Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/September 2013

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

[Posted] United States federal government shutdown of 2013

 * Oppose Insufficient update. --  tariq abjotu  19:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You know what, I think I'm in love with you Tariq! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * User:The Rambling Man vs User:Tariqabjotu is my favourite Wiki relationship doktorb wordsdeeds 05:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Mine too. Guess what, we predicted, then reported things that were in the news, and no-one apart from the whining masses here made a fuss.  No-one died, we made Wikipedia not suck.  Woot.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would wait a day or maybe 2 after shutdown before posting this. An hour long shutdown is really not much of a news. This is significant only if it has some impact otherwise its just regular politics... let it last atleast a day. -- Ashish-g55 19:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait until there is actually a shutdown of at least 12-24 hours; the last time the US was at risk of a shutdown it was averted a few minutes after the midnight deadline. 331dot (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support when/if it actually happens and pending on updates. This kind of Gov shutdown seems plenty notable enough...Somchai Sun (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Tariq and TRM. μηδείς (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Let's please use a better word than "shutdown", or at least try to explain it a bit. The single word "shutdown" doesn't really tell anyone what's happening. Remember that we have a lot of readers who aren't in America (I'm one of them) and don't have the constant barrage of American news services telling them. (Just not noticed that my spell checker doesn't even like the word.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The 1994 shutdown was called a shutdown, all the American sources refer to this as a shutdown. The Democrats and Republicans call it a shutdown.  Is there some reason why we should not call it a shutdown beside your spellchecker? μηδείς (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * President Obama also called it a shutdown about an hour ago. 331dot (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Call it a shutdown if you must, although my spell checker problem suggests that it's not a good word for a global encyclopaedia. More importantly, tell the world what it means. Do you really think it's obvious to someone not hearing the daily news inside America? Simply, WHAT would be shut down? Prisons? The Military? Unemployment services? Tax collection? (Woohoo!), Etc? HiLo48 (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Everything not vital to public safety or national defense will be shut down- and even they won't get paid until the shutdown is over. Federal museums(Smithsonian), National Parks/Monuments/Etc., passport processing, National Archives, etc. etc. 331dot (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I understand better now. So how about we amend the blurb to "Non-vital government services are shut down in the US after the Senate rejects a House of Representatives budget bill."? HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't oppose that blurb, but I think the nominated blurb would be better, as details about the shutdown would (I assume) be in the article. 331dot (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps: ''Much of the United States Federal..." 2.102.187.114 (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, we must do better than a simple "shutdown". I can't understand any objection. "Much of" is OK, but not very precise. 331dot explained the situation above pretty well by using the words "not vital". That at least gives an indication of what kinds of services are being shut down. Not qualifying "shutdown" at all would be very sloppy. HiLo48 (talk) 02:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't object per se, just feel its not necessary. To clarify my explanation, a bill was passed to pay members of the military only, so they will still get paid. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose We cannot have a red link ITN. ITN is not here to report the news. ITN is here to highlight content. No content. No ITN. --Tóraí (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The blurb is not neutral. We should refrain from assigining blame or stating who caused the shutdown, as this is debatable. Jehochman Talk 01:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Surely it's bloody obvious. HiLo48 (talk) 02:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't obvious, and it isn't neutral. The suggested blurb places blame on the Senate, when technically it appears the House will fail to pass the re-amended bill sent back to it by midnight EDT. (And various partisan analyses place blame on one side or the other, e.g. blaming the House for not passing a "clean" bill, or blaming the Senate since budget bills must originate in the House.) A better wording would be something like "Non-essential government services are shut down in the U.S. after the House of Representatives and Senate fail to agree on a budget bill." Of course, it's way too early to post this in any case. Odg2vcLR (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * For the "obvious" thing I was more considering sides of politics rather than houses. But I like your wording. And yes, of course we must wait. HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose At the time of typing this comment, an article has not been created for the subject. As Tóraí noted earlier, "ITN is not here to report the news. ITN is here to highlight content. No content. No ITN." Gfcvoice (talk) 03:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We really must fix the title of this stuff one day to reflect what it really is. Being in the news is not enough to be In the news. HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose The article for the subject has only just been created and only contains a few sentences. Also it is still only 11.19pm on 30 September on the east coast of the US, and nothing much has happened as yet. I suggest we wait for at least 24 hours before considering this as an ITN candidate. Gfcvoice (talk) 03:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Agree with HiLo48 that the blurb needs to consider non-US audiences and provide a better explanation of what a "shutdown" is. Gfcvoice (talk) 03:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Seriously support - it's the #1 trending story in Twitter worldwide, you hit Google News, it's almost every article on the page. It's got a rapidly developing article, it should be ITN -- Tawker (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Much of the opposition was because there was no article and it was before deadline. There is now an article and it's after the deadline. I suggest we fast-track this. People come to Wikipedia for the latest info. Why are we delayting 12-24 hours for no good reason? BE BOLD. Don't be Nupedia. -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - First shutdown of a sovereign country's government's executive functions in 17 years. Certainly newsworthy. Harej (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I also support fast-tracking this to put it on the main page as soon as possible. Harej (talk) 04:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support upon condition that the article gets some more beef. Background from the United States debt-ceiling debate of 2013 and related articles should make for something meaty. -- Natural  R X 04:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Update is still insufficient. The way to have something "fast-tracked" is to expand the article to meet the update criterion. In this case, that may mean expanding the article to include more information about what the shutdown means; readers not intimately familiar with U.S. politics would not have a good idea of what this shutdown means by looking at the article. --  tariq abjotu  04:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The article has five paragraphs and 10 references. It's clearly substantial and worthy of highlighting, and abides by the guidelines you mention. -- Fuzheado | Talk 05:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is what the article looked like at the time of posting, which is definitely not enough. One could barely even discern what Congress's role was in the affair. There's no rush, and your insistence that this is in the news so it must be added now, immediately, is misplaced. All breaking news stories are expected to fulfill update criteria first -- as ITN is not meant to be a news source -- and this story is no different. --  tariq abjotu  05:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted I believe that there is consensus that this is worthy of In the News, and I do not believe that "not now" is a sufficient reason to not post it. Keegan (talk) 04:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I give up. Did you even read the two comments just prior to yours? --  tariq abjotu  04:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I did, and I don't consider that the article needs beefing up to trump its' importance. The article covers the topic and is sourced; I am quite confident that it will be expanded rather rapidly.  I know that there is no deadline, but why wait other than to make sure that there is a wonderful piece of prose to show off?  As I recall, this is Wikipedia we're running here.  It's always a work in progress.  Keegan (talk) 05:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We are not a news source, so, yes, "a wonderful piece of prose" is desirable (minus any sarcasm intended). And, let me just say, this will feed into the impression that ITN suffers from a systemic U.S. bias. This story will have no discernible effect for several more hours; I can't imagine any reason why this needs to be posted now. By comparison, the Westgate shopping mall shooting was posted seven hours after it began, largely because the article took a bit of time to get up to snuff. Especially because it would have taken no more than half an hour to bring the article up to the required standard (with all the information, background and prospective, out there), there is nothing special here. --  tariq abjotu  05:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And your very welcome for that. Praise from you. WOW! im in 7th heaven ;)Lihaas (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Systemic U.S. bias? Yes, obviously, blatantly. And the fact that some can't see it just proves it. I've been behind a couple of significant Australian items recently. They failed because of poor articles. I was very busy at the time and unable to put in the necessary work, and there aren't enough other Australian players here. I supported this all the way for ONCE IT WAS READY, but posting it when it was posted just proves our systemic bias. Some people here just don't pay attention, or just don't care. HiLo48 (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The way to address that is for you to go out and get your fellow Australians on Wikipedia, work on articles, and persuade others to support them, not to restrict what else is posted. 331dot (talk) 09:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's absolutely not, because that would be pushing the rules on canvassing, and POV, and several other Wikipedia sins. Everyone should care about articles from EVERY country. We shouldn't be specifically pushing those from our own country. YOU should care about Australian stories, and Irish ones, and Moroccan ones, just as much if not more than you care about stories from your own country. That's one of the major issues here. Too many discussions are no more than popularity polls. HiLo48 (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between lobbying for support for an issue on Wikipedia and encouraging people on the street to come and take a look around and maybe make a few edits to Wikipedia, without encouraging them to support or oppose anything in particular. I don't care about stories from the US in particular and am willing to support any story regardless of location (you don't have to believe me, examine my edit history), I care about stories that are covered in the news in at least a few locations around the world, and I treat all such stories equally.  It is precisely because of my belief in equal treatment that I oppose efforts to restrict stories just because they are from a nation with a good chunk of Wikipedia editors and somehow give favoritism to stories that aren't. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I am not suggesting this be removed from ITN now, but the eagerness to post poor-quality articles under the idea that "that's all there is to say" or "it'll get updated once it's on the Main Page" or "this is really important" undermines the mission (or at the least the original mission) of ITN, which is to highlight decent-quality content. ITN already has the lowest quality standards of the Main Page sections; we don't need to begin undercutting them, especially when -- in the process -- we reflect a systemic bias. --  tariq abjotu  05:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sob. Actually, Featured Pictures is by far the worst part of the main page, frequently bold-linking to articles plastered with maintenance tags.  Oh, and then there's DYK which is virtually a permanent laughing stock.  ITN is half decent compared to that lot. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Half decent? Maybe around that level, I agree. Should we not aim higher? HiLo48 (talk) 06:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's a really good idea to have ITN articles that have potential for improvement. A user may see the article and think, "Hey, I can make that better," and they start editing, which is exactly what we want most of all. Jehochman Talk 13:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is key (and why we should be featuring topics on the main page, not just ITN), but particularly for ITN, the article should have a stable structure/core that makes it easy to new readers-cum-editors add in new information to improve it. When this was posted last night, this article was not in that shape. --M ASEM (t) 14:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Support per Keegan, but Tariq's concerns about article quality are valid as are HiLo's about the blurb. Article is upgrading quickly however, and as to the blurb it could be discussed further. Point being, it is up, so let's NOT pull it, let's fix it. I did a bit of work to bring the article talk page up to snuff. Jus  da  fax   05:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Minor quibble - "Non-essential" sounds like a value judgement. Perhaps "non-core" would be more neutral? --LukeSurlt c 10:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe "non-essential" is the official terminology. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A quick search shows "non-essential" is by far the more common way of referring to it. -- KTC (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support. Many many readers in the US will be interested in Wikipedia's treatment of this topic, as will a subset of readers outside the US. Abductive  (reasoning) 14:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support the topic for posting, but really this didn't need to be posted that fast with the article in the shape it was. Since this happened overnight, it will take a bit of time for core sources to explain everything (which are likely out now) to get the new article to a reasonably better state for ITN referencing. --M ASEM (t) 14:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support — In the world of news, better sooner than later. Sca (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I've tweaked the blurb from "it was unable to pass a budget measure" to say "Congress fails to pass a budget measure."  (1) The Federal Government is often understood to mean the executive branch.  They don't pass a budget; Congress does.  (2) Congress wasn't "unable".  They could have passed a budget if they wanted to.  There wasn't a natural disaster, lack of a quorum, or some other thing that prevented them; they simply chose not to. (3) Getting rid of "it" and "was" improves the writing style.  I think this change will not be controversial, so I just took care of it, but if I am wrong and there are reasons to change it back or to something else, I will gladly do so. Jehochman Talk 13:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an ongoing event, which by its very nature will affect more people, and the global economy the longer it lasts. As this is a rather unique situation, I suggest that it be held as the bottom item on ITN until it's resolved, or (sadly more likely) the impending debt limit crises also makes it ITN. JoltColaOfEvil (talk) 10:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Let this die a natural (ITN) death unless there's a new update, such as they finally passed a budget or something. – H T  D  10:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Chicago train crash

 * Oppose First, there's no real article. Second, this only resulted in injuries.  As of now, this is not ITN worthy. Ryan Vesey 16:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose All injuries are "non-serious" according to the source. Not seeing this receiving any more press coverage than that one article. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing a bit more discussion regarding "hijacking" or the idea that an empty train had been "deliberately set in motion", but even if this is found to be terrorism (which does not seem to be the case), I would not support it unless there's some crazy response. Ryan Vesey 16:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose not featuring on any news outlet I use (e.g. BBC international). Is this really "in the news"?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The terrorism angle could potentially force a re-examination, but it appears to just be speculation at this point. The incident otherwise lacks sufficient notability with no causalities. Teemu08 (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless evidence of terrorism is found- even then it's not a lock for me. 331dot (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not notable enough as it currently stands. In the event of it being linked to terrorism though, it would be a rather different situation. Somchai Sun (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Gujba college massacre

 * Support But not in it's current state. The article is of a decent length, but most is on the background, not on the attack itself.  International coverage exists. Ryan Vesey 20:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Students are killed? As if it were their fault, like they touched power cables in their sleep?  Who killed them, and why are we not identifying the killers? μηδείς (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added an alt blurb. Ryan Vesey 22:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. The massacre got worldwide coverage and is likely to attract many readers. Over 50 students killed is definitely notable for ITN. The section on the attack needs to be updated, however. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 22:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * oppose these are all too frequent in the region and such an attack is better at the list of terrorist incidetns apage.(Lihaas (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)).


 * Support High death toll and plenty of international coverage. Neljack (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll just reiterate again that there still isn't enough length. I'll also note that the background section is lifted (in an appropriate manner) from Yobe State school shooting. Ryan Vesey 00:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on article quality only. What I can find in reliable news sources is MUCH more than what is in our article.  There's very little there about the actual event.  If someone can expand this article to the point where Wikipedia's coverage reflects the depth of coverage in reliable news sources, you can consider this a support instead.  -- Jayron  32  01:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, civilian target and high death toll. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support notable story, oppose current article state. More detail required on the attack itself.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Alt blurb--this is being covered as a new strategy for Al_Qaeda. μηδείς (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted alt blurb, which has better specifics. Jehochman Talk 01:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Why on earth was this posted? It's nowhere near a proper update.  Did you actually read the discussion?  Why was this article posted in it's current state?  The article doesn't have a proper update.  Specifically, the bulk of the article is copied from another, and there is little information on the attack itself. Ryan Vesey
 * Indeed. This is not an article we should be proud of putting on the main page.  There's plenty of news sources that could be used to expand the article, and yet no one who seems to care about highlighting good Wikipedia content on the main page ITN section seems all that interested in creating that content in the first place.  Sad.  -- Jayron  32  02:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If we post an article that's underway, editors will quickly improve it. We might even retain a few new editors.  I don't think we should be so  fussy, especially with news.  Old news is about as useful as old bread.  Jehochman Talk 11:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Wikipedia is a work in progress, articles about new events are often underdeveloped but it shouldn't prevent them to be posted on main page. It's in my opinion better than displaying one week old "news". --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * PULL for god sake Jehochman, ITN has a standard (and please get consensus for your view that posting anythign to get an update is acceptable, taht waSW NEVER policy), there is only 1 line of the attack and this is not notable!
 * IDONTLIKEIT (or ILIKEIT) is not a readon to postLihaas (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please leave deities out of it, and please stop yelling. There is a discussion about with pretty strong support. Who is the anonymous party who pulled the item? Perhaps they could leave a note here explaining their action. Jehochman Talk 16:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * not yelling, thats the policy title at WP.Lihaas (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, then please check your prior post and clean up typos, and maybe apply WP:WOTTA. The article has received substantial updates and expansion and is looking pretty good at present.  Please look once more and see if the issue is resolved.  Jehochman Talk 16:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My problem with this is the word "Over", wouldn't "More than" sound much better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.173.212.21 (talk) 10:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

UCI Road World Championships

 * Oppose some of the article is still in future tense, and badly written too. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: The prosa has been changed. No future tense anymore. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 08:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is not ITN/R.  Spencer T♦ C 18:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Main cycling sport event with global coverage. Other main world championships where in the News section as well (Athletics, Aquatics, Table tennis...) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you post examples of the "global coverage" of this event? 331dot (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The coverage can be found here, and the first sentence is: UCI is pleased to offer you worldwide broadcast of the UCI Road World Championships. Check out where you can watch live racing. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 07:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * By global coverage I mean news coverage of this. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A quick search on news.google.com:

Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, India, Ireland, Italy, Middle East, Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Serbia, South Africa, Slovenia, Slovakia, Spain, United States Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No this sport is not that popular anymore. Nergaal (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it your own opinion that the sport is less popular (after all the doping stories) or do you have a references for this? After a quick search I found several sources saying te he opposit story: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 07:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. I know little of cycling, but this seems to be a significant event in the sport and is getting news coverage. 331dot (talk) 10:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. In response to Nergaal's comments, cycling did not die off with Lance Armstrong's appearance on Oprah. That said, I can't support a sporting article which has more prose about school closures than about the event itself. —WFC— FL wishlist 10:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree with the poor prose about the event itself, so I started working on it. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Berthing of Cygnus

 * Comment - There are two major spaceflight news stories today - the other being the maiden flight of the Falcon 9 v1.1 - is there any way to work them in together? -- W.  D.   Graham  16:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, surely there should be a link to Cygnus Orb-D1? -- W.  D.   Graham  16:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I am surprised so few users cared to express their opinion about this. Nergaal (talk) 22:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support but... the article hasn't been updated to reflect this most recent mission. First of its type. 184.146.104.204 (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Austria election

 * Austria has a smaller population than New Jersey or North Carolina, whose governor's races we would not post unless maybe the Communists or the Pirate Party won unexpectedly. Do we have a link to the discussion that established the consensus to add this to ITNR? μηδείς (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This tired old discusion everytime. If you want to challenge it discuss it at ITNR (and we did start a conversation but no one wants to partake in that, just bitch and whine at ITNC). As of right now it IS ITNR.Lihaas (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If this is going to be marked here as ITNR then a link here showing when it was added is entirely appropriate. The burden is on the one making the claim. μηδείς (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to revive Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items/Elections go ahead. From what I can remember, no option which would have excluded excluding sovereign states as large as Austria ever had even minority support. --LukeSurlt c 17:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually the only burden is to show that it IS in ITNR. You are welcome to challenge that, but its a can of worms...Lihaas (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's already been demonstrated multiple times that things listed on ITNR have not necessarily been discussed, and unless there's a diff shown there of such a discussion there is no such proof. μηδείς (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you really want to assert that general elections of sovereign states wasn't validly put on the ITNR list, shouldn't be on the list at all, should have an arbitrary cutoff of some kind, or something in between, then go to the ITNR talk page and do it. 331dot (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, but someone should come up with a nice blurp...--FoxyOrange (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support (when the result is declared and article updated) - ITN/R states for an election to qualify as ITN it has to be results of general elections of a sovereign state. The article is on the legislative election (which is a general election) of Austria (which is a sovereign country). So I guess it qualifies for ITN once the article is suitably updated. LegalEagle (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Beyond the fact that we've omitted the elections of various sovereign countries over the last year, we still need a link to a discussion, whether of Austria alone or of all 200+ sovereign countries. μηδείς (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This discussion achieved consensus that all sovereign nations' general elections should be on ITN/R. Previous omissions have been for want of an update (or perhaps a nomination) rather than notability. Elections in nations which garner little coverage in English-speaking media sometimes fail to reach ITN, though these are due to deficiency in updates rather than inconsistent notability judgements. --LukeSurlt c 23:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Luke. Even though I opposed this, it's disappointing when these die on the vine. μηδείς (talk) 03:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. The first discussion I can find on elections is this one in 2008.  As far as I can determine it was actually put on the list in 2009.  This page gives an overview of this subject and some links to other discussions over time on this subject; basically there have been attempts to somehow limit which elections are put, either by population, limiting posting to the G20 nations, posting supranational elections only, and many other ideas, but none seem to gain traction. 331dot (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Post upon update. Until (and if) we somehow establish stricter limits on which elections are posted, this one should be posted once updated.  331dot (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support* - Elections to a major European country are automatically notable, ITNR or not. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And non-European ones are less notable? And if Austria is a major European country then most countries in the world are major countries in their respective continents. Nonetheless, support. Neljack (talk) 03:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: I've just proposed a blurp (see top box).--FoxyOrange (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment There's an unref section and a substantial prose update is still required. Reactions? Coallition speculations? Comments on the new parties? --Tone 16:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support this should be posted now before this gets too old SeraV (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It has a one sentence prose update and is marked with explanatory and reference needed tags. μηδείς (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't also be dismissed on those grounds being INT/R national general election, which are fairly important. Who knows perhaps it will be better updated after we post it. And anyway it seems unlikely that it will stay on the main page for long anyway. SeraV (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

[Consensus and Update ready] Philippine conflict ends

 * Support, the article is informative. --Tone 20:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Informative? It speaks of 20-30 rebels and "several" people killed.  Let's have a few solid facts, please. Otherwise this sounds like an infomercial.μηδείς (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh, what article are you reading? – H T  D  18:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * An alt blurb has been proposed sorta showing the extent of the event. – H T  D  18:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb, more impacting. 184.146.104.204 (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] New Marathon world record

 * Strong support Breaking the world record in marathon in one of the most important events throughout the season is an important sport news.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support notability wise, but 2013 Berlin Marathon is currently two sentences. It would need to be much more substantial. --LukeSurlt c 13:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Problem solved. Now linking to Berlin Marathon.  It's obvious that we are talking about the current year.  The primary link is to the runner who set the record, not the race. Jehochman Talk 17:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Posting. The update is not exceptionally long but the relevant info is there. --Tone 18:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Remove until consensus is reached. This should never have been posted, it has not gained enough support and was posted in a short time after it was nominated.  Jay  Jay What did I do?
 * When something is on ITN/R, there is no need for a lengthy discussion. When it happens, we post it. Jehochman Talk 03:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ... after an appropriate update, of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We have a picture of Wilson Kipsang Kiprotich at the 2013 Berlin Marathon at File:Berlin_Marathon_2013_Wilson_Kipsang_Kiprotich_-_World_record.jpg --LukeSurlt c 16:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Italy's government coalition collapses

 * I do not object to posting it now but I wonder if it would be better to wait until the new government is formed (one way or the other). I don't recall what we have done in similar situations before. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say this is premature. ONe party withdrew its five ministers; and there is "crisis"; this Dutch site says the coalition "wankelt" (let's say: is limping), so it's hard to see where this is going. In a politically unstable country like Italy, there are probably several of these events newsworthy; so it might be better to wait for something more definite (resignation of the government; new elections; a new composition of the government)… L.tak (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait. If new elections are called that's almost certainly newsworthy. If a new coalition is formed that's probably newsworthy. A minority party withdrawing from a coalition is not, in itself, newsworthy I don't think. Thryduulf (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait. As per source, this nomination is premature. Gov' has not yet collapsed and the critical vote of confidence is next week, according to BBC. Most likely support if gov fails the vote of confidence and has to resign. --hydrox (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As it happened, the coalition survived its vote of confidence after all. --hydrox (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. I think maybe the coalition has still collapsed, but the Prime Minister has survived. Given that we are struggling to post at the moment, this could still count as a story, I think. Formerip (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Miss World

 * Comment. AFAICT, we haven't actually ever posted Miss World. Formerip (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've definately seen pageant postings. (odd its not on ITNR, should be in arts, etc as an annu7al posting).Lihaas (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like we posted Miss Universe 2009. But even there, I'm not sure "we did it once" means the same thing as "it is a good idea". Formerip (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess well leave it to a consensus discussion to see how noteworthy it is. I would support as nom as an important global event and outside the4 usual. Nice to have arts/"cultur"Lihaas (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * In terms of pageant i would support Miss Universe... and Miss world only based on quality of article which sucks right now -- Ashish-g55 17:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Miss World is among Big Four international beauty pageants, is there any reason to single out this one (although it seems to me that only Miss World and Miss Universe are frequently mentioned)? Brandmeistertalk  18:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support: Quite a widely acclaimed pageant and many news sources keep covering it for it's popularity. Also the article is good; its boring to have so many lists in it, but that how all Miss World YYYY articles are. (I would also support ITNR entry for this.) §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 19:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak support. I am skeptical of posting purely subjective beauty pageants but this does seem to be getting decent coverage in the news. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on purely article quality. 1) Lots of the article is still in future tense.  If the event is completed, then it would need to indicate that by being in the past tense.  2) Prose has problems in places.  Bad purple prose, things like "Several auditions stages have taken place, with some truly wonderful performances put on by the contestants".  Ugh.  Plus, no substantive text about the actual competitions, just stuff like this.  Rewrite the article so there is a substantive synopsis of the actual competitions instead of "truly wonderful performances" and put things in the past tense instead of the future, and you can consider this vote instead a support.  -- Jayron  32  20:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Apart from the fact the article is mainly lists and contains little prose, much of what there is is directly lifted from the Miss World site including practically the whole of the "challenges" section. (i.e. "The Miss World Top Model event is one of the most highly anticipated challenge events on the Miss World Calendar, and this year is set to be spectacular!"). Some of the rest is so badly written it's actually incomprehensible. No way. Black Kite (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note after a bit more investigation I've put a copyvio notice on the whole section, and I'm a bit suspicious about some of the rest. Black Kite (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Difficult to have a world's eye view on this, but it's incredibly trivial news where I am. And I'm not sure we would be doing the world a great service by publicising it, even if the article were not problematic and lacking a prose update. Formerip (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * oppose no sources to show this is in the news. Thryduulf (talk) 22:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article is in serious need of help, but even if that's resolved, I think the decreasing relevance of this event makes front page inclusion highly unlikely. The support this event has outside its own circles appears close to nil doktorb wordsdeeds 06:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

[Consensnus and update READY] Syria UN resolution

 * Support. Notable step in the effort to avoid an attack on Syria.  Being covered widely. Article will need some expansion but should be posted once some occurs. 331dot (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support the blurb, not the article. Quite a news that should be displayed in the whole Syria series but the article of course needs to be written. It actually is empty as of now. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 19:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Please move: This news candidate should be placed under September 27 because nominations should be posted under the heading of "the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC". 184.147.52.114 (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * updated - Why cant others add content to it? Just waiting for me and then warring over minor details instead of adding content?? Lihaas (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * People do what they can, when they have time and the information to do it. Most, if not all, of us aren't getting paid to edit here. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really, [eople just prefer to fight andwar on their version. Like the Kenya shooting where virtually nothing was added by others.Lihaas (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You can think what you wish, but I prefer to assume good faith without evidence of deliberate actions with poor motives. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I did before the Kenya article, clear evidence there. See what was added to that article
 * Anyways, We now have an article with consensus and a more than aqdequate and relevant update (not a token ITN one) that is not posted. YET articels with dubiosu consensus and a lack of an update are posted (with activist admins withotu conseus) and this which could have gone on top will now either not go OR be at the bottom! Not to mention there are sources here and elsewhere showing it IS in the newsLihaas (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Golden Dawn

 * Interesting case here, but the arrest is not that notable (just a stupid move that would embolbden them), nevertheless the killing of Killah P would be more notable but thats probably stale for ITN. Perhaps the ensuing riots can be noted here.Lihaas (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Wait until they are convicted. Sometimes an arrested person may be released, sooner or later. Brandmeistertalk  12:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The consensus is to wait until sentencing. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought it was convictions. 331dot (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hurling

 * This isn't ITNR. Formerip (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Woops. but why is GAA football there and not hurling? This is in fact more unique (and fun. ;))Lihaas (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. First, I am unable to support any nominations from Lihaas until he/she does them properly(which means including sources with the nomination per the instructions on this page).  Second, I would oppose this anyway because I can find little if any news coverage outside of Ireland. To clarify I don't care that it is from Ireland if it has coverage elsewhere. 331dot (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. You make decision on the content not the editor, that is not local politics and would be clearly NPA. Secondly, the game starts in 2 hours so there is NO result yet. (and plenty of users add nom's here to generate discussion beforehand)Lihaas (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not make my decision based on the editor themselves, but on their actions. I notified you of this and was ignored. We need sources provided in the nomination per the instructions on this page to establish that an item is "in the news" and not just updated(which we look at the article for).  I further stated that I do oppose based on content as well. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose does not have broad interest. Jehochman Talk 14:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough (and good reason), how to make it ITNR as in the GAA football?Lihaas (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose that it be added, demonstrating that there is regularly consensus to include it when nominated. If there is conensus that it should be ITN/R it will be added, if there isn't it wont be. Thryduulf (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It was in INT/R (this is the first year it's not, I think). Broad interest really doesn't come into it IMO. We're not a news station. --Tóraí (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose no sources to show this is in the news. Thryduulf (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The game will end in about 3 hours//...Lihaas (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. People wouldn't even know what hurling is. I personally had only remotely heard of it to be something like hockey. You should try DYK, it fits more over there. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 19:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Good reason to include it in on the front-page of an educational website then, no? Did you know who H. C. McNeile was before it was today's featured article. --Tóraí (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose based on article quality only. If someone were to write a prose summary of the replay, like there is for the first match, I would fully support this.  There is no prose summary of the replay match, which was the deciding contest.  That needs to be done in order to have a reasonable update to the article.  Fix that, and I think this should be posted.  -- Jayron  32  20:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support We're not a global news outlet, we're an encyclopedia. ITN is intended to promote our content and act as hooks to educational content (what we're here for). Lesser known (though not obscure) sports have an important place in remit. (Dharmadhyaksha, an article like is not suitable for DYK. See the DYK criteria.) --Tóraí (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We are not a global news outlet, but news coverage does play a role here, and AFAIK there is little coverage of this outside of Ireland and the UK. ITN is to promote content that is 'in the news' and generally not just in a single location. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Grey Cup? Super League? Grand National? Stanley Cup Finals? The Ashes? AFL Grand Final? All ITN/R. I support all of these, by the way. My point is that there are more considerations than just reach or the number of countries involved. --Tóraí (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, but one of those is news coverage. The popularity of the sport must also be considered.  331dot (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This sport is very popular where it's played. Your argument says that we drop everything except baseball, American football, basketball and association football. And we won't. HiLo48 (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not what I was trying to say; but fundamentally this is the "in the news" page and this sport is not widely "in the news"(or I have yet to see evidence it is). Many sports are popular where they are played, but this sport is played mostly in a nation of 5 million people and receives little coverage outside of that country. I wouldn't support a sport just played in Manhattan or Los Angeles.  If this was played in a more populated country, and/or received a lot of attention outside of the country, I would support this without hesitation.  But it doesn't. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's what you said. You told everyone that if you're not from the US, UK, or some other big country, stop wasting your time here. Pure systemic bias. And I don't think you recognise it. (This was removed for being "sniping". I submit that it's an accurate but embarrassing paraphrasing of the previous post.) HiLo48 (talk) 11:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please provide a diff to back up your accusation, or else please strike your remark. I don't see where anybody said to "stop wasting your time here". Jehochman Talk 11:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say ITN has no issues with systematic bias, but we did post the GAA football final recently. Formerip (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and ti is silly to have one ITNR and not the other./Lihaas (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that isn't what I said. I treat my country of 300 million people the same as I treat a country of a billion people, or a country of 5 million, or a country of 300 people.  I support posting events which have widespread coverage. That's the purpose of this page, and I do not see evidence that this has such coverage- and I have continued to await being proven wrong. I certainly did not state that people from any country should "stop wasting their time here" and I am offended by the accusation.  We do not have and should not have an affirmative action program for small countries or niche sports.  331dot (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Question: Has this (and the Gaelic football one) has been reported outside ROI+UK? Reported as in they've been featured in TV news, and not just filler wire stories? A couple of examples: Bloomberg TV had reported about the State of Origin rugby in Australia, while Channel NewsAsia has reported the knockout stage of EuroBasket 2013 (basketball isn't a widely practiced sport in Singapore). The former wasn't nominated(?), while the latter was rejected. This hurling event must've escaped their radar... – H T  D  19:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Global coverage can never be our measure. American college football hardly ever makes the news in Australia. Probably hardly mentioned outside America. But Americans still think it's important. HiLo48 (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's why it's not posted despite perennial nominations year after year, although it some TV time in places such as CNN International every January... – H  T  D  08:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But we posted some paedophile who only differed from other paedophiles because of his involvement with college football. That says we treat is as something special. HiLo48 (talk) 08:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If we're into high profile pedos, the Irish Roman Catholic sexual abuse scandal was posted twice: Roman Catholic Church sexual abuse scandal in Ireland and Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. According to the latter article, there were 253 claims of sexual abuse by boys by different men from 1914 until 1999, or an average of 3 molested children by different men per year; Sandusky was found guilty on 45 counts of sexual abuse between 1994 to 2009, or an average of 3 molested children by one man, per year. Sandusky was a prolific child molester on his own, whether he was connected to American football or not. – H T  D  09:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So why did the case for posting his story place so much emphasis on his status in college football? It really gave the impression to an outsider that his paedophilia was seen as more significant because of that. And it wasn't. All paedophilia is equally and horribly significant. HiLo48 (talk) 10:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd imagine him being a pedophile college football coach, a sport ingrained in American culture, is possibly quite the same with pedophile priests, a religion ingrained in Irish culture? If he was say, a hurling coach in America, or the Irish kabaddi federation, molesting generations of children, it wouldn't be in the news, at least in the extent of both events. – H T  D  10:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not the only measure, but it is a factor. The stated purpose of ITN is "to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest". An event is not of wide interest if it is only in one country and not mentioned elsewhere. I'm not yet convinced this is receiving a great deal of coverage in Ireland. American college football is mentioned in other countries to varying degrees.  I still await evidence of the same for this sport; I would love to be proven wrong here. 331dot (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Sudan protests

