Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/May 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.

[Closed] Gangnam Style

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


 * Oppose It was "news" too when it was the first to pass 1 billion views. Arbitrary mark for all purposes. --M ASEM (t) 17:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also to add that YT viewcounts are one of those things that can be greatly inflated via social drives (eg reddit, etc.) so this is really an artificial number. --M ASEM (t) 17:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem.--98.180.53.48 (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Mild oppose it's certainly in the news, and while I'm loathe to confess that three of those two billion hits were mine (my son likes the funky beat), I have to side with Masem, it's too arbitrary. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Not all news has to be "serious" so to speak. And 2 billion views for the first time is notable in this time of social media etc..--BabbaQ (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, when the video passed 1B views (it being the first one to do so, too), it was also reported news. It was also then the fastest growth of such a video, beating other other longer-lived videos to the 1B mark. But we didn't post it then, and the 2B mark is rather pie-in-the-sky compared to that. This is, unfortunately, what I think DYK should be able to take (it's a great "interesting fact" to guide people to respective articles), but the updating aspect would completely fail to make DYK's requirements. I really wish there was a midpoint between the "interesting"-ness of DYK and the "current event" approach of ITN for things not pressing but still showcasing good article content (eg, the Gangnam Style article is rather impressive to start). --M ASEM (t) 00:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak support - Though it brings me good memories, I agree too with Masem that numbers may be inflated. However, the closest video to Gangnam Style is Bieber's Baby, with litle more of 1 billion views. Gangnam has still a lot of views. (What if you count parodies? Gangnam Style may even be the most popular song of all time) Küñall (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - big news coverage - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  19:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is news for Youtube, but not the rest of the world. View counts are not the best way to judge a song as it does not indicate sales, airplay or live performances. Nathan121212 (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Consensus in previous discussions of the price of gold, stock markets and so forth has always been that these sort of numeral milestones can't be articles of their own, let alone ITN material. By my personal measure of ITN-worthiness—"could a documentary be made on this?"—this event utterly fails. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. AlexTiefling (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose trivia of the highest order.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per reasons given; I agree view counts are not the best indicator of notability. 331dot (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak support - news regarding a video with 2 billion views is a better news item to add than a cult with ONLY 3 million followers..--Stemoc (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Stemoc referring to that religion as a "cult" is just offensive and I request that you stop doing so on this page. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That figure further only means that it has been viewed 2 billion times not that 2 billion people have viewed it. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * its to apply that what we regard as the 'standard' for the ITN section has now been reduced so something such as this is a 'pass' in my books and yes its 2 billion views, we can honestly say that it was viewed by a 100m people, at the very least...--Stemoc (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't care why you are calling it that; you can make your argument without being offensive. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And as pointed out, views can be inflated. As is also noted, we posted when it passed 1 bn views. Will we post each time it passes another billion? There are more important things to post at present, election season for one. Thanks,  Mat  ty  .  007  12:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree Matty, but if you look at the current ITN, all but one actually belongs there..we are supposed to select based on 'newsworthiness', not emotions, I bet a google search for gagnam would have more bigger results than for a syrian church..had it been some other time, i would have opposed this but since we only select based on what certain groups of people deem newsworthy adn not what actually is, this will get my support..--Stemoc (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ITN is not the same as a news ticker. We select candidates based on importance to the global WP audience and the quality of the articles that they refer to, and make no attempt to try to "balance" the stories in the box. In the sense of importance of GS passing 2B views, that's a matter of trivial nature even though the "story" is being widely covered. There's nothing special about 2B views, compared to when it was the first to pass 1B views too. --M ASEM  (t) 13:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * By definition, newsworthy is relative to someone's opinion. Arguing against an item on the main page is more for errors, and seems more of an other stuff is happening argument rather than arguing for this one. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  13:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Guys, its not that it's a trivial topic, it's that it's an open-ended, arbitrary numerical milestone. It's not like a prize. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd call it trainspotting but same result, not really ITN material :) --M ASEM (t) 23:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear, it was not posted at 1 billion views (and probably not nominated). Had it been, I wouldn't have nominated 2 billion views. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry, I misunderstood. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  15:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * What the Fox Say? μηδείς (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - meaningless trivia. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose: More like a page 3 news. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 04:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support for ongoing ticker - "Ongoing: Ukrainian conflict – Balkan flooding – Gangnam Style (2,003,593,113 views)". If an arbitrary 2 billion hits is notable, then each additional hit is even more notable. ToBk (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


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

[Posted] U.S. soldier freed by Taliban

 * I dunno, it seems that ITN doesn't posts prisoner exchanges. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is unusual in that it's the first result of U.S.-Taliban negotiations, which have gone on sporadically for several years. Sca (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Most of the media is treating this like a human-interest story, and this nomination feels similarly US-centric. I agree the negotiations and exchange are notable. It could work if reframed as something like "The United States and Taliban exchange prisoners after negotiations..." (the Taliban five being theirs). But I don't know if that's even notable, given the small number of prisoners involved. ToBk (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. I support the nomination; this is a notable event.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support story with some variation of ToBk's alternate blurb. Maybe "The United States secures the release of prisoner of war Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for the Taliban five" or something like that... -- Jayron  32  04:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * On June 2, NYT began its second-cycle story thus: "The freeing of five senior Taliban figures in exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl has offered both a rare insight into the insurgent group's inner workings, and a ... diplomatic first in the long Afghan war: a negotiated agreement between the highest levels of the U.S. government and the pinnacle of the Taliban command." (My emphasis.) This is a significant event. Sca (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Is this the first time the US government has conceded and made a deal with a terrorist organisation? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember reading something like that Sunday, but I'm not sure.
 * I do know Bergdahl was the only U.S. prisoner held by the Taliban et al. in, or as a result of, Afghanistan. Sca (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It definitely contradicts their policy here. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  16:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes it does, and it seems likely to be an issue in Washington. See "Debate stirs over US-Taliban captive swap." Sca (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be tempted to support if it was told in that manner, not so matter-of-factly, i.e. "US government make deal with Taliban in prisoner exchange" (along those lines) as for me, the news story, the only news, is the complete hypocrisy of the US government here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * See new altblurb above. Sca (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support although even the revised blurb probably still needs tightening. The relevant issues are the prisoner exchange, the two sides and the conflict, and a Bergdahl name check.  Things like durations of imprisonments and where they were held are fluff that the reader can determine on click through. 3142 (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, see above ... although five years is a long time to be held prisoner by the likes of the Taliban. Sca (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Altblurb or Jayron's blurb per Sca and Jayron Smurrayinchester 14:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I would support assuming the blurb makes it clear that the US government made a deal with a terrorist organisation in order to free a man who is now suspected of being a deserter. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not ITN's job to take sides in a political debate. -- Jayron  32  22:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not taking anyone's side, but from what I've read & viewed/heard, it's not known what his motives were. There are specific criteria re desertion, and it may a bit simplistic to say he's "suspected of being a deserter." In the U.S., Presumption of innocence applies to military cases, too — and that presumption has been affirmed by several U.S. officials in commenting on the Bergdahl case. Keep in mind, he's not charged with anything ... now. Sca (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion as a notable event. Oppose any mention of partisan charges or speculation regarding the event, that can be dealt with in the article, not on the front page of Wikipedia.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 23:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Hostage exchange with terrorist organization is pretty big news, especially concerning the five who were released.75.73.114.111 (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Posted with straight-forward "just the facts" blurb: "The U.S. government agrees to release five Taliban prisoners in exchange for the release of Sargent Bowe Bergdahl." feel free to suggest tweaks to it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Post-posting comment by nominator — After all this time, I'm amazed that it's finally been posted, although — call me biased if you wish — the order of the blurb seems backward to me. What's wrong with The U.S. government secures the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for five Taliban prisoners? Believe that's the sequence followed by most English-speaking media when this was breaking. Sca (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * PS: In the U.S., "Bergdahl" has become a household/headline name. Sca (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sca. The wording order should be reversed: The U.S. government secures the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for five Taliban prisoners.  Nonetheless, I am glad to see that this was posted, after all.  Thanks.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Malawian general election, 2014

 * Support Article looks good; clearly should be posted. Oppose suggested picture though; it's too weird and does not show Mutharika very well at that resolution (he's signing a guest book.) Maybe a crop of one of the other pics of him? ToBk (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Per above.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Good work on the article. Formerip (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: how about File:Peter Mutharika cropped.jpg as an alternative (shown right)? Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  11:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support image suggested by Matty.007. Nathan121212 (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Much better. (I wonder why there seems to be water splashed onto his suit in the zoom.) ToBk (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong support: I was considering nominating this myself too, but was too lazy. This should definitely be here for many reasons although perhaps the controversy surrounding the legitimacy of the vote might be mentioned? Brigade Piron (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted without a pic - I believe the current image is higher quality, and there is no pressing reason to switch. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Veterans Healthcare Administration scandal

 * Comment: Thank you User:Pine for the nomination. I think creating a separate article about the scandal as proposed on Talk:Veterans_Health_Administration might be a good idea for commenters here to look at, if you would be interested in creating that. If there isn't an updated article or section (yes, I know the Shinseki article has some information), it's hard to generate consensus to post.  Spencer T♦ C 02:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have started a new article and made updates above. What do you think? --Pine✉ 07:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Fairly big but not big enough for ITN IMO.  The resignation of a cabinet official of one of the lesser known departments of any country just doesn't cut it.  Rumsfeld resigning was ITN level.  This not.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agree with Johnsemlak.  I believe(could be wrong, but...) that Shinseki was not accused of misconduct or mismanagement himself; he was the scapegoat for the actions of lower-level people. 331dot (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose — Agree with 331dot. Several talking heads on U.S news shows May 30 said much the same, although "scapegoat" is perhaps a too exculpatory. Shinsaki was faulted for having presided over an agency accused of "systemic" faults and even mendacity by lower-level officials. Sca (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Point well taken. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Pictogram voting delete.svg|15px|link=|alt=]] I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your comments. --Pine✉  19:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Eurasian Economic Union

 * Comment certainly significant, the article carries an orange maintenance tag and has some serious reference format issues that could be resolved to help us understand what this is all about. A couple of in-line maintenance tags too.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per Thaddeus; notable international agreement with potentially significant effects. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is no mention of how proposed membership in this union brought down the Ukrainian government. Until the article is updated it shouldn't be posted. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. No doubt this is a significant enough thing to post about. But is the best time the signing of the treaty or the coming into existence of the union? Formerip (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per ThaddeusB, 331dot. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * - I have expanded the article; please let me know if concerns remain.  I believe now will be the point of greatest press coverage.  The agreement going into effect (on Jan 1, 2015) is a formality - the meaningful news is now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support This is now assuredly going to happen, and from what I remember they are also already looking at bringing in other former Soviet bloc states under this in the future. --M ASEM (t) 03:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You remember correctly - two others are likely to join by the end of the year, and a couple others are investigating it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 13:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Egyptian presidential election, 2014

 * Support, but I'd like to see more context information in the blurb. For instance, that al-Sisi was the ringleader of the 2013 coup d'état, or that the election was boycotted by Morsi supporters (only 44% voter turnout). --bender235 (talk) 10:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Normally the blurb sticks to bare facts and the article it links to expands on these kinds of things. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I based this off the Ukranian election. Am going to expand results today. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  10:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support once missing reference #94 (refname "monitor") is fixed. fixed Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - the lead and the results section are both a bit short. Perhaps neither is a disqualifier, but it would be nice if both are improved prior to posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Lead expanded, but not really much else I could say under results. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  13:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say the lead still doesn't come close to summarizing the entire article, but I will not oppose. Consider me neutral. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support and added a photo, but why do we have an altblurb when the original blurb was correct? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Because the original blurb wasn't that good, I fixed it without noticing that an alt had been added. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  14:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Updated and ready. μηδείς (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Several fixes applied, then posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought heads of states had their photos posted as well when elected. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're keen, perhaps you can ask someone to do that who gets it right first time like User:David Levy. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't post the current image. Too much of his face is in the shadows, and at 100px nothing is visible, and the current ITN image works better at 100px (we can at least see details). The image could be reworked... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to note, I'll probably update the article when the percentages and the like come out. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  09:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * An option for image, just in case...--Stemoc (talk) 09:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the quality of this image isn't very good - in my view it's underexposed. Exposure is just right for the sunlit hedge in the background, but way under for the subject's face. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Antioch Patriarchal Consecration

 * The Syriac Orthodox Church is indeed one of the oldest in the region and arguably in the world, but it doesn't appear to be as influential as the Coptic Orthodox Church or the Armenian Apostolic Church and I'm not sure if we post anything about these on ITN. Also, what is the impact of this? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Slightly unusual fare for ITN, but interesting and potentially significant given the situation in Syria. GoldenRing (talk) 08:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * To be honest I would love to see this posted, given that I have a particular interest in Oriental Orthodoxy, but I still can't find noteworthy covering of the story in the news. The only sources I came across are these 10 days-old Armenian ones that only deal with the Armenian Church's reaction to his election, which was two months ago and made bigger headlines than his enthronement. There is also another one from the Times of India, which is good, but not enough in my opinion. I also fail to see any sources showing this to be relevant to the Syrian conflict, since the church is now based in Lebanon. This is certainly an interesting and colourful topic for ITN, but does it really comply with ITN rules? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't have "ITN rules", we have a "Purpose" and "General criteria". In my mind, something very interesting here would match the Purpose of "To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them." The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the "point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them" aspect was broadly what I was thinking of. GoldenRing (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * By "rules" I meant the event's notability and its coverage in the news, a criteria which it doesn't appear to meet. I would have definitely supported his election (the real deal) two months ago, but this enthronement sounds exactly like Narendra Modi's inauguration to me. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The objection to Modi's inauguration was that it was much too soon after his election. Hence my vote here - I don't thing we covered Mor Ignatius' election, but if we did, then we shouldn't run this story too. In this case I'd be willing to stretch a point and count coverage of his election towards evaluating whether this is 'in the news', since it's an area in which up-to-date English language sources are scarce. (I checked the Church Times website, but they only had a story about the Melkite Patriarch's views of the war in Syria.) AlexTiefling (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - Unless we previously posted his appointment. No need for both. In answer to Fitzcarmalan, I don't know off hand if we've posted anything for the Armenian Apostolic Church, but the selection of the latest Coptic Pope certainly made ITN. Heads of churches are a big deal. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree with GoldenRing. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support though I am not 100% happy with the article. How does this position exactly relate to the original Patriarchate of Antioch? Nergaal (talk) 10:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support when referencing in Ignatius Aphrem II is improved. This is a nice opportunity to feature religion, an area that is rarely in the news.  However, at current the article is not up to standards. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Would Support per above if both articles were improved. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nominator's Comment There are a lot of articles on this topic needing improvement. 117.216.31.148 (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose 3.5 millions followers is not a particularly large church. If we posted every new leader of a church with that many followers we'd post far too many such stories. There is no evidence that this church or patriarch is particularly influential. I am also concerned that almost all the religious leaders we post seem to be Christian. We should not promote such systemic bias further. Neljack (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nominator's Comment This news is making huge headlines where I live (India). Hg   andVenus  07:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose- I'm sorry, I thought this was wikipedia; a database for knowledge, not a Church....Not a fan of silly 'religious' news like this making the main page and per Neljack..--Stemoc (talk) 08:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Stemoc what you consider "silly" may be very important to other people- if we posted items based on whether or not they were "silly" to someone, very little would be posted. Like it or not, religion is important to some people and merits coverage regardless of what I or you personally think. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * we reject cases where people are killed or even raped (recent india case) and yet something like this is far more important?, I don't think so. Some leader of an unknown cult getting more powers is NOT news to me...I'd rather we focus on the war in syria and not what religion "benefits" from it--Stemoc (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * To say this religion isn't large enough is certainly a possible argument, but there is no need to be offensive by calling it a "unknown cult". You also didn't mention the size of this religious group as an issue; only talking about "silly religious news". 331dot (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Mate if this was the inauguration of a pope or something at that level as its of interest to the GENERAL public, I'll fully support but this is one of those lower level "cults" and does not even deserve a mention in the news section. We leave that for more important events such as new leaders in eelctions, top level deaths or a major current event..it falls in neither..at the very best, it should be taken to the WP:DYK section..--Stemoc (talk) 12:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you think it's fair to describe a church with millions of members, dating back to late antiquity, as a 'cult', then I don't think you really know what you're talking about. AlexTiefling (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Ready - the article is now updated and well referenced. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted while I acknowledge the concerns of those in opposition (and indeed have sympathy), there's a clear consensus in support of this being posted. [P.S. good work Thaddeus]. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] RD: Azlan Shah of Perak

 * Support posting but unsure of blurb vs. RD, and I won't say one way or the other because saying RD might be my own systemic bias. Definitely notable enough for posting as a head of state and justice on the highest court in the nation. Article does need work first though, as mentioned. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure if I can vote as I updated, but support full blurb: King of Malaysia is definitely worthy of such. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  15:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Seems to be the done thing for heads of state and government. I do wonder (and this is partly a systemic bias thing) whether we could say "King of Malaysia" (common translation) or "Supreme Head of Malaysia" (official translation), rather than "Yang di-Pertuan Agong". As far as I can tell, the Malay title isn't used much outside Malaysia. Smurrayinchester 18:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment seriously, given the backlash from Maya Angelou having a full blurb, I'd think twice here. Mind you, most of the backlash came from people who don't contribute to this process, who knows.   The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, he was a King... I don't know if we posted the last time a British Royal changed, but we don't want to be accused of western bias... Mat  ty  .  007  18:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And he died of ....? And his global significance was...?   Just being Devil's advocate. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Three European monarchs (the Pope, the Queen of the Netherlands, and the King of the Belgians) abdicated last year. We posted all three, along with the election of the new Pope. I wouldn't expect any of them, except perhaps Pope Emeritus Benedict, to merit a full blurb when they eventually die. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * He's not an American, so there won't be any backlash... Until such time as those unfamiliar with ITN successfully change the guidelines to reflect their desired criteria rather than the ones we've been using for the last 18 months, we should continue to follow our guidelines. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Angelou was posted less than an hour after being nominated. Criticising people for not contributing within that time-frame seems rather harsh. There was no time for consensus to emerge, just a bunch of people reacting to the announcement by heading straight to ITN/C. Modest Genius talk 22:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That wasn't what I was criticising. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support for RD once the maintenance tags are addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb I don't think there is any general practice of blurbs for former heads of state - only when they were particularly important. In this case, he was a largely ceremonial head of state. Unlike many monarchs, he was not a long-serving head of state - because of Malaysia's system of elective monarchy. His contributions to law and hockey were significant, but nowhere near blurb level. Blurbs are for people of exceptional significance and influence, and I don't think this rises to that level. Neljack (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The other points are fair, but the King position has considerable actual power in Malaysia, not just ceremonial powers. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Malaysia is a constitutional monarchy. Power chiefly lies with the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Sultan Azlan Shah's Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamed, exercised far more power than he did (Mohamed would be a strong candidate for a blurb). Neljack (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb. Significant individual dies of old age; exactly what RD is for. If for some reason a blurb is used, it should state 'Former head of state' rather than Yang di-Pertuan Agong and Chief Justice, the magnitude of neither of which will be familiar to our readers. Modest Genius talk 22:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support RD ideal RD material GoldenRing (talk) 08:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support RD but not blurb. I have started a discussion about the language of the article title at the appropriate talk page, following smurrayinchester's query. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support RD but not blurb - death of any head of state merits RD, but one has to wonder whether the subject's achievements in various fields would have come quite so easily had he not been royal family. Article needs some work though. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ready - after extensive work, I believe the article is now fit for posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I will post this in the evening if no one posts or objects. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD thus preventing a massive conflict of interest ;) Stephen 03:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Apple buys Beats

 * Actually its fairly insignificant given the size difference of the 2 companies... well maybe not to Dr Dre -- Ashish-g55 23:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose This has been in the works for awhile, and not a big surprise, plus the amount is rather trivial for at least Apple. --M ASEM (t) 23:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support major business deal affecting a major consumer brand. Being in the works for a while is irrelevant; if anything the fact we knew the deal was in the works, shows how high interest is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose garden-variety corporate merger/acquisition story. Not an industry-changing event.  -- Jayron  32  00:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. News commentators are saying that this deal is strange. Perhaps the nominator can explain? Abductive  (reasoning) 05:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing it as particularly strange. It probably is Apple's largest acquisition to date, and probably has made Dr Dre into "hip-hop's first billionaire" but from a news perspective, it's just another day. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It shows me that Apple is on its way down. Under Steve Jobs, Apple would've never bought Beats, they would've developed new headphones that were better. But, that's my own original research / synthesis, so don't mind me. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, with my techie hat on, this is very big for both Apple and other computer makers. But it's a very long game before we see that impact the overall field, and hence why this isn't really ITN material. --M ASEM (t) 15:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per Jayron32. Although the deal does seem a bit strange (does this mean new Ipods will come with big ole Beats headphones instead of earbuds?) It's not a record deal, it's not an industry changing merger. Rhodesisland (talk) 09:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Neutral It's tempting to see this as one maker of mediocre, over-priced but fashionable toys buying another maker of mediocre, over-priced but fashionable toys. But in the world they're in, such as it is, it seems significant news.  GoldenRing (talk) 09:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak support - If you'd told me, when I first acquired a Beats product, that the manufacturer would one day be Apple's biggest buyout, I wouldn't have believed it. I tend to agree with GoldenRing and Rhodesisland, but it does seem to be in the news a lot. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Massimo Vignelli

 * Support - Massimo_Vignelli seems to show top-of-field. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree he meets DC2 given the recognition he has gotten. 331dot (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose until article is improved significantly. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Still requires citations and reduction in puffery (e.g. "became enthralled with design and befriended many of the great architects of his day"...) The Rambling Man (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * De-peacocked, some citations still needed. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support and Needs Attention. Once the article is up to snuff, seems to me that DC2 is met and this should be posted. Hey, The Rambling Man, how's the article now? Rhodesisland (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There are two . Fix those & I will post this. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * User:ThaddeusB, I have provided references for these. Marking ready.  Spencer T♦ C 03:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

RD: Malcolm Glazer

 * Unsure, leaning oppose Being a "multi-billionaire" or a sports team owner doesn't make one "top of the field". Ralph Wilson died not too long ago and I believe was not even nominated. Wilson's contributions to the NFL are considerably greater than Glazer's. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you're right, but owning massive sporting franchises on both sides of the Pond is notable. Unless it's been done by others?  I'm not sure.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * John W. Henry owns the Boston Red Sox and Liverpool F.C. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I think they are the only ones (definitely the only ones I know). Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  20:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm even less sure than I was before. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just thinking through PL teams I can't think of anyone else, but I don't know much about the Championships or Scottish leagues. Man Utd are a big club, amongst the biggest in the world, though I have no idea about the Buccaneers. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  20:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Randy Lerner owned Aston Villa F.C. and the Cleveland Browns from 2006-2012. Black Kite kite (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Stan Kroenke is the majority stakeholder of Arsenal F.C. and owns the Denver Nuggets, Colorado Avalanche and St. Louis Rams. Also - they were PL until a month ago - Shahid Khan owns Fulham F.C. and the Jacksonville Jaguars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.224 (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for telling us IP, I didn't know abou Khan, and had forgotten Kroenke. Mat  ty  .  007  08:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not as significant as I first thought. In any case the article's a mess and no-one appears willing or able to fix that fundamental issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but think the article is too thinly referenced at the moment. Formerip (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose at present, as TRM said needs serious referencing. Will support if article referencing is fixed, owning one of the biggest football clubs in the world and an NFL team is definitely notable. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  20:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Question. Did he contribute anything to the sports by virtue of owning the teams(influenced the rules, known for promoting the sport, etc.)? I'm not sure just being a wealthy owner meets any of the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In the case of Manchester United, the opposite, if anything; his takeover was met with multiple protests and the creation of a new club by disaffected supporters. Black Kite kite (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * He would count as one of the two best known sports team owners in Europe (along with Roman Abrahimovic). Formerip (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Would support if article was cleaned up some. -- Jayron  32  00:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. The article needs work but he did own arguably the world's most popular soccer team and an NFL team.  Calidum Talk To Me 01:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Does merely owning popular teams make him "very important" in his field? Did he personally contribute to their popularity in some manner? 331dot (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No opinion on whether to post or not, but Tampa Bay was a laughingstock of an organization for the whole decade of the '80s and first half of the '90s, being run on the cheap and losing every year, and before he acquired the team they were on the verge of moving. He changed the uniforms, got the team into a new stadium, and within a few years they were a perennial playoff contender and eventually won a Super Bowl. It didn't really last long past that, but the franchise's fortunes turned around almost as soon as he bought the team. PeteF3 (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Manchester United and NFL fan here! But I just don't think he makes the criteria, and I am sorry to say that. Rhodesisland (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Malcom Glazer's takeover of Manchester United, the world's richest sports club (it's had the title off and on) was a massive event in the UK and made Glazer an immediate household name at least among people who follow football closely. There were a number of manifestations of this, but one of the more interesting ones was when the British media, who were hungry for any information on the Glazers, started packing NFL press conferences in the US and asking questions about the Glazers.    Generally he's been viewed as very unpopular because of the way he took over the club by a leveraged buyout.  All that said, I'm going to oppose because it seems unlikely that Malcolm Glazer's death will change the ownership much.  His sons will continue to own the club.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, at least in the Recent deaths section LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment In reading the article, it's worth noting that with Malcolm Glazer's death the ownership of the club is now equally divided among his six children (i.e. he was one of the seven owners). He never set foot in Old Trafford in Manchester.  The club has been handled primarily by two of the sons Joel and Avram Glazer.  So despite being the public face of the takeover Malcolm Glazer's role at Manchester United was pretty minimal and his death won't have much of an impact.  I assume he was more involved with the Buccaneers but still this further convinces me to oppose.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Our article Glazer ownership of Manchester United says Malcolm Glazer died on 28 May 2014 at the age of 85. However, his death is unlikely to mean any significant changes to the running of the club.[89]. However, if you follow football you will know he wasn't liked (putting it very mildly) by masses of Utd supporters. Take a look at these pictures... Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  17:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, basically per Matty.007. Nsk92 (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] [Posted] Maya Angelou

 * I initially suggested RD only, but am more than convinced by the comments below that a blurb is appropriate. For those who like seeing things in bold print, though, support blurb. BencherliteTalk 20:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Definitely Support RD given her career and recognition; I think the argument could possibly be made for a blurb here. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support full blurb when updated I'm not sure if, until today, there was a better-known living poet than Maya Angelou, nor a more important one. The article needs some more context- quotes from notable people and whatnot, which I have zero doubt will come throughout the day- but in my eyes, she is unquestionably deserving of a blurb. Something along the lines of "Poet and civil rights activist Maya Angelou dies at the age of 86."-- Mike (Kicking222) 13:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * support full blurb high degree of notability in her field and well known worldwide.Lihaas (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

− *Support full blurb - perhaps the best known living poet in the world. Article in good shape.--ThaddeusB (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Does 2 sentences constitue an update? full posting is fine, but needs an update FIRSTLihaas (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it's now got a few quotes reacting to her death (Obama, Clinton, Harold Augenbraum); the prose had already been put into the appropriate tense. I don't think we'd want the article to be filled with quotes from random celebrities mourning her death on Twitter, would we? There's not much to say about the death itself; when details are known of funeral / memorial arrangements, those can be added as appropriate, but I think it's sufficiently updated for now.  Bear in mind that this is a featured article, in good shape generally, with a lot of assessment of her importance and her work from when she was alive, so whacking in an arbitrary number of sentences or paragraphs to meet the views of some at ITN isn't really always appropriate. I have changed your SHOUTING HEADER to a simple "Attention needed", which is enough, surely?. BencherliteTalk 17:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Update is sufficient, thanks all! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support A legendary figure, this is the type of person a death blurb can be used for. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Full blurb per Lihaas. Resolute 14:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted blurb. Excellent article, no danger of serious issues.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * (Delayed by edit conflict) Support full blurb — An amazing talent in multiple fields. AP, in a 1,600-word obituary, calls her "one of the first black women to enjoy mainstream success as an author, and thriving in virtually every artistic medium...." Sca (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. But it would be fair to say that, even though she was all three, she is mainly known as an author, rather than as a civil rights activist or poet. Formerip (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I changed the blurb to "author and civil rights activist". Since a poet is a type of author, I think that change should be acceptable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Image? We have a few we can choose from. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Question Why is this not for RD? I thought deaths of old age and otherwise lacking notability of and in themselves are RD? Without question notable person, but surely a prime candidate for RD? Just trying to understand the distinction here. Fgf10 (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Full blurbs may be used for especially notable deaths (e.g. Nelson Mandela, Margaret Thatcher), as well as cases where the death itself is the story. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that's how I understood it. I'm just trying to understand why this was given a full blurb, as neither seems to be the case? By that reasoning Wojciech Jaruzelski should definitely have had a full blurb. Not passing judgement or anything, the system is just confusing me at the moment. Fgf10 (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support RD, oppose blurb which I think should be pulled. Certainly a significant person who merits an RD posting, but not influential or important enough for a full blurb. Those are supposed to be reserved for truly epoch-defining people e.g. Mandela and Thatcher. Angelou was nowhere near that level. Nothing was unusual or surprising about her death either. Modest Genius</b> talk 18:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * On what do you base your opinion "not influential or important enough"? Have you reviewed List of honors received by Maya Angelou? 331dot (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course, happy to hear more thoughts on whether the blurb should be pulled. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * RD only, pull blurb. I agree, I haven't been convinced in my question further up that this is in any way blurb material. There have been far more nationally and globally important people in recent postings that have only gotten RDs Fgf10 (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting to hear of those you allude to. Of course, Jaruzelski was afforded an RD because a significant portion of the article was unreferenced, which was subsequently "hidden" so we didn't have the maintenance tags to worry about.  Angelou's article is one of our finest, and shows Wikipedia in its best light.  Please, though, list those "globally important people" we missed, it'll make interesting reading.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The quality of the article should have nothing to do with the decision whether to do full blurb or not, that's ridiculous. If the article isn't suited for main page posting, it shouldn't be posted full stop, RD or full blurb. And yes, the first example that came to my mind was Jaruzelski. Fgf10 (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh well, perhaps you can participate a little more here to help us judge consensus better. We're always looking for extra opinions!  Thanks for your interest here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I post here fairly regularly, but usually the topics go up so quickly (especially in the case of US topics), I come late to the party, as I don't have time to be on here full time.... Fgf10 (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well one of the reasons I felt happy to post this was that at least two of those providing strong support were not from the US, and that major mainstream non-US news outlets are carrying her death on their main pages. Hope to see more of you around here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It would perhaps be useful to keep a list somewhere of how deaths have been treated in the "RD era", as it were - who has made it to blurb rather than RD (Thatcher, Mandela), and who made it to RD rather than blurb when there was discussion of both options. Over time, that might help show how "blurb vs. RD" works in practice. BencherliteTalk 18:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And going through the archives, I find that Gabriel García Marquez was given a full blurb, and treating Maya Angelou in the same way seems appropriate (although I initially just suggested RD). BencherliteTalk 19:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Previous mistakes shouldn't form the basis of current policy. Fgf10 (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This unanimous decision from only last month was a mistake? BencherliteTalk 19:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, I would consider that a mistake. Shouldn't have been a blurb in my mind. Fgf10 (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a mistake. There is no requirement that someone must be globally influencial (and who says Angelou wasn't - author weild lotsof influence) to get a blurb.  Seems to me the implied desire is that only politicans to get full blurbs.--ThaddeusB (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As above, I do consider it a mistake. And nope, no need to be globally influential. (And Angelou wasn't, for the record). RD is there for a reason, unremarkable deaths do not get blurbs. If that's not that case, we might as well do away with RD. Fgf10 (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As I understand it the creation of RD was never meant to totally preempt the possibility of a death still getting a blurb. Blurbs have been given for unusual deaths and the deaths of people who were tip-top in their field(not just "very important" as with RD). 331dot (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 331dot is correct - there was never any agreement that only unusual deaths get full blurbs. (Indeed, people often make the opposite mistake, thinking only very very important people get blurbs, forgetting full blurbs can be used for unusual deaths.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support blurb (post-posting) - massively important figure. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb I completely agree that her significance and influence are subject of exaggeration here. Her death deserves mention in RD, but it is far from the level of sufficiency for a full blurb. Some may say that the threshold should not be on the level of Mandela or Thatcher, but there were many other people more influential than she was who did not get a full blurb. For instance, her name is almost unknown in many parts of the world; not to talk about international significance of influence of any sort.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support full blurb. High quality article and an influential author. Gabriel García Márquez received a full blurb and deservedly so.  Spencer T♦ C 01:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support full blurb. Per many of the reasons above. Gabriel García Márquez didn't receive such a backlash (for lack of a better term) when he got a full blurb last month.  Calidum  Talk To Me 01:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Since you [two] start mentioning Márquez as an example and reason for posting, I'd say that her significance and influence are not even in the stratosphere of his.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And I would respectfully disagree with your opinion. So that didn't achieve much, did it?  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In other words: "Thank you for your opinion, but I'm going to completely ignore it." Jeez I forgot what a mess ITN can be. I'm out of this place. Fgf10 (talk) 07:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what was actionable here? There's strong consensus in favour of a blurb.  Nothing more to add really.  Sorry you're off though. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Add photo?
Suggest we add photo

