving itself of those long-term benefits? Tlhslobus (talk) 02:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * (I should perhaps add that I personally only really care about the potential benefits to the kids, but I'm also mentioning the potential benefits to Wikipedia (which for me are just a minor bonus) because they are real and because others here may really care about them, and it's probably a very good thing if they do so) Tlhslobus (talk) 02:56, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose' A flawless performance is all but certain from this annual event. May change to support if his rounds turn out to be extraordinary. Mamyles (talk) 04:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Must we post this every Christmas? Isn't OTD enough, which lists Christmas every year? --George Ho (talk) 05:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "You're a mean one, Mr. Grinch!" - Thurl Ravenscroft ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Come on it's time to give the guy some credit! It'd be nice for it to be posted to show users we can have a funny bone...well in this case a funny motherboard. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Don't be ridiculous. This is an encyclopedia, not the funnies pages. Let's at least pretend we take this seriously, shall we? Fgf10 (talk) 07:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * May I refer you to my earlier comments about the seriousness of giving or denying kids who can read Wikipedia a chance to learn that Santa is a lie inflicted on them by lying adults, plus the seriousness of the potential benefits to Wikipedia of us doing so. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - A midwinter festival co-opted by the church to assimilate pagans, fronted by a commercialised pastiche of St Nicolas and Odin, celebrating a putative birthday of a fictional character? No thank you. 94.212.132.191 (talk) 08:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:DONTLIKEIT, tip your fedora elsewhere &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 11:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose One doesn't get a chance to say this often, but this is fucking stupid. 72.196.121.121 (talk) 13:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 2015 Zaria Shia Massacre

 * Comment: Substantial issues with POV/neutrality: "Nigeria's military is infamous for its excesses." or "What happened in Zaria was nothing but an act of brutality by the Nigerian military." Additionally, nearly all of the "international and domestic reactions" cited in the article come from the Islamic Human Rights Commission, Iran, Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs, as well as students in Pakistan and India. I'm not saying those aren't relevant, but I'm curious as to what other reactions are out there from other nations/NGOs.  Spencer T♦ C 20:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * support - when the issues mentioned above has been solved. Notable and interesting.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Did the deaths happen on the 12th through 14th? The news seemed too old. This ain't elections or floodings; I'm unsure whether announcement exception applies. George Ho (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Generally in support of promoting this to ITN, I'm not at all happy with the current state of the article. A number of important questions remain unclear, and while the article is overly verbose in various citations, it is imprecise and lacks meaningful, sourced background. PanchoS (talk) 09:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * oppose as stale it happened some time ago and should have been posted then. DYK maybe if the article was recently created.Lihaas (talk) 13:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Bülend Ulusu

 * Oppose - Only on article quality. We don't do stubs. Nobility wise it's a go. Fix the article but adding more info with sources not only Turkish, but some English ones such as obits or some newsflashes on the New York Times archives. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TDKR Chicago 101. Unbelievable that we only have a stub for this individual.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose: He was the prime minister after 1980 coup detat. Kenan Evren was a "dictator" presuming absolute power during military rule, so Ulusu's role is merely a "titular" prime ministry. Also, no state funeral was held.--Joseph (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I was curious as to why we had so little to say about a fellow whose CV looked fairly impressive on paper.  Given the way he rose to the title, I wondered whether he wielded any actual authority.  Internet searches find very little information in languages I read.  Can probably close this. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Brunei bans Christmas

 * Oppose Unless this leads to massive protests or widespread religious conflict of some sort. More symbolic than real impact at this point.  Spencer T♦ C 02:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Countries are free to recognize or not recognize whatever holidays they see fit, and they can also limit the rights of their citizens to engage in public activities they find undesirable. As Spencer states, unless this leads to widespread protests or conflict, I don't think this merits posting(though I concede it may garner interest with Christmas approaching). 331dot (talk) 02:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * While I can agree that countries can do whatever the want with public holidays or limit the rights of their citizens in whatever ways they want, if we say this kind of policy decision is an internal affair and not worth posting then it would also exclude a variety of items from ITN, such as elections (unless they lead to widespread protests) and Japan expanding the role of its self-defense forces, something we posted in September this year. I realize I'm extrapolating somewhat from what you wrote, but the implications to me are quite clear. Banedon (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We judge each item on its own merits, not on past precedent, and in this case I don't feel the merits warrant posting. A country taking an action that it is able to do, that isn't heavily in the news(from what I see this is not front page, top level news) does not rise to the level of ITN. An officially pacifist country like Japan deciding to expand its military is a radical change in policy that was widely covered; an Islamic country using Sharia law deciding to ban Christmas is not a radical change in policy. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Brunei? Never heard of it.  In the meantime, you're a mean one, Mr. Sultan. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Leaving aside the religious aspect, it's perfectly reasonable for a government to see the secular version of Christmas as a public nuisance and decide, "we don't want that." - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 09:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure about posting this, but it is not at all a secular decision. Brunei if I remember well is one of the most repressive anti-secular countries in the world, where Sharia law is actually pretty much used in courts. Nergaal (talk) 10:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * support IFF they HAD shoot down or drone Santa.Lihaas (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Resignation of the Georgian Prime Minister

 * Comment Since the head of state in Georgia is President and not Prime Minister, this doesn't seem to hit the bar. Brandmeistertalk  22:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The president has a mostly ceremonial role, as the constitution was changed in 2012. The prime minister is the one who calls the shots. 93.215.83.247 (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support pending improvements - Won't matter that he's not the President. The change of government is very significant. Too bad the BLP is tagged with orange maintenance banners. George Ho (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The government is not changing, at least not until the next election in a year. Presumably someone from the same party will replace him, even if only temporarily. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added a few citations and removed some non-neutral language, the article is not perfect, but at least everything is cited now. 93.215.83.247 (talk) 15:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I marked it as ready by default as opposers seem too proud to be mostly ignorant on Georgian political system. --George Ho (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Neutral First, I do note the article really could use more citations. But as for including this, it really would be prudent based on the reasons. If it was just that stress got to him, that's probably not news. If it part of some scandal (which I'm not aware of) that might be different. But as it is, adding Brandmeister's point that PM in Georgia is not the state leader, it's hard to tell if this is news. --M ASEM (t) 23:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. This doesn't seem to be getting widespread, top news coverage; as stated he doesn't seem to have resigned due to a scandal or other problem. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The IP gave us a heads-up about the Georgian government. Shall this change your mind, 331dot? George Ho (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not totally sure what you are referencing, but if you are referring to the fact that the Georgian head of state is ceremonial, that does not change my mind. The government is still not radically changing as I understand it until the next election in a year. If this resignation was prompted by a scandal or even a serious health issue(neither of which seems to be the case, he either did for political reasons or he was just not interested any more), I would support.  331dot (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * He did not state any reasons for his resignation. There might have been a scandal, there might serious health reasons or whatever. It's all speculation, but the fact that this resignation came as an utter surprise and is completely unexplained makes it noteworthy.
 * It would be noteworthy if it resulted in political change or was due to a scandal(which does not seem to be the case as no one knows why). 331dot (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - notable and important news.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - seems obvious to me. Opposes fail to convince. One does not need to have scandals or health issues to have news. Banedon (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We are not a newspaper or news ticker. Merely being in the news(and this isn't top level news) is not sufficient. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What's the difference between Georgian politics and US politics? Also, how should the resignation of the Georgian PM be different from resignation of the US President? George Ho (talk) 10:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The US President is head of state; the Georgian PM is not head of state. We did not post the US Speaker of the House resigning. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But a Georgian PM is the head of government right now. It somehow can resemble a US Vice President, right? --George Ho (talk) 11:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The US Vice President is not head of government(the President is) and I doubt an uncontroversial resignation of one would warrant posting either. The Speaker of the House is closer to a PM in America's system(though not exactly the same) and as I indicated, that resignation was not posted. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As I wrote above, the Georgian PM is the one who holds all the power and is the Georgian equivalent to the US president or the German chancellor or the Russian president. Different countries have different political systems, but in Georgia it is the PM who matters. Fine if you oppose, but at least educate yourself about the item in question. 93.215.83.247 (talk) 12:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You do not know what I have and have not educated myself about; I am well aware of the nature of the position. ITN has always placed head of state as more important, as they represent their nation to the world. Someone who resigns without scandal and will likely be replaced(if temporarily) with someone ideologically similar is much less notable.  As I stated, the recent resignation of the US Speaker of the House was not posted, for the same reason. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The absurd comparison to the speaker of the house strongly suggests that you have no clue about the Georgian political system. Which is fine, after all it's a small nation, but then please do not vote on these items. I would also not claim that there was no scandal, because quite simply, the reasons for this resignation are unknown. There might have been a scandal, there might be health reasons, there might be something else. What makes this is a baffling and non-routine resignation. I also find it hard to believe that ITN places head of states as more important than the head of government as a rule. Surely Angela Merkel resigning would be posted, Joachim Gauck as president and head of state of Germany resigning would be much more doubtful. 93.215.83.247 (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you had read my above posts you would have seen that I realize the two offices are not the same, but the manner in which they were suggested for posting is. I will post my views (we do not 'vote') on whatever nominations I choose to do so, as will you.  A change in head of state is specifically listed on the recurring events list while head of government is not and attempts to add it have not succeeded. 331dot (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur with this IP guy. Watch what you say about the news and politics from Georgia next time, 331, or you'll be sorry. --George Ho (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that a threat?--WaltCip (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What exactly does that mean? 331dot (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm too busy to reply to your misassumptions on Georgian politics, 331. Please excuse me, I have other errands to do... --George Ho (talk) 00:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Walt, I wasn't threatening 331. I just warned him to be careful about his words. George Ho (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Here are Georgian and Russian versions of Presidential Powers. The English one doesn't detail it at all; it's empty. Also, here's the website of the Government of Georgia. Seems to me that his role is currently the same as the UK PM. --George Ho (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose it seems to have caused nothing more than raised eyebrows. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? George Ho (talk) 11:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's hardly "in the news" is it? I looked for updates, but nothing.  And don't try to threaten me, it won't work.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not frontline news because the NY Post, Daily Mail and others, rarely report on anything happening outside North American/Europe. Unless there is of course a terror attack on American/European tourists in the darker corners of the world. 93.215.94.29 (talk) 15:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't know about those outlets, I never read them. But the outlets I do read most certainly cover international news.   This was covered when it happened and has soon been completely forgotten about.  This is the ITN section of the main page, not the "things we ought to be seeing in the news" part of the main page.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:ITN says, "Do not assess whether a story is "prominent" or not based on where you see it reported on major news websites for this reason." You haven't explained else why the resignation of Georgian PM is not newsworthy other than "it's not in the news" criterion. George Ho (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm basing my position on whether our readers will be looking for this. That it was a mere blip in the major and minor news outlets and that it has already become chip paper means it's not in the news. And there is no consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is still big news and widely discussed in the media of post-soviet countries, please don't base your assessment on the news sources you read. 87.154.217.17 (talk) 10:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, as am I. I will base my assessment on my own criteria, and that means this isn't in the news and therefore shouldn't be on the main page of English language Wikipedia.  Thanks.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Widely discussed in the media of the former Soviet Union is not an opinion. No go back and read your personal favorite news about the Kardashian's and Justin Bieber. 87.154.217.17 (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm not going to remove it but I disagree with the 'ready' assessment; there is no clear consensus to post this. 331dot (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Opposers rely on the press's low emphasis on Georgian political system, bad comparisons, etc. Masem, care to vote? George Ho (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You are, of course, entitled to your opinion that news coverage is not relevant to "in the news", as you canvass for support. 331dot (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment it's worth re-visiting the ITN introduction which states The In the news (ITN) section on the main page serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest. i.e. of wide interest. This individual's article was receiving around 50 to 60 hits per day before the resignation, then around 1000 before now dropping back towards its previous levels.  This is a clear and bright indicator that this story is most definitely not of wide interest to our readers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What about other criteria of "wide"? --George Ho (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Do tell. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you really believe in this method of judging whether an item is of wide interest, you should get it written into ITN policy. I can just imagine the clause: "Any article that does not receive more than an average of 1000 page views a day for a period of one week is not of sufficiently wide interested to Wikipedia's readers to post in ITN". Banedon (talk) 03:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I really do believe that if an article gets around 60 hits per day on average, it is of little interest to our English language Wikipedia readers. I have no interest in your suggestion, by all means take it up yourself.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've restarted the general head of government change ITNR discussion you had closed as stalled in Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items. The current rule that changes of a lot of mostly powerless presidents, kings and queens are listed at ITNR but changes to the head of government are not doesn't make sense. LoveToLondon (talk) 10:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Great! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the Rambling Man prefer ITN to be populated by basketball players and the Kardashians, because clearly they get many hits and can be found in the English language press. It's sad to see so much hostility by an admin (!) towards news from parts of the world that are already underrepresented at Wikipedia. 87.154.209.127 (talk) 08:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That has neither logic nor evidence attached to it. But why spoil a good story?  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait A new Prime Minister will clearly be suitable for ITN, and the parliament is expected to vote on a new Prime Minister soon. Two ITN items for one Prime Minister change are too many, and the new Prime Minister is the more important news. LoveToLondon (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In your opinion. The question is if it is sufficiently noteworthy to appear in the news. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: War in Afghanistan

 * 2015? It's been going on since shortly after 9/11/01. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @Baseball Bugs: I don't know whether you misunderstood or are joking. This is one of the phases. Also, the War went on since the Cold War. George Ho (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Precisely. So how does a begin date of 2015 figure into it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? I just chose one article that is easier to update. The main War page hasn't been updated recently. What are your alternatives? --George Ho (talk) 04:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose I really don't see any need for posting this to "Ongoing events", as there are currently no related news that merit inclusion and thereby making overcrowd. The increased editing traffic certainly indicates that something is going on but there are hundreds or even thousands other articles with increased editing traffic as well. Shall we include them all?!--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Without any comment on the merits of the nomination, something really needs to be done about the delineation of the Afghanistan War phases. Using arbitrary years just seems too confusing, because the war has been going on for over a decade now, regardless of what the POTUS says.--WaltCip (talk) 12:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There are Cold War (1962–79), Cold War (1979–85), etc. Why must phases of Cold War be treated differently from phases of Afghan War? This is George Ho actually (Talk) 18:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Not seeing anything major that warrants this being placed under "ongoing". I share the same sentiments on the awkward delineation of the war phases too. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 13:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment There is an ongoing war but no recent major battles. 198.16.164.205 (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are dozens of such world affairs that are technically ongoing for decades, but unless they reach an intensity as to warrant special attention, we can't list all of them all the time. If the article has little to update but has still been well maintained, that is commendable, but it would be better to post as ongoing when there is a great deal to update, no? - OldManNeptune ⚓ 13:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Falcon-9 first stage landing

 * Comment: Falcon 9 Flight 20, the actual flight's article, has been added to the nomination.  Sounder Bruce  02:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: To stress the importance, this is a first time they've been able to land a rocket-type craft which is normally launched from the vertical position in the same manner that it took off, upright and near the intended target landing zone on solid ground. The Flight 20 article could use a bit more but this just happened in the hour so it might take a bit of time. --M ASEM (t) 02:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: the blurb needs to be rewritten to focus on what is newsworthy about the flight. It's a definite post after that is done. Prodego  talk  03:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – This is 100% the type of material we need to showcase on the main page. Historic event without a doubt. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Super cool, arguably ITN/R as notable spaceflight. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Absolutely. For those who wonder why I didn't support the Blue Origin story, and do support this one: this was a fully functioning, commercial, operational launch into space, which was fully successful in both delivering the payload and landing the stage, not a test flight. It went higher and faster than New Shepard. Furthermore, this was a return to flight after a stand down and the first flight of an ungraded model. Fgf10 (talk) 06:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: The most relevant and amazing thing that happened in spaceflight for a while, fantastic! :) Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 10:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I just happened to watch the BBC report and was so impressed that I came here looking for a nom. Note that we should be careful about claiming a first though.  The key thing to mention in the blurb is that this is a rocket landing vertically . Andrew D. (talk) 10:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No it's not, Blue Origin did that with a suborbital rocket a few weeks ago, and there are many other examples for rockets that didn't reach space. This is the first orbital rocket to soft-land vertically. Modest Genius talk 11:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The part that soft-landed was the first stage and so was not itself orbital. The article indicates that they have plans to recover the second stage in a similar way and so this is a work-in-progress in which the achievements are getting bigger and better.  And, when man landed on the moon, it was noteworthy that there was live coverage on TV.  Now it's the tweets that are notable... Andrew D. (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. I nominated the similar (but non-orbital) Blue Origin landing a few weeks ago. That was not posted, on the grounds that it was suborbital and Falcon 9 would be more significant. Well now we have the bigger, better version. Definitely significant. I don't think we need to mention the Orbcomm payload, but getting a link to VTVL into the blurb would be a good idea. Modest Genius talk 11:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, picture: I added a symbolic picture of a Falcon 9 above. We can also use this one of the actual maneuvre, of course: -- cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Came here to nominate this. shoy (reactions) 13:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - As with Shoy, I just came here to nominate it! Miyagawa (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – Quite a milestone in space history. Sca (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment if somebody could address the maintenance tag (have any of you read the article?) then we can easily post as consensus is overwhelming. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If we're talking about the specific launch article, that maintenance tag was added in the last two hours (from TRM's post date above) and does appear unjustified as the bulk of the prose is properly past tense (there's one sentence in future tense that says what happens if the launch was proven successful, but that's reasonable). --M ASEM (t) 15:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No it wasn't, it was added something like 13 hours ago. If you are happy with the article, and have proof-read it, please remove the tag and then we can post this.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops, my bad, I was looking at when a bot dated the tag. I do see that many intermediate edits were done to fix the tense since that point it was added, so what I'm seeing now clearly looks like it was done to address the tag. I would be fine with its removal at this point, but should get more opinions if that's the only thing limiting posting. --M ASEM (t) 15:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think it's fine, remove the tag. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone else pulled it before I could, so that probably means its ready to go. --M ASEM (t) 16:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. The focus of the blurb needs to be that it is the first commercial launch of this type of craft. Brightgalrs ( /braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/ )<sup style="color:#0645AD;">[1] 16:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks ready to me. Marking it so. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure the blurb is ready. The topic clearly is. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  18:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Posted a shorter blurb, needs work, so any admin prepared to be more creative, go fix. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] FDA relaxes ban on blood donations from MSM

 * Oppose systemic US bias, parochial regional story about a backwards society finally catching up with the civilized world, things happened but nothing changed. Is that enough boiler-plate anti-American rhetoric to kill this item? --68.115.239.114 (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As stated above, "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) 02:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Ignoring the claimed national bias above, this is nowhere close to the importance of the legalization of same-sex marriage. --M ASEM (t) 02:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Minor change in policy; as Masem states, SSM was a much bigger deal. 331dot (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - According to the linked article the controversy is a global one. I need to see some reasons for why the actions of one particular country in a global controversy is significant to support this nomination. Banedon (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Pending the creation of a World government, these sorts of things are going to happen one country at a time. Big countries decisions affect more people than little ones. Hopefully France will lift the ban soon so that support and praise can be heaped upon them via ITN. --68.115.239.114 (talk) 02:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Doesn't go far enough. Why celibate for one year? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Bisexual, bicurious, lesbian and heterosexual are other ways to not have sex with men for 1 year. Your point is still true for homosexual men though, at least those older than their state's Romeo and Juliet laws allow and not where the age of consent is 18 (Do 17 year olds count as men? It's probably safe to have gay sex with 17 year old males in my state if the youth never left the state in his life) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Bagram suicide bombing

 * Oppose While an attack, there have been plenty of others like this in the region, this just happens to have a larger death toll. It's part of the ongoing tensions in the area. --M ASEM (t) 02:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not unusual for a war zone. 331dot (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per 331dot, people get killed during war. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Six people killed by a suicide bomber in a country with ongoing military activities does not seem to be something extraordinary rare and worth considering for inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Star Wars global box office record