 * Support. I think this ongoing event deserves its own article. The linked article doesn't mention number of causalities, but I've heard over the radio that it was disputed; the government said only 29 were killed whereas other sources (human rights advocates + opposition) said that up to 150 were killed. I think the blurb should simply say "dozens" instead of specifying a number.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  18:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Substantial death toll; plenty of international attention. Neljack (talk) 03:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. I've added an alt-blurb addressing Mohamed CJ's comments based on the BBC News article. Thryduulf (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thx, but you dint/AGF forgot to give your support reason?v Lihaas (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Standoff ongoingLihaas (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Posted. I've tweaked the blurb slightly for style. Any editor can feel free to adjust as needed (though you'll need to get an admin to edit the protected template). Jehochman Talk 16:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Its not updates though...Lihaas (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please update the article. Better forwards than backwards.  There's a link above to a good source. Jehochman Talk 03:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Updates shuold come BEFORE postingLihaas (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Posting might also motivate others to update the article, as they might not see it otherwise. This is your nomination- if you want it updated by a certain time, then do it. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The admin needs to note if its updatged or not. The ITNC nom is for consensus discussionLihaas (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * True, the article will get more visibility when posted, but the posting admin should ensure that the quality of the update is commensurate with the length and breadth of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. Now enforcing this?Lihaas (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] IPCC Fifth Assessment Report

 * Support Highly significant and will get lots of attention. Neljack (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support NYT, BBC, Washington Post, The Guardian and The Australian are reporting in big headlines --DrLee (talk) 11:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a summary of the summary to IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report and made a few other updates and edits around the article. --LukeSurlt c 11:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose a political body that will get a lot of coverage in left wing outlets, but not from plain old objective scientists. μηδείς (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't be absurd. Formerip (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting, you should edit Scientific opinion on climate change --DrLee (talk) 13:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if it is true that this is a "political body", this is still being widely covered. It's still news if you agree with their conclusions or not. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Which is just about the only reason why I'm not joining Medeis in opposing. The UN is a corrupt body, and every single thing it does is tainted as a result. Resolute 14:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. Obviously major report and headline news of global significance.  Article looks OK as well.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per Ghmyrtle. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Major milestone in an ongoing issue, and an opportunity to showcase some good WP articles. Good, neutrally-phrased blurb, though I would add a link to climate change somewhere. Modest Genius talk 13:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Widely reported (even though most of the findings are obvious). I agree that maybe link some article like climate change so that blurb actually links to something useful besides the report -- Ashish-g55 14:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Posted. NW ( Talk ) 14:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Dang! where yu been hiding,? haven't seen yu here in eons..;)Lihaas (talk) 01:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * He was busy stealing all of the letter "o"s from your writing. -- Jayron  32  04:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013 America's Cup

 * Oooh, dramatic. And lots of lovely prose in the article. Good work. --LukeSurlt c 16:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It does need references though. Other than that it is good to go, unless they're all copyvios. – H T  D  16:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (updated the blurb - hopefully no toes stepped on). Thanks to for the detailed race summaries. AIR corn  (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Small comment - If we say Oracle Team USA should we also say Emirates Team New Zealand for consistency? Also perhaps the scoreline 9-8 should be mentioned? AIR corn (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Today's racing has narrative now. Could use an aftermath section, which I don't have time to write at the moment. I'd also prefer to call it the 34th America's Cup, as that's what it's being called by everyone except Wikipedia. I think one of the reasons we say Oracle way more than we say Emirates, is that's the name of USA's boat as well.JoltColaOfEvil (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, "Oracle Team USA" is usually referred as "Oracle", whereas "Emirates Team New Zealand" is usually referred to as "Team New Zealand". Neljack (talk) 21:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good, but speaking as a New Zealander - damn, damn, damn!!! That was painful to watch! Neljack (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Updated Have done all I can for now as I need to go back to work. AIR corn (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Ready to post now. A quality article, well referenced. ITN/R and a fascinating story. --LukeSurlt c 22:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks ready. Formerip (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  00:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Recent death: David H. Hubel

 * Support RD The Hubel & Wiesel experiments, for which he won the award, were fundamental to our understanding of the mechanics of vision. They also provided some of the first evidence of critical periods. Teemu08 (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose This is one of those cases where a Nobel alone is not a shoe-in. I would be in favor of posting this, however, if doing so doesn't push any other listings off the queue. μηδείς (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Rightly or wrongly, precedent here seems to be that merely winning a Nobel Prize is not a ticket onto RD.  331dot (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support RD. Consensus can change.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Weak support RD I think this is a more borderline case for Nobel = RD, but RD space is free right now. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support He is more than just a generic Nobel prize winner, every neuroscientist knows his name and what he did. Looie496 (talk) 01:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. The section about the research he did is reasonably complete and well-formed, compared to other previous Nobel winners that we had with shakier articles.  Spencer T♦ C 02:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support The news articles (and particularly the quotations from other scientists) on his death testify to the profound impact of his research. Neljack (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD section. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Kenya attacks
Theres no consensus to keep moving it up and reissue it. Because in this case the German election doesnt get much time on ITN. At the very least there should be a consensus discussion to move it up, as we do for "bumps".Lihaas (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 *  cc User:The Rambling Man, User:Lihaas &mdash; TORTOISE WRATH  21:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Pakistan earthquake

 * Neutral leaning weak oppose, news is describing the event as occuring in a thinly populated area, . The event is, of course, personally devastating for the families of those directly affected by it, but it does not appear to have affected any large population centers, and the News does not appear to be, as yet, treating this as a major story, excepting purely for the strength of the quake.  Thankfully, the impact has been minimal given the strength, but I don't as yet see this as a major story.  Willing to be convinced otherwise in the coming hourse and days if more detailed stories come along showing a wider impact than we are seeing now.  -- Jayron  32  17:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. I was disinclined to support, but then I read that the quake created a new island near Gwadar which is 385 km away from the epicenter. The article should be updated and the blurb should mention that. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * support not that common and high enough death toll in the earthquake (as opposed to bobmiings). Casualty count is notable enoughLihaas (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Notable from both a human and geological perspective. --LukeSurlt c 17:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support and agree with Abductive. It's a rather unusual occurence. Brandmeistertalk  18:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support An earthquake of this magnitude + death toll ought to be a shoo-in. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per LukeSurl and King of Hearts. -Zanhe (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. The thing about the island would make an infinitely better blurb that the boring, pro-forma "x people are killed by y in z". Subject to it being accurate. Formerip (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would. Without being insensitive to the death toll, that's the sort of thing that makes a good ITN blurb. Black Kite (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Posted If the island part is true, I believe it should be mentioned alongside the deadly nature of the earthquake. --  tariq abjotu  20:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The simple solution would be "An earthquake killing 45 creates a new island off the coast of Gwadar, Pakistan" μηδείς (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think the island is that significant. Seismologists suspect the island is a temporary formation. --LukeSurlt c 23:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course it is not a significant island, but the sources, and our readers, are finding it interesting. So it is a significant event. It is now well documented and a mechanism has been put forward (soil liquefaction) so please, some admin, edit the blurb. It has consensus. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support expanding with info about the island: interesting and would make ITN less morbid than it tends to be already. Nergaal (talk) 10:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait for island as there is really not much info available for it... atleast till they take samples to see if its just mud island that will wash off or if its more permanent. Definitely a support if its anything permanent. -- Ashish-g55 14:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Take a look; it's quite large; see all the tiny people? Abductive  (reasoning) 19:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support adding the part about the island. Yes, it is probably sounds trivial alongside the deaths of so many people, but it is a fascinating aspect of the indecent from an educational point of view (remember education, not news, is our thing). --Tóraí (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Muslim Brotherhood

 * Support Certainly a significant development getting plenty of international attention. Neljack (talk) 10:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The more specific article would be Muslim Brotherhood in post-Mubarak electoral politics of Egypt, but that's a bit of a sprawling mess. --LukeSurlt c 11:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support The deposed party being declared illegal is certainly notable. Thue (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, major swing of the pendulum. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, major event in the history of Egypt and also, for its future.Egeymi (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Addition; the Egyptian cabinet has postponed the ban. So we should wait. Egeymi (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support: per Egeymi and others. Major development. -Zanhe (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support (note I haven't checked for an update, but assuming given the import). Black Kite (talk) 20:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? Really??? You know the amount of effort it would have taken to check for the update would have been roughly the same as the effort you expended adding this parenthetical declaration of your own laziness and an excellent reason to disregard your opinion? 97.81.161.12 (talk) 03:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support if it were to go into effect, but it was issued by a lower court and is subject to review, no? μηδείς (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * theres more... If anyone cares to update instead of merely voting and whathaeyou over WP bureaucratic stuff, this would be ready to post.Lihaas (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not everyone has the means or time to provide an update right when you want it. It doesn't mean they don't care just because they posted their opinion here without adding content to the article. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Article has 2 sentences about the ban, but some more information on the ban's impact would be nice. Will the Muslim Brotherhood continue underground and how so? Or are they just a banned political party and can continue as an organization in other respects? Or other relevant information. Yes, I know I counted sentences but I think an article update could do a little better job explaining more in depth the ban's impact.  Spencer T♦ C 02:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just as an aside, this is how you make a note that an update is insufficient; without regard for the number of sentences or whatever, but by noting specific information which should be in the update but is missing. That's a reasonable reason to object to the sufficiency of an update, not an arbitrary count.  People should take note, because this is how it should be done.  -- Jayron  32  02:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, two sentences is inadequate per the current advice. So regardless of whatever sensible note Jayron32 says, it's had massive support.  Shame.  They will never learn.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Irregardless of the size of the update, has it been determined that the ban is actually in effect? The source I had read saying the ban was passed had also said it was being appealed. μηδείς (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Ciudad Juárez murders

 * Comment is 10 people being killed at once by drug gangs that unusual in Mexico's drug war? From following the news, my impression is that it is not. Thue (talk) 12:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In a single attack against unarmed civilians, maybe—or at least in the past year. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 06:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose unless evidence of wider coverage of this is presented; as Thue states this doesn't seem to be that unusual an occurrence in Mexico these days. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's another news article about it. LatinoPost.com It was also posted on Fox News Latino and the Washington Post. Alex (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. This massacre is one of the deadliest in the area since 2010, but I don't think this incident garnered as much coverage as other Mexican Drug War events that made it to the Main Page. The incident has potential to turn into something big, considering that violence in Ciudad Juárez was dropping significantly since last year. But as of now, there's nothing to do but wait and see. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 06:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Poor Mayo lose again

 * Ah! Everyone's favourite ITNR item! Well, if it's updated, let's throw it up there. --LukeSurlt c 23:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support (if we're doing that now) Well updated now, and seems interesting enough  [fill in this space with usual arguments from perennial ITNR discussions] . --LukeSurlt c 11:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd really prefer if this article had a similar level of expansion to 2012 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final (the equivalent for last year).  Spencer T♦ C 00:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems comparable now. --LukeSurlt c 13:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Article looks decent enough to me. Neljack (talk) 01:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Since in the Emmy Awards discussion below, Formerip said that "If its on ITNR without there ever having been a discussion about it, then it should be treated as a regular nomination", well, this was boldly added without discussion, has been the subject of opposition on almost every time it is nominated, and survived every WT:ITNR discussion as "no consensus" even though there was no consensus of adding it in the first place. – H T  D  10:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you began a discussion at the ITNR discussion page about this item with those arguments, I would probably support removing it from the list if it has been objected to in the past- it doesn't seem to be a horribly popular sport to me as well. Until it is removed, however, it should be considered. 331dot (talk) 11:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is, since there's no discussion with a clear consensus of retaining this at the ITNR list, this should be treated as a regular ITN/C nomination. – H T  D  13:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think in this case there is a discussion somewhere in the archives where it was proposed for removal and retained. Formerip (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Here. So, it is legitimately ITNR. It can always be nominated again for removal. Formerip (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The discussion was just archived and wasn't closed (like the IPL one immediately above it). Therefore the really long discussion never resolved anything. It was "retained in default", which is actually worse than "no consensus".– H T  D  14:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding that, formerIP. I will say that I would still support removal of this from the list, but since it is on the list currently it should be posted. 331dot (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * - if you're treating this as a regular ITN/C item, can I ask what the rationale is for your oppose !vote specific to the item nominated? Your comment above discusses the ITN/R system, but doesn't actually address the notability of this specific item. --LukeSurlt c 13:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As per the general criteria "the significance of the developments described in the updated content", there is not enough coverage of this event to be considered to be significant. For example, Google News search results give out an outstanding 13,200 results; that's actually more than the European basketball championship results (7.2k). However, if you remove Irish news sources, it gives you nothing. – H T  D  14:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Well there's the BBC for one. I don't think that google news filter works like that, as asking it to for news outside Kenya (for example) also produces 0 results. --LukeSurlt c 15:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * From where I sit, the BBC Sports website doesn't even link to its Gaelic games section on its own menu bar unless you'd go into "More sports". It implies that it not that popular in GB, even in London which has its own team, and even more so in New York; I wonder if Giants fans are switching in droves to see New York GAA? Nope. – H T  D  15:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * How ironic that the Emmys gets many supports "because it's ITN/R" yet those same contributors who are blindly following that approach are scarce here, even more ironic that this particular article is nicely updated while the Emmy article is just a bunch of tables. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not ironic in any way. This is apples and oranges; a well-known awards show about a popular subject versus a sport largely specific to one small country. 331dot (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And that is bollocks. Both are ITN/R, so both should be supported based on an adequate update and nothing else.  The Emmy award article is crap, this is, at least, decent.  So many supporters of a crap article seem absent on this, another ITN/R.  How curious.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You can call it whatever you wish, though I find your slightly vulgar language in this entire section unnecessary. 331dot (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said below, people are supporting based on the suitability of the news story, not the suitability of the article. If you had an issue with people commenting on the suitability of the news story, you (and others opposing it) shouldn't have brought it up as reason to oppose. That was an invitation for people to counter with supports based on suitability. --  tariq abjotu  19:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "suitability"? Wow, a new direction.  ITN/Rs guaranteed if the update is supported.  This is an ITN/R so the update was excellent and should have received the same level of "update is acceptable" support as the Emmy entry.  What is this "suitability" criterion that I've never heard of suddenly being introduced?  Is it ITN/R or not?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I dont understand.. why do you want to see supports for ITN/R... whole point of ITN/R is to save time by eliminating the need for supports on items that we know will go up when updated. -- Ashish-g55 20:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, you don't understand. Never mind, but next time you vote for an ITN/R, re-assure yourself you've thoroughly reviewed the update! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Who in the world is saying post it before its updated? I don't see single support/comment that is asking for ITN/R to be posted without proper update -- Ashish-g55 20:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I doubt you've even looked at the Emmy article. If you have, shame on you for supporting it for main page inclusion.  Enough said.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well doubt away then... your comment clearly shows that you did not even read any of the Emmy talk below. I never supported... my first comment was its ITN/R and doesnt need support, then i discussed the blurb. Either way i don't think you are even trying to understand either mine or tariq's point so i'll just stop -- Ashish-g55 20:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * TRM, your opposing remark began with the phrase You basically seconded a remark by Medeis that said, in full,  And, yet, somehow, you have an issue with people then arguing the other direction, that the story is suitable for ITN. (And by that, as I'm sure any other person could infer, I mean meets the significance criterion, which believe it or not, is codified in our criteria.) If you had a problem with people commenting on that part of the nomination because it's already on ITN/R, you shouldn't have commented on that part of the nomination. Goodness. --  tariq abjotu  20:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I supported the fact that the Emmys is not ITN/R-worthy. Correct.  I then noted the "update" was horse shit.  Correct.  Finally, you, of all people, should refrain from lecturing on the update strategy and assessment of consensus here.  Seems like it's catching mind you.  Goodness.  Me.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Cory Monteith? Just say it. I've had enough of your petty nonsense and the whining because things don't go exactly how you want. --  tariq abjotu  20:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Posted. -- Jayron  32  17:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose/remove this is the least popular version of football that is on ITNR. Nergaal (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Is that by page views? Abductive  (reasoning) 00:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose/remove/pull The relevance of Gaelic football is the same level of quidditch, I mean what is the significance of it outside Ireland. To be bluntfully honest, historically U2 and other Irish musicians, Eurovision, financial crisis and bombings get more news coverage outside its home country than Gaelic football does. Donnie Park (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is ITNR; if you would like it removed, then propose it for removal on the ITNR talk page. 331dot (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