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not against it, but the pic is not great at 100px. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What about this one? – Muboshgu (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * True. Cropped? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is a cropping of the image, which itself is a crop..hehe..--Stemoc (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Manuel Uribe

 * Comment: top of field? Only reason he was notable was weight. I am not sure if we post that sort of thing. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  15:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not top of any field. Being in the Guinness Book of World Records and this coverage is enough for him to meet GNG, but not ITN/DC. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Being the heaviest person in the world is not apprecibly different than being the oldest, which we happily posted. Obviously, we wouldn't post ever World Record holder who dies, but there are certain records of very high interest - oldest person, tallest person, etc. - I would sugegst this is one of those records. The RD criteria are a guideline, not an absolute law, and can be ignored when a person's notability isn't related to a specific field but rather a unqiue record or event. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see how ignoring the guidelines here would be beneficial- and doing so without some benefit would lead to others similarly ignoring the guidelines, rendering them without meaning. 331dot (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I was against the posting of the death of the oldest living person, too. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Oppose. I am not seeing which of the three death criteria are applicable here. I don't think being overweight is a "field". 331dot (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose world's former heaviest man dies of a heart attack. Would oppose even if here still the heaviest. μηδείς (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Being fat is not an achievement.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per BabbaQ and 331dot. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Eamon Gilmore

 * Oppose per nomination. If Nick Clegg stood down, it wouldn't make ITN.  Minor highly-localised political micro-tremors.   The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * To be fair I had no idea if we would post on ITN a deputy standing down. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  16:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nick who? GoldenRing (talk) 08:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] PM Modi

 * Oppose - Not a new development, and much too soon after the election to be an independent story. (The Egyptian presidential election is imminent, by the way.) AlexTiefling (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment A swearing in, with so many heads of state attending, plus live Youtube straming. Why not a new development? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Swearing-in ceremonies in big nations have never been small things with tons of pomp and flair. This is nothing really "news" here because we already knew he would be sworn in. On the other hand, this is a great fact for DYK ("...that the swearing-in of PM Modi was the first such ceremony to be streamed live over Youtube?"), if your article is still in the time frame. --M ASEM (t) 13:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with that, a lovely DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose we're not an Indian politics ticker. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We posted Obama's inauguration did we not? India is a larger democratic state and this ceremony is getting large amount of attention due to Pakistan's Sharif attending. I will support -- Ashish-g55 13:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, 5 years ago, but a quick look at the nomination shows how much ITN has changed in these past few years. There looks like only one support?  Spencer T♦ C 18:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * well i dont necessarily disagree with Obama's posting either even though it was while back. For some countries it is a big event. In this case you have heads of 7 states including one that clearly hates the other attending. I highly doubt we will not post next one for US -- Ashish-g55 19:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds like your opinion I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you would say WP:OR... are 7 head of states not attending? Does Pakistan like India all of a sudden? If anything its my point of view which is all we do at ITN/C -- Ashish-g55 19:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "one that clearly hates the other"? And just because "other stuff exists", it doesn't mean we should continue to make the some mistake.  No need to post this, we all knew Modi was PM a week ago. What's changed?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow. Obama gets all the coverage, but the Indian PM doesn't. Great. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Barack Obama inauguration closed as "Clear consensus not to post" --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That was his 2nd inauguration, his 1st inauguration and his election win both made it to main page. And in August 2008, both Obama and the other candidates's choosing vice president running mate also made it here back to back. So what does it make the INT then ? -- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 15:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It possibly makes a significant difference that the inauguration and election victory are separated by only a few days in this case. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In 2009, ITN was an informal process with no clear criteria. People suggested items and if some admin liked it they posted it.  Discussion of items was rare.  Additionally, Obama's first inauguration was a unique historical occurrence with way more peopl in attendance/paying attention than usual.  In other words, even if it would be posted under the modern ITN system (doubtful), it would be because of the unusual circumstances. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Change in the leadership for a a big country like India is significant. -- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 14:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would also tend to be against posting inauguration of presidents, but the swearing-in of a Westminster system PM is even less postable. While a president often waits months to be sworn in (Obama was elected in November and sworn in in February January), and the "lame-duck" period is strictly enforced, parliamentary prime ministers take office as soon as is possible - this was only ten days after the general election, and six days after Modi was invited to form the government. In other words, what AlexTiefling said. Smurrayinchester 14:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Very good point - the news he would be PM is still "fresh", and thus a good reason not to "re"post. --M ASEM (t) 15:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. We already posted the election result, and we never post swearing-in ceremonies. This is a formality. Also, the blurb doesn't make sense. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is it not making sense? I tried all my best to write it in English. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 15:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I appreciate that English is difficult if it's not your first language. I just meant that the grammar should be corrected. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm... lets sit and ponder on how it can be done instead of actually doing it. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 04:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Alternate?: Is Nawaz Sharif attending the ceremony seen as a major news outside India? §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 15:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, not so much news as it is an excellent DYK. --M ASEM (t) 15:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: nominated for DYK here on basis of comments, though will withdraw nom if this ITN nomination passes. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  15:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support: the oppose comments don't make sense. It is a very big event for Indian and Asian politics. To clarify "swears", he "has officially become" Prime Minister now.
 * Some ALTs from my side (I have not really read the Wikipedia article. It is on what I know from news medias)
 * ALT1: (change wording if necessary) Narendra Modi, once a tea-seller, officially takes charge of India's Prime Minister's post
 * ALT2 (change wording if necessary) For the first time in the Indian politics, all Heads of State and Government or their representatives of SAARC attended an Indian Prime Minister swearing ceremony. Tito ☸ Dutta 18:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The oppose comments make perfect sense, he was elected, what, six days ago, and now he's been inaugurated. Why would we need two ITN entries, a week apart, to commentate on the same item?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the thing to consider here is that the election results have dropped off the ITN... otherwise we could have just bumped it. Think of it as same story being put back in since its fairly big at the moment. There are only a few countries where inauguration is a big event (which this clearly is) -- Ashish-g55 18:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not at all. The inauguration of most elected heads of government is standard practice, and takes place soon after the elections, as it has in this case.  There's no legitimate case for us to put yet another ITN blurb about the exact same story, it's nothing unexpected.  If Modi hadn't been sworn in, that'd be newsworthy.  This is just business as usual after his election win.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per The Rambling Man. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We don't post inaugurations or swearings-in; we already posted the results of the election. As pointed out above, Obama's was not posted in 2012, and in 2008 the process was very different and that inauguration was a historically significant event(first black man to be President of the US). 331dot (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Clearly notable considering the number of foreign presidents and PMs attending it... So it can't posted twice? I remember we even had updates about the boston blasts last year!  ƬheStrike  Σagle  sorties  00:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Boston bombings were an unpredictable event with unpredictable consequences; here we have a scheduled election with the known winner taking office- which was a foregone conclusion. As TRM said above, if he had not taken office for some unforeseen reason, that would merit a second posting, but not the predicted consequence of the election.  That would mean every election would get two postings. 331dot (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It must be mentioned not because he took office as the PM but due to the attendance of hell lots of world leaders. Clearly, the arrest of suspects in the boston case was not an unexpected consequence.  ƬheStrike  Σagle  sorties  02:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. From the point of view of non-Indians, this event will be overshadowed by his victory just a few days ago. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, ITN has only posted a swearing of a prime minister once: the Dutch PM recently after years(?) of not having a government; the fact that ITN waited for the swearing in is that the appointment per se wasn't even sure that will push through in the end. The other swearing in that was posted was President Obama in 2008. Those are the precedents. Well, the Obama one was six years ago, and the more recent Obama inauguration was soundly rejected. The acceptance of the nominations of US presidential candidates were also posted in 2008; I dunno if those were posted in 2012. We've also, from time to time, bumped/posted appointments of a prime minister if there's a hung parliament, or the winner wasn't clear from the election result; ITN did that for the UK in 2010. So clearly, the precedent was the Dutch PM whose swearing in wasn't a foregone conclusion, or Obama's six years ago. Those are quite weak strings. – H T  D  00:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It was BELGIUM...but then gaisn as the first homosexual MALE PM that was notableLihaas (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose given that he won just a few days ago. ... (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * support given we post pre-abbot Australia thrice and uk/Canada twice this is flagrant racist hypocrisy. its certainly in the newsLihaas (talk) 02:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If those others were posted twice they sure as hell shouldn't have been. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The kind of lousy reasoning being given here for oppose reeks of hypocrisy. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, we're admitting that if there were these posted before, those were mistakes based on how ITN is chosen nowadays. We have made many mistakes, I believe, at ITN, and as long as we can appreciate 20/20 hindsight to improve ourselves, that's fine. --M ASEM (t) 05:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Thomas & Uber Cup

 * For anyone who was wondering (like myself), the sport in question is Badminton. The nomination fails to mention this. Unhelpfully the first place I checked, the target article, does not mention the name of the sport anywhere in the prose. --92.30.187.11 (talk) 09:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My mistake, sorry. Fixed. ... (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The blurb is hardly clear, either. China defended the Uber Cup after defeating Japan? So they defeated Japan, then went on to defend the Cup against...who? If you mean they defeated Japan to retain the Cup, say so. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There are two cups. Japan won one against Malaysia. China won one against Japan. If someone can write a better blurb, please do. ... (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As you know what this sport is, and how it works, and I don't - and couldn't have learned from your blurb or your link - why don't you do it? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I did try, but I don't write blurbs often, so I'm asking for help. Well, there's an alt blurb now. ... (talk)


 * Comment - language needs cleaned up. Phrases like "showed patience and craft to win the match", "highlighted the confidence", "sparkled", "restored order", etc. are sportswriter speak with no real meaning, not encyclopedic decsriptions of the matches. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Cleaned up to your satisfaction I hope. ... (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Thaddeus' concerns, and will seek, once again, the removal from ITNR if no satisfactory effort is made to get it up to snuff this year. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * People maintaining the article: get your act together. This has massive interest. It has more page views than the really pathetic page views of the Heineken Cup. It'll be a pity that a sporting event of such interest won't be posted. – H T  D  22:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Notable per ITN/R, article looks fine. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 10:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - per Balaenoptera.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Although improved, I would say the text is still rather poor and could use a good copyedit. (It was likely written by non-native speakers and sounds odd as a result.) The article also lacks a proper lead.  Badminton is undoubtable an important sport to a large chunk of the world (i.e. Asia), but I would still like to see a better article before posting.  Perhaps one of the supporters can give it a nice copyedit and proper lead.  If not, I guess I will try to get to it tonight. --ThaddeusB (talk)
 * I took a crack at it and made some copyedits. However, I haven't checked if the references did say "leaping smashes, diving retrievals and quick-fire exchanges"; if it did, then it can stay, but if it doesn't, perhaps it has to be edited in a more neutral tone. – H T  D  23:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ready - I have further cleaned it up & expanded the lead. I believe its ready to be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support -Badmingtong is not my sport, but is a Olympic sport and this 2 events are the biggers of the year.--Feroang (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment "featuring leaping smashes, diving retrievals and quick-fire exchanges" (for instance) is a direct copy-and-paste (i.e. "close para-phrasing") of this source. Please check the rest of the limited prose for such issues before we post it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies - I just assumed that the mediocre English must be original, but it turns out it was actually copied to a large extent. (Most violations fixed by the copyediting already done).  I have fixed the violation you pointed out and the only other one remaining, based on comparing all four sources to the text.  the article should be ready for posting now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 Indianapolis 500

 * Article has everything except what it most needs - a textual summary of the race itself. It also uses poor style in some section (bullet point lists of facts instead of paragraph), which should be corrected before it is posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A lot of the article is also written in the future tense (the race will be broadcast, etc.).  Calidum Talk To Me 00:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose mega huge article but no description of the race. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose No prose update on the race. A complete synopsis of the race (major moments, lead changes, final results in prose) would all be necessary.  There is NO prose update, and until there is, this should not be posted.  As soon as there is, ITNR means this could go up.  But the article needs prose.  -- Jayron  32  16:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ready - I have added a textual summary of the race and fixed up the formatting throughout the article. Unless there are further quality-based objections, the article should be ready for posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 01:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] European Parliament election

 * Comment. You don't actually get a winning party in the Euro elections, because different parties contest seats in different member nations. Suggest an alternative blurb could be the success of far-right/populist parties, which is likely to be the big story of these elections. Formerip (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd concur with this: wait until the results and media coverage angles become clear, but go with a blurb about right-wing (e.g. Front national) success in the likely event that this is indeed what gets reported on.  It Is Me Here  t /  c  22:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - I'd be quite happy for us just to report the (virtually inevitable) EPP plurality. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that would make for a pretty weak blurb, given that the EPP is not on the ballot and relatively few people have heard of it. It's not something that is going to make headlines in any European newspaper tomorrow. Formerip (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support EPP plurality blurb We should follow our usual practice with elections of simply stating who has won a plurality (or majority) of seats in the legislature, which looks to be the EPP. That is the real story here, since it puts the EPP's candidate Jean-Claude Juncker in pole position to become the next President of the European Commission. The far-right and populist parties have done well in some countries, but rather less so in others (e.g. Germany and Italy). We can't convey the complexity of the situation in a blurb. We should go for the objective story of who has won the most seats, rather than trying to come up with neutral and accurate way of reporting on the performance of far-right and populist parties. After all, as Juncker pointed out, pro-European parties still won a large majority in the Parliament. Neljack (talk) 02:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support If we're worried people won't know the EPP, we can always say "The European Parliament elections conclude with the conservative Christian democratic/centre right the European People's Party winning plurality." Smurrayinchester 06:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support: Why not just put "the centre right" as the winners?Brigade Piron (talk) 06:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Europe has at least three centre-right parties - the pro-European, Christian democratic EPP, the more eurosceptical, British-dominated ECR, and the anti-EU ELD. The EPP were the winners (on a reduced plurality) - the ECR did poorly and the ELD did well. Without naming the party, the blurb is useless. Smurrayinchester 10:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support EPP plurality blurb, per Neljack. We should trust our readers to be smart enough to follow the relevant wikilinks in case they don't know what EU or EPP is. "Centre-right" is simplistic and vague. -- ELEKHHT 07:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per Neljack. ... (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. How is it best to give some consideration to the fact that, within the UK (which covers a significant part of our readership), the EPP does not exist (no mainstream parties are affiliated to it), and therefore the blurb will be meaningless?  The (massive) story in the UK (and France, Denmark, etc.) is the vote given to the right wing Eurosceptic parties like UKIP and the FN.  I'm not asking for special treatment for the UK, but asking whether the blurb should be expanded to reflect not just the EPP plurality, but other implications of the election results where they are supported by reliable sources - example - in order to make the blurb more meaningful to more readers.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a fair point, but it's difficult (would there be a way to talk about the UK general election while taking into account the factor that Labour and the Lib Dems don't exist in Northern Ireland?). It's worth noting that none of the Eurosceptic political Europarties have actually won much - UKIP gains were countered by other losses within their party at European-level - and the main Eurosceptic growth has been in the Non-inscrits, who are independents, and largely far right. It might be possible to mention that this election produced the largest number of Non-inscrits ever. Smurrayinchester 11:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Almost every Europarty lacks membership in at least one large country. (I don't think there's a single party except perhaps the Greens with representation in all 5 of the most-populous EU states, for example.) Neljack is right - we can't convey the complexity of the local situation (leftists in Spain & Greece, far-right in France and Hungary, anti-EU party in UK) in sufficiently terse blurb, so let's not. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And the Tories were in the EPP until a few years ago, so it shouldn't be completely unfamiliar in Britain. Neljack (talk) 11:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * All valid points. Would an additional statement such as "...and anti-establishment groups making significant gains" be supported?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support with EPP blurb (only). There's no need to mention the minor parties, regardless of how large their change was. The EPP is still the largest grouping. Oh and there should be an 'a' before 'plurality' in the blurb. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Proposed blurb: "The European Parliament election concludes with the conservative, pro-European EPP winning a plurality." Narayanese (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that the conservatives (ECR) are a separate grouping, resulting in this being a tad confusing particularly for those in the UK. -- wintonian  talk  17:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * My proposed blurb:


 * "The EU election concludes with the European People's Party group maintaining its plurality of seats in the European Parliament."
 * I think that avoids most of the problems mentioned above, adds a few helpful links, and indicates that the EPP was the largest party both before and after the election. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: the article still needs some prose about the results and/or reaction. At the moment it has loads of build up and then just a results table. There are tons of sources for this. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 02:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Modest Genius's blurb. ... (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support We should say 'European People's Party'. Many people in Europe won't know what that is, but that's a real-world problem, not a Wikipedia problem, and they can always click through. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 10:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - there is no text on the results in the election article. That would be the perfect place to explain that the "anti-establishment" parties made big gains and such. The article is not fit for posting without an explanation of the significance of the results. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be (yet) a consensus among political commentators about the significance of the results, at least in the English-language media I read. Europeans are dissatisfied with the rule of Brussels, except for those that aren't (who are in the majority). It's a new dawn for euro-scepticism, or maybe it's just a brief resurgence. Unhappiness with pan-EU migration is caused by the economic crisis rather than political fundamentals, unless it isn't. This confused editorial is fairly typical. So IMO any such section would have to resort to a "some say this, some say that" kind of thing. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is precisely zero text at current - nothing on gains made or anything else. Recations are normally written according to "analyst X ...", since it is obviously opinion - facts about what it really meant won't be clear for years. So, reactions like that would not be unqiue to this election. I will also point out that the results tabe is largely uncited.  Is there a website that has all the results by any chance? --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * European Parliament, BBC, The Guardian Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Ready - I added some text on the results and expanded the text on the (anticipated) formation of the new government. I believe the article is ready to be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Shouldn't the blurb contain something about gains made by the populist/far right parties? To me, this seems to be the story in the news.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  07:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In my opinion (and that's all it is), we need to be objective and report the overall result. The article itself is the place, as far as I can determine, to discuss, in depth, the finer points of the elections, including the far right gains.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] IIHF World Championship Final

 * Summary of the match is good, but completely unreferenced. Please add references to reliable sources to support the text. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added three reliable references to the summary. It should be fine now. Hey  mid  (contribs) 23:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * On ITNR and looks fine to me. Marking [ready]. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Heh. It's criminal got posted so easily when the more important one earlier this year didn't. – H T  D  17:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Zz. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. The Olympic ice hockey tournament was much more important than this, and had full-strength teams from every nation. It's unfortunate that these facts are not reflected in the discussions/decisions here. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Most certainly not in the discussions. Never mind, roll on 2018, we can all bitch about it again then.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope we will have clarified ITNR before then! <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 22:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Ukrainian presidential election, 2014

 * Altblurb proposed (this isn't a sports competition). Support this regardless, but the Poroshenko article requires some attention. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I support the alt blurb, but it is not uncommon to refer to an election as something that is won. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Should Poroshenko be bolded? Mat  ty  .  007  09:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell we don't bold representatives. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  09:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb.  It Is Me Here  t /  c  10:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Working on issues with articles. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  11:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Think I have resolved issues on both articles (more on Poroshenko than election). Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  11:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how to do this, but how about using File:Poroshenko 2010 (cropped).jpg? Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  11:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support with altblurb. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb. ITN/R notable, articles look good. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - election article needs more on the results. Especially given the general turmoil in Ukraine, the impact of result (i.e. analysis/international reaction) is a very important part of the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * expanded. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  09:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posting. I would prefer a complete results table but this is fine for the time being. Poroshenko's picture is available so someone may want to put it to the ITN as well. --Tone 09:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Wojciech Jaruzelski

 * Damnatio memoriae is probably much more fit for this guy. But he's cetainly notable enough encyclopedically, so, yes, support. μηδείς (talk) 12:57 pm, Today (UTC−4)
 * Though he imposed martial law in a bid to dampen support for Solidarity, in the long run Jaruzelski may have spared Poland a "Prague Spring"-style Soviet invasion, and ultimately he facilitated, if reluctantly, Poland's epoch-making moves toward liberal democracy. --Sca (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Major head of state of a sizable country, historically important. Textbook RD. -LtNOWIS (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. Would also support a full blurb. Jaruzelski was the last surviving of communist East European dictators; he outlived Ceaușescu, Hoxha, Tito, Zhivkov, Kádár, Honecker and Husák. He was responsible for Poland's participation in the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, the massacre of shipyard workers in 1970, and the military crackdown on the Solidarity in 1981. — Kpalion(talk) 17:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support A full blurb would also be a good idea here, per Kpalion's support. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Major historical figure. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. While this story seems to be getting enough consensus to post, the article has an orange tag on top about citations. I spotted a few paragraphs with no sources at all, including the death section.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  18:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I added the tag, you cannot have the fact that he faced murder charges insourced and the like. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007
 * Support blurb'. Important figure in recent Polish history. Mjroots (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support RD but not blurb. Maybe if this was pl.wp. Formerip (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support RD but there are referencing and neutrality issues, The article will need quite a bit of work before it can be posted. Neljack (talk) 01:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support full blurb Wojciech Jaruzelski was part of dark and disheartening period of history but he was, nonetheless, an important part of that history that should elevate him above basic RD listing. However, I agree with Neljack that there are significant article issues that need to be addressed. AgneCheese/Wine 03:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - This has consensus to post, but in light of the issues raised, can we post it to RD? Mjroots (talk) 06:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should be posted at RD as a minimum, and that can be done right away. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Article has an orange original research tag. We have always considered that a disqualifier for a blurb/RD (which have the same quality standards). --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, fair enough, several [citation needed] tags. Guess we need a helpful Polish political history expert to pop by and sort it out for us.... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support full blurb per Kpalion. He was a major figure in world politics for a very long time.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose at present. Article needs multiple citations before it is at a level suitable for the main page. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  11:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Should we just purge this information for now and just throw it on the main page, since some of this could easily be removed for now and added back in on a later date (with a note on the talk page, of course). Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't be a bad idea, could comment it out and, as you say, leave a note on the talk page requesting some assistance with sourcing etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Things which are fairly central to the article, such as his resignation as PM, shouldn't really be removed I don't think. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  11:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted - Article is not perfect, but seems up to minimum standards now. Thanks to all who worked on this. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] UFC 173

 * Oppose - Doesn't seem widely covered outside specialist media. Saying that viewers didn't expect an upset is tautology, and tells us nothing about the notability of the event. AlexTiefling (talk) 06:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's covered in Canada, Russia, Greece, Poland, Croatia, Mexico, Korea, France, Sweden, Camobdia and Israel.


 * The "173" part should be enough of a reason to shoot this down. Nergaal (talk) 07:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I was about to defend that, but as it turns out UFC 1 was only in 1993, so on average, these events take place about seven or eight times a year, right? The last one was a month ago, and the one before that just six weeks earlier?  What makes this nearly monthly event noteworthy? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - They have these things every few weeks. It's not even particularly important sporting news, let alone real news. If one of these events is super notable for whatever reason I'd consider supporting it (or at least not opposing), but there needs to be much more of a story than "PPV event takes place as scheduled." --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose The nominator's "the PPV events [..] only happen about once a month" indicates this isn't major news. —Lowellian (reply) 15:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose — Barão's defeat is surprising for the MMA community, but I don't think his defeat garnered as much as attention as Silva's two-time loss against Weidman, for example. Honestly, UFC title fights have to be incredibly notable to make it to ITN. Like I mentioned in a past discussion, I think St. Pierre's return to the UFC and his next fight will probably make it. Not this one. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 04:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Brussels museum gun attack

 * Support per nom. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. This is, as the nom says, unknown in Belgium and occurs very close to the national, local and European elections in Belgium at a time when the rise of the popularist far-right is noted across the continent...Brigade Piron (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that another victim has subsequently died, bringing the total up to 4.Brigade Piron (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support but, although the wording "apparent anti-Semitic attack" is hardly unreasonable, I don't think we should use it in the blurb, since nothing is known about motive at the moment. Formerip (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree that we shouldn't mention antisemitism given the lack of confirmation. Given the lack of such confirmation, I oppose at present. I would probably oppose in any case. Regrettably, it is not at all uncommon for people to be killed because of their race, religion or other characteristics. I don't think that the fact (if it be so) that this is anti-Semitic rather than anti-Muslim, anti-black or anti-Arab is of any relevance. Neljack (talk) 03:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's pretty uncommon in Western Europe, in the centre of a major capital. And don't pretend that the motives and contexts of murders aren't relevant to their newsworthiness. AlexTiefling (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed although the motives are unknown, pretty much everyone quoted in news reports is treating this as anti-semitic so it is not a characterisation original to Wikipedia. Even if it isn't anti-semitic, 3 people being killed in a gun attack at a major tourist site in the centre of Brussels is a newsworthy event in itself. Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * AlexTiefling, don't pretend that I said any such thing. All I said was that the fact that the target was Jews, rather than another minority group, was not relevant. Are you really saying that racially motivated murders of Jewish people are more important than racially motivated murders of black people or Arabs? Neljack (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying one is more or less important. I'm saying that they're different and not interchangeable, particularly in a part of Europe that was under Nazi occupation. The context of anti-Semitic attacks inevitably relates to that. That's what I mean by the context being relevant. I'm not trying to score any points here, but you do seem to be doing exactly what you claim not to be doing. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * AlexTiefling, how am I claiming "that the motives and contexts of murders aren't relevant to their newsworthiness"? Our disagreement is merely over whether one bit of the context - the ethnic group that has apparently been targeted - increases its notability. I am certainly not advancing any broader proposition on the irrelevance of motive or context - for instance, I think that, all else being equal, a racially motivated murder is more notable than a non-racially motivated one. I am of course aware of the historical context in Belgium, but I would suggest that Arabs and black people are these days more likely to be the victims of prejudice, discrimination and hate crimes there than Jews are, so I find it hard to see why an antisemitic attack today is of greater significance in terms of the issues it raises. Neljack (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * While the exact motive may not be confirmed, the attack has resulted in increased security at Jewish sites in Belgium (FWIW).--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Notable event that was covered by many sources.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 04:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I find the way that this nomination is going very curious because an equivalent anti-semitic shooting that resulted in the deaths of 3 people two months ago was roundly opposed: April_2014. Pardon me, did not read the nominator comment.  Spencer T♦ C 05:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Neljack.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  06:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per the rarity of such an event and the wide news coverage. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The news coverage about this story in Arabic media is scarce; I wouldn't have known about this if I hadn't read it here.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  14:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well thank goodness for Wikipedia! And yes, I'm not surprised that this kind of story doesn't get much coverage in the Arabic media.  But that's an entirely different story.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per nom and arguments above. Use 'anti-semitic' if that's what RS say. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 Champions League final

 * Support - It is also their 10th title and I believe this should be mentioned in the blurb. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. In principle I support mentioning the 10th title but the snag is not all of them are Champions League titles precisely.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - article seems to have everything except a textual recap of the game, which it does need to get posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added some references and cleaned up the summary somewhat.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good, posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Mahafarid Amir Khosravi executed

 * Support - High profile executions are not unusual in Iran, but in this case it is very serious. Per nom, it is not everyday that a country's once richest man is executed. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is the execution of a rich guy more serious than that of a poor person? Neljack (talk) 02:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If one is rich it usually means they are successful at their business/industry, and a nation doesn't usually execute its successful citizens. Further I don't know many countries that have fraud as a death penalty offense. In the US, such offenses are usually murders of children, police officers on duty, or murders during other crimes(none of which the rich typically do). 331dot (talk)
 * It's certainly more unusual for a rich person to be executed - no doubt partly because they can afford the best lawyers etc - but I hardly think a poor person being executed is less serious. Also it seems that here the allegation was that he had become very wealthy and successful through criminal activity. Neljack (talk) 02:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the nomination is based on the notability of the "largest fraud in Iranian history" story, not just the wealth of Khosravi. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Absolutely oppose blurb who's saying this, the un-audited theocratic dictatorship that accused him and will seize his assets? Neutral wording is deperately needed and the actual scope of his supposed crime, untried in a independent judiciary, has no way of be compared factually with anything. μηδείς (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not up to use to judge the validity of the verdict, only the importance of it. Also, Khosravi admit to bribery to obtain fraudulent loans in court... If you think another wording would be better, please supply it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ThaddeusB, but if (as I agree) "it is not up to use to judge the validity of the verdict" then surely that means we must take a position of neutrality on its validity? I take it that Medeis's point is that the blurb implies that he was guilty. And while he admitted bribery, he did not, as far as I can see, admit to "masterminding the largest fraud in Iran since the 1979 Revolution". We have to be careful here - BLP continues to apply. Neljack (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you prefer "executed for his involvement in ..."? --ThaddeusB (talk)
 * I added an altblurb that is longer, but is more straight forward as to neutrality. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks - that looks good. Neljack (talk) 05:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Re It is not up to use to judge the validity of the verdict, only the importance of it - do you really think we should take a position of total meta-ethical moral relativism?
 * Don't you think our readers would expect us to support the idea that some things (e.g. murder) are bad, regardless of the laws in play at the specific place and time?
 * I don't think we can avoid making that kind of judgement - it's implicit in a lot of the stories we post (and certainly in our choice of those stories) that death and suffering of innocent people is a bad thing.
 * I have no idea whether the guy in this case would have been convicted by a non-Iranian court, but given the world's opinion of Iran (e.g. in many WP:RS), I don't think we should treat an Iranian conviction as proof that he actually did the things he's accused of.
 * Therefore the blurb should just say "is executed by an Iranian court" - we should treat the charges as unproven and therefore (on WP:WEIGHT grounds) we shouldn't list them.
 * Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * He wasn't just executed at random. He was convicted and executed on specific charges.  Someone being executed by Iran is not very notable.  Being executed as part of the biggest fraud case in history is.  If you want to drop the charges fine, but the case is what makes it notable. See altblurb2. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support; I'm in agreement with Fitzcarmalan. 331dot (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm very much mistaken, this isn't ITN/R, so I've removed the note saying that it is. ThaddeusB, if I'm missing something, do feel free to revert. Neljack (talk) 03:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, just an accident on my part. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer a bare, factual blurb. Something like MK is executed on the largest fraud charges brought by the revolutionary government since taking power in 1979--assuming we even need to mention the revolutionary government.  As it stands, the blurb reads as an accomplishment of the the rev gov in cleaning up the country. μηδείς (talk) 04:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Right. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the altblurb accomplishes that. If not, please be specific about what part is objectionable as I am not seeing it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * See altblurb2 and let me know if that works for you. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, and with that I'd consider it ready on blurb and notability, though I haven't looked at updating and sources. μηδείς (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems like a big case and article is looking fine.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  14:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Article has some problems e.g. "He and his brother were running a cattle when Khosravi began getting loans for the facilities during 2005-06." (I would correct this particular one but I'm not clear what it's meant to say). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just missing the word "ranch" after cattle. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If there are any remaining errors, please let me know. It is very hard to catch ones own errors as one tends to read what they intended to write instead of what they actually did. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Marked ready for altblurb2 per Medeis' comment "with [altblurb2] I'd consider it ready on blurb and notability" which effectively makes this unopposed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's a four supports-plus nom plus 14-refs and this update, so let's post. μηδείς (talk) 03:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Posted altblurb 2.  Spencer T♦ C 04:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 Heineken Cup final

 * Comment - article is in very good shape except that the team sections are unreferenced. I imagine that should be easy to fix. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you can click on the "report" link in the match details section and see all the players. If you like, I can add a few more links, but that's usually sufficient.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess I was unclear, I meant the text in the "Route to final" section. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sub-optimal, but I added some links to the club's own fixtures pages which feature full match reports on every game played from the beginning to the final. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If there are no further objections, this ITNR item (despite the absence of Irish teams Howard!) is ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I'm inclined to leave this until we've got another item to go between this and the football, just for the sake of variety. Anotehr admin may disagree. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The CA attack, the Belgian attack, and Khosravi could potentially be posted. (I.E. may have consensus but need evaluated) --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 Cannes Film Festival

 * Comment article obviously will need to be updated for tense etc since the festival concludes soon, and I imagine we could use more prose on the Palme d'Or itself, although I have sympathy in this case as there's probably not much more to say other than "it won the Palme". Otherwise bold article is in good condition, but I would have expected Winter Sleep to be the bold article as, after all, it's that which has won the prize....  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support: Article looks good if perhaps a little thin on prose. Notable per ITN/R. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support but needs expanding. The festival article has virtually no prose after the lead, and most people will want to know about the film, for which the article is very short. Formerip (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - it might make more sense to link to the film than the festival - this is what people will be most interested in. Either target (or both) is fine, but there should definitely be a good description of Winter Sleep whatever the target article is. At current, neither article has that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per ITN/R. Also, Ceylan is a very well-known director and is at the top of his field in Turkey. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The ITN/R really relates to the movie, not the awards article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think both should be linked, but the film article requires some attention. I might assist with the work on it tomorrow, though I can't promise anything. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Biggest film festival of the year, ITN/R, etc.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Concerns have been expressed about the lack of content in the article about the festival and the one about the film. I haven't looked a the latter, as the festival article s the one bolded in the proposed blurb, but the former still has no prose after the lead, which itself is not huge. I'd like to see something a bit more substantial before posting. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Ready - I have added a textual summary of the awards, including a brief plot summary of Winter Sleep. When the film article is ready the blurb can be switched to have two bolds, but no reason not to post the Cannes article now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it would also be wise to have a photo posted. Maybe the director's? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Good idea, pic added to template. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, this is ready. The film article is also a bit less flimsy now. Formerip (talk) 00:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 04:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe the film article is ready. Can someone take a look? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good, going to bold that too, nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Yunnan earthquake

