Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/March 2014

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 to RD] Frankie Knuckles

 * Weak support based on article quality. No doubt of Knuckles' notability, but a lot of the article needs improved referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support based on long-term high influence in his field. μηδείς (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is updated and the referencing addressed.
 * The artist was the mixer for people such as Michel Jackson and Whitney Houston he is widely viewed as the godfather of house music, while Barack Obama sponsored a Frankie Knuckles day for him in 2001, and he had a Chicago street named for him at the site of his former club, The Warehouse (source of the name of the genre) in 2004. μηδείς (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - article could certainly be better but does meet the minimum standards. Subject is clearly worthy. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Marked ready -four net supports after 24 hours, article is udpated, subject undeniably highly influential in his field. μηδείς (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, the inventor of an entire musical genre. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD Stephen 01:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

2014 IPCC Climate Change Report Released

 * Conditional support, pending update. I was thinking about it. Brandmeistertalk  16:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support at least this one doesn't suffer systemic bias, since the IPCC have made it clear that this news story impacts the whole globe. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Issuing a report concerning the whole globe is a very big deal.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose we don't post policy statements, and a blurb that says "asserts" is beneath our standards. μηδείς (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The report is not a policy statement - it is a summary and conclusions reached about how climate change is happening and effects on the Earth without any other changes. Also, note the neutral blurb does not say assert, but even in the second, you cannot 100% prove climate change is real (human perception is only too limited timewise) but when 100s of leading scientists in the field say with a very high degree of confidence that there's something happening (like, 99.999+% confidence), "assert" is a fairly correct word. --M ASEM (t) 19:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Tentative support but the article needs some work to reflect that the report's out. --Tone 20:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support It is a peer-reviewed scientific report by experts, not a "policy statement". It relates to a major global issue and is receiving lots of media coverage. Neljack (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Not just for reasons above, but also the topic matter in general is very notable. Whether it will entice readers to take action is beyond our control, though (note to self: WP:NPOV). --Marianian(talk) 02:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not updated/not ready - other than 1 sentence in the lead the entire article has not been updated to reflect the fact the report is out. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong support pending article updates. The IPCC reports are major milestones in an ongoing (decades long) story, which we otherwise hardly cover. However, as ThaddeusB notes, the article has nothing new since the actual release. There are tons of secondary source here, although I supposed most could guess what the report was going to say. Modest Genius talk 23:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Decades long story? Is that a joke?  Sea levels have been both hundreds of feet higher and lower than they are at present due to change in mean global temperature.  During both periods the entire planet was covered with megafauna which died out not due to temperature change, but due to meteor strikes and human overhunting.  "Decades ago" the story was the oncoming ice age.  That we are already entering the next ice age is the recent consensus based on observations  rather than models.  In any case, to say climate change is overwhelming is not a scientific observation, it is a policy conclusion.  The IPCC exists to issue reports.  We do post scientific discoveries.  We don't post policy statements. μηδείς (talk) 03:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Evidence for man-made climate change is overwhelming, and supported by an extremely strong scientific consensus (approx 97% of published papers, vs 1% against and 2% uncertain). It has become apparent over the last few decades. The fact that there are larger and longer-term natural variations is irrelevant. Modest Genius talk 11:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The report is building on decades of work. It is also still not a policy statement. To be accurate, this is part 2 of 3 parts - part 1 was a policymaker executive summary, part 3 is "mitigition of climate change" which is likely the policy statement (and not the core of the report), but this part 2 is the most objective statement from the hundreds of participants - here's the evidences, here's our conclusions, here's what we project without changes. --M ASEM  (t) 03:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (Also, part 3 is to be released by the 14th, but again, this specific part 2 is the one that everyone focused on to see if the scientific community has asserted that climate change has occurred.) --M ASEM (t) 03:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we should stress in the blurb that just one part was released now. --Tone 12:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Manuel Valls French Prime Minister

 * Oppose poor quality article and mediocre figurehead national position. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support If the article quality is fixed.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose do we normally list appointed sub-international positions? See Gov. Gen. Aus. below. μηδείς (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but it should be combined with a mention of the background for the PM change, namely the French municipal elections, 2014 which needs a major expansion. Those elections have been widely covered in international media. France is a G8 country and one of the leading countries in Europe, so I don't think mention of French politics should be restricted to the presidential election every 5 years. Iselilja (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * comment/neutral if we are to post then the Local election article should go up (and bolded)Lihaas (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support The PM certainly isn't a "figurehead" in France, as TRM suggests. France is a semi-presidential system. That means that power is shared between the President and the Prime Minister (and his or her government). Both are important and powerful positions. The comparison to the Governor-General of Australia is off the mark, as the G-G actually is a figurehead. Neljack (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Indian General Elections, 2014
Comment The purpose of posting the nomination now is to discuss and debate whether the start of the Indian General Elections of 2014 could be posted in ITN or not. The results of the franchise is an ITNR. But there are some worth-while reasons why the the start of the month long voting process is as good as an ITNR. 815 million eligible to exercise the franchise, 100 million more (number larger than entire Europe) than that organised exactly five years ago. 3% of them would be aged 18 or 19 then. It would be the longest and the most costliest elections in India (second only to US in terms of cost) ever. The first phase of voting begins in a week's time from now (April 7, 2014). The article is updated till date.
 * Most of those are good reasons why the election results are ITNR, but not reasons why the beginning of the voting should be posted. I don't believe we post the start of voting for other elections (including early voting periods in the US). 331dot (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting the opening of polling. The results should be posted, but not the opening.  -- Jayron  32  16:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose post the result. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose As grand as an Indian general election is, the start of an election is not inherently notable enough for ITN. Save posting till when the results come through.  Redverton (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * oppose as th emost idiotic nomination on ITNC yet. The precedence set by keeping this as, I imagine, a sticky has a whole bunch of repercussions. ABasolutely didly squat repercussionsLihaas (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Calling the nomination idiotic is offensive to the nominator and could be construed as a personal attack. I think an apology is in order. 331dot (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment on Lihaas' Comment The article would be making news around the world in a week's time. The rationale of having it nominated as ITNC was that no-where down the future, in the history of mankind, so many people would be voting in a national election. Nowhere in the comment I had proposed to keep the article as sticky. Had it been the case, it would have been an altogether different discussion on this page.

Lihaas frequently posts comments on this page. I would respect him for the experience he brings in with him. Wiki provides room for personal judgements if they are supplemented with data/facts as justifications (which was missing in this case). If people are still unfamiliar with the Wiki guidelines, I would suggest them to take some time out and give them a careful glance.

It doesn't matter me if any any of my ITNC nominations makes it to ITN wall or not or if they are defeated heads-on. But, what definitely matters to me are the meaningful discussions and debates that goes along with it. Regards,  theTigerKing   19:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Ehud Olmert
*Weak oppose. From what I read, the charges have to do with his time as Mayor of Jerusalem, not as PM. Also, he is not a sitting PM. 331dot (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose politician found guilty of bribery, no great shock. And the target article has several maintenance tags.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "politician found guilty of bribery, no great shock" It is a former prime minister in a first world country, convictions in that class does not happen every day. "several maintenance tags" - It has two "expand this section" tags in irrelevant sections. That doesn't seem important enough to stop posting, it is not important problems like neutrality. Thue (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Silvio trumps this! Good luck with the nom.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not either or. IIRC Silvio Berlusconi's conviction was not posted either? In that case it was absurd for ITN to not post that, and no good reason to not post Ehud Olmert. Thue (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure sure, this is just my opinion. As I said, good luck, no need to take it so badly.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I don't think we'd be saying John Major isn't a sitting PM if he were convicted of bribery. Unusual news regarding head of state of a nuclear power. μηδείς (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear lord, if you state this you need the facts. He was never head of state!Lihaas (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You really need to calm down. 331dot (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Lihaas, is right, Olmert is not the Queen of Israel. Unfortunately, making that point doesn't address the postworthiness of the nomination. μηδείς (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Former head of govt being convicted of corruption seems worth posting to me. I don't see that the fact that it relates to his time as Mayor, rather than PM, affects that. We posted Jacques Chirac's conviction for corruption even though it related to his time as Mayor of Paris, not as French President. And it hasn't stopped this from getting lots of international coverage. Neljack (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of that; thanks for the information. As such, I will strike my comment. 331dot (talk) 02:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Olmert has already been convicted of "illegally granting favours to a business friend", this is just more of the same I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Waratte Iitomo!

 * Support - A significant and unusual topic, and we could always use more Asia-centric news on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Trivia - we sholdn't try to make ITN into Guinness World Records. It isn't even "the world's longest continued TV show". Thue (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose The clarification of being "by the same host" makes it seem like it is trying to carve out this distinction rather than a more natural aspect. And of course, this ignores any possibility that the show could be brought back at a later point (ala Doctor Who). --M ASEM  (t) 14:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really, the record is for continuous shows. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, scratch that, the record, (still awaiting ratification!) is ""Longest running live TV variety show- episodes". Not sure what the blurb really is supposed to mean... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The clarification about being hosted by the same person is the carve out I'm talking about - that it, the show has from its start with the same host and now the show is cancelled/ending. Not really a significant factor here. --M ASEM  (t) 15:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Two obfuscations, same host and "continued", neither of which appear to be part of the record claim. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my comment above. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Aside from what TRM has said, I'm not seeing wide news coverage of this. 331dot (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose trivia. It's not the "longest continued running show" and you have to parse that list with the qualifier to reach this show. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Bob Barker hosted Price is Right for 35 years...and I don't even think THAT is the record... --12.41.124.5 (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] ICJ orders Japanese whaling stopped

 * Obvious support when the article gets updated. Nergaal (talk) 11:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Article now has a larger update. 331dot (talk) 13:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support in principle: a major step in a controversial issue likely to be of interest to readers. A larger update would be preferable, and could someone rewrite the lead to remove the concerns in the tag? Espresso Addict (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support but like Espresso Addict, I'd prefer the lead to be sorted out, rewritten, whatever, to remove that tag. Update is adequate, rest of the article is adequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support This may be an issue backed by much selective outrage, but it's a noteworthy enough story and of wide interest. --Somchai Sun (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Noteworthy development regarding an important issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Posting. The lead does not strike me as particularly inappropriate, it can always be improved, of course, but I find it passable for ITN. The update later on is fine. --Tone 19:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, so we now post articles at ITN with maintenance tags at the very top of the page? Per the criteria for updated content "Articles that are subject to serious issues, as indicated by 'orange'- or 'red'-level article tags, will not normally be accepted for an emboldened link."   (And I do support this story, wholeheartedly...)  If it's not inappropriate, why not remove the tag?   I'm guessing we ignored all rules here?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The tag is yellow. -- Jayron  32  20:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like we ignore our own WP:ACCESS guidelines too! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was my point here. I would not post an article with a top-level orange tag that was in place. Yellow is passable. --Tone 20:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks all, will bear that in mind next time, yellow = hello. After all, it always shows Wikipedia in its best light to main page an article with a three-year-old maintenance tag right at the top, regardless of what colour it is!  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Belated Strong Support, this very distasteful activity needs to be in the news. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * belated ultra strong oppose it doesn't mean f*** all. and neither japan nor Norway nor Iceland would do f*** all to please the hyper partisan morons at the ICJLihaas (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Japan has already said that it will abide by the Court's decision. I imagine it will just establish another "scientific" whaling programme that isn't caught by the Court's rather narrow ruling. Also you really shouldn't be referring to living persons with that sort of abusive language. Neljack (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Lihass, so maybe we should just look the other way and encourage a bit more diversity? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment It's better to swap the Southern Ocean to a more convenient name, such as southern part of Pacific Ocean or whatever it is. Per Southern Ocean, neither the International Hydrographic Organization nor the National Geographic Society formally recognize it and I was taught there are just four oceans. Brandmeistertalk   16:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was taught there are five. And this is a global encyclopaedia, so one nation's geographic society doesn't count for much. I will respect the International Hydrographic Organization, but it's interesting that at least some member nations use different nomenclature. HiLo48 (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Taiwan's Sunflower Student Movement

 * Support in principle: It might need to be a bit broader than what I see as a single march. After addressing that, I think that will be the ideal ITN for April 1, even though it isn't a joke (SPOILER: it meets the notability criteria). --Marianian(talk) 15:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose either listed under the wrong day, or article not updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Both provided sources are dated 3/30 and the article seems to agree (i.e. is updated) with that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So this is listed under the incorrect date, okay. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

President of Slovakia
Is this a presidential, or a Prime Ministerial system? There is no way even to tell this from the election article which doesn't link to the Slovak presidency, while the Kiska article links, unhelpfully, to president. μηδείς (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Prime minister has more power, in principle. However, president is still the head of state. Kiska's article is really thin but the election article is close to posting quality, I am just missing some reactions and some sources in the second round. Willing to post, then. --Tone 19:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, it needs some post-election prose., 2-03 sentences. at LEAST.Lihaas (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose until referencing issues are fixed. I tried to make a few cosmetic and grammar changes, but someone with more time and patience should take a look since it's not great.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Ebola outbreak
Senegal closes border with Guinea after Ebola Virus outbreak spreads to Sierra Leone and Liberia. Lozion (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. This might be preliminary; the latest WHO update (27 March) states all cases outside Guinea are in people who have travelled to Guinea. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Preliminary? The border is officially closed. Isnt that news worthy? Maybe I can link to the 2014 outbreaks sub-section instead?
 * Wheres the article? I did think about creating 2014 Guinea ebola outbreak. Created VERY roughlyLihaas (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Look into the sub-section I created yesterday: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola_virus_disease#2014_outbreaks If you can wite an article based on the material provided for a "In the News" section, then go for it. Lozion (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC) Txs.

Txs Lihaas, I have now updated the new article with the Senegal info and corrected a bad re-direct link from the original page.. Lozion (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Now updated with situation map. Lozion (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As the nominator [naturally] supports his post, and I did too. Ive marked it ready as the update is there.vLihaas (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - getting lots of international attention, and there's that ever so slight possibility that this spreads and wipes out half of our overpopulated world ('bout time). -  Floydian  τ ¢  18:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose article quality is poor, could use some proper attention, removing the [ready] tag, if I have time I'll see what I can do. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Its got more than the prose requirement, and far more than many articles that are posted with merely votes. Maybe remove the background section? (i added that as tempalted on a previous article)Lihaas (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * support in principle since this is a major outbreak which presumably will have high readership interest. If I am not mistaken this seems to be the most deadly outbreak since 2008 and the first to include three countries at a time--although I am not sure of the latter.  In any case, the strongest rationale here seems to be readership interest in a scientific issue.  (Compare this to the 30-fatality airplane crashes we post.)  μηδείς (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment According to the linked article of Ebola outbreaks, this happens, on average, once a year. Should we post every outbreak, or maybe make this ITN/R?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I've added WHO updated material and rearranged the background section as a See Also.Lozion (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC) Sierra Leone & Liberia info added. WHO confirms cases in both countries. Lozion (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, Lihaas has provided the framework and I added the material. I'm admittedly inexperienced and could use some guidance and help with what I feel is an important issue that merits its place ITN. Lozion (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support An important story that readers might not otherwise hear about, thanks to systemic bias. Article has been improved, though ideally the referencing could still do with a little work. Neljack (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, once a title change is made to reflect that this is an international outbreak. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Posting. I guess West Africa wording makes it clear it is international. Otherwise we can still list the countries. --Tone 07:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Shuoldnt we mention it started in Guinea.Lihaas (talk) 07:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've capitalised 'Ebola'. The article should be moved to reflect the proper capitalisation (as I understand it, 'Ebola' refers to the disease, 'Ebola virus' is an informal name for the virus, which is technically Zaire ebolavirus species in the Ebolavirus genus). Espresso Addict (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed, moved, and updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Dman that coffee ;)Lihaas (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Driehaus Prize
--Ebootsma (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC) STRONG SUPPORT However the page might benefit from some images of the architect and/or architecture.
 * Comment not actually an ITN/R. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How so? -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not listed here --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Horst-schlaemma, there is an architecture prize listed,(just posted in fact) but it isn't this one. If you think this one should be ITNR, please start a discussion on the ITNR discussion page with your reasoning. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll get into this. Thanks for the advice! -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Blurb (for any award if its not clear what the award actually is for) should give some context for why the person won. --M ASEM (t) 16:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well the Wiki page covers it pretty much. There was no explanation why Shigeru Ban won the Pritzker at his entry either. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, for example, from the Notre Dame piece, one could add "...Botempi, known for "new classicism and urbanism" building design, wins...", since that seems to be why the prize was given to him. --M ASEM (t) 19:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not seeing the press coverage to support the assertion that this is a prestigious award. Specifically, I see a total of one source (in Italian) about Bontempi winning that is not a press release.  An an article about the Pritzker Prize, the Chicago Tribune writes "Other awards, like the Richard Driehaus Prize for traditional and classical architecture, come with more money ($200,000 versus the Pritzker's $100,000) ... But only the Pritzker has the capacity to galvanize the world's attention."  --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per ThaddeusB. Not quite the same notability as our existing architecture ITN/R and both articles are somewhat weak.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - notable prize. Funandtrvl (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment the coverage will increase tomorrow, because it is awarded tonight (well, this evening in Chicago time). It's the very same for Pritzker, you won't read too much before the actual ceremony happens. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unlike the Pritzker, it is restricted to certain styles - classical and tradition architecture. Neljack (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The Pritzker is a solely modernist prize. Or have you ever seen a traditionalist building getting awarded? Anyway, an ArchDaily news on Bontempi for you. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The Pritzker is for an architect "whose built work demonstrates a combination of those qualities of talent, vision, and commitment, which has produced consistent and significant contributions to humanity and the built environment through the art of architecture." No mention of any limitation in terms of styles. Certainly it has tended to go to modernists, but then modernism is the dominant architectural style of our time. Neljack (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose; the source posted by Thaddeus seems to suggest this isn't as notable a prize, nor is this getting wide news coverage. If it can be demonstrated that it is notable, I would reconsider, but I haven't seen that yet. 331dot (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per ThaddeusB  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 01:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] NATO Secretary General

 * Support A new head of a prominent international organisation - an important position, particularly given recent events. Neljack (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak support not a brilliant target article, but a prominent position as Neljack notes, and one which I'm surprised doesn't make it to ITN/R (not that I'd support it in its current state mind you...) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, it's already posted here. Count Iblis (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, Neljack said basically what I was going to say. 331dot (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would like to see more than a single sentence update. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think the position is so important and we, thereby, should post this appointment. Please note that NATO comprises only 28 countries in the world and is very far from being a global organisation such like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, Interpol and several others. If we really should regress on posting such things, then it would be inevitable to consider posting of changes and appointments within organisations like the Arab League, the African Union or the Latin Union. Given the recent events, I'd say it's just another reason to oppose this, as our goal is not to favour any of the sides in the ongoing political circumstances; it'd have been a valid reason to support this if the appointment were made earlier than expected in response to or because of the recent events.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We aren't favoring NATO; we would post a change in the President of Russia (which is, in fact, ITNR). Other international alliances or groups can and should be considered on their merits, though not all such groups are military alliances. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong support. NATO is the world's most powerful international organization, way ahead of any other such organization including the UN. We do also not abstain from posting important material like this in order to advance Putinism, and there are hardly any sides to speak of in regard to Russia, viz. it's Russia (or more correctly its dictator Putin) against the rest of the world. I also don't see any reasons we shouldn't post the most important position within the African Union, although the African Union is far less powerful than NATO. Bjerrebæk (talk) 08:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I wonder if we should accept votes illustrating personal views on the topic. Phrases like "the world's most powerful international organization, way ahead of any other such organization including the UN" and "more correctly its dictator Putin" are not helpful in promoting any nomination.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not unreasonable to request evidence of their view (or to post evidence to discredit it) but the viewpoint(we don't vote here) shouldn't be dismissed; it should be weighed accordingly. That said, I can't say I disagree with their former viewpoint; there are very few similar military alliances and they don't include the nations with high military budgets(like the US). 331dot (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong support World's most powerful international organization in military terms, and its significance has only been bolstered with the recent return of Cold-War-like conditions to Europe. And since three of the largest Anglophone countries are anyway members (this is not the Russian Wikipedia), I think it's clear we should definitely post this. --hydrox (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, in terms of influence, the appointment is at least as influential on the international scene as that of UN Secretary-General, probably more (while the UN has more members, the NATO has much more practical influence). This is one of the handful of the most influential positions in the world. Bjerrebæk (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * not updated the list page has no prose update, the other page has a 1 line section, that is not a requisite update.Lihaas (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * All articles are now updated. Bjerrebæk (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Governor-General of Australia

 * Very weak support. But this isn't ITNR, because the Governor General is not head of state or government. Formerip (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. I see nothing wrong with posting this. But as FormerIP said it's not ITNR.  I also feel the article needs more than a two-sentence update.  Hot Stop talk-contribs 01:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. This isn't ITNR, as the Governor-General is the representative of the head of state (Queen Elizabeth II) not the head of state themselves. As such, I'm not even sure is it notable enough to pass this process, though I am willing to be convinced. 331dot (talk) 01:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The GG is the de fecto head of sate, for example the GG and not the Queen opened the 2000 Summer Olympics.  LGA talk  edits   01:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * De facto head of state is still not the actual head of state, so this isn't ITNR. The Queen could have opened the Olympics but deferred to the locals(I think there was a Republican referendum around that time). 331dot (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not even de facto. Modern Governors General could be considered, at best, to be ceremonial heads of state.  In Canada at least, the de facto head of state is actually the Prime Minister and I doubt Australia is any different in this regard.  It's been decades since a GG has acted against the wishes of a PM, and to do so now would put a country on the fast track toward abolishing the symbolic links to Great Britain's royalty. Resolute 15:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong support Not being on ITNR is not a valid reason to oppose something, in my opinion. Most of the stuff we post is not on ITNR, so the lack of appearence on the list seems meaningless, and a pointless reason to oppose.  Otherwise, the article is in solid shape (short, but not lacking) and the event itself is in the news prominently.  Go for it.  -- Jayron  32  01:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't oppose because it isn't ITNR, I oppose because the importance and/or notability here has not been demonstrated. News coverage has also not been demonstrated, even from just Australia)though I presume it exists). 331dot (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Further, the position is largely a figurehead and honorary(most of what they do is based on what the PM asks them to do), which wouldn't matter if this was the actual head of state, but it is only their representative. 331dot (talk) 02:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking back at when Bryce got the position I don't think it was posted then, either, and she was the first woman to get it. 331dot (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The Prime Minister of Australia, Tony Abbott is the australian one in the G20 summits, I don't see the big relevancy of the GG--Feroang (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose The GG has close to no relevance even for Australia itself, and surely no international relevance. -- ELEKHHT 02:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose As someone from a country that has a Governor-General, I cannot see why we should post a change in a position that isn't the head of state or government and has very little practical authority. The Governor-General is basically there to host events, cut ribbons, receive visiting dignitaries, give out honours, and rubber-stamp whatever the Cabinet decides. A large proportion of the population couldn't even tell you who the Governor-General is. A change in G-G just isn't regarded as that big a deal. Frankly a new Treasurer/Finance Minister would be much more significant and would get more media attention. I would note that there are 15 Governors-General in the various Commonwealth Realms, so if we start posting them there will be several new ones per year. Neljack (talk) 08:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose This appointment will have no real impact on the country. This G-G will do the same things as the previous one. The only thing that has made this change more notable than usual is that the Prime Minister chose it as an occasion to re-introduce Knights and Dames to Australia's honours system, giving a damehood to the departing G-G and a knighthood to the new bloke. Subsequent jokes in parliament led to the speaker banning laughter. THAT'S more newsworthy than the actual appointment, IMHO. HiLo48 (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per HiLo. No impact. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose — According to our Governor-General of Australia, he acts "only on the advice of the prime minister ... or other ministers or, in certain cases, the Parliament" — in other words, his role is a largely ceremonial, similar perhaps to that of the president of Germany. Sca (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