 * Oppose - I added the total of NA box office gross in altblurb. Despite significance of the franchise and fantastic excitement, the overseas gross ratio ain't that huge. Also, significance at ITN standards is too low. Jurassic World wasn't ITN when it hit $500 million worldwide. Why should this movie? George Ho (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * For the note, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 was ITN four years ago. George Ho (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "Biggest of all time" yes, if it reaches that, but opening weekend sales are more a piece of marketing than anything else. It's completely predictable that with the number of theater seats rising, blockbuster movies are going to have increased sales. &#8209; Iridescent 21:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. An event like this is a trivial figure in the grander scheme of the world, like being a presidential frontrunner or having a big lead in the middle of the sports season. If it becomes the highest grossing film of all time, definite support &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:In_the_news&oldid=440191886 Harry Potter blurb]. Jurassic World wasn't nominated, and media and public interest in The Force Awakens is much larger. Last week it was our most read article by a factor four to five, excluding a factor two for Star Wars. December box office is usually more spread out when people have many days off. The previous December record opening was only $250 million for The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Avatar was in ITN when it became the highest grossing film in total (the only such record in Wikipedia's time). News interest is far larger when a film opens than when its total breaks a record – something "known" long in advance except for the precise day. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Huge, notable, obviously in the news. Yes, it's trivia, but so are a lot of the things we post. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support now or later, but not both. This is going to break Avatar's record and become the highest grossing film of all time. The question is do we want to wait for that second record, or post this one. --68.115.239.114 (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – For this to happen without the movie being released China is an incredible feat. It holds opening records in 19 countries. Sooner or later the sales from the movie will warrant a blurb on ITN, whether it's now or when it inevitably passes $1 billion, or even $2 billion. Star Wars is most certainly "in the news" due to its status as a cultural phenomenon loved by multiple generations, it's of interest to the vast majority of people. Hell, The Force Awakens was the most viewed article on Wikipedia for December 13–19 by an incredible margin of 2.5 million views (above the article for the Star Wars franchise itself) and 4 million views above third place. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That says it all, doesn't it? This is a cultural phenomenon. Whether it's "media-generated" or not, this is something Wikipedia's readers actually care about. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Macaca fuscata juvenile yawning.jpg

*  Comment Oppose – Sca (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC) ....... PS: May the Farce not be with us. Sca (talk) 15:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as media generated uber hype, no surprises, and trivia. Please consider making this a DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The record is one broken frequently (see Jurassic World), and as TRM points out, arguably no one was surprised by this news. --M ASEM (t) 23:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I see enough media coverage (+ fan coverage) of this to support this nomination. Oppose alt blurb: I see no reason to single out North America. Banedon (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Frequently broken record and hardly a surprise for the franchise. I'm not impressed by the volume of media coverage given how much is unmistakably sponsored content.  As mentioned, we did not post Jurassic World; Harry Potter presumably went up due to sheer weight of fan bias.  Can be renominated if it becomes highest grossing of all time - which is still trivia but at least is a less frequently broken record. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 06:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - per above supports. Widespread global news, wide impact, multi-cultural touch point. Opposers utterly unconvincing. Huge Wikipedia readership. ITN-worthy, without a doubt. Jus  da  fax   07:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wide impact on who, specifically? Are Star Wars fans getting a cut of opening weekend proceeds?  It seems you mean to say "wildly popular", which is self-evident from the fact that it's a blurb about ticket sales.  The Star Wars franchise is obviously noteworthy, but I don't see how that translates to "The seventh film, much like the six before, sold well, setting the second opening weekend record of the year" being notable in the sense ITN uses. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 07:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And of course if we post this, we then should be posting the next one in the franchise which no doubt will be as, if not more popular. This isn't a Star Wars ticker. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Poor argument, TRM. Same logical fallacy can be applied to numerous items that are posted here. We're not a sports ticker, yet the FIFA scandal has been posted multiple times. We go by what's "in the news" and it so happens that this movie is just that. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hold on, why aren't you criticising all those before me who have noted that this is an often-broken record? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No reason in particular, thoughts came together after seeing your comment. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, gotcha. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A quick perusal of box office records, whether it's overall gross, opening weekend, whatever, shows an undeniable and marked trend of recentism, to the point that this is the second time we've had a biggest opening weekend this year. Further, I dare say that it's a small minority of moviegoers whose chief interest in a film is the income it generates for its owners, and that most just want to see and talk about the movie.  I'm fine with record trivia, and I'm fine with regularly posting something that fate has decreed be the flavor of the month (such as the run of horse race blurbs earlier this year), but it must be pointed out that to no small degree, sales records are "in the news" because the news is owned by the same people who make and sell other media such as films and records, and even unaffiliated outlets cover entertainment news that we wouldn't touch ITN.  In short, I believe the argument via "everybody's talking about it" is discounted as entertainment news, and the argument via trivia record is weak since it's broken with increasing regularity, indicating an underlying bias to the record itself. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 08:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I will submit that I have personal bias in this instance, so my view could very easily be clouded by the Dark Side my personal enjoyment of the franchise. It's quite possible that Disney's ownership of multiple media outlets is a key reason why the sales of this movie are getting such widespread attention. While the record itself may be increasingly common, this particular instance stands out as it was achieved without China being part of the picture. China accounted for $99.15 million of Jurassic World's opening weekend sales, roughly 18–19% of the global total, for example. Basically just playing with numbers at this point, but that shows how monumental the sales, and by extension public interest, have been. This particular blurb serves as the most viable way, in my opinion, to reflect the huge attention the movie has received. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 08:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * List of highest-grossing openings for films shows the record was broken in November 2003, December 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, June 2015. It's the second record this year but only the fifth in the last decade. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose I happened to be in Leicester Square in the aftermath of the premiere – lots of people wandering around with light sabres, &c. But such premieres are routine events and their box office records tend to be an artifact of inflation.  There's also a trend of global releases to beat piracy and so first-week sales are not comparable over time.  As for it being in the news, that's a consequence of marketing and promotion but Disney doesn't need any more free publicity.  The clincher is that Wikipedia has an overt policy of publishing spoilers without warning readers.  Let's not go spoiling childrens' Christmas, please. Andrew D. (talk) 09:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose So far this is not the highest grossing film of all time, like Avatar. If this happens, then yes, but so far it's a vanity fair feeding on media hype. Brandmeistertalk  11:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait to see if it breaks the total takings record. First weekend is just marketing puff. If/when it breaks the overall record then we can post (though ticket price inflation makes that an ever-easier target). <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. This film has been hyped to the stratosphere. It remains to be seen whether it has "legs". I recall when the first film came out, in 1977, it ran in our local theater for at least six months. That's some serious legs. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - very noteworthy and fun news. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no denying that it's of note, but since when did "fun news" become part of the ITN process? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC) George c scott as scrooge.jpg


 * A fun-duh-mental misconception, to be sure. Sca (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait for total revenue record. That is a more important metric, in my opinion. Mamyles (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose DYK does these kinds of human interest/record event hooks. If the total is going to be proposed, then the opening weekend certainly isn't worth covering now. -- Callinus (talk) 05:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] FIFA bans

 * Strong support obviously. Important scandal, involving the most important bodies, of the worlds most important sport, and they're both from Europe, the worlds most important continent. --68.115.239.114 (talk) 12:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose, Blatter's article is almost good to go (although the update is minimal right now) but Platini's is woefully undereferenced. It might be that 2015 FIFA corruption case is a better target. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support corruption case article rather than individuals. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. The corruption case article would probably be a better target, but it doesn't seem to have been updated. Latest is says on Blatter and Platini is their 90 day provisional suspension. Also, the blurb should start 'in football' or something to make the sport clear. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It was updated several hours ago to say "On 21 December, the FIFA Ethics Committee banned both Sepp Blatter and Michel Platini for eight-years from all football related activity..." but that's pretty much the size of the update. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is just FIFA's internal punishment, while significant, akin to the type of penalty that Tom Brady got from Deflategate. There are still ongoing investigations by world authorities as to wrongdoing that could see worse punishments (fines, etc.) that would be the ITN point of news. --M ASEM (t) 14:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really a penalty akin to Brady's, he had four games suspension, these guys are getting 8-year bans. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about the size of the ban, but the scope. This is FIFA telling FIFA members what they can't do. There's still legal issues on this case that have much more weighty results that would be the proper ITNC. --M ASEM (t) 15:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Easily passes the notability threshold. And I don't see the resemblance to the Patriots "Deflategate" case. Here we're talking about top level executives being banned for years. --bender235 (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The ban is by the organization they were part of, so it's all internal proceedings and nothing to do with the external ongoing legal case, which is of significantly more importance and interest. --M ASEM (t) 16:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's subjective. The fact that Blatter will not be president any longer and that strong favourite Platini will also not be able to run for nearly a decade, that's interesting.  The "external" legal aspects surrounding Platini and Blatter may well fizzle out to nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Affects a sport of exceptional international notability. "Deflategate" huh? Why the comparison to a parochial regional sport?--WaltCip (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's only parochial because the US has one country and Europe has 50 countries even though you need territory near Chelyabinsk to even equal our size. Also, 15-20% of one NFL team's attendance lives in Canada despite it being like rugby league region Brits attending union in the union part. (this only counts games in the US, they also played regular season games in Toronto with a higher percent of Canadians). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The comparison is to basically say this is not a legally-binding restriction, only contractually. It is a group setting a contractually-related restriction on what two people that belong(ed) to that group can or can't do. Whether that group was NFL or FIFA, it is primarily an internal matter, even if it happens to be something that reflects a sport across 50 counties. Moreso on the FIFA case because we also are fully aware of a larger legally-binding investigation that is going on that may be much more damaging to FIFA and/or individuals involved, which the results of that investigation (even if it ends up with FIFA being cleared of wrongdoing) is the normal place we point ITN stories. --M ASEM (t) 20:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support regarding notability. FIFA is a major international organization, with the budget and political clout of a small country. This is effectively an impeachment story. --LukeSurlt c 17:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * wait theyre surely going to appeal it to CAS...Balatter has indicated as much (implicitly)Lihaas (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you realize how long that will probably take?--WaltCip (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Whats your point?
 * This decision is not yet final until the appeals procedures are done. (and it wont be more than sa few months...itf it taken)Lihaas (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In the unlikely event it's overturned, ITN could post an update. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * An overturn would be phenomenally notable. Probably in the same league as Dzokhar Tsarnaev having his death sentence quashed &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Important development in a scandal involving one of the most popular sports in the world.  Relevant to many readers. 331dot (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Very big news. I don't find Masem's argument convincing, for the reasons given by TRM and LukeSurl. Neljack (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: This is a big deal for the world's biggest sport. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support not often that the (former?) head of an international sport organization is banned from the sport. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted the altblurb given that Platini's article is sub-par for being highlighted. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Shall we use a photo of Blatter or Platini? I can't report the current photo as error yet. --George Ho (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Post-posting Oppose Neither the blurb nor the votes cast here explain notability. Who among our readership does this impact?  Do FIFA fans watch association football for these guys?  Does their ban somehow put a new spin on a story that we've now posted updates to several times?  The majority of support votes cast here seem to be explaining the notability of soccer, which seems hardly relevant to the notability of this particular story given that it's not fundamentally a sports story, but a business/legal one.  Potatoes are also very popular internationally, but I doubt that would be seen as a good reason in and of itself to post the firing of the CEO of a potato distributor (which might be notable for other reasons, but not because Americans and Europeans alike love potatoes).  The blurb certainly doesn't clarify why this matters; as it reads, they were already suspended, now they're told not to come back (for eight years?  Wouldn't most people be told to go away indefinitely?)?  So what?  No impact on anyone except those two individuals is evident from the blurb. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 07:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well these people have or could have been responsible for deciding the locations of World Cups which is obviously important to hundreds of millions of football fans. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair point, though this certainly isn't obvious from the blurb - and it's maybe the first reason why this matters that's been brought up. It's not that I could not be convinced that this is notable, but that no good reasons seem to have been given.  Indeed, though I support sports being ITN, reasons like "FIFA has a nation-sized economy hence this is practically a head of state"...do not lend an air of credibility to an argument. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 07:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's rare for a sport's main guy to be driven from office. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Suggestion - In my opinion Blatters and Platinis names should be highlighted in the blurb posted as well. It is them the story is about.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Oppose, this is only a step in the "process"; there will be bigger events down the road and ITN shouldn't be giving a blow-by-blow. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What would be bigger, short of yanking the World Cup away from Qatar and/or Russia? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Convictions. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The guy's like 79 years old. He's already effectively gotten a "life sentence" from FIFA. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Shenzhen landslide

 * Support if and when the article is expanded. A major disaster. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support upon article improvements. This disaster is generating international headlines. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. I think the article meets minimum requirements now, though the story is still developing. Most recent BBC news report put the missing figure at 85. --LukeSurlt c 22:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on improvements Very similar to the mine waste landslide a month-some ago, and definitely getting attention. --M ASEM (t) 02:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support On improvements, per BorgQueen. I have to imagine that 85 missing means a significant fraction of those are casualties, as well as significant property damage. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 07:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - I think it is ready to post. notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. I have shortened the blurb, and reduced the missing to 'more than 70' as estimates seem to vary. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

2015 World Women's Handball Championship

 * Can you provide news sources indicating this is in the news? I'll also note for the record only that the men's tournament is ITNR, but not this one. 331dot (talk) 11:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - notable international final for this tournament.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Another editor has 'noted for the record' that this women's event is not on WP:ITN/R, although the Men's event is (this means that the Men's event automatically gets reported in In The News, but the women's event need not be mentioned, as is also the case with many other sports). I also note for the record that we are asked at the top of this page "Please do not... oppose an item because it is not on WP:ITN/R", though "noting for the record" presumably does not officially count as opposition. The same editor also asks whether there is any evidence that the item is in the news. I expect there's plenty of news about it in Norway, and probably also the Netherlands and some other countries, but not much in the English-speaking world, where there is little interest in handball (either men's or women's - and where I come from, 'handball' refers to a completely different game, Gaelic handball). As such, the inclusion or rejection of this item (as well as the arguable double-standard in WP:ITN/R for this and many other sports) seems to call for comment from the 'experts' in such areas as Wikipedia's policies on gender equality and on countering 'Anglo-centrism'. As I know little about either of these policies I have requested comments from the Gender equality task force here, and I would have asked for a similar comment from their 'Anglo-centrism' counterparts if only I knew where to find them. Meanwhile, in the absence of such comments, I currently know too little about these policies to use them as grounds for either supporting or opposing this item (and I have too little interest in either handball or ITN to support or oppose the item on other grounds).Tlhslobus (talk) 05:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Currently no text update in the article covering the final (and also the "road to the final" is basically a list of game statistic charts).  Spencer T♦ C 20:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is currently in no better condition than the men's equivalent, which failed to make it to the main page earlier this year. BencherliteTalk 08:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose article contains basically no prose. We ordinarily look for a "final" summary if not a final article.  The target page is far from suitable for main page inclusion.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Slovenian same-sex marriage referendum, 2015

 * Oppose so the status quo remains? Nothing changes? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose not sure I would see a reason to post this if a small and classically-liberal member of the EU voted yes, either. μηδείς (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not really that notable; per Medeis.  Spencer T♦ C 21:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pending update needs a tense change. Maybe another line of prose in the results section? There is no such thing as a "minimum update" and I don't know what words can reflect that the tables don't. The story is interesting: A bill legalizing is opposed by a referendum. The referendum is opposed on the grounds that such referendums are unconstitutional, but is then upheld by the constitutional court. Fascinating. --68.115.239.114 (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What? The legalese is fascinating?  How is that of any interest to our majority readers?  Suggest an alt-blurb that covers your fascinating insight otherwise the story is a dead duck.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks! It was hard to fit the nuance of the legal wrangling around LGBT rights in Slovenia into a blurb, a clause that I've not seen applied to other stories (such as the merger or the municpal election in saudi arabia), nor am I seeing any requirement for an ITN nomination "be of interest to the majority of our readers", but since you insisted, I filled it in! --68.115.239.114 (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose because the alt blurb isn't a blurb, it's a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So what then? You suggested I pitched a blub which explores what makes the story fascinating, then opposed because it's too long. Could you maybe help me? Also whats with the "your fascinating insight" statement? Why are you commenting on me? Why is it ok for you to attack me like this? --68.115.239.114 (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that blurbs are just that- blurbs- and are short. Your proposal would take up most of the ITN box and is far too detailed.  That is not meant as an attack, it is just a fact.  Do you have a shorter one to propose?  Not every detail needs to be given. 331dot (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly over it at this point, it's an obvious WP:SNOW close, and the hostility palpable. Jayron recently highlighted that "is of interest to or readers", or "smaller than Ireland" or whatever, while in good faith, are not criteria for posting. I also think that "nothing happened" is an over simplification, since what actually happened was a national referendum to defeat a bill which had previously legalized same sex marriage. I think maybe ITN has become mired in "precedent" and unwritten "rules", leaving it ok for a stale story about municipal elections to stay around for five days. The standby argument "if you don't like it, improve and nominate stories" don't prove out when someone does and it's shot down within hours as "booo, nothing happened". shrugs maybe it's better this way? I don't know. Thanks for trying to help 331dot. --68.115.239.114 (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per TRM and Medeis ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting the status quo; given that this is in Europe I'm not sure it would be notable had SSM been permitted. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * How are Ireland's and US's recognitions and Slovenia's rejection different in terms of newness and newsworthiness? George Ho (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ireland legalized SSM by referendum, which had not been done before. The US doing so (by a court ruling) was the end of a years-long process in a large country, which was newsworthy most of the time.  Europe is friendlier to SSM so even if Slovenia had legalized it, I'm not sure it would be notable. 331dot (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Slovenia is too small of a country to make its issue on SSM newsworthy? If not, how is Slovenia not on the same scale as other countries? George Ho (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that other countries(such as Ireland) beat Slovenia to the punch. SSM is common in Europe now. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Western Europe, yes. Eastern, no, including Russia. Look at the map. George Ho (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Slovenia is an EU member where pro-legal SSM is common. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * How does being an EU member outweigh geopolitics? Is SSM new or interesting anymore? George Ho (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it does but the point that outweighs that is that this is not in the news. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't want to oppose this just because of the status quo or not being in the news. But I can't overpower the majority here or influence it. I really wish they supported this instead of UK coal mining. We can feature Slovenia's legalization of SSM if it happens... George Ho (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Per previous opp's. Sca (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - A referendum was involved. Even if the result is keeping the old status quo, it's still a noteworthy piece of news. Compare e.g. Scotland's independence referendum. The status quo was maintained there too. Banedon (talk) 00:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A part of a country wanting to be its own country and failing in the attempt is a very different matter. That also got much more attention than this.  News coverage of this from what I can see seems limited, as well.  331dot (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Referendums are rare by nature, and only called when the matter is of great national interest, so I don't agree that the independence referendum is that much different from this one. What you see of news coverage may be limited, but that might be because of where you are geographically. We regularly feature things which don't appear in local news: of the currently-featured items, did you see much coverage of the Burundi unrest, for example? Banedon (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Referendums are not rare where I come from(I've written articles about a few, if you wish to look at my userpage) though I concede none are national. I understand news coverage is somewhat geography-dependent, but I'm not seeing this in many outlets at all, and where I do it is buried. I did indeed see the Burundi situation. 331dot (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If we believe the referendum page, there have been ~500 referendums since the 18th century of which some 60% was held in Switzerland. There are ~200 countries in the world, so unless you're from Switzerland, they are rare once-in-a-lifetime events. Burundi unrest was an example as well: I did not see it in local news. Banedon (talk) 01:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - Coverage or no coverage, huge or not, we should not avoid posting this, like mainstream press has treating news from such countries. Also, attention is needed. Even as a status quo, one small country's rejection to SSM may influence other countries, big or small, to follow the same path. Other countries refusing to recognize per referenda or court ruline is newsworthy, even when the press doesn't emphasize it that much. George Ho (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Put it in a letter to the editor. Sca (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is In The News, not "Things Some Wikipedia Editors Think Are Important". News coverage is very relevant; we are not here to right wrongs or otherwise draw attention to issues.  Please provide evidence of your claim that this rejection will influence other countries 331dot (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It really sucks, George. But you don't get to push this through just because it affects a group of people you identify with. If it gets coverage, it'll likely get in. If quick enough, anyways. Correctron (talk) 07:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Even if this had passed, I don't think we should be posting every country which catches up with the zeitgeist on this issue. Gay marriage is now the norm in liberal democracies. The fact that the change failed just makes it even less noteworthy. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In terms of Earth size, the area of liberal democracies in Europe is... small, no matter how many countries... Or maybe I was measuring areas of the continent accepting SSM. --George Ho (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Soft oppose as per TRM and others. Something might change in the future, but for now nothing has changed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Spanish elections