 * A 5.6? No! Nergaal (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose minor event. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support given the large number of people affected. Typical case of systemic bias - imagine this would have happened in California! --RJFF (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, or London, or Mars, or .... but it didn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If it happened in California there wouldn't have been any significant damage because buildings are better constructed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Massive destruction, of course this should be posted. Küñall (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Massive number of people's lives severely affected. TRM, the argument that this story should not be used because the region and the people who live there are less important than other areas such as California or London isn't one which I find at all convincing. Perhaps I've misunderstood your comment. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My comment is directly related to the comment that preceded mine. Perhaps I've misunderstood your comment?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You seemed to be saying that if the story had happened in California then it would have been notable, but that because it actually happened in China, it wasn't notable.
 * That seemed to me more of a confirmation of Wikipedia's systemic bias than an argument capable of refuting RJFF's point.
 * But as I say, I may have misunderstood.
 * Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I am concerned that this number of 9,412 homes destroyed is complete horsehit. First off, with that many homes destroyed there should be huge loss of life. Second, how on Earth could they come up with such an estimate within a few hours of the quake? So this cannot be posted without independent confirmation by non-government sources. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It looks like the earthquake damaged 9000+ homes, which is a far cry from destroyed. Here is how PTI decsribed it "Residents rushed out of their homes when the quake happened. Tiles fell from some roofs and there was a power blackout in the epicenter, said Tao Jiqing, Party secretary of the county.".  There were a mere 13 injuries.  Sounds like the kind of damage that would normally be expected form a small quake, of which there are several monthly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Nabeel Rajab is released

 * Mild oppose very decent article, but for me, not that notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Question - was the release unexpected or just the end of his sentence? --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * According to the article, his initial sentence was reduced to two years, so this was expected. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It was expected and long awaited for, especially after he was denied early release back in December.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)
 * Support - It has been a long wait on his release, even though he it was expected. It was never clear whether or not they were actually going to release him given previous circumstances with other activists/individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.148.1.69 (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. After all Rajab was denied early release few months ago, despite meeting all the requirements according to Bahraini penal law (according to his lawyer). Such a repressive regime could have found any excuse to keep him jailed.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  14:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per The Rambling Man. Brigade Piron (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support because article is GA-status and per Mohamed CJ  and IP 89. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. per TRM.  Spencer T♦ C 18:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 Isla Vista shootings

 * Oppose looks more like six deaths, but it's another (random) day in the US really. I'd be much more interested in the anti-Semitic shootings in Belgium that took place earlier today. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Both the Santa Barbara shootings and the Belgium shootings sound good. Even if gun violence happens frequently, we can't turn a blind eye to it... OmriSama (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2014 (PDT)
 * Support - Seven deaths confirmed; six victims plus the perpetrator. There are a number of circumstances - such as the perpetrator's overt misogyny and his privileged background - that make this story more than just another US gun tragedy. OmriSama, I know what you meant, but really, none of this 'sounds good'; it's appalling. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - mass shootings are not nearly as common in the US as is sometimes implied around here. Regardless, this one is receiving a ton of attention and the article is in excellent shape which is enough to earn my support in what otherwise might be a borderline case. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The blurb is inaccurate. Three of the deceased were fatally stabbed. Neljack (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tragic but of little wider significance. Given that in our patriarchal societies misogyny is an extremely common feature of violence, I'm not sure how that provides a basis for singling this out. It is hardly uncommon for it to be associated with privilege either. Neljack (talk) 05:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as TRM said, random day in US...--Stemoc (talk) 05:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. To be honest, I don't understand people's Oppose rationales here at all. How is this "just another day in the U.S."; what are you basing that on? This story is currently the lead on CNN, ABC, BBC News and the Sydney Morning Herald, so people are likely to be looking for the WP article on it (In_the_news). The article is above Stub-length and is well-sourced (In_the_news). So, per the ITN criteria, there is every reason to support.  It Is Me Here  t /  c  09:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak support I'd be happier not seeing every killing of this type end up on the front page (for reasons similar to those stated in the opposes), but the excessive media coverage unfortunately makes them more notable. ToBk (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Come on, this happens all the time in the US of A. If you separate the blurb from the actual details of the story, is the blurb itself really that newsworthy? It really isn't. I agree that the Belgium shootings are far more notable. 98.180.53.48 (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - No, this doesn't happen all the time in the US. This is definitely in the news.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Most definitely doesn't happen all the time barring a really loose definition of "all the time" -- A L K  (Talk) 23:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak support If we have the Belgian shooting, we have to have this one as well. "Another random day in the US"? Uh, what? What kind of justification for an oppose is that? The Belgian shooting, currently on ITN, has a lower death toll (both are tragic events) and this topic is most certainly "in the news", regardless of whether or not the amount of media coverage is justified. --Samuel Peoples (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm an American and even I would agree with TRM that the anti-Semitic shooting in Belgium is more newsworthy and unique. The rampant gun culture of the US does, sadly, make these mass shootings all too common. Many organizations even keep a running tally. In 2013, there were 23 mass shootings in the US. It's heartbreaking to say this but this type of violence is becoming "run of the mill". Of course, every loss of life is tragic but whether or not an item gets posted to ITN has no bearing or significance on "how tragic" that loss was. Of the plethora of items that get global coverage in news sources, we do have to strive for diversity so do we really want to get in the habit of posting every major mass shooting the US? AgneCheese/Wine 03:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I will also add that 2014 is an election year in the US and you can make a fair argument that quite a bit of the media coverage on this event has some political tinges to it as partisans in the media on both sides try to spin the story to their own benefit. I would caution against "bean counting" media stories as evidence of newsworthiness. AgneCheese/Wine 03:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * For what it is worth, most mass shootings involve either a single location, or victims who are well known to the shooter, or both. The type of spree killing where the murderer targets strangers at multiple locations is rarer, averaging only about 2 incidents per year in the US.  Dragons flight (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Posted altblurb. There is consensus, albeit not overwhelmingly strong. Also taken into consideration was the strong quality of the nominated article.  Spencer T♦ C 04:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Remove from ongoing Why is this in ongoing!? It's not an ongoing event, and we're not CNN with tabloid coverage of every new discovery in the case. Having "California killings" up with "Ukrainian unrest" and "Balkan flooding" looks really tacky. ToBk (talk) 04:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Camelopardalis

 * Oppose for now. This is a predicted new meteor shower, which has never been observed before. The intensity of meteor showers is notoriously difficult to predict. It may or may not happen, so WP:CRYSTAL applies. If this turns out to be spectacular, then we can consider a nomination. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support' for the exact reason MG opposes--this is a first show, hence likely to be a stronger one--our readers can make up their own minds as to whether to step outside and see this. μηδείς (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What evidence do you have that the first encounter with a meteor stream is 'likely to be a stronger one'? I think the various peer-reviewed astronomy journals would be very interested to hear about it. You're just speculating. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose all reliable sources have no idea what this is going to be like. We're not here to speculate nor provide an almanac for future viewings.  If it becomes singularly notable, once it's actually occurred and once it's been reliably reported, we can reconsider.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose more that we have a lot of other significant stories going on right now; if we were in a slower news period, I'd be all for it even with this being only a predicted show as opposed to a known one. But to display the major items we have now with this is a bit iffy. --M ASEM (t) 20:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In other words, the Credit Suisse fine is morr important than a once-in-a-life-time event that we can report after it happens? μηδείς (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not once in a lifetime. Supposedly it will be annual. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Wait. If I see any in the light-polluted area where I live, I'll change to strong support. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Any updates? Nothing been reported as far as a quick Google is concerned... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't see diddly. Abductive  (reasoning) 11:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears you're not alone! Good job we held off posting in advance, that would have been embarrassing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Very America-centric blurb. In Europe, it happened on the morning of the 24th, in New Zealand on the night of the 24th (and it wasn't visible from most of Asia). At any rate, the peak (which is happening as I write this) doesn't seem to be especially spectacular - certainly less than the the one-per-minute Perseids. Smurrayinchester 08:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "The night of X" generally means from sunset on X to sunrise on X+1 so that would cover morning of the 24th... If we had posted this, it would have been in simple present tense, like all blurbs, without specifying a date. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Suggest this is closed as a very damp and disappointing squib. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Glasgow School of Art

 * Comment: article needs a lot more referencing. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  17:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Pics show extensive damage. Art schools are very much rarer than colleges, and I have never heard of one being destroyed. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's unfortunate, but single-building fires happen every day, and it's not an internationally famous building. No casualties; no notable artworks reported destroyed. —Lowellian (reply) 07:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "It is a work of architectural heritage of world renown and its influence on 20th Century architecture is immeasurable. Scotland has seen the loss of an international treasure which reflects the genius of one of our greatest ever architects." (president of the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland, as reported by BBC). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Damage to a building of such immense significance and uniqueness is an international tragedy. It is irreplaceable." (RIBA quoted in The Telegraph) Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "The Mackintosh building is of international importance" (Scottish culture secretary quoted in The Guardian) Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "the international architecture community is in mourning for Mackintosh's masterpiece as tributes pour in for "immeasurably" influential building" (Architecture magazine De Zeen)
 * "The shock following the fire that has swept through it will be felt way beyond Glasgow, Scotland and the UK; this is a historic building of great international significance." (The Conversation)
 * "A world renowned building" (Assistant Chief Fire Officer Dave Boyle quoted in Architects' Journal) Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose this morning's report suggests that, far from being destroyed, firefighters have "prevented the destruction of both the structure and the majority of its contents". Nothing particularly significant to note at ITN therefore.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Some students got some paintings destroyed. Next.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support The library ("one of the finest examples of art nouveau in the world" - BBC) has been destroyed. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Guardian confirms the library has been destroyed, calls the building "world renowned". Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ultimately though, it's just one building by one architect. It's really sad, but I still can't see it being notable enough to knock other ITN items off the main page.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose In a slower news period, maybe, but there's far more tragic things going on in the world right now that ITN should be covering than an accidental fire with no loss of life. --M ASEM (t) 18:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We have loads of disaster stories, but when did we last have an architecture story? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Pritzker Architecture Prize is ITNR so that'd be the one. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It was Pritzker winner Shigeru Ban who was posted to ITN on 25 March. Hopefully that resolves your query?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] ICC conviction
*Support. War crimes convictions are notable. 331dot (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Change to oppose; we already posted this when the actual conviction took place; I was confused by the proposed blurb and the article. 331dot (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Was already featured on the main page just two months ago when he was found guilty! This is just the sentencing, which we don't typically post. Smurrayinchester 13:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah,, too quick but feel free to close then ;)Lihaas (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] 2014 Taipei Metro attack

 * Support - event is notable, article looks good. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * oppose of we set precedence at 4 deaths then we have to post a whole bunch of Asian attacks (and more). Neither has the nom indicated notabilityLihaas (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Doesn't seem to be part of any larger story, which might have made it notable. Sadly, this sort of spree killing is a common sort of tragedy. Smurrayinchester 13:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Doesn't seem to be terrorism or any sort of larger issue(as Smurray suggests); just someone who wanted to harm people. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose not especially notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - major event that has a significant impact on the country, good coverage in the article. Also, coverage in Portal:Current Events. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Imre Gedővári

 * Support. Meets DC2; important in his field. 331dot (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is way, way away from being ready. Will re-assess if and when article is less than a micro-stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Unable to assess. The article is barely a stub, and the sources given are not in languages I can understand. Given the lack of an article, this nomination seems premature. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Please take anotehr look when you get the chance - article has been substantially improved. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Very good work. However, strikingly absent in wikilinks, e.g. "Order of the Star medal and the Kemény Ferenc award", if these are notable enough for the lead and are being used to confer additional notability, do they have articles?  Also, some of the Games and Championships could be linked.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Good question. The Order of the Star was discontinued in 1991 when Hungary went to the Order of Merit system, so it is not surprising we don't have an article on it.  It is definitely a major honor though - based on a picture of it I found, I am pretty sure it is equivalent to the Golden Cross today (coloration is different but the design w/3 bars is very similar).  I can't tell if the Ferenc Kemény award is significant or not, so I removed it from the lead. (I forgot to reverse to word order when changing "Kemény Ferenc-dij" into English; it is named after Ferenc Kemény whom it is a shame we don't have an article on.)  It is given annual for teaching/scholarship and carries an award of "six times the base salary". --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * - Are you still opposed, or can get you to go at least neutral? --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Brigade Piron (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support: Thaddeus has done great work on the article, was at top of field: competing at Olympics shows that. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  15:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not strictly true, look at Eric the Eel or Eddie the Eagle. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Competing and winning medals. Mat  ty  .  007  17:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Sorry, but this is a bit too much of a reach for me. Most of his medals weren't individual medals, but team medals, including the Olympic gold and one of the bronze. Was he notable? Of course. The best fencer in all of Hungary? Perhaps. But I don't think his accomplishments rise to the level usually required for ITN. A lot of athletes have won a lot of medals for a lot of countries. We can't post them all. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As the lead fencer, he played a large role in winning the team golds. There is no reason we can't post all well-accomplished Olympic gold medalists to RD. The number is not that great - a couple a month, and many such articles won't be in condition to post, further reducing the number that could be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Top 10 New Species

 * Comment. What is with the weird descriptions such as "Hanging Around in the Jurassic"? That doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedia article. It seems to me that the article is leaning too heavily on the primary source material, and on quoting the guys in the Institute. Without secondary analysis of their picks I feel that the article really shouldn't be on the Front Page. But otherwise it is pretty interesting. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Good suggestions. The weird descriptions are actually from the institute, which is actually a second reason they shouldn't be used (unattributed creative content). They were there (for the 2013 list) before I got to the article, but I clean them up now.  I will also add some analysis of the picks.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is an annual event, but it's not one that rises to the other annual events that regularly make ITN -- the average person on the street will have heard of the Nobel Prize, the Academy Awards, the NBA Finals, etc., but not of this. It is a list that depends on what one not-too-well-known organization considers important. I'm in favor of ITN entries for newly discovered species, but for the immediate announced discovery of a specific species that makes a big splash in the news, not for the annual list of one relatively small organization. The problem with this as an ITN item is that the news isn't the recent discovery of a species -- the news is the release of an organization's annual summarizing list. —Lowellian (reply) 07:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That is basically true, but really it's the creatures that are worth highlighting. We would never post soemthing like the clean room bateria or the snail found 3000 feet under the surface of Earth on their own, because there are far too many interesting discoveries each year.  Here we have a list of ten such discoveries which really gives us a chance to feature the diversity fo life on ITN (as opposed to mostly new mammals and birds), and the list is very much in the news around the globe.  I also dispute that we only post very recognizable annual events.  I doubt the average "person on the street" can identify what the Fields Medal, Leone d’Oro, or IMPAC award is, but we post all those and many others well below Nobel Prize level of recognizability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the creatures are definitely worth highlighting, but maybe that's more DYK territory. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is not a major award - it's a bit of publicity for an admittedly noble cause. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS applies. However, these species do sound like excellent candidates for DYK. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] May 2014 Urumqi attack

 * Comment: I thought the subject seemed familiar, we had April 2014 Ürümqi attack in ITN only 20 days ago. Perhaps a move to ongoing? Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  17:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The April attack left 3 people dead. This new attack is at least 31, which is a huge escalation, and should be its own news item. Again, this is the deadliest attack so far. —Lowellian (reply) 17:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support we appear to have set a precedent, as long as the article is up to scratch (it currently is not and is simply a stub although not tagged as such), we'd look daft if we don't post this. Again, another possible shout for Ongoing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Suppport this is simply more of the typical bomb, knife and arson violence we have come to expect from a country deprived of its God-given right to guns. Not opposed to ongoing, but will we describe it as Islamist or sectarian? μηδείς (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Suppport major attack, high casualty. -Zanhe (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - article is pretty stubby at current (it has several sections but each section is about two lines long). It should be beefed up some more before posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I got the article a bit higher, and will expand tomorrow if it still needs doing. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  20:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you would be so kind as to flush it out more, I woudl appreciate it. Paragraphs of 2-3 short sentence just don't offer very much information. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * combined paras as I think that is the best way for the minute, and added a bit. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  17:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Event notable, article adequate. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * support high enough death tooll for China. theres also a major social conflict/issue in China and there reaction ondicates this. + there were the train stabbings a few fdasy ago.v Lihaas (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 20:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Update needed - death toll has risen to 43. -Zanhe (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Updated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Mali fighting

 * Oppose One small town, that has been previously struggled over in '12, compared to issues with an entire country or province. --M ASEM (t) 13:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. —Lowellian (reply) 20:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013–14 Thai political crisis (coup d'etat)

 * Support - A major development. Note that the existing declaration of martial law is already nominated further down the page; my feeling is that this nomination represents a much bigger event. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Not a massive surprise given the martial law annoucement, but as Alex stated above this is a bigger event and should be included. Miyagawa (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Clearly newsworthy per above. Article could do with more updated info. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. per above. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 12:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Clearly newsworthy with major regional (if not global) implications. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, outweighing the original declaration of martial law blurb below. This shouldn't be a matter of debate beyond making sure the article's there, and I think there's a fair # of good editors on it. --M ASEM (t) 12:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per Masem. Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - article still has the neutrality tag which needs addressed; a possible solution is a new article for the c'oup as it is almost certainly independently notable and the main article is aleady too long. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: User:Aristitleism has created a new article at 2014 Thai coup d'état. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Very good, posting with a link to the new article. I changed the blurb a bit to avoid all the consective blue links and link to both articles: "The commander of the Royal Thai Army, Prayuth Chan-ocha (pictured), announces a coup d'état following months of political crisis."  Please feel free to discuss tweaks to the blurb here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Suggestion, could we insert the rank ... General Prayuth Chan-ocha ... just that word? He is referred to as such in the above Reuters / BBC sources. starship.paint   "YES!" 02:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Michael Jackson song in top 10

 * Oppose - Statistical trivia. Also not a world first; Cliff Richard had top 10 hits in 5 consecutive decades here in the UK. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not (yet, at least) covered in mainstream media as a top story. 331dot (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose as trivia. Decade boundaries are arbitrary anyway. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose definitely a DYK candidate. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment unfortunately DKYCheck shows it was only expanded 21 days ago and therefore not eligible. Nathan121212 (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Unlucky. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Libyan uprising

 * Oppose until new government is formed, or open warfare commences. This sort of thing (internal power politics) is becoming pretty routine in certain North African and Middle Eastern countries, and unless it leads to a significant change in the [i]status quo[/i], I don't think it passes the notability test. 128.214.172.232 (talk) 06:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've changed the second part of the blurb and replaced it with the attack on parliament and its eventual suspension three days ago. There is already an armed confrontation between Haftar and the government/Islamists as the air force chief who announced his backing of the revolt bombed a number of targets in Benghazi on Haftar's behalf. The government responded by setting a no-fly zone over Benghazi. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Wait and see what develops. Instability in Libya isn't really news; as the IP user suggests we should wait for a more significant development such as actual warfare or a peaceful end to this situation. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. This development is significant. Haftar now controls Benghazi, the Parliament is suspended and more than 70 were killed in the events (at least according to BBC Arabic radio station). The article has room for improvement, including for the title (NPOV issue IMO).  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  13:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * strong support its eerily similar to Thailand and that's posted. _ we posted 10 deaths in Nigeria...no difference with black or brown deaths. #hypocrisyLihaas (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's similar to Thailand. This guy spent years in northern Virginia, and I think you can connect the dots. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

? Perhaps this should replace Balkan Flooding in Ongoing? μηδείς (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, major development. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per Mohamed CJ. Neljack (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree because the events are quickly developing and the parliament storming incident was a few days ago which means it is not in the news anymore. However, the article is still incomplete and important sections are missing, including the reactions to the crisis and the allegations of foreign involvement. I will try to update it while I can but any help would be very appreciated. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * this has been going on for a while.Lihaas (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Natural gas deal

 * Support I'd probably describe this as Russia recognizing reality, rather than a defeat for the West, but it's a huge move of long term geopolitical consequence. μηδείς (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong support There are multiple implications that the deal could have in the world apart of being the largest contract in the history of the industry. Additionally, the news has a worldwide coverage and could be a fine example of similar stories that should go on the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Agree with Kiril Simeonovski, above. CaptRik (talk) 07:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Notable international agreement being widely covered. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Is there any talk of this being connected to China's desire to lessen coal pollution? Or to fracking (or lack thereof)? Abductive  (reasoning) 16:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what China gets out of it. I have tweaked the article accordingly. I didn't wnat to put too much about China in (the article is Natural gas in Russia), but two sentences seems fine. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Credit Suisse fine

 * Support. Unlike many business news stories, this one is a single big event without any danger of being appealed, denied by regulators or otherwise made null. It is international, and involves Swiss banks, legendary in their disregard for the law and notorious for helping dictators and millionaires hide their money. The world is a changed place with Swiss banks reined in. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per ThaddeusB & Abductive . Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 09:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Notable settlement with a Swiss bank, significant in the financial world. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support; Substantial fine, important far-reaching case. --Somchai Sun (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted good article condition, clear consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Shall we use File:Credit Suisse Logo.svg? -- Y not? 20:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sure they'll be delighted with the exposure! Just need a helpful admin to make sure the image doesn't get replaced with a bunch of cocks, or something equally representative.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Exposure is not what I am trying to achieve. It's just a useful and available illustration.  Better than an old mugshot of Abu Hamza.  Maybe you're right, let's not use it at all, leave it without image for now. -- Y not? 20:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm just messing with you. I couldn't care less what image goes up there, but as we're continually reminded, unless it's uploaded properly and protected, it could be replaced with a massive cock image or something equally unappealing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's just leave ITN w/o a picture until a good one is available. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] May 2014 Nigeria bombings

 * Oppose Seemingly part on ongoing Boko Haram insurgency issues. --M ASEM (t) 19:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support as part of an Ongoing item per Masem, perhaps change the emphasis from the kidnappings to the ongoing troubles in Nigeria. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would support the Boko Haram stuff as an ongoing item, definitely. --M ASEM (t) 19:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we change the "Chibok kidnapping" heading to something more general? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not believe there is a general article that is regularly updated. That is not necessarily an issue though - if new incidents continue to get new articles, that link name can stay the same ("Boko Haram insurgency" perhaps) while the link itself changes.  That said, an existing ongoing item shouldn't be seen a barrier to a full blurb - the ongoing will naturally be removed if/when a full blurb goes up. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood. So to make my position plain, I'll oppose until a suitable Ongoing article is created.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment — With "at least" 46 killed, on top of earlier events, it would seem appropriate for ITN to take note in some fashion ASAP. (For a general title, suggest something like "2014 Nigerian strife.") Sca (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would agree if it weren't for the fact we would then have two Nigeria stories relating to the same insurgency on ITN. Solve that, and we have a real way forward.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it would be safe to combine the two. See AP. And this version from AP goes a bit farther, saying, "the twin car bombs ... bore the hallmarks of Boko Haram, the Islamic extremist group that abducted nearly 300 schoolgirls last month." Sca (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So either suggest a combined blurb and remove the Ongoing, or modify the Ongoing title and target? Which one?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As an escalation in conflict, seems like ITN blurb material to me, so kill the Ongoing (though that might return if things calm down later). Sca (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Update — Guardian, in staff-written story from Lagos, says "at least 118" killed, adding that "the bombs bore the hallmarks of other attacks by Islamist sect Boko Haram." Sca (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well if it's accurate, it's a definite blurb, dependent on article quality. Perhaps the community is fine with two Nigeria stories after all? We'll see. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there some other likely Ongoing candidate? Sca (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Update Added alt-blurb. I've updated the article a little bit with some up-to-date information, but I've also added a citation needed to the link with Boko Harem as I can't find something to backup their leader's claim.  I do Support this for posting however.  CaptRik (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support full blurb - more than 100 dead means this a notable escalation of the situation in Nigeria. When promoted, I suggest removing the kidnapping story (its still in the news but is closely related to this story).  Article is coming along but could use a little more work. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Alt. blurb — The 118 figure was also used by PBS Newshour in U.S. However, blurb should include Boko Harem as suspected perp. Sca (talk) 00:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb per Thaddeus. Neljack (talk) 04:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment this definitely has support for a blurb, but the article needs just a little more expansion, although it's several sections, only about five sentences (excluding lead repeats) relate to the actual bombing. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb. Notability is clear. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment yet another attack in Nigeria today, again Boko Haram suspected, 17 murdered. This really needs to be in the Ongoing section, that's exactly what it's for... I think we're going to need to do some serious work on Islamist insurgency in Nigeria.... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * support REPLACING this link with the Chibok kidnapping. Its practuically a full-fledged war since the kindnappings.Lihaas (talk) 13:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Conspicuous by its absence from ITN. Sca (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Then instead of complaining here, help expand the article on the bombing or improve the article on the insurgency. Noting problems is easy, providing solutions seems beyond many around here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Valid criticism. Alas, surfing around 1600 UTC failed to find an up-to-date roundup incorporating Wednesday and Tuesday events. Coverage seems to be in bits. (I thought CaptRik was working on it — no?) Sca (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the article. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  16:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Now here's a new AP story that combines Wednesday bombings with Jos attack. Sca (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, work got in the way. Taking a look now.  CaptRik (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Posted by ‎Smurrayinchester. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I had a look for an ongoing that could cover this and the Chibok kidnapping, but the closest article, Islamist insurgency in Nigeria, has nothing about the bombing. Besides, while I think there's little doubt that it's part of the same conflict, no-one has come forward and nothing has been proved yet (both Christian and Muslim groups are been active in Jos), which might cause people to cry NPOV if we link them so explicitly. Smurrayinchester 17:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a concern, but one could say that BH "was widely suspected" of being responsible. Sca (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Bekasovo rail crash

 * Oppose right now. Low death toll, accidents like this happen all the time all over the world.  If death toll significantly increases, will re-consider.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose — Ditto, plus no apparent wider significance. Sca (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Rail accidents are not terribly unusual occurrences. 331dot (talk) 01:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - latest figures are 9 dead, 51 injured. Death toll still likely to rise. Mjroots (talk) 07:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It would appear not. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Abu Hamza

 * Support - fought extradition for 8 years, UK government reluctant (or too scared) to prosecute. Definitely ITN-worthy. Mjroots (talk) 06:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support significant terror conviction on both sides of the pond, and article in decent condition. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support One of the most significant stories here in the UK for many years. This development is certainly front page worthy doktorb wordsdeeds 09:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - one more crazy muslim terrorist imprisoned. nothing special really but it is still a major player.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - needs a better update (1 sentence at current) before posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Updated with a couple of additional sentences. The history leading up to this sentence is quite well covered in the article.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't like the hook. Formerip (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Chortle.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Applause. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I should probably add that this is not a real oppose vote. Formerip (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Mjroots (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose and wait until the duration of the sentence is passed. IE, the blurb can be updated to state the duration.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The consensus here at ITN is to post upon convictions. As I saw the debate, the moment of conviction has two benefits: first, it is a single, closed event and finding of fact which allows people to be called "murderer", "rapist", etc without fear of being sued for libel. Second, the endless legal maneuverings post-conviction, including sentencing, reporting to prison, appeals of convictions, appeals of sentences, paroles, pardons and so forth, are just that; endless. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Doesn't America have some sort of separation of powers? Has Hamza really been convicted by the United States government, or was it a jury sitting in a court like usually happens? Formerip (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the blurb was erroneously tweaked when posted, should be more appropriate now, as noted at ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My bad. I used a phrase common to US English, which isn't understood literally, in an attempt to generalize New York -> United States (he was prosecuted under NY law, but US law).  I should have known better, as I can clearly see how it could be read differently by different readers. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've just added a further comment at ERRORS. CaptRik (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Martial law in Thailand

 * Support Was in the middle of noming there. Article has some cleanup tags but more related to too much information and not from lack of sourcing. --M ASEM (t) 23:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Seems very important and serious.   [  Soffredo  ]   Journeyman lv4 small.jpg 01:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support but article needs properly fixing up and this appears to be a good candidate for Ongoing news (the clue's in the target article title....) The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Support It's a super-major political development for the Army to take control of any country. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - the neutrality tag needs addressed before it is posted. The too long article/lead tags are less of a concern, but, of course, it would be nice if someone made an attempt at addressing those too. --ThaddeusB (talk)
 * Comment: Coup has just been announced. The Army Commander said that the military is taking control of the country. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably best to close this nom in favor of posting the coup one, above. --M ASEM (t) 12:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Jack Brabham

 * Support Unarguably top of his field for a while. HiLo48 (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support top of the field, don't mind a full blurb neither. Secret account 02:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Meets DC2 as very important in his field.  Article doesn't seem in bad shape either. 331dot (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Multiple world champion, just to keep my nomination short. Donnie Park (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I expanded the relevant section in his article. Marking ready.  Calidum  Talk To Me 03:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Certainly among the top 20 most significant people in the history of F1 if not the top 10. Two more championships as constructor on top of his driver's championships. 3142 (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support' - but doesn't he deserve a blurb? Mjroots (talk) 05:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD with no prejudice against a conversion to a full blurb. Stephen 05:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - A great in his field, but that's what DC2 is for. I'm not seeing the death itself as the story here, so RD is appropriate.  GoldenRing (talk) 08:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support for RD only per GoldenRing. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Fundación bus fire

 * Support - Normally not a big fan of these types of accidents, but as the LATimes article points out, the driver did something rather stupid (pouring gasoline over the carburetor, which IIRC is one of those ways that you could restart an engine but also one that's meant to be done very carfully, and hence why the driver's already been arrested under criminal charges). This was something that could have been avoided and the story might carry weight forward in terms of the driver's trial. --M ASEM (t) 05:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Large number of child casualties = notable. Article looks ok. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. As a "auto accident" the particulars of this one are quite unique and tragic; the death count also makes it quite notable. Rhodesisland (talk) 10:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose article, while the AFD will close as keep, is still barely a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] RD: Gordon Willis

 * Weak support an honorary Oscar is a decent shout, the article's looking good. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak support. I would like to see him listed just because I'm such a fan of his work on The Godfather but really it is a borderline case. Rhodesisland (talk) 08:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support It is borderline but the awards and article quality convinces me that it's worth a front page posting doktorb wordsdeeds 09:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Does it add any weight that movies he worked on won a total of 19 Oscars? That's pretty big! Unfortunately, none were actually awarded to him. (IMO, the fact he was overlooked for Godfather II is stupefying!) Rhodesisland (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Fine article, meets RD crit. wirenote (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Influential and important cinematographer despite not winning any Oscars himself (probably the worst genuine Oscar snub). Daniel Case (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] AT&T Acquisition of DirectTV

 * Strong support when updated - one of the largest business deals in history. AT&T is the better target since it the acquirer. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Large deal involving two well known companies. Also notable for possible influence on their industries. 331dot (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait presumably this will face regulatory revue? The proposed two-tier net inneutrality regulations seem more imanent, although I find this all as easy to follow as The Last of the Summer Wine. μηδείς (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, there will be a review by the FTC (trade commission), and the issue of Net Neutrality is a factor on the FCC (communication commission). However, they have affirmed they are going to initiate all necessary paperwork and reviews to complete this. This, for mergers like this, is the ITN news point, compared to say when the FTC approves the merger. Should the FTC deny the merger outright that might be another news point but won't be known for several months. Given the last time there was a major deal like this (I believe, this being the Comcast buyout of NBC), the FTC simply asked Comcast to divest itself in some markets, which they easily did, and I see no similar reason that a similar deal would be met here by the FTC to outright prevent the merger going forward. --M ASEM  (t) 01:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That "they have affirmed they are going to initiate all necessary paperwork and reviews to complete this" is about as definitive as the Orwellian "all applications will be accepted" or "comes with available air conditioning, power steering and breaks". μηδείς (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support when updated, multi-billion merger, uncommon, newsworthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support significant business story. Also, I'm not sure the picture of a 'regulatory revue' is one I needed in my head.  GoldenRing (talk) 08:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the right word, for all intensive purposes. μηδείς (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The proposed blurb is saying something that objectively isn't true. We can't post stories about things that will maybe probably happen at some time in the future. See Attempted purchase of T-Mobile USA by AT&T. Formerip (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have an alternative blurb to suggest? This sort of story is usually bigger news when it is announced, not when it actually occurs(i.e. when the government says it's OK). 331dot (talk) 09:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A few times a year, ITN posts a story about something that it later transpires never happened and, each time, an angel cries. ITN blurbs don't normally - and shouldn't - be posted on the basis of speculation, developments, predictions or announcements about the future. Regardless of what media interest there is ahead of the main event (in this case it's a decent amount but, let's face it, not exactly wall-to-wall) we normally wait for the main event. So, for example, we haven't yet posted about Oscar Pistorius's conviction for murder, or anything else about his trial. This takeover isn't a done deal. Not only could it be stopped by the regulator but, until the sale happens it is not too late for the parties to pull out (they even apparently have "no forfeit" clauses). What are the chances? I have no idea, but so long as they are more than zero, this is a premature nomination. Formerip (talk) 10:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A murder trial is a different proposition than a corporate buyout(BLP issues). There are also few guarantees in the world other than death and taxes; there is always a potential for a planned event to not happen. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Which is precisely why we don't normally post about planned events. It's not just murder trials. We don't, for example, post elections whose results are widely anticipated until the actual results come out, even if it takes forever. We don't post the fact that the FA Cup final is happening today, even though the news coverage will be enormous. We wait and post that it has happened. And so on and so forth and so on. Formerip (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The announcement of the formal plans for merger/acquisition (which this is) is more equivalent to the sentencing of a suspect charged with a crime, which is when we would normally post those types of stories (assuming the case is big enough). That sentence may change depending on appeals, plea bargains, etc., and if it is a major change, that would then be another possible blurb. But the news that will always be big is the first sentencing. In the case of the merger/acquisition, the action could certainly be stalled by the FTC (as noted for the T-Mobile case), but the "news" is that there's formal agreements in place to make this go forward. Even if the FTC blocked it, the biggest coverage will be now, not then. --M ASEM (t) 14:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The time to post is now, as this is the point in the merger process that attracts the most media attention. It is possible that the deal will fall through for one reason or another, but that is very rare.  However, I tweaked the blurb to accurately reflect the situation ("agrees to purchase" instead of "purchases"). --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per ThaddeusB, now is the newsworthy moment - unless it's blocked in which case that'll be another newsworthy moment. But if it goes ahead as planned then right now is the newsiest moment - the later story ("Planned merger goes ahead") is comparatively un-newsy. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Ready - I have updated both articles with the merger info. AT&T is both the more logical target and the higher quality article, so I suggest it be the only bold link. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted 03:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013–14 Euroleague final