UNGA resolution

 * Oppose — The resolution may reflect "world opinion" outside the Russian realm, but it will have no practical effect. Sca (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. While this determination came from a broad international body, as Sca said it will have virtually no effect. It was already known that most countries opposed or declined to comment on this situation, this vote just formalized that view.  If this was a Security Council Resolution, that would be different(but we won't have those since Russia will veto them). 331dot (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support once United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262 is fleshed out (I may do it myself). Even though it's non-binding, the UN finally did something in response to Crimean crisis and 100 votes supported the resolution, which is rather significant - it means that at least 100 UN members will recognize Crimea within Ukrainian borders (albeit personally I expected the deployment of UN peacekeepers in the region). Brandmeistertalk  17:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Brandmeister, the subject article needs to be written before this should be considered. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

2012 VP113

 * Support - significant discovery.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose itsy bitsy, teeny weeny, next object in line. We shouldn't be posting every next TNO. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @Medeis, I disagree. For two reasons, firstly, distances in space are vast lengths so how can it be "itsy bitsy, teeny weeny"? Secondly, the previous object with the longest perihelion, 90377 Sedna (76 AU), was discovered in 2003. It has been 11 years since the discovery of an object at the furthest reaches of the Solar System. So, this is not an occurrence that happens as often as you suggest. 184.146.114.217 (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - A believe the press coverage is mostly because the discovers are calling it "Biden", rather than its significance.  I would like to see an argument as to why this is "significant development in science" before I can consider supporting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @ThaddeusB, this is a significant development in science because we are finding objects further from the Sun that we've never previously expected to be there before. We never expected the gravitational pull of the Sun to be strong enough to extend beyond 80 AU (Astronomical Units, which is 80 times 150 million km), the closest distance this new object orbits around the Sun. This will trigger off scientists into the greatest debate we've seen since the demotion of Pluto as a planet in 2006. Scientists will be spending years studying this object to understand its gravitational properties and to help explain why it's even possible to have an object so distant orbit the Sun. 184.146.114.217 (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per 184.146.114.217's explanation, but use an altblurb (I've suggested one) per the concerns of Nergaal. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - As the article notes, we actually know that this object has the furthest away "close point" of any detected body in orbit around the sun. There is a lot we don't yet know here, but "Biden" as it is currently known in pop media raises a lot of questions about the Oort Cloud. I for one find it fascinating. News coverage is extensive and this is of interest internationally. Just how far does the solar system extend? This discovery shows there are likely to be more objects around our amazing neighborhood. Jus  da  fax   03:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose it is not a dwarf planet and it will not be officially classified as such for maaany decades. Not many people know what perihelion is, so the notability of such a measurement is limited. Nergaal (talk) 07:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @Nergaal, it doesn't matter whether it's classified as a dwarf planet or not (even though, it most likely will be and/or currently is considered as such). It could be a planet, a comet, an asteroid, or whatever it may be, the important point is still that its perihelion is the largest of any known object in the Solar System. For your second point, I don't understand how you can oppose this on the basis that "[n]ot many people know what perihelion is": if they'd like to find out what it means, they can simply click on the wikilink provided. If I'm not mistaken, In The News is for the purpose of visitors to Wikipedia to learn something new and if they don't already know what perihelion means, they will learn something new. 184.146.113.70 (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support for many of the same reasons that Jusdafax articulated so well. Today's Science Friday spent fifteen minutes discussing this newly discovered dwarf planet, and the implications that its massive perihelion may make it an Oort cloud object! — Kralizec! (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sorry Kralizec, but the phrase "its massive perihelion may make it an Oort cloud object", particularly appended with an exclamation mark, has tipped me over from abstaining. To anyone not deeply interested in the subject, this is not an important news story. Formerip (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

James Schlesinger for RD

 * Support for RD Seems to meet the requirements, held prominent government positions. --Somchai Sun (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Minor transitional figure of Nixon administration, best known for opposing amnesty of draft resistors, while Nixon himself ended the draft. μηδείς (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Medeis; seems to be somewhat average even amongst Secretaries of Defense. 331dot (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Mild oppose. I'm torn on this one, but at the end of the day I don't feel he's important enough. Hot Stop talk-contribs 01:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose He doesn't seem to have been a particularly important or prominent Secretary of Defense. The article also contains screeds of unreferenced material. Neljack (talk) 07:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Neljack, just another politician, and one with a decidedly poorly referenced article. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Polio eradication

 * Support. This is another item I was considering nominating. 'Certifies' might be better than 'announces'. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Neutral, the grouping together of these countries seems somewhat arbitrary (to me), the major headline was that 80% of the world was now polio-free which is obviously a good thing, but not ITN-worthy, as tomorrow it may be 82% etc. It's a great piece of news, just not convinced by the context.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The grouping is a WHO region. This is the 4th such to be certified polio free, the last being in 2002. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose this is like saying chicken pox has been eradicated in Texas and California. No?  We are looking at temporary accomplishments acrost arbitrary borders. μηδείς (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We're talking about a quarter of the world’s population (i.e. 1.75 billion people) in 11 countries. That's a quite different gun caliber. Brandmeistertalk  22:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe the main "news" is that India is polio-free, which is defined as 3 years without a case. If I recall, someone nominated it on the 3-year anniversary and people said "wait until confirmed by WHO", which is what this is.  India being free of polio is big news, although obviously it was expected.  Given our preference for waiting until things are official, I support,  although my personal preference would have been to post earlier. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support given that (last I checked) India's about 1/7th of the world's population, and while it's not gone, this is an impressive feature of modern medicine. --M ASEM (t) 22:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * One might as well say that 3/4 of the world is not at war, or 3/4 of the world doesn't have Barack Obama as president. Polio can still break out in all these places.  Until it is extinct, the claim is premature. μηδείς (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You can't prove a negative (that no human has polio in the world), but we can go off statistical measurements that the disease is effectively eradicated. And to be called such from the world's most populous country which most live in 3rd world-like conditions, this is an amazing effort. --M ASEM (t) 02:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. Is of global relevance and educational, unlike many of the trivial sport and accident news so easily posted on ITN. -- ELEKHHT 02:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support A significant story that our readers might not otherwise hear about. Neljack (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Huge global medical achievement. And it's about people usually ignored because of our Systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Huge achievement, collaboration between thousands of organizations (both governmental and NGOs). Billions of dollars invested in this, and India was supposed to be a hard nut to crack. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Marking as Ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted by User:Spencer. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Take that, Jenny McCarthy! – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Synthetic chromosomes

 * Support This is very interesting scientific achievement and exactly the kind of things that we should post more frequently.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The target article says nothing about this. What is relevant is that this is the first viable syntheic eukaryote chromosome.  (Basically, first non-bacterial chromosome.)  Saying it's the first yeast chromosome is way too overspecific.  It would be like saying "first daisy blooms on Mars" when the daisy was the first plant to grow on mars.  Support with update and better blurb. μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support in principle (it was on my list of potential nominees - there is a lot of notable news today), but I cringe at the state of synthetic biology, which is written as an essay/lecture. It might be better/easier to create an article specifically on this accomplishment, which to be clear is the first synthetic chromosome (red link=hint), not merely the first yeast one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, there's nothing specific in the existing target article, but I thought it worth a punt because it seemed a likely candidate. It's outside my knowledge zone so I was hoping for some help.  It's neither here nor there to me really, but it does appear, considering the scientific community's consensus, that it's a truly significant breakthrough, and the nomination is based on the source I linked.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support pending improvement to blurb and article per Medeis and Thaddeaus. This is huge news but I agree with Medeis that this is monumental because this was the first synthetic eukaryote cell, not just yeast cell. I'm not opposed to the mentioning of it being a yeast cell in the blurb but we desperately need to fit eukaryote in there. I also agree with Thaddeaus that the Synthetic biology article has substantial issues that would be problematic for the front page. I lack the technical expertise to improve that or identify a more suitable target article. AgneCheese/Wine 21:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, but agree with Medeis about Martian daisies. Martinevans123 (talk)
 * I'm sure, with your effusive manner, you could suggest a less martian blurb. Cheers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support in principle (was considering nominating this). Needs a new article, really, and I agree with Medeis regarding the blurb, 'eukaryotic' needs to be mentioned. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment for all those (i.e. everyone) who wants to change the blurb, please do so, rather than just harp on about it. Thanks.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * harp, harp Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Difficult just coming up with a good altblurb will be difficult. I'd support something like "the first reproductively viable synthetic eukaryote chromosome ever is inserted into a yeast genome." That said, one might wish the authors of the paper were working on this for us. I've added it, but it needs linkifying.μηδείς (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this is not a true artificial chromosome, just a scrambled regular one. DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE! Abductive  (reasoning) 22:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please at least offer a coherent point, AR. Are you suggesting that what is needed here are, say, supernatural, non-chemical, nucleotides?  Explain your objection in biologically literate terms, NOT SCREAMING. μηδείς (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll say it a different way. What they did is very much not make a chromosome from scratch. They looked at an existing—natural—chromosome sequence. Identifying long sections of useless repeated sequences, and other junk, they then would create a short sequences of DNA without such "junk", and insert each into a yeast chromosome, bombarding or patching or splicing it into many many yeast cells, most of which either died or didn't take. They would then subject the population of yeast to a selection pressure that the inserted sequences had an antidote for, killing off the untransformed and/or unhealthy yeast cells. Repeat this over and over again, and you have a sort of Frankenstein's monster chromosome with some of the "junk" DNA removed, and with some of the natural sequence remaining. What remains, as it was subjected to selection pressures galore, will undoubtedly retain the crucial (essential for survival) sequences from the underlying natural chromosome. In short, they did not build a whole chromosome in a dish and slip it into a yeast cell. If you look at syntheticyeast.org you can read this for yourself. For contrast, read what Craig Venter is doing at Mycoplasma laboratorium.
 * Now, as for my comment about hype, I shall say this without capital letters: Scientists are under a (perverse) selection pressure to seek publicity for their work. This, combined with science reporters who were denied appropriate educational opportunities (they're ignorant) and are themselves under selection pressure to produce stories that sell ad space for toothpaste (they're desperate) with often cause science news stories to be given, shall we say, undue prominence.  Abductive  (reasoning) 05:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment The alt blurb is incorrect. They used homologous recombination to replace the chromosome bit by bit inside the cell. Which is a lot less impressive than what the Craig Venter Inst did, since it's template-directed to an extent. Narayanese (talk) 07:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Yakov Sinai wins 2014 Abel Prize

 * Comment Article needs some cleanup help and possibly some expansion on the nature of the work he won for. --M ASEM (t) 19:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Item is ITN/R, but will need some work on article quality (orange tag addressed, etc.) before it can be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Sinai's article needs serious work, it's not much more than a badly referenced stub loaded with POV. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Article needs work before it can be posted, even with this being ITNR. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ready - article has now been brought up to the minimum quality standards. Since it is ITN/R, unless there are further quality objections the item is ready to be posted.
 * Reference those "selected works", fix the problems with ref formats, and I'll strike the oppose.  Currently not ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, and the article looks to be in decent shape now. Nsk92 (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted with a combined blurb. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Sri Lanka war crimes investigation

 * Wait for findings Launching an investigation doesn't seem particularly noteworthy to me. The results might be important, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose "authorising an investigation" is not really what I would consider newsworthy either, if something comes out as a conclusion, as Muboshgu suggests, we can revisit. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait for findings or charges. Many things get investigated, but such investigations don't always result in anything.  331dot (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The consensus is to post convictions. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think war crimes findings, especially from an international body, are a different ball game than garden-variety criminal charges or findings. We have also posted the arrest or killing of notable fugitives. 331dot (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Iwao Hakamada

 * Weak oppose, it's relatively unusual, but would be more significant if he was found innocent rather than lined up for a retrial. It should be noted that the source I read said that he is "believed" to be the longest serving death row inmate, slighly different from the blurb's phrasing. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * He was certified by Guiness as such, for what its worth. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Weird, Amnesty International say they "believe" him to be such. Anyway, nitpicky.  I'm sticking. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * support its a record and increases the debate over the utility of the death penarly.Lihaas (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support given the remarkable length of time involved. Neljack (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support upon update. I didn't even think Japan had the death penalty, let alone they had someone on death row for close to 50 years.  Very unusual situation, but article should be in good shape first. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ready - I've put a lot of work into the article. Still working on it, but I'd say its up to standard now.  I have no problem with "Iwao Hakamada, believed to be the world's longest serving death row inmate, is freed and granted a retrial after 48 years in jail." if the posting admin prefers that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Purely procedurally, it's unusual for a nominator to mark his own nomination as ready. Bound to cause ructions.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've done it many time w/o complaint. To me it is a way to say "this needs assessment" - surely we can trust our admins to not blindly post something simply because it is marked ready? --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I would think 4 supports and 1 weak oppose is certainly consensus on notability. Additionally, I would like to think the article work is of good quality (it certainly is extensive at least) and a good quality update can bump a items with weak consensus over the top, per the instructions, so I find it hard to believe the item is anything but "ready".  However, per your concern, I have marked it "Assessment needed" instead. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think this is in good enough shape. Posting. NW ( Talk ) 16:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like I edit conflicted with . I'll let him go ahead and take care of the rest. NW ( Talk ) 16:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Haha yep!  Spencer T♦ C 16:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys! --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - because of the length and the Guiness world record.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

IMF bailout

 * Support Notable development. Thue (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * oppose we just posted a more notable step in Ukraine. I would assk, though, is this a record one-time IMF gift to burden a country with debt? I f so, I could changeLihaas (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * These international loans are rarely collected. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose not sure this really is notable, while 18 billion sounds like a lot, it isn't in the grand scheme. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a bit less than a WhatsApp Stephen 01:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. Where Ukraine was going to get their bailout from was one driver of the protests that led to the ouster of their President; a notable development. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Comprehensive Agreement on Bangsamoro

 * Support This has been a significant, though under-reported, conflict. Neljack (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Notable development in a long internal conflict. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose currently. The "Comprehensive agreement" article is too short to be featured as a bold item, the "Moro insurgency" article has maintenance tags, and neither blurb is grammatically correct.  Agree topic is notable, but we can't post below-par items.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support if the article could get a little more "beef" and if the references could be correctly formatted. Definitely very notable and important. Mvblair (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * comment I believe we posted this or somethign similar? User:HTD may noknow more. This could then go on DYK.v Lihaas (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The last one was pulled after hours of being posted because the article was crap. – H T  D  15:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment This would be a good story to post, however, that orange tag needs to go first. --Tone 09:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

2014 Boston Brownstone Fire

 * Oppose and SNOW close. Not receiving widespread top news coverage; not a significant fire involving large numbers of casualties.  Residential fires that tragically claim firefighter's lives happen on a daily basis around the world, and ITN doesn't have room for all of them, and I don't see a reason this one should be posted.  Frankly I oppose the existence of the article as well. 331dot (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I entirely agree with 331dot. Neljack (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Abdel Fattah el-Sisi

 * Oppose however I'll support when he does get elected. After all, Bez from the Happy Mondays has announced he's running for election too, although not in Egypt, but it's meaningless until anything tangible happens.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Do consider the first point: his resignation from his position as defense minister, which is the highest current position in Egyptian politics even if there's an acting president. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's not like Egypt has the most stable cabinet in the world though. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have nominated if it was only about the presidential bid. He survived a cabinet reshuffle last month. A defense minister now in Egypt has far more powers than the president, and the new constitution gives the military veto power over the choice of defense minister for the next eight years — language that secures el-Sissi's current job if he chooses not to run for president, while weakening the authority of the president until 2022. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand your motives. But it's simply not notable in my opinion, given the flux in Egypt.  We don't post resignations from political posts, unless, I suppose, they are of presidential level.  Once he's elected, I'll support.  Cheers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Very notable. But we don't usually aanounce the declaration, intraparty, general, runoff, certification, and inauguration.  I think the general election result will be enough, no?  (Open to other arguments.) μηδείς (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If this is about his resigning the defense ministry, I oppose as we generally do not post changes in ministries/government departments.  In the case of Egypt, the government is in flux(as stated above) as well.  If this is about his seeking the Presidency, I oppose as we generally don't post announcements of candidacies. 331dot (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No offense, but "we generally do not post changes" is no valid argument in my opinion. I don't believe similar habits are part of ITN policy and they certainly do not prevent exceptions sometimes. It is about two things at the same time, both notable and both complete each other. And for those who would be interested, it was the top story on Euronews ten minutes ago, a channel that hardly gave any attention to Middle Eastern events for the last two months because of the Ukrainian crisis. I'm sure this would be the case on networks like BBC, CNN..etc. Regards. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please pardon my lack of clearness, Fitzcarmalan but what I meant was we generally do not post such things because they have not been considered notable, the first as positions below the head of state/government and the second as a mere declaration of a candidacy(not being formally nominated by one's party, the actual results of the election, etc.). We wouldn't post a change in the US Secretary of Defense or State, the UK Defence Minister, etc, because they are lower-level positions carrying out the instructions of their leadership and who serve at their pleasure. I appreciate that this is getting some news coverage, but that isn't enough on its own to warrant inclusion here, rightly or wrongly. It must have a certain level of notability determined by the community. 331dot (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not the case. The US Secretary of Defense is not as controversial and never staged a coup against his country's first democratically-elected president. The same goes for the UK's. This is not a regular defense minister as he technically had most (if not all) of the authority in the country (nominally Adly Mansour) and was Egypt's and one of the Middle East's most powerful men before his resignation. His position was the most stable in the government as well as it being highly immune to this "flux". This resignation certainly doesn't lack notability. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose, consensus is to post only certified election results, not announcements of candidacies. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unless his resignation and candidacy announcement lead to large protests or something along those lines.  Spencer T♦ C 06:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] New yokozuna promotion

 * Support once the Career section is better referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for nominating this. I do agree that the career section will need more references before it can be posted, but definitely this is something we want to post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - it's a colorful topic about an important athlete. It will be interesting to a casual reader browsing the front page who will be curious about Rikisaburo and yokozuna. Mvblair (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ready - all but ~3 sentences are referenced now, so I would think it is good enough quality for ITN. Update is in good shape. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

King IPO

 * Support once article improved, certainly of interest to our readers. Is it worth putting the valuation in there?  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Tentative confused no reason's been offered why a game-maker IPO is of importance. μηδείς (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The short answer is because reliable sources consider it so. The long answer, is because being a public company affects many decisions a company makes and King's products are used by millions of people.  Like I said in the nomination, this is the largest ever IPO for a game maker and one of few high-profile such events.  Additionally NYSE IPOs are rare, speaking the the quality of this IPO.  An IPO also gives the company immediate capital to create new products, allows easier access to future capital, allows for future mergers/business deals not otherwise possible, creates a need for disclosure (i.e the public learns about how the company operates) and perhaps most importantly raises the profile of the company.  An IPO is a huge undertaking that takes months of effort from multiple parties.
 * Incidentally, we have posted a few large IPOs in the past. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I know what IPO's are, why they are issued, and how they affect companies. I suppose my question was not, what's an IPO, but why does this one matter so much.  I suspect my girdle is showing, but I remember a few years ago we had a video game article once a week as our featured article, and I am wondering without a better rationale if we are not just running into the fact that peple here are gamers again. μηδείς (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, let me say I am not a gamer; my interest is in business. How does one decide what IPO is a big deal and what is not?  Objectively, there is the $ figure and amount of news coverage.  This IPO is very high on both regards.  Subjectively, there is the amount of anticipation for the IPO, which I think was also high here.  I supposed you could also consider the customer base (very high again).  But, if you are looking for something like "this IPO will impact consumers more than average because of X", then I don't think any IPO could fulfill the criteria.  No one really knows if going public will impact one company more than another, but its certain does affect companies (and their customers). --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Still not 100% sure what you are looking for, but based on my talk page comment: This IPO is important because Kings makes the three most popular games on Facebook. They also have a large market share in mobile/phone gaming.  Together, those are the two most important emerging markets for gaming. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that makes a lot more sense to me. I will still not support, since the only reason I even have a facebook account is that I need it to sign into various websites.  It's like asking me to support USAToday because they appeared the same week the Berlin Wall fell.  But I understand this issue a bit better. μηδείς (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is far less newsworthy in tech circles compared to Facebook buying Oculus Rift yesterday for $2B, and even then I considered nominating it when I saw that the last Facebook acquisition was for $15B, making that chump change. --M ASEM (t) 20:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems a shame, given ThaddeusB's ongoing pledge to increase business stories at ITN that you don't help out, instead just say "well, I could have done that, but .... meh... meanwhile, this is "chump change"". Very unhelpful. And some context, according to The Guardian, 93 million people play over a billion games of Candy Crush every day.  Not quite the exposure Oculus Rift or the last Facebook acquisition has, nor the impact on our readers, which, after all, is a major part of the ethos of ITN (to whit: "...to reflect recent or current events of wide interest...", not just of "great monetary value")...  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The noteworthiness of buying out Oculus Rift is of no relevance to this nomination. (But, for comparison, this is a $7B deal. I assure you in business circles the IPO is the far more notable story, which is why I nominated it.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Considering the amount of coverage that Facebook's acquisition got compared to the news about King's IPO (even if I consider when the IPO was first announced, which got a lot more coverage than today's news), the Facebook acquisition is more out of the blue than a tech company making its IPO. Add to the fact that the IPO was considered a failure (massive stock price drop ) indicates they likely overvalued themselves, making this surely a non-ITN story. --M ASEM (t) 00:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And to add, I would figure most people that play Candy Crush have a clue of who or what King is beyond a loading screen name they see when they play. They only are gaming the name recognition that a company like Zynga has in the video game industry, which doesn't equate to wide global knowledge. --M ASEM (t) 00:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure where you are getting your numbers from, but GNews shows 1062 articles on King's IPO today alone (and countless coverage from earlier stages), while the acquisition of Oculus Rift shows 633 articles. I do not recall being "out of the blue" to be a criteria - if it was we would never have any planned events (when in reality we have many).  Nor do I consider a stock's first day price movement to be relevant to whether its IPO was considered high-profile or not.  Most importantly, a company's importance is not determined by name recognition. The number of  people who know what Yum! Brands is is far less than the number who know what Taco Bell and Pizza Hut are, but to argue Yum! Brands collectively is less important than two of its brands individually would be asinine.  Candy Crush is universally known (and #1 currently), while Pet Rescue and Farm Heroes round out the current top #3.  To argue King is not important because not everyone recognizes the company name is equally asinine as saying Yum! Brands is not important. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. I would actually support the OR buyout, but I doubt it would get any support considering luke warm the support the much bigger buyout of WhatsApp was, so I didn't bother to nominate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I looked back over the archives for IPO discussions and they are all fairly contentious affairs. However, ThaddeusB has done a good job of explaining his rational for nominating, and his further explanations above, so if consensus is to try and have a few more business-related stories on the main page then this is a decent choice as it's a widely reported story.  CaptRik (talk) 09:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * oppose no notability as a famous first. It needs too many caveats to get there. We may need more minority topics, but we dont have to do so for the sake of itLihaas (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What does something have to be a "famous first" to be posted? Within the context of an IPO, what would that even mean?  The first IPO happened in 1602; sadly we missed that one. ;) --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, not sure where "a famous first" is noted in the criteria for ITN. Poor excuse for "oppose". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Washington State Mudslide