65th Primetime Emmy Awards

 * As its ITNR it doesn't need support. We can shorten up the blurb maybe. Added alt -- Ashish-g55 03:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As noted below, there was NO DISCUSSION TO ADD THIS TO ITN/R and hence there is no such consensus. μηδείς (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ITN/R discussions dont necessarily take place in ITN/R talk page. ITN/C always takes precedence... its been posted multiple years without objection to it being on ITN/R which gives it consensus by default. Have a look at last year's nomination that i linked below. -- Ashish-g55 14:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment This article is going to need some prose about the actual event. Perhaps highlight some interesting parts of the ceremony or some notable wins and upsets (e.g. the fact that The Colbert Report ended The Daily Shows ten-year run as Best Variety Series, The Voice winning over The Amazing Race, Bryan Cranston not winning for acting). There's a lot that could be written here. --  tariq abjotu ' 05:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've edited the blurb to remove redundancy and excess words. Jehochman Talk 09:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not that it matters all that much but the actual awards are called "outstanding" not best... im fine either way but would prefer keeping the award category the same -- Ashish-g55 13:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose this is a local vanity item with no historical import. Imagine anyone even knowing how these subjects are 25 years from now.  This is a world encyclopedia, not People Magazine. μηδείς (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * First, this is ITN/R. Second, seriously? Did you comment on the wrong nomination? --  tariq abjotu  16:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I watched about half the ceremonies, and found it interesting and entertaining. I just don't think the subject is encyclopedic and if you'll look below you will see concerns by myself and others that this was never discussed in regards to ITN/R, so a free pass in that regard is invalid.  DYK would make much more sense for this. μηδείς (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia; if this isn't an encyclopedic enough subject to be on ITN, then isn't encyclopedic enough to have an article and should be removed. Something in this encyclopedia cannot be unencyclopedic. 331dot (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The information is encyclopedic as data. Comments on the front page as to the winners are not, however, of such importance, compared to other items which have historical significance. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What you consider historically significant might not be what others consider historically significant, and vise versa. Also, the ITN page states that the purpose here is "to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest" mentioning nothing about any judgement as to historical significance. Further, listing events of so-called historical significance is not listed as a purpose of ITN. 331dot (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, of course. I don't have a problem with people being of a different opinion from mine, or expressing that, or this being posted if such a consensus exists.  My opposition is just as valid as any person's reasoned support.  The real problem is the "nyah, nyah, nya, nyah, nyah--this is ITN/R" assertion, which assumes reasoned argument is not only irrelevant, but somehow invalid per se. μηδείς (talk) 03:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have a reasoned argument to make about this item's presence on ITNR, then go and do it on the proper page, the ITNR discussion page. From what I can see this event has been on the ITNR list for almost three years unobjected to. This has also been posted in prior years, and we post other similar awards ceremonies. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose of such little interest to anyone outside the cliquey ents industry, purely transient, of no long-lasting impact to anyone or anything. Add to that the fact the article is simply a copy-and-past of results with no critical commentary or substantial interest. I think Medeis commented on the right nomination.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's still ITN/R. If it gets a sufficient update -- which isn't exactly a given -- it will be posted. --  tariq abjotu  16:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm certain it will, given some admin actions, it may be posted already. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - If you oppose this nomination you might as well oppose the Academy Awards, the Grammy Awards, and the Tony Awards. Why? Because this award show is similar to the others I mentioned. It recognizes people from a specific field, which is television. Just like the Academy Awards recognizes people from film, and the Tony Awards recognizes people from theater. This is no different. Whether the subjects will be known in twenty five years is irrelevant. Even if it was relevant, both Modern Family and Breaking Bad are widely watched shows among many people so I highly doubt the subjects will be forgotten in twenty five years. Andise1 (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. I find it hard to believe that you'd suggest an Academy Award is on the same level as a "Primetime Emmy".  Perhaps you just don't get it.  Who knows?  Anyway, thanks for letting me know where you stand on a bunch of B-list (usually US) TV celebs, it's highly informative going forward from here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment If you don't like ITN/R, then go talk about how to change it. This is the wrong place to make that sort of objection. Jehochman Talk 17:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you'd been around here a while, you'd know that I've objected to most, if not all, of ITN/R, it's just divisive and unhelpful.  But thanks, once again, for your helpful advice on how to suck ova.  Surprised you haven't already posted this.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Link Please can we have a link to the discussion that got this established at ITN/R? Not every item on that list was added after an actual discussion, and if there's opposition now the presumption of consensus is obviously false. μηδείς (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I can link you to where it was added by User:DC on 4 October 2010, but the word "Emmy" appears only twice in the ITN/R talk archives, in neither case is there any evidence that there has ever been any consensus for this to be an ITN/R item. Still, it won't stop our more trigger-happy admins from posting this regardless.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing trigger happy about posting this. this was posted last year and its in ITNR... admin should post it as long as its updated. Here's last years discussion if it helps -- Ashish-g55 18:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If its on ITNR without there ever having been a discussion about it, then it should be treated as a regular nomination. Formerip (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Nergaal (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Since there was never any consensus to add this to ITN/R, it should be removed.  Regardless of that, this is not a major news item. Black Kite (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * We have come up with this issue before; if it was added to the list improperly, it should be easy to go to the ITNR discussion page and gain consensus for its removal if that's what people want. That said, this has been posted before and we post other award ceremonies or just awards in other areas. 331dot (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Further, I have kind of been derelict in my attempt to compose a draft ITNR list to replace the current one (in which every item listed would have some sort of discussion to back it up). I may post further discussion on that at another time soon. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support pending article update. Irregardless of ITNR issues, the Primetime Emmy (particularly the two items listed, Best Drama + Comedy) are the equivalent of the Oscars for television medium. It is no means a triviality as some suggest, and since we also cover other entertainment awards at the national level (eg BAFTAs), there's no reason to exclude this. --M ASEM (t) 21:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The BAFTAs (ETA: TV BAFTAs) are not ITNR, though. I think both of these should be posted only if the winners of the main awards are a surprise or in some way special, or if a single show dominates the ceremony. For this year's Emmy Awards, I have no idea if that applies (so I am not voting). Formerip (talk)
 * The BAFTAs are under ITNR for Film. 203.45.232.62 (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have duly clarified my comment. Formerip (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * To clarify I support posting this and believe the ITNR listing should be respected until the event is stripped from the list following a proper discussion to gain consensus to do so. We're not talking about a second-tier sports tournament or some other odd event, we are talking about one of the top (if not the top) awards ceremonies for television and it is followed by millions. We post other awards ceremonies and specific awards. 331dot (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Television programmes are often broadcast outside the country where they are produced. Celebrities, by definition, are a subject of wide interest. &mdash; rybec   01:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. Currently we have 7 ITNR items for film and only one for television, a major imbalance, so this definitely should remain on ITNR. This is by far the most important awards show for TV in the US and possibly the world, the TV equivilant of the Oscars. It has also has recieved significant media coverage and was in ITN last year. -LtNOWIS (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - It may be remembered I !voted to eliminate INTR. Others here saw it differently. Since we still have it, let's not now Wikilawyer over what we have. If you don't like an INTR item, propose a change in the appropriate venue. This is a valid INTR item, as far as I can tell, and will doubtless be read by numerous Main page visitors. Post the blurb, and let's move on. Jus  da  fax   05:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - The ceremony is broadcast internationally (try saying that about most TV awards!) and the shows which win are shown in even more locations. Perhaps the most prestigious TV acting award. Rightfully at ITNR. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support of widespread general interest. Pretty much the top TV award. --LukeSurlt c 11:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Modern Family has been winner since last 3 years. Is this win unexpected? How is it News-y? & someone had to win. So, "award is presented" is not news and "award is won by XYZ" is not news either in this case. If at all anything extraordinary has happened in this award show, then that can be presented as news. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 14:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you oppose mentioning the award ceremony in general, or just mentioning Modern Family in the blurb? The ceremony in general is ITNR; if you oppose its being there, then propose its removal from the list. 331dot (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of anything like WP:ITNR. The fact that Emmy, along with some others, is listed there is kinda not really great and i will voice this out at the right location. But if the consensus as established by that page says that this blurb should appear every time these awards are presented, i don't see any harm in putting my oppose here either. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 14:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Reminder to those voting "ITN/R"', there was another ITN/R above which didn't seem to attract as much "support" yet the update was excellent compared to this mere list of winners. Why are there so many "supports" for a ITN/R whose update was never really discussed (and which was poor) versus an ITN/R whose update was very comprehensive?  Most of the supporters here didn't even review the article.  You guys kill me.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You answered your own question. As in virtually every other nomination, most people choose to comment on the suitability of the news story rather than the suitability of the article about it. That people have continued to do that on this item marked ITN/R is partially the fault of editors of who have chosen to oppose the nomination on the grounds of the suitability of the news story; naturally, such opposing remarks will be met by supporting remarks arguing that the story is suitable for ITN. --  tariq abjotu  19:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, so ITN/R supporters don't bother to check the updates, or whether the article in question is in a decent state for main page inclusion, just blindly vote "support" because it's an ITN/R. Bingo.  And that is part of the ITN/R problem.  Dense and drive-by editors who just tick the box.  "Support" as ITN/R.  Utterly ridiculous.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This happens on every nomination. Most comments are in regards to the significance of the story, and there are times articles with massive support don't get delayed or don't get posted at all because there's no update. No one's singling out the nomination you opposed. And, by the way, I think it's highly hypocritical for you to be complaining about people not caring enough about quality of update when you called that a "mythical update requirement" and suggested it be removed. --  tariq abjotu  20:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You just don't get it, do you? I'm asking for the arbitrary 5/3 update to be removed and for people to judge an article's update on its merits.  Last time I looked, the Emmy article was a bunch of results tables, yet so many supportive folks here seem to think that's adequate for main page inclusion.  "Support per ITN/R" etc.  Those people are the hypocrites. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment In the end, we really need to decide "what is the state of the article which we are asking X million people to click on by putting it in ITN?" This article is crap. A bunch of tables.  The process for FAC is very intensive.  Isn't about time we started wondering whether ITN/R should override the fact that some ITN/R articles are useless and shouldn't be something we are displaying to the world?.  I have no massive interest in the Irish football article above but it is an ITN/R article that's actually decent.  As such, it's a hell of a lot better than this. Black Kite (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No part of ITN/R says that an article will be posted regardless of its state. If it did, this would have been posted the moment the ceremony ended. The aim of ITN/R was/is to avoid discussions about significance and just focus on discussions about quality of update -- as it says in the third paragraph of WP:ITN/R. --  tariq abjotu  20:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Which, I think, is exactly my point. If we had an actually interesting and imformative article about this topic, then (even though my personal view is that it shouldn't be ITN/R) it should be posted.  However, it doesn't. So it shouldn't be posted. Black Kite (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Has it been posted already? Whenever it meets update requirement it will.. Not sure what your point is. -- Ashish-g55 20:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it hasn't been posted already, and given that we've had two later stories already posted, and a third about to be, it may well not be unless the obvious problems with the article are fixed. Once the Muslim Brotherhood article is posted there's pretty much nothing that can be pushed.  Regardless, we should not, ever, be presenting main page viewers with crap articles.  ITN/R is not a free pass to foist rubbish onto the main page.   Black Kite (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is true, but this comment is a bit misplaced. The fact that this ITN/R item article hasn't been posted, even now with substantial support, is an example of us not putting "rubbish" on the Main Page. (And note that I mentioned those issues very early on.) This comment seems more relevant after, say, the Super Bowl or the Grey Cup or other sporting events, when people demand the article be posted when it contains nothing about the event itself. --  tariq abjotu  21:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but we assume that articles such as the Super Bowl, even if they are not updated immediately, will have massive updates very quickly. It is low-priority articles such as this that are the issue - we can never assume that anyone will bother to make them good. Black Kite (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose ITNR and posting this year. It is unfortunate that there is not a broadly-accepted international award for television, but such is the case. I could see a justification for the Emmys as the most prominent such award, but it is split up into two categories (daytime and primetime), somewhat diluting the prominence. While Primetime obviously features the bigger-budget shows, the division nonetheless makes many American television shows ineligible. The Emmys are a good candidate to be discussed each year, and can be analysed on a year to year basis. As this year went mostly as expected, I see little need to post. Teemu08 (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

2013 Sadr City bombing

 * We need an article to evaluate before its posting to ITN can be properly discussed. 331dot (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Since such attacks in Iraq are quite common (see Category:Terrorist_incidents_in_Iraq_in_2013), what is different about these attacks that makes them notable? The size? The group targeted? Or any other relevant information.  Spencer T♦ C 23:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Skycycle has written an article, 21 September 2013 Iraq attacks. &mdash; rybec   01:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * These must be pretty common events if we have to differentiate article titles with date, month, and year and if there are numerous such pages. 331dot (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is showing 78 killed at the funeral, with 107 killed and 255 wounded in all the day's attacks. Is that enough? &mdash; rybec   03:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am very sad that bombings in Iraq are so common that they are no longer viewed as big news. All these stories fit the description "Barbaric bombing campaign continues in Iraq."  What would be news is if the bombings stopped.  Jehochman Talk 09:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Thousands of kids die in Africa every day, and that's not news. News is a change in a situation that has an impact; in particular, news != importance. Arguably there is nothing more important than the fact that the universe is existing right now. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

FIBA EuroBasket 2013
We shouldn't use a Parker pic in a Spurs uniform. Neutral otherwise.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't ITNR. – H T  D  21:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not the highest level of international competition; it says in the FIBA EuroBasket that this is the qualifying tournament for the Summer Olympic Games and the FIBA Basketball World Cup (both of which are ITNR I believe).  Spencer T♦ C 02:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI, the Olympics is the highest level of basketball competitions for national teams and that's never been posted here; the FIBA Basketball World Cup is in theory in the same level as the Olympics, but several of the world's best players skipped that ever since 1989 when they allowed pros to play.
 * As for "highest level of international competition" argument, the UEFA European Championship is clearly not the highest in national team football, but we post that anyway. – H T  D  04:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a pic of Parker on a French uniform. – H T  D  04:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak support. High profile (enough) tournament. Got plenty of page views (more than 2012 Euro handball and even the 2013 Ashes, but less than 2013 Asian basketball) in the English Wikipedia, in a tournament that is not popular in the Anglosphere. – H T  D  04:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The world cup is already ITNR... this is more of a qualifying tournament. -- Ashish-g55 13:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Pope Francis interviewed