 * Comment "roughly compared to the UEFA Champions League" apart from the viewership and general interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The viewership and general interest do not prevent it from being the strongest and most followed club basketball competition in Europe like the UEFA Champions League in football. In general, basketball does not enjoy popularity even nearly on the same level as football, so it's virtually impossible to find anything in common and make the two comparable.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, it'll be another tough few days for European basketball Wikipedia In The News fans. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably we don't need to worry much about it since the item is on ITN/R and the same issues might once have been addressed. However, a real discussion is always welcome and any outcome with opposition may steer discussion to revisit its listing there.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Has this actually ever been on ITN? I can't find any evidence of the last four year's worth of tournaments, and this one looks like it's heading south.  Perhaps it shouldn't be on ITN/R after all. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on article quality. Zero text on the final game, ALMOST zero prose otherwise in the target article.  It's a mash of tables, notes explaining the tables, and some bullet lists.  We could use either a season summary fully detailing the highlights of the season, or a separate article on the final game itself, with a synopsis thereof.  I have no qualms with the event itself being highlighted if we have a quality article to point readers to.  As yet, we don't.  -- Jayron  32  01:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Jayron. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ready - I have expanded (OK, written - it has 2 sentences previously) the article on the finals: 2013–14 Euroleague Final Four. Unless there are quality based complaints, this is ready to be posted per WP:ITN/R. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted perhaps the ITN/R listing needs to clarify that it's not the Euroleague article that's ITN/R, but the Final Four article? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Good work all on cleaning this entry up and getting a quality article to work from. This is EXACTLY how it is supposed to work.  We spend way too much time here debating the merits of an article based on our own opinions of what "should" be "news", and not enough time fixing up articles.  It is nice to see it work out here!  -- Jayron  32  13:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Far too many !voters and not enough editors.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys, I appreciate it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Don Meyer

 * Oppose per the nomination comment. Can't see the big deal here, plus the article is in a really poor state.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine. It's not the only thing he did, though: "He was presented with the John Bunn Award at the Basketball Hall of Fame in 2010." Besides that, I think being called a "legend of college basketball" means you are indeed "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field", as per criterion 2.  Jinkinson   talk to me  21:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but it's not exactly the highest level of the game, is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I support in principle(the article mentions one other notable coach influenced by this man in addition to his WL record and HoF which would meet DC2) though the article seems light on prose. 331dot (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak support on notability, oppose based on article quality. Beef up the article, and this is marginally newsworthy enough for the death ticker, as a record holder and HOF member.  -- Jayron  32  01:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sure had a lot of wins but he did so at the division two level, which isn't the highest level of college basketball.  Calidum Talk To Me 03:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per Calidum. Rhodesisland (talk) 09:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A great man, but the lion's share of those wins came at the NAIA level and exactly zero came at Division I. In addition, he's not in the Hall of Fame, he was just given an award by it - an award that by my count 8 people that don't even have Wikipedia articles have won. --162.95.216.224 (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

RD: Gerald Edelman

 * Support iff verified. At present I can't verify in a source I know is reliable that he has died (I don't know the reliability of the cited source), however if he has died then I support an RD listing for the reasons given by the nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Bernard Baars seems like a reliable person. wirenote (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the article reflects this nomination and until it's fixed to a quality level commensurate with main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: I have added a second source (an obituary in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, a top German newspaper), and fixed the issues that I could spot in the article. The date of death has also been added by another editor -- that's the only information available at this time. Looie496 (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If we only have two sources then it just isn't In The News. 09:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhodesisland (talk • contribs)
 * Comment - appears to be confirmed now with an English source. Connormah (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong support RD. A Nobel Prize is undoubted evidence that he was at the top of his field. Perfect RD material, and the news has now been confirmed by multiple English-language media (NYT etc.). <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment We now finally have the major media all reporting that he died last Saturday, for example http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/23/science/gerald-m-edelman-nobel-laureate-and-neural-darwinist-dies-at-84.html. Dunno what took so long. Looie496 (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Wubbo Ockels

 * Pending referencing Support for RD, the early life end ESA career sections are entirely unreferenced. --kelapstick(bainuu) 13:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support as Kelapstick, the article needs the tag to be sorted out, otherwise a good shout for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think being the first astronaut of a particular nationality qualifies, and I don't see anything else that indicates that he was a very important figure in the field of space exploration. Neljack (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Neljack. μηδείς (talk) 01:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Neljack; he might meet DC2 if he was the first Dutch citizen in space due to an indigenous space program, but he wasn't, and I don't see how else he might meet the criteria. 331dot (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Concur with 331dot.Rhodesisland (talk) 09:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Preakness Stakes

 * Comment and maybe this should be at that discussion as well, but I would think that if the Preakness is being included only if they also win in Kentucky, than the bolded story and the update should be the horse, not the Preakness, and the blurb should reflect both wins. --kelapstick(bainuu) 14:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I decided to be bold and add a listing to the page as I didn't see much if any opposition to the concept, but I 1) would not object to the listing not being applicable this year and 2) welcome changes or any sort of further discussion. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I bolded the name of the horse here, per a comment I was given the last time the horse's wins were a news item here. Hope I wasn't too bold, but I am the lead editor on California Chrome and I did some work on the 2014 Preakness article as well.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  17:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support as involved contributor (I've not done ITN before, if I'm not supposed to vote, just trout-slap me.)  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  17:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, all good. And for what it's worth, we'd typically only bold the article which has the quality to sustain a main page appearance, so Chrome is a shoo-in, as the article is mint.  I've yet to look at the Preakness article, but that'd be the key.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per the discussion on ITN/R, I would suggest since the criteria for this is having one both the Derby and this race, that they should both be mentioned, and maybe why it is significant. i.e. "In horse racing, California Chrome wins the first two races of the Triple Crown, the  Preakness Stakes, and the Kentucky Derby." Not everyone (including me up until now) knows exactly what the Triple Crown is, but would know it is significant. --kelapstick(bainuu) 18:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm groovy with that change and did it up, above. Again, slap me with a trout if I'm over-bold here. and  that I'm getting prety bold with his nomination!   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  19:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose So, this race is significant based on what has happened before it and what may happen in the future as opposed to being notable in its own right. That's altogether too speculative for posting.
 * As an aside I'd suggest that whole section on WT:ITNR needs some wholesale refactoring if there is ever going to be any clear consensus for any additions - there are possibly too many proposal thrown into one discussion, proposals modify other proposals but don't always make it clear precisely what they they are modifying, proposals appear to have been abandoned but never closed. Put simply, I shouldn't need to spend an hour unraveling a discussion simply to be able to make a statement of position. 3142 (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Um, back-and-forth discussion is precisely how consensus is reached on Wikipedia. That is (one of the reasons) why we don't count votes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. I think these three races should be ITNR and stand on their own; it'll just be a bonus if they can all be tied together by being won by the same horse. Rhodesisland (talk) 09:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ignoring the 'coulda, woulda, shoulda' element about things that could possibly happen but most certainly have not. There's a considerable sentiment that sport gets too much coverage and we already post several top-ranking horse races.  We don't need to lower the bar to lower ranking races, particularly in countries for which we already have coverage.  Depending on how you count there are 150-200 countries in the world.  We don't post races from the vast majority of them.  Saying that an already well-served country needs yet more coverage is undue emphasis.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk • contribs) 01:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Preakness is not a "lower ranking" race. It is an important part of a notable and rare achievement in sports, the Triple Crown, which has not been done since 1978. We post races that get notable news coverage, good articles(ITN is for highlighting articles), and that readers are interested in. Please note that it states at the top of this 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." Stories from the US have actually been limited as of recent days(there is only two currently, one involving Mexico as well) and no Americans listed in RD. We post what is in the news, as this is the In The News page.  Do you deny this race is in the news?
 * If we are missing races that get equivalent coverage from other nations, feel free to write articles about them and nominate them for posting here. That doesn't mean this should be excluded. 331dot (talk) 01:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, how does an editor with 9 previous edits and 0 to ITN come to know about a random sports nomination and presume to judge the sentiment of the community regarding the quantity of sports stories posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Also out of curiousity, how long do we debate a "news" item until it is too stale to be "news?" The race ran on Saturday, we need to get in in here soon or just throw up our hands until the Belmont.  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  17:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * An item can be posted as soon as consensus is achieved, or as late as it being the bottom item on the template... Unfortunately, it looks likely this one will go stale (at least one more opinion is needed to assess consensus IMO), due it part to it's late nomination.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. If the horse does win the triple crown, then it can go up. Until that point it's just another horse race, and we already have enough of those on ITNR. There's no need to supplement them with more individual posts which aren't particularly notable. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted as combo blurb] Spanish La Liga

 * Weak support - It may not be the biggest football story of the day, but it's pretty big. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we need to be sensible about how much football we feature at once. I'll give this a weak support if the FA Cup is not posted and an oppose otherwise. I'd prefer posting this to posting two British football stories on the trot. Formerip (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can merge the FA Cup and Premier League blurbs while having this one as a separate. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Combining blurbs wouldn't mean we were featuring less football, it would just mean we were trying to get away with it. Formerip (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So what do you suggest? I understand the FA Cup is the world's oldest football cup competition, but it simply can't be compared to La Liga in countless ways. In my opinion, this should definitely be on ITNR. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Like I said, weak support if the FA Cup doesn't get posted, and I'd prefer this to that. That's my suggestion, in full. Formerip (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But if we have all the soccer in 1 bullet point, that leaves 5 bullet points for other things; whereas if we use up multiple bullet points on soccer then it reduces the number of other things we can feature. So using a combined blurb reduces the proportion of the total which is soccer (because it leaves space for more other things). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose First title in 18 years but 10th overall isn't convincing. Soccer is plenty well represented here and adding each and every single league's champion would be overkill. Have to draw a line somewhere, and I say that's ITN/R. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. It's the strongest league in the world according to UEFA coefficients.  And it's a rare title by a team outside of the top two.  Support adding to the EPL blurb.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would earnestly support this if we had some prose for the target article. We've got a little tiny bit of prose and pages of tables.  Fix the article, and I would support this.  -- Jayron  32  02:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - La Liga is one of the three top leagues in the world by most accounts and is surely very important in its home country. If that country spoke English instead of Spanish, I'm sure it would be a shoo-in for inclusion (e.g. Premier League, which is roughly the same level of play).  However, article is inadequate so it can't be posted until that is fixed up.  Specifically, it needs a prose summary of the season and a better lead - see the Premier League article for an example of what is expected. No objection to combining all two/three football stories into one blurb - despite the claims above, that actually is a reasonable compromise (takes up less space while still covering all the important stuff).  --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Either combined with PL or by itself. I think we should stick w/ top tier league competition, e.g., Premiere, La Liga, Bundsiliga, and Serie A, and even then just the biggest of these leagues not every country's league, e.g., not MLS, or Japan's or Australia's leagues. Rhodesisland (talk) 07:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support merging with the Man City blurb. Nergaal (talk) 07:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per Thaddeus. La Liga is probably a stronger league than the English Premier League, so it would be ridiculous to post the EPL (which is ITN/R) but not this. Neljack (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose too many football stories. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this a pointy comment, or do you seriously believe that the FA Cup Final is more significant than La Liga? Neljack (talk) 10:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the FA Cup has been around since 1871, this year's competition started with 737 clubs, oldest cup competition in the world, etc etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well those points could all be used to oppose posting the English Premier League, but I assume you don't oppose that. Neljack (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I don't agree, they couldn't be used to oppose the EPL, that would be crazy, the comparison is chalk and cheese. However, as you know, the EPL is the premier association football competition on a global basis, viewership, sponsorship etc.  Next.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Funny, I thought the "premier association football competition" was starting in a few weeks in Brazil. Neljack (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's an international competition, and on ITNR I believe. Perhaps you weren't aware. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Rambling Man...what next, Bundesliga? ..--Stemoc (talk) 09:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why ever not? The Bundesliga has the highest attendance of any soccer league in the world. Neljack (talk) 10:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * support if EPL is ITNR, this better be.Lihaas (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: is more text not needed? The only prose at present is about pre-season. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  12:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't think that comparisons drawn with the Premier League are handy enough to illustrate the significance of La Liga. UEFA coefficients are something that changes every single year, while the ITN/R lists the Premier League, not the one with highest coefficient or the best football league in the world by any measure. Those who are not content with the current methodology we use to post domestic football stories are encouraged to challenge it on a more prominent place, the discussion page of ITN/R, or find other arguments rather than claiming something like 'it's even stronger than the English Premier League'.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As the instruction expressly say, something not being on ITN/R is not a valid reason for opposing it. ITN/R does not constitute "the current methodology we use to post domestic football stories", particularly given that we have posted La Liga in the past. Neljack (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't use the absence on ITN/R to oppose the inclusion of La Liga, but the fact that the Premier League has more significance for our readers regardless of any league rankings or coefficients. You seem to have misunderstood my intent to relocate all the comments ranking La Liga as stronger than the Premier League to a page where they would be able to challenge the current inclusion of the Premier League and propose inclusion of the league with the highest UEFA coefficient instead. Finally, the precedent of posting it in the past might have been a more valid reason for support rather than making ridiculous comparisons.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support, notability per ThaddeusB above, articles now look good. Favour a combined all-soccer-results blurb so as to leave more bullet points available for non-soccer stories. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Not ready yet - but I will fix it up this afternoon/evening if no one gets to it first. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You'll add a few paragraphs of prose as well as fix the maintenance issues? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what is required. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I do tweak many of the section's blurbs, which I regard as the most constructive contribution to ITN that I'm able to make on a regular basis. Obviously, your efforts (and those of others who read these discussions and gauge consensus) are far more important, but I rarely find the time to participate in that capacity. —David Levy 08:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC) This is a wiki. As noted in the five pillars, "any contributions can and will be mercilessly edited". Those to fully protected pages are unusual in the respect that most editors are unable to perform (or undo) them, so greater care must be taken to ensure that they reflect consensus (and if they don't, they should be reverted promptly). This, however, doesn't mean that advance permission must be sought. I would understand your criticism if my ITN edits drew frequent complaints, which isn't the case. I assume that people are "quite content" because they regard most of my ITN edits as improvements or neutral changes. It certainly doesn't stem from apathy (as evidenced by the actual controversies that arise around here). —David Levy 21:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Switching from the past tense to the present tense, bypassing redirects (thereby decreasing the likelihood of rapid moves resulting in the appearance of double redirects on the main page), including "a"/"an" in a link involving a specific instance of the thing mentioned, replacing "twelve people" with "12 people" (or vice versa) for consistency with other blurbs in which people are quantified, shifting the blurb with an image to the highest position for its date, separating blurbs about similar topics (when their respective dates allow), and correcting capitalization/punctuation/basic facts (such as the names of persons, places and events) doesn't constitute "trumping any consensus". Many administrators perform edits along these lines. Earlier today, Smurrayinchester did so to the very item under discussion (/). If a change is more substantive, I do look to the nomination. (When I noted that I "rarely find the time to participate in that capacity", I was referring to the evaluation of multiple nominations to determine whether the items should be posted.) In this instance, I found your explanation that you combined the three events into one blurb on the basis that "all football events took place on the same day", so I explained that they actually occurred on different dates and that I was dropping the Premier League because its conclusion on 11 May meant that its turn to be pushed off the list had arrived (per standard procedure). I'm confused as to the nature of your objection. Indeed, I've self-reverted some edits upon learning that the changes were contested or likely to be ( from yesterday). I make mistakes, just as you make mistakes (such as the one that Smurrayinchester corrected today). No one is perfect, but I always address concerns brought to my attention (as I'm sure you do too). Over the years, I've received few complaints about my ITN edits, with no one other than you asserting that I'm acting as an "ITN monitor" or systematically disregarding consensus. —David Levy 21:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC) If that's your belief, I suggest that you compile evidence that I "routinely overrule any kind of consensus at ITN/C" and initiate a community discussion of the alleged misconduct.
 * Ready - I have added a season summary, expanded the lead, and added many references. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted but as all football events took place on the same day, I've combined the blurb with the existing EPL and FA Cup blurb, to avoid two consecutive "In association football..." blurbs (or even worse, one "In association football...." blurb followed by "In soccer...." blurb). The Rambling Man (talk) 07:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The matches actually occurred on three different dates (11, 17 and 18 May, respectively). The Premier League concluded on 11 May (two days before the next earliest event with a blurb) and was bumped back to the top of the section because of the FA Cup's addition to the item, so I've dropped it and retained the other two events.  —David Levy 08:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As you like. You seem to tweak just about every ITN change, it may be useful if you posted those which are lingering so they're posted correctly the first time.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I wasn't criticising you for doing something incorrectly (and I'm sorry if that's how my reply came across); I felt that it was courteous (and potentially helpful to someone reading your message) to explain why I dropped one of the three events from the item.
 * To be clear as well, once again I ask why we spend some time here determining which blurb to post, only to have someone completely overhaul it on a personal whim (albeit in good faith, of course) thus trumping any consensus previously achieved in the ITN/C discussion. It's all very well to suggest you don't have the time to assess consensus, but to completely ignore consensus by reworking just about every entry at ITN to fit your own tastes (which, I note recently, have been entirely contrary to the community, and reverted, either by yourself or someone else) seems like you're not taking any ITN discussion too seriously.  I'm sure you're just being a great Wikipedian, but to see just about every single ITN update "tweaked" by David Levy becomes somewhat demoralising;  we have our own "ITN monitor".  Perhaps we shouldn't discuss the blurb construction in any detail any more, that way it doesn't matter if it gets reconstructed once posted.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In fairness, the blurb itself is rarely discussed even in cases where it is clearly bad (e.g. poor English). Of course if there is discussion on the blurb text, that should be taken into account before making any changes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That may be the case for the majority, but I always attempt to consider that (along with article quality). Any way, we have a overseer so it's no major issue as everyone else at ITN/C seems quite content to have every blurb "tweaked" post-posting.  I'll leave it at that.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to object to my edits primarily on principle. This is what confuses me most.  If you disagree with a specific change, that's one thing.  In such an instance, you should bring the issue to my attention and/or revert.  But you appear to be complaining mainly about my edits' existence, not their specific natures.
 * Indeed. That's why I came here and read The Rambling Man's rationale before performing the edit.  Administrators needn't do that when correcting obvious errors or inconsistencies.  —David Levy 21:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of my edits involve relatively minor changes to formatting, grammar, etc., in accordance with our normal standards (not my "personal whim" or "tastes").
 * No, you're right, you always "tweak" blurbs for the betterment of Wikipedia. The main reason no-one complains that you routinely overrule any kind of consensus at ITN/C is that no-one, beside a couple of admins, follow nominations once they've been posted.  Perhaps all you should take away from this is that it's a little odd that you always pop by almost instantly once ITN is updated, yet you claim to have no time at all to gauge consensus, get involved with the process etc.  Hence why I noted your role as an overseer.  Maybe we need a note to tell people that blurbs, once agreed, are subject to immediate change by your tweaks?  Better still, write a little guide for us to understand "how to post to ITN without requiring tweaks from David Levy".  That way we get it right first time and don't take up any of your scarce availability?  I note things like avoiding placing items of a similar nature next to one another if possible, consistency with linking, but there are more subtle things you seem to indulge in (such as introducing English variations) which aren't clear to me.  It's helpful to all of us if you could write down your methods.  Thanks.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I use some of my limited time to improve posted ITN blurbs. This is a part of the process in which multiple administrators – including you – participate. You mentioned my self-reversions (which, for some reason, you regard as consistent with the premise that I arbitrarily impose my personal preferences and disregard others' input). I cited, in which I restored , which doesn't appear to have been discussed here or at Main Page/Errors. Am I to understand that you noticed a style issue and simply tweaked the posted ITN item to address it? Does this mean that you unilaterally overruled the consensus established in the ITN/C discussion, wherein the blurb contained "F.C."? Or does performing this type of edit more frequently somehow make it harmful instead of helpful? I'll remind you that your above complaint arose when I dropped the earliest concluded event from ITN (per standard procedure) and posted an explanation here as a courtesy to you (and others). I remain baffled as to the nature of your objection.

Everything written at Wikipedia is subject to change. That's how wikis work. Many administrators – again, including you – perform such edits. As far as I can tell, I've been singled out because I do so more frequently than most and/or because you view me as an outsider (due to my limited participation at ITN/C). If I'm mistaken, I welcome your elucidation.

In case you're under an impression to the contrary, I'll note that I didn't invent those conventions (or the others that I mentioned). Setting aside your sarcasm, WP:ITN/A could be expanded to include additional advice, but this would complicate a process that some regard as too complicated now. Adherence to the core standards is more important. Various admins (again, I'm far from the only one with such involvement) can perform the style tweaks as needed.

Are you referring to WP:ENGVAR issues? —David Levy 22:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC) As I said, " It's helpful to all of us if you could write down your methods. Thanks." You could add them to the admin instructions page, thus not burdening anyone unduly. Perhaps here, as a style guide, as I mentioned, for the benefit of those of us who don't follow all that you do. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * For reasons that I think are obvious, I interpreted your request that I "write a little guide for [administrators] to understand 'how to post to ITN without requiring tweaks from David Levy'" as sarcasm.
 * I don't mind expanding the section to which you linked, provided that it's clear that these are longstanding conventions (not "[my] methods", implemented "on a personal whim").
 * For the record, I recall introducing one now-common practice to ITN's blurbs: sidestepping the "win"/"wins" and "defeat"/"defeats" English variety issue via the "[tournament] concludes with [winning team] winning/defeating [championship/losing team]" construct. I'm not particularly fond of this awkward solution, but under ITN's present-tense format (which I believe should be replaced), it seems to be regarded as the lesser of two evils.  —David Levy 19:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said " It's helpful to all of us if you could write down your methods. Thanks." If you have the time to do this, that'd be great, and it may save you time in the long term. If not, so be it.  Thanks.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said, I don't mind doing that. I'll try to get to it soon.  I was just addressing some peripheral points.  —David Levy 20:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted, as an addition to the Premier League item] FA Cup final

 * Suggestion Combine this with the existing soccer blurb, for "In soccer, Manchester City wins the UK Premier League while Arsenal wins the FA Cup". So then we'd avoid having soccer using up 2 spaces at once.
 * Suggest we use 'soccer' rather than 'association football' because that's the more common name (apart from 'football' which is obviously confusing in an international context and should therefore be avoided).
 * Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has settled on "association football" as the name of the sport and ITN should follow that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be content with a merged blurb, but never "soccer" for two British footballing events. Never.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that Wikipedia has not settled on "association football" as the name of the sport in all contexts - I have fairly recently been involved in a lengthy discussion which has affirmed that "soccer" should generally be used in Australian contexts. I have no objection to the use of "association football" in this context, however. Neljack (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Our article says, "Association football, more commonly known as football or soccer". Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge the only place that calls it soccer is America. Mat  ty  .  007  12:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not correct. It's commonly called soccer in Australia and New Zealand. Neljack (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's not start all this again. If this combo blurb gets posted, then it's "association football".  No need to change it.  It's wikilinked.  Move along.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Some UK usage: Soccer Saturday, Soccer Special, Goals Soccer Centres. I agree that 'football' (by itself) is the most-used term here in the UK, but I would argue that 'soccer' (rather than 'association football') is the second-most-used. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Further suggestion - It's a busy day for European football; Bayern Munich just beat Borussia Dortmund to win the DFB-Pokal and thus the German double, while Atletico Madrid just won La Liga for the first time since 1996. Is it stretching a point too much to have a long-ish narrative blurb covering all of these events? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That makes a lot of sense to me. Otherwise we will have half our ITN items all about the one sport. HiLo48 (talk) 02:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. "In soccer, A and B and C and D have happened". Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Suport - the FA Cup has been opposed in the past because of the "not top level" competition canard. That is true, but irrelevant.  What is relevant is the cultural impact of the event, which is substantial.  I do agree it makes sense to combine this with the Premier League crown so as to only take up one line.  As to the other football items, they should probably be nominated separately.  (La Liga is pretty significant but DFB-Pokal is not, nor is a double; a triple, however, is worth posting.)  --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. Article and update are good. The "Media Coverage" section is unreferenced, though.  Its not a major issue (uncontentious material) but should sitll be fixed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Question If this "should be ITNR", why isn't it? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) It hasn't been discussed in a long time; standards were much tighter on sports ~4 years ago when it was suggested for ITN/R. 2) Consensus can change. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support combo blurb only. My initial gut instinct was to oppose since we will be having the World Cup happening soon and that is, clearly, the "top level" in the world of soccer. I really don't see a strong argument to post just the FA final over La Liga but separate blurbs would be overkill. However, with all these events happening in a relatively short period of time, I can see the overall newsworthiness of this sort of "Championship Week" in soccer. So while my instinct is still leaning towards oppose, I would support a "combo blurb" that list several of the championship winners (no need to list who they defeated) that have recently been decided. AgneCheese/Wine 00:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support The FA Cup is the oldest football competition in the world and has a remarkable place in the history of the game. Drawing conclusions as to how and why this is not comparable to the top level football competitions (whatsoever a definition for a top level competition is) should not have any impact on the ultimate decision, as the tradition and history are much more important as decisive criteria rather than using controversial definitions for top level football competition.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Though this was a phenomenal game and shows the reasons the FA Cup is so exciting, I still oppose. I think we should stick w/ top tier league competition, e.g., Premiere, La Liga, Bundsiliga, and Serie A, and even then just the biggest of these leagues not every country's league, e.g., not MLS, or Japan's or Australia's leagues. Rhodesisland (talk) 07:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose too many football stories, and many of them are more notable than this. Nergaal (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose This was on the frontpage yesterday in the DYK section.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, the result was not on the front page yesterday. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with Thaddeus about the importance of cultural significance, but I don't think that the FA Cup Final is quite as big as it was a few decades ago - when it was probably a bigger deal that the league championship (no-one would contend that the FA Cup is more important than the Premier League these days). Also the soccer leagues of many countries are of considerable cultural importance - the Brazilian, Argentine, German, Italian and Dutch leagues, to name but a few. Giving full allowance (as I think we should) to the fact that this is the most popular sport in the world, there is still a limit to the number of competitions that we can reasonably include - even though, as I have noted, there are plenty of ones that would have a fair claim in terms of cultural significance. Given this, I am not convinced that including two English competitions is justifiable as the best use of a scarce resource. Neljack (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, a combined blurb would add an additional 27 characters to the main page. I think the "scarce resource" can cope with that!  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I guess I wouldn't object so much to a combined blurb (I took this to be a separate nomination), though I would have thought that fitting the EPL, La Liga and the FA Cup into one blurb would make it rather long. I suppose we could have the EPL and FA Cup in one blurb and La Liga in another one. Neljack (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The alt blurb was added before your comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * support the worlds oldest football story ought to be ITNR...and finally a trophy! at least therest something fo rbeing top otf the league for 20 weeks...Lihaas (talk) 10:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment If we use this, I would suggest merging it with the DFB-Pokal, which was played on the same day, and is the equivalent tournament in Germany (a country that is at least the UK's equal in terms of football fanaticism). So: "Arsenal beat Hull City 3–2 to win the FA Cup, and Bayern Munich beat Borussia Dortmund 2–0 to win the DFB-Pokal." Smurrayinchester 11:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Too many conflation options. Let's stick to keeping the British football together.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted as an addition to the Premier League item. Stephen 01:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WTF???? this gets posted but La Liga doesn't? Nergaal (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose the pitiful quality of the La Liga article helps, and the distinct lack of prose. Maybe you could add some details on the season itself, rather than just relying on a one-liner in the lead saying what the result of the whole season was?  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Louise Wilson

 * Oppose an academic who "influenced" fashion designers. Not really getting this for RD.  Perhaps the nominator can explain the significance against the RD criteria.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The same source also says "leading figure", and Vogue's UK editor said that she "played a remarkable role in making the British fashion scene as successful and relevant as it is today". Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  13:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Top of her field. Guardian says "inspirational figure in the world of fashion", Business of Fashion says "legendary". Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak support. It seems fair to say she was an influential figure, but "top of her field" doesn't look clear to me. The article would need considerable work before posting. Formerip (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment the article isn't adequate, it's barely stub-quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Fantastic work from has expanded the article. Thanks,  Mat  ty  .  007  11:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I'm not seeing anything to indicate she was on the top of the field of fashion. If one narrowly defines fields, then what is the evidence that she is the top of the field of "fashion academics" or "fashion studies"? Abductive  (reasoning) 17:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support in light of the statements about her impact and stature in the fashion field. Neljack (talk) 06:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Marking as ready As Matty says, has done an excellent job expanding and referencing the article. There is 4-2 support, and plenty of evidence has been provided of her importance and impact in the fashion field. Neljack (talk) 06:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Vote counting is against the rules. My arguments remain valid. The idea is not to weave together a narrowly defined field and then say someone is the top of that. An academic could never be on the top of the field of fashion the way a designer could. Similarly, a biologist working in industry could never be on the top of the field of biological research the way an academic could. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it is a common problem here that people declare an item to be ready based on some numerical scoring system which Wikipedia does not support. Well argued discussion resulting in a consensus is better.  For example, Abductive argues that there's really no such field unless it's narrowed to the point of non-existence, while Balaenoptera musculus states she was "Top of her field".  While the article work is greatly appreciated, it's probably still fair to say there's some concern over the matching of this individual's contributions and the RD criteria.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not simply engage in vote counting. I mentioned the numbers as one factor supporting the view that there was consensus, along with the evidence that had been provided showing her impact in her field. It can hardly be denied that the number of people supporting and opposing something is relevant to determining whether it has consensus. Neljack (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak support - The intersection of academics and fashion is indeed a very small catgeory. That is a concern, hence my "weak".  On the other hand, a reasonable case can be made that Wilson was in some sense a top the fashion world.  In creative fields, it is often not just those who achieved the most success that are later seen as the best, but also those who influenced them.  There is no question Wilson influenced a lot of important designers, so I can see the case that she is RD worthy.  Coverage is surprisingly broad (otherwise I would not support in a border-line case such as this) with a large percentage using terms such as "legendary" to describe Wilson. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Personally I don't have too much problem with notability based on being a top fashion academic - we wouldn't be asserting the field is too small to be notable for a top physicist, historian or geologist.  Fashion subjectively feels less "worthy" but don't see a rationale basis on which to arrive that conclusion.  My problem rather is how do you arrive at the conclusion that she is a top fashion academic?  The sources I have seen talk relatively vaguely about designers she has "influenced" which is a fairly nebulous concept - how much did she shape the course of any individual's career?  Was that impact a positive or negative influence?  Was the affect to follow her ideas or to rebel against them?  How much of any claimed influence is purely vanity claims of the supposed influenced as opposed to any real change in direction?  You can never get any real dimensions to such vague claims, which in my mind reduces it more to the level of notability by association. 3142 (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * She has been called a legend and a genius, by such people as the UK editor of Vogue. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  19:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I find am I swayed by the oppose opinions, in particular, 3142's. Rhodesisland (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