 * Comment The heading of this section needs to be changed. (Am I noting this correctly?) Cheers. Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This appeared copied from below with fields changed - I've fixed title and source. --M ASEM (t) 00:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing that - my bad. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak support In the grand scheme of natural disasters, not exactly top or bottom in severity. The death toll is likely to rise and mass deaths from mudslides in the PNW aren't common at all. Usually just lone houses which get flattened...--Somchai Sun (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Be very careful We haven't posted "Hub bus-tanker crash" down below yet. HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How is the posting (or not) of a road accident in Pakistan relevant to the posting (or not) of a mudslide in the USA, and what do people need to be careful about? Thryduulf (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's relevant because this is a global encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * A mudslide that leaves 100+ missing anywhere in the world is probably more notable than a traffic accident that kills 35 anywhere in the world. Just because a story involves the US does not automatically mean systematic bias is at play. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Not automatically. My comment was about being careful. HiLo48 (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Both "U.S." and "US" are common in American English (with the former predominating but the latter gaining ground) and used at Wikipedia. At ITN, favoring "US" avoids a potential style clash with items mentioning the UK. ("U.K." is not common in British English.) —David Levy 19:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - a very unusual natural disaster that is making global news which is much more rare than traffic accidents (both fortunately and unfortunately). AgneCheese/Wine 00:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment As a local (a few county lines away) to this, this is very unusual - the last month has been rain-filled as part of the same late winter storms that have hit the east side of the US, so while there is occasional flooding during these times normally, mudslides of this magnitude are much rarer. --M ASEM (t) 00:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. This is news around the world,(in Australia, too) and given the location readers might want to learn more about this event and where it occurred, which is the purpose of ITN.  It doesn't matter which nation this occurred in; it is very different than a traffic accident.  There is no systemic bias issue here just because it is a US story.  HiLo is beating the drum so hard they are breaking it. 331dot (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a major event. The blurb should probably reflect the number of confirmed deaths as well. Hot Stop talk-contribs 01:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I have added an alternate blurb and an image, but I think this should be on the main page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I think the 14 dead in such a circumstance in the US is notable enough for posting now in itself even if it wouldn't be elsewhere. Most residential areas in the US have stringent protections that lack in other countries.  On the assumption the 14 toll will double, given the reported 147 missing, I'll support this for now. μηδείς (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Marked as ready. Mjroots (talk) 06:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you changed the proposed blurb in to British syntax. "In the US state of Washington" is an odd way to phrase Washington state for Americans. Either "Washington state, United States" or "the State of Washington, United States" should have been used (as was proposed on this page) or periods should have been added in-between US, as in U.S. This is the style that's preferred in the United States. --Tocino 10:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Um, I didn't. You may wish to take that up with your American colleague David Levy who modified it after I had posted it verbatim per the discussion here. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I see. Sorry for directing that to you, it was meant to be more of just an observation. Still, what's posted now is not normal American English. --Tocino 10:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm baffled as to how "the US state of Washington" is syntactically abnormal in American English. This exact phrase is unlikely to appear in an American publication, but that's because Americans are expected to know where the state of Washington is.  Wikipedia's readership is international, so greater precision is needed.  The original blurb omitted a comma after "Washington", which contradicted our Manual of Style.  The current version contains our standard wording, which avoids needless commas and repetition of the word "state".
 * If California is mentioned in English, I think everyone who reads or hears it understands it's in the U.S. even though Mexico has Baja California. I think the same holds for Washington. The possible confusion in Washington's case is between Washington state and Washington, D.C. Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm a UK person who is more educated than average for people in Britain about US states. Based on this I'd say that the only states that don't need a US qualification are California, Florida, Texas, Alaska, Hawaii and New York. Even that may be pushing it for some people. Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Post-post support. Seems to be a major incident and the death toll could rise significantly higher.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support- need to update death toll as well, its 24 deaths reported (even if body is not recovered, its still regarded as a death)..--Stemoc (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Figures updated in accordance with the latest BBC report I can find. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Pritzker Prize

 * Comment - I believe we usually bold the architect rather than the prize article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Added alt blurb. Perhaps you should update ITN/R to clarify that it's not the prize that's on ITN/R, but the winner of the prize. In fact, you should do that for all such winners, to avoid this awkwardness.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. I have done so.  Anyone should feel free to make changes if I got some of them wrong. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Cheers, will work on Ban tomorrow unless someone beats me to it. The (featured) list article is updated already.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest adding to the blurb something why he was recognized, such as "Japanese architect Shigeru Ban, recognized for his novel use of recycled materials to construct habitable buildings, wins the Pritzker Prize" --M ASEM (t) 23:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - very notable award though I would prefer an Alt blurb along the line that Masem is suggesting which provides more context for the reader. AgneCheese/Wine 00:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 08:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Agne27 and Masem. This blurb provides little context.  I have no idea why he won the prize (or what the prize is) and a little more information on it might be useful to other readers. Zell Faze (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the article was really ready for posting. About half of it is unreferenced and there is minimal information on the prize. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Half agree. The information on the prize is in the Pritzker Architecture Prize, also linked in the blurb, but the main Ban article isn't brilliant.  Not sure it's pull-worthy, but not brilliant.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Russia suspended from G8

 * Support This is big. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 21:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose the BBC article referenced above doesn't claim that Russia has been suspended, merely that the next summit was to be suspended. The CNN article says "The move to suspend Russia's membership in the G8..." so this is speculative. If Russia is suspended from G8 then we post a story.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Some outlets are reporting it as a suspension- but even if it isn't, the cancellation of a major international summit is notable on its own. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support my ALT blurb. Mjroots (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support but think original blurb is more clearly written. The summit itself is ITNR, no? μηδείς (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I see now that G8 summits are ITNR, though would the lack of one also be ITNR? 331dot (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not the lack, but the cancelling. It's like saying, if Michael Jackson touring were presumed notable, would his death while touring be presumed so?  Yes, since the lack is the even more unexpected thing in such cases. μηδείς (talk) 05:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose as worded. Since it's not a formalised organisation, I'm not even sure if it would be technically possible to suspend a country from it. More to the point, there doesn't seem to have been any official comment suggesting a suspension and Angela Merkel has explicitly said that Russia is not being suspended . Formerip (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Merkel also said "“As long as the political environment for the G8 is not there, as at the moment, there is no G8 — neither as a concrete summit nor as a format." It may not be a formal organization but that doesn't mean that the other members can't decide to leave someone out.  The media is reporting it as a suspension and expulsion("Russia expelled from Group of Eight until it ‘changes course’ in Ukraine" ; "U.S., other powers kick Russia out of G8" ; etc.) 331dot (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support in some context, though I'm not married to the current wording of the nom. This is probably one of the most jarring fall out from the Crimea Crisis on a global political scale and we should have some posting noting this development. AgneCheese/Wine 00:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support some other blurb per FormerIP. I'm not qualified to determine what that blurb should be. &mdash; TORTOISE  WRATH
 * Oppose The G8 is a sideshow to the main story, the wider conflict between Russia and Ukraine. --Tocino 10:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is part of that conflict, and a major development which wouldn't have happened had the conflict not happened. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - A very big deal indeed. Jus  da  fax   23:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support &mdash; The fact that Russia has become a pariah within their midst is a pretty significant development. Kurtis (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment (Clarification): It appears that all members except Russia suspended their membership in the G8 rather than Russia being suspended from the G8—"'We will suspend our participation in the G-8 until Russia changes course,' the seven countries declared in what constituted a subtle appeal to Russian leaders outside Mr. Putin’s circle to press for a switch in direction." (New York Times, 2014 Mar 24, ) 184.146.108.195 (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose as worded As Formerip points out, it's not clear that Russia has been suspended, particularly in light of Merkel's statement. Neljack (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Egyptian Sentences

 * When would these be carried out, is there a chance of appeal? Support on notability, but wait on actual events. μηδείς (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose we've had mass death sentences handed out before, but what has become of them? If something actually happens, we can reconsider. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Regardless of when or whether they will be carried out, the passing of death sentences on this number of protesters is pretty significant and likely to increase tensions in Egypt. Neljack (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak support. I'm not unsympathetic to TRM's argument that we should wait until such a sentence is carried out(anyone can hand out death sentences) but this does seem a notable development in the Egypt situation. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Per Neljack and because this is by far (according to a number of RS) the largest mass execution sentence in modern history not just in Egypt, but anywhere in the world. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, the blurb's article link should be adjusted from "unrests" to "unrest". Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Question: I'm pretty swayed by Fitzcarmalan's point that this would be the largest mass execution in modern history but what is the likelihood that, indeed, all these death sentences would be carried out on the same day? To that extent of uncertainty, I would be more incline to exercise caution as TRM is advising to wait to post until when the executions are actually scheduled to happen. Though, in all honesty, I would hope that something arises to commute these sentences before this comes to pass. AgneCheese/Wine 00:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the question is about whether the sentences will be eventually carried out or not. I think it's just the fact that this huge number of sentences were handed down in a single day and that's what appears to be notable about it. It is also widely covered in the international media. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Not everyday do 500+ people get sentenced to death in one ruling. --Tocino 10:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, the absurdity of a such sentence should be put forward. Yug (talk)  12:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The Unrests article had a "disputed" tag on the top, as long as this is there, it's a no-go. Another possible article would be Muslim Brotherhood, but it has an orange tag as well. Probably the court trial merits a separate article anyway. --Tone 12:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ukraine/Russia/Crimea events that were posted in the last few months also had similar tags when added, and this specific tag was there for a very long time and the issue was never addressed. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is why I suggest creating a separate article about the trial - featuring articles with orange-level tags is strongly discouraged on ITN. --Tone 14:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Trials and judicial hearings following the Egyptian Revolution of 2011 exists, but it is very broad and has orange tags as well. I apologize but i'm not up to creating an article right now because i have a lot of things in mind, and like The Rambling Man said, the sentences were not yet carried out to have a special article for that. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support: I would like to know about earlier sentences of this scale as told by The Rambling Man. I am in support of last line of comment by Agne and hope they would never be executed. yes, they are in a position to by struck down by an appeal but 528 matters and so do the coming ones including Guide's. -Khushank94 (talk) 14:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Per an interview covered in CNN: "When you hear something like this, well it is shocking, but you do have to step back and say there's a lot between the sentencing and the execution" and " it was "highly unlikely" that all those sentenced to death would be executed". The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per CNN story linked by Rambling Man, it's unlikely many of these sentences will be actually ever carried out. It seems rather a symbolic gesture. --hydrox (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not posting (yet). The article is not the quality that I would expect for an ITN posting. NW ( Talk ) 21:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] MH370 Update

 * Strong support, should be posted as soon as possible. Agree with nominator (assuming the FDR/CVR can be located of course). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment To be clear there are two directions this story is going: the Malaysian PM has said that they are confident the airliner fell into the South Indian Ocean, and Malaysian Airlines have told the relatives of the passengers they are presuming no survivors. Weather's hampering the current (as I type) search effort but within a few hours the int'l task force searching the area expect to start search for the debris there. --M ASEM (t) 14:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support a bump but oppose proposed blurb; the debris sighted has not yet been confirmed as being from the plane. Blurb should focus on the Malaysian officials' statement that they believe the plane and passengers are lost(which was determined by satellite analysis). 331dot (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Altblurb to indicate these are assumed statements. Would say that this can be updated once the wreckage is confirmed. --M ASEM (t) 14:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I would suggest "announced" rather than "presumed" as presumed makes it sound like a guess, when that view is a finding based on a satellite analysis. 331dot (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed. (As I read this, I think they have some eye-visuals of flotsam too in addition to satellite, but they haven't actually physically recovered the material due to weather). --M ASEM (t) 14:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb. If debris is recovered and identified as being from the plane(the ocean is full of debris and trash) we can always add that when the finding comes down. 331dot (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite agree. Wreckage might still sink before surface vessels can reach it. (And it will probably have drifted a very long way in two weeks). Martinevans123 (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support just the fact that Malaysian PM confirmed that the aircraft ended its flight in southern indian ocean. Given the amount of coverage for MH370 it looks very odd not having atleast some blurb for it on ITN. And this development is fairly significant since till now they never really confirmed what happened to the flight -- Ashish-g55 14:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support--this is a confirmation of the flight's outcome by an official source.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Official announcement has been made. CaptRik (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support for alt blurb - This has been thriving in the news for weeks. As I said before, 216 people missing in aviation is definitely ITN-worthy. I will rephrase: 216 fatalities in aviation is also very ITN-worthy. My heart goes out for all those affected. Mz7 (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC), revised 16:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support idea, but oppose the blurb. If anything, we should fix it, because we don't actually know if the debris found is related to the plane. The second one is okay, but it feels a bit wordy. Maybe a better blurb would be: Alt3: "Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak announces that Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 crashed into the Indian Ocean". Shorter is sweeter in this regard, and it would make a lot more sense than the first hook. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support — Please, as soon as possible on the new official announcements. In the headlines all over the world and trending everywhere. Arteyu ?  Blame it on me ! 16:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Altblurb II gave shorter and grammatical alt blurb
 * Posted - I posted a version of the alt blurb that includes the date it went missing for clarity. If there are further concorns with the wording, please say so and I'll be happy to tweak it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * While it should be patently obvious, I can see someone asking "what year" on that. Maybe adding 2014 to that date? --M ASEM (t) 17:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Its current in the news, thats implicit.Lihaas (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The blurb is in the present tense, so adding the year is about as necessary as adding the planet. Good blurb. μηδείς (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It might have been better to capture the timeframe, i.e. "sixteen days after the disappearance of Flight 370...", but either way, it doesn't need the year, but it did need to have a consistent dmy format, so I fixed that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * .. but why is that "south" and not "Southern", as in the article itself? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like that was fixed before you posted your comment...! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * .. mine still looks the same!!! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Try now, some of us admins forget to "PURGE DA CACHE" when updating, very ignorant of us, bound to get us in trouble. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * mea culpa, soz. Mjroots (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We've all done it, it'll just result in screeching and retribution. Nothing out of the ordinary.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Withdrawal the claim 'in the southern Indian Ocean with no survivors' is speculation. Fantasy. Vague satellite information is all that exists and claims by governments and media that has continuously got it wrong so far. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 16:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we can call the ground-breaking analysis by Inmarsat and the images of four different countries' satellites, together with an official statement by a head of state, "fantasy". But the French satellite images seem to contain very much more debris, so I think there is a good case to update the blurb. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Adolfo Suárez

 * Support — Came here to nominate it myself. This man was a major political figure and is regarded as "one of the founding fathers of modern Spain." ComputerJA (  ☎  •  ✎  ) 17:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Undoubtedly someone who had a major impact on his country. Neljack (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - a major political figure.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per all the other supports. Former national leaders are the sort of people for whom RD was established. The unreferenced and self-contradictory "Family" section could do with fixing, but it's not significant enough for me to withhold support. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - the referencing in general is pretty weak and the "Family" section is completely unacceptable at current. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * oppose old fart dies of natural causes. Nothing special or notable about the death. We dont post all former leaders dying, that too of tinpot countries. Not even a g20 country.Lihaas (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Heh, perfect! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't get the offensive and historically ignorant oppose. To break from the acrimony, we would certainly post it if Generalissmo Francisco Franco were still dead. μηδείς (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed; there is no need to be offensive. There are no RD restrictions on which country's leaders are permitted and which aren't; the question is which of the RD criteria is met by this man.  Clearly, being the political leader of one's nation would meet that criteria. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * From the editor who nominates tinpot country rigged election results every week, this is hilarious. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. Major head of government, and key figure in Spain's transition to democracy. This is a slam-dunk case for RD. -LtNOWIS (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Notable head of government. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron  32  01:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hub bus-tanker crash

 * Weak support when article updated a little more. We're in a slow news period, and with such a death toll, this is reasonably notable.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak support; TRM said what I was going to say. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tragic but ultimately of no historical or encyclopedic impact. μηδείς (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose — Ditto. Sca (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * oppose per TRM, we dont need to post news for the sake of it. This is not notable and thre is much more in the news liek MH370.v Lihaas (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, not sure what "like MH370.v" is, but I assume you mean the ongoing search for the missing aircraft which has had absolutely no notable news whatsoever since it disappeared, and won't have any notable news whatsoever until it's found, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Tragic traffic accident but that's all it is. As a note, if this is accepted, the blurb needs to state where this occurred. --M ASEM (t) 16:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support We would almost certainly post an aeroplane or train disaster with this sort of death toll; I don't understand the prejudice against traffic accidents. Plus, as TRM points out, we've been going very slowly lately. Neljack (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The prejudice against traffic accidents is simply because traffic accidents are more common. &mdash; TORTOISE  WRATH  02:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Further, air traffic is one of the most monitored aspects of any transit form and as such when an accident happens, that's a critical failure somewhere in the process (ala the missing malaysian flight). --M ASEM (t) 03:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Masem. Traffic accidents happen everywhere in the world and are just not on the scale of notoriety as airplane accidents or natural disasters. While I understand TRM's point about this being a slow news period, I would be hesitant to post things just for the sake of posting something since ITN regulars are often quick to point out "precedent" when arguing for future noms and we don't want to get into the habit of having to retort "But it was a slow news day!" AgneCheese/Wine 01:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Question of sorts: It seems to me that suicide bombings are fairly common, yet whenever there's one that causes the deaths of three dozen, it's mentioned in ITN. Am I mistaken? Furthermore, vehicular accidents are indeed common, but ones that cause the deaths of three dozen aren't. Or are such accidents actually common in the non-Western world and I'm just ignorant of them? Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. We have rejected MANY suicide bombings in areas where they are common.  To the best of my knowledge, traffic accidents killing 3 dozen are not common anywhere (and we have posted a few from time to time). --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Follow-up question (out of morbid curiosity): What is the largest number of deaths caused by a suicide bombing that was rejected for ITN? Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)*:::I don't have an excat #, but I know for sure deaths of 50+ in Iraq have been rejected a couple times. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There's another factor in play here, and that's considering we are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. ITN should not be covering stories that are news blips that would fail NEVENT/NOT#NEWS - those that will have little lasting impact. A traffic accident, even one involving 3 dozen deaths, is tragic but little to be said before or afterwards. Similarly, in an area of the world where there are suicide bombing happening on a rather regular basis, individual attacks are not long-term notable for the most part. These may get wide news coverage across the globe, but per our standards, blips of news are not notable events for standalone articles. --M ASEM (t) 16:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Lake Albert boat disaster

 * Support as a notable disaster with significant casualties; should this not be filed under March 22, though? 331dot (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've moved it. Hot Stop talk-contribs 01:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Like I said, it didn't really make the news until today, but naturally if posted should be filed under the 22nd there. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. Appears notable enough; article looks good to go. Hot Stop talk-contribs 01:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Big death toll; article is well-referenced. Neljack (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Marking as ready Neljack (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Crimea annexed by Russia, Ukraine and EU association
Two very significant dual motions in the crisis: President Putin signs into law the annexation of Crimea and Prime Minister Yatsenyuk and President Van Rompuy sign an association agreement between the EU and Ukraine. --Tóraí (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Strongly support — As noted elsewhere, the existing Crimea blurb is embarrassingly out of date. As noted yesterday at Update on Crimea, Per Reuters, BBC, AP Crimea is officially part of Russia. (But perhaps there should be two new blurbs, the second on EU-Ukraine association — ??) Sca (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Ukraine and support update only, that is adding to the current blurb about the annexation. Oppose the EU agreement as a sideshow in current news (the news is on Crimea).Lihaas (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The EU agreement was the root and trigger for the whole Euromaidan protest, which lead to coup etc.. That makes the signing of the agreement now very significant. Thue (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Quite the opposite of being a sideshow, the signing or not signing of the Ukraine-EU agreement &mdash; and thus Ukraine being within or without of Russia's thrall &mdash; is what the whole affair has been about. It was the explicit central question that triggered everything. --Tóraí (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Sweeping development and the signing of association agreement is also significant, this is what it's all about. Even though I oppose Russian annexation, in case of NPOV concerns "annexes" may be swapped to "incorporates" or something else. Brandmeistertalk  15:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see "Crimea joins Russia". Doesn't imply the big one taking, or the little one willing, just gravity doing its thing. I'm not so neutral-minded to suggest "Russia and Crimea unite", but that could also work. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. Both are landmark developments. Thue (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support shorter version of the blurb. Formerip (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb expresses central main news points. μηδείς (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb per User:Medeis. Sca (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW I'm happy with the alt blurb. --Tóraí (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Request. Just for the sake of one fewer "and" in the sentence, could we re-word to "and Ukraine signs an association agreement with the European Union"? Formerip (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like you want one more and? I was tempted to say "Russia formally annexes Crimea while the European Union and Ukraine sign an association agreement. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A semicolon in place of "while" might do the trick. Sca (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

RD - Ignatius Zakka I Iwas

 * Support Unlike Phelps, an actually important religious leader. Neljack (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Phelps should not have been posted: "Hard cases make bad law." I am not sure that means what is basically a bishopric merits posting.  (That is not an oppose.) μηδείς (talk) 04:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think he was a bit more than just a bishop - he was the head of a church with more than 8 million members worldwide. Neljack (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sure you did not misunderstand my point that his primacy is no larger than that of many bishoprics. As I said, I am unopposed, but think a better case could be made. μηδείς (talk) 04:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed I did misunderstand you, μηδείς. In fact, there are very few, if any, bishoprics with more than 8 million faithful. There are none in the Roman Catholic Church - the Archdiocese of Mexico City apparently being the largest with 7 million Catholics. Neljack (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I made a logical error myself, thinking how many people are in the geographical area of various archdioceses of which I am aware--but they are not all Catholic. In any case, the comparison is relevant by an order of magnitude. μηδείς (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose the article of skips over the last 20-or-so years of his life. There are two mentions post-1996, one of 2001 and one of 2005, were the latter two decades of his life that insignificant?  I updated some stuff in the article which was incorrectly tensed.  There seem to be some inconsistencies between sources as well, some saying he was ordained as a priest prior to 1947 and another source saying he was ordained as a deacon in 1948, then ordained as a priest in 1957...  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually there are no inconsistencies, There are 5 ranks of deacons in Orthodox churches, basically they are all deacons but one of them is known as deacon proper. The article states that he entered the seminary in 1946 and was ordained a priest in 1957, nothing wrong here. I have added more of his activities, the article is not perfect but that is not a criterium afaik.--  K a t h o v o  talk 14:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I'm sure I never asked for perfection, but an attempt at completeness would seem appropriate if this is such a significant person, the fact Wikipedia records nothing of his latter life bar two minor mentions over 20 years seems a little odd. If that's genuinely the case, that he did nothing notable for two decades, then I guess that's fine.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose. I think there is potential for this to be posted, but TRM raises some valid concerns. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * strong support per the posting of rhtat of Ethiopia. Hes the head of an age-old institution. (We would no doubt post the scientology dude)Lihaas (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you link us to "rhtat of Ethiopia"? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] MH370- Sticky
Proposing a sticky for MH370 as its certainly in the news (albeit not top) for a while now and has dropped of the ITN main page. This'll likely be in the news till just after its found, or someone can sominate for removal later.Lihaas (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose although past performance is no guide to the future, we could be seeing missions to explore the Indian Ocean, darkest parts of China, etc for weeks or months to come. Sticky is pointless.  The only real story remaining will be when the aircraft, or remains of it, are discovered and that'll make a story of itself.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ummm, many news oputlets have constant updates on the search for it. All the major ones anywaysLihaas (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, all of which say "nothing to report". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose sticky. The only real development we are waiting for is actually finding the aircraft; simple "nothing yet" news stories are not suitable for ITN. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per above. The story where a sticky would make sense is Crimea but since we have the blurb we don't need a sticky as well. --Tone 21:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] RD - Fred Phelps