 * Support. Clearly notable. Suggested an alternative blurb using "plurality." --bender235 (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support ITNR so notability not in question, article is half-decent, could use some dab fixing etc, but nothing major. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is lacking a results section - there is a blank table for the Chamber of Deputies and no table at all for the Senate results. Neljack (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Definitely worthy of the main page, I just question the blurb. The results of the election are inconclusive and we'll probably see a week or so of negotiations before a government is formed. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: The suggested headline (The People's Party, led by Mariano Rajoy (pictured), gains the most seats in the Spanish general election.) is technically correct but completely misleading, as it gives the impression that losing a third of your seats is a victory. Might I suggest something like: In the Spanish general election, the ruling People's Party, led by Mariano Rajoy (pictured), loses one third of its seats, but remains the largest single party. Or alternatively: Following the Spanish general election, the shape of the next government remains uncertain as the ruling People's Party, led by Mariano Rajoy (pictured), loses one third of its seats, but remains the largest single party.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, if necessary for the sake of keeping it short, we can drop ", led by Mariano Rajoy (pictured)," - it's not news who the current PM is, and anybody who wants to know that can check the article.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done that for you, Tlhslobus. George Ho (talk) 07:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, George Ho. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: Support posting ASAP, preferably with altblurbs 2 or 3, but I don't want to see a delay caused by a dispute over the ideal blurb. At least in my opinion, the article is already sufficiently ready to be posted, and any further delay over relatively unimportant technicalities does a disservice to our readers (of a kind which has seriously irritated me in at least one previous election). Tlhslobus (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - seconded. I'd prefer blurb 2, but any of the blurbs is better than none. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Roentgenium111, just to clarify your stated preference for our admins, by "blurb 2", do you mean alternative blurb 2, or alternative blurb 1 (which is the second blurb, the first blurb being the original blurb, without the 'alternative' tag)? Tlhslobus (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion. I meant alternative blurb 2. FWIW, I wouldn't mind dropping the "Rajoy" part from it, either.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: What are we waiting for? MaxBrowne (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted altblurb 2 and used the picture so we have a more recent image than the December 15 nomination. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Greville Janner, Baron Janner of Braunstone

 * Strong oppose - We shouldn't give this pervert any publicity whatsoever, especially not by featuring him on the MP. Mjroots (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on the nomination, but my understanding, is that WP:BLP applies here, and such accusations are out of line. μηδείς (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Publicity concerns are also irrelevant; we don't censor content because it might given bad people attention(speaking generally and is not necessarily a comment on this person, per BLP). 331dot (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The accusation is well-founded. The only reason he escaped prosecution in the first place is that local CPS officers failed to consult with their seniors before deciding not to prosecute. A later attempt to prosecute failed due to him developing Alzheimer's Disease, although a trial of facts was scheduled to have been heard in 2016. I still say that we should not give this person the publicity of appearing on MP. There are far more worthy candidates currently being discussed. Mjroots (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If we post people like Osama Bin Laden, I don't see why this person shouldn't be considered. Again, publicity concerns are irrelevant.  Almost every article subject or person here is offensive to someone; very little would be on the MP if we start getting into that sort of debate.331dot (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Bin Laden was at the top of his field, and internationally known. I doubt that Janner was widely known outside the UK. Given the comments above and below, further Oppose on the grounds that he is not notable enough to appear on RD. Mjroots (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose solely on the grounds that this person does not appear to meet the bar for RD. !Votes which are based on personal feelings about this individual should be discounted.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - Agree, even child molesters may meet RD standards... well, not blurbs. However, he was just a low-level politician, even when he served many years as one. George Ho (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Whether he did the crimes or not is irrelevant, as we would also include Gaddafi, Bin Laden or Kim Jong-il in recent deaths. However, Janner was an MP who was active in British Jewish affairs, not a major political or religious leader. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose as this person does not seem to meet the RD criteria, one of the only things that really matters for this discussion's purposes(aside from quality and news sources). 331dot (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Kurt Masur

 * Support world-renowned conductor of, among others, London and NY symphonies, large number of accolades, good article, small role in end of Cold War. μηδείς (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Top of his field and had many accolades. μηδείς summed it up well. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support with some referencing improvement. As Medeis writes, he was among the top classical conductors internationally. The article is sadly brief but gets the main points across; some improvement to the referencing would be ideal, particularly in the section on awards. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Article upgrade since ITN nomination is enough to convince me to support; the subject is clearly notable and deserves an RD. Suggest a prompt posting is in order. Jus  da  fax   10:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – "What we remember most vividly is Masur's profound belief in music as an expression of humanism." – NY Philharmonic President Matthew VanBesien  – Sca (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Jimmy Hill

 * Support notability, article needs serious work. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for RD based on notability - however I agreed with TRM that the article needs some tuning. Miyagawa (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support subject to quality. Biggest chin in football for a generation or more. Mjroots (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not sure the article currently makes a strong case for his significance for someone who didn't already know who he was. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's true I think. The BBC put it well, with "Football pioneer Jimmy Hill dies" and "the man who revolutionised football".  Would be good to reflect that in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Excuse my skepticism, but would that be the same BBC he served with such distinction for a quarter of a century, hence not a source independent of the subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.43.251 (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, the Indy asks "How the former Match of the Day pundit changed football forever" while The Guardian leads on his demise with "the punditry trailblazer who wore hostility as a badge of honour" and the Telegraph headlines with "footballer and Match of the Day legend ... World of sport mourns...". I think even you could easily find such independent acclaim if you'd spent a moment trying.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The current version does a bit better at establishing his significance, though since the press appears to be a bit more emphatic, the lede probably could too. That said, support RD on significance.  Learned something today. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * suppoeet RD when article is ready--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD pending article improvements. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD Per Mjroots --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD when the article is ready. Hugely influential figure in his field. Thryduulf (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD... 'In the words of the old song, it's a long time from May to December but, you know, it's an equally long time from December to May." 86.190.2.248 (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've added a reference and removed a tag from a section.  I've also tweaked the lede slightly.  Suggest this is ready. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Mother Teresa to be sainted

 * Wait? I dunno, I'm not of that religion, either. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If posted the blurb shouldn't treat the miracles as real because only believing Catholics think that. That the two miracles never seem to not be a medical cure unless it's the 1400s or something is telling. Not even devout Protestants believe in praying for medical cures to deceased good people. But it's a religion so don't say that they're fake, obviously. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support - Oh, boy. I initially want to oppose this, but the postings of posthumous apology and pardon given to Alan Turing gave me second thoughts. If we made Turing's deserved pardon ITN, making this woman the "saint" can be ITN also. Somewhat predictable, but at least this is more newsworthy than exoplanet naming and deep coal mining in the UK. --George Ho (talk) 04:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't look at the tense very well, so changing to wait until this actually happens. George Ho (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. Isn't canonization always posthumous?  I don't think we need to state that in the blurb. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose this will be genuinely headline news when it actually happens. While it's noted variously at the moment, the pomp and circumstance that will no doubt surround the canonisation itself means I would support the event itself rather than this, the announcement that the event should be taking place in the future.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. As TRM states, this will be big news when it actually happens(even though it also is now) so we should wait until it does. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

RD: Léon Mébiame

 * Support notability, oppose on article quality, we don't do stubs. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. It's not exactly a stub (plenty of citations and the coverage of main aspects) but I agree that the quality is not great.—Brigade Piron (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I must have mis-read "This article about a Gabonese politician is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." The Rambling Man (talk) 08:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Shall I remove the stub notice, Rambling Man, even when the article hasn't expanded yet? George Ho (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not unless you think it's no longer a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I found more sources about him online. They turned out inaccessible. Also, I could not find new info about him. Making it a stub means that expansion is needed. However, that would encourage adding unverifiable info. --George Ho (talk) 10:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - notable. post.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] End of deep coal mining in UK

 * Support Articles are interesting and of high quality. Event is clearly happening within the time frame of ITN, and reported in news sources.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Something a bit different for ITN – the success of films like Billy Elliot and Pride show that this is a topic that people are interested in. Smurrayinchester 13:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, just some more text would be helpful. --Tone 14:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose, though perhaps leaning more on support, as there still remain open coal mines; this is just the closure of the one that required underground excavation to get to. I do agree that that end of the coal industry in the UK in general is a major story, but I'm not 100% sure if this is the right point. --M ASEM (t) 15:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If there wasn't much non-deep coal mining in Britain's Industrial Revolution then that would matter less, wouldn't it? Now was there much non-deep coal mining? I don't know. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Using our articles, deep coal mining peaked in the 40s at 287 million tons/yr, while currently open pit mining is at 10 mill tons/yr. I have no idea how much this last deep coal mine was producing but I doubt is it is much more than 10 mill tons/yr. My point, and I welcome arguments to it, is that coal mining still occurs in UK, just not by sending people underground to get it. --M ASEM (t) 15:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Additional comment based on what I'm reading below and what's in the article: The article does not reflect how "important" the deep coal mining industry was to UK nor do I have a good handle to judge. I'm looking for a monetary figure, for example, that relates to how many millions or billions or trillions of pounds (GBP, not mass) that the industry was valued at its heyday. I look at this as the end of a business model that isn't sustainable in the present environment, much like the closure of the last Blockbuster signaled the end of the video rental market. It's a milestone, it should be documented, but that Blockbuster event would definitely not be ITN given that its value was only about $8.4 billion at its height (a small drop in the bucket overall). If there was a better sense of proportion as to the impact. (The only numbers on there that are close to this is the employment graph that shows it used to operate 1+ million employees... but so do a lot of other industries). --M ASEM (t) 01:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Haustellum_brandaris_000.jpg. If you had a purple shirt before coal you be pimpin'.]] Without coal, no Industrial Revolution (the first oil well wasn't drilled until 1859 and the other two fossil fuels remained bit players for long after that). Not only was coal the fuel but it was also needed to escape the Iron Age and make colorful clothes affordable and invent modern food coloring. (steel is much stronger than iron, the coal was heated in the absence of oxygen and turned into coke to add to the iron, and the witch's brew of tar and gas left over was separated into dyes etc. (many of which are now banned for causing cancer)). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course coal was important to the industrial revolution but at its highest point was in the 1950s, not the industrial revolution. England is not abandoning any coal mining. I'm asking specifically how significant the industry is to UK. Technology marches on and things change all the time, why is this so important? Right now, again, it feels like the ceremonial who's turning off the lights on an already empty party, and not ITN worthy. --M ASEM (t) 03:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Your claim that production peaked in the 1950s is wrong. It's been falling for like 110 years. Deep mined coal made Britain the most advanced nation in the world for most of the past 300 years and the UK is the country that started the whole industrialized thing so it's symbolic that the old fuel is now obsolete (or at least the way the vast majority of it was mined is). Apparently deep coal mining is just stereotypical coal mining of underground seams, I didn't even know that deep coal just meant underground and didn't have to be deep at all. So surface mining is and was very minor. About the 1.25 million workers in the mines That was in 1914 and would be a huge percentage of the workers in Britain. How many humans did Britain even have in 1914? 30-40 million probably? And women didn't work in them either then so that was a huge employer. Lastly, post because it's interesting and encycloped-y. It's much more timeless and "people would still care in 10 years" than many of the things we post. (not without an acceptable update of course) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - article is good and well sourced. notable topic.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: Amazing what happens when a country elects a new-look, progressive government. Wait, it didn't? That was Canada? Oh well. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose UK is nowhere near the biggest CO2 producer, so I don't see how will this impact the world. How is this any more relevant than naming of exoplanets? Nergaal (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support this has nothing whatsoever to do with CO2 production, nor is the "impact" on the "world" significant. This is the end of an era, as suitably noted in the nomination.  If !voters can't be bothered to read and/or understand that, then their !votes can be justifiably discounted.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Technically it does have to do with CO2 production, as stated by the article: the UK has been transitioning to renewable and cleaner resources for many years, so the need for coal as a power source has been greatly diminished. And based on the graphs in our article on this, this era was over in 2012-ish, this is just the last deep coal mine closing, and mostly a symbolic aspect. There's still other types of coal mining in the UK but far from the capacity in the 40s. --M ASEM (t) 17:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, he would have said oppose if I had voted support. Nergaal (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the rambler was right: The shutdown, targeted for next Friday, represents a victory for advocates of reducing carbon emissions after world leaders gathered in Paris to discuss how to combat global warming, with coal in the cross hairs. It also reflects a glut of energy on world markets, from crude oil to natural gas and coal itself. I am sure a rambling old man knows more about this than WSJ does. Nergaal (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're still talking.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support given historical importance of British coal mining. Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 *  Weak Support – Historically interesting, although first target article contains only 15 words on the closure of Kellingley, the impetus for this nom. (Of course, there's more at Kellingley Colliery.) – Sca (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: Coincidentally, German Wiki carries an ITN item today on the closure of the second-to-last deep coalmine in the Ruhr. Sca (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Systematic Systemic bias alert. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Systemic. Not systematic.--WaltCip (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * D'oh. Thanks, you're right. Needed more coffee this morning. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Good morning, coffee cup, gimmie back my brain." (Slight modification to lyrics.) Sca (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose this has nothing to do with "systematic bias". The issue is that it is an pragmatic economical decision based on relative costs, not a "fact" as if coal has gone extinct. Were there a need due to something like a war, it could resume. Again, a perfect DYK story if it meets their current requirements. μηδείς (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support It's in the news - see the BBC, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Many mass shootings in the U.S. are "in the news" and yet that's not enough for some. Why should it be enough for a story with as little significance as this? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, Muboshgu, you sound dead Brassed Off. 217.38.184.195 (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Mass shootings in the USA are literally an everyday event. The item in question is the end of an era; something happening after centuries of history. Andrew D. (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Medeis. Also coal mining still continues in the UK, this is just one type of mining that's no longer being conducted. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have any idea at all of the significance of deep coal mining in British industrial economic history? 217.38.184.195 (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It was significant, no doubt, but technically from our article, the industry was dead 3-4 years ago - this story is basically who's the last to turn the lights off. --M ASEM (t) 21:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Did we have this at ITN 3-4 years ago? If not, then now is an appropriate time to cover this; while it is actually in the news . Andrew D. (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That wasn't an event. There was no announcement. Maybe we are indeed 3-4 years late. But this is the historical event. 217.38.184.195 (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Arguably, a symbolic event. Like the last steam locomotive. Sca (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not on quality but on the scale of newness. The decline of coal mining in the UK already happened years ago since Thatcherism... Oh wait, that was before Thatcher... on global or significant scale. The Great Smog and the Clean Air Act 1956 resulted in collapse of the coal and steel production, and Thatcher's privatization of the coal industry didn't improve the industry. Coal is a dirty energy, yet China is still doing it. The "end" of the industry in the UK has been predicted, but the actual end is not "new". We can wait until either China or the UN or another intergovernmental organization (IGO) declares the end of coal mining around the world. --George Ho (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - the problem is that while I can see this as significant if it signifies the end of an era, the blurb doesn't give any indication of this, and I can't think of a way to express that significance in the blurb without editorializing. Banedon (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe something like altblurb? Banedon (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb - Interesting articles that are of good quality that signify the end of an era in British history, with international implications as renewable energy, uh, picks up steam. Clearly in the news, and in my view ITN-worthy per above supporters. Jus  da  fax   14:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Altblurb 2 – Offered above as a refinement of Alt1, as "mining" does not per se "power" anything. Sca (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Coal does, on the other hand. Banedon (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Coal mining in the UK has been dead for years. This is just pulling the plug. Fgf10 (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Toppling the tipple? Sca (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support main blurb. The end of an entire industry is significant.  Further details on the significance of coal mining in Britain can be found in the article.  The purpose of ITN is to provide links to quality Wikipedia articles that are relevant to current events and this fits the bill.  Good article.  A current event connected to a broad and important historic topic.  This is what Wikipedia can do well, as opposed to simply mimicking BBC, CNN etc.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * To make my above support broader, I'll support any of the blurbs. Jus  da  fax   15:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Thousands marched at Kellingley to commemorate the end of deep coal mining in the UK and, specifically, Kellingley's last shift the day before. 217.38.107.11 (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per . —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted Five of the six current ITN items are stale (more than 7 days old). This item is actually in the news, and not many people seem to dispute the articles are of sufficient quality. It doesn't have wild unanimous support, but there are more supports than opposes, so I'll post this.  I went with the initial blurb, as there wasn't wide support for the alt blurbs. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Can it be pulled out? Although WP:NOTAVOTE is now an essay (formerly a guideline), what about arguments themselves? --George Ho (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it can be pulled, but why would it be pulled? What's your argument other your own position? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As said, even with more supports, the posting administrator hasn't commented on arguments. More like a supervote? George Ho (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There's never been an obligation to comment on arguments here, admins are trusted, as they are across all of Wikipedia, to gauge consensus. Perhaps that's your next RFC here, since you seem to have so much time to spend complaining about the process?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If my counting is correct, the tally is 12 support vs 9 oppose (incl. 2 "weak" opposes). Consensus is there, if ever so slightly, and arguments on both sides have merit. Those supporting weight the symbolic nature of the event in terms of history along with the article's encyclopedic value whereas those opposing weight this as a procedural event in the very long decline of coal usage. It boils down to which side you view it from. I'm fine with this being posted despite my vote being against it. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I explicitly oppose the blurb in its current form, because it doesn't give any indication of the significance of this, and it may lead to someone complaining of pro-UK bias in ITN similar to what happened when Mt. McKinley was renamed to Denali. Banedon (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Banedon has a point. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone will always complain about something or other. Meanwhile, thousands of people will read the articles, maybe becoming a little more knowledgeable than they were before, and feel no need to complain at all. Stephen 03:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It should note how it is important.Correctron (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

RD: Peter Dickinson

 * Support, on referencing improvement. He won just about every major award as a British children's author, and his work was adapted for television. As ever the article needs some tlc on the referencing front. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral leaning oppose a reasonable notable individual in children's writing, but the article is under-referenced and currently unsuitable for main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

RD: Harry Zvi Tabor

 * Support Notable enough and article shows that, particularly considering the modern importance of solar energy as an alternative source. Brandmeistertalk  20:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose some significance in a niche field in one country, article is weak and under-referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

RD: Licio Gelli

 * Oppose According to the article, "chiefly known for his role in the Banco Ambrosiano scandal", with some other obscure activity. I doubt it's RD level. Brandmeistertalk  17:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose We've got three live RD listings and five nominations, this doesn't really leap to mind as being in the top of a field. μηδείς (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Medeis. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Exoplanet names