World's largest dinosaur

 * Support - Seem important enough.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It should be pointed out that the new giant that was today reported is not Leinkupal, named on the 14th. Leinkupal is in fact a very small animal (for a sauropod) attaining about nine metres in length (Yes, this information should have been added. Frankly, I forgot about it...). The (apparently) new species hasn't been named yet and this might take many years. Also, there are other candidates for the title of "largest dinosaur", such as Amphicoelias, though the latter is based on much more limited remains.--MWAK (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My bad. I misread . I should have known; the large one was discovered by a farm worker, and they usually give some sort of nod to amateur discovers in the scientific name. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment There is nothing in the article which even hints at this being the largest dinosaur ever, and as MWAK said above, there is nothing apparently special about this specimen. Also, the hook is misleading, as there is a difference between "largest ever found" and "largest ever". Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have made corrections to the nomination. Perhaps somebody could create the article? Abductive  (reasoning) 19:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is an article Dinosaur size which might serve for this purpose.--MWAK (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose pointless nominating an item at ITN without even a blurb with a linked article. Come back when you have a real proposal.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I made a mistake at first. Sorry. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Besides the lack of article, there's the issue of how this has accepted as the largest by the scientific community (any peer-review? The MSNBC suggests none). There's also the idea "there's always a bigger fish out there", and we tend to avoid to ITN stories about the newest "largest" thing found unless there's reason beyond doubt to show it. --M ASEM (t) 20:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is my view in general, as my history of comments at ITN/C will show. However, the readership of Wikipedia will be looking for this dinosaur. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Neutral I do not believe the results have been published in a scientific journal (if they were the dino would likely to named). That is a significant issue, although perhaps not decisive.  That a bigger dinosaur could be found some day is not an issue.  Perhaps it is better to wait until the find is published and an article on it can be created, but I'm open to persuasion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - It looks liek we have an article now - Unnamed Titanosaur --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. I wanted to nominate this, but couldn't find a suitable article in time. This is a big discovery both in quality (largest bones ever) and quantity (7 dinosaurs).  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  08:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Interesting and important dinosaur size news. I suggest calling this giant "Megatitanosaurus" :) MathKnight-at-TAU (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is a partial skeleton. The trend towards ever larger diplodocids in Argentina is not surprising, and we do have a target article, Leinkupal laticauda.
 * You're making the same mistake that I did. Also, I am not aware of any 100% complete dinosaur finds. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In other words, this is not Leinkupal. But it would still remain a wait until the description is published, no?  If that's wrong policywise, whoever creates an article on the newster should notify me and I'll iWaffle. μηδείς (talk) 01:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * 99+% of all finds are "partial skeletons" --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * After some thought, I support this based on the large amount of news coverage it continues to received days later. That the find is not yet peer reviewed is a concern, but insufficient for me not to support since it is improbable something as basic as the size of teh find would be disputed. I have suggested an altblurb that better captures the situation.  If this is not posted now, it should not be considered stale when the find is peer reviewed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I've read several of the articles regarding this find, but I am uncomfortable with the phrasing in the blurbs, "may be" in one and "largest dinosaur yet" in the other. Wouldn't a stronger and more accurate blurb be written once there is peer review? All we would need to say is something like, Paleontologists confirm the recent finding of...". That would keep it from being stale. However, it is true that we then run the risk of it no longer being In The News. Still I oppose as the blurbs stand.Rhodesisland (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait for a peer-reviewed publication. Just because some media outlets have jumped on a science press release without a journal article doesn't mean that an encyclopaedia should. I'm inclined to support if/when this is actually published. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Lao Air Force crash

 * Support A fatal crash killing multiple currently serving government members is important enough for me. CaptRik (talk) 07:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment the BBC has just reported this and seems very reluctant to go into too many details. If, as suspected, there are fatalities of members of the Laos government, and assuming we can expand the article a bit more, then this is certainly ITN material.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, the article can be developed gradually. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well it has to be a minimum standard before it's posted. Currently it's not there yet.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have expanded. Better now? Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  10:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Moderately, but until we have a clear idea of the casualties/deaths, we should refrain from posting, just reading the article makes it blindingly obvious that there's no real idea what's going on. Yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, every single number I got was different somewhere else. 6:15 or 6:30. 14 or 20. No-one seems to know yet. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  10:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Why does the nomination say 'Royal Lao Air Force' when Laos is a communist nation? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Mat  ty  .  007  12:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the header, too. But I was actually interested in the answer to my question: why was it listed as 'royal' when it obviously isn't? AlexTiefling (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because there was once Kingdom of Laos. Brandmeistertalk  14:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no idea, I didn't create or nominate it. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  17:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That was my fault, as it was the first to come up in a Google hit, and I forgot that there might be other ones. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Wait until facts are clearer per others. There is no rush to post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Facts are a fair bit clearer, figures seem to have stabilised at 16 deaths and 2 survivors. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  17:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - now that facts are clear. I would think a plane crash that killed members of a national government should be a shoo-in. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm still not seeing clear indications in the article which members of the government were killed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Added all confirmed. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  19:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment article still contradicts itself regarding survivors. Either three, two or one.... Please fix this.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * fixed. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  19:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've made a considerable number of fixes, but it should be ready to go now, so marked as such. Hopefully a helpful admin can pop by and post it... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Colorado River

 * Support Interesting story that combines geography/geology and politics. Would recommend this should be put under May 16 as that's the date the story report this "happened". --M ASEM (t) 21:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, have moved it and corrected the article. (For what its worth, the story only broke today) Smurrayinchester 21:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Interesting and different story involving two nations. 331dot (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support article quality good, and it is an important topic that we don't normally see in ITN. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - quality is good. Important.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I would have liked to have seen more popular news coverage (journal coverage isn't really in the news) but subject matter must surely count as highly encyclopedic. If it had been up for a bit longer I'd be tempted to mark ready. 3142 (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Red Lobster

 * Oppose Restaurant chains are sold all the time, there's no indication this acquisition by the holding company that owns The Limited will result in any innovatory changes like a Romano's Red Macaroni Lobster Grill, just the usual managerial shuffling and layoffs. μηδείς (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Restaurant chains are sold all the time". Your opposition to all business stories as "routine" makes your opposition rather meaningless.  Your standard may be "no business stories ever (except maybe crimes that relate to business)", but ITN's shouldn't.  Elections, explosions, end of sports seasons, end of singing contests, and military moves (i.e. all current items) are routine in some sense, yet we are able to distinguish which ones are important enough and which ones are not. Yet, every business story proposed is decided to be common place.  This is an unfair double standard. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with that. Business takeovers happen constantly and I think a wow factor really is needed for us to pick one out of the crowd and make it an ITN item. We post the most important sports events, elections, singing contests etc., and there's no reason why we can't do the same for business takeovers/mergers, but I don't think the case for this one being special has been made. Formerip (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't nominate routine deals - routine deals (the kinds that actually happen daily) are in the <$100 million range and mostly for things few people have heard of. And when I do nominate exceptional deals (in the multi-billion $ range, 1-2 a month at most) they are called "routine".  We post upwards of 50 sports stories, 50 elections, and 50 disasters a year.  Yet we are only allowed what 2-3 record-breaking business deals a year?  If we insisted on near record numbers for disasters, for example, we would only post a couple a year.  Somehow this "record" standard is only applied to business stories.
 * This is a large deal (rare) for an iconic brand (rarer). It is one of the most noteworthy (attracted the most attention) deals of the year.  It is not a merger, which are also opposed as "only affects middle managers, not consumers", but a deal which actually has a very significant chance of impacting consumers (an outright change of ownership of brand consumers interact with regularly).  Supposedly this is what people wanted to see, but of course now it will be opposed for some other reason ("not big enough", "happens all the time", etc.) based on personal impressions.  The simple truth is that ITN regulars do not find business interesting and thus will oppose almost all business stories for one reason or another.  The world, however, sees a lot of importance in business - for example, roughly 15-20% of a typical newspaper is business news.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You're making the wrong comparison. Business takeovers are a very narrow category, and there's no logic to comparing that category to the category "sport" (a very broad category) in terms of numbers. It's a category which, if allowed to run riot in practice, would also be in all probability a heavily skewed category, geographically speaking (unless you're about to tell me that the pending sale of Benelux DIY chain Brico is a shoo-in). Formerip (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, "Business" most certainly is not a "very narrow category" and business stories consist of almost exclusively 3 things: business deals of various types, quarterly numbers, and stock market movement. I assume no one would be the least bit interested in posting "routine" quarterly numbers (even in exceptional circumstance) and IPOs are normally rejected (the only kind of stock market activity that has any chance excluding a once in a  decade market crash).  That leaves only deals and the rare crime story (that might actually have a chance of being posted but only because of the crime angle).  If you disagree, then please do tell what kind of business stories can be posted but aren't being nominated.
 * Obviously no business story is a "shoo-in", but naturally if people finally start accepting big deals such deals are not confined to the US. I believe we have posted a grand total of 2 business stories this year, and both were tough fights to get through despite being record-breaking mergers (1 of the 4 companies between the two mergers was American). That is a ridiculous under-representation of a very important arena of human life. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Business stories don't consist of just three things - that's what I am referring to as "narrow". Just a cursory glance at today's news shows General Motors being fined over its recent recall, The Co-operative Group voting to directly elect its board (pretty significant, since it was the world's first co-op and now it's changing the basic governance structure on which it was founded) and Jérôme Kerviel sort of going on the run in Italy. I don't know if any of those would get consensus, but they are certainly bigger and more interesting business stories than "thing you've never heard of sells thing you've never heard of to thing you've never heard of to no net effect that anyone will notice". Formerip (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Two of those three are basically crime stories, which reinforces my point that only crime stories have a chance of passing. (Also, the fine is far smaller than one that was just opposed last month and Kerviel refusing to return to France is barely even a story at all.  To suggest a huge company receiving a tiny fine or an individual pondering his legal situation has more impact on the world than a large business deal is beyond laughable.)  A change in leadership has never been tried, but I can't imagine it having the slightest chance of passing. (Incidentally, I have tried a number of rarer story types, and they have basically unanimously been rejected.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support: multi-billion merger seems notable, not routine. Mat  ty  .  007  19:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, "multi-"? I see what you've done there.  Kind of like how the human race is ruled by an odd cadre of multi-legged elites. μηδείς (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose: very minor significance in world, and probably not that great in the US either. Brigade Piron (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Opppse: Not a major player nowadays. --M ASEM (t) 01:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose routine business story. -- Jayron  32  02:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is said about every single business story nominated. Please help me to understand what is a "non-routine" story (outside of criminal convictions related to business activity.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Things which have a significant impact on whole industries or macro-economies, perhaps?
 * I'm not familiar with the American restaurant business, does this merger have an impact across the industry? (e.g. if it's a merger of market leaders it might).
 * Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Red Lobster is known to all through advertising, but it is not one of the big boys. It might be the largest seafood chain in the US. The List of restaurant chains in the United States really could use some more numbers. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Remember when InBev acquired Anheuser-Busch? That was the sort of news that gave a lot of people pause. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I haven't. I feel no need to help you understand anything if you feel the need to tell me that I said things I did not say.  I have not said this about every business story.  I have said this about this business story because it's the kind of corporate merger that happens routinely.  -- Jayron  32  01:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you did, just that it said (by someone) about every nomination which makes me legitimately wonder what people consider "non-routine". The fact that you would reply to refuse to answer the question is pretty asinine. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not a record amount, not a large impact on the market. Rhodesisland (talk) 07:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not a record amount; was sold due to poor performance which supports the idea of this having little significance.  While I too would like to see more business stories I agree there needs to be some sort of hook or something else notable besides a sale.  If they went out of business totally or even just decided to do away with the name it might be notable due to its iconic brand status. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thaddeus I'll answer your rather ad hominem "invalidation" of my oppose and list a few examples of business stories I would support after you've attacked the other half dozen opposers here. In the meantime, it's a basic principle of logic that argument requires shared basic principles, and if you hold that "Business stories are sorely underrepresented on ITN" and I deny that premise, calling me a bigot might have some visceral benefit but no cognitive one. μηδείς (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Um, there was precisely zero ad hominem. I said opposing every business story makes such opposition meaningless. If you think that is a personal attack, I don't know what to say...  Telling me to attack other editors as a condition to answer my question, however, is clearly inappropriate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Thaddeus: "Your opposition to all business stories as "routine" makes your opposition rather meaningless" is ad hominem. You might as well say my opposition to murdering infants in general makes my opposition to this child's murder meaningless.  Basing that validity of a current argument on (not even an accurate description of) personal past behavior is ad hominem. μηδείς (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * PS, some people use ad hominem to mean insulting. I didn't find your comment insulting. μηδείς (talk) 01:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Some people may use it to mean insulting, but it is actually a specific logical fallasy - attemptign to discrediut an argument by discrediting the person making it. If you mean "insulting", just say "insulting".  I am sorry if you found it insulting, but my point remains valid - if one is opposed to all instances of a particular kind of story, and ITN as a whole is not, then such oposition in a particular case is not helpful in determining the relative notability of the specific story in question. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * To quote myself, while you seem to have paraphrased me, :) "some people use ad hominem to mean insulting.  I didn't find your comment insulting." I am beginning to wonder if this will affect the policy of Red Lobster employees giving Denny's employees free drinks in exchange for free food. μηδείς (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I clearly misread what you wrote. In any case, I am clearly in the minority on this one - ITN doesn't see it as a notable business deal. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 Gikomba explosions

 * Comment: I will create the article if others agree it is notable enough. It's hard to agree if something is notable enough when there isn't an article to look at. That seems counter-intuitive to the way the ITN nomination process works.  Spencer T♦ C 01:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, alright, but I don't like people telling me I shouldn't keep creating articles on random shit because it might not be notable, so I guess this is a lose-lose situation (or maybe I'm just in the wrong place). Thus I will create the article immediately. Jinkinson   talk to me  02:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The subject is clearly notable enough for an article, as you yourself implied. The encyclopedia benefits from having an article whether or not it is posted on ITN. --ThaddeusB (talk)
 * Seconded. Just because an article might not succeed at ITN, there's not necessarily a reason it shouldn't succeed at being a Wikipedia article.  Create articles, it's all good!  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak support certainly made headlines on my national news, and serious event. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment TRM, is there a reason you use "it did/didn't show up on my online news feed" as a yardstick to measure significance by so often? Jinkinson   talk to me  22:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment yes there is. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could share it? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see what difference that makes to either of you. You are entitled to your own opinions you know. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Event is notable IMO, article looks good. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support and needs attention. Since this has been nominated for a while and the article seems to be acceptable now and there are no opposes, this should be posted as soon as possible.Rhodesisland (talk) 10:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted - article condition is good & there are no objections among the meager number of comments offered so posting before this becomes stale. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

[Re-posted] 2014 Southeast Europe floods

 * Comment - This is well covered in the news, but the death toll looks minor and the article needs a lot of work. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have merged the article with the already existing one that I have not noticed and changed the nomination. Nikola (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I support this now. The impact is pretty big. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Mild oppose not well covered in the news I read, and no real notability for ITN I can determine. Having said that, we regularly see fires and tornado outbreaks in the US on the main page, and those are always expected, while this is not usual.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I don't think we should always rely on the death toll as the only decisive criterion for posting. The floods caused major damages in Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, emergency was declared in both countries, thousands of people were evacuated from their homes, many European countries have already reacted by sending aid to the affected region, and the prevalence of the story in the news has been rapidly escalating from the very beginning. Combining all these information is definitely sufficient for posting. I'd also like to propose an alternative blurb that more precisely reflects all the things going on.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support with tighter blurb. 8 deaths is unusual/high for this type of disaster in this part of the world. Besides, this affects the entire economies of two countries. I think saying Major floods affect Southeastern Europe is sufficient. Nergaal (talk) 10:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, significant natural disaster, reported internationally, widely covered in the news. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. While not a high number of casualties(thankfully), this is affecting a wide area and many people, and is being widely covered. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. High time this reaches the front page. Suggested blurb: "Disastrous floods in Serbia and Bosnia & Herzegovina leave dozens killed and tens of thousands displaced from their homes and towns." Vrstefko (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Ready to post, but the blurb is a bit long. Can we just go with "Major floods affect Serbia and Bosnia"? --Tone 15:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd opt for "the heaviest floods in past 100 years..." or "heavy floods..." to distinguish them from other floods that aren't posted. Brandmeistertalk  15:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - can someone please make the dozen+ one sentence "poaragraphs" into a few proper paragraphs and make sure the material is referenced? Thanks! --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I improved the references a bit. Posting now. --Tone 19:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? Oh dear.  The article is junk, effectively a list of bullet points without bullets, and pisspoor formatting/references.  Too late I suppose.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not a big fan of bullet lists myself. But most of the text is ok. That's why I went on with posting. Hopefully some editors will work on it further. --Tone 19:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of the references are badly formatted, I'm still not sure that the blurb is actually capturing the point of this story. Can we add some kind of context to the blurb, at least, to tell people that several have been killed, according to the article it's 21, not the "dozens" claimed above.  Right now it just looks like "Floods impact "country".".  Like, so what?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The blurb should say:"100-year floods cause at least 21 deaths, and submerge entire towns in parts of Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina." Article is bad, but it is an ongoing crisis. Death toll is still unclear (probably higher than 21) due to government ban on announcing victims until the floods are over. It would probably be better to delete all the bullets about individual towns (situation has since changed for many of them), to make it readable. Vrstefko (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Pull it's not even written in grammatically correct English. Seriously, let's get this off quickly, work on it, and then push it back on if it's updated properly.  Noted at WP:ERRORS.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with TRM that the article was not ready for posting and that the blurb doesn't capture the importance of the story. These issues should either be fixed or the article pulled.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Best for you to pull it now Thaddeus, and we can fix it up. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Pulled sub-standard article, woeful blurb. Hopefully something can be done about all this before an attempt to re-post it is made.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Re-Post Support I corrected the disambiguation warnings and cleared some of the outdated news (bullets). With the new suggestion for blurb, I propose to re-post in ITN. The lack of international coverage, Wikipedia ITN included, is really being interpreted as sort of a snub for Serbia and Bosnia. Vrstefko (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you feel Bosnia is being snubbed, a good place to start fixing that would be to reference the "Bosnia and Herzegovina" section of the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - This is now getting coverage from BBC and NDR; if the article updates are sufficient, let's put this back up. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: 2014_Southeast_Europe_floods could use copyediting and some more references. There are a lot of vague statements in this section especially that need to be fleshed out with concrete details, instead of stating that "X was flooded, Y was also flooded, but Z was not flooded." For an example of what a good update would look like, see 2013 European floods, specifically 2013_European_floods.  Spencer T♦ C 01:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Ready - I gave the article a substantial copyedit & added some referencing. It's not the greatest article ever, but should meet minimum standards now.  I suggest using "Major floods in Southeast Europe kill at least 20 people and lead to more than 16,000 evacuations." as the blurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Re-posted good work Thaddeus, I improved a bunch of the refs on the way too. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Could the blurb be updated to "at least 40 people" per ? Nikola (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thryduulf (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - As far as the pulling from ITN is concerned, the peak wave on the Sava and the Danube in Serbia is expected on Wednesday or Thursday, then it moves downstream to Romania and Bulgaria, but hopefully with much less drama. I suggest the blurb remains on ITN at least until then. P.S. I hope I did more good than damage in writing and editing the article so far. Sorry if my skills and etiquette were not up to the task. Vrstefko (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrstefko (talk • contribs) 00:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 Indian election

 * Comment: Have struck out the blurb for now for obvious reasons. Until we have the final result, editors please comment on the lead article and such. Don't mind, but I suppose we will be posting the blurb only after final result is settled. We won't be keeping any live scores on who is leading and who is not; only who won. Isn't that right everyone? §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 04:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * CommentLet's wait for the election results to come in. May be we can also mention the PM candidate in the blurb itself (depending on the performance). Should we mention the fact that they were the largest ever democratically elected governmental elections in history of the world in the blurb? [My personal opinion] Regards,   theTigerKing   04:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * obvious support as ITNR...and you stole my nom ;( JAI MATA DI! Amethi is key and that chootad is getting jhapped!

Lihaas (talk) 04:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yes, await the result. We may need to modify the blurb thereafter. As, the election results might establish new records and update historical parameters in number of ways after a significant period of time. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  05:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment BJP on its own could also get a majority, which news channels are saying has not happened in last 3 decades (single party getting majority). Maybe the blurb could be modified accordingly. -- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 06:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong support when the results are out. With 800+ million voters, this was the largest election in history in a world power and will very likely have a strong impact locally, regionally and globally. What more needs to be added? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, of course, in principle, but as the maintenance tag at the top of the article clearly states, it needs a really thorough copyedit before it could be featured on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Narendra Modi should be mentioned in the blurb since the whole campaign was centered around him. Once the results are announced, the blurb can be modified if BJP wins a clear majority. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 07:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree more. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC).

Strong Support All the Counting is over, the NDA won a majority, the BJP has won a majority on its own. This should be on the main page immediately. Zince 34'   10:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait it's the results that are ITN/R, and, as of one minute ago, only 28 of 543 seats have been announced. The initial counts show a very clear outcome, but we should wait until the results are certified.  Results are here for anyone interested - I'll be keeping an eye on it throughout the day.  GoldenRing (talk) 09:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you give a source for that, please? The results I'm seeing still say that there are only ~130 seats out of 543 that have been counted fully.  GoldenRing (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Although various news websites are showing different numbers, and that's very likely to happen as their updates are possibly done at different times, I would suggest to wait till we post it ahead. Btw, I don't know where you are getting your ~130 score from and at what time, this official website http://eciresults.nic.in/ is a good one. But it is kinda slow than other news sites and they update it with all chunks of information unlike the news one who only tell you who won and not with all stats. As of 6:34 PM IST, 220 of 543 seats have a definite winners announced. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 13:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Can someone please fix that mess? There's no reason to have 2 nominations at the same time. Also, 3 articles is too much and we can definitely eliminate Bharatiya Janata Party campaign for Indian general election, 2014. And wasn't Gfosankar the original nominator? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the duplicate nomination and left a friendly note at the user's talk page explaining. GoldenRing (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment It looks likely at this stage that the BJP will have an outright majority, without need for the NDA coalition. Should we have a BJP majority or an NDA majority in the blurb?  GoldenRing (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I was just about to propose that. In my opinion, I'd rather have the blurb say "BJP majority" instead, but I think it is necessary to mention Narendra Modi. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Altblurb proposed. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. Mentioning Modi, with image is important. 2. Lets not rush to delete NDA's name altogether. BJP could easily form the government on their own now; but might very well share important posts with ministers of the coalition parties. So don't guess and write BJP alone. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 14:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You are confusing government formation with gaining a 1/2 majority. If the BJP does get such a majority, it won't be wrong to write so. Actual government formation may take place even later. MikeLynch (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The essence of ITN is its freshness. So its better to put it now, whatever is the fact. Remember that the main page is editable and we do rephrase blurbs many times about ongoing events. If you all wanna wait then lets wait till 2019 when they would have definitely completed their tenure. The blurb doesn’t have to do anything with who is becoming PM with whose support or such. It has to do with what exactly is happening. ITN has been criticized plenty times for posting stale stuff and we can do nothing about it as our criteria for featuring articles on main page are quite stringent. In such cases, if articles are satisfactory, waiting and postponing for blurb phrasing is kinda stupid. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 18:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Wait. As of now, no single party has a majority. Since it looks like the BJP will get a majority of its own, it might be wise to wait till all the results come in and post that the BJP itself has gained a majority, instead of the NDA. Or if you folks have a bit more patience, we might want to wait till the government is actually formed. In any case, Mr. Modi's name should feature. MikeLynch (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The PM of UK has officially called on Modi. I believe we can go head with the word projected.. Here is the actual results link. BJP now has 241 in its kitty and require 272 for absolute majority.
 * Wait for a couple of hours and you can post the real deal. No speculations on the main page please. MikeLynch (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment/Support We can go with the current blurb, though it looks like BJP will have a clear majority, there is no harm in mentioning NDA. We can have a photo of Modi and nominate another ITN when he becomes the PM.  Amartyabag   TALK2ME  16:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait for the full results. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ADMINS - PLEASE BAN LIHAAS FOR THE DEROGATORY WORDS HE HAS USED (IN HINDI LANGUAGE) IN HIS COMMENT ON THIS NOMINATION 115.118.20.224 (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Boss! Go and check results. Congress has no say even in India and Wikipedia is American. Hehehe.... (Jokes apart, please have guts to login and comment.) §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 17:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * POST IT NOW The BJP has officially won 272 seats in the Lok Sabha elections paving the way for Narendra Modi, to be the next PM of India. Please use the word 'led' instead of 'ápostrophe and s'. Also, the word majority should be replaced with simple majority for the ambiguous interpretation. Though he has been congratulated by the PMs of UK, Australia, Israel, Pakistan, Sri Lanka...it would be interesting to see how Obama makes the first move. Modi has been denied the US Visa as per the 1998 US act. Super-interesting to be least. Here is the official link for checking the results online. Blurb needs to readjusted if a coalition forms the government at the centre.. Regards,   theTigerKing   17:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment/Support we should post it now and can modify it later if necessary. Not everyday that a Chaiwala gets elected as head of state in this fashion--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * General note the supports from all are very encouraging and thanks to you all for your contributions. HOWEVER, the article we post must be the election article, and right now it's in a poor state.  Instead of spending hours here clamouring support to post the result, please spend some time fixing the article.  Whether we post it now or in six hours, it makes little difference, let's get the article quality up to scratch.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What TRM said. There is no doubt this is an important story.  There is also no doubt it won't be posted with the election article in poor condition. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Manmohan Singh resigns: . Perhaps should be added to the blurb. Brandmeistertalk  09:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The article looks better now, with numbers in and some comments added. While there is still room for improvement, it is ok to post. Posting. I'll go with the second blurb as it allows to add the photo. --Tone 09:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Replace image Please replace the image of Conchita Wurst with Narendra Modi's. No offence, but the image by the side of the text is looking too odd. Amartyabag   TALK2ME  10:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * STRONGEST SUPPORT : Just POST it now with the image. it's been too long I am waiting. The article is upto date with results. -Khushank94 (talk) 10:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Blurb can be : The Indian general election results in landslide victory for the BJP leader Narendra Modi (pictured) in world's largest electoral exercise ever.


 * Support replacement of image How many days are we going to have Wurst image. The blurb is second last now. Redtigerxyz  Talk 11:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Change image. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 11:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment all good, article posted, image updated. But for future reference, instead of endless support votes, please read the article and help in improving the maintenance tags.  And for future reference, a polite request to change the image will no doubt result in a quicker result than the rude and unpleasant approaches some have taken to get what they want.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think it is very important to mention the fact that this election was the largest in human history. It's for this reason that the Indian elections received so much coverage all across the world - it's not everyday you get to see over 500 million people participating in a major democratic exercise. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the massive mandate. support calling it the largest ever election in democratic history.Lihaas (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Surely every national election ever held in India was the largest ever? It's not like this one is special in that regard. Formerip (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite so. And while we're here, someone needs to update the lead of Indian general election, 2009. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose making the blurb even longer than it already is. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Immediate Blurb Update and PULL UP in ITN He has officially been appointed as the PM of India by the President of India. Ceremonial swearing-in ceremony to happen on 26 May 2014.
 * Entirely unnecessary. We don't continually update these kinds of blurbs for every part of the event, just in an attempt to keep it on the main page.  It's a done deal.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Sinking of the MV Miraj-4

 * Comment looks like we need more news on this, and it certainly looks like it happened yesterday, so this nomination is in the incorrect location. As a two-sentence stub, the article is nowhere close to being main page quality.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Moved to correct day.  Spencer T♦ C 00:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Death toll is now at 54, with the finding of further survivors unlikely. The final death toll will likely exceed 100 people.  Article work is underway. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Article is now in decent shape. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Thaddeus for updating, it looks good and ready to be posted. Andise1 (talk) 03:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support nice article, thanks to ThaddeusB, large death toll, should be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support and needs attention. Since this has been nominated for a while and the article is acceptable now and there are no opposes, this should be posted as soon as possible.Rhodesisland (talk) 07:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess I will have to post this myself if no uninvolved admin steps up... --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] [RD] Jean-Luc Dehaene

 * Support; meets DC2 as a head of government. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support what 331dot said sounds good. DC2. I don't know what it means but I'm sure it has something to do with him being an important figure. Belle (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should probably have linked to the death criteria, of which the second one is "very important figure in his or her field". 331dot (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * DC sounds nicer than death criteria though. [Shiver]. I'm hoping to avoid the death criteria for quite some time. Belle (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment the article is almost completely unreferenced and has a poor lead. These issues will need fixed before it can be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Lead is now much improved. The referencing, however, still is pretty weak. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Referencing is much better now, and about as good as it ever will be!Brigade Piron (talk) 08:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose article is bereft of references. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This should be sorted now. But if you believe the referencing is particularly bad on this one, I'd invite you to look at other similar biographies...Brigade Piron (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that there are other articles with poor referencing too. They shouldn't feature on the main page either.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There are still large areas of text without references at all I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support His important involvement in constitutional reform at both the Belgian and the European level means that he meets DC#1 for a significant impact on both the country of Belgium and the region of Europe. The article will clearly need more work, though. Neljack (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Clearly meets RD2 and I think the referencing is now good enough to go. GoldenRing (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Referencing now in good shape.  Spencer T♦ C 00:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Jill Abramson

 * Oppose. Change in the editorship of one newspaper is not significant, even if it is the New York Times. We don't usually post changes in corporation/company boards or other personnel. 331dot (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - is there a back story here? The merely replacing of an editor seems like very small potatoes, so if there is something more you better explain what it is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is big news when they change editors at the big newspapers/magazines, and usually means there has been some sort of disagreement. But this cannot rise to level of ITN. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose unless the reason for the change is significant enough to warrant a paragraph at minimum in at least one relevant article. At the minute there is barely a sentence. Thryduulf (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Thryduulf. Not to be a sensationalist, but there needs to be more to the story to make this ITN-worthy. AgneCheese/Wine 23:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Apparently Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. fired her, possibly because she "confronted the top brass" (more info here). Just thought I should mention this in case it makes this remotely ITN-worthy. Jinkinson   talk to me  00:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Apparently, according, to the storied Ken Auletta, she was fired for being "pushy" (as the first woman editor of the Times to be replaced by its first black editor) for questioning why she made nowhere near as much as the white man she had replaced. μηδείς (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose "overpaid" person is removed from their position and replaced with another overpaid person. First overpaid person will walk into another overpaid position elsewhere.  Not news. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently she was underpaid.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure she must struggle to get by. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm reading she quit due to the pay disparity. As a woman, she was being paid less than her predecessor, who was a man. If there's legs to that, I could reconsider, but as it's as gossipy as Jay Z vs. Solange at this point, I opppose. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Who cares if she steps down? The name of her successor on the position has been already revealed and the change will not likely exert severe problems in publishing.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] UEFA Europa League

 * Oppose I agree with the nom that this is not quite in the same league (pardon the pun) as the Champions League final. Plus we will have the 2014 FIFA World Cup starting soon and will probably encounter quite a few ITN-worthy soccer blurbs being nominated. AgneCheese/Wine 23:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's a consolation prize--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is a competition for teams who aren't good enough to get into/progress in the Champions League. That's just not significant enough. If you want a football story on ITN, I suggest working on the 2013–14 Premier League nomination below. The Champions League will of course be posted once that happens (and the article is updated...) <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 03:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a pity one of the most viewed articles in this Wikipedia won't get an ITN appearance. This has tons more page views than the likes of the Heineken Cup, which is almost certainly to be posted... wait, there's no Irish team in the final, so there's a chance no one's gonna update that... – H T  D  13:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Soccer is already plenty well represented here. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's a consolation tournament. The winner of this is effectively gets the the 77th place trophy... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.222 (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] RD: Stephen Sutton

 * While clearly notable enough for an article, I'm not sure this matter rises to the level of a blurb, so I must reluctantly oppose a blurb but (see below). 331dot (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak support - I think it's fair to say that Sutton was at the top of the field of individual charity fundraising overall, rather than just among people in his situation. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not convinced he was significant enough. "Individual charity fundraising" seems like an artificially narrow field to me. Neljack (talk) 12:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Neljack, it's even being reported in Godzone: New Zealand Herald. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I really don't know what to make of this one. On the one hand, I think it's pretty clear he doesn't meet the RD criteria.  On the other hand, the subject is clearly encyclopedic and this is very much in the news at present, at least in the UK.  I would lean towards support RD as an exception to the rules, but it's not a strong lean.  GoldenRing (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support for RD. He does meet the criteria. I don't see what wider field could be proposed than "individual charity fundraising" (after all, groups are not going to qualify for RD anyway). Formerip (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak support for RD, certainly it'd be unusual to find a single individual responsible for the collection of three million pounds in a matter of a week or so, he has also featured heavily in UK news outlets for the past few weeks. The article needs some help, too much reliance on Twitter and the charity website, there should be plenty of third-party sources available to update it satisfactorily.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is synthesis. Neither the fundraising nor the being ill is grounds on its own for posting. μηδείς (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 *  Oppose</Strike> Support for RD does not meet the RD criteria, per TRM. If a full blurb was suggeted I would oppose based on this not really being front-page material. Somchai Sun (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "The deceased was in a high-ranking office of power at the time of death and/or had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region": "Sutton made a significant impact on the country" [check - his cause raised over three million pounds for charity in a week]. He was supported by David Cameron, and his death is currently being covered by The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, The Guardian, The BBC, Sky News, The Scotsman, Reuters &c. It's also not constrained to the UK, see New York Daily News, Ouest-France, Sydney Morning Herald, Le Monde, El Pais, New Zealand Herald.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Seeing TRM's comment, I do support for RD per DC1. 331dot (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support for RD - He has been a contributing force to get this fundraiser to the high amount. He has recieved international coverage. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support for RD His death has been front page news outside the UK. He definitely made a "significant impact on the country" in the recent past. Black Kite (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support for RD significant impact. `--kelapstick(bainuu) 19:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support for RD - his campaign (for want of a better word) has been massive news in the UK and, as shown above, has received international coverage too -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD, support blurb. - Subject is known primarily (or exclusively really) for the time period\events that led up to this death and the fight against the cancer that caused it.  To me, this is a textbook case where the death (broadly understood) is the story, not the life of the person. (He was famous for less than a month, if I understand correctly.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And he meets RD criterion 1, or, if you disagree, please demonstrate how. Somewhat bizarre now that we have two ITN regulars, one saying "yes to RD, no to blurb" and one saying "no to RD, yes to blurb".  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If he had died 5 years from now, it would have barely been noticed. If he raised a lot of funds but wasn't terminimally ill, it would have barely been noticed. (I am quite sure many people raise multiple million pounds for charity each year.)  I'm not saying he didn't have a wide impact, I'm saying he had a wide impact because of his then-impending death.  Thus, to me, the death is the story. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well either he does or he doesn't meet the criterion, which is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * He had a wide impact because of his (then-impending) death. It isn't an "either/or" situation, but rather a "meets because" situation. That suggests a full blurb is best. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Excuse me but what kind of argument is that ThaddeusB, "if he had died 5 years from, it would barely be noticed" do you own a crystal ball? It is a non argument as he died today, at best speculation.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, my point is that he is notable because of his illness and resulting death, not the fund raising itself. Many many people raise that kind of funds - Sutton had a special impact because of his plight, a plight that cannot be separated from his death.  That suggests a full blurb is the best option to me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * you are misunderstanding ThaddeusB's point. Just because someone is eligible for RD does not mean they cannot have a blurb if that is justified - for example Margaret Thatcher got a full blurb even though she also met the RD criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, but support RD I can see ThaddeusB's point and it is a heart wrenching/heart warming story. But, to me at least, the "I'm dying so let me leave a lasting legacy by raising millions of pounds for charity" angle is more DYK-worthy than ITN-relevant. That said, the kid was certainly 100x the person that most of us could ever aspire to be and clearly meets the RD criteria. AgneCheese/Wine 23:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb mostly - though used widely in the news reports "dies after raising £3m for charity" sounds odd because it has some hint of implicit causation similar to "dies after a high-speed crash". Belle (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T♦ C 01:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