 * Unsure here whether damnatio memoriae is the better course, or a short blurb along the line "God Hates" Fred Phelps would work. He was certainly one of the biggest somethings. Plus, do we have better sorces?  I'd like to make sure it's not just his family saying he's dead. μηδείς (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I hesitated when I saw the WIBW source. They were the first to report it. When it was picked up by the Houston Chronicle, I nominated it. It's since been picked up by basically all reputable news outlets. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ALL reputable news outlets? LOL. Thank you for proving our Systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That person proved nor disproved anything. They listed news sources they feel are reputable, just as you would do. You are welcome to disprove them or post your own reputable sources. 331dot (talk)
 * "That person" used the word "all". It wasn't qualified in any way at all. HiLo48 (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you ever stop beating that drum, HiLo48? If you reread what I wrote, including the word "basically", you could see I was speaking figuratively. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Figuratively? WTF? No, I won't stop beating that drum until our Systemic bias is gone forever, everywhere. I cannot conceive of anyone from my country ever writing in that way. Systemic bias is a massive problem here, and I will remind all editors who display it. As has been seen below, this item was always at risk of being tagged as only important in one country, which I know is wrong (even though it works for non-American items), and that use of language fed that potential criticism perfectly. HiLo48 (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And when will that be? The user was not displaying any bias; they were expressing their views.  Dealing with systemic bias isn't just about tearing stories down but promulgating proper stories.(which, if you have given up on as I hear, is your right to do, but doesn't help your cause)  Show me an Australian pastor comparable to Phelps and I would be happy to support it for ITN. 331dot (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * HiLo. Please. Knock it off. You are intentionally trying to stir shit up.--128.227.66.219 (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep. Because of our systemic bias, rational discussion doesn't achieve anything. HiLo48 (talk) 11:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, especially since we can't trust anything This source or this source has to say on the matter. We can safely ignore that one as it clearly is biased in favor of pro-American stories.  -- Jayron  32  23:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (EC)So you choose to disrupt ITN to make a point rather than rely on rational discussion to make a point. The existence of systemic bias doesn't mean it's behind every post or comment here. Frankly the more you beat the drum the less I hear it because you choose to no longer suggest your own articles for posting here. 331dot (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'd support a full blurb if it was along the lines of "Fred Phelps is burning in hell" -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  16:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't think he had any international notoriety.  I do support Floydian's suggestion, however.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 16:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * From the "Please do not..." section above, "international notoriety" is not necessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, what is an appropriate way to voice an objection concerning his lack of sufficient notability for RD? Gamaliel  ( talk ) 16:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Stating one does not feel a person is known sufficiently internationally is different than criticizing the story because it deals with the US or any single country, which is the point of the passage being referenced. 331dot (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * To quote from a BBC story on Phelps' death:"Fred Phelps Sr, founder of the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas, died on Wednesday evening at 84.The church, made up mostly of his family, rose to international notoriety with its practice of picketing funerals of fallen US troops." Nsk92 (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not a leader in his field, not even if we do consider homophobia a "field". Teemu08 (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I loathe the guy, but there's no question of him being a well-known figure. We would not be doing ourselves any favors by not mentioning his death and claiming we are unbiased simply due to a person's viewpoints. I do agree that outside the US he may not be a household name hence my weak support, though I suspect LGBT groups around the world know the name well. --M ASEM (t) 16:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Pretty well known globally I think. BBC sent Louis Theroux to make a docu on him and his church. --hydrox (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support (full blurb) if not RD, global figure, probably the most hated man in the United States and with all LGBT groups. I agree he is the newest resident of hell, but that's not a NPOV blurb. Secret account 16:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support RD. He is obviously very well known and definitely a significant figure.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 16:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support RD. He and his church have had a significant impact in the US, with laws passed to attempt to restrict his anti-gay protests at military funerals (with one case reaching the Supreme Court and setting a precedent) and groups organized to counter his protests(Patriot Guard Riders). As pointed out by others above, he also had an international reputation. I don't support a blurb because he  died because he was old and is not on the level of Nelson Mandela or others who have gotten blurbs. 331dot (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support RD (weak oppose full blurb). He was the founder and leader of an internationally known church and a very controversial figure. His death is being very widely reported here in the UK news, so he clearly meets the criteria. Oppose blurb per 331dot Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support RD, clearly at the top of his field, which was "horrifying the English-speaking world and creating atheists". Abductive  (reasoning) 17:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Opppose. Received far too much attention in life.  Deserves absolutely nothing in death. Resolute 17:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not relevant to the merits of this nomination. Our concern is not if he is or was worthy of attention. 331dot (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - DFTT. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support RD but oppose full blurb per 331dot. As a lesbian, I abhor Phelps and everything he stood for. Him, his family and his so-called "church" dedicated their lives to harming my family and other families like mine by taking away our rights and dignity. But those personal feelings don't diminish the fact that the man was undoubtedly notable and was certainly at the "top of his field" in hate mongering. He clearly passes RD criteria regardless of our personal POV about his worth as a human being. AgneCheese/Wine 18:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. -- Jayron  32  18:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support it's irrelevant how people here feel about Phelps, he was a significant individual, and his death should be noted here, as we note other people who are "in the news". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think "homophobia" or 'hate-mongering" are relevant fields in terms of the death criteria. I would regard "religion" as the relevant field, and I don't think he qualifies as a very important figure in it, considering that his church was tiny and his views commanded very little support. I don't see that he really had that much impact om the scheme of things, besides distressing and offending a lot of people. Neljack (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * One doesn't have to lead a large number of people to be notable; as you say, he was notable for distressing and offending people, which resulted in laws, court cases, and groups organized to counter-protest. 331dot (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. A man of influence in his field however odious he was.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

[Pulled] RD - Khushwant Singh

 * Support. Reading the article, he seems to be very important in his field, given his awards and body of work. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose in current state, vast sections unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support He is notable person in field of literature, politics and history of India. Yes, just fill the references and make it ready. -Nizil (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support pending article improvement Honors and awards seal it for me. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per Muboshgu. AgneCheese/Wine 18:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD there seems to have been some improvements since the earlier objections, most of the prose seems well referenced. -- Jayron  32  18:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Pull you obviously didn't look at the article. I've tagged it, and along with the existing inline maintenance tags, this is really weak stuff.  Bad call to post this without even bothering to check the article.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, seeing as you are now sitting in my room, carefully tracking what my eyes are doing, I am perhaps more worried than the status of whether this article is posted or not. Perhaps I should find out how you know what I am or am looking at every minute of the day, because that's quite a concern for me.  -- Jayron  32  00:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The only reason you could have posted it in that appalling state was that you couldn't have looked at it. Especially as I had noted this above.  Otherwise your judgement really is... flawed, at best. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with TRM - the awards section really needs referenced or else his ITN notability is unproven. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Pulled. BencherliteTalk 20:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree He may well qualify for RD, but that's in no way referenced enough. There are blogs and unclear refs all over it. Black Kite (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I see there was some work on the article in the last 12 hours. Maybe it's time to check again? --Tone 13:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Still a whole section pretty much unreferenced, quite why the maintenance tag was removed is unclear. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Re-post Looks like a lot of work has been done to the article since the pull. It is now in appropriate shape. Teemu08 (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Re-post Now well sourced and reasonably well written. Smurrayinchester 15:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment for some reason, the tag requesting some references to verify the large bibliography keeps getting removed without being resolved. As such, a large section of the article still has insufficient referencing, particularly to provide evidence of the existence of works which are red-linked or not linked at all.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Bibliographies are very rarely cited, even in featured articles (for example: Poetry of Maya Angelou, promoted this week). Seems kind of arbitrary to apply a novel standard to ITN, particularly for RD. It is generally deemed to be something that one cannot reasonably expect to be challenged. Teemu08 (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, then we should delete it. It may be that in the Angelou article, it's referenced in a general reference, and it may be the case here, but I doubt it.  And note, I'm not applying the standard for RD, I'm applying the standard for Wikipedia and WP:V. It seems relatively easy to get some of this stuff cited, e.g. The Open University acknowledges some of the stuff listed in that article... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You're arguing that all Bibliographies across all of Wikipedia should be individually cited for every work, or deleted? That hardly complies with expectations or practice here.  In general, Bibliographies aren't cited specifically.  I've never seen an article at Wikipedia where the expectation is that we cannot say that a work in a bibliography must have an inline citation before we include it.  That simply isn't the standard, and if you're arguing for it, you've got to start somewhere other than here, because it would fundamentally change how ALL of Wikipedia (not just ITN) works.  -- Jayron  32  19:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Listen, after you said "there seems to have been some improvements since the earlier objections" yet there were no actual updates to the article, whatever you have to say carries little-to-no weight with me any more. I'm shocked to see an admin I respected epic fail.  In other news, bibliography sections are all very well, but when items are red linked or not linked at all, and without reference, who's to say they even actually exist?  And yes, I apply that maxim to every single article I ever review or work on.  Look forward to your next "adventure" with the tools, would advise you don't make it impact the main page.  (Oh, and I've actually done something about this, what have you done here other than whinge?)  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Other than to agree with you, right now... Nothing. You're not wrong.  -- Jayron  32  03:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Republic of China / Taiwan Congress Occupation

 * Support. The occupation of a legislative chamber such as Taiwan's seems notable.  331dot (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. An action that is significant enough in opposition to economic ties. And Comment: the text refers to the government but is linked to the ruling party. Better use Taiwan governement (linked to Government of the Republic of China) or the ruling party (linked to Kuomintang). Also "occupy" will be a better description than "break into" as it is an ongoing occupation. Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement is tagged so it should not be emboldened.--Jabo-er (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * For the governement, I'am in favor to naming names. In this case, the KMT. When facing opposition in its own party, he reminded all its members that devergence would generate exclusion from the party, crushing internal opposition, before to use all his members to crush the other parties opposition. For the sentence's lengh, it's important to state the one-sided push by a party for vote on a such huge political project without due review. This events with intimidation and rush votes, is not how democracy nor how informed debate should go, and thus are the triggers of this never-seen-before protest. Then, the action (protest) should be mentionned. Let's name names, and keep a blurt exposing the goverment plain choices and the consecutive protest. Yug  (talk)  15:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support huge development for Taiwan, have posted brief, idiomatic altblurb. μηδείς (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Agree with all above and feel the altblurb is just the ticket.  Jus  da  fax   02:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality grounds - both suggested articles are poorly referenced and tagged for neutrality concerns. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - with altblurb. This has the potential to develop into a really major story. GroveGuy (talk) 11:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose the story may be notable, but both bold articles are in an appalling state. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The quality improve as readers come in. Yug (talk)  15:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We simply do not post articles in such poor states. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - standoff has reached the sixth day and might escalate, and quality for the occupy article has improved drastically in the last few days. Lasersharp (talk) 06:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support and was the first to post such on the talkpage.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with the merits of this nomination? 331dot (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And are you, or any of the supporters here, going to do anything about the pitiful state of the articles being nominated? If not, you've all wasted your supports I'm afraid.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a candidate for In The News box, not a Feature Article box. Is the event noticeable ? Yes. A national congress is not occupied every month, or year. So let's push to make it better and give it proper visibility. Yug (talk)  12:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We do not post articles with such limited quality. You'd be best advised to work on them, then perhaps you'll see what you want, one or more of these linked on the main page.  In the meantime, just assuming we'll post way-below-par-quality articles to give them "proper visibility" is ill-advised at best.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support as its a democracy-related crisis with national and international implications. Moreover, in a region that has complex diplomatic situation. - lyhana8  ( Talk )  15:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - article not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.70.50.164 (talk) 07:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Aka: 61.70.50.164 add pro-governement content and source (good), while deleting sourced pro-protester contents. Yug (talk)  14:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Air Flight 370

 * Wait - We should definitely post if/when the plane is found, but this isn't anything yet. It could be the plane, or it could be yet another false lead. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait — per Bongwarrior. There's no reason to hurry the nomination when it may be a false lead. If the plane is indeed found there, consider this a support. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 06:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please delete this thread It will only confuse things if and when the plane IS found. HiLo48 (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting "possible" leads; only when they find it should it be posted. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree with the above, as night is falling, as ships/planes are still heading to the search area, it doesn't look like we'll see a significant development in the next few hours. CaptRik (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Update The aircraft has now returned after an extensive search and has confirmed no objects found at all. That area now "ruled out" (even if it was wreckage and has sunk).  Martinevans123 (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose nothing to see here. Let's wait until it's actually discovered before nominating in future, this could happen a few more times... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Update on Crimea - Ukraine plans to pull out from Crimea
Source:. Significant event in this ongoing piece, considered to be Ukraine giving up in defeat and letting Russia claim it. Don't need a new news item, just consider blurb update. Maybe "Ukraine pulls its military out from Crimea after Russia and Crimea sign an agreement to make Crimea part of the Russian Federation." ? --M ASEM (t) 19:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support update. A significant development. 331dot (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Okay then. Not the development I expected, but it makes sense. Pending improvement of the target article, or the selection of a different article. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I know you didn't suggest it but I just want to make it clear that we (as Wikipedians) can not considered this as a "defeat"... yet. Militarily sure, but Ukraine has not given up diplomatically still me thinks. They still consider Crimea their territory. It seems they are pulling out their soldiers to prevent more deaths and further escalations. The battle will from now on be done economically through sanctions by the West. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure the point of your point, the suggestion is to update the blurb as suggested, not to claim any kind of military success, or otherwise. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support continual updates, as long as the deltas are significant, we have a duty to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment both Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation and 2014 Crimean crisis have orange neutrality tags at the moment. The former is the more natural target for bolding of the latest development. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Update now: Per Reuters, BBC, APit's official — As of Friday March 21, Crimea is part of Russia. Sca (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Toyota, U.S. reach $1.2 billion settlement

 * Support - we need to feature more business stories and this one has everything that could reasonable be asked (international attention, wide impact, large $ figure). Both article should be updated, but the recall one should get the extensive update and bold link. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. A widely covered story about a legal settlement regarding a widely known company. 331dot (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose not widely covered from my perspective, an interesting case, but I'm afraid a company that makes around 9 billion dollars profit a year can afford a 1.2 billion dollar silencing deal. Easy money, well spent.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - per ThaddeusB. It's a big biz story, and ITN-worthy. Also agree about the updates. Jus  da  fax   03:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Largest of a Type. The settlement also resolves several deaths.84.250.106.213 (talk) 07:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What's the target article and where is the update? Would like to post but can't because this isn't ready. Jehochman Talk 12:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Updated the target article is Toyota, the update is under the History/2010s section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.106.213 (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Two sentences is about right for the main Toyota article. However, a better update is possible in the recall article.  It would be preferable to wait for that, which I will try to get to this afternoon. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * oppose per TRMLihaas (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose civil settlement, not judgment, the cost of doing business. μηδείς (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's actually a criminal penalty to settle criminal charges. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Updated - Extensive update at 2009–11_Toyota_vehicle_recalls. Please express any concerns with the quality of the update. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Interesting case, but simply not covered widely and noticeably enough for ITN. Black Kite (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Doku Umarov

 * Comment Machine translation of the Kavkaz Center's announcement, citing Imarat Kavkaz (can't link directly since the website is blacklisted), even though this time Russian gov't agencies for some reason currently do not confirm that. I'm leaning towards support. Brandmeistertalk  20:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose similar to the nom comment, this death is "reported" per the article, and I'm seeing this is in any news in my regions. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read the comment We posted the Algerian who was only reported dead by the western media. This is affirmation by the organization adh the regional leader.Lihaas (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose on of 10,000 or so local jihadi "bigwigs", no "accomplishment" or other qualification under ITN or RD. μηδείς (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb he was not an average "local jihadi", but the head of North Caucasian (incl. Chechen) militants and his "accomplishments" include several terrorist attacks in Russia. -- Ե րևանցի talk  23:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not being widely reported as a top news story. 331dot (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

New Rubik's Cube world record

 * Oppose Trivia. Meanwhile, in Crimea...  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I would normally support this, but the record was by a robot. Nergaal (talk) 08:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * DYK, if the article is expanded sufficiently. Not ITN. --Tone 08:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As all above, this is perfect for DYK, not so for ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose; no surprise that a robot could do something faster than a person. More of a DYK item. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose; I'm an original Cube solver (founding member of my high school's Rubic Cube Club back in the early 80s) but even I have to agree w/ all reasons above. This just isn't that surprising or particularly newsworthy. 10:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhodesisland (talk • contribs)

1500-year-old moss revived

 * Support well updated and sourced, definite support as a major first. Could maybe use a sexier hook. μηδείς (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Altblurb A South-Seas Feather Moss, Chorisodontium aciphyllum is revived after 1,500 years frozen in Antarctica μηδείς (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose, the nominator is clearly unaware that ITN posted Silene stenophylla, truly resurrected from 32,000 year old material. This mere unfreezing is admitted by the researcher himself to possible contamination from younger material. So it fails WP:V too. DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE! Abductive  (reasoning) 16:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Screaming?  The Silene case is mentioned in the Chorisodontium article, and one involved cloning, while the other didn't. μηδείς (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe the hype. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Considering I wrote and nominated Silene stenophylla, its pretty doubtful I was unaware it was posted... The two situations are not comparable.  As I explained in the nomination statement this is a discovery of species' natural ability, while S. stenophylla was an major accomplishment of lab techniques.
 * As to contamination, what the paper actually said is that it was highly unlikely due to all samples exhibiting the same regrowth, the fact the moss does not produce spores in the region it was harvested from, the fact no other organism grew other than the species in question, and that clean saws were used for each sample. However, yes, it is a logical possibility that all samples were none-the-less contaminated in precisely the same fashion.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Post this seems to have been opposed on mistaken pretenses, and posted late after a lot of intervening news. I think it's valid and worth posting. μηδείς (talk) 04:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Crimea something?
Since the last item about Crimea has rotated out of the ITN box, shouldn't we post something? A sticky, perhaps? --Tone 21:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support something, as discussed, we have a top headline on the BBC of "Russia recognises Crimea as nation", this seems pretty significant and something that ought to be topping our ITN thread. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Crimea votes to join Russia. Then Russia annexes Crimea.  Then US and Europe expand sanctions on Russia for Annexing Crimea, etc.  Just make it sticky and keep updating until somebody moves to take it off. Jehochman Talk 21:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, oppose sticky I suggest we post something like: "Russian President Vladimir Putin recognises Crimea as a sovereign state after it votes to leave Ukraine and join Russia in a referendum." Much more informative to actually tell people what is going on, rather than just having "Crimean crisis" or whatever as a sticky. Neljack (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Sticky or last supported blurb--kind of silly this has been rotated out of the ticker, as it's the story of the last two years, at least. Country larger than Britain expels Russian backed Prime Minister, restores previous constitution, is invaded by Russia, which annexes its territory?  I warned about this when we updated to the referendum link a week before it happened.  That alone should be reposted. μηδείς (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support blurb as suggested by Neljack. The vote + recognition of it is a significant development. Target should be Crimean referendum, 2014 (better choice but has orange tag) or Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation rather than the older, more general article which has much less info on the latest developments.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support blurb documenting the outcome of the referendum only, but oppose any mention of Russia recognising the Republic of Crimea, as it partially contradicts the referendum. The latter one was a news when the independence was declared on 11 March 2014, but its recognition by Russia as a follow-up does not seem so significant, especially when the independence was not even one of the choices at the referendum.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted as sticky. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee  //  have a cup  //  beans  // 01:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you mean "as blurb" (which is the correct choice). A "sticky" in ITN terminology would be something like just the words "Crimea Crisis" at the bottom next to "More News". --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Was wondering why it took 36 hours to get up here...anyways, someone please mark this and the below as posted. It was clearly in the news;;Lihaas (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I've been standing by to pull the gun on this... it just took quite a while for our community to request it. @ThaddeusB: I meant sticky as in a blurb that is stuck on top until the situation de-escalates (I don't speak in ITN terminology). It's definitely the biggest world news right now (as it should be) and it should have never fallen off the main page. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 04:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Russie and Chimea PM have signed treated that formally has Chimea part of Russian Federation . Might be worth tweaking blurb on that. --M ASEM (t) 13:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment — Above comment by User:Masem supported by Reuters, which says Putin "signed a treaty making Crimea part Russia." Similarly, BBC reports that "Putin and the leaders of Crimea have signed a bill to absorb (Crimea) into Russia,"  NYT reports signing of a "a draft treaty with Crimean leaders to make the strategic Black Sea peninsula part of Russia,"  and Guardian says Putin "announced the annexation of Crimea." . This is a fait accompli and there is no reason to delay including it in ITN. Sca (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Lets wait until it is officially changed. Maps et al. The rouble will only come in place on...April Fools Day ;) and the hry...(whatever) sill function for another 18 months.Lihaas (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's in ITN equivalents on Ukrainian, French and Dutch Wikis. The latter says simply, Rusland annexeert de Krim. Sca (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree, disembiggen we should shrink the blurb per Masem and Sca. How about "Vlad Putin/Russian signs a treaty annexing Crimea"? μηδείς (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * reiterate my oppose to update as above. Eng WP is different from the others (and has more readers). As for the neutrality of Ukraine (and the other western/nato ones, that's a different question altogether.Lihaas (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's wait 'til it's old news, then we can take it directly to the recycwiking center. (Wake me up when we get there.) ZZZzzzz Sca (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * But an update has been posted. Is Lihaas saying that the longer current version is better than my shorter version, or just objecting as a matter of habit? μηδείς (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The current version — which says Crimea is beginning "the process of accession to the Russian Federation" — doesn't go far enough, IMO. For hours, multiple media reports have cited signing by two sides of a treaty or "draft treaty" to annex Crimea, which as noted above prompts Dutch Wiki to call a spade a spade and say, "Russia annexes Crimea." I don't think there's any doubt this is de facto the situation, as, for example, when Germany annexed the Memelland in 1939. Sca (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * PS: For what it's worth, in the U.S. several talking heads on the PBS Newshour Tuesday said, "This is the new reality ... we have to live with it." Sca (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Perhaps unlink "declares independence" since the crisis article currently has top orange tags? There still would be a bolded item anyway. Brandmeistertalk  23:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: Russian seizure of Ukrainian naval HQ in Sevastopol is all over the news today (Wed.) Again, why wait? (Note that AP says Crimea "was nominally incorporated into Russia on Tuesday.") Sca (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Smoking gun of cosmic inflation has been found