 * Oppose Less an ITN and more like a DYK (though I don't know if that article qualifies for a DYK slot). Regardless, naming of things already discovered isn't really significant, it would have been their discovery that would have been ITN. --M ASEM (t) 15:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not disagreeing with your oppose but on the ITNR list we note that both the discovery and naming of new chemical elements merit posting. 331dot (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There's probably two very good reasons why that's not a good analogy for this situation 1) the naming of an element occurs commensurate with the confirmation by the IUPAC of its valid discovery and characterization; which is different from the peer-reviewed publication of its discovery by those who did the discovery directly. So it isn't just the naming which is significant, and naming does not occur in a vacuum.  That's different from the planet issue; the planets are positively confirmed, and the naming is an arbitrary thing.  2) There are over 2000 confirmed exoplanets, and we're discovering new ones at a pace more than one per day (though, of course, not steadily.  These things tend to come in large batches).  We have 118 discovered elements (of which 114 have gone through the formal characterization and naming procedure by IUPAC); with new elements being discovered and/or confirmed about once a year or less often.  We can often go years without any news in this regard.  The rarity itself is what makes it a newsworthy event; about 10 years ago, exoplanets could have been in that category, but thanks to advances in science, it has gone from a rare once-in-while thing to a common occurance.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * To add, there is a potentially boundless number of exoplanets to be discovered (though obviously would require better astronomy equipment), while in terms of elements there is likely a finite bound, based on the fact that the 100+ atomic weight elements are very unstable (very short half-lives). To be able to hold and stabilize a 100+ element long enough to quantify and verify its existence needed to be naming is a significant event. --M ASEM (t) 16:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * True, but this nomination isn't for an individual exoplanet, but for all of them. Banedon (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This nom is the first set of official namings. If no chemical elements would have name and hydrogen would suddenly get an official name, that would definitely be newsworthy. Nergaal (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm having a hard time finding information about the nominated new event in the article. I don't see a list of the new names for example. What has been updated? (or hasn't it?) Thanks. MurielMary (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The list of new names is at Exoplanet Fdfexoex (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Cheers. MurielMary (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. The facts that this is apparently the first time exoplanets are being named, and the size of the batch being named (200+) mean that this isn't necessarily setting a precedent. I have no qualms with this being posted and subsequent namings being considered in a vacuum again. Plus, you know, Dagon. G RAPPLE   X  16:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose because it seems "interesting" news rather than "significant" - according to the criteria on significance of events for ITN, there is mention of "in-depth coverage" from a number of news sources. Are any other sources reporting this, other than the one in the nomination? MurielMary (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - I agree with user Rapple, first time a exoplanets are being named. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Facepalm absurd bureaucratic overcreep by the IAU. Why not name all the galaxies, while they're at it?  Even Gene Roddenbery was happy with calling planets by their star name and a number unless someone had been there.  DYK, yes.  ITN, no. μηδείς (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Plenty of astronomical objects have common names even though nobody has been there before, e.g. Saturn, Andromeda, Orion (constellation), etc. Banedon (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You have missed my point. The IAU and what army?  Since you mention Saturn (rather than Georgium Sidus), what do they call Saturn in Malay?  This is basically a bunch of self appointed bureaucrats giving "official" names to things they will never visit because that's what bureaucracies do.  I won't even go into the amateur anglo-occidento-centric fanboyism of it all. μηδείς (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Planets named Quixote, Pancho, Rocinante and Dulcinea? This sounds like an entry from National Lampoon. Or from the same geniuses who decided that Pluto is not a planet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Baseball Bugs, there's a reason why the names are so stupid. It's because this happened. While the link exaggerates this is how the names were actually chosen. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But only slightly. I'm surprised they didn't go for Santa's reindeer, or Snow White's dwarfs. Or, the names of the guys who decided Pluto is not a planet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, but the general public is to blame for this, too. And the reason why Pluto was demoted is because Eris (discovered 2005) is more massive and about the same size so would have to be a planet too. Or if you say anything round from gravity is a planet so Pluto can stay then Ceres (the asteroid), Makemake, Haumea and Eris are planets and Orcus, 2002 MS4, Salacia, Quaoar, 2007 OR10 and Sedna are nearly certainly planets and there'd be 97 known things which are at least probably planets and 398 bodies which are at least possibly planets. Pluto was thought to be much bigger for many years (Earth-sized at first) until we learned the Neptune pull was human error instead of Pluto's gravity (the prediction worked by sheer coincidence). The IAU is still the union of astronomers worldwide so they get to name (the "Pluto is a planet" astronomers were in the minority and got outvoted). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not unusual for bureaucrats and politicians to redefine a word to make it match their biases. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ya, I'd just call dwarf planets a class of planet instead of saying that dwarf adjectiving "planet" is not planet by definition. Sometimes, words have multiple meanings. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Scientists ought not be using ambiguous terms. And they've gone way beyond what the word "planet" actually meant, which is "wandering star". The term "asteroid" is likewise dubious, as it means "star-like", which they ain't. The alternate term "minor planets" is only slightly better. And "comet" means "long-haired star", which is also wrong. And classifying makes sense. They do call Mercury, Venus, Earth/Moon and Mars "rocky planets", while Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are "gas giant (planets". The rocky planets are tiny compared with those, yet they're not called "dwarf" planets. Why? Maybe because we live on one of them. Although we've known for centuries that we are not the center of the universe, we still act like we are. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you more expert than the IAU? Banedon (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as you know. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I demand you explain how astronomical expertise and giving absurd names to planets are in any way related.--WaltCip (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the snide expression "... the same geniuses who decided that Pluto is not a planet". Also it's rude to demand something. Banedon (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support - this is not a big deal: the exoplanets already have names, just technical ones. But it's something. Banedon (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you look at Astronomical naming conventions you'll see that there is a distinction between names and designations. Jupiter and Polaris are names. Gliese 581 and Alpha Ursa Minoris are designations. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ununquadium or element 114 is the designation of flerovium. Nergaal (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Full support I was initially skeptical, but this is the first time exoplanets are officially assigned non-technical terms. Some dames might appear funny, but it is in no way different from say Makemake or Meitnerium. There are over 1000 accepted well-established exoplanets, and if all of them are going to be named, some will get weird name. This is the first step. We don't need to post future namings, but we should definitely post the first ones. Nergaal (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose this is trivia, DYK is appropriate here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Okay, stars have been named since time immemorial. This is the first time though that planets outside of our star system have had names, planets that are actually small enough to have life and worlds that humans could live on with a gas mask at most that we can't go to for centuries. That planets are being given names that are not like ROXs 42Bb for the first time is something that'll never happen again. I wish the names could sound more planet-like though. Vulcan, Cardassia, Romulus, Osiris IV, Coruscant, Arrakis, Helion Prime, Rigel 7, Crematoria (for a planet that melts near noon, now those sound like planet names. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added altblurb to show what exactly we are looking at. Brandmeistertalk  09:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as trivial. Discovering these things was significant, but finally running the first batch through an official naming process is not. This is equivalent to the first official names of surface features on Pluto, and I'm sure we won't be posting that when it happens (probably during 2016). <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * you are comparing an actual planet to some cracks on a dwarf planet. Nergaal (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We know more about Sputnik Planum than the vast majority of exoplanets, including most of those receiving names here. I don't see why size or distance are relevant. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose: These names are bad, and the IAU should feel bad. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But still better than exoplanet Kardashian or star Lady Gaga (pun) in case they decide to purchase a name. Brandmeistertalk  21:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - For the first time in human history we have named planets outside our solar system. International news, and ITN-worthy. The quality of the names is irrelevant. Opposers are mostly saying they don't like it. Jus  da  fax   05:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, not science. Names are not important. Also, the objects are barely measured, let alone sighted, and just the other day it was reported some might not be planets at all, but brown dwarf stars. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] US schools terrorist threat

 * This can't be considered without an article. May I suggest Los Angeles Unified School District? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. LAUSD doesn't seem such a bad article (but it's only one sentence now). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose It seems like the media have not yet confirmed anything important regarding these threats and all the information presented here consists of suspicions on the border of a conspiracy theory. That said, one cannot even rule out the possibility that someone wanted to have fun by raising a false alarm.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would bet it's a hoax but not a large amount of money. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Yes, it is an unusual reaction, I'm confident it will play in the US news cycle for several days compounding on the SB attack, but unless it was shown the threat was really credible (and right now I'm not seeing that in the news), this is just a knee-jerk reactions. --M ASEM (t) 21:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose given that even some other parts of the US deemed this to be a hoax, forget it. If the kids in New York are attacked, we can revisit.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Soyuz TMA-19M/Expedition 46

 * Support in principle original blurb, oppose any mention of Tim Peake. He's not the first British astronaut (see Helen Sharman and Category:British astronauts) and there's no reason to single him out. Nor is he the first UKSA astronaut - the UKSA does not train astronauts, he's flying with ESA. The mission itself is routine, but we're in a quiet period and it wouldn't hurt to put it on ITN. ISS crew rotation flights continue to qualify as ITNR, for reasons which elude me, but there you go. However the article is rubbish - one paragraph plus a table. If someone turns it into something we might want to feature on the MP then it would be suitable. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * When was the last routine ISS flight that we posted? 331dot (talk) 12:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No idea. I've repeatedly argued that ITNR should be written in a way that excludes them, but consensus has consistently been against me. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The BBC calls Peake the "first official UK astronaut". 331dot (talk) 12:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Strange definition of 'official'. I don't think we have to follow media claims if they are blatantly untrue and contradicted by numerous other sources e.g. this Independent article specifically on the topic. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well that article isn't "numerous other sources" and it doesn't "contradict" anything that's being said, and the BBC aren't saying anything that is "blatantly untrue". Other than that, everything you've said is right.  Just tonight, we have the BBC saying "Tim Peake is the UK's first official astronaut and the first British astronaut to go to the International Space Station. However, he is not the first Briton in space. According to the British Interplanetary Society, he is the seventh person born in the UK to have left the planet."  per this article.  Hopefully that helps.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's worth arguing about this tangential point, but I stand by my comments. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me; just pointing out where the claim came from. 331dot (talk) 12:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support in principle per Modest Genius. Launching of spaceflights is significant and also a fine ITN material. I oppose mentioning Tim Peake in the blurb, as he is not the first British in space.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support in principle and I think this is one of those rare cases in which we can say that the so-called reliable source is false in its assumption that Peake is the first British in space.--WaltCip (talk) 12:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - but agree that the article is extremely short and needs proper expansion. Neutral on the other issues. Jus  da  fax   14:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support and almost ready to post. Right now there's everything in there that's relevant.  And it's sourced.  And the whole "first British astronaut" thing isn't relevant, so I'd say we're pretty much good to go per ITNR.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, it's ITN/R so the conversation stops there. Regarding Time Peake in particular I'd let it through given the amount of interest it has created, only Helen Sharman previously is unambiguously British as opposed to riding on the coattails of another nationality.  "British funded", "state-sponsored" astronaut or some equivalent formulation would succinctly and correctly disambiguate the situation, readers can always click through for more. Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 09:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted to RD]: Lillian Vernon

 * Support on article improvements Importance seems clear, there's a couple sections of the article (the Lillian Vernon House, and Awards) that need a tad more sources or CN's removed, but it is not too far away. --M ASEM (t) 17:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out, have fixed. MurielMary (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Meets DC2 as important to her field.  Article seems OK to me at this point. 331dot (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support important to hr field indeed. Article is decent. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Benedict Anderson

 * Oppose as a Cornell alumnus of the same era, I am surprised I have not heard of the nominee. Irregardless, given not a single one of his works merits an article or serious award, I am opposed. μηδείς (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, see: Imagined Communities, Cornell Paper. Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the books seems like it might be interesting. I won't support, but I'll withdraw my opposition. μηδείς (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support One of the most distinguished political scientists, a leading scholar of modern Indonesian history and nationalism.  Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Imagined Communities has been highly influential. Neljack (talk) 05:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support clearly notable having written "perhaps the most read book about nationalism", but the article needs work. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support provisionally, noting that several of the sections entirely lack citations. OTOH, fixing "I have not heard of him" is one of the things the feature should be about. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, Smerdis, but you can't simultaneously embiggen the mind of the smallest man while killing the human spirit at the same time. The article's expansion, however, is worth support. μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: There's a big fat orange level maintenance tag at the top of the article, right now, had it not been there, I'd have already posted this. If it were entirely invalid, I'd have removed it, but there are sections that lack references, mostly dealing with summaries of his works (which are tacitly assumed to be referenced to the work itself).  If someone else who knows the subject more intimately can decide to remove the tag, OR can fix the problems so the tag is no longer justified, I would post this.  But I cannot do so now, no matter how many pile on supports we have.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've re-written/sourced what I could from what I could find and removed the tag. Patar knight - chat/contributions 10:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted good work on the updates . The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Evelyn Lieberman

 * Oppose. Does not meet any of the Recent Deaths criteria, from what I see. The event she is associated with clearly makes her notable enough to have an article, but it doesn't mean her death merits posting. 331dot (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose not notable enough for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Women in Saudi Arabia vote for the first time

 * Support pending updates. I have added my suggestion for an altblurb though I'm sure someone else may do better.  I don't know if this would be ITN/R for elections, but either way this is certainly worthy on its own merits. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 01:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ITN/R in regards to elections is for elected officials (head of state), not voters, as far as I'm aware. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pending updates and target article – Easy support from my viewpoint, big change and a huge step forward for this part of the world. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Saudi Arabian women voted for the first time on Saturday in local council elections and also stood as candidates, a step hailed by some activists in the Islamic patriarchy as a historic change, but by others as merely symbolic." (Reuters). Definitely not news. zzz (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, there are also people who think it is "historic change" (same quote). Any kind of change has to start somewhere. Banedon (talk) 05:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, a small step maybe, but an important step in a country with such heavily curtailed rights. LjL (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ALTBLURB/wait local election when notable in such instances are important (see longest elected communist govt losing power in Bengal 4 or so years ago). Still wait to see the results and the first women elected.Lihaas (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per Cyclonebiskit. Banedon (talk) 05:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support even if this is only at the local level, major change in a country that has traditional prevented this right. --M ASEM (t) 05:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support being given the franchise is a huge event, especially for this culture, whereas legalizing gay marriage federally in the US was merely procedural in comparison. μηδείς (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What does the USA have to do with anything? The fight for same sex marriage rights was and remains extremely difficult. I'm not saying that this event isn't significant, I'm just wondering what the USA has to do with it. --166.172.58.234 (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC) — 166.172.58.234 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Support per, a big step forward for women's suffrage. -Zanhe (talk) 05:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Global news, INT-worthy, and as noted above a small but highly significant step. Jus  da  fax   06:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment have added another altblurb and updated the article Saudi Arabian municipal elections, 2015. As the newsworthy point is that women could vote, which has now happened, it doesn't seem necessary to wait for election results to be posted. MurielMary (talk) 06:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: BFD. Not like Saudi Arabia is on the cusp of a democratic transformation, but this is a big step for arguably the most regressive country in the world in terms of its treatment of women. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - new world wide. and ITN worthy for it being a big step forward for women in this backwards country.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Whatever the view on forwards or backwards, it's a big step away from where it was. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support and could we consider mentioning the facts that some women candidates were elected? HaEr48 (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Posting. Ideally, I'd wait for the results to be in if it was a classical election article, but here the focus is different so the article works. --Tone 09:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The New York Times reports that 20 women have been elected to local government seats: Can the blurb be updated with some numbers? 217.38.114.189 (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Take it to WP:ERRORS which will likely get more attention. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * PULL This article was so not ready for posting. Has anyone even looked at it? Correctron (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * S/He does have a point: where is the five sentence update? Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Approximately half of the text in the bolded article Saudi Arabian municipal elections, 2015 is about the voting by and for females, which is the relevant newsworthy fact for this story. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Then why does the article state repeatedly the elections are being contested? The blurb is after the fact and the article must reflect that.  Where is the update? Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you reading the linked article? It is all written in the past tense. I don't know what article you are reading, but the one highlighted on the main page is adequately updated.  If another article is not, you are also allowed to fix it.  No one here will stop you. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 05:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] COP 21

 * This should go up once the update is there. --Tone 19:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Article needs heavy updating and this applies even more to Paris Agreement, which should be linked in the blurb as well. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on improvements, blurb should be "attempt to limit" since we have no idea how well humans can actually control it. --M ASEM (t) 19:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Can we get a conversion in to Fahrenheit for those of us who don't follow the SI system? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on an increase from 14C to 16C, it should be 3.6 °F.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  20:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Why is "14C to 16C" significant? 1K=1.8°F so 2K=3.6°F however you cut it.20:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * They aren't significant.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  21:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support when ready. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support (when ready) – Theoretically significant agreement and a major international diplomatic event. Sca (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support significant agreement. international event. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: This is a landmark international initiative that warrants a place on the front page of Wikipedia. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 00:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as a significant international agreement. Updates look sufficient to post. I recommend including Paris Agreement in the blurb, and have linked it as such. Mamyles (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The blurb might as well say they defined pi as 3 while they were at it. An altblurb reflecting facts, not wishes, is in order. μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I also strongly recommend the main blurb over the alt blurb. Mamyles (talk) 02:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is why I mentioned we should add "try to limit" to the main blurb, as that's how the BBC reports it. Laws can't change fundamental laws of nature regardless how much some politicians would want that. --M ASEM (t) 02:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've changed the main blurb to say "attempt".  Jolly  Ω   Janner  03:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait until the time (if any) that the US Congress approves. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Why single the US out? It only contributes 15% of greenhouse gas emissions.
 * China too I suppose. Two largest.Lihaas (talk) 04:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Combined, that's still less than 40% of the global total. I think this proposal is just silly.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  04:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, given that, as long as the worst polluters buy into it despite stonewalling by the US, then all should be well. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Added Paris Agreement as 2nd article and bolded "deal". --George Ho (talk) 04:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Undo...the bold article already links to he same thing.Lihaas (talk) 05:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

comment Shouldn t it be: limit (...) to 2 degrees, instead of by 2 degrees? L.tak (talk) 08:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - a landmark deal. Post ASAP. -Zanhe (talk) 05:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - per above supports. Don't delay, post today. Jus  da  fax   06:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support The last tag in the article is fixed, I hope Sca and Milky Way are fine with it now. L.tak is right about by->to. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is the better article, so the blurb could have Paris Agreement non-bold. Narayanese (talk) 09:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 09:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Shaheen-III

 * Oppose Not the first time the rocket has been launched. Unless this leads to other conflict/issues, the launch itself just doesn't have that much international impact (correct me if I'm wrong).  Spencer T♦ C 17:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It doesn't seem like the test had anything to do with the peace conference; and as Spencer states, this isn't the first test of this rocket. 331dot (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – "which was test fired for the first time by military service on 9 March 2015." Routine event. ssт✈(discuss) 09:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Question how does the test relate to the peace conference? Can you explain/give a source which connects the two? MurielMary (talk) 09:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Conor McGregor