2014 California wildfires

 * Wait for further developments; wildfires are not an unusual occurrence in California or the Western US in general, especially in recent years. Has there been large scale evacuations, significant casualties, a dollar amount put on property damage? Something like that would be better to hang our hat on, I think. 331dot (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Carlsbad alone issued 23,000 evacuation notices." That large-scale enough for you?  Jinkinson   talk to me  18:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In a state of 38 million, not really, to be honest. As I said, these sort of fires are not an unusual occurrence. 331dot (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. However, we are having more this year than usual: "California's firefighting agency has responded to more than 1,500 fires this year, compared with about 800 during an average year."  Jinkinson   talk to me  22:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose nothing abnormal, and certainly nothing special from the perspective of news for English Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree, this isn't really that uncommon, Wildfires in the western US happen every year, and often come very close to urban areas. When I lived in Nevada I considered California's two largest exports to be bad drivers and smoke. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Question (And this is a serious question, since I'm not very experienced with ITN as many of you know) What did the tornadoes last month have that these fires don't? Jinkinson   talk to me  22:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Tornadoes are unpredictable as to where they occur and how much damage they cause. California and the West have fires on a regular basis(just see the See Also links in the fires article).  The tornadoes caused $1 billion in damage; we don't yet have a dollar figure for these fires, I think. We also have limited casualties as of right now. 331dot (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, the tornadoes and subsequent flooding had 36 deaths as I recall. Have there been any reports of deaths attributed to the fires--one maybe? I seem to recall mention of a presumed homeless man being killed.Rhodesisland (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)182.173.212.21 (talk) 11:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Wait. per 331dot and my own previous vote regarding the tornadoes. The story needs more development before we post. Rhodesisland (talk) 09:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Needs attention. Do we have a way to rework the blurb to include a damage dollar amount and/or death count? (Wow, that sounds harsh when you put it like that, eh?) Rhodesisland (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)182.173.212.21 (talk) 11:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We could just talk about the one in Carlsbad, which was estimated to have caused at least $22.5 million in damage.  Jinkinson   talk to me  16:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Camille Lepage

 * Procedural note: I think the nomination should be dated the 13th since that's when her body was found(though we don't know what day she died). 331dot (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Moved. Thank you for noting. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Procedural note ii: Is this an RD nomination? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting for the opinion of other editors as to whether it should be an RD nomination or a full blurb. In my opinion, an RD won't reflect the conflict in which she was killed, but in the same time I feel some editors will think it isn't notable enough for a blurb. What do you suggest? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd be shocked if this could make a blurb, but there's no problem with making a nomination for either. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Shocked' is probably too big of a word but I understand what you mean. However, I must point out that it certainly is notable and is widely being covered in the news. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I mean "shocked" in the normal sense because I've seen other journalists (including Pulitzer-prize winners) who have been killed in theatres of conflict, who didn't even make RD. Just wanted you to know that up front.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This could often be related to the article's quality and whether it is updated or not. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose RD per nom "I understand that she might have not been sufficiently notable in her field to be here". RD is for situations where the death itself is not notable, but the person's life clearly is.  Neutral on full blurb for now, since none has been proposed at current. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Blurb proposed. Let's see how this goes. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose current blurb/RD but if more sources pick up on the outrage of the French Presidency and (more importantly) if the French government authorizes some sort of action or intervention in the Central Africa Republic, I would support a blurb focusing on that angle with a mention of Camille Lepage's murder being an impetus. AgneCheese/Wine 23:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * France is already involved militarily in the CAR but even if it wasn't, I don't think they would deploy troops in a war-torn country because of a journalist they probably don't care much about. I've never heard of any country doing something like that before, but here is the French government's reaction exactly the way it is written down in the article → The Élysée said in a statement that French President François Hollande had ordered the immediate dispatch of a French team and police from the African force deployed in the country to the scene. "All necessary means will be deployed to shine light on the circumstances of this assassination and find the killers of our compatriot," the statement said, which also used the word assassinat ("murder" in English) to suggest that Paris has information that the young woman was targeted deliberately and in cold blood. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose not seeing this really being widely reported at all, Lepage was hardly a prize-winning journo. A sad death, but not ITN.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. per The Rambling Man Rhodesisland (talk) 09:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Santa Maria found

 * Wait till it is confirmed that it was indeed the Santa Maria discovered. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait. "May have found" means that it is unconfirmed; we should wait for confirmation. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose a bit like a similar nomination that supported the "possible" find of MH370, we'd have looked extremely foolish then, we may well look foolish now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support if confirmed Front page material for sure when/if it is.--Somchai Sun (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait. When this is confirmed, even it it takes years, it is HUGE. So nobody in the future call it stale, okay? Abductive  (reasoning) 22:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support if confirmed This would be huge if it legit but will really take years to confirm? AgneCheese/Wine 23:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Conditional support. Clearly noteworthy if confirmed, but “likely's” and “could be's” in headlines make me hesitant. --bender235 (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] European ‘Right to be forgotten’

 * Nom. Big news, with potential consequences for Wikipedia, too. (Remember the Sedlmayr case) --bender235 (talk) 09:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The search engines don't actually have to say 'yes' to that request. The judgement says information must be removed "unless there are particular reasons, such as the role played by the data subject in public life, justifying a preponderant interest of the public in having access to the information". Also a new human right would, I think, be added to the ECHR (whereas this is just case law interpreting the already-existing right to privacy). So the idea that a new human right is being established here seems like a bit of hyperbole to me. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The point of this ruling is that information once published in a newspaper can be, although factually correct, requested to be removed from a search engine's index on the account of privacy and data protection. --bender235 (talk) 11:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment For a currently active discussion on just such a matter, see Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive200. HiLo48 (talk) 10:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Is getting wide coverage, and I'm not sure whether appropriate for ITN, but the article is currently only two sentences. Needs expansion and a little more context to be of any use to readers. -- Shudde  talk 10:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose This case simply applies well-established rights (to data protection and privacy) to new circumstances - in other words, what courts do all the time. It would have been more noteworthy if the ECJ had ruled that these rights didn't apply on the internet - "Court decides that same rules apply to the internet as elsewhere" isn't really much of a story. Neljack (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you read that, but this is clearly not the case. The "right" applied in this case is a 1995 EU Directive, which has not been applied to the internet or search engines in particular in this way in the 20 years before yesterday. --bender235 (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sort of. No new rights have been created here; the court has just interpreted the existing rules for the first time.  So the court is saying that that right should have been applied in the internet / search engine context every since 1995, but no-one has brought it to the court before.  The ruling is perhaps a bit surprising, but I'm not seeing the ITN-level significance of this.  GoldenRing (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Nothing super groundbreaking as noted - this extends rights in traditional media to online media. --M ASEM (t) 15:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What makes you believe this? Newspaper archives, libraries, etc. are not required to withhold or remove certain information after it is deemed "irrelevant". This "right to be forgotten" is totally new, and only applies to online services. --bender235 (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The NYTimes frames the issue well - it is applied to search engines, not content providers. The ruling cannot make existing documents go away, but can make it difficult/impossible to find those documents by searching on the names of those that wish that. This is far less significant than the concept that every digital fingerprint of a person must be washed away. --M ASEM (t) 16:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Didn't your argument just turn by 180 degrees? --bender235 (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, not really. Prior to this, the right was to "have their data fully removed when it is no longer needed for the purposes for which it was collected", which means purging it from offline databases though not removing other matters of public record. This is the same concept. --M ASEM (t)
 * Interestingly enough, most commentators disagree with you. “The ‘right to be forgotten’ is a thing that has been circulated in many years. For the first time, the European Court of Justice has recognized such a right.” --bender235 (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support in principle, as this is a potentially wide-ranging and important case. However, the issues are complicated and require careful explanation. As such, the article needs to be much more developed. If we post it as it is, at best we'll not be telling readers much, and at worst we'll be actively misleading them. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 03:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support A precedent and the equivalent of saying every human has the right to live free of parasitic paparazzi who profit by invading their privacy. μηδείς (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Trivial. Someone point out the irony to the Spanish idiot who has made him even more noticeable in search results than he was before.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 06:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is stub. Lugs has it right, the Streisand effect applies.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I think the publication of a ruling from the ECJ is newsworthy in itself regardless of what may happen to it in the future. CaptRik (talk) 12:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But it wont stand for very long, says .  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Who is suddenly an expert in international privacy law? Why should we care what Jimbo says? <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why should we care what you say either?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I Agree and I hope it doesn't stand for very long - but strictly speaking I believe it would be against WP:CRYSTAL for us to reject the story on that argument alone. You could argue any murder conviction isn't final until all possible appeals have been tried but I'm sure we would post a guilty verdict being given on/around the time a court gave it.  CaptRik (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Malik Bendjelloul

 * Oppose - Does not meet the death criteria. Untimely death + Academy Award isn't enough to overcome the fact that he directed only one film. The article is fairly puny as well. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Malik who??? --  Ohc  ¡digame! 04:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Please do not #1: "Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful."Lihaas (talk) 09:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Simply not notable enough doktorb wordsdeeds 05:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to article quality. Otherwise I'd have supported the nomination; he won several top awards in his field and his death was sudden.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  08:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * support clearly top of his field to win an Oscar...nothing bigger in the enterteinament wordl. Also a non-standard death pretty muts fits the billvLihaas (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose mainly because article is barely stub quality and because his death was untimely, he didn't really stake a career-claim on being top of the field, although the single Oscar confers significant notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Bongwarrior. Also article is very very light, definitely needs expansion as well (even a few sentences would significantly expand the article). -- Shudde  talk 10:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. An Oscar might make him notable, but doesn't make him at the top of his field. 331dot (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Coal Mine Fire

 * Comment - it would be useful to have an article on which to comment. A significant accident with ~160 dead. Maybe someone could start the Soma coal mine disaster article and we would then have something to discuss. Mjroots (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Updating the mine article with the fire should be sufficient, at least for now. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, looking at it, it does seem the mine isn't specified. I will create the disaster article you specified. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I have updated created the article Soma coal mine disaster, but expansion is required. I will start some work on it, and probably get more to it later tonight. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Very high death toll, which unfortunately seems to be rising. Neljack (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, article is sufficient, 200 dead. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, reasons per my comment above, I've reassessed the article from stub to start class. Mjroots (talk) 04:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Major disaster, ongoing news story. CaptRik (talk) 07:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment that this might be one to consider for ongoing, given the length of time it took to rescue those Chilian workers from about a year back. --M ASEM (t) 15:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess we'd make that decision when this story is about to drop off the main ITN section. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There are different circumstances too, there were access/cave in problems in Chile which there are not here (yet). If the fire can get put out here in a relatively short time (and I don't know if it can), it would be over sooner. If they can't get the fire out, well then there are other problems. But yes, what TRM said. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Syria update

 * Oppose Doesn't seem that much of a turning point. Not receiving wide coverage. --Somchai Sun (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose better to nominate a Syria "Ongoing" article which can be updated with these minor fluctuations. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Doesn't seem significant. 331dot (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose As above, this extra element doesn't need a separate entry doktorb wordsdeeds 05:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Jacinto Convit

 * Support - Legion of honour places him at the top of his field. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Legion of honour, while a clear indication of notability, is not really exclusive enough to warrant RD. His prince of Asturias award, as far as I know, is a lot more exclusive and prestigious, so that one is perhaps a better indicator of his importance. Fram (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Meets DC2. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Upon the sourcing of the biography section Support. The only two statements that are sourced in that section are that he turned 100, and that he died. Outside of that I think he meets the RD criteria. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Certainly had a very significant impact. Neljack (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm afraid that I am going to have to oppose this. If one reads the sources, nowhere does it say he developed a working vaccine for leprosy. The Pan American Health Org says, "His work toward the development of a vaccine for the prevention of leprosy provided the basis for the development of an immunotherapy for leishmaniasis." What that means is that the leprosy vaccine didn't work, and other people used some of his work to do something with Leishmaniasis. I'm not clear why the BBC would make such an error, perhaps their budget cutbacks are to blame. I have removed the one weird mention of Convit from the leprosy article. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like Reuters had the same cutbacks as the BBC then.... "In 1987, Convit combined existing tuberculosis treatment and a bacteria found in armadillos to design a new vaccination against leprosy that became used worldwide." Either way, he was a significant member of the scientific community, a PAHO "public health hero" and winner of the Prince of Asturias Prize for scientific research.  He was a leader in his field, that's the criterion. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Convit vaccine is not the standard vaccine. The standard is BCG vaccine. Convit added killed Mycobacterium leprae to the BCG vaccine. This "convit vaccine" is sometimes tested in field trials. One can do a Google Scholar search and see for oneself that it is not more effective that BCG. By no means are the claims in the obituaries true. Somebody has been going around inserting falsehoods on Wikipedia, which may explain why the dummies in the news media believe it. Read the Candidate Vaccines paragraph here. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No-one said the Convit vaccine was "standard", did they? No matter, he was nominated for a Nobel, and was declared a PAHO "public health hero" and won the Prince of Asturias Prize for scientific research.  Regardless of your claims, he was still top of the field.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nobel nominations are done willy-nilly. I had a friend whose dad and another prof cross-nominated each other as a joke. It means nothing. This PAHO "public health hero" of the Americas business is insufficient, and looks political. The Prince of Asturias Award did not get Luis García Berlanga onto ITN when he died: and it is given mostly to people of Hispanic heritage. Some of the people listed at Prince of Asturias Awards don't have articles! This suggests that the award doesn't even confer notability, let alone a place ITN/RD.  Abductive  (reasoning) 23:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The lack of an article only suggests lack of interest in creating one, not lack of notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * One supposes that there is a pretty tight correlation between lack of interest and lack of notability in overall article creation on Wikipedia. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The correlation is much weaker if you are talking about subjects from non-English speaking countries, as you imply about the recipients of this award (and looking at the red links, they do indeed appear to be from non-English countries). --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So, you admit that the award is given preferentially to people from non-English speaking countries? So what this nomination has turned into is "A guy who didn't really help people avoid contracting leprosy but got an award anyway based on his ethnicity" Abductive  (reasoning) 05:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I said the redlinks are from non-English speaking countries and thus it is not all that meaningful they don't have articles. I made no attemept the count the number of people from different countries receiving the award (there certainly are some non-Hispanics among the blue links).  I also haven't supported this, so I'm not sure why I need to "admit" anything. --ThaddeusB (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I used you to make a rhetorical argument. Let's let others comment. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's too late now, you've managed clear the place. Never mind.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not too late to post yet - only Sutton died more recently. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I was kind of referring to Abductive's continual use of straw man arguments while avoiding the main concept - the man was top of his field. Now then, I'm finding it challenging to address your concerns Thaddeus as my Spanish is non-existent, and most sources are that lingo.  I hope someone else can help, of course Abductive may continue to suggest that Convit had nothing at all to do with the leprosy vaccine but verifiable reliable sources beg to differ.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - referencing is still a little light - not weak enough for me to oppose, but not strong enough for me to support either. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ready - article is now well referenced and ready for posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD Stephen 02:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

[Attention Needed] [Ready] RD: H.R. Giger

 * Support Minimum for the RD ticker, if not a full blurb. Hopefully his work isn't Alien to the average reader.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak support article needs some more referencing, but notable enough for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support; I'm in agreement with TRM. 331dot (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support for RD Ticker. --M ASEM (t) 13:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support well known and crucially for us well respected doktorb wordsdeeds 17:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support RD at the least, full blurb is reasonable. I think it depends on how you define his field - if his field is biomechanical art, then he's the undisputed master, the final benchmark, and deserves a full blurb.  If his field is simply "visual fine arts" then he's extremely well known, highly influential on pop culture, but died in old age. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 18:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support for RD. Miyagawa (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Referencing is a bit light & there are about a half dozen tags at current. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Undoubtedly a leader in his field - sure, it's a fairly specialist field but right at the top of his game. 3142 (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Marked Ready no current citation needed tags, removed unspecific section tag--references to primary works like books and movies do not need further citation. μηδείς (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As for reading the credits of movies, according to WP:Primary "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."


 * Comment more references required. An unreferenced list of movies is unsatisfactory, particularly when Giger isn't mentioned in all of the articles, let alone referenced there.  Other tags added as clearly the quality has been overlooked by those in support and those who consider this ready to post to the main page.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed heading which somehow became broken, and made requests for citations totally explicit now for the avoidance of doubt. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You quoted the relevant reference above. Are you arguing that an average reader is unable to watch a film, read the end credits and understand what they mean?  If that's the case I'd be interested to see your reference to the fact that 50% of Wikipedia users are illiterate.  If you don't have that the referencing is sufficient per your own quote and this is ready. "I don't have those films" or "I can't b bothered to check" does not mean that another user has to spoonfeed you with references to which you have already been directed. 3142 (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Irregardless of merits, the item is now stale so there is no point marking it "ready". --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not actually stale, although it soon will be. It's still OK to be post since it relates to the same date as the Turkey coal mine disaster. Formerip (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 3142, your post makes no sense to me, to whom was it addressed? If Giger's involvement isn't mentioned, or referenced in the target articles, it should be referenced.  Or are you suggesting we can have an entire article unreferenced based on the concept that someone can go and watch each and every movie that Giger was involved in to seek out his name in the credits?  You must be joking!  Still, have a good one.  Once again, fixing the header which keeps breaking this edit section, and if User:Bishonen wishes to block me for removing a single opening square bracket, then so be it.  One example that needs to be fixed, even if the "watching the film for the credits" maxim is applied, is the unmade Dune movie, which has a [citation needed] tag.  The movie doesn't exist, nor does a reference that Giger worked on it.  How do I watch the non-existent movie and the non-existent credits and reference the Wikipedia article from that?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * See talk. This should have been posted when nominated, should bump the non-ecyclopedic Sutton article now and should stand until a better nomination bumps it. See Talkμηδείς (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

RD: A.J. Watson

 * Unsure - I don't want to down play his accomplishments because he was obviously a legendary car builder...but I'm not even sure Penske would pass RD. --162.95.216.222 (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - As the IP says, "legendary car builder", which is sufficient for RD's "top of his field" criteria. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems to be at the top of his field, which meets DC2. 331dot (talk) 01:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose until article has better referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Ukraine vote

 * The blurb is misleading. What I'm seeing in the news is a claim by pro-Russian separatists that their side won the referendum. Kiev is claiming the vote is a sham and there were no safeguards in place to prevent ballot-stuffing. I'm in favor of a wait-and-see approach before we post any further news stories. --WaltCip (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose at this stage. Symbolic muppet-puppet show with no real effect unless Putin decides to annex them as well, which I think is rather unlikely. Brandmeistertalk  15:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose as this is already covered by the "Ukrainian Unrest" ongoing link in ITN.128.214.172.225 (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Another nomination with a very biased nomination comment. I don't think these votes are worth our attention unless either Moscow or Kiev treat them as such, and as of now there's no sign of either. 'A millstone round the establishment's neck'? Please. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment — Guardian reports "Donetsk region asks to join Russia." This seems to substantiate a drift toward annexation, à la Crimea. (Is anyone surprised?) Sca (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait to see what actually happens following this widely-derided vote. If Russia annexes them, or they become independent, sure. But until that happens we have a non-binding vote in a sub-national entity, which isn't enough for ITN in my opinion. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose In the flurry of stuff coming out of Ukraine, we need to be sure of the details, and confident about the state of any linked article, before jumping into frenzied nominations. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. We already have an "ongoing" link to this, this does not necessarily represent a significant development yet to warrant a return to a full blurb.  If and when more comes of this, we can revisit the issue.  -- Jayron  32  17:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - A farce with little value. thayts  💬  18:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

RD: Tom Hafey

 * I support this in principle(seems to meet DC2 in terms of Australian Rules football), but very little of the article has citations. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support HiLo makes a compelling case. Neljack (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose based purely on article quality (or lack of it). Two or three whole sections unreferenced inline, and lots of POV language. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm agnostic on this nomination, but the article needs a lot of work before it's in a post-able state. The vast majority of the text is totally unreferenced. The few references that are there refer entirely to his life after 2011. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 22:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article needs significant work but moreover, a player turned coach of a game that a tiny proportion of the world's population actually even know of (or arguably more importantly, care about) is not suited to a global list of recent events / RDs. 203.13.128.104 (talk) 23:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Please do not... complain about an event only relating to a single country". AlexTiefling (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * One could say the same about many of the subjects of RD but the criterion is widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field. In this case the field happens to be Australian football. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with relating to a single country - I'm sure there's fans of this game all over the world, read it again. 203.13.128.104 (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I read it just fine the first time. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * An observation: The IP editor trying to tell us that Australian football is a minor sport has an address that geolocates to Sydney, Australia. While Australian football is by far the strongest football code in Australia, by any measure, it's not the strongest code in Sydney. Rugby league is stronger. Soccer may be too. But Australian football is growing in that market. It's likely that our IP editor is a fan of one of the latter two sports, and perhpas feels obliged to discredit Australian football at any opportunity. HiLo48 (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I just checked past contributions from that IP address. They include many from an obvious soccer fan, who opposed an eventually successful position I took on the issue of the naming of Soccer in Australia in Wikipedia articles. Looks like we have a history. It's not just Aussie Rules he opposes. It's me too. It's sad that he has let his sports obsession get in the way of objectivity here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello HiLo48, I'm actually far more an AFL fan than I am a Rugby Leage fan or Association Football (soccer) fan, but I'm definitely not as obsessed with AFL as some Australians (Melbournians) are - it's almost a religion for some, isn't it? I'm not based in Sydney at all, in fact as I write this I'm sitting in Adelaide. I work in numerous states of Australia, as well as in USA and New Zealand regularly. My primary place of residence is Melbourne, but I spend a significant portion of time every year in Los Angeles and various other cities as my job requires. I digress, my opposition to the naming convention of Association Football Australia is nothing to do with my opposition to the RD nomination here, bygones are most definitely bygones and the dead horse has been beaten far beyond what is required. 203.13.128.104 (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll accept that. But I still don't understand your opposition here. If someone grows up in a city like Melbourne, which IS dominated by one winter sport, reaches the highest levels of playing and coaching in that sport, and remains a very public and highly respected member of the community until he is in his eighties, he has done pretty much all he had the opportunity to do. We cannot ask for more. Your comments did read more like a criticism of the game, or of the city, than of Tom Hafey. HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * PS: Your IP address still geolocates to Ryde, NSW. Not helpful, eh?) HiLo48 (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, the VPN I use to access the internet from wherever I'm based day to day must be based out of Ryde or somewhere nearby. Never been to Ryde myself but I understand it's a fairly large commercial area of Sydney so the ISP's VPN hosting is probably based there 203.13.128.104 (talk) 06:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * As I said about the last American football player nominated, the international popularity (or lack there of) of the sport is not relevant. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Sounds notable enough (I don't know much about Aussie Rules Football myself), but the article is not up to scratch reference wise at the moment. On a side note, I'm jealous of how fit this guy must have been with that training regeme! Phylactory (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose' Agree with above comments about lack of article quality. Would support if the article about Tom was improved. Would do this myself but don't have the time at the moment unfortunately 49.183.227.11 (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support pending article work - agree with others, he is ideal for RD but the article is not up to scratch. A serious need for referencing and rewriting in an encyclopedic tone.  GoldenRing (talk) 07:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I've seen people in athletic halls of fame rejected here, and the table in "Comparative coaching statistics" suggests he's not the top of his field beyond that. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Past mistakes are hardly a good reason to oppose something. Opposing because too high of a standard was applied in the past is also the least effective way to cause change...  As to the other comment - I have no clue what you mean.  Hafey has the 5th most wins in the history of the game, with 3+ less years coaching than everyone ahead of him.  Are you suggesting only the winningest coach in history (who died in 1953) is notable enough? --ThaddeusB (talk)
 * Support The above points about the article are valid, but definitely meets the criteria in my opinion. CaptRik (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I gave the article a good copyedit. That fixed the tone, but of course did nothing for the referencing.  I would appreciate some help as I am very busy IRL. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- Chronic lack of inline citations and sources means this should not be on the main page, even if we forget that this is a WP:BLP (which applies to the recently deceased). -- Shudde  talk 10:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So, here we are, with another of User:HiLo48's Australia nominations falling off the bottom of the pile because the article isn't up to scratch and nobody can be bothered to do anything about it. I've done my best to add some references, to an obituary in The Age and to afltables.com, but the former is fairly sparse on detail and the latter of course is a primary source which establishes some statistics about his career and no more.  The referencing I've added establishes the bare facts of his career, but much of the description of his methods and motivations remain unreferenced.  I think that for this to improve, and for it to have any chance of making the RD ticker before becoming stale, someone will need to find a paper source to add references.  The most likely is The Hafey Years - Reliving a golden era at Tigerland.  I think it's extremely unlikely that I'm going to find a copy of this in the next few days - I've checked my local library network and the British Library and neither have a copy.  So it's up to someone, probably someone in Victoria, Australia, to add some references or see this nom go the way of so many others.  GoldenRing (talk) 08:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Lots of people's nominations fail for lots of reasons. I did what I could despite being extremely busy this week and unfortunately HiLo was too busy to help.  It happens, but it is not unique to HiLo's nominations.  Also, we posted an Australia person to RD just a day before this one.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I know. Still, it seems a shame, since this is, for once, actually a prime example of our systemic bias.  It's not that there's no will to post it; it's just that we don't have access to the sources, and so a good RD nomination falls by the wayside.  GoldenRing (talk) 08:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Patrick Lucey

 * With respect, a run-of-the-mill politician and short-term ambassador. I'm not seeing anything that raises him to the notability required for RD.  Stephen 02:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A state governor and an ambassador(a political position) does not meet any of the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose doesn't meet RD criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. per 331dot and The Rambling Man Rhodesisland (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per all of the above. Sorry, just not significant enough. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 22:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Reg Gasnier

 * Not rugby. Rugby league. HiLo48 (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well yes, more precisely rugby league, but "rugby" is not inaccurate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's inaccurate in Australian English. Union fans take the matter very seriously. HiLo48 (talk) 02:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's true elsewhere too (e.g. in New Zealand and Britain). Generally speaking rugby union is called "rugby" and rugby league is called "league". Unless I could tell otherwise from the context, I would always interpret "rugby" as meaning "rugby union". Neljack (talk) 11:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Here in the UK, 'rugby' can be rugby league or rugby union (although if neither is stated explicitly then it's probably but not definitely rugby union). We don't use the single word 'league' by itself to indicate rugby league.Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Conditional support article needs some fixing up, I'll try to help out in that regard over the next 24 hours, but an ideal candidate for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Pending additional referencing I would Support, seems like a good candidate for RD. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Great Aussie sportsman. Well known even on the other side of the Barassi Line, where I live. HiLo48 (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support One of league's true greats. Neljack (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. His list of honors would seem to qualify him for RD. 331dot (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Article is now improved, marking ready. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD Stephen 01:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013–14 Premier League

 * Oppose and pre-empting the standard call for more prose. Right now, the target article has nothing more than a single sentence update, and very little prose in general.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Needs work. This should obviously go up as soon as it's ready, but the article currently has only one sentence of update, and only a few paragraphs of prose in total. It needs fleshing out with some actual content and a description of the season (something like the season summary from last year) before it can go up. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I just want to point out that last year's season summary (that you linked) appears to only be written up to December. CaptRik (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hah! Well spotted. One or two (referenced) paragraphs covering the whole season would be enough. I'm surprised this article hasn't received more attention from editors - it's still just a bunch of tables and list of awards. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Ready - I have added a textual summary of the season and improved the lead. Unless there are any quality objections, this should be ready to go per WP:ITN/R. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've tried to turn that section into British English and added a few cns. Most of those should be easy to address, and then this looks good to go. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 04:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Posted Smurrayinchester 09:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] South African general election, 2014

 * Support Also a significant event for South Africa as it falls on the 20th year of democracy. Nathan121212 (talk) 09:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Needs more prose on the results and probably a reaction section. Definitely do not use the altblurb - there is no reason to bring apartheid into it. Mainblurb is also weird - why not use the standard phrasing: "The ruling African National Congress wins a majority in the South African general election"?--ThaddeusB (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've changed the mainblurb accordingly. - htonl (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Significant event for South Africa and the article is quite comprehensive. Helen  Online  17:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * On ITNR so no need to support. The article seems fine, and has been updated with the full result. Looks good to go, marking [ready]. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Eurovision Song Contest

 * Support - The most watched singing competition show in the world.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ITNR items do not need support related to the merits of the event(ITNR presumes notability), merely about the quality of the article and the blurb. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well...Support Its continued inclusion on ITN/R! --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been argued in the past that a specific instance of ITNR may not be an ITN for reasons just beyond lack of article quality, though the arguments should be why that specific instance of ITNR shouldn't be included, and not a point of the repeated ITNR nomination overall. Not to say this applies here, just that ITNR is not as automatic as claimed. --M ASEM (t) 21:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Then it shouldn't be ITNR. Is that what you're saying?  If so, what is the point of ITNR?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, if we normally would post it, then it should be listed at ITNR. But in exceptional cases that are beyond article quality reasons, there might be reasons not to post a specific occurance of an ITNR. The next time it's back to normal; the ITNR tag is to say "we normally post these events, so let's start discussion from that point, and not debate whether the event should be posted in the first place".  For example, say there's a case of a national election where every source prior to the election has pegged the current seat winning by a landslide, and that's exactly what happens, an unquestionable landslide in the incumbant's favor. It might not be necessary to post that result even though national election results are an ITNR. --M ASEM  (t) 21:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Masem is correct. Look at the top of this nomination - the note on the template indicating that it is ITN/R says: "Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it." "Generally", not "always". A recent case in point is the Olympic Ice Hockey Final earlier this year, which despite an adequate update and article quality was not posted because there was consensus against it. Neljack (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but still no need to nominate an item 16 hours before it can be updated, especially one at ITNR. Regardless, time to move on, this is no longer productive.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Per 331dot, the early nomination of an ITNR, before the event has even occurred, is simply a waste of time as we need to judge iTNR items on the quality of their update. This clearly cannot happen until the contest is concluded, some 15 hours after the time this was nominated.  Still, at least someone gets a nomination credit.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a rather lovely selection of free images to go with the blurb btw. - JuneGloom    Talk  22:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Time to post this.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Surely Eurovision Song Contest 2014 should be used in the blurb? --  <span style="color:#000;font-family:SwissMad, Arial;">axg //  ✉  ]] ''' 22:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. Eurovision Song Contest 2014 in full should be used.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posting. The updates are coming in but the basics are there. Good to go. --Tone 22:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wouldnt a photo be appropriate. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added a photo to the nom. And I suggest the blurb "Rise Like a Phoenix" performed by Conchita Wurst (pictured) wins the Eurovision Song Contest for Austria.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Shame, no image used....would have been fun to see a "bearded lady" on the front page ..--Stemoc (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have now nominated an image. Hopefully an admin will add it soon. It is as you say needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well its Mother's Day around the world, what better way to celebrate it then with a picture of a bearded lady...haha.--Stemoc (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But I do hope someone adds the image soon to the ITN section.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support - the beard alone is clearly notable. Good work getting an image. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * As this is live on ITN I'm trying to tidy up the article, but I'm hitting a snag - see the talk page. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Sibling of the Sun