 * Comment Looks like it's about gravitational waves, so I've added altblurb. The second article is partially updated. This is the Stanford University report. Brandmeistertalk  18:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you link Albert at all? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I presumed he's too well-known to be linked (at least to us and our readers), but don't mind :) Brandmeistertalk  18:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Worse possible reason! haha, but has he been unequivocally linked by a secondary WP:RS? There seems to be some discussion about whether this "proves" AE right or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC) ... At least Stephen Hawking has won his bet, apparently, . Martinevans123 (talk) 08:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment You are going to have to better explain why this is an important find. As far as many (most?) scientists are concerned, the discovery of cosmic background radiation (or more precisely the uniform temperature of it) some 30+ years ago was the "smkong gun" that proved the Big Bang Theory.  The news sources do seem to be saying this is an important confirmation, but I hardly think it is accurate or helpful just to call it "the smoking gun". --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a very important smoking gun confirming inflation theory. The smoking gun is the imprint of the primordial gravitational waves left in the cosmic background radiation. I would not call this a confirmation of the existence of gravitational waves, because the accepted norm for such a claim would be a direct detection by e.g. the LIGO detector or the future LISA detector. In this case the interpretation of the detected signal as primordial gravitational waves depends precisely on inflation theory which one wants to verify. Similarly, we don't say that dark matter has been detected by new observations that confirm the known phenomenology of this (e.g. the Bullet Cluster), we would need a direct detection of interactions with matter in underground detectors for such a claim. Count Iblis (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. As far as I understand it, this is significant, and I would be prepared to support it, but it needs to be much better explained. The 1st blurb is too cryptic, and Count Ibis' comment above seems to suggest the altblurb is incorrect(?) but as a non-scientist it doesn't help me understand what it actually is. Thryduulf (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a huge story but I wonder whether we shouldn't wait for peer review, which is the usual procedure with science stories. Also, the blurb can be improved, it's not just about gravitational waves, it's about supporting a theory about beginning of the Universe. --Tone 18:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support new blurb which I just posted. No point in pursuing "smoking gun".  We need to be literal. Jehochman Talk 21:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support No point in waiting for peer review, as long as we use "is announced", or such: we posted the announcement of the faster-than-light neutrino anomaly due to the sheer amount of press it gathered worldwide (basically dominated the news cycle for several days). This announcement has already gathered a very large amount of press, although not quite as much as the FTL anomaly. But definitely enough for ITN. --hydrox (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Stop the press. This discovery has been questioned already. --hydrox (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support main blurb. Looks like the article is updated already. Nature has an article collection (by one of their journalists) about the discovery btw, including a 'why is it important' section. That the discovery itself isn't published in a journal is a downside though. Narayanese (talk) 06:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong support I know that gravitational waves have been a really big target for a while now. Nergaal (talk) 08:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Posting . I had to fix the BICEP link ;-) --Tone 08:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * On a second thought, the update seems a bit thin. I'll wait a little longer to see it grow. --Tone 08:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support if and only if a strong update explaining this is terms an ordinary person can understand occurs. Strongly opposed to linking to a highly technical article with a 2 sentence update (the current state of affairs). --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Seconded... Abductive  (reasoning) 00:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support but bold gravitational wave. Unfortunately, linking to a relevant non-technical article when we are in a more-or-less advanced topic like general relativity is not going to be feasible. The "gravitational wave" article offers more information about this event than "cosmic inflation" does. If readers want simple English, they should head over to Simple English Wikipedia. Mz7 (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess two sentences in the lead is technically more than one sentence in the lead (and none in the body of either article), but is hardly an adequate update. All either article tells me is a wave was found. We need more information than that - there is no indication of how this was determined, for example. (There should be a section on it in the body with a minimum of one full paragraph, probably 2-3.  If this is truly a monumental discovery, then that should be easy to do.)  --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. I do agree that gravitational wave is the more natural/plausible target for a potential extensive update. It is, however, less well referenced in general, so I'm not sure how people would feel about linking to that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Point taken. The articles should be updated with more information about it before posting to the Main Page; however, I have my doubts we will be able to do that before this request becomes stale. Mz7 (talk) 03:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - I admit I won't be able to update the article but suggest this would make a fine ITN item if someone can do the updating. It's a big story, needless to say. Jus  da  fax   03:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No vote - Per WP:COI I am hesitant to push an opinion or edit the relevant articles. That said, mark my words, this will be remembered as a landmark instance of one of the greatest failures of the WP:ITN system and perhaps the WP editing process in general.  If you don't believe me, take the words of others: "I'm happy to go on record that, unless a mistake has been made, this is the greatest scientific discovery of the 21st century, and may remain so even once the century is over." "Yes, I actually do [consider this a more important discovery than the Higgs], mostly because this one is in no way clear a priori, while the existence of the/a Higgs boson has been clear for decades. This discovery would also allow us to see how the laws of physics are organized at vastly higher energy scales than the scales associated with the Higgs boson - we could be looking at the GUT scale which is a trillion times higher than the Higgs mass scale."  "However, I think (obviously I'm not the sole arbiter) the CMB measurements deserve the right to be called more than an indirect detection, so for now I'll go with the compromise of semi-direct detection"  "It's just a fun game. Everyone believes the result really."  Teply (talk) 08:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to improve the article to the minimum standards expected of items we post to the main page, that would be great, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'm extremely WP:COI, never mind how impartial I am able to be. I'm willing to edit if given license to do so, but as far as ITN is concerned it'll all be stale by the time I'm done.  The last saving grace would be to renominate for ITN after peer review. Teply (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but if the quality issues remain, it'll fail once again, so that'll need to be resolved. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Teply, if you could spend some time referencing (and making sure everythign is accurate) in the rest of gravitational wave, I will be happy to do the update part. Adding references for existing material is not a COI violation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

L'Wren Scott

 * Oppose The article fails to show she is considered top of her field or particularly important.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 18:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose not top of her field, not notable really beyond the relationship with Jagger. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose without a better explanation about how she is "very important" in fashion/clothing design, such as awards, recognition from peers in the industry, etc. I'm not convinced having notable persons as clients is enough. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Utterly tragic death, but she wasn't very important in her field by the looks of her article, and what news sources have had to say about her. --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I suspect the biggest impact on the public at large would be if a whole Stones tour were to be cancelled, as still seems possible. Personally, I was more surprised to learn even that she was Jagger's girlfriend, than that she had tragically died. Even more surprised to see she had a Wikipedia article. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * WHAAOE Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * .. yes, apparently so. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Part of the tour has been cancelled apparently. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Serbian election
A one-word Armenian rationale "Երևանցի" is a bit underwhelming. Could we have half a dozen words in English? μηδείς (talk) 06:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Երևանցի is their signature, not their rationale. Anyway, as a national general election which has resulted in a change of government, this is clear ITN/R. Support once updated. Smurrayinchester 08:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Medeis, complaining about a non-Latin signature line? Someone get my sense of irony some smelling salts. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The "complaint" was a one-word rationale. This nom was posted with a target artcle, a blurb, a nominator, and nothing else.  So if your point is that it was actually a zero-word rationale, you are right. μηδείς (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Post once adequately updated; general elections are ITNR. 331dot (talk) 09:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There's an orange-level tag in the Candidates section, this should be addressed. The results are in, it would be good to have some reactions. --Tone 18:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

2014 Larkana temple attack

 * The article is updated but it needs some polishing for idiom. Not sure this is notable enough for ITN given lack of fatalities and no comment on cultural value of destroyed property. I have given a shorter altblurbμηδείς (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless this develops beyond its currently minor (but sad) scuffle, not news, certainly not significant enough for a blurb at ITN. In any case, the article needs a thorough copyedit. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM; not an unusual occurrence there, and I don't see anything to suggest why it is at the moment. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 Alpine Skiing World Cup

 * Support - notable sporting event. results are in.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Nergaal (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment if we post it every year, why isn't it at ITN/R? If it's not at ITN/R, "we post [it] every year" is hardly a good basis for nomination.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We could probably have it on ITN/R. Per below, I've added overall to the blurb. --Tone 20:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Clearly an image would help with the nomination, I see no reason to not post this, assuming we have just a touch more support. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's the image. I prefer Fenninger as we've had Hirscher before. --Tone 21:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Good. Now just need to convert the lead of the article into grammatically correct English and you have my support.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support as a big international sporting event. However, the blurb should make clear that they are the overall champions, since there are other titles relating to specific disciplines (downhill, slalom, etc). Neljack (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Article could use a little reorganization: the introduction seems large (move some stuff below the TOC in a prose "Summary" section?)  Spencer T♦ C 04:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Better? --Tone 18:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support although, like the Six Nations nomination, I'm sure this will hit some flak from those who loathe such stat-heavy, yet popular and informative articles. Having said that, this is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In case anyone is still looking at this, I just thought I'd note that a discussion has been started about whether this event should be added to ITN/R. It can be found here. Neljack (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Six Nations

 * Support. ITN/R, article is in good shape. Black Kite (talk) 12:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, a news-worthy event. Although more to redress the balance for Brian O'Driscoll. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "The balance" is an internal Wiki issue; I don't think our audience knows or cares about it. Sca (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * <SMALL>... not sure that many Wiki editors know or care, but still - thanks anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Nergaal (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose until more prose is added to the article. Currently is is 95+% tables.  We need textual summaries of the matches. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? .. all of them? just the final three? and how much detail exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The easy thing to say is that it doesn't meet the three full prose paragraph policy. Two or three sentences per match should be good.  As an outsider that page looks to me like a lottery scratch-off card, and is otherwise pretty meaningless. μηδείς (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You have my sympathy. But to me its crammed with information without the pain of unnecessary waffle. I think most readers would be able to see, quite easily, that the jackpot winners were Ireland. Oh well. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC) ...um did you get as far as the second paragraph?
 * Yes, really. Prose captures information in a way mere tables/charts cannot.  We would never post an American sport that was just a list of players and the final score, but for some reason it is acceptable for European sports.  (To answer the question, at least the finals.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't have American sports contests that are conducted in this fashion. There are no "finals" here.  Plenty of wikilinks have been provided to help you and your people understand this "edition" of the contest.  Cheers!  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * By finals, I meant the final three matches that decided the outcome. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The results of all matches played in the tournament determined the outcome, not the final three matches. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That is technically true of every tournament regardless of round robin or knockout format. I obviously meant the decisive matches on the last day. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support as everyone who comments here should know, there is no policy relating to ITN updates. No policy.  Repeat: no policy.  NO POLICY.  Just in case that wasn't clear enough.  No policy.  For policies, see WP:POLICY, I don't see ITN update recommendations listed anywhere there.  And because this tournament isn't dependent on a single match result, a summary in the lead describing the result of the year's tournament is perfectly appropriate.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "No policy" does not mean 1 sentence=OK if TRM likes it.  We CAN have standards without a hard and fast rule.  This article has almost no prose and is a joke as an article (but is awesome as a chart of sports statistics I suppose). --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, stop this obsession with me. There is no policy.  That's all I said.  Now move on and badger someone else who wants to listen to your chatter. (P.S. "and is a joke as an article" is downright offensive, but that somehow isn't surprising from you). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't flatter yourself - there is no obsession with you. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "A joke"? That article has been one of most consistently accurate and well-kept articles I've seen in the past six weeks. It does all it needs to do. Are you expecting prose summaries/ evaluations of all the matches as per a newspaper sports column? It's a rugby tournament, not a series of Wagner operas! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, as a prose article it is a joke. As a collection of box scores, it is fantastic. Something can both be up to date and insufficient at the same time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support What a lovely send-off for Brian O'Driscoll. I think the article is good enough to post, though some more text would be preferable. It doesn't have to be match summaries for all the games - it would be in the introduction, explaining for instance how Ireland won the title. Neljack (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite agree. Not such a nice send off for Stuart Hogg (although very uncharacteristic). But his was only the fourth since 2006. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Posting. Now I kindly ask another admin to have a look at the Alpine skiing item ;-) --Tone 21:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It really should have waited. The nominator (Modest Genius), myself, Medeis, and Neljack all said more text would be good.  Black Kite, The Rambling Man, Martinevans123m, and Neljack said it was good enough.  Nergaal didn't comment.  That is a pretty weak consensus on quality.  Is it really too much to ask for 1-2 paragraphs explaining how Ireland won?  The entirety of the prose update is "Ireland won.  Italy got the wooden spoon."  There is more about how the tournament played out here in this thread than in the article.  We can do better than that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Have opened a thread on the Talk Page there. Feel free to contribute. :) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Yes, you can do better than that. So do it.  Ireland won by winning the tournament, they won more points than most, and when tied, they had better points difference.  It didn't depend on a "finals" scenario as the American way of sport wants to dictate.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You are right - I can do better and regularly do update articles. Unlike most contributors here (not you), who never update anything. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * P.S. Thanks to Martinevans123 for adding more prose to explain how the series was won after this was posted. That goes a long ways. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks to User:Modest Genius for writing most of it! And to User:Rugby.change for expanding it. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Pull Lacks the mandatory three-paragraph prose update requirement per ITN policy. Article looks like an Alpha Centaurian gambling table with a running Klingon (i.e., no) commentary. Entirely meaningless to us Yoo-Mahns. μηδείς (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry if the numbers are bigger than you typically see at the "soccer". Martinevans123 (talk) 08:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has all the required information, and is certainly notable enough. Opposition is solely based on unfamiliarity with the sport. (Woe is us if the reverse happens with American sports...) Again, there are no minimum update rules for ITN, and that is not even applicable here as, again, all the required information is there. Fgf10 (talk) 07:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite so, to pretend there is a "mandated" update "requirement" defined in "policy" is purely fallacious. As for unfamiliarity with the sport, Simple English Wikipedia may help. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a false assumption. My opposition was precisely 0% based on "unfamiliarity with the sport" and precisely 100% to do with an inadequate update (at the time, now acceptable). --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Pull (or expand) Agree with Medeis. Prose requirement is not satisfied.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Where is that requirement listed as such? 331dot (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * the traditional cut-off for what is enough has been around three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs. At In_the_news--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That reads to me like a suggestion, not a "policy".("traditional" suggests it isn't always done that way) The update needs should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.  Maybe the one here isn't enough- but it's not a "policy". 331dot (talk) 10:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree it shouldn't be set in stone but I also generally think we shouldn't give much leeway for sports items, personally. And the content requirements at ITN are lower than at the other main page sections so I think we should stick to the suggested minimums in most cases.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The one thing that does need to stop is people pretending that there's a policy and a requirement. Both suggestions are completely untrue.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Very few rules on WP are absolute. But In_the_news is very clear on the recommended prose minimums.  Are you suggesting we ignore them?--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I'm suggesting we use them as they are defined, i.e. as recommendations, and stop fooling editors and lying to them by claiming there to be some kind of policy. We can use common sense here, you know?  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm fine for that. Perhaps the common sense approach would be to further expand the article.  Is it really necessary that it be posted w/o the recommended update?  In any case the guidelines I cited are certainly valid grounds to oppose posting.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In any case, I've added a few references to help bring the article up to par. Just think it should have been better before posting.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Is the underlying assumption, of some editors, that the article, or at least its introduction, should look more like this one? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Eek. A random scroll into that article left me confronted with the tuck rule (apparently it will now be considered a fumble when a quarterback loses possession of the ball after a pump fake while bringing the ball back to his body!); which numbers tight-ends and H-backs are allowed to wear; peel-back blocks being allowed in the tackle box (fishing, anyone?); and the desperate plight of long snappers, who are now considered defenseless [sic] players, poor dears.  I prefer the six nations' article as it is - Keep.  GoldenRing (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No the underlying assumption is that it look like this one.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A single final game, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes obviously, but the point of my analogy was that that NFL game was posted. Though I would agree the NFL 2013 article could use a clean up as well.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * .. and not three games on the final day, on which any one of three teams could have won the championship? Is clean-up of NFL articles a new policy for getting other sport items posted at ITN? lol Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how reasonable the comparison is - an article format that works for the final, deciding game of a season is hard to adopt for a series of 15 matches where each contributes equally to the championship outcome. At any rate, IMO the super bowl article is out of proportion to the significance of the subject, but I'd admit that's probably a bit POV. GoldenRing (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * But you probably wouldn't call it "a joke", would you? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I probably would call the 2013 NFL season article (which was never posted at ITN) a "joke" for precisely the same reason as I calle dthis one a joke - it is severely lacking in prose. A list of random "notable events" is not prose anymore than a box score is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * But a set of accurate scores, clearly laid out, in a set of boxes, is much more useful Encyclopedic even? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, prose is preferable if only one is used. WP:USEPROSE: "Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another. It is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain."  --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this debate is running in circles a bit. Obviously articles on different types of events will have different formats--different places where there will be prose and tables.  But it has long been recommended (call it a guideline or whatever) that articles have a minimum of three referenced prose paragraphs to be posted (as the bold linked article) at ITN.  The recommendations are clearly and objectively stated in ITN's criteria.  The exact format of the article of course can vary appropriately for the subject.  But three paragraphs is not too much to ask.  ITN is the least stringent of all MP sections on the amount of content, as I understand.  Yes some common sense should be applied and the rule should be allowed some leeway.  But IMO it's reasonable to ask for a bit more prose--the posting of Six Nations is not so urgent for the project that we need to post the article with minimal content.  The purpose of ITN is to highlight content.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, 2013 Six Nations Championship is perhaps an apt analogy of what would be desirable.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The 2014 article is pretty much the same as the 2013, just the "overview" is in the lead. No big deal.  It should be noted, ITN's role is also to bring timely and correct information to editors who may be interested in the stories ("2014_Six_Nations_Championship has been viewed 78665 times in the last 30 days" regardless of whether it met some arbitrary number of paragraphs some claim as a requirement laid down in policy).  In fact, for highlighting content, you could try TFA, TPA, DYK, as those are simply related to content.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * By my reckoning the 2014 article now has more prose than the 2013 article. It certainly has three well-referenced new paras in the intro. So any continued debate about "pulling" seems out of line. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] DNS root zone

 * Support upon update; US control of the Internet has been an issue with the NSA spying on other nations. Any dent in that would seem to be notable. 331dot (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Dent? You are forgetting who created the internet. μηδείς (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support upon update - Big story in the computer world, but no update so far. Jus  da  fax   01:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per everyone else. Neljack (talk) 09:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a big deal, but although I consider myself relatively literate in the field, I have a hard time getting anything out of the article. Nergaal (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support though I would recommend adjusting the blurb to mention this importance (perhaps, "The United States announces that it relinquishes the control of the DNS root zone, removing its oversight of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers." --M ASEM (t) 23:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support but alt blurb giving passer-by readers a hint at the significance would be preferred. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait for refs - I would prefer posting wait until the "Redundancy and diversity" section is better referenced. I plan to do that this evening if no one else gets to it first. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Now referenced and ready. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Ukrainian Kherson Oblast

 * Support Sticky The Russians taking a forward position at the border of Crimea seems if anything a sign they haven't chosen to take the rest of the East Ukraine. Not sure this is anywhere near on the scale of the invasion of the entire first province. Of course under other circumstances it would be hugely newsworthy. μηδείς (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Huge story and I'd support a sticky also. Jus  da  fax   01:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose both blurb and sticky at the moment Most of the news articles seem to be reporting the story as 'Ukraine says Russia does X', rather than as 'Russia does X". So I don't think we'd be justified in saying that Russia had done this, and we generally wouldn't post a blurb in the form "X claims Y does Z". As for the sticky, I'm not convinced that it's needed at this point, since I don't think we're getting to the point where we would otherwise have multiple postings about the situation. I generally prefer blurbs, since they actually convey information about what has happened while linking to the article, rather than just linking to the article. Neljack (talk) 09:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The very first paragraph of the linked NYT article says without hedging or attributing the claim that Russia made an incursion. The New York Times would not say that if they were just relaying he-said-she-said. Thue (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well their own headline includes the words "Ukraine says". That's consistent with other news organisations, e.g. the AP and the Financial Times. Neljack (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * They can't make an entire story "Ukraine says" just by having a single "Ukraine says" in the headline. That is not how attribution works for serious journalists. If fx Financial Times reports all of it as "Ukraine says", unlike NYT, then it just means that Financial Times doesn't have independent confirmation, but doesn't exclude NYT having independent confirmation. Thue (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose — Agree with User:Neljack. Anyhow, the next phase will hinge on the referendum outcome & Russia's response. Sca (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The Russian army entering a tiny village with no resistance barely made the news, it shouldn't make the ITN either. The Crimean referendum and pro-Russian protests in Eastern and Southern Ukraine are much more important to the wider story. --Tocino 06:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Crossing borders have huge symbolic value, and dismissing any clear military violation is silly. E.g. if Mexico's military invaded just one tiny village in the United States, then I think it would also be news... Thue (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] [RD] Ahmad Tejan Kabbah

 * The article is basically unreferenced, so will need a lot of work before I can support even though notability is there. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * hmmm, true. but the section is there though. maybe redirect to that las tbt?Lihaas (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you mean "systemic" bias Lihaas, which is unfortunately common across the board on WP. Anyway, support with updates considering the position he held. --Somchai Sun (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose as offensive "Of a state"? What state? Can we please have an informative polite nomination, instead of one that says if you don't post this, regardless of my not giving any reason why you should, you are biased? μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Calm down, lads. So you were the first one to nominate it?  Please AGF rather than trotting out the bias accusation pre-emptively.  And it doesn't have a blurb explaining it because that's the form of RD nominations; they don't have a blurb.  Is it offensive to expect you to click a link and read two thirds of the first sentence to find out where he was president of now?  Again, assume AGF and don't come out all guns blazing.
 * I hadn't seen it in the news, TBH, but I think it should be posted, pending article quality concerns. GoldenRing (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose article mostly unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose until references added; systemic bias is not a reason to post an unreferenced article. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * But systemic bias IS a reason the opposers here aren't doing something about the problems with the article. HiLo48 (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Systematic bias in this case is not an actual explanation; as it is for why we have so many articles on homosexuality, video games, and soccer; but a name with which to camouflage "my laziness" and shift the blame for it to others. I have updated plenty of articles that I haven't nominated or even supported.  What have you or the nominator done here? Certainly nothing in the last 500 edits. 01:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)μηδείς (talk)
 * I've pretty much given up nominating anything here due to our systemic bias. I have tried my best to interest others in helping overcome it, or even to understand it, but it's been largely in vain. I do my bit. It's not much. Many do nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not talking about nominating though. What galls me is when a nominator or a supporter who hasn't himself updated an article complains that the reason it hasn't been posted is the bias of others.  I have no opinion on this article, given it hasn't been updated, and no clear rationale has been given.  I'd be surprised if people were to say, well, yeah, it's updated, be we still don't care. μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose unreferenced mostly. However the "Oppose as offensive" comment above is just nonsensical in my opinion,.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine, read "as" there as "and find". μηδείς (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

[RD?] Omar Ould Hamaha

 * Definitely not RD - this fellow has approximately zero name recognition based on the fact his article has getting single digit/low teen hits a day before his death. Neutral on full blurb' - I would need to see an explanation of why his death is important (there are many terrorist leaders killed each year). --17:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Good objection. Would add that he was a leasder of a group that took over more than half a country for a while and had a French (foreign) intervention to oust it. Despite that it was still active (and still IS, though lesser). Basicallt like lal Qaeda in that part of the world, for perspective.Lihaas (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No update. Suspect the claim the man's name is also "Muslim Scum Hakka" is a hoax.  Suitable for DYK maybe, but not ITN. μηδείς (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose no update, not in the news, not suitable for either RD or full blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose in any form; if it was the leader, maybe(big maybe), but not the spokesman of a branch of a terrorist group. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Tony Benn

 * Support, political legend. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong support, fully agree with Rambler. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Far more memorable than several past PMs. Benn is that rare entity, a hugely popular politician, who has been the figurehead for left-wing republican views in Britain (witness the coinage 'Bennite') from the mid-1960s, when he fought to renounce his peerage, until the 2010s. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong support. Major political figure in UK.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Very, very strong support. Well known politician. A sad week in UK politics. Jón  - ( Talk ) 08:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support for RD. Major political figure in the UK. Pedro : Chat  08:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support for RD. For 40 years the most important left-wing politician in the U.K. Jheald (talk) 08:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, Jheald says it well, same reasons. Mjroots (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, as a British icon of the left. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 09:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support the legend moniker is well justified. Stephen 09:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted, an obvious consensus, an article in good condition (a GA no less), and updated sufficiently. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Satisfying to see an ITN post agreed so quickly, and showing up long before it gets into the mainstream media. Particulary so as it leads to a GA. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No doubt someone will complain. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Good to see this posted so quickly - and unanimously. Undoubtedly one of the outstanding British parliamentarians of the second half of the 20th century. He played an important role in various constitutional and political reforms. He was the man behind opening up party leadership elections to ordinary party members, and an influential advocate for open government (David Cameron, of all people, cited one of Benn's books on open government as the book that had most influenced him). Neljack (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] South by Southwest drunk driver

 * Oppose. A notable traffic accident but not an ITN item.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, a non-notable traffic accident. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not front page news by a long shot. The Harlem building collapse is more notable than this. --Somchai Sun (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not a top headline story nor was the event particularly unusual. 331dot (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A traumatic event for those involved undoubtedly but not unusual enough nor with a high enough body count for the ITN. Rhodesisland (talk) 02:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Chhattisgarh attack

 * oppose as non-notable. this is not a rare event where it occurred. .Also EVERy attack page is not warranted by itself. It can simply and appropriately go on List of terrorist incidents, 2013.(Lihaas (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)).