 * Note this event does not appear at In the news/Recurring items. Also, I'm unfamiliar with the event and would like to ask how many events there are? For example, you note that this is the featherweight championship? Are there other UFC Championships that could be of equivalent notability? I presume this event is more notable due to it ending a ten-year streak.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  06:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well it's the 194th UFC in 2 decades. 9-10 fights a year would give little time for healing so the same martial artist probably doesn't fight in every one. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's the 194th pay-per-view. There are a bunch of others on normal TV and online. This was actually the third in three days (a first). But there are only a handful of "big ones" like this each year. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * There are other championships, but this one was particularly prestigious for the length of the reign. Just had to correct myself in the blurb, it was five years, not four. This event was widely regarded in reliable sources as one of the biggest, in promotion and matchup quality, of the year (or longer). McGregor is widely regarded as the UFC's top star, along with Ronda Rousey. In this fight, he also won a spot on the UFC video game cover with her. That doesn't need to go in the blurb, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. (Reposting: I made the mistake of posting a blurb without noticing this one was here already). Aldo was the reigning champion in the UFC Featherweight division and had not lost in over a decade (and was undefeated in the UFC). He was widely regarded as one of the best MMA fighters of all-time. McGregor KOed him in 13 seconds. The hype and trash-talk surrounding this fight was unprecedented in MMA. McGregor became a sensation in Ireland and throughout the MMA community (and beyond) for his trash-talking and his knockout power. He is widely regarded as one of the most marketable figures in the UFC, and this will only catapult him to even more popularity. I believe this fight should be posted because it also marks a shift in the MMA world. Ronda Rousey was KOed not so long ago, and now Aldo's reign was taken down by McGregor.      ComputerJA (  ☎  •  ✎  ) 08:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I posted after you closed that one, didn't get an edit conflict. Noted the record-setting money up there. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support This is the longest reigning champion in UFC, the only featherweight champion UFC has ever had, defeated in record time by a rising star. So far as encyclopedic interest goes, that's multiple checkboxes for notability - longest/only champion and the record time.  Fights (boxing or MMA) seem to struggle to get posted because there's no monolithic championship event taking place on a scheduled day of the year, as well as attracting the usual swarm of meaningless "not news" opposes that all sports get, but this is a really good candidate for a blurb. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 09:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would help if world champions acted like important politicians? In his first answer, he reveals he is literally shaping reality here. Like in Poltergeist III, but with a Babe Ruth twist. This goes well beyond the MMA bubble. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak support it's probably about time that we recognised that UFC is a reality and a real sport. With this and the Rousey bout making it to the front page of my version of the BBC homepage (i.e. the UK one), it's clear that the reach is international, and that if boxing continues to become more and more boring, UFC will be where it's at.  This certainly seems to be one of the most historic moments in the brief history of UFC.  Nice beard.  And well played Ireland.  P.S. al blurb fixed up a bit.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikilinks are certainly cool. Fixed up the other two. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Question and Oppose Since we just posted UFC 193 and it was controversial to say the least, I'm wondering if the supporters here want every major UFC event posted to the main page or just certain ones? Personally I think 1 UFC event to main page per year is more than enough. Brian Everlasting (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Correction: UFC 193 was pulled out after it was posted. Let's not do the same here until consensus says yes. Unmarking as ready. George Ho (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Just the ones that that make in-depth, mainstream news. Simply being headlined by McGregor or Rousey is enough to do that today, but it's the multiple broken records that pushed 193 and 194 from just being "in the news" to deserving Wikipedia's In The News. BBC, CBC and CNN don't give a crap about Rafael dos Anjos' upcoming successful lightweight title defense (aside from what it'll mean for McGregor). Barring something insane, I won't be nominating that one, or any others till UFC 200. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that setting a number is crystalballing and an intrinsically silly idea. There might be four truly newsworthy fights in one year and zero the next.  We should post fights if and when they are notable, like we do everything else, rather than getting caught up a misguided attempt to editorially balance ITN.  My question to you is, do you have a reason for opposing this, other than just "we already had Rousey up for a few hours before being pulled, that's the yearly quota"? - OldManNeptune ⚓ 00:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose dubious-notability sporting event. LjL (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read what supporters have said and news sources which confirm this was a very notable event. Thank you. Andise1 (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - UFC has never been featured on the ITN section of the main page (aside from the short time UFC 193 was featured), and this seems to be a big upset, something that is actually in the news. As The Rambling Man mentioned, UFC is a real sport. It has lots of fans and is watched by many. If the article is in good shape, I say post it. Andise1 (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not to be a pedantic dweeb about it, but mixed martial arts is a real sport. UFC's just the premier league, and a real genericized trademark. Viacom's Bellator MMA is catching up, as far as watercooler talk goes. Fight quality, not so much. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you ever wondered who's meeting to talk about watercoolers? I hadn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - I see this item in the news so much I don't see how anyone can reasonably say that it is not notable. Banedon (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm just not seeing the significance of this relatively minor sport. Media coverage has been limited to the speciality press or one short article in each sports section - so roughly on the level of rowing or snowboarding. Public interest seems to be similarly limited to a hard core of fans watching on limited reach pay-per-view channels. I also share the concerns of those above about posting multiple UFC events on a frequent basis. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Speaking of MMA in general, that's close to the truth. But this fighter is a different animal, and this fight (aside from its sporting significance) was short and funny enough to make very shareable Vine videos. He's crossed over into the opinion sections, where he also rocks the literary and fashion worlds. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support MMAPayout.com estimates that UFC 194's PPV buys "will likely hover around 1 million," while in boxing Miguel Cotto vs. Saúl Álvarez's PPV buys reached around 900K. Yeah, MMA is as minor as boxing. --61.245.25.3 (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment this is ready to go, again. There's a consensus in support of it being posted, it's been here long enough to be considered not "rushed through", it is updated adequately, it was ready to go yesterday but  removed the tag against consensus.  Let's post this or should we just ignore what the community wants?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Doubters must admit defeat as record-breaking McGregor answers last big question with ease." Slightly different question there, but close enough and a good analysis for those who don't immediately see why this mattered. Not sure I'd go so far to say it was a turning point in the eternal battle between mystics and skeptics, but maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the header to the usual format. I'll have to say I oppose this as newism, but I am an oldist, certainly not a US male of the 15-24 age group.  To me this seems like posting a new app.  Admins should discount my opinion of the nom to that extent. μηδείς (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The new app is so last month. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - Yes, this needs to be posted now. Let us not wait any longer and then not post this. It has support and is adequately updated, everything is good to go. Hopefully an administrator sees this soon. Andise1 (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted' modified version of Alt2. The time of the knockout is a nice bit of superlative trivia, but piling too many dependent clauses in a sentence makes it hard to parse, so I left that bit out.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Nice posting, but you should add "In mixed martial arts" in the beginning of blurb. --61.245.26.7 (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅> In the future, use WP:ERRORS.  I happened to catch it quickly this one time, but in general. WP:ERRORS gets a faster response.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd thought the timing was remarkable. But yeah, there's a lot to take in on this one, even for a fan. Probably best to not toss crazy numbers at general audiences. The Wikilinks tell the bigger story just fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Burundian unrest

 * Comment: Would prefer a little bit more content regarding recent events in 2015_Burundian_unrest, maybe a separate subsection if warranted in the context of the article?  Spencer T♦ C 23:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * new section created and updated at #11 December Bujumbura attacks.Lihaas (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - significant number of death. more content needed though.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * strong support came here to nominate it too. Theres a genocide/civil war going on and no one seems to notice (or care). Also nominated the updated section.Lihaas (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ALTBLURB per Banedon.Lihaas (talk) 05:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support but only with alt blurb; the original blurb makes it seem like the attacks were isolated incidents. If the unrest is ongoing, it should be listed as so. Banedon (talk) 05:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - a significant but neglected conflict. High casualty. -Zanhe (talk) 05:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 06:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] New Zealand flag referendum

 * Oppose "Flag might change, flag might not change". Not particularly significant. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose but clearly support if and when it's actually adopted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. Renominate when the new flag is officially adopted. -Zanhe (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose now, definitely reconsider when it is actually decided on. --M ASEM (t) 21:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose; choosing a choice is not significant; the actual referendum will likely be(especially if the flag is changed). 331dot (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] DuPont-Dow merger

 * Note: Merger is not mentioned in DuPont article. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support though... On importance, this is a high value merger, and as previously discussed, the ITN point for business mergers is when they are announced like this. My trepidation is that while neither company's article is in bad shape, I feel they could be improved a notch in sourcing before posting. They aren't that far off, however, so I would be okay if this was posted with the articles in their present shape. --M ASEM (t) 17:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Two notable companies merging in a high-value transaction is notable.  I share Masem's view about the articles. 331dot (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Huge deal involving two well-known, almost historic companies. DuPont and Dow are two of the three largest chemical companies in the world. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I miss the ban on monopolies. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support both articles are weak but just about cover the news item (in almost identical terms...) Marking as ready and hoping an admin with some semblance of intelligence will be able to construct a more succinct blurb than currently suggested.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The blurb should reflect that they intend to split immediately into three separate companies, Muboshgu, specializing in different fields. I only just heard that on the radio, so no details, but it is more important than just another merger. μηδείς (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WSJ on the 3 company thing. Let me try to work that in .--21:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that both target articles do reflect the plans for the company split. --M ASEM (t) 21:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose that could be good? Either way the story would be sufficiently newsworthy to post. Maybe the Sherman Anti-Trust Act still has some teeth. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There's definitely a gov't review going to happen before this is approved, all the articles on this confirm it's pending such. --M ASEM (t) 22:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pretty much the biggest in the field. Nergaal (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If it's not allowed will that fact be reported here? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * oppose per BB. We made this mistake once with the banana merger. let it clear regulatory hurdles.Lihaas (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We kind had this discussion on the talk page; Clearing regulatory hurdles likely will not garner as much attention as this announcement. If it was denied, then it might and could always be discussed for posting. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support I'll make my implied support explicit, and point out that this is not an offer to buy, but a well-negotiated plan that would not have been announced had the possible regulatory response been gaged. Now is the time to post, since now is when people are looking for the information. μηδείς (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - people will be looking for this info anyway. Time to post indeed.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted in simple form. If readers need more information, they should head to the articles.  If users have an issue with my blurb choice, take it to WP:ERRORS.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted to RD]: Dolph Schayes

 * Support - Article in good shape, seems to meet importance for NBA players. --M ASEM (t) 02:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I used to oppose similar nominations about the death of NBA players in the past and will not change it unless we have a case of a player who was really very important figure with outstanding achievements. Winning a single NBA Championship and being member of the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame are barely significant records and were achieved by many other players. Examples of basketball players who merit inclusion are Bill Russel, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Larry Bird and others (not to mention those from more recent times). Please compare what these players have achieved in their careers and how they are celebrated. Also, note that all of them except Abdul-Jabbar, who has boycotted the Olympic Games because of the unequal representation of African-American athletes, have played crucial role as member of the United States national basketball team in winning the Olympic gold. Sorry, we have to keep room on the main page for other more important people in other fields and cannot regress on posting basketball players like Dolph Schayes. Anyway, thanks for the nomination.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support A newspaper of record like The New York Times doesn't indiscriminately write up obituaries for any ol' sports figure. Sure he's not Michael Jordan, so go blame him for peaking before television ratings exploded. If Basketball Hall of Fame induction and The New York Times isn't validation enough, he is in the exclusive list of 50 Greatest Players in NBA History.—Bagumba (talk) 10:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. There are other measures of importance than winning championships, and I think Schayes meets the criteria based on his career(12-time all-star, multiple halls of fame, 15 playoff appearances in his 16 year career, also got one Coach of the Year award, etc.). 331dot (talk) 10:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Poor Wikipedia if we have to regress on using criteria as appearances in exhibition games and knockout stage of tournaments, membership in a Hall of Fame with 345 members and listing among the 50 greatest league players to validate importance of a sportsman. In football, a sport which is far more popular than basketball, there are hundreds who meet these criteria but we are not surely going to post all of them. The principal idea of introducing the RD section was to prevent overcrowd of death blurbs assuming the same criteria would be used as before; unfortunately, it has become a death list with substantially lower criteria for inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is certainly your right to disagree, but I feel the information in his article indicates that he meets the criteria. Each case should be evaluated on its own merits. I think that one out of 50 and one out of 345 is nothing to sneeze at given the thousands who have played professional basketball(leaving aside the other aspects of his career that merits inclusion IMO) 331dot (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I just responded to your challenging comment and do not intend to debate nor have time to do it. As always, I will accept the opinion of the majority.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There are two names on RD right now, one of which is about to roll off. What "overcrowd" are you talking about? I respect your opinion, but your argument doesn't make a lot of sense to me. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I said that we introduced the RD section to prevent the whole ITN box get overcrowded with death blurbs. The names added to the RD section are not death blurbs.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Quite frankly I agree with Kiril's reasoning. This is not exactly groundbreaking, and we've talked before about needing to tighten the standards for RD.--WaltCip (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Tightening standards should not mean that only the tip-top in the field be posted. The purpose of Wikipedia (and ITN) is to educate people and the current criteria should allow for that. The relevant criteria is "very important", not "most important".  If you want to change that, please discuss on talk page. 331dot (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * People can easily get educated by reviewing the bolded section titled "recent deaths", which is already one of the most visited articles on the English Wikipedia (with 60,000 views per day on average). Also, posting does not necessarily help increase traffic to articles about persons who have recently died since traffic may have already increased (Dolph Schayes is a very good example), implying that the value added of posting to RD is low in the context of educating people.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Per Kiril, Walt. – Sca (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Kiril, given his argument simply seems to be that Schayes' heyday was before most people owned TV's. The article is in good shape, and he's a notable award and championship winning coach and player. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support you can blow me down with a feather. This guy seems to have a lot of notable NBA credits, and his article isn't awful.  I'm permanently turned off by "hall of fame" nonsense, but allegedly being a top 50 NBA player ever seems to make the grade, just.  The fact that I've never heard of him is entirely irrelevant.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Very successful as a player and coach, and his career seems to go above and beyond simply being in the Hall of Fame, which by itself usually isn't enough to guarantee an RD listing. I'm not a basketball fan and I'd never heard of the guy, but I don't really see any issues notability-wise. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Regarding concerns about overcrowding, this is the lone RD on ITN at the time of posting. As far as tightening standards, it's a tricky balancing act between someone being at the top of their field and their relevance to the rest of the world.  I've seen RDs that seemed to have been even more of niche field than this one, of course it's all relative to one's background.  It's an interesting debate, though one that probably doesn't have a clear answer when operating on WP consensus, as opposed to having one editor-in-chief or a small editorial board.—Bagumba (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - good shape article. RD is appropriate.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Arab coalition captures Hanish islands

 * Oppose, obviously. Is there some new fad for nominating things at ITN that don't have articles? The word "Hanish" doesn't appear once in the target article. &#8209; Iridescent 17:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think "Hanish" is a term you'll find in Ursula K. Leguin's Earthsea oeuvre. μηδείς (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Is there any special reason why the capture of these islands is more important than any other development in the conflict? In principle I would support ITN featuring significant developments in ongoing conflicts, but this does not seem to be a significant development. Thue (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I too would like to know why this is important. Does this represent some major turning point or capture of assets?  The nomination doesn't provide an explanation and the articles surprisingly enough do not either. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 03:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Saint Vincent and the Grenadines election

 * The article is fine. Posting when I see some more support. --Tone 20:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I understand it is on ITNR, but this is a very small nation and not a single seat changed hands in the election. To me this isn't notable enough. Comments on improvement for the article would be too use an election infobox and find some international reactions. Regards,  Jolly  Ω   Janner  21:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Efforts to somehow limit which nation's elections are posted(by geographical size, population, size of economy, etc) have all been rejected in the past, so we go by the criteria of all states on the List of sovereign states. All of that said, Lihaas has not posted any sources indicating this election is in the news, and if it is not(which is likely the case if no seats changed hands) then it should not be posted on those grounds. 331dot (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Added sources. George Ho (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: It's ITN/R, the article is fine, we have room to post this item right now. Open and shut. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support: Although a small country, let's give this a try. The article's not fully detailed, but it is fine as is. George Ho (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: The "reactions" section has uncited quotations.  Spencer T♦ C 03:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * On ITNR, so there's no need to support. The unreferenced quotations need to be fixed with proper citations before this can go up. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good now, marking ready. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 23:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Angkor Wat

 * It's interesting but the blurb doesn't capture any kind of sign of true significance, i.e. a few extra buildings etc, so what? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb. Brandmeistertalk  21:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually it looks like there were some sort of pleasure mazes made of sand. Not sure this rises to ITN, but if the article was properly updated with secondary sources, maybe. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - If it ain't bleedin', it ain't leadin'. Unfortunately the impact of this is relatively unknown.--WaltCip (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Swiss federal Council election

 * Comment. Ongoing is not meant for elections that are in progress; generally we only post the results of elections.  I would suggest making this a regular nomination once the results are known. 331dot (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Well it's over now. Parliament voted this morning. Popo le Chien throw a bone 12:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So are you withdrawing this nomination and/or suggesting a new one? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Elsie Tu

 * Can you explain why she must be honorably mentioned? --George Ho (talk) 06:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose old person in old political scheme. No evident accomplishments. μηδείς (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Medeis, no clear reason to see why this individual was important enough for RD inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Skimming her article, I am guessing the relevant criteria would seem to be the latter part of RD1(significant impact) but like the above comments I'm not clear on exactly how that is met here(or any of the criteria). An explanation would be appreciated. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment She's interesting, that's for sure. Very few former British administrators and legislators in HK went on to live in the city after the hand over in power, and even fewer were as outspoken as her after this point.--86.135.159.252 (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as a person living in Hong Kong. The article quality is not up to par. This has received a lot of coverage in local media, but I am not seeing many sources outside Hong Kong reporting this. sst✈(discuss) 12:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing (again): 2015 South Indian floods

 * Support ongoing – Still a developing situation, entering the clean-up and relief phase now, with more than sufficient activity on the article. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A second look at this lends me to the same conclusion as others...changing to 'oppose and closing the nomination. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose for exactly the same reasons I gave to the last Ongoing nomination for this. That floods require clean-up is not something notable or unusual or even encyclopedic.128.214.53.18 (talk) 09:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose not seeing anything significant about the aftermath. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reason I did before; ongoing is not meant for this type event, where the only changes made to the article are updates in casualties and damage(or the effort to clean it up, as stated). If this meets the criteria for posting at all, it should be as a regular nomination. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment could stop using these nominations in an attempt to "balance the main page"?  We can (and we do) easily manage this situation without having to use new nominations.  Thanks.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * TRM, I don't want to stop doing that on recent deaths, but I'm willing to reduce nominations on recurring events as "Ongoing". I proposed Helmut Schmidt to be moved from blurb to RD because newer stories were coming and the auto race blurb was at the bottom. Rather than wait for Schmidt to be at the bottom, consensus said put him to RD and save the auto race for a short while until something new would come. I was doing the same strategy to this, but I got the opposite results instead. As far as I see, events and individual deaths are treated differently. Therefore, I'll be careful on events, but I'll see whether obituary blurbs are worth pushing older blurbs out. --George Ho (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, they are treated the same way. Here's how we treat them 1) Someone nominates something.  2) People discuss it and vote.  3) If it has consensus we post, if it doesn't have consensus we don't.  I don't see where this is being "treated" any differently.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 00:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Obituary blurbs are rare anyway. We don't need special rules for them.  Four days of a blurb, for instance, is still much more prominent than a week of RD, so I don't think we need to say that there is an expectation that obits will be moved in RD. BencherliteTalk 01:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, the standard at RD has usually always been that the oldest RD cannot be older than the oldest blurb. So, if something would have rolled off as the oldest blurb, it would have also been taken off RD at the same time.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I should have discussed consensus treatments of obituary blurbs/RDs and ongoing events. Consensus would say yes to putting an obituary blurb to RD but then say no to the aftermath of any sort of tragedy, especially when a story will be rolled off the bottom. George Ho (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't think you understand.  Let me make it clear: we don't need your help to balance the main page columns.  Nominations should be based on their suitability for inclusion in ITN, not used as devices to try to balance the look of the main page.  As you well know, the balance can change every 12 hours as the DYK section changes.  Is that clearer?  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose looking at the changes made to the article in the last couple of days, the new information being added strikes me as being insufficiently significant to warrant posting as developments of encyclopaedic interest. BencherliteTalk 10:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

RD: Mattiwilda Dobbs

 * Oppose her recognition section doesn't back up the nomination in any way at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment here's a suggestion, something like "Possessing a small but buoyant voice, Dobbs was admired for her refined vocal technique and lively interpretations." (in the lead) needs to be expanded and referenced in the main body. I'm not seeing that in the article.  The nomination includes terms such as "ground-breaking" and "pioneer".  I'm not seeing that in the article.  From a technical perspective, I see the same reference repeated seven or so times, that's why we have  .  My original comment still stands regarding the notability of the individual.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Bonnie Lou

 * Oppose not seeing any awards, discography shows that her releases were received poorly. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Induction into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame would be a better indication of notability, "weak" since the article is decently filled out with information.  Spencer T♦ C 04:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Two of her 1950s singles sold about 750,000 copies each, which was enormous for a female doing that sort of music at the time. Country music publications are paying tribute to her status as legendary industry pioneer. Membership in Rockabilly Hall of fame is notable for rockabilly, and Rock and Roll Hall of Fame for rock and roll. Salmon isn't trout. Articles about her death have appeared in Billboard and in hundreds of newspapers and web sites, including in Africa, the Middle East, the UK, the Philippines, and China. The New York Times has now seen fit to publish a feature obituary for Bonnie Lou, so all is well. Nicmart (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Very weak support, and only once the orange tag in the discography section is resolved. The quality of the article otherwise pushes this one over the line for me, but it is a close call. I'd feel a lot more comfortable about this if more than one of her releases had its own Wikipedia page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Rockabilly Hall of Fame is an amateurish website which has inducted 400+ mostly obscure people. Many don't even have articles. Who's Bud Bays, inductee #399? -Zanhe (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Good analysis. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support reported by NY Times as "national star" in her music heyday. MurielMary (talk) 09:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not enough I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Douglas Tompkins

 * Oppose on article quality, support notability. Not just the orange tag, loads of [citation needed] dotted around too.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's in much better shape now. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Still a couple of inline tags that need dealing with. I'll weakly support on notability, although I think it's a borderline case. His company is a lot better known than he ever was. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Mona Lisa hidden portrait