 * Weak oppose According to the article, that star has no known planets and is "one of what may be thousands of" Sun's siblings. However, if this the first known star from the same stellar nursery, I'd rather support. Brandmeistertalk  09:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear, yes, this is the first (other) known star from the Sun's stellar nursery. Wnt (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb Ok, RS (including University of Texas at Austin) seem to confirm this is the first Sun sibling discovered. Brandmeistertalk  08:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The nominator's claim is filled with excessive peacock terms and hyperbole. The concept of a moving group is already well-established. Claiming that this discovery has a direct effect on our minds is absurd. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The short term effect on your mind is on display right here, and I suspect you will remember this for some time. μηδείς (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Before I read this I was thinking of the Sun as one of a vast galaxy of stars, one no more similar to another except by sheer chance. But now --- I know there are stars that have the same composition as the Sun, made from the same materials in the same place; the worlds of our system are no longer a genus within a phylum, but within a family.  This is the discovery of an unknown child of Hyperion, a brother of Helios far away, and it will be exciting to see what it is like. Wnt (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support, a rather fascinating first, and a unique opportunity. Obviously encyclopedic, and of great interest to our science readers.  The fact it has no hot jupiters is totally irrelevant:neither does the sun. μηδείς (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I could support this if the article was expanded to include some ramifications from the discovery. Surely having another star from the same stellar nursery illuminates something about our own star? Abductive  (reasoning) 16:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've started adding a bunch more info to give a better idea of significance. The location of the nursery isn't apparently known from just two orbits, but as more are identified it should become known.  It will take five years or so for a bigger dataset from the Gaia Space Telescope to provide orbits on enough siblings to get that, I think. Wnt (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would look into it now, but I have stuff to do IRL. Is there anything in the literature prior to this discovery about the value of finding siblings? Any hypotheses floating out there that can now be resolved? Abductive  (reasoning) 18:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, a simple hypothesis is that the Sun formed in a nursery - a priori it's something like a 50-50 chance (I forget the exact number; it's in the body of the preprint). A piece of information to find out is where in the galaxy the Sun formed.  A prior failed search from 2010 ; a 2012 on "desperately seeking" siblings   I haven't tried to start solar sibling, and these are a little afield from the issue of this particular star which hadn't been identified as one when they came out. Wnt (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose it has a cute headline, but per Abductive, I'm not really seeing why this is any more important than other universal discoveries. And indeed, to make it appealing to our readers, we have to explain why it is relevant, and in layman terms on the main page.  Alex has a point, the whole tabloid "our sun has a sister" nausea is not something an encyclopaedia would consider publishing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The individual ignorance of editors on the significance of subject is not a valid reason for opposition.  This article surpasses all policy requirements, and I have proposed an altblurb that should make the significance more clear to non-science majors. μηδείς (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Any suggestion that editors are "ignorant" is a direct violation of WP:NPA so editors who are intent on suggesting such should either retract such statements or take the discussion to ANI for other violations. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless I should ask whether you do appreciate the significance of this find. There was a time when all the atoms that make up you and me and the Sun and the Moon were part of one single cosmic cloud somewhere in our galaxy.  And this faint star, not even quite visible to the naked eye, was part of that cloud too.  But all the other stars you can see in the sky, near and far, were not part of that cloud.  And thanks to work like this, we will know where that cloud was.  And things like the spread of radioactive elements through it, or perhaps even meteors containing the elusive secrets of the first living things, are now potentially accessible to study. Wnt (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of this portion of the main page. It's not up to me or you to "appreciate the significance" of "this find".  I read some tabloids about "it could host planets with alien life" etc, but it's not really "in the news" (real, serious news).  ITN isn't about breaking niche scientific speculation I'm afraid.  Yes, you can all slate me here and when we meet our cousins from HD 162826 when they pop by, but in the meantime, this isn't actually that interesting to the majority of the known universe, hence its absence in most mainstream news outlets.  Giving me a lesson like "There was a time when all the atoms that make up you and me and the Sun and the Moon were part of one single cosmic cloud somewhere in our galaxy." is simply fascinating, but then you could apply that to any discovery.  Of anything.  Sorry, not that interesting, hence the lack of real news coverage.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not a reasonable objection. It's in many of the major news media.  Now I'll admit, I tended to just run through search results and add whatever was new from the first one that came up in the search, but it's covered by sources like  and .  This is not tabloid news.  There may be some ennui because people looking for funding have tended to oversell "solar twin"s in the past, which are simply stars a lot like the sun by some arbitrary criteria, but not actually from the same place as the sun.  But this is the real deal. Wnt (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "This is not a reasonable objection" - this is your opinion, others have their opinion. Now then, back to your normal schedule.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Wnt, are you supporting this? If so, I'll mark it ready, since we have majority support and opposition based only on a failure to understand the science, not any objection to unmet criteria. -Oh, nevermind, I see you are the nominator, so I suspect you see why this is important.  μηδείς (talk) 04:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a failure to understand the science on my part, it is a desire to have the article be expanded to explain what the discovery means. I just looked at it and its getting there. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Brandmeister you might want to comment too, given your concerns have been addressed. μηδείς (talk) 04:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Even as an astronomer, I find myself underwhelmed by this. This star has very similar abundances to the Sun, yes. Those doing the research interpret this as it coming from the same cloud, which is a decent guess but not certain. And even if it did, so what? How does this discovery help us understand the Sun, or star formation? The preprint itself is also much more conservative with its claims than the press reports. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly. What actual difference does this "almost certain" "discovery" mean to anyone? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see how this changes our view of the world. We always knew siblings of the sun would be out there; that someone has identified one is no doubt a great show of painstaking research, but I'm not seeing it as ITNish.  Seems ideal DYK material, though.  GoldenRing (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per Modest Genius. Rhodesisland (talk) 08:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] South Sudan peace deal

 * The ceasefire is already broken: --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Change hook to reflect that? Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  14:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Suggest this is withdrawn. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Farley Mowat

 * Looks like he meets the notability criteria, but article will need considerable work (almost all of it has poor referencing) before it can be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would support this if and when the article is cleaned up so it meets minimum standards. Clearly worthwhile on the merits, we just need an article worthy of highlighting. -- Jayron  32  18:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment agree with ThaddeusB above, there appears to be sufficient notability for this individual to qualify for RD, but the article is really sub-standard and needs serious work before it's suitable for the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, along with Mordecai Richler, the most famous Canadian author. That is, there might be authors from Canada who are more famous, but their readers wouldn't even know that they were from Canada, if you get what I mean. Mowat and Richler help differentiate Canada from Britain and the US. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment complete agreement, the article is in terrible shape, poor to non-existent referencing is the least of the articles issues. I have done some cleanup, but not nearly enough. I won't have time to get to it today (or probably tomorrow), but I have reached out to WP:CANADA for some assistance. If nothing else the article will get some copyediting. Best, --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Can we have another review of the article to see if it is fit to print, there has been some significant referencing done (by myself and others), and I think it is in better shape. The tag has been removed (not by me). --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Article has definitely improved a lot. I would be neutral on quality now as there are still many  tags.  If things continue to be improved, I should be able to move to support soon. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support once the citation tags depart (I think ISBNs may suffice, as in the rest of publications), looks notable enough. Even a ship was named after him. Brandmeistertalk
 * Are we to take it this guy's a Canadian jingoist, and because of that he's a much better nomination than your average non-Canadiac Canadian who's simply a good writer?  The rationales above certainly can't actually mean what they imply, can they? μηδείς (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Jingoism is beating a nation's drum, promoting it usually above other nations. It is different from having a distinct culture, something which Canada has always struggled with. Farley Mowat was a major cultural figure who helped to establish that distinct culture. - Tenebris 16:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support I've made a few fixes, all works are now supported with ISBN or similar, refs are fixed up, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD BencherliteTalk 10:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Post posting support - good work all. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Liberation of Homs

 * Wait until the withdrawal is done and Syrian army takes over the city.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  15:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose "begin withdrawal" is too wishy-washy. Wait until something significant happens.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Remove the word "Liberation" from the title of the thread. It's obviously POV. HiLo48 (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM, and retitle per HiLo48. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ummm...this is not the MAIN space. no one is seeing it. we are deciding on its worth for ITN. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is here, and especially as its on talk pages. Considering we have a MAIN spave article entitled Fall of Constantinople...just because something is not to western proclivities doesn't make it wrong.Lihaas (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, at the very least you're not doing your nom any favours with a title like that. GoldenRing (talk) 11:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well if people were objective enough to judge content instead of personalisty politics then maybe we would not bee so dumbed-down...nevertheless, we don't refactor other comments] on personal whime TALK pages.Lihaas (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose, and I retitled per consensus. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support This is not "begin withdrawal" in the sense that they seem to be losing a battle and so are pulling back from a front line. According to the BBC  the UN and Iran have negotiated a truce to allow rebels to leave Homs, which they are doing in an organised way.  It is not a surrender; the deal allows each person leaving one backpack of kit and a rifle to go with them .  This is the significant thing we're waiting for, as far as the civil war in Homs goes.  GoldenRing (talk) 08:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support: I proposed an alt blurb now something concrete has happened. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  17:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. I do not support linking the current outdated article. Siege of Homs should be the one linked. In addition, the blurb could mention that the city is now under government control.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  19:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Homs is one of the largest cities in Syria, so this is definitely significant. I agree that the blurb should state that the city is now under govt control, and that the Siege of Homs should be the one linked.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ALT2: Syrian government armed forces capture the strategic city of Homs after Rebels withdraw under a UN- and Iran-brokered truce. Modify it if needed. I obviously support posting the story now.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  09:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the blurb should clarify that that this was not an immediate takeover of the entire city. It was a gradual process that took years. Perhaps it should say something along the lines of "Syrian government forces capture all of the strategic city of Homs after three years of siege and a rebel withdrawal under a UN- and Iran-brokered truce"--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep that's better. If it's too long we can cut the last part.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  13:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per FutureTrillionaire. As 2012 Homs offensive is tagged outdated, it might be better if we used Siege of Homs. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: Nigeria violence

 * Oppose. Linked article has multiple issues (orange tags) and is not updated. I would support if a blurb is suggested instead and a suitable article is linked (or this one fixed).  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  15:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I've nominated that Gamboru Ngala attack below. Brandmeistertalk  15:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Thai PM ousted
Comment - article has a couple yellow tags for excessive detail. While not serious enough to prevent posting, it would be nice if someone attemtped to address them before posting. Update looks adequate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Mild support certainly been headlining news outlets in my jurisdiction for the past 24 hours, and while Thailand isn't exactly known for stability in this regard, this is a significant occurrence. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per TRM; heads of government removed against their will due to malfeasance in office is usually notable. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I added an altblurb which makes it clear which of the parties is abusing power and highlights that the Prime Minister is a woman. Belle (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb. Per Mellemora. Rhodesisland (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per TRM. I think something like the altblurb is preferable because, particarlarly in such a politically controversial matter, we don't want to give the impression of taking sides by appearing to assert that there has in fact been abuse of power. That is the Court's opinion, and we should report it as such rather than giving the impression of adopting it ourselves. Neljack (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Re: alt blurb. A court decides, not accuses, right? – H T  D  12:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, HTD. Altblurb 2 (not sure where to do this): The Constitutional Court of Thailand rules Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra abused her power and removes her from office. Belle (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - with her image, i'm seriously tired of seeing snooker players on the main page... there was one before the current picture..--Stemoc (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Added, I was thinking about it, but initially decided not to add. Brandmeistertalk  15:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI, the previous picture was actually Gulzar, not a snooker player. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but before that?..it was like seeing doubles lol..--Stemoc (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * easy support ALT blurb came here to nominate it myself. Not only is it an ouster in a major country with a recent conflict, but it pertains to that ongoing conflict from the election. (one could acall it another coup int he world...)Lihaas (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support: Impeachment of a sitting head of government by a court should always be ITN-worthy, especially in this case where it may have massive implications on the country's political landscape, and future development is completely open. Maybe the yellow tag issues cannot be solved before posting. The need for improvement is not that massive and readers know that our articles (especially on current events) are always in a developing process. Perhaps posting it on the main page will even invite other users to volunteer and improve the article. --RJFF (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted, albeit with tags, as they are more of the positive kind; too much information rather than too little or unreferenced. Stephen 01:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment: I wonder if the editors here were aware that her term as prime minister had already ended when she dissolved the House of Representatives back in December? It was from her post as caretaker prime minister (which has been extended due to the failure of the February elections) that she was removed. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Doubt it. But it was in the news and had consensus to post.  Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Synthetic DNA

 * There has been scads of horrible science reporting about this. Wikipedia does not do "drama".  here is a very reasonable, nonsensational report on what was published.  Something like "In May 2014, researchers announced that they had successfully introduced two new artificial nucleotides into bacterial DNA, and by including individual artificial nucleotides in the culture media, were able to passage the bacteria 24 times; the bacteria could not make the artificial nucleotides themselves, nor could the bacteria create mRNA from the artificial nucleotides, nor could the bacteria make proteins based on the artificial nucleotides."  please do not make a sensational blurb out of this. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The bacteria cannot make the artificial nucleotides themselves; mRNA cannot be made from it, and tRNA will have to be worked in that could recognize the artificial amino acids, and you would have to create a way for bacteria to synthesize the artificial amino acids themselves (which means whole enzyme pathways have to be engineered in) and ribosomes would maybe have to re-engineered too ... there is LOADS of work that has to be done until we will get anywhere close to cells that can make and use artificial amino acids. "genetically creating novel amino acids with medical and commercial applications" is a) kind of nonsensical and b) today, still way, way way out of reach. Please don't blow this up as though there will be commercial application anytime soon. That kind of bad science reporting just jerks the public around and misrepresents how much work there is left to do. THe articles about this say that the guy worked for like 15 years just to get these base pairs that work! Biology is nothing like tech, where we went from no smart phones to smart phones everywhere in just a couple of years. Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose, not hypothesis-based science, and lacking any impact or import. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

[RD] Jimmy Ellis

 * I fixed the headers - I wondered why things looked a bit different... most likely someone used one by accident or due to inexperience and then others kept copying it without thinking about what was normal. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support To clarify, this is about boxing, not pro wrestling. I certainly wouldn't support the latter. Jimmy Ellis fought in the time when it was clearer who the top heavyweights were. He won a tournament against serious opposition to win his world title. He once beat Muhammad Ali. He was good. HiLo48 (talk) 05:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose won a world title and defended it once, controversially being awarded the win. Otherwise unremarkable.  And article is a mess.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. His career did not have substantial impact, not truly top flight for any length of time. Rhodesisland (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per TRM. Important but not very important. Neljack (talk) 11:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose per User:The Rambling Man. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Maria Lassnig

 * Support The Venice Biennale is the most prestigious contemporary art event in the world, so winning the Golden Lion for Lifetime Achievement there certainly indicates that she's a very important figure in her field. The art website Gallerist describes her as a "giant of postwar painting" and says that her "paintings affected generations of artists over the course of her 70-plus-year career". I imagine this will get picked up by the English-language media - it seems the news only broke hours ago - but of course English-language coverage is not a requirement. Neljack (talk) 02:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose absolutely no evidence of her importance outside the very incestuous and awrd-heavy art world. If there were one popular work showing her influence like the influence of Magritte, Dali, Michaelangelo, or even Munch outside her field of galleries, academia and bureaucrats this would be supportworthy. μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The death criteria instruct us to consider whether the person "was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field", not outside of it. The idea that we should ignore what other artists and people involved with art say about her is very odd. If a sportsperson died, would we ignore what others involved in that sport had to say about their significance? Or what actors, directors and film critics had to say if an actor died? Or what other physicists had to say if a physicist died? Frankly, μηδείς, your personal opinion about the merits of the art world is not relevant. Neljack (talk) 03:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Widely? Like New Jersey, which is bigger than Austria, and had the good sense to do away with it's poet laureate position?  I'll grant Vienna's a heck of a lot nicer than Trenton. 04:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Medeis: 1) Sign your comments (the above was a Pointless Medies CommentTM), 2) Stop being obnoxious. Yes, a sovereign nation holds more weight in this case than a single sub-national entity. As for the nom, don't know anything about art, so can't comment. Fgf10 (talk) 07:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * μηδείς, it's the Venice Biennale, not the Vienna Biennale. It ain't limited to Austrians. Her reputation was worldwide - she was regarded as a very important figure in art generally, not just Austrian art. See also the link in my initial "Support" comment to a New York-based art magazine calling her a "giant of postwar painting". Neljack (talk) 07:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Calm down, User:Fgf10, and User:Neljack. I said nothing about the 'Vienna Biennale', did I? I merely admitted that although Austria is far less important on the world stage than New Jersey, nowadays, it does have a far nicer capital.  Your use of a straw man and a personal attack in response to this is obvious rage, if hard to understand.  The fact remains that this artist is the recipient of esoteric awards given by institutions that ... exist to give awards.  Had this woman actually had any real cultural importance her works would be known by the public and alluded to in popular works, like artists such as Keith Haring, Roy Lichtenstein, Georgia O'Keefe, or any of the Wyeths.  But that doesn't seem to be the case. μηδείς (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * μηδείς, I did not mean to imply that you had referred to the "Vienna Biennale" or to personally attack you. I apologise if it came across in that way. It was just intended to be a jocular illustration of my point about her reputation being international not just Austrian. The perils of attempts at humour on the internet, I guess. Neljack (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support I don't think you need to be a Michaelangelo to appear in RD. She's not famous outside Austria and the German speaking areas, sure, but Die Welt calls her "one of Austria's greatest contemporary artists", and the Austrian national broadcaster has news of her death on the front page. Seems to be the top of her field in her area. Smurrayinchester 07:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support An academic too. HiLo48 (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per Neljack, article needs some tweaking. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Meets DC2 as someone very important in their field, given her recognition. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Per The Rambling Man, once the article is in better shape. Rhodesisland (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted BencherliteTalk 06:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Pu Zhiqiang

 * Comment. Could you further elaborate why you think this story is significant? (e.g. Does this mark a shift in China's attitude toward pro-democracy protests?) Thanks.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  17:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not ready to formally weigh in yet but I second what Mohamed has asked; on its face China jailing those who supported or currently discuss the Tiananmen protests seems par for the course for them. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * , thanks for the question. I guess I find it particularly notable because its so similar to what's happened at previous anniversaries. To me it seems to belie the notion that China's society is becoming less repressive as it interacts more with the West, in economic terms. Which I find a bit surprising. I'm guessing this is why it's getting attention in the business press, as well as those sources which see it purely as a human rights issue.


 * Also of course there is the human rights issue in itself, affecting 1.35bn people. But I'm not sure if lack of change can be news...


 * Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Neutral. A part of me wants to support this, but another part tells me it's business as usual in China.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  15:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Neutral This is a classic Groundhog Day story, a clampdown happens every year in the run up to June 5. Philg88 ♦talk 15:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Much like the others here, I can't cite a specific reason to oppose posting it, but I don't see a reason to support it either. 331dot (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the 'recurring event' ('business as usual'/'groundhog day') issue: Many of the news stories we use happen frequently (e.g. tornadoes in tornado-prone-areas, earthquakes in earthquake-prone-areas). Some of them happen so frequently that we have them listed in WP:ITN/R - and that counts in their favour when it comes to listing them. So I don't think that the fact that this is a recurring event should count against it. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 09:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

South Sudan/CAR

 * Oppose I don't understand the nomination at all. If it had been written in English it might be worth considering.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's a difficult nom at best without something concrete to tie these together. As for the specific suggestion of ongoing status I don't believe that to be appropriate - where you have a series of related events nominated that all tie into the same ongoing situation ongoing status is appropriate.  It seems of late the status has been handed out like candy in the absence of events that would even be nominated - "Oh, this is a notable situation even though it does not have notable events".  That starts to make the section look increasingly tickerish. 3142 (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support to "ongoing" (per nom?). I was actually thinking of nominating these myself. Central African Republic almost constantly in the real news (if not on ITN) and ditto, although to a lesser extent, South Sudan. Plus I believe that only having the Ukraine crisis as a major conflict listed implies that others are not...Brigade Piron (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But isn't the ongoing line for blurbs that are removed while still being in the news? (I didn't participated in the discussion) I feel that we are treating it like a sticky. I prefer nominating significant developments in both countries when/if they occur.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  17:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what it was originally intended for. When the trial ends, one of the points that will need decided is if it should also link to other ongoing events...  At the very least, any target article needs to be receiving regular updates, or there is no point to linking it.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Gamboru Ngala attack

 * Support per nom.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  15:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - very notable attack. Article almost meets minimum standards; preferably it will be expanded a bit more before posting (background, reaction).  --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Question we have a very specific "Ongoing" item for Nigeria, i.e. the kidnapping. Happy to post this too, but should the "Ongoing" item be more general to capture more unrest, more Boko Haram activity?  I think so.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps may be swapped to Islamist insurgency in Nigeria. Still I think that attack would stand out as rather uncommon since it involved both mass killing by gunfire (not bombing) and basically the destruction of an entire town. Brandmeistertalk  22:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That article had 9(!) maintenance tags and isn't updated to include this attack, for example. The kidnapping is what is getting the ongoing attention in the media (much to my surprise), but I wouldn't be opposed to not having a Nigerian "ongoing" item if this item is posted a a full blurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Tatiana Samoilova

 * Support upon improvement; seems to me she is important among Russian actors given her awards. 331dot (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak support, again upon improvement, I'm not seeing too much beyond her contribution to the Palme d'Or win, but the odd Russian award seems to be notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support upon improvement. Major actress of Soviet cinema, notable films. Brandmeistertalk  09:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak support. I concur with The Rambling Man's comments. One major award and perhaps considerable notoriety but only perhaps. A borderline case for me with leanings to post. Rhodesisland (talk) 10:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Article now improved, marking ready --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

2014 Aegean Sea yacht and dinghy capsizing

 * Support Substantial death toll, which is quite likely to rise. Perhaps the blurb should mention that they were migrants, since this is one of a number of such tragedies. Neljack (talk) 07:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The impact is relatively low.  The incident is "in the news" insofar as it is in the media, but it's position is something less than "featured".  More like "(far) below the fold".  The encyclopedic quality is questionable; while users could navigate from the updated article to other articles that are encyclopedic (for example the Aegaen Sea or Greece articles), but the updated article itself is somewhat pigeonholed.  It is an article about a very specific transient event that will not get much traffic and will probably not have any views after it falls off ITN.  It would perhaps be better to update List of maritime disasters instead.  Lastly, and knowing that this is outside of ITN criteria, I've noticed that there's been a large number of "ship disaster" articles nominated lately.  While that's not a good reason to oppose, I think it does highlight a "bandwagon" effect that's been going on since the Korea disaster happened.128.214.185.233 (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Undecided. The death toll is substantial, but IP 128 makes some valid points. Someone else try to sway me! Rhodesisland (talk) 09:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support once the article has more detail, because:
 * Quite a high death toll, over the ~20 that's our rule-of-thumb the rule of thumb which some of us sometimes use but everybody should feel free to completely ignore at all times. jeez
 * AP says one of the deadliest migrant boat accidents in Greek waters in recent years.
 * 68 people in yacht+dinghy is obvious and severe overloading, which has bearing on...
 * International public policy implications - the passengers were economic migrants from Turkey into the EU (Greece specifically). The pressures which cause people to risk death in order to migrate are themselves not unimportant (Merchant marine minister says "Modern-day slave traders are making a fortune by place placing thousands of people's lives at risk, putting them on small and unsuitable boats at night in the Aegean,").
 * Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 09:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no specific "rule of thumb" or guideline on death tolls; each event should be weighed on its own merits and news coverage. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 10:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The unsupported statement of one person does not a consensus make. If you want a consensus to codify such a rule, start a discussion on the talk page, and see where it leads.  -- Jayron  32  11:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As Jayron suggests, that might be the opinion that some hold, possibly even an unwritten guideline, but it is not written down anywhere (I would oppose efforts to do so on WP:CREEP grounds) or enforced as a policy. Sometimes an event might have a lower death toll but get more news coverage or otherwise be more notable than an event with a slightly higher death toll. 331dot (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Like Asiana Airlines Flight 214. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nobody has suggested that it is formally written down - Thaddeus and BM were simply making an observation about our practice. Nor has anyone suggested that it should be an inflexible rule - a rule of thumb is nothing more than a general guideline. Obviously all the relevant circumstances of the particular disaster should be taken into account. I think the empirical observation is indeed roughly correct, though you could certainly argue about the exact number. For what it's worth, 20 is the rule of thumb that I apply. Neljack (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes. That's why I used
 * The approximation symbol ~ (A tilde is also used to indicate "approximately equal to" (e.g. 1.902 ~= 2)) and,
 * The term rule of thumb (a principle with broad application that is not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable for every situation).
 * If I had thought it was a policy or if I was requesting a consensus to propose it as a policy then I would have said so.
 * If you don't think it's a good "rule of thumb" then don't use it.
 * Can we get back to discussing the merits of the nominated news story now?
 * Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between "our" rule of thumb(as you said above) and "your" rule of thumb or that of any user. You can use whatever criteria you wish to weigh nominations, but that doesn't mean it is a criteria everyone here uses. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've already changed "our" to "the" (above), to make that clear. Any other complaints? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a "complaint", just a comment. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Not receiving widespread news coverage.  331dot (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Suggestion We could link (non-bold) to Immigration_to_Greece, in the blurb. It gives some numbers and reasons as well as mentioning people trafficking, forced labour etc. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose not seeing it in any news I read. And I've looked for it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Guardian, TIME, Globe and Mail, Daily Fail, Indy, BBC News, New York Times, Euronews, International News, Belfast Telegraph Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you taking the time to find news sources, but this event is still not a top news story drawing wide interest(especially given the modest scale of this event). It's buried in the sites given(it isn't on TG&M's front page or even their World page) from what I can see. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose As noted, these will filled with migrants, attempting to enter the country illegally; they were overloaded. It's hard to work up how this is a major ITN event on this notion. --M ASEM  (t) 16:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose This kind of thing happens frequently, especially in the Mediterranean - a vessel overloaded with illegal immigrants sinks/capsizes. Jim Michael (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments I agree that this type of thing happens fairly frequently, but: So I don't think that the fact that this is a recurring event should count against it. The fact that they were illegal immigrants doesn't make their lives less valuable. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 09:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't happen frequently on this scale - this is an unusual amount of deaths.
 * Many of the news stories we use happen frequently (e.g. tornadoes in tornado-prone-areas, earthquakes in earthquake-prone-areas). Some of them happen so frequently that we have them listed in WP:ITN/R - and that counts in their favour when it comes to listing them.


 * I wasn't implying that their lives are less valuable because they were illegal immigrants. The point is that a severely overloaded vessel that is not properly maintained and which is operated by a gang is many times more likely to run into serious problems than a well-maintained passenger ship operated legally by a large, well-established company. Incidents like this one are serious crimes which cause a great deal of suffering. However, they are expected and frequent, because the Mediterranean (of which the Aegean is part) is a very often-used illegal immigration route. Do we have a guideline on how many deaths makes a disaster eligible for inclusion on ITN? Jim Michael (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no hard and fast rule, and attempts to create one are always rejected; each situation should be evaluated on its own merits and circumstances. There may be times 5 deaths are notable and times when 75 aren't notable. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] World Snooker Championship

 * Comment Note that this is on ITN/R. Look fine to be, though I'm sure there will be the usual calls for more prose. Fgf10 (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - the "Tournament summary" should be converted to prose. There is no valid reason to use bulleted lists instead of proper paragraphs.  We are an encyclopedia, not a collection of box scores.  If that is done, the article should be OK on quality. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It seemed to me that the prose itself was just fine, so I've removed the bullet points and combined a few into paragraphs. GoldenRing (talk) 08:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Someone undid it. We always seem to have this problem almost exclusively with snooker.  I don't know why snooker editors think "thier" article should be different than the entire rest of the encyclopedia, but they are wrong.  See WP:PROSE. Oppose promoting an article that people are going to edit war to maintain bad style. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. WP:PROSE says "Prose is preferred" and not that is the only choice. It's surprising that an admin doesn't get this. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, what's surprising is that an editor with 200000 edits would not understand that nothing (other than a few core policies) is "required", and that "preferred" is another way of saying "recommended", "guideline", etc. - the same as all style guides. Even more surpising is that said editor would edit war to maintain his bad style. We have style guides for a reason and they should be followed, not arbitrarily tossed aside because you personally like bullet point lists. (BTW, PROSE is pretty clear on this point - "Articles are intended to consist primarily of prose" and later "Do not use lists if a passage is read easily as plain paragraphs.") --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm working on it, it'll be tidied up in the next hour. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:PROSE WP:REVERT also says, "For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse," and, "Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit." So on what grounds did you revert?  GoldenRing (talk) 10:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support ITN/R and the article looks in good shape. GoldenRing (talk) 08:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support looks much better to me now, fixed several references, moved some stuff around, corrected some linking, and prosified. Hopefully meets the expectations of an ITN update for ITN/R by now.  If not, do let me know.  Also added snappier alt blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks TRM; hopefully the changes stick this time. No objectiosn to posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. Would be nice if someone competent like User:David Levy could add a nice image like File:Mark Selby at Snooker German Masters (DerHexer) 2013-01-30 15.jpg....  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've switched to a cropped version of File:Mark Selby PHC 2012-2.jpg. —David Levy 18:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted BencherliteTalk 15:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If someone wants to crop and upload a local version, we have a good pic of the winner at File:Mark Selby at Snooker German Masters (DerHexer) 2013-01-30 15.jpg -- Jayron  32  17:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I cropped File:Mark Selby PHC 2012-2.jpg. —David Levy 18:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

New element confirmed

 * Nom. Classic encyclopedia topic. --bender235 (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * comment article say "no comment yet on whether the element can be recognized as discovered.", so article requires updating. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 15:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Err... In 2014, the GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research in Germany also claimed to have succesfully repeated the original experiment. However, the IUPAC/IUPAP Joint Working Party (JWP), which is in charge of examining claims of discovery of superheavy elements, has made no comment yet on whether the element can be recognized as discovered - this is basically not confirmed, right? --Somchai Sun (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment On a minor point, this is a May 3 story. More importantly, I believe in the past we have posted the initial discovery and the naming of new elements, but not the confirmation of the initial discovery.  Of the three stages, confirmation does seem to be the least important, but I am open to arguments taht it should be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * At the very least "and will be added" is incorrect - that decision has not been made (that is essentially what the naming announcement captures). --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

*Support - at some point We should definitely post this at some point in time, I have no particular view about what stage of discovery/confirmation that should be. Not necessarily now but it could be. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC) Oppose - too soon per Smurrayinchester below. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Every few years scientists fuse some elements and for 1 billionth of a second they create a new element. Then they go through the rigorous and most creative/thought provoking process of naming it "Unun[what I assume is Latin for 17)". Does this have any possible use? Has it advanced science any further? Even if we could stabilize these atoms, would they be of any use given the rate of decay? Now if we synthesize Omega particles... -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  17:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're going to criticise the naming, get your facts straight. It's a temporary systematic name. Fgf10 (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And the comment about 1 billionth of a second is wrong too. See Ununseptium. The more recently discovered elements are displaying longer half lives, which some scientist believe could be leading to quite practical applications. This oppose is based on ignorance and a choice to not even read our own linked articles on this. HiLo48 (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Omega particles? That was done in the 60s! Smurrayinchester 07:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I was making generalizations and souring at the fact that half the last line of my periodic table consists of Ununsomethium, as it has since I went to grade school 20 years ago. They last for fractions of a second generally, and while theories of more stable isotopes abound, none have been created that could last. I did read the article, and I could find nothing in terms of significance to this element, or what use it could hold. Could you enlighten me? -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  16:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Per my comment above. HiLo48 (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment/Question. This reminds me of a Big Bang Theory episode. Is there a confirmed, permanent, new element or will we realize in a few weeks that Sheldon made a mistake in his maths and have to retract it? Rhodesisland (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't oppose posting this (new elements are notable) but I wonder if we should wait until the JWP makes an official determination; right now we just have a repeated experiment, if I read the article right. 331dot (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose The blurb is factually incorrect. Per |NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|online-news#.U2iPhD-KBaQ New Scientist: "Even with this new sighting, element 117 does not yet have an official seat at the periodic table." The discovery of a new element is WP:ITN/R, but it's not really clear what we actually mean by "publication of the discovery in a peer-reviewed scientific journal". I assume this is when IUPAC/IUPAP officially make their review of the data, which won't be for at least a couple of years. Smurrayinchester 07:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * (The IUPAC decision isn't simply rubberstamping, incidentally - they often do reject claims of discovery. In 2011, they rejected ununtrium, ununpentium and ununoctium. While it's unlikely that an element with two independent discoveries will be rejected, it may be that they discover some flaw in the experimental method - ununtrium was "discovered" by both American and Japanese groups, while the other two were discovered by a Russian-American collaboration, but all three were too uncertain to be officially put in the table.) Smurrayinchester 08:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As a layman, I would say the name is not unmeaningless. Sca (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] 2014 Chibok kidnapping

 * Support as a notable attack on children, though this already seems to be in the ongoing line. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, it's in the Ongoing section, that article should be updated and bumped perhaps. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree that we don't need a blurb if we have the ongoing listing. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup, exactly what the Ongoing is for. --M ASEM (t) 14:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep it in ongoing, as this is the kind of thing the line was made for. An admission is not a big enough to get a blurb, but it keeps the story in the news. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