 * Comment. Without weighing the merits right now, this has been in the news for a few days; why choose this date? 331dot (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's been no change of doctrine, just a change of tone. Neljack (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * this is also a few days ol.d.Lihaas (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Neljack; no policies have been changed or even announced; just a change in tone and focus. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not really that interesting. If the Pope's comments represented an official shift in focus, it might be noteworthy. A change in doctrine could be worth posting, but there doesn't appear to be one yet. 124.148.101.244 (talk) 04:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Religious leader gives an interview in which he expresses a very boring and heavily nuanced opinion, which changes nothing. Modest Genius talk 13:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] German federal election

 * Support, the article is in good shape.Egeymi (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, but wait until the outcome is clear; only then one can decide which blurp best sums it up.--FoxyOrange (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support with alt blurb proposed above. - Nbpolitico (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The second part of ALT blurp is wrong: Unless CDU/CSU do not get the majority of the seats, there are possible scenarios in which Merkel would not lead the next government.--FoxyOrange (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please describe such a scenario. - Nbpolitico (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If CDU/CSU do not get a majority, then someone else has (for example, SPD+Left+Greens). This means that theoretically, they could form a government without Merkel. It is unlikely, though, but not impossible. So currently, the statement that Merkel "will continue to lead Germany's government" is wrong. One might say "is widely expected to", but I'd prefer to stick to the hard facts.--FoxyOrange (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The SPD has explicitly ruled out working with the Left, therefore no government can be formed without CDU/CSU. As CDU/CSU has 2 thirds more seats than runner up SPD, they would undoubtedly lead the government. - Nbpolitico (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To make my point perfectly clear, I just wanted to point out that I'd prefer to use some kind of an irrevocable fact to describe the outcome of the parliamentary election. As Wikipedia is not a real time news source, it might be best to wait a few hours until the results are totally clear.--FoxyOrange (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support; general elections are ITNR. 331dot (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support but can we please post an image like this one? Nergaal (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Definitely not.--FoxyOrange (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

thumb
 * Support as this is ITNR and all over the news. If this is posted right away I'd suggest that admins be ready to adjust the blurb to reflect any possible changes in the wording, as an absolute majority for Merkel's party is not clear. If it happens, coalition negotiations are unneeded, if not, talks begin, possibly for weeks. Jus  da  fax   20:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support — Whatever happens to the FDP and the previous coalition, it's a triumph for Merkel & CDU/CSU. Negotiations for a new coalition, if necessary, probably won't be completed for some time, so there's no point in waiting. Sca (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait until the results are in (we only have exit polls at the moment) and don't crystal ball-gaze about Merkel leading the next government (even though that is almost certain). Neljack (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Final results are now in and the site is updated accordingly. - Nbpolitico (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * ALT blurp [plain and simple]: In the German federal election, Angela Merkel leads the CDU/CSU to win its largest vote share since 1990.
 * Comment: Once parliament will indeed re-elect her as chancellor, another ITN may be posted.--FoxyOrange (talk) 08:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * edit, rm factually wrong "since German reunification"--FoxyOrange (talk) 08:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Why? These two have nothing to do with each other. --bender235 (talk) 09:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Use the word 'plurality' for now, update if/when a coalition is formed. --LukeSurlt c 09:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So you mean something like ALT2 blurp ''In the German federal election, Angela Merkel leads the CDU/CSU to win a plurality of the seats in the Bundestag?--FoxyOrange (talk) 09:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In the German federal election, Angela Merkel's CDU party wins a plurality of Bundestag seats. --LukeSurlt c 09:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I support that.--FoxyOrange (talk) 09:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Updated support — In morning-after comments, various players reiterate that negotiations to form a new coalition will take some time. For example, Ralf Stegner, head of the left wing of the SPD, says "It will be an extremely long road"
 * Once again, there's no point in waiting. Sca (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with the all-purpose wording in the proposed blurb and agree with the sentiment that we should post it now. Let's get this ITN item into the feature without further delay. Jus  da  fax   16:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Luke's blurb Neljack (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I find it odd that, effectively two days after the election, this hasn't yet been posted. It's all over the news all over the world, and BTW was on French (and of course, German) Wiki on Monday. Why not English Wiki? Is there some bias against German news? One hopes not. Sca (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I also find it odd, as we have obvious consensus and a decent update, but perhaps it has been overlooked. Marking as ready. Jus  da  fax   02:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What's the deal with election articles getting the short end of the stick? This, the Australian and the Philippine elections got delayed; that last one was delayed so bad (despite 100x more updates than this one), it just had a couple of hours in the live page (lol). – H T  D  14:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Posted Yes, it's generally more helpful to mark an item as ready rather than make spurious accusations of bias. --  tariq abjotu  03:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not "make an accusation," I raised the question. It was not "spurious," since it was engendered by the circumstances. Kindly assume good faith. Thank you. Sca (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

[Atrtention needed - NO UPDATE] [posted] Bo Xilai

 * Oppose - not because it is not newsworthy but because the trial is 100% political and a complete circus from the Chinese regime that we should not recognise in my opinion. I do understand if others says Support but I will always oppose these kind of politically motivated trials and circus sentences.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So by your own admission, you and Vejvančický are voting based on whether you personally condone the actions of China's political elite, and not whether the item is newsworthy? That is completely unacceptable in the context of an ITN discussion, and your "votes" should be summarly discounted. Thue (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I take your point, Thue, and it is good that it was posted, but it's also good that voices like BabbaQ's are here. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 21:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I completely agree with BabbaQ. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Whether it is a politically motivated trial or not is not relevant to its status as a news story; this is being widely covered and is significant whether it is politically motivated or not; in fact, posting it on ITN will allow readers to make that determination for themselves. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I fully agree that there is a massive political element to the trial. However the machinations of the Chinese political system, for good or ill, is big news in the most populous nation and the world at large. As I said in the nomination, the article should (in an NPOV way) cover the criticism of the trial. I've tweaked the blurb slightly to avoid wording that would imply true guilt or innocence, only reporting that the Chinese court has made the decisions. --LukeSurlt c 14:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support This is a show trial of course, but an insanely significant show trial. Thue (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong support. This is a show trial, but one that is hugely significant. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, per Thue and Patar knight.  Nsk92 (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, his trial was mentioned and now its verdict should be given whether or not it was politically driven.Egeymi (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- Jayron  32  18:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And did you see the article before posting. Where is the update? All it says is: "On 22 September the court found him guilty on all counts, stripped him of all his assets, and sentenced him to life imprisonment.[118]"Lihaas (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In what way is that not an update? It pretty much sums up what happened.  Not much more to say. Jehochman Talk 17:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Noted, thanks. We seem to have a mythical update requirement that, if Lihaas is correct, this doesn't meet.  Along with several other recently promoted ITN items.  I'm glad to see it, all we need now is to actively remove the "three reference/five sentence" comment at WP:ITN, especially as this is used as a stick to beat some when others' claim an update "doesn't meet the requirements", and we're finally getting somewhere.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been a regular here for three years, and the requirement is unofficial but conversely has served as a great benchmark. It's a motivation to insert more elaboration or more meaningful content (such as official reaction) and certainly isn't mythical. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  21:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite the opposite. It encourages the introduction of poor quality fluff, just to achieve the threshold.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Umm, most articles need a 3-4 sentence update and many admins explicitly seek that. This is inconsistent and hypocriticalLihaas (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Such a rule is not written in stone and should be weighed on a case-by-case basis. Some articles might need such an update, while other's don't. 331dot (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Does anyone read anything here? We have a "5 sentence/3 ref" update "standard" recommended.  It's nonsense, as exemplified by a number of admins who post "regardless" and nonsense as it creates trash updates just to meet the "standard".  Get rid of the numbers.  Ask for an "adequate update" and rely on admins to do their job.  Stop this stupid "5 sentence/ 3 ref update" madness.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WsO WE selectively cherry pick which articles we deem worthy of an update and which can be posted anyhow? Thats hpw this game works per WP:IDONTLIKEIT?Lihaas (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see what IDONTLIKEIT has to do with this. It's a fact that some articles need more of an update than others.  We shouldn't make up article content or add meaningless content just to satisfy some arbitrary requirement that isn't appropriate for every article. 331dot (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Lihaas, please take more time over your updates, some are barely readable. This isn't a case of IDONTLIKEIT, it's a case of COMMONSENSE or DONTFLUFFTHEUPDATE or STOPADDINGCRAPTOMEETANARBITRARYMINIMUM.  The recommendations on 5/3 need to be removed.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case we need to determine consensus on what articles should get a pass. We can't go along when it suits us. Why should sports need prose update? Wjhy should elections need prose articles? Considering the nom said not updated and no discusion in this thread mention the need to post without an update, apparently this wa s asbritrary and without consensusLihaas (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Pakistan bombing

 * Support. Significant attack being widely covered. I've changed the blurb as the casualties have increased. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Question. How often does an attack of this magnitude happen in Pakistan? Jehochman Talk 09:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Against Christians? Not often. Against Shiites? Frequently...--Somchai Sun (talk) 11:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Mass shooting in the US is frequent as well, and we usually cover it on the main page (Washington Navy Yard shooting was there five days ago). Of course I know this is English not Pakistani Wikipedia. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support "the deadliest-ever attack on the country's Christian minority" (The LA Times). Terrible thing is that the blurb would appear next to another extremely bloody attack, commited by another group of Islamic extremists (in Kenya) yesterday. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, very notable in terms of both death toll and the site where the bombing occurred. Egeymi (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Posting. Jehochman Talk 14:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I added the clarifying word "Christian" in front of "church" because this is one of the facts that makes the bombing so notable.  Also updated the death toll to "at least 75". Jehochman Talk 14:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * PULL there is a giant under construction tag on this, and other pertinent articles are pulled for lesser tagsLihaas (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Changed the tag. Stephen 23:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] 2013 Sri Lankan provincial council election

 * Dodgy, we don't post local elections but there is some precedent on landmark elections as we posted the West Bengal election when the lognest serving democratically elected commie govt were ousted. This is arguably more notableLihaas (talk) 05:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Question. Could someone explain the "landmark" aspect of this election for the uninitiated? 331dot (talk) 09:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the first provincial council election in the Northern Province in 25 years. Northern Province is the affected place in the civil war. Gfosankar (talk) 09:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak support based on Gfosankar's explanation, though I'm not seeing a great deal of coverage about this; it does seem to be a noteworthy step in that country. 331dot (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose While I get Gfosankar's point, it's still just a regional election. The civil war has been over for four years, as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose of little notability compared to recent world events. μηδείς (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Typhoon Usagi

 * This is not yet a major story, but I think I might as well open the bidding, because it is sure to become one. This is a massive storm that passed between Taiwan and the Philippines, producing enormous rainfall in both places that will cause damage that will emerge over the next couple of days.  It is taking dead aim at Hong Kong, where it is sure to cause havoc even if it weakens as expected -- at the moment it appears to be strengthening. Looie496 (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support this is a major story now, it has been for at least 24 hours. There's no reason to wait till it hits Hong Kong, people are looking for it now. This should be posted ASAP. μηδείς (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Likely to cause substantial damage and deaths. The story is notable enough to be posted now. --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. It seems likely to be a major story and something people will look for information on. 331dot (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Marked Ready two dead already in Taiwan and being covered as top story versus Islamist massacre, well updated, story not going away any time soon. μηδείς (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I can't see how this article can be marked as ready (check the lead), AND I fail to see the importance (the article says it is the THIRD typhoon of the season, and does not even mention fatalities - supposedly only 3 until now). Nergaal (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait Hasn't caused enough death and destruction yet, but may well do so in Hong Kong. Neljack (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * oppose not significant dmage and at this rate we could post all hurricanes.Lihaas (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Too early 184.146.122.95 (talk) 01:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * SNOW closes are for when an article has no chance of being posted, not because one user feels it is too early. There is clearly some support for posting now, so it has a chance. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Re-updated the storm is a category five cyclone, the worst in 34 years for Hong Kong. I have updated the lead.  Readers want this information now, the story is hugely notable, and there is no reason to wait to post it. μηδείς (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait. Until it makes final landfall. The proposed blurb isn't the one we will use. Jehochman Talk 09:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The storm weakened and veered away from Hong Kong.  Jehochman Talk 14:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support I updated the article and changed the blurb, causalities increased to 33. Gfosankar (talk) 05:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The new blurb is much better. It's a shame this discussion started prematurely, because it's become muddled. Jehochman Talk 09:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This should have gone up when nominated and when it was an active story. To call the nomination premature, as if all people would want to know was a death count after the fact, is an odd focus to say the least. μηδείς (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support (after two citation tags are fixed) : Major developments since the last "oppose" vote. Death toll now 33, from 2 when initially proposed. Should be moved to Sept. 22 in accordance with the new blurb. -Zanhe (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this stale now??? – H T  D  14:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 16:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * FINALLY, after about 4 days after it dissipated (lol). – H T  D  17:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I need to do a better job at checking further down the page to assess old noms.  Spencer T♦ C 18:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Westgate centre shooting

 * Of course an article would need to exist. --LukeSurlt c 12:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment "Rare" is not a criteria we judge on, nor should we compare one story to another. How about writing the article so we're not voting on a red link? – Muboshgu (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That said, I could support based on how the article comes along. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Patience, the article is in existence. I added quite a bit immediately but I'm off now. Will be back in a few hours. Feel free to add.
 * Incidentlly, its got a potentially bigger dimension now.Lihaas (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Rare IS a criteria we go on. Otherwise wed post a lot more bombings in Iraq and Pakistan. (with bigger casualties)Lihaas (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's more of a "don't post every death in a war" sort of thing (did you mean Afghanistan?) Lots of rare stuff isn't newsworthy. In this case, though, it's front page everywhere I've looked, and you gave the article a good start, so I'll support pending more expansion. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support regarding notability, this is top of the news bulletins. Appears to be an ongoing incident, we should wait till it has concluded and the article reflects the overall picture before any posting. --LukeSurlt c 13:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability is fine, the update is sufficient and I have no doubt that the article will grow, although the sourcing is a bit sparse to post just yet. —WFC— FL wishlist 14:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support once updated Hot Stop talk-contribs 14:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * comment someone should go through that article and clean out stuff I put. I just put in a bunch of details, not all of which maybe notable.Lihaas (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Major civilian incident in an area otherwise not currently experiencing daily violence, with large death toll. --M ASEM (t) 14:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Major shooting with international news coverage. --Somchai Sun (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  15:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * comment 1. Is the pic a copyvio? Seems so. 2. The death is universally reported as at least 22, wso we can up that.Lihaas (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why does it look like a copyright violation? Because it's a high-quality photo? All evidence suggests it's not a copyright violation; it has its EXIF data included, and the uploader has several other photos taken with the same camera from Kenya. The confirmed death toll is only eleven, which some reliable sources have chosen to change their reporting to indicate (BBC, CNN, LA Times). --  tariq abjotu  17:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * True on hthe first point. Too goodto be tru so quick i guess ;)
 * The majority of sources have now updated tp 22. I read ibtimes.co.uk that says upto 100 with 50 bodies they affirmed. Red Cross which is on the ground and credible sasy at l;east 20 (see your cnn link). Many sayibng over 22 Lihaas (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Al Shabaab have claimed it. We could add it to the blurbLihaas (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have suggested an altblurb for the update. Note the attackers used grenades, not just guns.  I am not certain what the actual name of the mall is--sources are just calling it the Westgate mall. μηδείς (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * removed al Qaeda part. its on the wikilinkLihaas (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Restoring the Al-Qaeda part, or maybe it should say Islamist, which is in all the sources. (The deletion is also ungrammatical, BTW>)  It's odd why we would remove this essential information while comparing the story to an American schizophrenic. μηδείς (talk) 03:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Islmist as more npovLihaas (talk) 05:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This story is ongoing and should therefore be at the top of the template. Also, replace "masked gunmen" with "Al-Shabbab". --09:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Grand Theft Auto 5