Lihaas (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * mild support the body count (harsh term I know, but there it is) is substantial enough for but is it for that usual for the area and the conflict there? And is it in the news? Rhodesisland (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

RD: Věra Chytilová

 * She seems to be in the global news, though I don't know who she is. I would weak support. Lihaas (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Withholding support pending article update. We don't need any minimum number of hagiographic sentances following her death, but some mention as to the manner, location, and any such details of her death as is known in the media should be in the article.  Currently (as of when I am writing this sentence) we have only her death date in the lead, and a brief clause in the "Early Life" section (of all places) that says she died on 12 March 2014.  And that's it.  We need something more about her death before this needs to be posted.  Add that, and consider this a full support.  -- Jayron  32  23:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * HOw did you self-define the update requirement? as an admin thatposts this is important.Lihaas (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Read the words I wrote just above your question. Before you asked your question.  As your question came after I already answered it, it need not have been asked had you actually read the words I wrote.  -- Jayron  32  13:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit surprised to see it here. Yes, the report about her death appeared also in Spanish and English news, in the Czech Repuplic it is the main news, of course. I'll try to improve the article as soon as possible. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I believe I've addressed Jayron's objection. The most detailed source regarding her death is this article in the Czech tabloid newspaper Blesk, a source which I always hesitate to use on Wikipedia. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that looks fine. My only objection was there really wasn't any more information than "she died".  The fact that there's at least a complete sentence on the matter seems better.  If there IS anything else, that'd be nice to add too. -- Jayron  32  13:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There are some tense issues (most of article remain in present tense, should be past tense) and the "awards and honors" section is unreferenced. If these issues are fixed, then I can support as she seems to have been an important figure in her field. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose clearly a significant figure in Czech film but article, in particular filmography, needs serious work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, no evidence that she rises to the top of her field, which is Czechoslovak New Wave. Miloš Forman is such a person; his article gets over 700 page views a day. Hers got about 50 a day prior to her death. Lack of interest shown by the news media, and by Wikipedia editors too. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Abductive Rhodesisland (talk) 07:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Libyan PM

 * Surely that should be "after the latter fails", not, "after failing"? Also, the instability argues against this being notable, doesn't it? μηδείς (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's so unstable they could have a new PM next week or even tomorrow given the right circumstances.  Unless this guy is a consensus choice and going to stick around for a whole term of office, this isn't that notable.  News coverage of this is limited, as well. 331dot (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I find the notion that the instability in Libya means this isn't notable bizarre. We're not talking about instability just in the sense of government falling all the time (a la Italy until recently); we're talking about a country recovering from civil war that remains in a fragile situation. There is considerable international interest in whether Libya will manage to establish a viable democracy and how its political system will develop. Therefore this story has got plenty of international coverage. Neljack (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you demonstrate that coverage? I've seen virtually nothing; while I understand that means virtually nothing, it certainly is not top headline news from what I know. Libya in general hasn't really been in the news, either. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Also of interest, the ousted PM has fled the country. Neljack (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose, not a new election. Double oppose as the subject article is nothing more than a miniature stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * do double negatives cancel each other out?Lihaas (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, these are additive. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Crimea independence
Close immediately. This hasn't happened.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * > withdrawn in light of the commetn and the referendum, this will not get passed with an update coming again in 5 days. So withdraw in the interim
 * As its been renominated by Jaron32, I will change to wait as theres no point updating in 5 days.Lihaas (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose as proposed 1) There's no way the target article is enough to post at this point. It's two sentences as of when I am writing this 2) This is just a continuation of a story which is already on ITN.  Right now.  If we keep the target article the same as we have it, which is the 2014 Crimean crisis, I wouldn't be opposed to a rewording and bump to represent the newest development, but we should be directing readers to such a stub article.  Instead, direct them to the bigger article as we are already doing, change the wording to represent the new development, and bump it to the top of the list.  -- Jayron  32  19:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * it seems Crimea and Sevastopol first joined together as a single entity called Republic of Crimea and then that entity declared its independence from Ukraine. Then, to complicate things even further, they said this move will not be ratified until the referendum. Too confusing to be in the news home page IMO. How about we just wait until the referendum? &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We ought to be discriminating about updating this story, since so much is happening. None of the media I have looked at are treating this as the major Ukraine crisis event of the day. Formerip (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose not in the news where I am, probably because we're all waiting for the real news to occur. It hasn't, yet.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support independently from the referendum. This is a declaration of independence of the Republic of Crimea as a sovereign state, not to confused with the referendum on which its citizens are going to vote on whether to join Russia as a federal subject or remain a sovereign state. Most of the polls before this referendum indicate on the outcome to join Russia, meaning that it would be just a short-living sovereign state, but it's not our business to predict the future. Declaring independence is definitely a very big deal, regardless of what its future will be.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As FormerIP states, this isn't big headline news today.  The vote will be more significant(even though there is little doubt about the outcome)  I wouldn't oppose a bump of the current blurb, though. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Crimean story is already on ITN, and per most of the above comments. We don't need to be giving daily updates, especially not strategic announcements by dubious entities. μηδείς (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I don't see why we shouldn't update the current blurb on Crimea to reflect the latest significant news. The Crimean Parliament declaring independence sounds like a pretty big deal to me. Neljack (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Target article in blurb above has grown to a 3 sentence stub from a 2 sentence stub in the past 15 hours. If someone wants to put this concept on the main page, please propose a better target article.  -- Jayron  32  02:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * : we have conflicting reports from Al Jazeera, Euronews, and the Associated Press saying Crimea did not declare independence but that it simply adopted a bill showing their intention to self-declare themselves independent after the referendum. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This issue with this is that the Crimean parliament has yet to actually declare independence. If one reads the adopted resolution one can see that it's only stating that they will declare independence, if the referendum passes. Which also means that if the referendum failed, which it won't, they would not be able to declare independence. At this point the best thing to do is wait for the 16 March referendum, or for other bigger news to come out of the crisis. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee  //  have a cup  //  beans  // 14:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

RD: Joel Brinkley

 * Oppose I don't think a Pulitzer, in itself, is enough. It's a national award with lots of categories. I'd want to see evidence that he was one of the leading American journalists of his generation, and nothing I've read indicate that. Neljack (talk) 10:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Bob Crow

 * And about the only high-profile trade union leader in the UK in recent years. Support when updated. BencherliteTalk 10:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, subject to update. Mjroots2 (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Sudden and unexpected death of a man who was unquestionably at the top of his field in terms of influence and prominence. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - The most prominent Union leader since the miner's strikes in the UK. Miyagawa (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note article now updated with as much as we know plus comments from prominent UK folks. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb. Reasoning per AlexTiefling. Article looks decent enough and has been updated. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Marked as ready. Mjroots2 (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support RD only. Hugely influential union leader.--Somchai Sun (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron  32  13:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Chiquita acquisition

 * Weak support. I might have opposed but this is getting news coverage, and not just from business-oriented news like Bloomberg. 331dot (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak support ( - obviously can't offer "straight support", lol). Hope we don't slip up on this one. Have updated Banana, by the way. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes we have no bananas. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, yet another haighly productive adnmin content that furthers encyclopaedia...Lihaas (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes! How a-musing. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I love being an adnmininininstarator. It makes me feel so butch. Support the nana story by the way.   The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - we need to cover more notable business stories. Here is a good chance to do so. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note, however, that neither article is in particularly good shape. At least one would have to be fixed & updated to post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * comment updated the article's section, agreed that the rest of the article can use some work, but weve got the requisite update. Also not sure how to move this to the new name of ChiquitaFyffes. Which article to move? Created a redirect page: We could add to the end of the blurb " under the name ChiquitaFyffes"Lihaas (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Firstly, the blurb is wrong; the two companies have merged, rather than one taking a majority stake in the other. Secondly, this hasn't happened yet, and will have to be ratified by the anti-competition banana council, or similar. Stephen 05:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a merger, but Chiquita did the buying. Blomberg says: "CQB ... agreed to buy Ireland’s Fyffes", NBC describes says: "... stock-for-stock transaction ..", Irish Times says: "In a stock-for-stock transaction, Chiquita shareholders will own approximately 50.7 per cent of ChiquitaFyffes, and Fyffes shareholders will own approximately 49.3 per cent of ChiquitaFyffes, on a fully diluted basis." Crumbs, the "anti-competition banana council" sounds worse than WMF. What killjoys. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Marked Ready - after extensive work, Chiquita should meet minimum quality standards. There has been no objections, so I believe we are ready to post now.  I have suggested an alt blurb which is more consistant with how sources describe the business deal. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted alt blurb. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

RD: Nazario Moreno González

 * Support. Seems to be notable/important in the world of illegal drugs or drug cartels. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * oppose as stale  We just posted the goings-on o f mexco's drug families. If these things come out so often then they arenot really notable as a unique event but rather ongoing in the Mexican war on drugs.Lihaas (talk) 13:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Read the sources; he did not die four years ago, he was thought to have died four years ago until recently, when he was killed. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @Lihaas — The fact that several top drug kingpins have fallen so quickly in this political administration makes the events quite notable. That is why their arrests/deaths have reached international headlines. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 16:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Then nominate a mexican war on drugs sticky in that case. If this is the case then that should be notable enough to post.Lihaas (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is an RD by the way, no-one's asking for more than a couple of words to appear. However, since you haven't bothered reading the article, what's the point? Not sure why this wouldn't be given as much consideration as the guy who operated on a pitcher's arm.  After all, this guy's death affects millions and millions through the drug trade...  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose basically per Lihaas. When a kingpin is arrested or dies, another takes his place.  Unless he starts a new distribution network for blue meth, he's just filling an established niche. μηδείς (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Another might take his place, but that doesn't mean he will operate in the same manner or have the same stature. 331dot (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure, members of families die or are killed all the time. Such a shame that this really good article is being denied a couple of words on the oh-so-busy-let's-close-it-down ITN portion of the main page. Typical. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * For the love of frickign god, everyone has a right to their opinion (as do you), stop shutting down people who disagree with you and your nom with snarky comments!!How sad WP is heading down to the mainstram medi a to its same old authoritarian and unaccountable "admins"! such is democracy/politicsLihaas (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Pardon? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support — Founding member of a transnational organized crime group killed. Not to mention the fact he was a sort of religious/spiritual figure in the local area. His death has been described by the government as the "biggest blow against the Knights Templar Cartel" ( second paragraph). ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 03:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support — maybe we should make this into a fully-fledged ITN item with the blurb: One of Mexico's biggest drug lords killed in a gun battle with Mexican Army and Navy in Tumbiscatío, Michoacán --  Ohc  ¡digame! 05:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @Ohconfucius — I'm not really sure if it should be ITN. Considering that there are several leading criminal groups in Mexico, their top leaders are naturally considered among the "biggest drug lords" in the country. There are more than a hand-full that would fall under that description, I think. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 06:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Salvadoran prez election

 * Oppose Not updated. μηδείς (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, if and when properly updated. Nsk92 (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Should not be posted until updated. 331dot (talk) 10:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

RD: Mohammed Fahim

 * Support And, perhaps more significantly, the commander of the Northern Alliance forces that defeated the Taliban. He was the commander that entered Kabul and established a military council to administer the country. Certainly "had a significant contribution/impact on the country", so he qualifies under DC#1. Neljack (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Very notable person as commander.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support RD a significant personality, the article is in a good shape. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The vice presidency section is poorly referenced. Otherwise the article is in great shape.  Support when referencing improved in that section - highly notable person. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Notable both as military commander and as vice president of a nation. &mdash; <span style="color:#666 !important;">TORTOISE  WRATH  16:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. As stated, he meets DC#1 through holding an office at the time of his death as well as having a significant impact on his nation. 331dot (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose the article needs help, a maintenance tag as noted by ThaddeusB above is just the start of the referencing problems, along with dab links, poorly formatted references, an excess of external links, some odd attempts at inline references.... otherwise, he's a notable RD inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * comment article is NOT updated.
 * Though i would support when it is as a sitting VP. Maybe a natural cause, but that in itself is notable in Afghanistan for his profile.Lihaas (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support RD per 331dot once updated Rhodesisland (talk) 10:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Brian O'Driscoll
Nom  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Certainly a outstanding achievement by BOD. If we post world records in other sports (we posted a pole vault one recently, for instance), I don't see why we shouldn't post this. It's a pretty rare occurrence - this record isn't broken very often. Neljack (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support as per Neljack. And a really great player. More significant for him in that he's now retiring: . Tomás O'Leary said: "He is the greatest player of his era and possibly one of the greatest players ever but he is very easy to get on with off the pitch." Martinevans123 (talk) 12:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - this is essentially a record for games played. Would we post a record for most NBA games played or most MLB appearances? I doubt it. I'm neutral here, but if we post this we better be prepared to post games played records for other sports too.  (Longevity is certainly an accomplishment, but not as big of one as many other possible records.)  That said I do believe "winning" is not the right verb - "receiving" or "achieving" would be better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the NBA and MLB aren't played at international level, so that's an illogical comparison.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually the comparison is perfectly valid. NBA is the top level of basketball in the world - no one at all would dispute that. The record for most "international tournament" appearances in basketball would be a far less notable achievement than the most NBA games played.  But, I suppose by your logic we should post when a player sets a new record for most international tournament basketball appearances?!?  As noted below, the football (soccer) player with the most appearances is hardly a top player.  I doubt anyone cared when he set the record and football is the world's most popular sport.  If the best argument that can be made is "ZOMG this is an international record and therefore automatically important," then I'm afraid I have the change to oppose.  What you should actually be arguing (if possible) is that this is viewed as the most important record (or close to it) in the sport. That would carry some weight; saying "but it's an international record" carries no real weight in my opinion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So that's Ahmed Hassan, listed here, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Your point being what exactly? I, of course did, not literally mean not a single person in the entire world cared, but rather that very few people cared. ("no one cared" is a figure of speech.)  Someone cares about the most games played in the Philippine Basketball Association - does that prove we should post that record too? ... Hassan set the football caps record in 2010 and it wasn't even nominated for ITN.  That doesn't prove anything, of course, but it is as at least as strong of evidence of how much people cared as the mere existence of a Wikipedia article. --21:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe "posted at ITN" should be just a figure of speech. Or maybe Hassan should have been posted. Except he didn't retire. Martinevans123 (talk)


 * Oppose, this sounds like sport statistics IMO and we don't post those. --Tone 16:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes we do.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, we do post world records, such as 100 m or high jump or marathon. Or most Olympic medals. But just most caps? Can you remind me of some similar achievement that we've recently posted? --Tone 18:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that, just because we haven't, that we mustn't? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am just trying to find some comparable item that we've posted before. Most caps simply doesn't seem important enough to me (while the things I mentioned above do). --Tone 20:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support a notable achievement at the top level in a game played across the entire globe, from Argentina to Japan, from New Zealand to South Africa, from Australia to the Pacific Islands and Russia, and a little bit in Europe too.... Maybe you could add "history" after "rugby union" to make it clear that this is an historic feat.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * TBH, I don't think rugby's that popular in Argentina, Japan and Russia. Judging by the "order" of which the sports are listed in the sport in foo articles, rugby is the third most popular sport in Argentina (behind football and basketball) and fifth most popular sport in Japan (behind baseball, football, basketball and handball(!)). For some reason, I'm not trusting Sport in Russia in this one because basketball is first (haha). I'm betting the media from those countries don't give a crap on this, unless of course they want filler news on TV, newspapers and their websites. The reason this dude made this achievement is that too few countries play the sport, and the best teams in the sport play the most number of games, something which can't be done in sports such as football or even basketball and Davis Cup tennis, where there has to be that one player who plays until he's 50. – H T  D  18:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The point really is that this isn't an NBA record or an MLB record, it's an international record. But thanks for your analysis.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That was a bad analogy anyway as the two are "domestic" leagues and this one is an "international" record. The NBA and MLB monopolize the best talent from their sports, FIBA and the IBAF call each an "international league" and a "world league", respectively. For some reason, the NBA scoring record isn't as big as the home run record in the MLB, but those two records are the foremost in those two leagues. Now I dunno if one could consider "minutes" or "plate appearances", the best analogy to "most caps", as a laudable record in any of those leagues. Maybe you can blame culture on this one. For the NBA and MLB, playing many games isn't as important. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar holds the scoring and minutes played record, but I didn't know he also held the latter until today.
 * Just to be sure, the sports section of the website of Argentina's largest paper, has this pecking order in sports: football, basketball, tennis, auto sports, hockey, "multi-sports" (others?), boxing, rugby...). Yomiuri Shinbun's pecking order is NPB, soccer, running(?), MLB, golf, sumo, 2014 Olympics...). There aren't subsection for the Russian version of the Pravda (haha). To say that any of these 3 countries care about this story is stretching it. – H  T  D  19:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure that pointing out how rugby is only the third most popular sport in Argentina leads to the conclusion that it is "not that popular". Baseball is the third most popular sport in the US, according to Wikipedia. Are we saying that means it's really not that big a deal over there? Formerip (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It depends, really. Baseball's and American football's seasons do overlap, but slightly. So they're not in "competition" with each other for much of the year. It also depends how big "the margin" is. For example, I'm, betting the margin between football and basketball in Argentina is as big as the margin between football and ice hockey in the U.S. In either case, it's a very safe bet rugby's not that popular in Argentina. – H T  D  19:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well that demonstrates your "knowledge" and "personal opinion" of world rugby! Thanks.  Time to stop digging yourself into a hole now.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll be awaiting your thoughts on the NBA and NHL this June! – H T  D  19:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * .. see Rugby union in Argentina? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you see the link I gave on an Argentinean newspaper? Rugby is listed so far to the right. What does that mean? Unless the newspaper either hates rugby, it means very few cares about rugby in Argentina. That's all there is to it.
 * I see. Is it rugby season in Argentina in March? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I dunno. But if it's like the sort of ESPN.com, they don't change the order every time a sport is "in season". So they should stay in that order all-year. So football's #1 even during the off-season. If you're basing it on page view stats, es:Rugby_Championship_2013 had 5901 views in September 2013; in the same month, when es:Campeonato FIBA Américas de 2013 was also being played, it got 92000 views. It's unfair though since Mexico, Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic and Argentina, Uruguay, Venezuela and Paraguay were the other Spanish-speaking countries that took part in the basketball championship, and I dunno how you can allocate how many views from Argentina it got when the top 4 teams are all Spanish-speaking. – H T  D  19:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (Think we may be straying a bit from home territory here). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. – H T  D  20:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Um, you say: "The reason this dude made this achievement is that too few countries play the sport..." what?!! If even only two countries played rugby union, there would still be a record number of international caps held by one of the players. And longevity is a notable feature for the players of many, many sports. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well of course there'd be a record even as long as there's competition. The record for football is held by an Egyptian dude called Ahmed Hassan; is his record of the utmost importance in international football? Maybe. Is he one of the greatest footballers of all time (which is ultimately the point of this nomination)? No. – H T  D  19:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wrong, and wrong. But never mind.  BOD is recognised as one of rugby union's best ever players.  Cheers, once again, for your analysis though.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the point. BOD is "one of rugby union's best ever players". Is Hassan "one of football's best ever players" a la Pele and Maradona? No. The reason why BOD reached so many games is that: 1.) too few teams play many matches in international rugby, 2) he plays on one of those teams that plays plenty of matches. – H T  D  19:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, just the right number of teams play international rugby (unlike international NHL and international NBA etc), and he plays at the top level where he gets the same chances as other top-level teams, i.e. the world cup, international tours, etc. Your argument is so weak it's almost Italian.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If he was Russian, and has exactly identical abilities as he has now, he would surely not break the record. Because the Russian team did not play enough matches. – H T  D  19:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * .. wow, not just a straw man but a Russian one? What's next ... phanton pumas? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You know what's criminal? Some of the players in es:Selección de rugby de Argentina, ru:Сборная России по регби AND ja:ラグビー日本代表 don't have articles! That's how popular rugby is in Argentina, Russia and Japan. Russian one's particularly red. – H T  D  20:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, just like the Uk-ranian one (allegedly). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, we tend to over-post various sports statistics, and this nom is a perfect example of the kind of stuff that does not belong in the ITN. As far as I am concerned, the same goes for the various baseball stats as well. Nsk92 (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Care to provide a handful of examples where ITN has "over=posted various sports statistics"? Just for the record.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment the blurb and the list should at least have a link to indicate what a test match is. As someone who does not follow rugby at all (and only learned cricket two years ago), I honestly had no idea what a test cap is, or what a test match is for that matter. It should be easily linked from both.  --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose in principal. O'Driscoll is a great player, no denying it, but I just don't think statistics like this are news-worthy enough for the front page. I know more-or-less it's just my "opinion" but in the grand scheme of things...--Somchai Sun (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose because of two reasons. First, it's simply a record in one of many sport categories. There are several dozens of similar stories in other sports that appear every year. Second, even if we assume that records in exceptional sport categories should go on the main page, this is definitely one of the worst examples to do so and one with no indication on the player's greatness. Records in categories such as most goals, points, titles, awards or whatsoever the success is measured by, at least, point out on something outstanding. This one says completely nothing even though the player might be one of the greatest in the sport. So, "strong oppose" because of these two reasons; it'd have gotten just "oppose" in case of the first reason only.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No evidence of wide news coverage of this. 331dot (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If this were notable enough at ITN, I'd expect it at a bare minimum to be a significant headline at BBC Sport and I see it barely mentioned.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The headline (with a picture of O'Driscoll) is "O'Driscoll stars but who makes Team of the Week?" But I suspect the BBC may be waiting until his last game next Saturday in Paris. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have removed the altblurb, because it is inaccurate. Firstly, unless I am very much mistaken, O'Driscoll is not going to be sitting around next weekend while Ireland are playing for the Six Nations title, so he has not retired yet and he will not retire with 140 caps. Secondly, he does not have 140 caps for Ireland - he has 132 caps for Ireland and 8 caps for the British and Irish Lions. Neljack (talk) 05:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was inaccurate. But we won't know if you're mistaken until next Saturday. He has announced his intended retirement and the game where he reached the record, last Saturday, was his last at the Aviva Stadium. His 132 caps for Ireland is also a record - only George Gregan has more at 139. Next is Ronan O'Gara with 130. An altblurb might still be useful. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose If I understand this correctly, this record is for the most appearances (not "wins" as the blurb states) in international rugby union games that have been classified as "test". That is to say it is not necessarily the most international appearances, just the most appearances that his team define as test matches.  The reason I oppose is not because I think this is a trivial feat, far from it (he has 140 more test appearances than I do), but because the record is rather...odd to define.  In plain terms (without using rugby terminology) it could be written as "at 140 matches Brian O'Driscoll has played more international matches that were defined as test matches by the team he was playing on.  He may or may not retire at this point."
 * The main reason I oppose is because the test status is defined by the team that he is playing on, making it an inconsistency variable in statistics. Also because as a "games played" statistic, the number isn't overwhelmingly larger than the next in the list (which was only set seven years ago), compared to something like Cal Ripkin Jr's consecutive game streak which is 500 more than the next in the list, and took 59 years to break (note I am not advocating for this sort of record to be included in ITN, and understand differences in games played per season and such, I am just giving an example).  Was the previous record something that was considered "unbreakable"? --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The phrase "winning a cap" is the idiom most commonly used in UK to describe a sportsman or woman who competes in a team for his or her country. Although originating in Test cricket, the term "test match" is generally used to mean an international match ( and it's rather hard to play for one's country unless it's against another country!) All sports vary, but I'd say that such a large number of appearances in international rugby is regarded, by most rugby followers, as quite a feat. One has to concede, however, that even a few minutes, or even seconds, of play counts as a cap (although to amass such a total like that would be a very unusual circumstance in itself). Martinevans123 (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Obscure record in an obscure sport. I had to look up what a "test cap" is and based on that and the discussion above, I'm not seeing sufficient significance. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "obscure sport"!? .. ever heard about Europe? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In most of Europe Rugby is in fact relatively obscure.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The preceding discussion comprises 3,000 words — 200 more than the Brian O'Driscoll article. Sca (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Is that a record? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Would that were so. Alas, pop culture stars generate even more verbiage. Sca (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - today he's got another cap (his last), Ireland won the Six Nations championship, and he has really retired. Probably a lot more press coverage tomorrow. Just sayin'. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370