2014 Po Toi Island ship collision

 * Why precisely do you nominate an article for ITN before its created? – Muboshgu (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to weigh the merits of a nomination without an article; if something is not notable enough to yet have an article, it won't make it to ITN. There may be exceptions to that (significant events involving large numbers of people) but I don't think this is one. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I like the recent spate of nominations and we're getting a rather nice throughput on the main page, but I echo 331dot's comment, you might as well write an article to capture the essence of the news item so there's something we can base our opinions on. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I find it difficult to guage notability of news articles, so find it easier to establish notability before creating the article. I assume from the comments that this is article worthy? Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  12:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Worst case scenario is that it's nominated for deletion. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: article created, pinging, , and . Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  13:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment on process I have no problem with any editor asking whether, if a particular article were to be created, it would likely be considered notable enough for ITN. Seems sensible enough to me. If other editors prefer not to comment until an article exists then they don't have to do so, it seems to me. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - subject is certainly notable enough for an article. However, there are at least 6 larger losses of life in 2014 from shipwrecks (including one just nominated above).  Clearly, accidents of this scale are not rare.  I would need to see more explanation of merits other than 11 probable deaths to support (i.e. indication this is more than a routine accident); neutral for now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm in agreement with Thaddeus; while tragic this doesn't seem that unusual an event, nor does it seem to have widespread news coverage.  Count me as a neutral as well for the moment. 331dot (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Undecided. Same comments as with above boating accident--is this encyclopedic enough and the death toll is even less here. If this were a car accident, we wouldn't post it would we? Rhodesisland (talk) 10:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm also undecided. 2014 from shipwrecks suggests there's a loss of life from shipwreck every month or two, worldwide - so not nearly as frequent as car accidents, but also not wildly unusual. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Any loss of of life would be about 2/month on average - maybe more as there are probably incidents not listed in that article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I suspect that is a significant underestimate. Fishing is the most dangerous occupation by a looong way  Deep sea fishing in particular - I can't track down a reference right now but recall reading a statistic a few years back that if you start in deep sea fishing at age 16 you have a 90% chance of being killed on the job before you reach retirement age.  It doesn't make headline news - for the most part is is in relatively small numbers - half a dozen or so - and occurs in communities that are all too aware that small boats are very vulnerable in rough seas. 3142 (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose not seeing it "in the news" at all, tragic but inconsequential. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Elena Baltacha
Oppose blurb and RD Truly tragic, but I agree with others that she doesn't meet the death criteria, considering that she never won a Grand Slam or got higher than 49 in the world. This is not to diminish her remarkable achievement in competing at the elite level despite her debilitating liver disorder. Neljack (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose career high ranking of #49 in world, no grand slams, doesn't seem like a leader in her field to me. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Regretful oppose a notable individual but really only in a local sense, while the best female British tennis player for a while, hardly a claim to being one of the top in her field. Terrible early death, but not suitable for ITN.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * and - would you please indicate whether or not you support a RD ticker. In this nomination, it would be helpful if editors would indicate Support blurb, Support RD or Oppose (meaning oppose blurb and RD). Mjroots (talk) 08:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My position is clear, per your request. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The nomination is for a full blurb. So it would seem logical that any oppose comment is in oppose to a full blurb. Rhodesisland (talk) 11:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose career high of #49 and no Grand Slam titles isn't going to help this nomination. Donnie Park (talk) 09:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose in any form; does not meet RD criteria; not getting the news coverage for a blurb. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose both. AEGON Awards are only for British tennis. The only world-class British tennis player in recent years is Andy Murray, so there is not much competition. Baltacha did not win any major tournaments. Having intermittently been the British number one female tennis player does not mean much in an era when there were no world-class British female tennis players. Jim Michael (talk) 10:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per Balaenoptera musculus. Rhodesisland (talk) 11:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Kramatorsk standoff

 * Weak oppose. There are many developments in Ukraine currently such as "Odessa detainees freed as police HQ attacked". We ought to only post the most significant ones.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  08:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We don't need to post every police or military movement in Ukraine; we have the ongoing line to draw attention to it.  Only a significant change in the situation or escalation (i.e. Russian troops crossing the border) should be posted. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Question. Didn't we have an Ongoing sticky for this? If not, mightn't we? Rhodesisland (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Whoops, thought it was there. I would support putting a Ukraine link there. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As long as we have a blurb about Ukraine in the main box, we don't need an additional listing in the Ongoing. At least that was the general idea when the Ongoing was introduced. --Tone 14:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Tone is correct - there is no need for an "ongoing" & a blurb. If no new blurb is approved by the time the current one cycles off, Ukraine will go back to ongoing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ThaddeusB, and how will that sticky get back on there? Will need to go through a nom process or has it been approved previously and therefore comes and goes as needed? Just trying to get a better understanding. Rhodesisland (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * When any item is cyclign off, the admin may move it to ongoing at their discretion - a full discussion is not necessary. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Every back and forth of army gains or losses doesn't need to posted. The one posted is more encyclopedic and suffices for now. When it falls off, we can go back to the sticky. Rhodesisland (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Nairobi bus bombings
Looks notable to me, not just in itself but in the broader context of the Somali conflict spilling-over into Kenya. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I'll probably stub the article now, and add to it later. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  19:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support the article is definitely in need of expansion before it can be posted, but it's a major terrorist incident, despite the scant casualties, this is rare and we have run similar scant casualty articles in the US (for example) in the past. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping to expand tomorrow. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  20:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * article expanded. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  09:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support upon expansion; notable terrorist attack. 331dot (talk) 01:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. per 331dot. Rhodesisland (talk) 11:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per my comment above and the article that now exists. Thank you Mat  ty  .  007  for your work on this article. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Assam violence

 * Come of it, thats not related. There is NOTHING to indicate any realtions excapet a mbunch of sensational (Pak) media trying to drwaw connections of "Anti-Muslim" activity.Lihaas (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * BBC says The incident comes in the middle of India's ongoing general election, and Muslim groups believe their community has come under attack because the rebels feel that it did not support Bodo candidates. / Rakibul Islam of All Bodoland Muslim Students Union said local Muslims had been threatened by Bodo groups "because they thought Muslims had voted for non-Bodo candidates" during elections in Assam on 24 April. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * @Lihaas: All the international news sources have reported the 33 victims as members of the Muslim community. Note that I used the term "33 people" while many news articles used the term 'Muslim' in their headlines point blank. The events are specifically described as anti-Muslim in nature and are discussed in detail in the reports. To brush off the incident as Pakistani media sensationalism, I'm afraid, would be denialism.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 16:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Reuters says more than 30 Muslims were gunned down in three days of what police said were attacks by Bodo tribal militants ... / ... with Bodo tribesmen attacking Muslim settlers as punishment for not supporting their parliamentary candidate in the election. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Im not brushing off the incident, im saying its not RELATED to the election. please re-read. If BBC says (and this wasnt there before when i comment originally) its "amidst the election", that does not mean the attack was perpetrated for that reason. If one-side speculates how does it mean that is the reason? Incidentally, Bodo attakcs have taken place on non-Bodos many tinmes before. thats the definition of an ethnic conflict, otherwise it would be one-offLihaas (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support once article copyedited for grammar. Event definitely notable, WP:RS support a blurb mentioning Muslims and Bodo specifically. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Also, in case it is confirmed that there is a direct link between this and the elections, I believe it would be wise to update Indian general election, 2014 (Assam) and mention it in the blurb. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak support the item is not really featuring heavily in my news jurisdiction but the article is sufficient and significant. What it's speculatively related to, or not, shouldn't be part of the blurb or the article, and is irrelevant without RS.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment article could definitely use some copyediting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Major incidence of ethnic violence with high casualty. -Zanhe (talk) 08:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are inconsistencies within the article. Lead says 32 are killed, infobox says 33 and the description below sums upto only 22 and there are other figures on net (34 over here). Also, it would make sense to somewhere clarify what religion Bodos belong to. Bodo people seem to follow Bathouism, Christianity or other religions too. It is confusing to readers when Muslims vs Bodos is stated. Its comparing different thing; fruits with mobiles. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 05:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

RD: Gary Becker

 * Support. He was definitely very important in his field. NYT stated that he "was widely regarded as a towering figure in his field". Other sources also make note of his various contributions to economics.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  23:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Highest level of eminence and respect in his field, which is an important one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Nobel and Presidential Medal, pretty much strong signs of top of field. Article seems in good shape. --M ASEM (t) 23:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support if "Crime and punishment" and "Human capital" sections can be reffed.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 23:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Clearly meets DC2. 331dot (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - much of his life's work is unreferened (two orange tagged sections plus poor referencing in "Discrimination"). That will need fixed before this can be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support He was undoubtedly a highly influential economist, but as Thaddeus says the article will need work. Neljack (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose as it stands, the article has two orange maintenance tags, a yellow one, two [ciation needed] tags, some inline external links, and some bare URLs; in other words the article quality is way below what is required for main page inclusion. 09:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Rambling Man (talk • contribs)
 * Support once Gary_Becker and Gary_Becker are referenced. Nobel prize + NYT "towering figure" establish plenty of notability. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 10:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

RD Efrem Zimbalist, Jr.

 * Oppose: When I saw this a day or so ago, I considered nominating him, but he would be far from top of the field to consider for RD. --M ASEM (t) 04:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support: I can see we're going to have to fight the recent perspective of the youngies on this one. This guy was big, very BIG, when I was young. Was definitely a household name, and moved on to a long career. HiLo48 (talk) 04:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment several portions of the prose unreferenced, and the whole of the "Acting credits" is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Aside from the article issues mentioned already, what exactly is the evidence this man was "very important" in his field?  He had an extensive career, but I'm not seeing awards nominated/won, actors who say he influenced them, etc. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose He was certainly well-known, but I don't think he was a very important figure in his field. Neljack (talk) 11:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support storied stage, film, TV and voice acting career, There will be high reader interest, the article is updated and in good shape, no other person will be pushed off the ticker by a listing, and if you really want to worry about systematic bias, most wikipedians are too young to remember this guy--which is their fault for being born late--not his for being born early. μηδείς (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Q Is there a risk that we're confusing 'was in a lot of different TV programs' with 'was a leading actor of his generation'? (question is genuine, I have no idea). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose just because he'd been around a bit, no indication from a neutral perspective that he'd been close to top of his field, so not quite getting why he's being considered for RD, let alone the issues with the article itself. Also seems odd his Golden Globe award (Golden Globe Award for New Star Of The Year – Actor) is linked to him alone, and no-one else, was it a one-off?   There's no doubt he's "in the news" but how does he meet the RD criteria?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Zimbalist starred in the leading role of two top rated shows from 1958 to 1974, 77 Sunset Strip and F.B.I. obit. He was a recognized name in theater, film, television, and voice acting during the 1940's, '50's, '60's, '70's, '80's, '90's, '00's, and '10's.  There used to be a death criterion that one was qualified if important in more than two fields--he fits that bill--although I don't know who edited out that criterion and with what justification.  Yes, non-American editors under 50 may not recognize the name.  But our readers will be better served by his article being listed in the RD than they will be by a blank space. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Google News listed sources mentioning his death: People Magazine, NPR, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, New York Daily News, Indian Express, Kingsport Times, Belfast Telegraph, Malta Independent, UPI, The Daily Mail, NBC, International Business Times (US & UK editions), US News & World Report, Detroit Free Press, Washington Post, Bangor Daily News, BBC News, The National Enquirer, The Malay Mail as well as Telegraaf.nl, Radio Pero, La Prensa, Huffington Post, Cineartistes, NY Post, LA Times, Variety. The Guardian....


 * Support he had a long career which was honored several times (he had a star on the Walk of Fame and the previously mentioned Golden Globe). And to User:The Rambling Man, the award wasn't a one off - here's the proper Wiki article listing the winners.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 20:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, I've adjusted Zimbalist's article accordingly. I still oppose the nomination based on significant shortcomings in the overall quality of the article, which I'm certain the supporters of this will act swiftly to address rather than simply apply a blind support.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I would like to know if any of the Opposes above come from editors who are under 40 and who had never heard of this guy before this nomination. If that's the case, I don't respect their position. It's one built on ignorance. That can be cured, but one has to work on it. HiLo48 (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm over 40, recognize the name from Maverick and other works, but cannot consider him "top of his field" as defined here at ITN. We, for example, didn't post Andy Griffith's death, despite that being a much more recognizable name and face. --M ASEM (t) 21:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Did RD exist when he died?  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 21:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 2012, so yeah, I don't think RD existed, so you're right that might not be a fair comparison (would Griffith have been posted if RD existed? I can't tell for sure from that past archive). Still, my oppose stands irregardless of that - it's hard to call Zimbalist's contribution to the field major or singificant to merit an RD. --M ASEM (t) 22:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * RD had been approved in an RfC when Griffith died, and I tried to get it actually instituted with his listing, but there was admin lethargy and opposes from people who called him an old guy who was just famous in America forsome TV shows and hadn't been in a movie since the 50's. Jack Klugman, however was posted, and his claim to fame was the same as Zimbalist, stage and film work and lead in two TV shows. μηδείς (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm under 40, but I can read and form an opinion based on what I read. I find the calling of my opinion "ignorant" offensive. 331dot (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, in that case, User:331dot, you should apologize for putting the word ignorant in quotes and indenting your comment under my statement as if I ever said what you are quoting. Having someone attribute to you a supposed insult you never said is a heck of a lot more offensive than actually having someone call you ignorant. μηδείς (talk) 05:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I do apologize for any implication I gave; I thought it was clear who I was replying to and that this was the proper way to indent in(once for each person replying to a comment). 331dot (talk) 10:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Almost 50 y.o. here. Know him best from his guest appearances on his daughter's show, but also know his other work. But still oppose per Masem and Neljack. Rhodesisland (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Being 'big' doesn't mean he was ever at the top of his field.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support BBC News saw fit to report it, unless someone thinks we're smarter than they are. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This BBC obit is rather short for a typical "good" BBC obit, another sign that he's not as significant as implied. --M ASEM (t) 05:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment could any of those who so ardently support this nomination please spend some time actually making the article fit for inclusion on the main page rather than bang the drum about ignorance and being too young to know why this person so easily meets the RD criteria? It doesn't matter if it gets 100 supports, right now the article needs serious work in verifying the many unverified claims.  Just because one news outlet publishes an obit for someone, it doesn't mean they meet Wikipedia's RD criteria.  Obviously.  Thanks.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So predictable and such a shame that not one of those in support of this nomination (and those flinging mud) have made precisely zero effort to improve the article to the minimum standard required. Never mind, it'll be stale soon and we can close yet another heavily supported yet utterly ignored article.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Kentucky Derby

 * Marked Ready ITNR and very well updated, waiting for further supports is not necessary. μηδείς (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll *Support anyway. No questions on this one. HiLo48 (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Abuja bombing

 * Comment I'm guessing this should be listed under 1 May, when it took place? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Nigeria is really unstable right now with deadly Boko Harem attacks almost every week. This one is relatively minor compared to other recent events. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Nigeria conflict for ongoing - because it doesn't stop being significant just because it keeps on happening. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There isn't a central, regularly updated article on it a far as I know. --ThaddeusB (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Islamist_insurgency_in_Nigeria could become one but needs work. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Renominated: Gulzar

 * Strong support

If culturally prominent to the level stated. The oscars are just the american film industry awards. bollywood is bigger than hollywood in many ways (films produced, ww revenues, tickets sold and annual growth rate) and india is a bigger country in population. If Oscars are featured, then lets feature this. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Support if culturally prominent as stated, based on 77.101.41.108's reasoning. Suggest amending blurb by removing the words 'will be', and waiting to post it until the prize has been awarded. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Indian cinema is a pretty big thing, and all sources name this as the most prominent award in Indian cinema. The biography article has sufficient sourcing and a minimum three-sentence update. --hydrox (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Question - blurb says "will be" - does that mean he officially gets the award at a later date? If so, we should wait for that date.  If not, the blurb should be in present tense. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The ceremony is at the 61st National Film Awards on 3 May. --hydrox (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, he will be awarded later but news will be stale by then. Not much media coverage will be there. Last year when Pran awarded, it was posted earlier for the same reason. -Nizil (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, we can probably get away with the simple "is awarded" despite the technicality. Otherwise, it would have to be "is announced as the recipient of" - either way it needs to be in present tense. --ThaddeusB (talk)


 * Really, bollywoods yearly ceremony should arguably be given parity with hollywoods. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Article will need work - referencing is fairly weak, and their are many WEASEL words. The article also makes some strange choices on what to cover - I very much doubt examples of his poetry (in Urdu) should be included in the article, for example.  Otherwise, I could support this on merits. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support because he seems to be an incredibly important figure. Mvblair (talk) 03:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * support firstly I dint know hes still alive. But yes notable lyricist, but then ai maybe biased...on this note its mehfil time for me... ''saki ne phir se mere jaam bhar diya... Lihaas (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose article is not of sufficient quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Care to elaborate on the specific shortcomings? --hydrox (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure...
 * Sections with no references at all.
 * Inappropriate section headings per MOS (e.g. "As Poet")
 * Hagiography (and grammar) such as "has a vast knowledge of", "He is creator of..."....
 * Dozens of unreferenced awards and nominations.
 * Unlinked or redlinked films in the filmography with no inline references.
 * Badly formatted references.
 * Only a really quick scan through, the article needs a massive amount of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support pending article improvements and present tense rewriting of the blurb, per Thaddeaus' suggestion. With India's large population and the enduring prominence of its cinema, I would even support adding the Dadasaheb Phalke Award to ITN/R because of its cultural significance. AgneCheese/Wine 00:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would support this pending the improvements noted above by Thaddeaus and TRM. -- Jayron  32  00:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Improved I have improved the article. Added references. Copyedited text. Reorganised content. Added inline citations except for award and filmography lists. Can someone check grammar as I may have made mistakes? Does inline citation for filmography and awards neccessary as the most of articles dont have them?
 * The awards section at least should really be referenced. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * References for awards won added. Minor grammar fixes done. Now is it ready to go? -Nizil (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Article looks good now. Unfortunately, we've had a lot of news in the last few days and this story is now stale.  Please renominate it when Gulzar officially receives the award and I'll be happy to post it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup, I know its late.. I am the only one who was working on the article and i dont have computer. So its tough to do it from mobile. Award ceremony is on May 3. Should I renominate on the same day? Regards -Nizil (talk)
 * Yes, please renominate it on May 3. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Renominated Gulzar recieved the award. Blurb changed. -Nizil (talk)
 * Support Really strong article, major improvements made since last nomination.  Well referenced, major award, nothing to be said in the negative for this one.  -- Jayron  32  17:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support but for the benefit of the masses, would suggest a slightly more enlightening blurb, e.g. "Indian film director Gulzar is awarded the Dadasaheb Phalke Award, the highest accolade in Indian cinema." The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Gulzar is getting this award more for his work as lyricist than director. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 18:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, whatever, but what I'm saying is that instead of just saying "Gulzar wins award" it's worth introducing who Gulzar is, if it can be done succinctly, to provide context to our international audience. Thanks.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure! Added "Lyricist" before his name in the blurb. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 20:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also references needed for some of his works, and the lead needs expansion. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support but admitting my COI as am a great fan. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 18:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose how many national awards does ITN post? Nergaal (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We post plenty of "national" stories; being of international interest is explicitly not one of the criteria. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - should we also mention/bold the 61st National Film Awards at which the award is given? --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, certainly not in bold. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose My position is the complete opposite to that of ThaddeusB in the previous nom - if it was to go up it should have gone up then. Now it is stale - the determination of the winner is the more notable of the two elements compared to the mere formality of handing over the award.  That is how we do the other events - the Nobel prizes, sporting championships etc.  For example we will always post the winner of the Formula 1 championships after the race when the winner has an unassailable lead, not when it is formally conferred at a swanky dinner long after the season is over.  This nom strikes me as a second bite of the cherry on very dubious grounds. 3142 (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the news is a bit stale. But staleness is not really that big issue. We, after all, until 19th April kept "A total lunar eclipse is visible across the Pacific Ocean and the Americas" at ITN about the eclipse that happened on 15th; and that too with the wording "is visible". And the news is not that stale either with it resurfacing as the award is now actually presented by the President of India. It wasn't promoted then only for our procedural norms of not promoting bold link with seemingly low standards. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 20:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support I don't think this is stale - it's certainly in the news at the moment. Neljack (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support The article seems to have gone through some major expansion, this is how you ITN. I don't think it matters all that much whether we post at the initial announcement or the award ceremony. Last time out, people pointed out some problems with the article, so it was not possible to post then. This is rarely the case with Nobel Prize or F1 articles, so it's not a fair comparison. Now the article alright, so why not post it now. --hydrox (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support If it was 'too soon' before, then it's not stale now. Can't have it both ways. The article has had time to be improved and that's a good thing. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support A significant news in India, certainly not stale. - <span style="font:italic bold 11px Georgia, serif"> Vivvt  <small style="font-size:85%;">( Talk ) 14:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * With plenty of it unreferenced. Pity.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Assad forces regain Homs after rebels withdrawal

 * Comment - Isn't there already a similar nomination below? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this development is notable enough to deserve a full blurb and not merely a link in the new ongoing spot.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  10:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, this was one of the deadliest and longest-running battles in the war, and an end to this is certainly notable. So I will support, even if a ticker will be added. However, I think the blurb should be more descriptive than that. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Its hardly and end. theyve withdrawn to the suburbs...to think they wount regroup is silly. Also id support some form of a ongoing blurb instead...and since thsi is ongoing/updated we can link to this as part of the civil war
 * Also replaced POV for fact. (a la that blurb). When we posted the withdrawan from iraq we neever said obama's forces even though he is commander in chiefLihaas (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Made another change in the blurb. It wasn't just the army involved in the battle. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support blurb - major development. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Withdraw. The nomination was premature and WP:Crystal; Reuters is reporting that this "could still take days to arrange". No date set for rebel pullout from Syria's Homs - governor -- Reuters. I apologize for that. Nevertheless, this would be a significant development when/if it actually occurs.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  16:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] MERS in the US

 * Oppose - Why is the first case in America, compared to any other country, important? If it were an outbreak, that would be different. --M ASEM  (t) 21:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Ditto Masem. Rhodesisland (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I echo the sentiments of the honourable gentlemen above doktorb wordsdeeds 21:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Systemic bias anyone? HiLo48 (talk) 04:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Can't we have a MERS-related blurb, though? It's been everywhere lately. – H T  D  06:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better to post about MERS when there is a significant development, such as being announced as an epidemic. Oppose the current nomination.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  06:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess that's the proper course of action. What I'm concerned is this might get resolved without this being declared as an "epidemic" and we could've missed on an important story. This has affected larger countries than the Chikungunya outbreak below, but certainly far fewer cases (I dunno about deaths). – H T  D  07:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be relieved if it ends before becoming an epidemic; we get tens of thousands of Saudis every weekend and many people here visit Saudi Arabia regularly. According to our article on the topic there's been some 131 deaths out of 424 cases, the vast majority of them in Saudi Arabia. But that's since 2012. If there is any significant development (not necessarily the one I mentioned above), I'd glad to support, if not nominate the story myself.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  08:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The article has to be renamed; most of the information presented about cases outside the Middle East are post-2012. – H T  D  08:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Not a widespread outbreak. 331dot (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] RD Nigel Stepney

 * Oppose Claim that this individual was a major player in a scandal is contradicted by the second to last paragraph at Nigel Stepney where he is labelled a "minor player" in the scandal by FIA President Max Mosley. No other indications this individual meets the criteria at WP:ITND. --Allen3 talk 13:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Regretful oppose, not really seeing a genuine claim at meeting any of the RD criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Doesn't seem to meet the RD criteria. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Chikungunya epidemic

 * Support decent article, encyclopedic subject matter, timely.128.214.69.186 (talk) 08:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Diseases matter. HiLo48 (talk) 08:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * oppose not seeing it widely reported. OAlso whats the death toll and its fatility rate?Lihaas (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why does the fatality rate matter? Deaths aren't the only thing worth posting on ITN. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Stale/Oppose. Cases of Chikungunya were reported spreading in the Caribbean a while ago. Nobody seems to have died. I'm not even sure this declaration is legit;  Abductive  (reasoning) 16:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Like I said, the first case was reported in December, but I hardly think that means the story is "stale". I doubt multiple RS would get a "epidemic" declaration wrong and now is as good of a time as any to post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Major news, article looks good, epidemics intrinsically take some time to develop. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support If a similarly dehabilitating but rarely fatal disease like dengue fever were to suddenly become endemic in the British Isles you can be sure we;d be posting it. μηδείς (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Marked ready, article is well-sourced and updated, story (all but one source) broke within the last two days in the English press, so not stale. μηδείς (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur: ready. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment as a new article, the lead is very weak, needs a bit more. I've made a few minor changes, but all-in-all it's in good shape, just would hate to push an article with a couple of sentences as a lead to the main page.  We have WP:LEAD for a reason.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Personally, I think that if this is being posted now (as still relevant), the section about events occurring this month - in May - should have a little more expansion than it currently does.  Spencer T♦ C 21:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph of the "spread" section starts "At the end of April", which means it is the situation as of May 1 (the date of this nomination). The third paragraph is about the epidemic declaration.  I honestly don't know what more can be updated, so please let me know what you would like to see and I will try to find it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted there's sufficient detail about the declaration of the epidemic for this to be ready for ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Afghanistan mudslides
Comment I'd support this once we have an article on it. Event clearly notable. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support pending article . Can;t remember if we posted the Washington landslide, but this appears to be 100 times worse in terms of missing and possible dead. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  18:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Oso WA mudslide was indeed posted (thankfully).--Somchai Sun (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support good work on the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support clearly notable event, adequate article update. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Significant death toll already and still rising. Plenty of media coverage. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Unquestionably what ITN is. Might suggest - depending on following coverage - this might be a topic for the ongoing tracker as they try to recover bodies (in a similar manner that it took the Oso mudslide to be resolved) --M ASEM (t) 19:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, as this is one of my first ITN noms, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by an "ongoing tracker"? Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  19:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The ongoing line is brand new - see WT:ITN... I don't see any point discussing whether an item might on on ongoing when its blurb run is done ahead of time.  Whether the story moves to "ongoing" will depend on if the story is still in the news at that time, something we can hardly know in advance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm just throwing the idea out there. Obviously far too early to add now and may not be needed in a few days when this story will likely scroll off the main list, but hopefully we'll remember that this could go on there and review the situation then. --M ASEM  (t) 23:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In case the ongoing proposal was not clear, assessing whether a dropping item fits into "ongoing" is what admins should be doing every time they update the template. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support—the number of people missing or dead is significant. Unusually high number. 184.146.116.209 (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. per all above. Rhodesisland (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support This clearly should be posted already. The article is in decent shape for ITN. ToBk (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Obviously far more notable than the ridiculously frequent nominations we see for tornadoes in the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A combination of WP:OTHERCRAP and WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Why not address the merits of this proposal instead? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * HiLo, that comment is not necessary or helpful. There are a wide variety of levels of notability that make ITN.  (And for the record, mud slides/avalanches in Afghanistan are roughly as common as tornadoes in the US). --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So why do we see so many more tornado nominations, all of them described as serious, major events, than Afghan mudslides? And a serious question, how can we judge which tornado nominations really ARE worth posting? They are all supported with the same level of hyperbole and weasel language. HiLo48 (talk) 03:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Like I said in the tornado nomination, the consensus is that any natural disaster with >~20 deaths is worth posting. The frequency of the disaster type in the home country is not normally considered. If people have foolishly used hyperbole on some nominations, calling it "worst ever" or whatever when it wasn't then shame on them, but it almost certainly didn't matter to the nomination's success.  The death toll alone is usually (always as far as I can remember) enough to post when it hits ~20. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - Immense catastrophe with significant loss of life. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 23:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We have now run into the exact problem with posting so early. The death toll has been sgnificantly revised down by 75%! thats massive and thte blurb needs to thchange.Lihaas (talk) 09:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:ERRORS is the place for this kind of thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Second seige of Sloviansk

 * Oppose Already covered within the Ukrainian unrest in the Ongoing ticker. I'd say at this stage of the unrest such events are expectable. Brandmeistertalk  17:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support this seems to be a significant escalation, with Putin calling for all Ukrania troops to stand down in the south and east, and the downing of two helicopters. This is what's called a hot war, folks. It can always be put back on the ticker later. μηδείς (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I thought this what precisely the point of the Ongoing section for small incremental escalations etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In fact, at least 38 killed in Odessa would probably overtrump this story. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We could combine them in a single blurb. Odessa certainly qualifies. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Balaenoptera musculus' proposal to cover this and Odessa together. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Any suggestions? Which article(s) are updated for the Odessa deaths?  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Altblurb added, per Balaenoptera musculus, which I support. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: An orange tag just showed up in the Odessa article. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb — Reuters reports "at least 42 killed" in Odessa on May 2. See also Kyiv Post, "dozens killed."  Should be in ITN soonest. Sca (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted a version of the altblurb without the second bolding since it is orange tagged and there is active discussion on the article's talk page about neutrality issues. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Can we update the blurb to make it include the release of European military observers previously held by pro-Russian separatists?  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  19:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also note that the orange tag was removed from 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  19:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I will bold Odessa now. I personally don't see the release as all that significant... changing the blurb to reflect it would require a new discussion in any case. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] [RD] Win Tin (Burmese freedom campaigner / political prisoner)

 * Oppose he died (and it was reported) on or round about 21 April, thus making this nomination stale already. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Obituaries are coming out now though (which is where I saw it) - and he's still dead. This is RD so time isn't 'of the essence' IMO. We have the space and it's hard to overstate his importance - newspaper editors who go to prison for decades rather than compromise their editorial independence get bonus points with me. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, like I say, the BBC reported it in full on 21 April, so I think we've missed the boat on "recent" deaths here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed; we post based on when the death occurs, not when the obituary comes out. 331dot (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Better late than never.
 * We have spaces in 'RD', so he wouldn't bump anyone else. This is not a zero-sum game.
 * The article has had time to be updated, which is a good thing. It's not WP:TOOSOON at least!
 * Since mainstream media sources are posting obits now, they obviously don't think it's 'too late'.
 * 'Within the last couple of weeks' seems like an ok criteria for 'recent deaths' to me - per the 'not a news ticker' argument.
 * IMO his notability is very strong (e.g. see UNESCO award and condolences from Director-General), and this should outweight any perceived staleness.
 * Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Better late than never would be good if this wasn't called "in the news". Anyway, we've all three made our positions clear, let's see what other's think.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

[Ongoing] Syrian civil war

 * Strong support - One of the single biggest long-running news stories of the present day. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Part of the agreed "ongoing" criteria is that the article should be receiving regular updates. That isn't (and shouldn't be) the case for the main article.  The correct target, Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (January 2014–present), hasn't been created as whoever was doing the regular updates stopped in mid-December.  Since a large part of the mission of ITN is to point to quality, updated content, and since "we aren't a news ticker", I must oppose unless someone creates and maintains a 2014 timeline article, or there is another appropriate target that is reguilarly updated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Any volunteers? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion Portal:Syrian_civil_war - overview. We have quite some depth of content on this conflict, maybe the portal is the best intro point. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per Alex. As for the regular updates point, by my count in the last two months the article has been updated to reflect 16 different events, two of them in the last week (not including this latest bombing, which has not yet been included). How regular do the updates have to be? Neljack (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support We've had far too many nominations fail, which normally would have been posted, on the basis of "not another Syrian story!" This will solve that. μηδείς (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I would support posting this even without a current timeline article. The main article has one yellow tag (too long to read comfortably) but otherwise there are daily updates and the article has [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_Civil_War&action=info#mw-pageinfo-watchers almost 500 watchers]. There is no question about notability. The UN has called the war the worst humanitarian crisis since the end of Cold War. Situation remains extremely flux and there are momentous events almost every day. Though if we post this, how long are we going to keep it up? If things remain as they are now the war could still go on for years. --hydrox (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Conditional support I think the target article shouldn't be the far-too-hefty Syrian Civil War article. There's a tag at the top of that page recommending it be split down, and I agree, someone with a clue about relevant milestones in this area should carve the article up a little and we could have a newsworthy Ongoing article as a result. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support for now, but I believe the above Siege of Homs thread is certainly notable and should be reflected here in a way or another. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support linking to a suitable article whether my above nomination is posted or not.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  11:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per ThaddeusB, we need an article that's regularly being updated.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support this. This seems like a fair compromise, and I certainly think that the Civil War should get some kind of representation as an Ongoing event.  It Is Me Here  t /  c  00:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't consider linking to portal a compromise - I would consider it the worst option. At least the main article is updated with big events; the portal is a way of organizing all the articles on the subject - there is no indication of where to find the most up-to-date info. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Replica tomb and mummies discovered

 * Oppose - Combining these his highly misleading. I had to re-read the nomination a couple of times to work out that there was no material connection between the (genuinely ancient) mummies and the (brand spanking new) tomb. And we don't just pile vaguely-associated ideas together until their aggregate notability propels them into ITN. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well both are in the same location. I can propose an altblurd citing only one story if you insist that there's no link between them. It's just that I don't know which one to ignore. Note: Apparently, the replica wasn't entirely 3D-printed. The technology was just used in the process. Apologies if this was the case. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A replica going on display is less notable than a new, large discovery. Blurb should focus on that. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support new discoveries in KV40 (notable and interesting discovery at a UNESCO world heritage site), Oppose replica KV62 (just another tourist attraction - useful in so far as it keeps tourism from destroying the real KV62, but I don't see much interest otherwise) Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support just as Balaenoptera musculus says. Let's get an altblurb that focuses only on the new discoveries or a new nomination for just it.Rhodesisland (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I * Oppose  this confused nomination. Rewrite it without the replica please. HiLo48 (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support now. HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I BOLDly struck the original blurb, which clearly does not have interest, so that we can ocus on teh story with potential. please consider revising your !votes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - KV40 only. -Zanhe (talk) 23:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Alt blurb posted, since the Opposes seemed to only be opposing KV62, and this has been removed from the proposal now.  It Is Me Here  t /  c  21:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)