 * Support when updated. An incredible number compared to movie openings.  Watch out Hollywood. μηδείς (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment This should probably be dated September 18, the day after the first day of sales. --  tariq abjotu  04:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * i thought of that but proper numbers were only released on friday i believe. can mention day of release though -- Ashish-g55 04:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The $800M came Thursday, as I recall, with the $1B out Friday. (For the record the game was released on Tuesday). --M ASEM (t) 14:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support when updated, a major record broken. However, which record do you think is more effective, sales amount in one day (as proposed) or shortest amount of time (3 days) to USD 1 billion? -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. The blurb needs rewritten, though I can't quite come up with how to phrase it myself right now. I think something along the lines of "Grand Theft Auto V sets a new one day sales record with over $800 million in sales", but with less redundancy. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 06:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * altblurb I have added a tight but comprehensive blurb--I think we should stick to the one-day record. μηδείς (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support record breaking sales figure for all entertainment media - that's notable and front page to me! doktorb wordsdeeds 07:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support with a different alt blurb: There are two possibilities:


 * The video game Grand Theft Auto V sets a single-day sales record for all entertainment media with US$800 million.
 * The video game Grand Theft Auto V reaches US$1 billion in sales faster than any single entertainment media. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 12:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support any alt blurb that mentions US$1 billion dollars. The round number makes a better blurb. Jehochman Talk 13:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Caution. Does the 800 million represent sales to consumers, or does it include sales to retailers? I think we should be careful per WP:NOTADVERTISING. I notice that, for example, the BBC have not picked this story up.
 * Also, if it is posted, it should reflect that it is a record for video games. Because of the difference in unit price, you can't really compare it to CDs, cinema tickets etc. Formerip (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Its always sales to consumers. However retailer stock is usually very close too since this things is basically sold out. Issue with getting number for a game vs movie is that the number of retailers are much much more. So i believe and correct me if i am wrong.. only major retailers will be able to provide the sales figures and smaller ones might be taken as retailer figures. Thats why it takes them couple of days to even get these numbers. I get that its different media form but its still money one is willing to pay for entertainment. This can include stuff like broadway shows, books (Harry potter i believe did break similar record by the way)... So i think its OK to compare when it beats all forms altogether. Only works for records -- Ashish-g55 13:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support I know I updated the article on the sales #s and records within the VG industry when they were announced but was not aware this was for any media form. --M ASEM (t) 14:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - notable game.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Altblurb here's an altblurb that's actually grammatical English: "The video game Grand Theft Auto V sets a one-day $800 million world sales record for all entertainment media" and mentions this is a world record. μηδείς (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have reworded the altblurb for grammar and to include the billion dollar figure and the world media record. μηδείς (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Marked Ready well-supported and the reception section exceeds the update requirement. μηδείς (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I prefer the alternative blurb: a more recognisable milestone, and a more recently passed one. —WFC— FL wishlist 19:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Alternative Per WFC's reasoning above. Regards  So Why  20:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support posting the record. Nergaal (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, oppose altblurb The opening day figure of US$800 million seems more notable and amazing (and less arbitrary) than a three day figure of a billion. Neljack (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - I lean towards the altblurb but support either. Not our usual ITN item but undeniably in the news and noteworthy. Surprised this hasn't been posted already given the support. Jus  da  fax   17:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted Went back and forth about which record to post. Frankly, I think the one-day record might be a bit easier to word, but several people expressed that the $1 billion record was both more interesting and more recent, so I went with that. (I know someone is going to say "in history" sounds a bit overdramatic, but I felt omitting those words resulted in a bit of ambiguity.) --  tariq abjotu  18:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Majuro Declaration

 * Oppose. If this was a treaty being agreed to(along the lines of the Montreal Protocol), I might support, but this is only an agreement between a few countries to pursue a shared goal, without any sort of binding targets or actions required. 331dot (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Recent death: Carolyn Cassady

 * Oppose Article has been fully protected as there are yet to be reliable sources that show she has died. Even if she has died, I don't think she is top of her field (author). So yeah.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 21:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Article is unprotected now. Source is the Washington Post.  Seems reliable. Jehochman Talk 10:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As stated above, article is now unprotected, death has been sourced from multiple reliable sources. Carolyn Cassady was a notable member of "the Beat Generation", a published author, the widow of Neal Cassady, important associate of Cassady, Allen Ginsburg, Jack Kerouac, the subject of histories, novels, integral/main character in multiple movies including On the Road (film) & Heart Beat (film). Shearonink (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You can't support your own nomination.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 19:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, whatever, somehow I thought I had to vote. Anyway, I have now adjusted my Vote so it will now only be a comment and simply  provide more information for anyone who cares.  Cripes, I swear, this is the last time I try to fix something that was started for me by a misplaced post from an IP on Main Page/Errors. Shearonink (talk) 06:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. A tangential figure.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Syria submits chemical arms data to OPCW

 * Support Important development getting lots of international attention. Neljack (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support We could have announced the agreement formation, but the first step of activation is also a good milestone. Jehochman Talk 22:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * For diplomatic reasons there aren't that many details emerging regarding this, so Framework for Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons is pretty much updated now (I found the Telegraph to be a particularly good source). I think a bit of expansion in some of the earlier sections would be good. I'm afraid it's quite late in my timezone so I'd best be sleeping myself now. --LukeSurlt c 23:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support important.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Getting much attention as a means to avoid a conflict. 331dot (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support — A step forward in an increasingly complicated situation. Sca (talk) 01:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. I think this is about ready now. --LukeSurlt c 10:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per above. A notable step in the conflict. Egeymi (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * support main link THE framework is more important than just one step in the process.Lihaas (talk) 12:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Could one of the admins who complained about my last posting please look at this one and post it? Jehochman Talk 13:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support — It's time to get this aspect of the chemical-weapons story into ITN. Sca (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  15:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Imperial Petroleum indicted in the largest instance of tax and securities fraud in [Indiana] state history

 * Oppose as of now. Subnational issue; how is the largest tax fraud case in Indiana significant on a global scale? (or even nationally)  If this story gets reported on a wider scale or has wider effects, I would be willing to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is not that anyone doubts the sources. It's just very oddly parochial.  Can we have an explicit link to a list of biggest such fraud cases in world history.  Also, we usually wait for convictions, not indictments. μηδείς (talk) 04:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 *  Reply  - Federal charges were filed and the story was covered by one news company from New York and another news company from Texas. If there is a better story for the Main Page, I am all eyes ;) --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I'm not seeing how this is suitable. Is this the largest state-level case ever, and it just happens to be in Indiana, or is it only a record for Indiana? Because, you know, if we took that approach to every US state, Canadian province, Russian federal subject, and so on, we'd post nothing but stories with sub-national records in. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose sorry but this hasn't struck any chords. It's sub-country-specific and really hasn't made it "in the news" as far as I can tell.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] JP Morgan fined

 * Opposed "fines" like this are basically post-facto negotiated bribes to regulators--had there been a criminal trial it would be fifferent. Also very much doubt there will be any readership interest. μηδείς (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place to opine about when a bribe is a fine. The story is all over the front page of every major publication, which is the definition of "in the news". Jehochman Talk 21:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec)Is that why all the listed media sources published the story? Because they thought no one would be interested in it? 331dot (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The stats show this peaked at just over 3000 views on its own, that is low for even the average RD posting, let alone full blurb. There are all sorts of things that people read in other sources with great avidity, like weather and cartoons, that simply don't cut it here. μηδείς (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I ask again, is that why the listed sources (and others) are publishing this story? We aren't talking about a cartoon or a weather report. 331dot (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Because they are the financial sections of those institutions, not the front page. Compare the interest in Phyllis Diller when she died, which we did not post either, 250,000 reads for two days, or even the current interest in her.  I agree this is the big government fine story of the week.  I simply don't see it merit pushing, say, the Colorado floods (which I also opposed, but grant are of great interest) off the front page. μηδείς (talk) 01:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It's been two days since we've posted an update. I or somebody else will post this as soon as the article is updated and presentable. The current article has ugly top template, lacks even basic info about the punishments in the lede, and is a bloated mess.  Please fix it. Jehochman Talk 21:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec)Support. Large fine of a large, well known company. The nature of how the fine was arrived as is immaterial(as is one person's opinion of the nature of negotiated settlements). 331dot (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A $920 million bribe would be very newsworthy, simply because it's a large amount of money (for most of us). This story involves the United Kingdom and United States, to which a large proportion of the English Wikipedia's readers have an affinity. Although there hasn't been a trial, there have been indictments from a grand jury. &mdash; rybec   21:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose A criminal trial would be a different issue. Black Kite (talk) 00:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This fine came with an admission of guilt according to the BBC ("As part of the deal JP Morgan admitted violating US federal securities laws"), unlike many fines where the fined party does not admit wrongdoing. 331dot (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but it's still not an admission of criminality. These things happen in the financial world every day, this is just a larger sum of money than usual. Black Kite (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My point is that we don't need to wait for a trial, as they have already admitted to government officials that they violated the law, we don't have to wait for an adjudication of a legal case. I also don't recall any other recent $920 million fines in the financial world recently. 331dot (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, have they? It does appear that they're trying to shift the blame onto their subsiduaries, and indeed individual dealers ... Black Kite (talk) 00:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * NBC states that "In a statement, Dimon said his bank has "accepted responsibility". 331dot (talk) 01:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, which means, we are going to accept this as the cost of doing business, and take our bonuses to the bank. An actual jury trial and conviction would be a much bigger story.  There's nohing wrong with using our knowledge of the world to make judgment on story notability--it's not like whatever is at the top of some "in the news list" (say the top story at google financial news) goes up without input.μηδείς (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to your opinion about what the fine is, accurate or not, but that doesn't alter its existence and the fact it is being widely reported(and not just on business news sites). 331dot (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't need original research. Do you agree that the item is "in the news" or do you think that it's not "in the news"? Do you think this is the peak coverage, or are we waiting for something else to happen? Jehochman Talk 01:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Is that directed at me? 331dot (talk) 01:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope. As a former LISP programmer, I am cool with deep nesting.  I was answering Black Kite. Jehochman Talk 12:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't think so, but just wanted to make sure. Thanks 331dot (talk) 12:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - I would be in support but for the sorry fact that neither article is suitable for an ITN Main page blurb. The "trading loss" article is a hopeless mess of lists and seemingly unrelated facts, and I hesitate to try and read through it, much less edit the thing. The main bank article is also massive and while a somewhat easier read, the update is swallowed up in it and the subsection directs readers on to the tangled "trading loss" article. It would take more time than I have to fix this, which is unfortunate... the nearly one billion dollar fine is a huge story. If anyone was to improve either or both articles, a consensus might form up. Jus  da  fax   06:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2012 JPMorgan Chase trading loss is clearly not going to be ready anytime soon (there's one editor who seems to want to make this his magnum opus). We could remove the mainarticle link on JPMorgan until such time as this draft is complete and link to that section. --LukeSurlt c 07:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. I've beefed-up JPMorgan_Chase. My call would be to use that as our boldlink (altblurb). I've dropped the link to 2012 JPMorgan Chase trading loss in that section for now as I would consider that article a draft in progress. --LukeSurlt c 07:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * As issues with the article have been resolved, and there are a bunch of contingent supports, I will post this. Jehochman Talk 12:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * support (post posting) per nominator. 900 mil is a bigass fine even in nyc.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * there are 2 supportsd and 2 opposes adn this was posted without knote. Jehochman maybe a new admin but even the recent other posting he made was awith dubious consensus!Lihaas (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * He's been an admin for nearly six years. Having said that, it's an odd way to judge consensus, I would agree with that. In any case, please take more care when writing here, your comment is full of errors.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I ignore !votes that are tantamount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The valid reasons to oppose a listing are (1) not very significant news coverage, (2) article isn't in good shape, (3) it's not a "final" disposition or not the peak of the issue (e.g. Obama and Iranian president exchange letters about a possible nuke deal).  A bunch of people said they would support if the article improved (which happened).  A couple opposed because of  their own opinion that this story shouldn't be in the news.   Anyhoo, I now count 5 editors in support, and 2 opposed.  You have to read the comments and judge their tone, not just look for the bolded votes.  Jehochman Talk 15:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ahem, I think most of us know that, but it's a push to come to the numbers you've arrived at, particularly as we've done a switcheroo with the main article, and cheated our way to an ITN by avoiding the real main article (the proposed main article is still in a hell of a state, and that's the one most people commented on...) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm removing the 'attention needed tag. There's certainly no consensus that there's any attention needed here, and it's not one of the standard tags we use anyway.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Post posting support because I agree with the intent but I completely agree with TRM that this is hardly a straight and narrow ITN post. The trading loss article really should be dealt with, and I suggest as much as half of that article be trimmed out as unencyclopedic. Yes, it is true that we don't directly point to it in the blurb, but anyone attempting to get more information is going to wind up in the bloated trading loss article. Someone put up a notice on the article talk page and then start chopping away at it to make it readable. Jus  da  fax   17:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We have a real shortage of good nominations right now. In addition to cleaning up as Jusdafax points out, would editors please consider nominating other news items?  Jehochman Talk 18:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Its ok posting is fine. Next time just mention the word bold :) -- Ashish-g55 19:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no rush to update ITN, in fact the worst thing to do is to update it against consensus and with poorly formed articles (or by cheating and avoiding the proper articles, as in this case). Plenty of news items get nominated, we don't have to crash into something just to satisfy an urge to update ITN.  Please remain calm.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Mea culpa. I should never have included 2012 JPMorgan Chase trading loss in the nomination. The article is clearly an unready draft, (to which the main author reverts any input that isn't his own). Perhaps this should be userified until it is ready? Anyway, de-linking this from the main JPMorgan Chase article should make this point moot as regards this nomination. --LukeSurlt c 19:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. has linked it back. I'm not sure that was a good move... --LukeSurlt c 19:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a joke. The nomination was posted with a whole one support vote beside the nominator?  Describing the opposes as "I don't like it" is, frankly, bee ess.  I like the fact JPMorgan was fined.  I think they are a bunch of pirates, having dealt with and followed them for years.  Opposes based on the fact there was no criminal trial, but a settlement, are reasoned opposes that have nothing to do with liking or not liking JPM at all.  Once again, why are editors who are not admins even invited to comment if such comments will be misconstrued and ignored? μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you see the list of sources? This was indisputably front page news all around the world, we needed a news item, and there's nothing else available at the moment.  It had been over two days since the last update. Jehochman Talk 22:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't dispute it was probably on some front pages and was on many business pages. Neither mine nor Black Kite's objections have anything to do with that.  Under normal circusmtances this would have stood unposted until there were some more opinions voiced.  With two argued opposes and only one support besides the nominator this should not have gone up so quickly.  Saying that the opposes were mere "I don't likes" was insulting to the editors and a false statement to the community. μηδείς (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Pull per Medeis/μηδείς and Black Kite. 184.146.122.95 (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

[RD Posted] Hiroshi Yamauchi

 * Support.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support clearly notable and article is in good shape. I've added the Nintendo statement/tribute about his death. I'm sure more tributes (in English) will roll in over the next few hours, but I would consider this ready to post now. --LukeSurlt c 11:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Clearly important to the video game industry. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * oppose no source and no reason by nominator (or first supporter)Lihaas (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No source?? Formerip (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There certainly was a source. 331dot (talk) 12:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not when I chcked, theone BBC referenced linked to a general page. That has since changes, don't know who changed.Lihaas (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the BBC homepage which linked to the article about Yamauchi's death. Your opposition was somewhat pointy. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support obviously notable, sufficiently so for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Driving force behind Nintendo. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted. Jehochman Talk 12:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment If we have formally given up on updates, can we please have the guidelines formally changed? μηδείς (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Who has called for (or otherwise implied) removing the update guideline? Since this is not germane to this nomination I would suggest you take this more general issue to an ITN talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * At the time it was posted with the fact?  Amalthea  16:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It is relevant to point out here, 331Dot, that this was posted in less than three hours with what is essentially a one-sentence update: he died while in hospital and was survived by his family. I actually think the RD guidelines should be relaxed.  But without making a serious accusation, it looks here like someone was in a hurry to get to bed or to work when this was posted.  We shouldn't have guidelines that call for a certain standard, then ignore that standard at the posting admins sole discretion.  Amalthea, I am confused by your point. μηδείς (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A lot of bluster for two words to appear on the main page. Moreover, once those two words appear, people are drawn to it, to improve it, to enhance the "death" section which was added (with three sentences and two refs, *shock* *gasp* *horror*, not five sentences and three refs)....  Can we now get on with something useful? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Ignore what I said, Medeis, I missed the parenthesized "in accordance with ITN updating criteria" when I read the RD guideline. Amalthea  18:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Call for reparations for nuclear testing