 * Oppose. The first two sources you provide above say this is a bullshit claim, and the third is a reprinted press release by the person claiming to have found it. Total non-story. &#8209; Iridescent 11:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As stated, this is an announcement of the finding of the person who has worked on this theory, and there doesn't seem to be independent confirmation of it. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This seems to be nothing but just an announcement of a conclusion from a tin-foil-hat theory.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Same as above, in theory such a story would certainly be worthy but if there is no consensus among art scholars - or a general consensus that this is nonsense - there's no way that could be posted. Obviously if academic opinion somehow ever winds up favoring this theory then we can give it all due consideration then. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 00:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: 2015 San Bernardino shooting

 * Oppose if you don't believe in your own nomination, what's the point. This is just going to re-ignite the "another day, another mass shooting" debate, and there's no "aftermath" other than the usual outpourings of pseudo-shock that "how could this have happened?" etc etc.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Sadly I'm in agreement with TRM on this... this event did jack to help the problem, and the issue got deflected onto another topic once again (religion/immigration this time) and is quieting down, relatively speaking, already. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose We already posted the blurb. While this is not a "normal" shooting (contra the above posters), I don't think the result of the investigation, or the investigation itself, is notable.128.214.53.18 (talk) 11:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Akatsuki (spacecraft)

 * Support This is quite an achievement after the initial failure five years ago. To clarify Banedon's comment, an IP posted to Wikipedia talk:In the news‎, not the talk page of the article. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Certainly a notable achievement in spaceflight, and also really friggin' cool. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Article lacks any major problems, and event is currently happening. Hits every part of the checklist for ITN.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per above, article is sufficiently good w/o any sourcing issues. --M ASEM (t) 03:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: This article documents the event very well, and is a very notable achievement in 2015. Also, it is now the only spacecraft currently exploring the inner planets, ever since MESSENGER crashed into Mercury, and will be for several years.--LL221W (talk) 05:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the real nominator of this story. George Ho (talk) 06:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * On ITNR so there's no need to support. Clearly significant enough. I'm not a big fan of the blurbs though (how many Main Page readers know or care about attitude control thrusters?), so I've added alt2. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. I haven't posted the image because I'm not sure about its alleged PD status. Can anyone confirm? --BorgQueen (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. The JAXA image usage policy appears to be a limited version of an educational use only licence. The 'source' given for that image is a PDF where it only appears as a background image. Probably one to take to WP:PUF. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * PUF was started. Still a good non-free if that it is what it is. --M ASEM (t)


 * Support Quite an engineering feat. BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

[Clsoed] RD: Mike Mangold

 * Kind of interesting, but normally we escalate someone who would be RD even in old age to a blurb due to an unexpected death, rather than escalating someone to RD because of an untimely demise. μηδείς (talk) 03:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd argue he was at or near the top of his field, jet aerobatics. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Unexpected deaths like this, where the death itself is the story, are typically posted as blurbs(while RD is for the deaths of notable people).  In this case we have both, which I still think warrants a blurb. He does seem important to his field(or, more generally, to aviation) given his record in his sport. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, mild oppose RD - I don't think the death of an old-ish career pilot in an aircrash is particularly unexpected or extraordinary. He was accomplished in winning Red Bull races, but that's a niche field if ever there was one, and he wasn't as recognizable or significant to the advancement of aviation like, say, Chuck Yeager or Bob Hoover. I realize that's a high bar, and it wouldn't particularly bother me to see this posted, but I just don't think there's enough notability here. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Elections in Venezuela

 * Looks good to go already, per ITNR. There's a referenced results table and a sourced paragraph of reaction. Adding an alternative blurb and marking [ready]. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support alternative blurb. Important regional event (although I very much doubt the nominator's comment that this might signal the end of populism in Latin America!). Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Posting. I'll change the blurb a bit. --Tone 13:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Holly Woodlawn

 * Oppose I'm not seeing where importance is here. No awards (that I can see) or commentary on their career/importance to Puerto Rico film industry. --M ASEM (t) 05:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on notability and oppose on article quality. Both insufficient. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on sources provided, no notable achievements or awards. Both English language sources have the same text which describe her as being a "muse" for Warhol and then not getting any more action. Even she said her star flickered for two seconds!! Please add any other sources that might show notability. MurielMary (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Would support on significance (recognizable name), but the article quality alone leads me to oppose. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] MLS Cup

 * Oppose - apologies for this but I know that in soccer, the most widely-followed leagues (outside of national leagues of course) are the European ones: the British Premier League and Spanish La Liga especially, with the German Bundelisga and Italian Serie A closely behind. Internationally speaking, few people care about the MLS. The quality of play is also lower, as seen by the older European players moving to the MLS before retiring, and the gap in performance at competitions like the Club World Cup. I cannot in good faith support this. Sorry. Banedon (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support As the most notable championship game in North American soccer. Canuck 89 (talk to me) 01:19, December 7, 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Aside from internationally speaking, MLS is not as popular as the other major sports in the US (NHL, NBA, NFL, MLB).  I don't think this gets enough attention to be posted. I'd be willing to bet that the average person on the street wasn't even aware of when the game was. 331dot (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support Though the team article has a number of CNs to be fixed before posting. I agree MLS is nowhere close to the size of FIFA/World Cup, and is not ITNR, but feel this is reasonable fine given how slow the news is otherwise right now. --M ASEM (t) 01:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Who cares whether soccer is more or less popular in the US. Even when not listed in ITNR, this should excite all soccer/football fans worldwide (and non-fans). Now that not one sports blurb is currently present, there should be one now. Originally, I opposed city vs. city matches as not global, like NBA Finals, but I am convinced those tournaments make ITN fresh. Quality is decent enough to deserve attention. George Ho (talk) 06:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether the game should excite soccer fans or not is irrelevant; it doesn't and it's not our job to see that it does, just to reflect it doing so or not. 331dot (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's not ITN's purpose to advertise a particular league, sport, or any other product. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose from one "soccer fan", this certainly does not excite me in the slightest. I could not name a single player who represents either of those clubs.  It's a mere blip on the global association football landscape. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose from this "soccer fan" who is aware that even in the US MLS is something of a standing joke (the US TV viewing figures for English, Spanish, Italian and German matches are far higher than those for MLS), and the MLS salary cap, which makes players' annual wages in the US roughly equal to the weekly wage in Europe, means this will always be the case. Even the MLS's owners and spokespeople concede that in terms of quality MLS is only at the level of the English Championship at best, and not any kind of top level competition; running this would be equivalent to running the French baseball championships. &#8209; Iridescent 12:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not even the most popular league in the US. In world football terms, this isn't close to the highest level of competition. We already have plenty of coverage of the sport and there's no need to add another minor league to that. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * oppose. The MLS is not the highest football compeition in North America.  It is demonstrably weaker than the Mexican League.  Technically the highest competition in N American is the CONCACAF Champions League.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is if you divide the Americas into North/Central/and South. Then the power leagues are MLS, Mexico and Brazil. North and Latin would work, too. If you divide it into just North and South America then yes MLS is not the top national league of North America. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but if you're going to define North America so narrowly that just amounts to saying that it's a stronger league than Canada. The fact that MLS is stronger than the league of a much-smaller country that hardly plays the game is not much of an argument. I don't think focusing on narrowly-defined geographical areas is very helpful. To give an example from my own country, I could say with perfect truth that the New Zealand league is clearly the strongest in the Oceania confederation, but that would be a terrible argument for posting it - it's a very weak league in a confederation of extremely weak leagues. Neljack (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose A long way in quality below the big four national leagues (England, Spain, Germany and Italy). If we were to post MLS, then what would be the basis for not posting the French, Dutch, Brazilian, Argentine, Portuguese, Japanese, Turkish or Mexican leagues? They are probably all stronger than MLS. Neljack (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per 331dot and Neljack. I had no idea the MLS championship happened, despite some people in my city caring about the local MLS franchise. Also soccer is plenty (over)represented in ITN/R as it is, and we shouldn't be expanding it further. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Armenian constitutional referendum

 * support - when results are in.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - per above. Banedon (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pretty significant political change. -- Ե րևանցի  talk  11:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, though the article needs some work. Some prose on the vote itself (e.g. turnout), reaction to the results, and preferably a few more details on how the new constitutional system will differ from the old one. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support The votes are in, and the results confirmed. The above comments I believe have been addressed.128.214.53.18 (talk) 14:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Dave Brubeck

 * Support on article improvements Importance clearly shown, but article has large patches of unsourced prose and many CNs. I don't expect the discography to be sourced, but other facets of his career in prose must be. Stale I only caught the month and day, completely missed the year. --M ASEM  (t) 18:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Stale - He died years ago. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And, coincidentally, his death was one of the first full blurbs (if not the first) after the RD section was implemented. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy close - he died three years ago. RD is not for anniversaries. -Zanhe (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Spanish galleon San José found

 * Comment San José currently redirects to Wager's Action, a separate article would be better. Would support in that case. Brandmeistertalk  15:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * support - when separate article has been created.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support under the same condition; a fascinating story and a nice change of pace. μηδείς (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – true encyclopaedic staff, picture added --Jenda H. (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Could be a 1BN find. Cool beans --81.132.25.200 (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - So, now a article has been created there is nothing stopping posting it when consensus has been reached.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not yet, because the article doesn't mention anything about the $17 billion in treasure. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is a stub and per Abductive, it doesn't really cover the significance of the find. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - reasonably interesting with international appeal. Banedon (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now I would gladly support on notability, but the article has a number of citation issues. Most notably, the article - and most news sources - seem to be cautiously saying that the Colombian government claims to have found the wreck.  If they are so careful in their wording, we should be equally careful in posting to the main page.  If this can be verified, and consequently the article brought up to standard, consider this an enthusiastic support. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 02:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I have put up an altblurb as I note that both news sources use the same language ("claims to have found"), as OldManNeptune also notes, and I think the blurb needs to reflect that. MurielMary (talk) 11:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment If this is legitimate, then there should be more news coming soon. In which case, I would support the first blurb.  If there's no further news, either from the government or independent sources, then I don't know how we can post this.  The altblurb isn't suitable in any case, because we don't post unverified claims (made over Twitter no less), and if we had more than claims then the first blurb is better.128.214.53.18 (talk) 12:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Many citation issues have been fixed, but the fundamental problem of verification still exists and is evidently beyond the ability of any editor to correct until further news. However, this isn't the kind of story that really goes stale, so I certainly hope if we don't hear anything in the next few days that this will be remembered for renomination if/when further proof is available. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 00:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Azerbaijan oilfield fire

 * Support: Unusually high death toll for this sort of incident. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Unusualness is not the main reason to support this. Recurring events make unusualness criterion useless. However, the tragedy should attract readers more. Also, the oil field fire affects the oil market, and it affects Azerbaijan and its economic partners. George Ho (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - high number of deaths. unusual incident. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Update is a bit on small but sufficient side. Importance clear per previous !votes. --M ASEM (t) 17:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – Per previous. Sca (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The update is minimal at best. Nergaal (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. It seems that the number "32 workers die" is not confirmed officially. The official information at the moment is that one is dead and 30 are missing. Assuming that all missed persons are dead (they probably are), the total number is 31, not 32 as was preliminary reported. Beagel (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a source in the article that is stating 32. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And there are sources which say that this information is incorrect. Latest information is that one person s confirmed dead and 29 are missing. (Reuters) Beagel (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Reuters appears to rely on local Azerbaijani committee on oil workers' rights, whose spokesman reportedly said that 32 had died. Brandmeistertalk  15:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It was Reuters' initial reporting. Later they reported new figures. Most of news agencies have changed their their reporting, to 1 dead and 29 are missing or 1 dead and 30 are missing – depending if the latest rescue of one person is included or not. (Reuters), Bloomberg, TASS, Trend News, Xinhua, Associated Press, Agence France-Presse) Beagel (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice. Just for information that split the information about fire into the newly created Gunashli Platform No.10 fire. Probably the main page link should be updated accordingly. Beagel (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Xu Ming

 * Comment. Typically unexpected deaths get blurbs(since it is the death itself that is the story).  If he wouldn't merit a RD listing absent his unexpected death, he shouldn't be listed there. Was he notable as a team owner? (i.e. influenced the league/sport) Merely owning the team I don't think would merit a RD listing. 331dot (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Doing a quick Google check this does seem to be getting some coverage. Undecided at the moment. 331dot (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * To follow on this, my first thought was to see how we handled George Steinbrenner, but that was in 2010, before we had RD, and as such then, a blurb for his death was not promoted; I would like to think, though, that if we had RD, he would have been listed there, or at least would be the most recognized candidate from the world of sports-team ownership. In contrast, I don't see Ming here being of similar caliber. --M ASEM (t) 18:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree that Steinbrenner would have made RD had we had it then. 331dot (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree that unexpected deaths typically get blurbs. In my opinion, blurb worthiness should depend primarily on overall notability, with an unexpected death being a "tiebreaker" between no posting/RD listing or RD listing/blurb. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I just know that precedent seems to have developed a difference between the death of a notable person and a notable death(such as an unexpected one). This seems to be the latter to me. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, unexpected does not automatically lead to a blurb. IMO, it's the consequences of the death that make that distinction, along with the overall notability. Also, note that Scott Weiland is currently in the RD section, and his death was hardly expected. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose - I'm not sure if an unexpected death can be one of the primary reasons for posting something to RD. I know it's a contributing reason to posting as a blurb. Barely misses the bar in my opinion.--128.227.155.122 (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - a high-profile former billionaire involved in a major corruption scandal who dies mysteriously in prison at a young age. (disclosure: I'm the creator of the article). -Zanhe (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Article reasonably fleshed out explaining Xu's business role and political dealings; article quality pushes me to support for RD.  Spencer T♦ C 02:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb. Seems to tick a lot of boxes, particularly with his political connections. I'm not impressed by the football team though. Article looks good, albeit fairly short. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD, this may not be brilliantly sourced but clearly a notable figure and notable circumstances of death. Blythwood (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Robert Loggia

 * Weak oppose? I'm kinda ambivalent about this one. I'm familiar with his work and he had a great career, but I just don't know that there's enough oomph here. (I went back and forth between weak support and weak oppose before hitting submit, so I'm sway-able.) Article would need to be cleaned up before posting though, as it's a bit of a mess, but not as horrible as some. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose doesn't meet the Geoffrey Palmer standard. That is, as an American I know his face, but not his name. μηδείς (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Though he appeared in many films, Loggia was not at "the top of his field."  Spencer T♦ C 07:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. He had a long and very colorful career, but aside from a single oscar nomination - he wasn't at the top of his field, nor did he have the influence or fame that would also put him at that level, sadly. Challenger l (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lots of films to his credit, but not a "top of his field" actor. Canuck 89 (what's up?) 08:39, December 5, 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Dick Laurent is indeed, dead.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] ITN photo: Roch Marc Christian Kaboré
I wasn't sure whether to report it as error. In doubt, I decided to propose here instead. Not a biggie, but File:Roch Marc Christian Kaboré au FMLF2012.JPG is free to use and should be used to replace a pic of Leon Smith. I don't know why administrators did not change the image suddenly when they posted the Burkina Faso elections. --George Ho (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I made the same suggestion in the nomination myself. I can usually kludge something together, but  seems to be very good at fixing images and knowing how not to break Wikipedia.  Something close to 100% of the time i try to do this myself, I break Wikipedia.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Jayron, re-visit the admin instructions, there's an easy method which is pretty foolproof, I've used it many times. There's up to a 15-minute delay, but that's small change to get stuff fixed without having to depend on a single individual.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll look into it. Thanks.  The old method of "download, reupload, tag everything right, make sure to protect everything" is where I usually botch it up.  Thanks for the heads up.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can never do that properly either. Nor could update ITN for no RDs or no Ongoings, so that's why the template and the protection process is a lot easier, I asked some clever to people to help and we have a much easier time of it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Scott Weiland

 * Support RD - Terrible tragedy to the prominent musician. ....I'm at loss. However, unless he overdosed or had a heart attack, I will not fully support a blurb yet. George Ho (talk) 06:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * support Oh, Jesus Christ. I heard an STP song (Vaseline) at 5p Eastern US and wondered if he was still alive.  Undoubtedly one of the greatest vocalists of his age, and a memeber of the biggest selling bands of the 90's.  Jesus. μηδείς (talk) 06:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD - Well-known frontman of two well-known bands, so no concerns regarding an RD listing, but there's no way this should be a blurb. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Our practice has been that unexpected deaths that make the news get a blurb. Depending on the cause, it might not meet that standard, but it is possible. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support RD, and marked as ready, article is in good order so this is fit for main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD - per above supports. Opposer fails to convince. Agree that this is a very strong RD entry. Jus  da  fax   10:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 10:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per the nom and above.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 11:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Good Lord. Literally had the same moment as Medeis; was listening to Vasoline on the way home from work today. This is crazy. I thought he'd be around for ages. To hell with the IP editor above.--WaltCip (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You are a big fan, fine, but you being a big fan is completely irrevelant for whether this person should be posted here or not. To hell with you. 93.215.65.174 (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's been posted. Go home.--WaltCip (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment There are a few issues with sourcing but far from any immediate need to pull or to have prevented posting (there's a few potentially contentious statements on the impact of his career that I see unsourced but they are far from BLP violations). --M ASEM (t) 16:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Damn. Flies in the vasoline we are. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Full U.S. integration of its military

 * We need an article to evaluate. 331dot (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Linked in Women in combat. Mamyles (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. If this were the first country in the world to take this step, I'd support, but this has been the situation in Canada and New Zealand for decades. Without the "first in the world" factor, this is just a parochial story about the internal administration of the military of a single country (albeit an important one). &#8209; Iridescent 22:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's still the most powerful military to have done so. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. Kind of relating to what Iridescent states, I'd like to see evidence of wider news coverage of this, which is what really matters. 331dot (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support That the US has finally reached this decision after many years of bitter disagreement (and some sections of the military such as the Marines still don't agree with it) is notable. The fact that other countries did this first only emphasizes how slow the US has been. Plus, the US is a much more powerful force than Canada or NZ. MurielMary (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose too little too late. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment as I stated above, makes it more notable that the decision was finally reached. That progress has been slow and incremental doesn't make that progress less important. Also interesting that last month there was a complaint around the Michelle Payne/Melbourne Cup nomination of "forcing the pace of progress" on women's news on ITN, and now there is a comment that the progress on women is "too little too late". Goalposts constantly moving? MurielMary (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Not exactly earth-shattering anymore, is it?--WaltCip (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - WaltCip, it may not be earth-shattering to you personally, but if you can take a broader view of the world then you might acknowledge that is earth-shattering to US women who now effectively have 145,000 additional jobs they can apply for. ITN is wider than "earth-shattering to me personally". MurielMary (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And if you could take a broader view of the world you'd recognise that this is a decision in a single country which simply brings it into like with its allies. "Country does something new" is news; "country does what other countries already do" is not. &#8209; Iridescent 23:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "country does what other countries already do" is not news. Really? So when Saudi Arabia lets women drive that won't be news. When the US passes gun control laws that won't be news. The world is a complex place - what is newsworthy depends on the context of the place it occurs in. That this change has happened so slowly in a leading 1st world country is notable. MurielMary (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak support – Notable change, but much delayed in the global scale. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The fact that it's been so delayed is part of its noteworthiness. MurielMary (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: Notable development for the world's largest military and major step forward for women's equality. Also added an altblurb. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As an aside, and just as a point of order "World's largest military" is wrong on any number of measures. List of countries by number of military and paramilitary personnel indicates China has the world's largest military by any measure.  The U.S. is as high as #2 (if one counts active personnel, but is only about 1/2 as many active personnel as China) and if one includes all military personnel (including reserve and paramilitary forces) the U.S. is only 7th on the list.  I'm not saying this is not a valid topic to support, just noting that your rationale in this case is false.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Kudzu1 may have meant that the US has the largest military budget. 331dot (talk) 03:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I did. Sorry if I was unclear. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah. Vagueness leads to misunderstanding.  Try to avoid that in the future. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb. This seems to be getting coverage around the world which might generate reader interest.  A notable development. 331dot (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. The US military isn't actually expanding. It is simply replacing some of its men with women. Unless female soldiers are of different quality compared to male soldiers, nothing of consequence is really changing in terms of, e.g., power projection ability. This is the kind of news to which I say 'okay' and move on to the next item. If there is a dearth of news stories for ITN (which I don't think is the case right now) I'd support it; otherwise I'd say move on. It's worth knowing, but not especially interesting. Banedon (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Notable, and given the number of U.S. troops stationed outside its borders, of international interest. Jus  da  fax   10:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Whilst this move is welcome, it is neither surprising nor likely to lead to any major consequences for e.g. international relations. Gradually improving equality in a single nation, in a way that already operates in others, doesn't rise to ITN level in my opinion. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * 220,000 combat jobs suddenly opening to women doesn't seem that gradual to me Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose – As I understand it, this is a stated intention, not an immediate change; not sure it's even a detailed plan to implement the intention. Sca (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The service branches have been given 30 days to submit their plans for implementation. That sounds pretty aggressive, but this has been under discussion for at least a couple of years, so it's not out of the clear blue sky. Be that as it may, ITN often posts stories about events that haven't happened yet, or might not happen at all, such as business merger announcements. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Weak only because this is an expected development. Still support, because being "first" is a lot less important than being, well, important - the US military is of greater consequence than most of the rest of the worlds' militaries combined, and is certainly among the most influential, so its decision weighs more heavily, like it or not. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 16:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose In leaning towards supporting, we are talking about a major change in one of the world's largest armed forces. But I'm more on opposed as US is far from the first to do this, and in contrast toward one of the counterexamples above "Saudi Arabia lets women drive", there we're talking about not-quite-so-fundamental right that most of the rest of the world's women enjoy that had been denied to Suadi women, while here we're talking about not a right but an option that women can choose if they want to serve on active duty. If this had been allowing women in any place on the armed forced for the first time, perhaps, but this is not as significant as other decisions the armed forces have made (such as the elimination of Don't ask, don't tell.) --M ASEM (t) 16:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's a matter of opinion/perspective as to whether being able to apply for the same jobs as men is a fundamental right or not - plenty would argue that definitely is a basic right. Also, this decision does allow women to apply for any place in the armed forces for the first time. No positions will remain as "male only". MurielMary (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * While driving is not a "right", the legal inability to drive simply based on gender can severely harm that person's ability to function in a society. The ability to not be able to participate in combat operations by gender, on the other hand, is nowhere as close to the impact on one's life and ability to function in society. --M ASEM (t) 07:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose this is a policy decision, subject to change, and of little consequence given women have already died in combat (that's not a new thing if you have studied any world history) and the women will still have to meet physical requirements. μηδείς (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Several other countries have already done this (Australia, New Zealand, etc) and its an evolution in US policy rather than a major change. Nick-D (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Zuckerberg and The Giving Pledge