 * Premature. This needs to develop a little more before we consider posting it; it is potentially very notable, though. 331dot (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait until confirmation of a severe accident. --M ASEM (t) 01:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * support went missing several hours ago, most serious aviation loss of the year so far. The Rambling Man (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per TRM. Missing aircraft with 239 people is very serious/notable... Connormah (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - The plane has gone missing with 239 people on board.— Chris! c / t 04:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - 239 people missing in aviation is definitely ITN-worthy. As others have said, the plane went missing just a few hours ago. I don't mind if we hold back until we know all the details. Mz7 (talk) 04:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait for the details to emerge. We usually wait until some kind of resolution, or at least clarity, to most stories ("we aren't a news ticker" as people say) and should do so here as well. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait - Agree with ThaddeusB. Jus  da  fax   05:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The Vietnamese Navy confirmed that they lost contact with the aircraft in the Gulf of Thailand, so I updated the hook. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've read reports that counter this statement. --M ASEM (t) 06:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Can we just post this saying it's lost at this point? μηδείς (talk) 06:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's probably the safer way to go until multiple news reports are consistent if we were to post before that becomes the case. Connormah (talk) 06:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is going to be ITN regardless of the state of the plane when found, but I agree saying "Flight 370 is lost" is the most concrete thing we can say ATM. --M ASEM (t) 06:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Add atlblurb ii, Support, mark ready, no opposition to altblurb one if confirmed. μηδείς (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The only downside with putting the Gulf of Thailand part is that any map of this puts it right on the line between where the Gulf ends and where the South China Sea begins, so maybe we should just say "south of Vietnam" or something like that, even though it tells the reader nothing. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but I live south of Vietnam, in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say "meh" if it wouldn't get me in trouble. Some Admin should shake off his cojones (or tetas) and post this under whatever blurb le guste'. μηδείς (talk) 06:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and fixed the location, so that we don't put up the wrong place. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  07:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like a big and sad news, but it's still unconfirmed, according to CNN. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Blurb tweaked accordingly. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Good tweak, we can update later when facts are clearer. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the modification is fine, but for the record, at that time, many sources were saying it had definitely crashed (perhaps based on the Vietnamese Navy's report), and our article reflected that. --  tariq abjotu  17:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. It was a good post. The situation changes rapidly. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 22:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - Just for the record. Highly notable plane crash in terms of victims.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. CNN is now reporting that a liquid sheen and rubbish have been sighted in the ocean in Vietnamese/Malaysian waters. 331dot (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * AP: Vietnamese Air Force spots two large oil slicks off the southern tip of Vietnam. Sca (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This would probably be a worthy repost when the plane is finally found, in the event that the current blurb has fallen off before then. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 Winter Paralympics
Nom  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 20:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This seems to have been added to ITNR in 2010 as a result of the nomination of the Vancouver Games here. 331dot (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - All other recent Paralympics have separate articles for the opening ceremonies. This one will have one shortly (it had one but was just deleted as being created by banned used.)  That should be bold link, as it is the best place for an extensive update.  (The main article is also not updated at this time.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2014 Winter Paralympics opening ceremony is updated. Unless there are quality objections, I believe it is ready for posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support the alt blurb, the article (2014 Winter Paralympics opening ceremony) is of sufficient quality, at least in my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - notable sporting event. article is up to standard.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose by comparison this is way less notable than the regular games, and comes waay to close after them (they just got pushed out of ITN). Having only the closing ceremony would suffice (since I don't see how is this event more notable than say the World Athletics Championships which gets only 1 nod). Nergaal (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is ITNR; if you believe it should not be(or that the closing should be and not the opening), please propose its removal. I would disagree that it is "way less" notable; it has been called the second largest international sporting event (behind only the Olympics). 331dot (talk) 12:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nergaal (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what the Winter Paralympic Games article states(The Games have expanded and grown to be (along with the Summer Games) part of the largest international sporting event after the Olympic Games.). 331dot (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Without providing a reference. Nergaal (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want a reference, you'll need to take that up with the editors of the article, but on its face an event with hundreds of athletes from 45 nations in several sports would have some level of notability, and I don't know any other multi-sport events which have a similar level of participation and recognition. I again submit that if you don't feel this should be ITNR, propose its removal; until then it should be posted once adequately updated. 331dot (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The IPC makes that claim about themselves; as well as at least one editorial writer, and the United Nations. 331dot (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb. Paralympics are notable too. Jón  - ( Talk ) 12:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Can we also have the Chronological summary of the 2014 Winter Paralympics linked on the main page, as per the 2014 Winter Olympics summary?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Germain Katanga convicted by ICC
Nom. --bender235 (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. The nominator did not give an explanation, but I think war crimes convictions by the ICC are noteworthy(and this is only the second one). 331dot (talk) 10:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Tentative support, pending an update. The blurb should mention that it related to DRC. --Tone 10:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * support came here to nominate it and there is precedence on this as we posted (forgethisname) from the ICTYLihaas (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Blurb and nom assume we all know who this is, they shouldn't. μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support There's currently no update, but I'll see what I can do. Neljack (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose even the article for FRPI is a stub. This comes across with all the earnestness of a Monty Python sketch and all the information of an off the cuff speech by GHWB.  We need better articles, and a blurb that doesn't assume readers are all aficionados of Belgian sub-Saharan Africa. μηδείς (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've suggested an alt blurb. 331dot (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent improvement to the blurb, but strangely there's not a single update to the article. μηδείς (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support when updated.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless I am very confused, it hasn't been updated since St. Patrick's day a year ago. μηδείς (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly and your point being?--BabbaQ (talk) 12:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Updated, good job. Posting now. --Tone 11:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Frank Jobe [RD]

 * Updater's comment: Aside from his medical accomplishments, he was also a WWII POW for a brief time and was a decorated veteran.  Wylie pedia  15:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose His accomplishments, while admirable, are niche and I can see no evidence that he was "very important in his field" in surgery/medicine. --Somchai Sun (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * He pioneered major techniques in sports medicine, making him very important in that field. Also, anyone in academia would be jealous of someone who "authored over 140 medical publications and 30 book chapters and edited a total of seven books. He received three Honorary Doctorate Awards, two from the United States and one from Japan" – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support pioneer in sports medicine, most important in his field Secret account 16:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support pioneer in his field. He has more than a dozen papers with over 200 citations and more than 2 dozen with over 100. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Odd sort of nomination for us, but definitely top of his field. No doubt there'd be strong support if they called it the "Frank Jobe" instead of the "Tommy John".  Highly influential in extending the live of professional players, rahet than having them put out to pasture. μηδείς (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. As Medeis said, an odd nomination, but he was clearly a major pioneer (and thus very important) in his field. 331dot (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Surely notable, but I find it to be a bit US centric. No global coverage found. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hence why it was posted to RD and not as a blurb. &mdash; <span style="color:#666 !important;">TORTOISE  WRATH  17:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * From the instructions at the top of the page "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." -- Jayron  32  11:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

New coral reef

 * I'm sorry, but you have provided only primary sources; people hyping their own discovery. Where is the analysis in secondary sources or any interest shown by the news media? Abductive  (reasoning) 02:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nature paper is not a primary source in terms of WP:PRIMARY. Per In the news, "as with all Wikipedia articles, citations must be to reliable sources", which in this case is Nature. Besides, criteria do not mention "secondary sources", only "the quality of the updated content and the significance of the developments described in the updated content". Brandmeistertalk  08:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Nature is one of the most prestigious peer reviewed journals in the world, and is not self promotional or "people hyping their own discovery" at all.  Things published in Nature are generally some of the most significant and noteworthy current scientific research.  The notion that Nature is "people hyping their own discovery" shows a shocking lack of awareness of what Nature is.  -- Jayron  32  13:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So, I'm dumb for not knowing what Nature is? That seems unlikely. Perhaps there is some other source of hype to which I was referring. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Discovery News is covering it: but otherwise I don't see any news coverage. As a point of accuracy, the paper is published in Scientific Reports, a journal published by the Nature Publishing Group, not in Nature itself.  I do, however, object to peer reviewed papers being described as "people hyping their own discovery". --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Also seeing very limited news coverage of this, especially in mainstream news outlets. 331dot (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Crimean secession

 * Support In most cases, I would oppose something like this because I'd say wait for a final result. However, the current Crimean crisis rises above that in my view, and this is a worthy update to post. I would say it should replace Putin's authorization of force blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb. This seems like a significant enough development (if having limited practical effect) to warrant updating the blurb. 331dot (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support the first blurb. I agree with Muboshgu's rationale. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, but a question too This move highlights the complexity of the issues in the area, that it's not all about the evil Russians imposing their will on Ukrainians who all hate the Russians, as some western media seem to be presenting this whole story. But how much effect would/could a successful referendum have? HiLo48 (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The Ukrainian government has already rejected the legitimacy of the referendum, calling it unconstitutional(and has also called the local government illegitimate). Russia has said their aim is not to annex Crimea(though they could certainly change their mind given a successful referendum).  IMO this referendum amounts to nothing but a poll. 331dot (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Some considerations: 1) Self-determination is important. This may genuinely be the desire of a majority of Crimeans. 2) But the regional parliament that took this vote was not the product of free and fair elections; it came into being in a building surrounded by pro-Russian militia/troops. 3) I doubt the usual election overseers will be invited to attend this referendum. 4) The Crimean Tatars are especially wary of this - fewer in number than either Russians or Ukrainians in Crimea, they suffered badly last time Crimea was united to Russia. 5) But that wasn't that long ago; Crimea was part of Russia proper from the 18th century to the 1950s; this is hardly land that has always been essential to the Ukraine. 6) Either way, someone will have to move their Black Sea Fleet, we just don't know whose yet. 7) The Ukrainian Constitution specifically forbids unilateral independence votes; but if an oblast had voted to secede separately from the present crisis, would the western powers be hurrying to condemn that too? 8) Well, maybe, because of the self-interest factor. The UK government doesn't want to give encouragement to Scottish independence, nor Spain to the Catalans. 9) My word, it's complicated. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The thing is that such referendums should be decided by all Ukrainians, not just those those who reside in Crimea (particularly, since it's a matter of national interest). Those Crimean referendums may decide local matters, such as the size of transportation fees, not issues of such scale. The results may be potentially invalidated, but let's wait. Brandmeistertalk  16:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The EU has called the legality of the referendum into question as well. How this will all proceed, who knows. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough the Western nations don't seem to be rushing to condemn the ousting of President Yanukovych, which also appears to be contrary to the constitution. Neljack (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe the West's position is that Yanukovych abandoned his office by going to Russia and was also impeached(which many in his own party supported; it was not a close vote). 331dot (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that Article 111 of the Ukrainian Constitution requires a report by an investigatory commission and an opinion from the Constitutional Court before the President can be removed, I think I'm on fairly safe ground in saying that the purported impeachment was unconstitutional. And leaving the country is not a ground for removal from office under the Constitution. I don't like Yanukovych, but I'm just trying to reinforce the point (well made by Alex) that the situation is more complex that you'd believe from most of the Western media. We need to be careful that we don't end up adopting the Western narrative. Neljack (talk) 07:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Posted <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 16:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Can't say I oppose posting this one &mdash; this is a nation's territorial integrity we're talking about here. Kurtis (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Premature Do we plan on having this up for ten days, with an update that will then stay up a week? I think this should be pulled if there's any more salient news from Ukraine to replace it with, and reposted when it occurs. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support "Wait for the vote" isn't such a persuasive argument when the announcement of the referendum is exacerbating an international crisis. Neljack (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * comment would have nominated this too, but precedence indicated its only symbolic. the hypocrisy at ITN is getting tiresome though...Lihaas (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just saw the article and deBOLD the second article ASAP and please check the article before posting!!!Lihaas (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * On what grounds? -- Jayron  32  02:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There are a couple yellow/orange tags in the article on the referendum. At least one was added by Lihaas, but someone more familiar with what's happening should probably give it  a quick read through to check it.  Hot Stop talk-contribs 03:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * dITTO, AND the article is too small on updates to b e bolded (note- that doesn't mean it cant be linked;;)Lihaas (talk) 06:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Huh? I can understand an argument that it's not yet a good article, but it's tripled in size in the last two days.  The updates would appear to be substantial.  Dragons flight (talk) 07:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have removed the systematic bias tag. Neutrality disputes REQUIRE detailed talk page explanation and none was given (the reason being it is impossible to fix a supposed bias without knowing what one is objecting to).  A yellow tag (as in the background section) does not prohibit posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand why the bare links template is there (although it will take a Ukrainian or Russian speaker to fix that one), but I don't see how the "Background" section violates the layout guidelines. Smurrayinchester 08:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Shame My sympathies here are solely with the Ukrainians. But this is still premature based on ITN grounds.  Posting it now means either the listing will go off the ticker before the plebiscite occurs, or the listing will be up for 17 days.  We really should have a sticky and should only be posting actual current events like Putin's declaration today he will use humans shields, not things forecast for ten days off. μηδείς (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] 2014 DX110

 * Oppose - Nobody will remember this a couple months from now. Being the most notable anything in the first two months of a year isn't impressive in the grand scheme of things. &mdash; <span style="color:#666 !important;">TORTOISE  WRATH  02:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Routine event per List of asteroid close approaches to Earth in 2013, 2012, 2011. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Kheider, thank you for stopping by ITN. While this particular nomination does not appear likely to pass, I do hope you stop by again the next time you see something interesting in the news. We definitely would benefit from more participation.--ThaddeusB (talk) 04:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It is my first nomination. I should have nominated Comet ISON, C/2013 A1, C/2013 R1, 2013 TV135, or 2011 AG5 when they were hot off the press, but I had never really considered nominating anything for "In the news". Twice recently, people have nominated my asteroid articles for "Did you know?" so I thought I would give a current event a shot. I will try back when I have a larger asteroid closer to ~100 meters in diameter pass inside the orbit of the Moon. The problem with small asteroids is that they are often not even detected until after closest approach which can make it somewhat anti-climatic. -- Kheider (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This might be a good item for WP:DYK. Jehochman Talk 04:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there a general Wiki-link that gives a better idea when something should be nominated for "In the News" vs "Did you know"? (Just now noticed WP:In the news that states "articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest". So it is looking like DYK would be more appropriate for most asteroids / comets. -- Kheider (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yah, ITN is for "big stories" for lack of better phrase. We have posted a couple NEOs over the last few years - maybe 1-2 biggest per year on average, although size is obviously not the only factor - unusual in any way would have a chance.   DYK's requirements are, in short, 1500 bytes minimum & new or expanded 5x.  This particular article meets the requirements and I encourage you to nominate it there if it fails here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the useful feedback ThaddeusB. -- Kheider (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose 30 meters? That's even less than a foot acrost. μηδείς (talk) 05:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Your irony is not obvious enough or you should really stop expressing you opinions when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Nergaal (talk) 09:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ditto. -- Kheider (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Biggest chunk of rock in the past 66 days? Really?  -- Jayron  32  10:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Thanks for the nomination, but I cannot support it as this is not an uncommon event nor will it have any effects.  It isn't being characterized as a near-miss collision(which we haven't posted either). 331dot (talk) 12:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Australia-East Timor spying scandal

 * Comment - an explanation on why you feel this should be posted would be helpful. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is not a final judgment; it is a judgment on what is known as a "Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures". This means that the Court has not made any finding that Australia has breached international law. All it has found is that East Timor has asserted plausible rights at international law and that those rights could be prejudiced in the absence of Provisional Measures. Furthermore, the blurb is not an accurate reflection on what the Court has ordered. The relevant provisional measure reads: "Australia shall not interfere in any way in communications between Timor-Leste and its legal advisers in connection with the pending Arbitration under the Timor Sea Treaty of 20 May 2002 between Timor-Leste and Australia, with any future bilateral negotiations concerning maritime delimitation, or with any other related procedure between the two States, including the present case before the Court." That is only ordering Australia not to spy in relation to arbitral proceedings. Neljack (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Reading the news sources given, I agree with Neljack's explanation.  A final judgement in this case might be noteworthy. 331dot (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would normally delight in seeing an item about Australia, or Timor-Leste, but this is just another spying story. We seem to be in a very strange time in human history when a lot of people are amazed/shocked/horrified to discover that governments spy on people. I cannot understand why. Our article Espionage tells us that the ancient Egyptians spied on people, and they definitely weren't the first. It's been going on ever since, and will go on forever. Australia will try to get better at hiding its spying. It won't stop. There is no news here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment &mdash; Was this ruling issued following a kangaroo court? Kurtis (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Pithovirus

 * Support. Seems to be a notable scientific discovery, certainly something we don't see every day. 331dot (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Scientists revive 30,000 year old giant virus". No it's okay, I didn't need to sleep ever again anyway. Support for ITN though. GRAPPLE   X  03:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support This does seem rather remarkable - on two counts. I imagine this would be of considerable interest to our readers. I prefer the first blurb, as it also mentions how old the virus is - an important feature of the story. Neljack (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. I'd avoid using terms such as revived and resurrected, since viruses having a "life" is not something everyone agrees on. I think unearthing would be a better term and I'd support including how old the virus is.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  07:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support As a significant and interesting discovery. I agree with Mohamed CJ that "revived" may not be the best term (although the BBC are using it). A better explanation is that the virus is "still viable" (also supported by the BBC as a RS). Maybe the below? Pedro : Chat  12:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Scientists announce the discovery of viable specimens of the giant virus Pithovirus, within 30,000-year-old frozen tundra.
 * This sounds good, but misses the "largest virus ever" thing.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  12:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not weded to my alt blurb, of course. What I would say is that there's probably an editorial judgement as to which is the more significant (or intersting from a reader perspective) parts of the discovery - that the virus is viable, that it was found in 30,000 year old permaforst or that it's the biggest so far found. I'm not sure the blurb will take all three facts without being unwiedly. Pedro : Chat  12:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Receiving world wide news coverage.-GroveGuy (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose'. Discovery of large viruses seems to be too common to warrant posting every time it happens. It's only a few months since we posted the last "biggest ever virus". Moreover, the sources seem confused as to whether it actually is a record-breaker. Nature (admittedly, the most likely to be correct) says it is, NYT says it isn't, National Geographic says it is in a dead heat with all other "giant viruses", AusBC doesn't mention any record. None of the stories focus very much on the virus' size, which suggests to me that the record, even if there is one, isn't important enough to record on ITN. Formerip (talk) 12:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * NYT does say largest: "Measuring 1.5 micrometers long, the viruses are 25 percent bigger than any virus previously found". Nat Geo does as well (indirectly): "measuring 1.5 microns in length and 0.5 microns in diameter. The pandoraviruses, the largest viruses previously discovered, ..., measure 1 micron in length and 0.5 in diameter." There is also the completely unique angle to consider - the size is only one aspect of the find's iomportance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * NYT seems to have been amended since I looked at it, and National Geo is actually talking about giant viruses in general, rather than this specific virus (actually, it's probably a garbled regurgitation of the press release, but whatever). The point is that the stories don't seem to be very clear about or devote much attention to the size. So this is certainly not headline news as a "big virus", per se.


 * Most scientific discoveries are unique in their own way. But, in this case, if the size is not such a big deal, what else is left? It is by no means a break-through to recover an ancient virus from permafrost. Perhaps this is an unusually old example, but the sources don't tell us. And, although it sounds like it is an interesting virus if you are interested in viruses, that ought not to be enough for ITN.