 * Comment With all due respect comments such as "X and Y subject doesn't get any attention" are generally poor platforms to argue for a stories inclusion. As far as I can see, this is another "reparations" demand - (basically trying to make people who had no responsibility for those events cough up!) and ones like these in the not-so-distant past haven't even resulted in a penny being dropped. I can't see this passing for ITN unless something meaningful happens. --Somchai Sun (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I think you'll find that the US government did have responsibility for these events. Neljack (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I sincerely doubt that any current member of the US government did, or indeed anyone who isn't either retired or close to it. MChesterMC (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And I never even remotley suggested that the US gov at the time were not responsible for the nuclear testing, so please retract your comment. --Somchai Sun (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Stories should not be posted from a particular region simply for the sake of doing so; if the US actually paid up that might be notable. 331dot (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually it is more notable that the blurb makes it sound, since the entire Pacific Nations Forum endorsed the claim for compensation. If the blurb is changed to reflect that and there is a good update, I might be inclined to support. Neljack (talk) 03:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, they're only asking for compensation at the moment. If the United States agrees to pay, that would be a better time to post it, if not then it's a non-story. -- W.  D.   Graham  07:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Based on the New Zealand source provided, the "big two" are throwing their weight behind a bilateral discussion (in effect merely saying that the US should listen), rather than showing outright support for the Marshall Islands' calls for $2billion+ in reparations. If I have misunderstood, and Australia and New Zealand are going a lot further than that, then that might be a big enough story for me to support, given the combination of strains in US-AUS/NZ relations being unusual and the pacific nations as a whole being underrepresented. —WFC— FL wishlist 15:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Ken Norton

 * Support Well, since no-one else has, this is a major boxing figure. Deserves an RD, certainly. Black Kite (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ready article's updated, and can't say better of a man than he broke Ali's jaw. μηδείς (talk) 03:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * When you marked it as ready, it hadn't had a five-sentence update. How curious.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's possible I miscunted; I am not a boxing fan. μηδείς (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware "cunting" was part of being a boxing fan. I thought anyone competent could count five sentences, especially if that's a standard they continually demand?  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. Seems important in the field of boxing, having done something significant. 331dot (talk) 12:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support a decent article in decent shape, called a "legend" by the BBC, worthy of 10 characters (including a space) on the main page for a few days. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral. It seems to me he's mainly notable for a few brief moments vis a vie Muhammad Ali and some nostalgia for a perceived glorious age of boxing around then.  Still, it's getting some high profile coverage.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * posted. -- Jayron  32  17:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stop hatting the discussion above. It's important that Medeis answers the fact that she happily supports an item without meeting her own demanding criteria.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Have the discussion at WT:ITN or User talk:Medeis. The discussion is important to have.  Just not here.  Here it's just stupid, irrelevant, useless sniping and does not help us achieve consensus on what to do with nominated items.  Instead, have the stupid, irrelevant, useless sniping out of view of the public so we can get on with non-stupid, relevant, and useful discussions over what to post on the main page.  -- Jayron  32  21:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Sixty-eighth session of the United Nations General Assembly

 * Oppose we don't post when any other congress merely goes into session. μηδείς (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's a regular meeting.  This nomination also lacks news sources which would demonstrate news coverage. 331dot (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose so what, it happens. If something incredible comes from it, post that.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * comment since we post the END of summits how abiut the en dof the 67th session yesterday? It passed the Palestine resolution..(Lihaas (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)).
 * If you nominate something specific about this event, including a blurb that says why it is important and sources to demonstrate news coverage, then I (and I suspect others too) will evaluate it on its merits. This nomination does none of that. Thryduulf (talk) 04:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To expand on that, it is not our job to seek out evidence to support your nomination. It is up to you to submit all necessary materials to support your own nomination, just as every other regular user here does with their nominations. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * wwell when we post most summits closing we do so just that it happened. (the ITNR ones)Lihaas (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - This isn't an international summit, it's the routine sitting of an established body. We don't carry the risings and sittings of the UK parliament or the EU parliament, or of the US Congress. I don't see a compelling reason why the UN should get this treatment. And I really don't think this should be ITNR, and I'd call on Lihaas to withdraw the proposal until such time as a couple of these have actually been posted. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * All summits are routine.annual meetings of established bodies. Conversely ever'y country has a say here in the annual "state of the world" topics.Lihaas (talk) 10:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Most summits are not "established bodies", but simply annual gatherings that only exist at the pleasure of those in the meeting. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

University of Alabama ends segregation

 * News source, please. Formerip (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't know the formalities. I picked a few, from over the past few days, during different stages of the "controversy" (read, "shit storm"): "Civil Rights: University of Alabama Moves to End Segregated Sorority System" (TIME), "University Of Alabama Orders Changes To Greek System To Combat Sorority Discrimination" (Huffington Post), "U of Alabama students protest 'whites only' sororities" (Christian Science Monitor), "Bias claims at Ala. sororities show racism alive: Your Say" (USA Today), "Integrating sorority row: University of Alabama student journalists expose racial segregation" (Atlanta Journal-Constitution), "University of Alabama president pushes sororities to end segregation" (NBC News), Race: At University of Alabama, Sisterhood Is Prejudiced" (TIME), "University of Alabama Asks Sororities to Investigate Discrimination Claims" (US News and World Report), "Sorority Exposes Its Rejection of Black Candidate" (NYT). My colleague tells me it's all over CNN as well. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The Guardian has picked it up now, quoting UA president Bonner, "Bonner, in a video statement released by the university, said people are watching Alabama just as they did when it admitted its first black students five decades ago." (That's in reference to Vivian Malone Jones and James Hood.) Google News now lists 139 articles, and they're not copies from something off the wire. The connection with the Stand in the Schoolhouse Door is made in this article from Inside Higher Ed. All that's big, and not just for the state of Alabama, given what is now nationwide coverage, extending across the pond. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose a little too local. Unless this causes some change in universities all across US... even then not sure if its notable enough for ITN -- Ashish-g55 15:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that TIME puts it under the "Civil Rights" heading: this is a big deal, and news sources have remarked on the irony that we just commemorated the 50th anniversary of the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure it might be a big deal but it still only affects or interests small group of people. ITN items usually focus on wider population or atleast high notability. Please see WP:ITN to get more familiar. thanks -- Ashish-g55 16:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The connection with the 16th Street bombing is made, directly or indirectly, in the TIME pieces and in many other articles, and that makes it a civil rights issue (not just according to Jesse Jackson), if it wasn't one before. For an outsider, it may not be plain to see to which extent something like UA's Greek system is one of the last bastions of old-time segregation. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Ashishg55, too local. --LukeSurlt c 15:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Question. Is Alabama the last bastion of this sort of thing, or does it happen at other US universities? Formerip (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, what shall I say. OF COURSE it doesn't happen anywhere, not even at Alabama, since we ended racism. That is, it doesn't exist until controversy forces a university into acknowledging that it did. There is plenty of scholarship on de facto segregation on US college campuses, though, but I don't think one can ever say that something was the last time--it's the last time until the next last time. But go to Ole Miss or any other old state school during Rush and you see what it means; it may well be that the next days and weeks bring more clarity on the broader issue. BTW, thanks for the question. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * For some information of the Alabama Greek system's role in the racist "New Right Wing" in the South, see this article by Diane Roberts (English prof at U of A). Drmies (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment readers outside the US or unfamiliar with the black fraternity and sorority system need to understand that these are basically secret societies with rather harsh internal practices including brutal hazing and brown bagging whereby candidates are excluded if they have skin darker than a brown paper sack chosen as a standard. I have witnessed disfiguring scars from beatings, and heard tell of people being allowed to become pledges whom the upperclassmen knew would be refused entry due to their skin color for the sadistic pleasure of putting them through the pledging process.  The entire fraternity and sorority system regardless of race consists of self-perpetuating bullying cliques.  Racism is rampant, but it is only one small evil among many others.  What would be news, rather than window dressing in one school regarding what is a (multi-)national disgrace, would be the total removal of sororities and fraternities from campus property and banning of their events. μηδείς (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Medeis, welcome back. I agree, that would be news (I'll not say "good news", since I'm totally objective). You can find some references and numbers on the economic value of the freebies they're given in John P. Hermann. There's no evidence that I know of of brown bagging at UA, and I think you underestimate the perks the Greeks get from being in those clubs. But I'll leave it at that. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My objection here is that we have one school addressing one side of the problem (all frats discriminate, not just "white" ones) with an intrusive and paternalistic, yet half-assed "consciousness raising" type "solution". I agree that fraternities have every right to exist as private clubs off campus, and that they may offer nepotistic or other benefits; secret societies go back to when all humans lived in hunter-gatherer tribes.  But the grand issue is the incestuous relationship between these societies and school administrations.  Fraternities often possess residences on or integrated into the campuses, and school administrators are often themselves fraternity alumni.  The conflicts of interest are incredible, comparable only to the lucrative and corrupt US college sports system.  The interests of students who are on campus simply for education, often at tax-payer expense, not sports or frat life, suffer in comparison.  The problem is vast, and posting this unradical and local "reform" would, with all due respect, be like saying "In the War on Cancer, John Doe has decided to have only his left testicle removed."  μηδείς (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I would support this if it went beyond the University of Alabama, but it seems too local an issue.  There are many local civil rights issues across the US; being a civil rights issue doesn't mean it is ITN worthy. 331dot (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Recent death: Marcel Reich-Ranicki

 * The orange tags would need to be dealt with before this could be posted. --LukeSurlt c 16:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support RD He was considered the most influential German literary critic of his generation. Given his magnum opus and recognition, his name should be mentioned in the bottom of the ITN box.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. A nice chance to get a non-English speaker on RD; has received much recognition and has a large body of work which suggests he is important in his field. 331dot (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Could someone link us to some English-language obituaries? These may be useful for references for the article.--LukeSurlt c 19:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, see nomination box above.--FoxyOrange (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've combed those obits for references for the article and added several. The facts I cannot find references for I have labelled and these will need to either be referenced from other sources or removed from the article (By someone else I'm afraid, I have work in the morning). --LukeSurlt c 22:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added cites for most of the remaining unsourced statements and allowed myself to remove the tag. If the two-and-a-half sentences need to be addressed before linking it on the Main Page they can be removed without taking much from the article, but I think it should be fine. Amalthea  00:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - Quite notable and award-winning. Fine ITN RD candidate. Of international interest. Article "has issues" as noted but will be improved and is sufficient for now. Jus  da  fax   23:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted per above consensus (LukeSurl's initial concern was addressed I believe, mainly due to his work on the article) and criteria from WP:ITND. If I made a mistake please get someone to revert me. :) Amalthea  00:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Tiger, Lion, and Snow leopard genomes mapped

 * Comment if you look at the list of sequenced species it is already quite long. It is even more old hat than gay marriage decisions. μηδείς (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is our quite incomplete list of sequenced animal genomes, which doesn't even include sequenced genomes of plants, fungi, protists, or bacteria or other organisms. μηδείς (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The blurb doesn't fully do justice to this: they sequenced the genomes of five species, not three: the Siberian tiger, African lion, white African lion, snow leopard, and Bengal tiger. &mdash; rybec   00:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * White lions are just a coat color difference. Bengal and Siberian tigers are just subspecies. So three. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * At this point sequencing is simply a matter of having the grant money to turn on the machines. It's not like rocket launches or space probes that can fail spectacularly.  The information is academically of great interest, but it's not a field of firsts anymore. μηδείς (talk) 02:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think is is even of great interest academically anymore. Especially in well-studied taxa such as mammals. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's of great interest to taxonomy and hence evolutionary biology, of which this is the golden age. μηδείς (talk) 03:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And if the taxonomy has been worked out for a particular group? Then it is not interesting. Mammalia? Not interesting. Tunicates? Interesting. Sipuncula? Interesting. Abductive  (reasoning) 14:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The taxonomy of the cats has been hugely in flux in the last decades. Sequencings like this allow for definitive answers.  Of course these are only a few of the species and limited to the Old World. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In reply to Abductive's comment of 14:45: for a general audience, large mammals are the most interesting organisms. Should this part of the main page panda pander to that, or take a scholarly tone? &mdash; rybec   16:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

UN report on North Korean prison camps

 * Comment. If this is posted, the blurb needs to be much shorter, probably only the first sentence would be enough. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Alternative, short one now added. &mdash; rybec   09:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Meh. The underlying story is old news.  http://theoatmeal.com/comics/north_south_korea  When the UN finally discovers what everybody already knows, it is not particularly interesting news. Jehochman Talk 11:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This doesn't reveal anything that isn't already known, both the existence of the prison camps/what goes on there and the North's characterization of them. 331dot (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A scientific paper (abstract) about Voyager I had been published in March, but an argument was made that "The news is the announcement" (from NASA). Abuses in these camps have been reported before  but a UN report is a significant development IMO. &mdash;  rybec   19:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sure that the UN puts out numerous reports over the course of a year; rarely does anything significant arise from them. If the report revealed something previously unknown, then we might have something here, but it doesn't. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] RD - Eiji Toyoda

 * Support for RD. Clearly recognized for work in (and is important in) his field.  331dot (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Significant impact on the automotive industry and lives of millions of drivers. -Zanhe (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for RD. Passes the criteria set by RD2 for his contributions.--Somchai Sun (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. For RD. Clearly a very significant figure in business and industry. Given how reliable his cars are, it's pretty fitting that he died just after his 100th birthday. Formerip (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for RD per given reasons. --M ASEM (t) 22:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted Jehochman Talk 23:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * PULL that is is certainly not updated, there is only ONE line.
 * Is there any requirement for RD articles to have more than one-line updates? If the death was uneventful (and RD deaths are per definition uneventful), then writing more than one line would be recentism. Thue (talk) 09:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The death is fully reported in the article. There's not much more to say.  Jehochman Talk 11:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "One line?" Hm. The article gives when and where he died, as well as why and his remarkable age. Lihaas, what more would you like to see, aside from possibly some reactions and tributes, which can be added as they happen? By the way Lihaas, allow me to suggest that you sign your pull !votes, especially when they could be interpreted, rightly or wrongly, as deliberately unsigned retaliation for my recent "tough love" comments on your sketchy nominations. Now, seeing no other request to pull, and a couple outright disagreements with the notion, could someone please remove the mooted 'attention needed' flag? I would do it but it's a conflict of interest, or could be taken that way. Thanks. Jus  da  fax   17:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As has been discussed endlessly, RD follows the same update rules as the rest of ITN. This was made explicit in the RfC used to create the subsection.  Five sentences with three sources is standard.  We have a recent trend of nominations for ITN that have been supported and updated not being posted and of nominations with little support and a perfunctory "John Doe died on 30 February" "update" being posted.  The admin who posts is supposed to confirm the criteria before posting, and should be willing to pull his own work or fix it if he makes a mistake.  I agree just adding stuff to meet the update requirement technically is not very helpful.  In a case like this three sentences with three sources would be reasonable, given the otherwise unquestionable merits of the nomination. μηδείς (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If "five sentences with three sources" is standard, then it should be written down somewhere(if it is, please link). 331dot (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Five sentences and three sources is Medeis own personal standard. There's no consensus that that is required, merely that the update is sufficient and that sufficiency is judged against the nature of the event being reported; there are no numerical or length-based standards in any guidelines written down anywhere.  Medeis has been pushing for arbitrary numerical standards in this vein for years, though despite the singular effort on her part to insist on such a standard, it has never been agreed upon or documented anywhere as such.  -- Jayron  32  19:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not the kind of bullshit I would just make up. I am surprised you post here without knowing this. "The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable. Changes in verb tense (e.g. "is" → "was") or updates that convey little or no relevant information beyond what is stated in the ITN blurb are insufficient." updated content. As long as I have been here we have aimed for five/three and posted once that is met--not just one sentence. Not even Amy Winehouse. I am not for pulling, just for the nominator and the posting admin to do their jobs. μηδείς (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's our pathetic two-phrase, two-source "update" which says he died while under treatment in a hospital, applicable to half the people in the developed world. diff
 * Medeis, it says "generally sufficient", not "always sufficient" or "required". That's just inventing criteria. 331dot (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And what does it say about one-sentence updates that give no more information than is in the blurb, here, namely, that the subject is dead? Admins here have far too much power and little accountability.  The last thing we need is throwing out the rules and letting admins do as they please, or don't please.  Admins should be certifying the rules have been met, not deciding when they apply. μηδείς (talk) 23:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No one objected to the update until the unsigned poster did above. Users are free to object at any time, which is what was done. There's no reason to be on an anti-admin power soapbox. Further, there is no "rule" to be met here, there is a guideline which specifically says it applies "generally", not in every instance. 331dot (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No one's calling for the blood of the firstborn over this and there's no need for the excuse making. Mistakes and oversights happen. That's obviously what happened here, an oversight. Before it was posted no one argued that this was the nomination for which we would finally abandon standard practice. μηδείς (talk) 02:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No standard practice was abandoned. The article was updated; there is no length requirement written in stone, just a "general" guideline. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added two tributes to the death section. Should be adequate now. --LukeSurlt c 20:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Luke, that should do it. Jus  da  fax   20:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, and please, if it is User:Lihaas posting all these unsigned comments, stop it, do better, sign posts etc etc. As for the "x sentences, y refs" update nonsense, move along, there's no such requirement. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