 * Oppose - Sounds all well and good until you read the fine print; this is merely a statement of intent. The donation will be $1 billion per year over the next three years, and the donation is not being made to various philanthropic causes, but to his own initiative to which he still has shareholder control over.--WaltCip (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose per Walt. Rich person announcing they are creating a foundation to decide how to give away their money doesn't seem significant.  Some sources have noted that Zuckerberg is one of the youngest people to make such a decision, but that doesn't add enough to this for me. 331dot (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not only about him being the youngest person making the pledge, but also the largest. If you think this isn't noteworthy, you probably don't read the news at all. Spare opinionism here. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please offer sources to indicate that this is the "largest"; I don't see such a claim in the ones given here. I also think it is not as significant given that he will still control where the money goes; it's not like he is giving his shares to the Red Cross to do with as they please.  Also understand that the whole point of this discussion is for people to give their opinions about whether nominations merit posting.  Mine is that is does not as I see it now; yours is that it does.  "Opinionism" is what we deal in. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Your comment is bad faith and unnecessarily antagonistic. I read the news story. Your blurb does not reflect what the article states.--WaltCip (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You can suggest an alternative blurb WaltCip, I wanted to keep it short. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WaltCip. Intentions are different from actions, and this sounds simply like Zuckerburg trying to improve his image. --M ASEM (t) 14:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The pledge is a commitment, not a mere intention. Zuckerberg is already donating for many causes and has philanthropic activities in various education institutes. I don't care about his image, personally I don't like him, but as I said this is all over the (serious) news and thus should appear here. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Oscar Pistorius

 * Support Basically a new conviction which we do post and this time from Supreme Court. Brandmeistertalk  09:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Poor old butch bonking Oscar.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I may well be biased at the moment, but I'll try to be fair. I am opposing because:
 * Murder may be a heinous crime, but it's not uncommon. The only reason to feature any particular case then would be if the perpetrator is a particularly noteworthy person, but Oscar Pistorius doesn't seem like one. If he were to die today, I doubt he'd be featured in Recent Deaths if it weren't for this case.
 * This looks like a one-off story. Unlike other events like Turkey's downing of a Russian warplane recently, it's unlikely that more news stories arise from this one. On its own this does not mean the story is not worth featuring, but ...
 * It seems like a relatively uninteresting case, with undisputed facts. There is no possibility of wrongful conviction of someone innocent for example; it's just a matter of how severe the punishment is. It seems to me that the case is being featured around the world simply because it's being featured around the world (see famous for being famous).
 * I may reconsider this vote if this continues to generate news articles in international media, e.g. interviews with Oscar's family or his girlfriend's family, opinion pieces on the case, etc. Banedon (talk) 10:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is tabloid fodder. Why is his case any more significant than any other? Just because he and his girlfriend were both celebrities doesn't raise even the original case to the level of ITN, let alone a modification to to conviction. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, Pistorius himself was certainly more than a "celebrity" having won six Olympic gold medals and holding numerous world records... Can you name any other athlete who is that significant in his field who murdered anyone?  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * He never won an Olympic medal. He won Paralympic medals, which is a rather different thing. And if you want other examples, how about Aaron Hernandez, Jovan Belcher and Don King (the latter later pardoned)? Regardless, I can't believe that this makes any difference to the significance of the case. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was going to change that, but thought no-one would be so picky as to try to use it to degrade the achievement. And random NFL players hardley equate to a six-time PARAlympic gold medallist who holds a number of world records, do they?  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not again. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  11:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support because this reverses the original result; more notable than a typical murder conviction(leaving aside his notable athlete status) 331dot (talk) 11:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Banedon's points 1 and 2. --LukeSurlt c 11:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - major development in the case. This is something that couldn't happen in many countries either, so newsworthy on that point alone. Mjroots (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Excellently put by Banedon. Also, I believe we've gone down this road before already.--WaltCip (talk) 12:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - ITN has already run the story that Pistorius was found guilty of illegally killing his girlfriend. As Banedon pointed out, this story is primarily about the severity of the penalty, not about the underlying facts of the case.  The BBC article also mentions that further appeals are possible, so this may not even be a final decision. --Allen3 talk 12:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Banedon's arguments. Thue (talk) 13:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Because Banaden's arguments are invalid. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Allen3; we already reported the conviction, the sentencing is far less of the interesting ITN point. --M ASEM (t) 14:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – If I never hear of Oscar Pistorius again, it will be too soon. Sca (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * May I ask what that has to do with the merits of this item? 331dot (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec)We could all say that for almost any event. What has your personal disgust with Pistorius got to do with this event's notability? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing personal against Mr. Pistorius, with whom I am not acquainted. However, in the last three years his case has garnered so much journalistically unwarranted coverage that as a topic he has become a giant yawn. (Besides, this decision, while significant to the defendant, does not materially change the outcome of the case.) Sca (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose His conviction has already been featured on ITN. Criminal sentencing often does change after conviction. This should be treated similarly to a convict getting paroled, which is not notable enough for ITN. Mamyles (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * His conviction has been changed, murder, not manslaughter. The sentencing will also change. How that equates to parole, I know not.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no new information with regard to what he did. The court has simply reclassified the act that he was already convicted of, based on the definition of murder in South Africa. The result is a different sentence length, which is as significant as a parole. Mamyles (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "I blame her. If she hadn't been in that disabled toilet none of this would have happened." Jimmy Carr&#39;s Granny (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, your claim wasn't quite right, the sentencing may change, but the conviction has. The highest profile Paralympic athlete guilty of murder does not equate in any way to parole.  It makes the act of violence he committed a deliberate one, he intended to kill his girlfriend.  How is that the same as getting an early release from prison?  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, Justice Leach of the South African appeals court found the original trial judge had been wrong in two points of law - that the ballistics evidence had not been correctly considered and that Pistorius had fired deliberately. The identity of the victim was not a consideration and Pistorius' claim, that he thought the target was an intruder, was not challenged. 217.38.82.227 (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Particularly disagree with opinions that this is an "uninteresting" case as it has been highly scrutinized in South Africa (over whether Pistorius got differential treatment as a white man) and in domestic violence circles (in a similar way to the OJ Simpson trial) as the case has appeared to be one of a domestic incident turned violent which the perpetrator then claimed to be self-defence against an intruder. In many circles a fascinating case and this development is of interest. Example from The Guardian of discussion around DV provoked by this case MurielMary (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Everything so far has been "not yet" and so it would have remained in the US. But in SA, it is YET.  The time to post a murder charge against a world's top athlete is upon us. μηδείς (talk) 06:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Murder, manslaughter. That won't matter. Trial of Oscar Pistorius was featured once. Featuring it again won't change his crime, although convictions change through appeals. His fiancée is dead, and the conviction change does not make his crime new at all. The media may have emphasized it a lot, Wikinews already wrote this story, and the trial page may have been shown on Main Page. However, let's not do this again. George Ho (talk) 06:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You see no difference between house arrest and a minimum of 15 years in prison? Reeva's family seems to think it matters. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 10:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Reeva's family does not trump consensus, and currently consensus says this will not get posted. Time to move on.--WaltCip (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What makes you smarter than the BBC? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a non sequitur.--WaltCip (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Your comment is the non sequitor. Explain why you think you know better than the BBC just what is newsworthy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've no opinion either way on this case, but "the BBC considers it newsworthy" is really not much of a criterion; in the wake of the budget cuts, BBC News, and in particular the BBC News website, is notoriously prone to run dubious human-interest stories masquerading as "news". (As I wrote this, Dippy the arthritic penguin is given new home, Are the great pavement parking rows finally coming to an end?, Should you buy a smart toy for Christmas?, Can F-rated films help overcome sexism in Hollywood? and Tailback tales: The world's longest traffic jams? are all currently on the front page of the BBC News website.) &#8209; Iridescent 18:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Who do you consider a reliable source for newsworthiness? (Hint: The opinions of Wikipedia editors are not on that list.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Every news source is guilty of publishing clickbait. The only way to reach an accurate assessment of newsworthiness is through community consensus.--WaltCip (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What makes "the community" smarter than the "reliable" sources? Or are you saying there's no such thing as a reliable source? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You've been around ITN long enough to know it isn't the source that makes an article newsworthy. "Reliable source" is only relevant for determining whether information posted in an article is factually correct. Or are you suggesting that we drown ITN in Duchess of Cambridge and Kim Kardashian stories?--WaltCip (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - a world top athlete. Found guilty of a world renowned murder and a trial that has been of interest world wide. Of course this should be posted.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - I'm particularly concerned about a couple of "oppose" stances with seemingly very mistaken assumptions, such as that Oscar Pistorius is not a particularly noteworthy person (?!) and that the trial was a straightforward matter. LjL (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What? Notability does not equate attraction... or quality. Even when the guy is notable, we shall not repeat the OJ-trial standard... ever! --George Ho (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify how Wikipedia covered the OJ trial, and what you particularly disliked about it please? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, no, no. When I said "OJ-trial standard", I guess I should have meant the press's overemphasis on one murder trial of a celebrity. The OJ trial received a lot of attention because the football player has been very famous among football fan community and astonished everybody in the past. He even appeared in films and TV programs. The trial wasn't very impactful that much, but the press made it so just to gain profits, shatter the celebrity's reputation, and divide the community. Is he guilty or not guilty? Everybody thought either way and spent more time thinking about the trial. Meanwhile, other more serious events and other things, like political conflicts, haven't received much attention at the time of coverage. --George Ho (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] UK air strikes in Syria
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * Oppose until actual strikes begin and we have significant text about the strikes themselves and their results and impacts. The entirety of the update to the article is basically the blurb itself, and if all we have to direct readers to is the same statement made in the blurb, it's not really blurb worthy.  A fine vote, but neither particularly unexpected nor a major development in the progress of the war.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 00:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As I understand it the UK has already been bombing ISIS in Iraq, just not Syria.  As Jayron states, not a major development. 331dot (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose incremental shift in policy, an inevitability post-Paris, and while it's relatively headline news in the UK (mostly because of the divisions within the Labour Party's front bench), it's not changing the game. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not unexpected, and not a big change in the grand scheme of things. Fgf10 (talk) 09:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Huge news in the UK, but not likely to be a turning point of the war as the UK contribution will be small compared to ongoing actions by the US, France, Russia etc. This is basically a gesture (one which kills people, but there you go). However I would support putting Syria back in the ongoing section once the Russian jet shoot-down drops off the template. There's still plenty of things happening, including the UK joining the fray. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. This is top British news, but the global effect is small compared to what Russia, France and the US have already been doing to ISIS &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 12:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] 2015 San Bernardino shooting