 * Overall, a really good illustration of how weird and polarized (pardon the pun) the effective criteria for ITN have become. In general, we have developed an incredibly high bar so that we can go for days on end without posting anything. But, at the same time, virtually anything that happens in the world of science and technology will garner a string of more-or-less blind support votes. Formerip (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstood what I was saying re:uniqueness. 65% of this particular virus' genetic code is unlike that of any other virus.  That is quite astonishing and certainly not something that happens everyday.  (It's not supper relevant, but I also think you are mistaken about Nat Geo - pandoraviruses, of which there are precisely two varieties, are themselves giant viruses.  The article is saying Pithovirus is larger than the pandoviruses, the previously largest known variety of giant virus.)
 * In regards to ITN being too tough, the answer is to support more stories of the under-represented types, not to oppose more of the abundant types (and I don't really think science is over-represented. We average 1 science story a week or less.)  The last two proposed science stories were rejected, I believe, so certainly not every story is blindly supported.  Previously, it has been suggested that commentary by top-quality sources such as NYT is usually a good indication of importance for science stories. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Coverage in mainstream sources is a good sine qua non. If I may, I think it may be indicative of bias to suggest that the mere fact of a science story having been reported in the NYT makes it comparable to the Ukraine crisis or the Oscars. Nothing other than a science story would ever get support on that basis. Sadly, science stories often don't even need that. Formerip (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't intending the suggest NYT coverage was automatically sufficient for posting, just pointing out that it was previously cited as a good idication of whether a science story was worthy of posting or not when the topic of how to decide came up previously. If the criteria was "equivilent to Ukraine crisis", we probably wouldn't post another story all year. Featuring two stories at the same time in no way implies they are equally big stories. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose The previous longest-ever was discovered only months ago . With better technology to retrieve and regenerate viruses, this seems like a record that will be frequently broken. Teemu08 (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How about Alt2: Scientists discover a viable Pithovirus specimen in 30,000-year-old frozen tundra, marking the largest giant virus yet found. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that gets the three "remarkable" facts in pretty concisely. I'd support that alt. Thank you ThaddeusB. Pedro : Chat  14:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * .  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  17:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron  32  18:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Forbes list of billionaires

 * Question, was not Gates on top of the list at some point before? --M ASEM (t) 20:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes - he last topped it in 2009, so it has been 5 years since the #1 spot changed hands. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd have to oppose this on the fact that he's been there before, in addition to the below statements that this is a nice factoid but not really news. --M ASEM (t) 21:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose the altblurb would be perfect for a DYK. But it is statistically to be expected that white Western males will come to make up less of the list proprtionally.  We are looking at status quo with Gates and an expected trend with women. μηδείς (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * False, Gates has not been #1 for 5 years. A change in #1 is quite rare. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, technically false if you assume I and other readers didn't understand what you said, and didn't read the implied "(return to the) status quo" in what I said. You have to understand there is and has to be an economy of space and effort here. One can't write with every caveat and codicil like a legal document in three pt type.  μηδείς (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose factoid, best for DYK. Not ITN in any shape.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We post many other kinds of annual bests (best movie, best sports team), including lists that are somewhat predictable and always increasing (fastest computer). It would be helpful to state why a chance in greatest wealth is "not ITN in any shape" while a change in fastest computer, for example, is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly, DYK is your best bet, it's a factoid, nothing more. We have "best movie" as ITN/R (if you mean Oscars) and "best sports team" if you mean FIFA World Cup winner etc, but richest people, what is the relevance? Forbes cares, but the rest of the world?  Nothing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just because you don't care, doesn't mean nobody cares. The many hundreds of RS covering it obviously care.  List always gets lots of social buzz (is a topic of conversation) too. Again, what is inheriently different between "new fastest computer" (which has been posted multiple times) and "new richest person"? --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't say "I" didn't care. Re-read, and good luck with your nomination!  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * DYK is your worst bet, since the article doesn't meet any of the inclusion criteria. GRAPPLE   X  21:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said, "I will work on the article this evening - it is not fit for posting at current." --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a shame. Maybe "stub of the week"? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Current prose size is small enough that it could be worked to a DYK entry but it would require, within five days of the initial update, to be expanded to five times its prior length. It's doable, but it's probably more realistic to shoot for FL over a longer working period than to try rushing extra prose into it for what would be a lesser result. GRAPPLE   X  21:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall it was removed from FL a few years ago as being simply trivial (e.g. List of billionaires (2007)). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose We should post more business stories, but ones that actually have real effects, rather than the publication of a list of rich people that changes nothing. Neljack (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose both blurbs. No practical effect; just a list of names. This is different than posting the winner of a sporting event or awards ceremony; there is no contest involved and no agency is awarding a prize or trophy here. 331dot (talk) 03:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb Relevant and newsworthy on a global scale plus it and will provide some much needed diversity to ITN with coverage of a business-related topic. AgneCheese/Wine 05:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose rich people continuing to be rich is not news. While the record number of women on the list is a more interesting development, it is still just a list of people. --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Wikipedia is not a mirror. This article skirts being copyvio, and should never be given any prominence. I will oppose it being a DYK. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Islamabad court attack

 * Lihaas has chosen to disrupt this nomination by removing that article data and replacing the name with a redirect to a list. This is pointy and disruptive--the list does not contain entries with three prose paragraphs.  I am withholding comment on the nom itself, but if people oppose they should oppose the nomination here and if the want it deleted they should tag the article for deletion. μηδείς (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note this is ITN, a tiny microcosm of Wikipedia. If an article becomes a redirect then that's nothing to do with ITN.  Should someone feel strongly enough to make an article or change an article to a redirect, that's nothing to do with the ITN process.  Comments regarding this kind of editing should be directed to relevant projects, relevant editors, but not form any part of the ITN process.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Russian invasion of Ukraine

 * Did they invade, or were they already based there? Sca (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The unmarked soldiers you mean? Or the Russian Army? The Russian Army has right to use certain bases and to transfer, they don't have right to go to the street, drive BMP's and walk around with their arms. The soldiers with no insignia but with Russian license plates and Russian Paratrooper food rations, well... no comment.Psubrat2000 (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - this is just POV rewording of the existing blurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per the OP's own reasoning. Any situation where the "Situation is changing rapidly" is not something we should be rushing to the main page.  I hate this particular trite cliché, but it applies here: ITN is not a news feed.  It is a place to highlight quality Wikipedia content about recent events.  This is WAY too fluid, and there's WAY too much "engaging in misinformation" (to use the OPs own words) for us to be certain one way or the other what is going on.  We've basically already posted everything we can reliably confirm at this point, and posting any more details, especially when we can't be certain of whether those details as reported by one side or the other, are accurate, would not be a good thing.  Best to be silent than wrong.  -- Jayron  32  15:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that it's POV. All three sentences are confirmed. Not saying this is Russian army, just a Russian speaking invader, which is confirmed by the sources. Russia does concentrate forces, no secret there. Ukraine did order general mobilization. UN Security Council met several times in the last days and many countries are considering their options. And yes it's to update the existing blurb, which could use rewording and updating, much has happened since the last update.Psubrat2000 (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. We might not want to update this just yet(as others stated) but Russia just issued an ultimatum for Ukranian forces in Crimea to surrender by 5 AM Tuesday.  We may want to wait and see what happens with that first. 331dot (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ultimatum reported elsewhere, too. It seems unlikely that we'll be able to keep up with events. Sca (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I reworded the blurb to include the above remarks. I agree that it is our duty to report only the confirmed events. That's why I worded my blurb carefully. Whoever the aggressive side is, they do want the truth to die (as the saying with war goes). We are now becoming stalled by this and stuck with the poorly constructed "parliament" blurb. Let's keep this updated to the point that we can. I'm not trying to present any POV, really. We can put the ultimatum there. Please, analyze the wording and the sources.Psubrat2000 (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Update suggested — Crimean Parliament votes for southern Ukraine to become part of Russia.   Sca (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Academy Awards

 * Support post right away.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support and nice to see Gravity winning. Brandmeistertalk  14:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support article in good nick. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted. Update looks sufficient, no problems with article, ITNR.  Easy post.  -- Jayron  32  14:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 12 Years a Slave currently redirects to Twelve Years a Slave, not to the intended 12 Years a Slave (film). Brandmeistertalk  15:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * as you were typing. :-)  —David Levy 15:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Maximum break in snooker record

 * Oppose The news article doesn't mention this and the article states that Hendry has 10 maximums, and O'Sullivan now has 12, so this record was broken some time ago. Meanwhile, in the Ukraine...  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 20:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Umh, read the article again. Hendry has 10 televised ones. Nergaal (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 *  Oppose Neutral I love Ronnie and I love snooker, but 147s aren't quite what they used to be, I remember The Grinder getting his, and James Wattana his emotional one, and Ronnie getting one in less time than it takes to get a Big Mac, but it's not really that big a deal any more. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but Ronnie will not be passed anytime soon, for sure. Plus, it was the winning frame in the final of the tournament. Nergaal (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support According to maximum break, this break breaks the world record of maximum breaks. So give me a break, are you actually opposing posting this maximum break? It's a lucky break this got nominated: we rarely post snooker, so why not break a bad habit, and post this breaking of record of maximum breaks? The guy has had to break his neck to get his far, anyway. --hydrox (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would consider support if someone can show that RS care about this being a career record. I did a search and while I would plenty of sources documenting the maximum break and a few mentioning it was his 12th, I didn't see any pointing out it was a career record.  That would suggest to me that it is not a record very many people consider important.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Check this google news thread. Nergaal (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 'Not Updated a new prose paragraph is part of the update requirement, not a sentence and a few random additions. This comes no where close. μηδείς (talk) 04:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If Usain were to break the 100m record, would you expect more than a sentence update? Nergaal (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm, a house-hold name beating an increasingly more difficult landmark, or some guy doing something hundreds of people have achieved in a minority pub-based "sport"? What do you reckon?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You clearly have no idea what you are talking about if you call snooker a pub-based "sport". For your knowledge, you should compare List of snooker millionaires with tennis to have a better idea what you are talking about. Nergaal (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Nutlugs was simply suggesting that comparing Ronnie scoring yet another televised 147 with being the fastest man in the history of the universe was a weak analogy. I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong mind you.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Not even in the above the fold of the BBC Sport website, at least in my version and monitor, unlike a certain event which was the only specific Olympic event above the fold on that day... – H T  D  07:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support .. must have missed this while taking a nap. I'll take my cue from Nergaal and tip this for the front page. The sport isn't often in the frame for news, so get this one chalked up, groan. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. On the BBC TV news item about this yesterday, the fact that a new record had been set was mentioned only in passing, and the reporter seemed to think that O'Sullivan finishing the match with a left-handed shot was much more significant. Formerip (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It may be a point of trivia that Ronnie finished left-handed, but he can play almost as well left-handed as he does right, I agree this is still receiving some coverage, but it's still unlikely to pass the threshold required around these parts. I've struck my oppose, and currently stick with neutral.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * .. we need an extension, you're in Lugnut's pocket Rambler, I'd baulk at that argument, etc., etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose the sport is niche and not internationally newsworthy --Tocino 01:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] RD: Alain Resnais

 * Support. Looking at his awards and work, he seems to be important in his field. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 *  Weak Support certainly a director with a substantial body of work and the odd award. Needs some better referencing on the filmography section, particularly for those films without articles.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Award winning director.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Key person of the French New Wave and has a lengthy career.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Hiroshima mon amour is sufficient on its own. As we speak, they'll be hurriedly re-editing the "let's hear it for the dead" segment for the Oscars ceremony. Formerip (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support – Among the key people involved in the new wave movement, appeared in 50+ films. —Soham (talk) 13:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 15:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Kunming station massacre

 * Support. Significant mass murder and casualties, being characterized as a terrorist attack. 331dot (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - When an article is created. Definitely notable for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support pending an adequate article.  Hot Stop   21:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have created a small stub. So we got the article going.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that an article had existed for several hours before your created and was linked from the portal. I know because I considered nominating it before but ultimately couldn't be bothered given the stubby article (and the fact I wasn't interested in working on it). A timely reminder to check the portal before creating new articles IMO.
 * The older article seems to have been redirected to the new article which is fine but I hope no content was taken from the older article to the newer article. As if this did happen, it doesn't seem to have been properly noted in the edit log of the destination article (in this case the newer article) which only mentions merging a ref and nothing about where it came from (which is fine if it's just a bare ref). And it doesn't seem to have been noted anywhere else like the talk page or older article/source page history (which just says redirect nothing but about a merge) either. And from what I can tell, no history merger was requested.
 * So if any content was copied between articles sufficient to be copyrightable which I'm hoping didn't happen, we have a likely copyvio which should be fixed before the article goes on the main page. I could do it myself but I have no idea what, if anything, was copied from where and it's annoying to compare edit histories on an iPad. And I barely visit ITNC nowadays so I don't really know what's the norm here (I would presume a historymerge). I'm guessing this sort of thing still happens all the time (duplicate articles I mean, hopefully not copyvios) as I appreciate it can be hard to find the associated article when it isn't in the portal (hopefully the new search engine and its faster indexing will help here) so hopefully there's an established procedure.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to be opposing the nom, shouldn't these rather long comments go at the relevant article talk page or WP:AN? μηδείς (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Plus, there are seveal redirects. Please link to the earlier article so we can compare, assuming this comment stands. μηδείς (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A cross post to the article talk page would be fine but I'm not sure if it's necessary as those involved seem to be posting here. As I already said, we need to fix any such issues if they exist, before this goes on the main page so this is definitely an ITNC issue. This isn't a ANI issue unless a historymerge is requested. And as I now made clear, I have no idea what the norm is here (I'm assuming it isn't to ignore the CC attribution requirements). If that's the norm even if content wasn't moved, you should go ahead and request one. Part of the point of me noting it here was to draw the attentions of regulars here who should know what to do since as I mentioned I'm guessing these sort of duplicate articles still happen quite often.
 * A redirect doesn't help anything if it wasn't noted in the source that content was being copied. In any case, as the guideline I linked to makes clear, it's much more important that the destination article (i.e. where the content was copied or moved to) has the info in the edit log as people that's where people will be checking to see the history and so would expect to find the information about contributors. Which if CC content is copied or moved would need to include those from the source page hence why a link to the source page in the destination page is needed when such content is copied or moved (and something of that sort would likely be required by the CC licence anyway hence the copyvio).
 * 2014 Kunming attack is the article I'm talking about. Sorry for not linking it earlier, editing on an iPad is annoying for those sort of things. Although the article is still linked in the current portal as of about 10 minutes ago FWIW. I have no idea if there are other articles involved as it's possible more than two existed and as I said I'm not sure content was copied I'm simply wondering if it was because the older article seemed to be longer and then the new one suddenly did too around the time the older article was redirected.
 * And yeah sorry for not making this clearer (I was planning to edit my post but got an EC), I obviously support presuming the article is up to scratch (including copyvios if they exist being fixed).
 * Nil Einne (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * From what I can see the earlier article had no more information atleast than this one so no harm done.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support, but I would prefer "At least 27 people are killed in a mass stabbing at Kunming Railway Station in China", rather than "massacre". "Mass stabbing" is more informative (i.e. method of assault), and less emotional than "massacre".  I also note that neither the CNN or BBC references above use the word "massacre" (though the word is arguably correct).  Dragons flight (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Definitely a major event with a significantly high number of casualties. --Mz7 (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've posted this just one hour after the last update because we've been very slow the last few weeks and need fresh news. This very sad event is clearly satisfying the criteria, based on the comments above.  Jehochman Talk 03:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Pulled - I'm sorry but we should not be posting an 823 byte stub no matter how "very sad" the event is. It is the admin's job to assess the article quality before posting as very few people comment on that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In the future, when you decide to substitute your administrative judgement for mine, would you please try my talk page first? The article will be developed further quite naturally, but it already covers all the facts known.  That this is a mysterious event without much to report isn't a defect of Wikipedia.  It is the nature of the story. Jehochman Talk 04:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The criteria say, "In the case of a new, event-specific article, the traditional cut-off for what is enough has been around three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs. " I see three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs.  Somebody please repost this because doing so will improve the encyclopedia.   Jehochman Talk 04:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * (ec) This is a tiny stub, but it's also technically a three paragraph article as posted. I think we're maybe letting technicalities get in the way of serving the readership.  Are we to believe this article will not be improved once the sources improve? μηδείς (talk) 04:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Re-added. Agree with User:Jehochman and User:Medeis, and it does meet the minimum standards. —Lowellian (reply) 05:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Look again at the link I provided. The article (at that time, not when it was re-added) was in no way three full paragraphs.  Each "paragraph" was 1-3 (mostly short) sentences long.  We might as well not have any requirements whatsoever if someone can write ~4 full sentences, add a couple periods and a couple enters, and call it an "article".  Such would never fly in DYK (the weakest standards of any other MP content) and it shouldn't fly here either.  Posting in that state is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. (Also, I find it ironic to say "maybe letting technicalities get in the way" when the article was posted on a technicality, not because it was ready.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well there you go, we don't have "requirements", we have recommendations, in fact the precise wording at ITN is "the traditional cut-off for what is enough has been around three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs", and we rely on our competent admins to interpret those and act accordingly. All the bullshit claims of "update requirements" here, there and everywhere need to stop, right now.  We don't have admins just to count beans, we have admins to make intelligent assessments.  Perhaps some of them shouldn't be making assessments around here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ThaddeusB, there's nothing in there that says the paragraphs must be a particular number of sentences long. A "complete" paragraph can be one sentence long. Neljack (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Now you are just wiki-lawyering. As pointed out, it's a guideline to help admins know the bare minimum, not a rule to be blindly followed.  Common sense should tell everyone that a 800 byte micro-stub is not ready for posting, whether formulated as 1 paragraph or 3. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not at all, quite the opposite, that's what you're doing, and you've been called out for doing so. Sorry about that.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but judging an article by its quality - not "counting beans" as you put it - is precisely the opposite of wikilawyering, even if you disagree with the specific judgement. Neither you or anyone else has made any actual argument that the quality was sufficient - just lame "well it was technically 3 paragraphs" nonsense. Please show me even one other instance where such a bare bone article was posted - if I am really off base it shouldn't be hard to do. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You are excused, but please don't wheel war then moan about being called out next time round. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support notable based on facts known, technically qualified, well-supported. μηδείς (talk) 04:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (Post)Support Definitely an ITN item that's still developing, and appreciate the softening of the word "massacre" until that's better established. --M ASEM (t) 05:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Russian invasion of Ukraine
Support. Since the Russian takeovers of Crimean parliament and airports didn't make ITN, I hope at least this event does. --bender235 (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Wait At this moment Putin hasn't gave the order. Once he gives, I'll support. Btw, the same Federation Council also wants to recall the Russian ambassador from the US. The UN extraordinary session should open soon. Brandmeistertalk  18:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Suggestion'' The Russian parliament authorizes President Vladimir Putin to use force in Ukraine, while unidentified soldiers take control of several strategical points amid tensions in Crimea. This has to be posted as soon as possible, the fact that Russians don't admit aggression does not mean it is not already happening. Same thing happened to Poland in 1939. Hitler never admitted attacking until after he did and the Russians "came to liberate the ethnical minorites in the east of the country".87.202.14.58 (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait until somebody flinches. This is still one side loading the gun. Nergaal (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I ment the afore as an altblurb, not sure how to present it properly, anyway this just in. Baltic Fleet ships in Sevastopol Bay. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/01/us-ukraine-crisis-warships-idUSBREA200VA2014030187.202.14.58 (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Nothing could be more important now! The Russian troops are already in the Crimea. Olegwiki 20:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Comes close to a declaration of war against the new Ukrainian government, violates the Budapest Memorandum (binding US, UK, Russia to recognize Ukraine's souvereignty) - can turn out as a repeat of Georgia war or worse. Blurb might also mention call for mobilization by Klitschko and others...--Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support first blurb. I have been reluctant to support previous nominations due to lack anything concrete, but now this is pretty concrete. --hydrox (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support: Oh yes. Very important international event. -- Tito ☸ Dutta 20:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov and the deputy head of Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Georgi Karasin both said that the final decision is up to Putin and it has not been announced so far, this is just the Federation Council's point of view . And the talks to resolve the problem are ongoing. Brandmeistertalk  20:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support update to current Ukrainian ITN blurb. Don't support a new blurb or a "invasion only" blurb. --Tóraí (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support update to the current ITN using the first blurb in the nomination above. Nsk92 (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I was prepared to post, but the article has a giant organe tag at the top. That shoudl really be addressed first. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - While we don't know if they are officially Russian troops - unidentified Russian speaking soldiers taking control over airports and government buildings and raising the Russian flag, somewhat contradictory reports over whether the Russian troops are been involved, if it is "in accordance with the agreement on the Naval Base" as the Russ. amb. to the UN has said, and if they were called in by the PM of Crimea, and if has the legitimacy to do that, and how did he become PM anyway -- all that needs to be sorted out, but the world is watching. It needs to be on the top of the list.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose on the mere "approval" to invade. Rubber stamp parliaments do what former KGB heads tell them.  Support if this comes to violent action.  I agree with the "update" only opinion of Torai, I just don't think an announcement justifies that yet.  μηδείς (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, this is the fourth live nom on the Ukraine we have, with the bumped story still lying second on the ticker. μηδείς (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - definitely an escalation.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Major news.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Clarity needed — Both regarding situation in Crimea & Ukraine, and right here on this page. As noted above, we have multiple nominations for this topic; we should settle on one. Second, authorizing use of forces does not by itself constitute an "invasion."
 * Allow me to repeat what I said 10 hours ago at Ukraine update:Crimea below:
 * Putin on Sat. "asked" the Duma to OK the "use" of Russian forces in Ukraine "until the normalization of the political situation in the country" — a phrase that has an eerily Soviet ring, IMO.  English-language Kyiv Post went so far as to state that Putin was now "set to invade Ukraine."  Sca (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Sca (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Footnote: Obama "calls on Russia to de-escalate tensions by withdrawing its forces back to [their] bases in Crimea...." (AFP) Sca (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Posted (updated Ukraine item) per concensus with the following wording: "Following civil unrest that led to Oleksandr Turchynov (pictured) becoming acting President of Ukraine, the Russian parliament authorizes President Vladimir Putin to use force amidst tensions in Crimea." I am certainly open to alternate wording suggestions, but it seems pretty clear people want this posted and moving forward seemed to be the most probable way of working out any wording issues quickly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That works for now. TNX. Sca (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you make it clear in the blurb that Crimea is outside of Russia? The current blurb suggests it's an internal Russian matter, also to refer to the Ukrainian Forces being put on high battle alert? My suggestion: Amid tensions in Crimea, the Russian parliament authorizes President Vladimir Putin (pictured) to invade, Ukraine puts its forces on high battle alert.87.202.14.58 (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that people unfamiliar with the geography of the area might well think that the Crimea was part of Russia and that this was a response to internal civil unrest. I believe the original blurb posted by ThaddeusB did make clear that this relates to the Ukraine, but David Levy removed this part of the blurb. Also it seems that it was the Federation Council (the upper house of the Russian parliament), not the parliament as a whole, that authorised this, so the blurb should be altered to reflect that too. Neljack (talk) 08:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ukraine was mentioned in the above formulation, but not in a context that indicated Crimea's location. I've modified the blurb to explicitly state that Crimea is in Ukraine.  I've also switched from "Russian parliament" to "Federation Council of Russia".  —David Levy 12:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: Ukraine "mobilizes," decries Russian "declaration of war."  Sca (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I really think the blurb needs to be rewritten once more. The blurb makes it sound like the Parliament is letting Putin himself invade Ukraine, and while I enjoy a shirtless Putin joke as much as the next guy I think it should be made clear that he has been allowed to use military means to ensure Russian interests in the region. Right now, it seems like the blurb is cut off. -- Plasma Twa  2  15:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: the current ITN notice is probably the least precise blurb ever. So Putin is authorized to "use force"? What does that mean? Where does he intend to use it? And when? Did he already? This blurb is obviously crap. Can't we use something like "As Pro-Russian militia took over Crimean parliament and airports etc., Vladimir Putin sends additional troops to Black Sea Fleet naval stations."? That is precise, and correct. --bender235 (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Haven't yet seen any reports of actual fighting between Russian & Ukrainian troops. Ukraine's "mobilization" (whatever that means in the 21st century) thus seems to be the most recent concrete development upon which an update could focus. Sca (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It means they're sending draft notices to every male citizen fit to fight, which they started doing yesterday evening. They have a standing army of around 159000, 1 million in reserve and over 7 million possible manpower. Ukrainians are Cossacks you know, whenever you see "Red Army Dances" it's really Ukrainian Dance.Psubrat2000 (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC) a.k.a. 87.202.14.58
 * I'd take Psubrat to tak for the racist remark, but he's been blocked, which is even better. μηδείς (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Update suggested — Crimean Parliament votes for southern Ukraine to become part of Russia.   Sca (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

NASA confirms 715 new exoplanets

 * Support, huge growth in numbers. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No until someone fixes that Outdated issue. An article at the "In the news" section with a "this article is outdated" warning will be a bad thing. Tito ☸ Dutta 20:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither article has such a tag. Nergaal (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. We're already past our annual quota for nominations to do with exoplanets. Formerip (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How's that? 331dot (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. Widely covered announcement of a large discovery. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is just a running tally, not anything theoretically challenging or the report of any notable outlying fact like the biggest/smallest/furthest/first with an O2 atmosphere... μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read any of the papers? They refer to a new statistical method of confirming among the 3k+ candidates they had. Plus 4 of these are in the habitable zone. But both of these are TMI for an ITN blurb. Nergaal (talk) 09:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That doesn't contradict anything I just said, Nergaal. Be more interested in whether an O2 atmosphere will be found within my lifetime. μηδείς (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose: There's a tendency for anything scientific to be posted almost automatic and this is hardly revolutionary. Brigade Piron (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)