 * Wait until it's clearer what's actually going on. At the moment it's not clear how many shooters there are, and whether this is a lone crazy with an assault rifle or an actual terrorist attack—and if it is a terrorist attack, who the terrorists in question are. (A social care center in San Bernardino isn't an obvious "we will attack your way of life" ISIS target.) &#8209; Iridescent 20:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Multiple shooters, armed with rifles, at least twelve dead, ISIS don't like disabled people. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait for more information to come out. Simply too early to post at this point Palmtree5551 (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support given further information coming out, obviously big news Palmtree5551 (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait. Reports are coming in of there being 12 fatalities, so if thats true, it should get posted, but we can wait for the picture to clear up a bit before posting. Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait/ Support – Wait for the picture to become more clear, but this does indeed seem out of the ordinary (I hate that I have to say that...). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Full support now given the loss of life. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I appreciate the "waits" but once the article reaches a decent standard and we have some verifiable sources, there's no reason to wait to see who did this, why they did it, etc. That will evolve in the article, and the blurb can stay roughly the same until such a time we need to change by perhaps updating numbers dead and possible perps.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW, my wait is just a generic one in regards to how much info is available at present. It's not the same magnitude as Paris so there's no immediate need to rush this article to the main page. Just some extra details on the situation and more concrete confirmation on fatalities are necessary in my opinion. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup, no problem. Just no need to wait to e.g. determine the reasons for the shooting at this time.  That will come out in due course.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Having said that, "San Bernardino incident is the 355th mass shooting of 2015" in the US, so that's more than one a day, perhaps less haste here in case it is just more lunatic gun-crazed morons rather than something more sinister? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * as much as it pains me to say this, I'm somewhat inclined to agree. If more than 10 people are confirmed killed (3 are confirmed at the time of this comment), however, I think it warrants mention on the main page regardless. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Police just confirmed 14. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the 355th mass shooting int he U.S. this year, yes, but only ten of them have articles in Category:2015 mass shootings in the United States. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Neutral - Even for U.S. shootings, which happen too frequently and too easily due to the rampant access of firearms in the country thanks to the ever-powerful gun lobbies, this is a biggie.--WaltCip (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But rest assured the common response will be that those individuals at the centre would have been better off armed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course. It's the same song, second verse - there will be a call to restrict or ban guns, and the answer of "but if they were armed they could have fought back". It is, as I said before, akin to Walter Cronkite's routine nightly broadcast of Vietnam war casualties.--WaltCip (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Never fear, gun lover. The Republicans and the NRA were totally OK with the murder of all those school kids a couple of years ago, so there's no reason to imagine that they'll do anything about this. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Yes, much is not known, including the total body count. But this is a significant mass shooting with as many as three shooters. We can post now knowing what we know, and update as we can. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait until the dust settles, likely withing an hour or so. Brandmeistertalk  21:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support It will be expanded soon enough, but this weekly occurrence of shootings is starting to become tiring to write about. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support but still wait a bit  – This one may embody a difference in kind from other U.S. mass shootings, but from what I've seen details aren't clear yet. Sca (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * With 14 confirmed dead this is ready to post. Sca (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Changed !vote due to additional information coming out, indicating that this may not be as atypical a shooting as previously thought.--WaltCip (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Is this the news that it was some kind of holiday event for "county employees"? If so, I'd agree, it's another day, another mass shooting.  Don't think it's possible to withdraw this nomination right now, sadly.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct; listening to a California news station, that appears to be where the story is headed.--WaltCip (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing because it was a holiday party? We have 14 reported deaths at this point and three suspects who carried it out, and are at large. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup, the 355th mass shooting in the US this year. It's not Paris, as one editor noted above.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not Paris, it's its own horror. And as I said above and below, only ten of those 355 mass shootings have merited articles, and this death toll is the sixth worst in U.S. history, which is a big deal considering how many that is out of. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid mass shootings in the US are now in the "road traffic accidents in India" category. More than one a day with at least four victims so far this year, it's becoming tragically tedious, a routine event.  Echoed by the fact that only one country on planet Earth has a category dedicated to mass shootings by year.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, U.S. gun policy is broken. But to compare the willful killing of civilians to traffic accidents, and to dismiss every shooting in the U.S. unless you have confirmation is was ISIL? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it looks most certain to be yet another gun-toting maniac (or maniacs) incident, similar to the other 354 incidents so far this year. To have a "by year" category is indicative that we need to start really cutting down on this kind of routine happening.  This one may just about creep across the line, just because it's 14 dead Americans (as opposed to say 130 dead in Paris), but we have to draw that line somewhere, and this could just about be it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually not. This looks different. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, some of us thought that. But apparently not.  Just another mass shooting. There'll be at least one tomorrow.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's different. It's multiple shooters who were carrying out a plan. The maniacs usually act alone and fall well short of their goals and get caught or killed, while these guys came in, shot up seemingly a specific target, and fled before anyone could react. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @ User:The_Rambling_Man I'm not sure why you espouse these beliefs, which many people find insulting and hurtful, that "mass shootings in the US are now in the "road traffic accidents in India" category". There wasn't one yesterday, there won't be one tomorrow, there were certainly not "355" this year. Yes, the United States has a problem with gun violence, and it's one we're struggling to deal with, but to suggest that a casual attitude towards murder is the "majority of Americans' attitudes" is not only inaccurate, it's also insulting. I can understand how, from the outside looking in, it may appear that way, but it simply isn't the case (and you've put forth no evidence to support your claim). I humbly suggest that you apologize for your remarks, and drop this line of conversation. Thank you. --166.137.98.127 (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Try this reliable source. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: Huge death toll, international news. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support This stands out from other incidents in both the number of victims, and the coordinated nature of multiple shooters. Article is well referenced (if a bit small). Mamyles (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Chuck Todd on my teevee just said that the 14 deaths make this the sixth worst mass shooting in U.S. history. And the worst since Sandy Hook. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. If this is posted please do not suggest number of deaths and numbers of injured in the blurb until things are fully clear. Just write "fatalities and many injured" or something. Numbers in cases like this are notoriously wrong and proned to be changed. Iselilja (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I think that comment has been superseded already with an official police statement including those numbers... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * At the press briefing the guy say "upwards of 14" dead, meaning "at least" 14, as he clarified later. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is what the blurb says........ The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Police does not always have full oversight in these situations and it's not all that uncommon that the numbers of fatalities are adjusted down later. The Mali numbers we had recently on the front page was adjusted down; I remember the same thing happened when we had the 2011 attacks in Norway. We are an encyclopedia... Iselilja (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We reflect reliable sources. Next.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait until the news reports have a clue about what this was about: Terrorism? Targeted assassination? Attention-seekers? Unknown by the general public, so far. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unless this turns out to be a specifically targeted attack, it's just another week, another shooting. Yawn. Fgf10 (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Your casual attitude toward murder is most distressing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that these things are still allowed to happen in what calls itself a civilised country is most distressing. Also, your continued presence on wiki is also most distressing, but I digress. Fgf10 (talk) 09:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No more so than the majority of Americans' attitudes. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think, or at least hope, that you're wrong. Keep in mind that many people are literally afraid to stand up to the NRA. P.S. The nightly news right now is saying one or more suspects may have been found. We'll see. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The majority of Americans support stricter background checks prior to purchasing a firearm. As Baseball Bugs said, the NRA presently has cowed many who could put better legislation in place. But to actually type "yawn" when 14 people die and the suspects are still at large? Damn. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, yawn. Until you actually sort out your country this will remain commonplace and thus completely uninteresting. Fgf10 (talk) 09:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Why should anyone pretend to care about this? I'm not opposed but every time you end up whining about "casual attitudes" to wards murder. If you cared, you'd be trying to post for each and every murder ever. Oh wait, not American enough?Correctron (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted by consensus – U.S. shooting events are severely limited through ITN as it is, and this event stands out in terms of human loss among the hundreds this year. Further limiting this pool of news serves no purpose at this point. Arguments against posting are not convincing this time around. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support - While I can see conditions where this type of shooting would be "yet another American shooting" incident, the fact that it appeared to be multiple shooters and something that lasted for more than a few minutes puts this beyond the typical gun-related crime, and instead something planned, even if it only just taken as domestic terrorism. --M ASEM (t) 00:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I realise this is futile and not going to lead to pulling, but for the record I don't think we should be posting this, or shootings like it. Regrettably, mass shootings happen in the US all the time; there are several each week. If we don't post e.g. bus crashes in India, bombings and shootings in the Middle East, industrial disasters in developing countries - all of which kill groups of people but are fairly frequent - then we shouldn't be making a special case for the US. Horrible systemic bias. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, as noted in the hatted section, this is the 355th mass shooting in the US this year alone. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the above discussion should have been hatted as there was still discussion to be had as to whether the item should remain on the ticker. I hadn't even considered the systemic bias angle, but now that it's been brought up, I do feel compelled to say this should be pulled.--WaltCip (talk) 12:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not a typical mass shooting, but a coordinated attack by more than one person; since 1949 only two mass shootings have involved more than one shooter.  There was also an extensive pursuit and gun battle with the suspects. This is unusual even in the US. 331dot (talk) 12:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - This was different... as I said yesterday. And I have to ask editors such as FGF10 - did you "yawn" at the Paris attacks also? How did France's "civilized" attitude toward guns help protect them against those attacks? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No of course not. To even compare the two events shows your complete lack of understanding. How does the US's 'civilized' (sic) attitude towards guns help protect them against these attacks? The fact that maps like these exists shows why this isn't news. Fgf10 (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As stated, shootings involving more than one shooter are rare in the US; this is not a typical mass shooting. There are some things that you don't seem to be understanding here.  For this not being news it is certainly in the news a lot(and not just in the US) 331dot (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment - I think we should be more lenient towards our American contributors. It's not their fault they live in such an inwardly looking, nationalist and parochial country. It will of course be difficult to gain a global perspective on things when you're stuck in such a situation, as perfectly illustrated by BB above. Fgf10 (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please take your anti-American comments elsewhere and let's focus on the merits of this item. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Anti-American attitudes are usually rooted in jealousy or envy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Insecure much? Perfectly happy here in the UK, thank you. Fgf10 (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The US has countless "soft targets", as do the UK and France, for example. The difference is that in the US we citizens have at least the theoretical capability of protecting ourselves. The UK and France do not. So much for "civilized". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Say what? Where do you see anti-American comments? I was merely recognising sociological differences and saying we should take them into account. I have no problems with American or the US whatsoever, just expecting them to realise other people are different. Fgf10 (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you meant well but reading your comment it comes off as sarcastic and offensive within the context of this discussion. I think it best not to further take up this page with debating it. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Perfect example of exactly I was talking about.... Fgf10 (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – An illogical suggestion. This is far and away the No. 1 story in English-language media (and some other languages), and it will continue to be prominent for some time. (Though of course nothing will happen to curtail our famous "well regulated militia.") Sca (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, currently no 3 story on the BBC, after the Pistorius verdict and UK bombing in Syria. (neither of which are on ITN, correctly so, I might add) Fgf10 (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So apparently Wikipedia is smarter than the BBC? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I said English-language media, not British media. See AP, NYT, WP, LAT, CBS, NBC, etc. Forgive me for pointing out that there are approximately five times as many native speakers of the English language in the U.S. as in the UK. (And BTW, UK-based Guardian also leads with San Bernadino.) Sca (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As I noted below: " It's being obsessed over in North America, that's it, everywhere else has just noted it's another mass shooting in America and is getting on with their lives, because nothing ever changes and it's now routine to have, on average, at least one mass shooting per day in America. ". The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This one looks different. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Second at the Sydney Morning Herald, third on New Zealand's Herald, about seventh on the Time of India website (whose headline is 'On average, mass shootings occur daily in US'), about fifteenth on the Times Live in South Africa. Third or fourth on Le Monde, can't find it on Die Welt or Pravda or El Pais.  It's being obsessed over in North America, that's it, everywhere else has just noted it's another mass shooting in America and is getting on with their lives, because nothing ever changes and it's now routine to have, on average, at least one mass shooting per day in America.  That this had two shooters, interesting, but still "another day, another mass shooting".  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference ongoing
Nominators' comment: The current climate change conference will be held near Paris till 11 December and has already been one of the most reported on topics in the past few days. I'm actually quite surprised it hasn't yet made it to the ongoing part of ITN. If any sort of deal is reached at the conference, then that can be included in ITN on its own if/when that happens. Admittedly the article still requires quite a bit of work, but I'm sure this will happen as more information about the conference is released and public interest in it grows. odder (talk) 13:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait until we get an agreement, or the talks break down, at which point it can (should) be nominated for a full blurb. There aren't really any ongoing updates here, beyond the fact that the negotiations are currently happening. The purpose of the ongoing section is not to list all potentially-significant things that are going on; it is to highlight stories where there are lots of small developments that individually don't merit blurbs but add up to a significant story. That isn't the case here, and we will definitely have a single event to highlight. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on procedure. There's a ongoing misunderstanding about what Ongoing is for.  This can be re-nominated as a stand alone headline if something notable happens, but note that merely being a international gathering does not guarantee support.128.214.69.192 (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment this is not something that usually shows up in "ongoing". That said, I don't see any reason why this cannot be featured there. Banedon (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose or Wait as Modest Genius suggests. The ITN item would be if there is any significant treaty, accord, or the like that comes out after the conference is over. --M ASEM (t) 14:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait per Modest Genius. Once major news comes out of it, we can post a blurb. Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose; as stated, Ongoing is not meant for events in progress. 331dot (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Query to 331dot - aren't sports events such as the Olympics featured on Ongoing? So why not conferences/events such as this one? MurielMary (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn`t an international sporting event. Correctron (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just as an explanation, the reason the Olympics gets put in ongoing (and it's about the only event I can think of which would be ITNR for Ongoing), is because, during the Olympics, new information is constantly being updated for two straight weeks to Wikipedia articles. Ongoing exists for articles which a) are receiving constant updates on new information which b) lack a blurb-worthy single "event".  The Olympics, historically at Wikipedia, qualifies as both: the article gets regular (almost hourly or more often) substantive, quality, referenced updates, and the event itself lacks a single "blurb" worthy to post.  The Climate Change conference is a longer-term event, but I haven't seen this article receive the kind of daily, regular updating which "ongoing" would be necessary to highlight.  So it really doesn't hit the purpose of ITN in general, or Ongoing specifically.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would add that Ongoing is not meant for a single sports event in progress(such as the World Series or Super Bowl); the Olympics are not a single event, but composed of multiple events as Jayron explained(better than I could have). 331dot (talk) 03:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 South Indian floods
Just a very quick nomination for 2015 South Indian floods being listed under ongoing EdwardLane (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you demonstrate that this event is in the news? If the only incremental updates are the death/casualty toll I don't support ongoing and this should be a regular nomination. 331dot (talk) 10:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * if you have time to make it a normal nomination - great, here are a couple of quick items int he news when I open google news aggregator bbctelegraphfinancialexpress EdwardLane (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support owing to the considerable death toll and number of displaced people. I'm actually a bit surprised hasn't nominated this, and paging him / her as ITN's resident meteorology expert as well. Banedon (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's been a prolonged event over the past month, I was close to nominating it in early November, but it quieted down. Worth noting that the majority of the deaths took place in the first round of flooding, not the recent ones which sparked this nomination. Still a very disruptive event though. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as ITN entry, not ongoing - This should be an ITN piece, there might be a few things to improve on at the article but for the most part it seems okay, but I don't see this as ongoing as it appears the bulk of the flooding is done, but now we're in the aftermath stage? So bringing the situation to ITN is definitely right. --M ASEM (t) 14:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support – Worst of the flooding (and majority of the fatalities) mentioned in the article took place in early November, but the renewed floods have been quite disruptive in their own right. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong support Floods were there last month as well, but yesterday onwards, it has been bad enough for the Armded Forces and NDRF to be deployed. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for ongoing. Article is receiving regular, substantive updates, event is multifaceted and lacking a single blurb-worthy headline, but the article is getting major quality updates and the event is current.  This checks every box in the "appropriate for ongoing" list.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as ongoing, but I would support a stand alone headline. The idea behind Ongoing is to provide a way to feature an event that either 1.) has lots of updates that, each on their own, would not warrant a blurb, or 2.) to consolidate lots of blurb-worthy events into a single item.  Neither of those apply here.  There is a single event in this case, a (prolonged but nonetheless singular, flood season) and this should clearly go as a blurb.128.214.198.142 (talk) 08:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I was wondering why this was not on ITN yet. Support ongoing as the article is getting updated every day. These are the worst floods in this part of the country in over a hundred years and the forecast says there'll be plenty more damage over the next 2-3 days. 1.39.96.37 (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ongoing is not meant for articles where the only updates are changes to casualty and damage counts; it is for continuing events where the article will be incrementally updated with changes. 331dot (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment – Added a blurb to start discussion since there's not really consensus on posting it to ongoing. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Don't mind either blurb or ongoing. It's a bit jarring to see past tense in a blurb however. Adding an alt blurb. Banedon (talk) 03:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as Nom I'm happy with blurb/ongoing - and thanks Cyclonebiskit and Banedon for sorting out a blurb & alt blurb respectively. think I prefer southern India (capitalisation per my understanding of the etymology section on that article) piped to South India - and so I've made an altblurb2, which I prefer slightly, but I'm not fussy about it as I was only aiming to get the link for all the folk who might be interested easy to find. I can't get this into the present 'itn moment' without the word 'ongoing' being in my head - but I'll leave that for you folks to haggle over. EdwardLane (talk) 09:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Posted ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Ongoing: Syrian Civil War

 * Support once the Russian jet shootdown rolls off. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support in the last few months, on any given day this war or its consequences dominated the headlines, and will likely do so in the foreseeable future. 87.154.212.110 (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * oppose this article is not appropriate for ongoing, as no significant additions or changes or updates have been made in over 2 weeks, other than minor wording and grammar changes. Find an article which is getting constant, continuous updates.  The purpose of ITN is to highlight new Wikipedia content.  This article doesn't have any updated content.-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's the link to the other section, Jayron: --George Ho (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What does that mean? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * George Ho, I believe Jayron means a link to an article related to the Syrian Civil War that's being currently updated, not just any article that could appear in ongoing because it's being updated. Pardon me if I'm misunderstanding. Best,  Spencer T♦ C 02:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, no, no. I just gave him an opportunity to vote there also and see comparisons. George Ho (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sure he's capable of voting wherever he sees fit. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Support Doesn't need any explanation. 198.16.164.205 (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Modest Genius, you said "support" in the other nomination, right? Don't hesitate to vote here. George Ho (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I support re-adding this to ongoing, but only once the Russian jet shoot-down drops off. It's currently the last entry on the ITN template. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I moved the nomination up to December 2 when the UK Parliament passed the bill to allow airstrikes on ISIS targets. This needs more attention. --George Ho (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Despite moving it up, the article in question contains litte new content to direct readers to. The ONLY new content is the UK parliament vote, which is currently doesn't look like it has enough support to stand on its own as a blurb.  I know you like to ignore the advice of people when it doesn't suit your goals, but I'll repeat the purpose on ongoing, incase you missed it last time.  The purpose of ongoing is to highlight Wikipedia articles that are receiving regular updates on a topic which is currently active.  You only have ONE of the two parts of that purpose.  Certainly, the Syrian Civil War is still active, but the article is not receiving repeated updates.  Let me keep it simple by asking the question: What new content, from that article are you trying to highlight on the main page?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 04:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, no. I'm not goaling for anything. Actually, I wasn't fully taking sides. It's a response to consensus keeping "European migrant crisis" in the Main Page, although that page as well haven't received significant changes. --George Ho (talk) 05:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the European migrant crisis article has received six major, well referenced updates in the past six days. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The most substantial update within the past six days was the Finland section regarding migration. The rest are just past statistics. George Ho (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - of course this should be added to Ongoing. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait until main article has been updated. There have been quite many edits in related articles, but nobody cared to collect and condense it into the main article. Still, so many things happened in the last weeks and months that almost everything is out of date. PanchoS (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Now that the Russian jet shootdown has rolled off ITN, it's time for this to be posted. Updates to this article have been fairly regular and frequent since...oh, early 2011 or so. I don't see any issue, especially with how this conflict has dominated international news recently. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Burkina Faso General Election

 * Wait until results are announced and article is updated. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as updated: Article is in good shape. Could maybe use an extra paragraph or two on reactions to the vote. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait on election results, per Kudzu. --M ASEM (t) 22:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose too many politics-related entries at ITN. Nergaal (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This oppose is invalid, as the item is ITNR. If the opposer wishes to see fewer items of such nature at ITNC, they should make a proposal at WT:ITN/R, as they well know.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ITNC has worked in the past as an ITNR discussion place, so stop trolling me. Nergaal (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Stop trolling ITNC to make a point, instead do something pro-active for a change. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * result announced Lihaas (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, the update looks good now. On ITNR so we should be ready to go, marking [ready]. I've also moved this to the 1 December section, as that's when the results were announced and this was in danger of dropping off the bottom of ITN/C. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted first blurb, seems best worded IMHO. Article seems to lack any major problems, ITNR.  All good to go.   for an image update, suggest File:Roch Marc Christian Kaboré au FMLF2012.JPG.  I'd do it, but I'm a bit drunk, and I tend to screw it up anyways even when I'm sober.   -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Joseph Engelberger

 * Support - A veritable giant among inventors.--WaltCip (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pending article improvements - Sourcing is woefully lacking, but possible to get there. --M ASEM (t) 02:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I put a little elbow grease into it, and the article is now significantly more robust and thoroughly referenced. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That addresses my sourcing concerns, from above. --M ASEM (t) 14:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Clearly notable in his field. Article is now well referenced. Spiderone  21:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support meets our criteria for importance in his field, and article is of sufficient quality to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Excellent work, Kudzu1! Connormah (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 22:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Turkey ongoing

 * Oppose unless and until an article is available for me to assess. We cannot post a redlink to the main page as "quality work". -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose even if there was a target. What's happening in Turkey is tied to the Syria civil war, so to focus only on Turkey's side and not the overall war that this stems from would be oddly problematic. --M ASEM (t) 17:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Do yall even read the nom? You would not the lack of an article for the SAME reason you mentionedLihaas (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. The purpose of a nomination is to nominate an article to be highlighted on the main page.  No article= nothing to assess.  There is no other reason to nominate an article.  It doesn't matter if you say "Hey look, I'm going to nominate nothing, but go ahead and assess it anyways".  Telling us you're doing something ridiculous does not mean we cannot point out its ridiculousness.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm even trying to consider what all would be there, which is a valid article topic, I don't question that. But in terms of ongoing news, it's how the instability is tied to Syria's war that is of newsworthiness, and so to have just Turkey and not Syria would not make sense. It would be better for the Syria civil war to be put as ongoing than Turkey's instability. --M ASEM (t) 18:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose nothing to review so default no. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Where's the beef?--WaltCip (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Mu Can't oppose what isn't there. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 18:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] AirAsia crash report
weak support (all other things being equal) its not the "few instances where technical failure" as the OP said, since when we do get the outcomes of investigations in the news the vast majority are some sort of technical (or pilot) error. Ie0- not terror. Nevertheless, we don't post investigation outcomes just casue they aint sexy but it was a notable incident (we posted it).Lihaas (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to rectify, I mean that the majority of air crashes are due to human factor, while only some are due to technical failure. Brandmeistertalk  15:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose – A "malfunctioning rudder limiter unit" is important to this particular case but in the big scheme of things seems minimally significant. Sca (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The story here was the crash. That a mechanical failure led to the crash seems a little "dog bites man".128.214.69.192 (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose For one thing, the blurb is over simplified: the crash does ultimately seem to have been at least caused by pilot error – there was an established procedure for resetting the rudder control (which was used several times), but one of the pilots eventually lost patience and hit the circuit breakers. This deactivated the autopilot, and while trying to rebalance the plane, the co-pilot became confused and pulled the stick the wrong way. A complex chain of failures, but the failure of the rudder doesn't seem to have been the last straw. Smurrayinchester 16:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Unlike the MetroJet crash, which there was and then claimed that an external agent purposely brought the plane down, this was mistakes, errors, and other failures that were not likely intentional in the same manner, so it's a routine end of a crash investigation, which will change little beyond if lawsuits are initiated. --M ASEM (t) 16:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Japan resumes whaling

 * Support. They have now left port, which means they are violating the ban. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait until sanctions are imposed against Japan. The importance of such man-made biological disaster is clear but the fact the country violates ICJ's rules itself is a news that challenges the regulators to assess the severity of the action and implement the right measures to prevent it. Let us see how this is going to develop and what impact it will have.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Still Oppose, my reasons haven't changed. I certainly didn't think the fleet would just gather rust in port, but until/unless something further is done, this is no more than a return to prior status quo.  Let's also not get excessively hyperbolic - regardless of how you feel about the issue, calling Japan's 21st century whaling efforts a "biological disaster" is maybe overstating what they've done...by a few orders of magnitude. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 15:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree that the line for ITN posting would be if Japan is significantly fined or put under similar economic fate for the practice. --M ASEM (t) 16:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Notable violation of international convention. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - International interest, and emplaces Japan in the status of "rogue" nations. ITN-worthy blurb. Jus  da  fax   05:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per above reasons. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose barbaric hypocrisy, but ITN is not the place to right great wrongs. If this ends up in armed conflict or meaningful sanctions it can be reposted. μηδείς (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * By my count there are 4 support votes plus the nomination - 3 oppose and 1 wait. What's the decision? Asking more experienced ones u|Cyclonebiskit and u|331dot how or who makes the final decision? MurielMary (talk) 04:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * An adminstrator will evaluate the article and judge consensus on this discussion before deciding to post it. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Have they killed any whales yet? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, there doesn't seem to be any more recent news stories than 3 days ago when the fleet left Japan for Antarctica. How long does it take to get a ship from A to B and start killing?? ... MurielMary (talk) 06:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hscsearunner1.jpg You realize that ships are slow, don't you? Japan is at 30°N+ and Antarctica is at 65°S so even if they could go straight there that'd be half the longest possible straight A to B in the world. There's also a bunch of land in the way like Australia and Papua New Guinea so they have to go around. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry that question was my poor attempt at irony/sarcastic humour .... i.e. "have they killed any whales yet?" - "nope, they still have to get there". Didn't really work! MurielMary (talk) 08:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - Who needs to wait for sanctions or deaths of whales? If Japan continues whale hunting and ignores court order, the story is newsworthy enough. Wikipedia is neither an advocacy of anything nor Wikinews. However, reluctance to show this to general readers is... unreasonable. George Ho (talk) 06:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * it's been 3 or 4 days now and the story is aging. How much longer/how many more votes until it can be posted (is there a general rule of thumb around this? Thanks. MurielMary (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If posted, MurielMary, the story can be sandwiched between either San Bernardino and Burkina Faso or Burkina Faso and renminbi. ITN has slowed down as of now. 06:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)George Ho (talk)
 * Support - newsworthy, Japan ignores court orders. It is time to post.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. It's not every day that a nation so boldly defies a court order to this degree. Does the article need more work before posting? Challenger l (talk) 07:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)