New snail species

 * Comment, I'm not an expert on such matters, but I gather new species of insects and suchlike are discovered quite regularly. Is there anything particularly newsworthy about this snail? The article is rather short on information. Bob talk 17:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support We must post all new species discoveries. For the greater good of Wikipedia. All hail Lugo. --Somchai Sun (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now based on the length of the article. The item is newsworthy, but we really can't post an article that stubby on the main page.  If this is expanded to a more reasonable length, you can consider this a support.  -- Jayron  32  18:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, at lest. While I think it's ridiculous to post every new species found (half the nominations say how rare it is to find a new species, but there's a new nomination every week), this one seems to have far more news coverage than most new species do, and unlike many others that are nominated, this one actually WAS just found. However, 1) the article is three sentences. No three-sentence article will ever nor should ever be posted on ITN. And 2) the snail's shell is transparent, which is the only interesting thing about it- almost every headline on Google News mentions it. If that's not in the blurb, there's no point, because if not for that fact, finding the new type of snail wouldn't be noteworthy at all. -- Mike (Kicking222) 19:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are no good sources for this yet. We have a paper in the journal Subterranean Biology, which I've never heard of, and a dozen press stories that clearly are entirely press release-based, except for one post in the LA Times Science blog.  We should not report this if it is not covered by a reliable source that exercises independent critical judgement. Looie496 (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Question: How frequent are new snail findings? 168.7.237.212 (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite common, but they're difficult to document because you have to catch the snail, which can be quite tricky. Formerip (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Surely catching the snail is the easy bit? (Unless these are new super-fast snails... in which case it's an obvious strong support!) BencherliteTalk 00:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nah, most snails are really fast, which makes them really hard to catch. It's just that you only tend to see the slow ones since the others are moving so quickly that they redshift out of the visible spectrum. 91.208.124.126 (talk) 09:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose a perfect nomination for DYK. μηδείς (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The stub article doesn't even yet meet DYK criteria, so it's not substantial enough for ITN.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Daocheng Yading Airport

 * support, reasonably sourced good news of a record that isn't broken often. No systemic bias here. Teply (talk) 04:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per Teply; seems to be a 'first' that will be hard to break, as there are only so many high places to build airports. 331dot (talk) 07:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Airports get built frequently enough so that new ones are not very exciting, but infrequently enough so that records of some kind are going to apply in a lot of cases. Highest, lowest, tallest, biggest, smallest, most expensive, longest, most passengers, slowest baggage handling - take your pick. I don't see what's so impressive about building something high up in any case. Unless the actual terrain is at sea-level. Then I'd be impressed. Formerip (talk) 10:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Extreme altitude makes it hard for planes to land and take off. Thin air reduces the lift.  This airport probably has to have unusually long runways and possibly even different glideslopes to account for the differences in aircraft performance. Jehochman Talk 12:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, hardly any newly-built airport breaks any kind of record. I don't recall ever seeing any airport make ITN (except when mentioned in passing in plane crashes or terrorist attacks). -Zanhe (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose Does not seem like a record worth posting. Previous highest airport was about 100m below this one... Is there anything here besides the airport being at high altitude? Also article is not in best of shape -- Ashish-g55 13:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose minor "feat", if you can call it that. There isn't any special significance or benefit for an airport being at a higher elevation, as far as I can tell. This seems more like an item for DYK if it can be expanded properly. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * At 4,411 meters (144,72 ft) above sea level, even breathing is a challenge for most of us, not to mention building an airport. -Zanhe (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * support famous first.Lihaas (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really, as the very first airport would be the "first highest" /pedant.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. I don't think there's anything particularly notable about a one-runway airport that is at a slightly higher altitude than another airport. However, I am somewhat swayed by Jehochman's observations about the potential difficulty of constructing such an facility. If the article could be updated to reflect the challenges of this construction, showcasing why this is notable in the field, then I could see supporting the nomination. Teemu08 (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not the longest runway in the world, that distinction belongs either to the 5.5km one at Qamdo Bamda Airport, or the 29.6km one in Fast & Furious 6. --LukeSurlt c 16:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The nomination is about the highest airport in the world, not the longest runway. Although at 4.2 km, Daocheng's runway is longer than most of the largest airport in the world including Atlanta, Beijing, and London Heathrow. This is because the very thin air at such high altitude poses challenges for planes to take off and land. -Zanhe (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is a new superlative, sure, but this doesn't appear to be a particularly remarkable engineering feat. Sure, it might need runways longer than normal, but it's not like this airport is designed for A380s. --  tariq abjotu  18:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Quite interesting. As a side note, it says highest civilian airport. Is there one higher for miltary/private use?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Aren't things that are "quite interesting" more suitable for Did You Know? 168.7.237.212 (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Most oppositions so far seem to be based on questions about whether its a "remarkable engineering feat" to build an airport at the extreme altitude. That is debatable. But I think the new superlative alone is ITN-worthy. We certainly didn't apply the "remarkable engineering feat" test to The Shard last year, but it passed simply on the superlative that it's the tallest building in the EU (though only the 73rd tallest in the world). Systemic bias, possibly? -Zanhe (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Possibly, possibly not. But I'm not sure this story would provide a great antidote. Formerip (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * At least a good antidote for Costa Concordia that is featured right now, which received near unanimous support without anyone questioning whether it's a "remarkable engineering feat". I don't know about others, but to me the "world's highest civilian airport" is more impressive a superlative than the "world's most expensive marine salvage operation". -Zanhe (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The thing is I see a engineering challenge associated with height of a building and expense of a salvage operation. (Whether we have appropriately drawn the line with those two criteria is another story.) However, I don't see an engineering challenge with altitude for an airport, particularly when the airport is such a minor one. --  tariq abjotu  23:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I fail to see the engineering challenge associated with erecting the world's 73rd tallest building. The thing is we never applied that test to The Shard. -Zanhe (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said, "whether we have appropriately drawn the line with those two criteria is another story". You may believe The Shard wasn't tall enough, but my point is height of a structure can be associated with engineering difficulty or innovation. I don't see altitude of an airport associated with difficulty or innovation; it's virtually the same airport, but higher. We probably wouldn't post the highest altitude high-rise building either. --  tariq abjotu  00:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support If that not-actually-biggest-in-any-way library could be posted this can too.75.73.114.111 (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * For those who don't follow ITN closely, he/she is referring to the Library of Birmingham, posted earlier this month for being the "the largest municipal public library of the UK". -Zanhe (talk) 04:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That was a bad post, but it's too late now. Or, if we are going to start a compensation scheme for that sort of thing, I would rather do it by giving the next British story a hard time than giving a free pass to a random Chinese story. Formerip (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Despite the accomplishment of building this airport, and the significance of connecting a city with a one hour jet flight to replace a two day bus ride, this news does not appear to have been widely reported. The target article is not particularly engaging.  It's just a compilation of basic facts.  I think this would be a great item for WP:DYK. "Did you know that the newly constructed Daocheng Yading Airport is the highest in the world?"  Jehochman Talk 12:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Tariq.  Spencer T♦ C 07:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

CSeries first flight

 * support, although some of the language in the article could do with tightening (e.g. "On September 16, 2013, the CS100 took its maiden flight for the first time, making the inaugural flight of the CSeries"). Thryduulf (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I see what you intend to mean. CSeries has 2 types: CS100 and CS300. CS100 was the one doing the test flight today but it represents the CSeries lineup. Media says CS300 test flight won't happen until further down the road. I revised that sentence slightly and provided an alternate blurb as a second option. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's nice that there's an image, but the aspect ratio is kind of awkward for a thumbnail. Even if you cropped the left and right edges, it would still be sort of elongated. Teply (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Is there anything different or revolutionary about this aircraft?  The Boeing 787 and Airbus A380 each had something new about them. 331dot (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. I've swapped the image.  This aircraft competes with the 737, and is claimed to burn 20% less fuel.  It's interesting that Canada's aviation industry is competing successfully with Boeing and Airbus.  Jehochman Talk 12:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Usually you will see variations in current models but this is a brand new aircraft series altogether. Not sure if we posted Dreamliner's first test flight.. First commercial flight is usually more significant though. -- Ashish-g55 13:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Both the maiden flight and the first commercial flight were listed as ITN items. See the dates on Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner.  I see no reason to treat this aircraft type differently. Jehochman Talk 13:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Significant step for aviation industry. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Supports - Seems to be a notable launch in the aviation industry. --Somchai Sun (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm in the minority here but I will oppose this; Firstlu, I'm not seeing widespread coverage of this. I also do not see what is particularly notable about this aircraft; its fuel efficiency is achieved through the use of composite materials; The 787 already did that.  Airbus also claims its A319 planes can match this plane's fuel efficiency simply by adopting the same engines. Lastly, I might be more willing to support the first commercial flight, but test flights are no guarantee that the plane will be produced anytime soon. 331dot (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The claim that this is a rare event (first narrow-body plane since 1986) doesn't survive fact-check. Tupolev Tu-334, Comac ARJ21, ATR 72, Embraer E-Jet family, Embraer ERJ 145 family, Antonov An-148, Sukhoi Superjet 100. That's by no means an exhaustive list. It's not even the first narrow-body plane by Bombardier to test-fly since 1986: Bombardier CRJ200. Formerip (talk) 09:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Hurricane/storm in mexico

 * Though this nomination seems a little pointy to me I do support posting this significant disaster. 331dot (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * well i said below i would be ok for posting both... but since nobody nominated it i had no choice (infact you yourself encouraged others to nominate). Lowering bias isnt about making a point... if we start thinking like that then we would be too afraid to nominate anything that goes against systemic bias. -- Ashish-g55 23:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, you said you weren't going to nominate this but did in part because "we posted Colorado floods". There certainly are other reasons to nominate this and support this but the way this nom was worded seemed pointy to me. I accept that wasn't your intent, but that is just how it seemed to me. 331dot (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to think that Ashish is trying to discredit anything (which is what pointyness is about); he just wants it applied without systemic bias. Neljack (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Major disaster, substantial death toll, getting international coverage. Neljack (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ingrid and Manuel are two separate weather events on different sides of a large country. They should not be combined as is done in the current blurb. --LukeSurlt c 23:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would consider Manuel to be below ITN-posting threshold. Ingrid is still ongoing, so we can 'wait and see, though it looks likely to be similar. --LukeSurlt c 23:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support While two seperate events, I would support combining these into a single blurb, with both storms bolded. -- Jayron  32  23:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I think combining is appropriate. They are been widely reported together in the same story by international media. Neljack (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would also support a combined blurb. 331dot (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose deaths due to flooding are the most common form of death due to Acts of God in the tropics, and these are small numbers compared to events like Hurricane Mitch. μηδείς (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So, according to you, we shouldn't post death events unless they reach 10,000 deaths? Why there is a bizarre obsesion wiht people in ITN, always requesting several thousands of deaths to claim notability? Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  02:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't say that, did I. μηδείς (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "[the deaths] are small numbers compared to events like Hurricane Mitch". If you didn't say that, your comment is ambiguous enough. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  04:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. first time in recorded history of Mexico two cyclones arrive to the country at the same time. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  02:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for that claim? It sounds extremely unlikely. μηδείς (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * pick your ref, do you need more? Because simple common sense indicates that is "extremely unlikely" these events happen. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  04:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Without wishing to take sides in what feels like an argument rather than a discussion - there has been at least one instance of 3 named storms making landfall on Mexico within a 5 day stretch before now.Jason Rees (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why it would be "common sense". Mexico is bordered by two oceans and September is the height of the hurricane season, at least in the Atlantic. Sure, I can easily see it being uncommon, but I'm surprised it's the first time ever. --  tariq abjotu  18:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Its the first time in the Satellite Era that 2 tropical storms have hit, within a day or so of each other. However Larry, Olaf 2003 made landfall on Mexico as tropical storms on October 5 and 7 while Nora struck as a tropical depression on October 9, 2003.Jason Rees (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - major disasters with high death tolls. -Zanhe (talk) 06:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Tweaked the blurb for formatting and based upon . Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 17:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted Jehochman Talk 18:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Washington Navy Yard shooting

 * Support major news anywhere in the world, I presume. In the UK, it still have been covered. Donnie Park (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait for more details- such as the casualty count or evidence of terrorism(which it doesn't seem to be as of now). 331dot (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait seems to be another moron gone nuts. i will probably oppose if it deems to be random without any motive, since this is just becoming a common way in the US to commit suicide. i.e take out as many as you can... its sad. -- Ashish-g55 17:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * oppose per article quality and the frequency of these shootings in USA dont make it notable. As in bombings in some places, if some 30-40 people die then yes (and macabre thought that)Lihaas (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Frequency of assaults on military bases? Name two not involving Jihadists.  (PS, wait for details as of the moment, rather than judging ahead of the facts, pro or con.)  μηδείς (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That isn't fair. He is referring to general mass shootings, and not those specifically by muslims. Sandy Hook is a prime and very recent example of what he is talking about, and I'm sort of remembering a smaller shooting a few months ago... Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  17:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not referring to shootings by Muslims, but to plots against military targets. The incidents I can think of since 9/11 happen to involve jihadis, the Fort Dix terrorist plot, the Fort Hood shootings and the 2009 Little Rock recruiting office shooting.  I suggest we not confuse Muslims with jihadis, and wait for the facts here before expressing support or opposition. μηδείς (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Slight oppose. While the news coverage is certainly there, the US has become a breeding ground of sorts for this kind of event in the past few years, and therefore it really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Considering we turn down other shootings / bombings worldwide because of their frequency in said area, I don't think this story should be spared that criticism. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  17:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Might I also add that when Giffords was shot a few years ago, we were mostly opposed to the posting if had she not been involved. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  17:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ummm, we already do. We dont bombings in Iraq/Pakistan that kill dozens..Lihaas (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Moot point. Spree shootings in the U.S. aren't nearly as common as bombings in Iraq and Pakistan.--NortyNort (Holla) 19:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Wait. Reports are confused. Claims of three shooters are probably wrong. If there were more than one shooter I would be inclined to support posting. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the Second Amendment finally gets repealed over this.128.227.14.241 (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support when article is in good enough shape. This is certainly more notable than your regular mass-shooting due to its location...--Somchai Sun (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Yet another mass shooting in America, the bar has to be very, very, high for those these days - this one isn't. Black Kite (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Struck - the death toll was four when I posted, it's now twelve. Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment officially up to 12 deaths. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Another week, another US shooting. Not notable as of yet. Fgf10 (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support highly notable for the number of victims alone, suggest we wait to post until we have a motive. μηδείς (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support due to the location combined with the number of victims. 331dot (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support this seems to be more than your "run of the mill U.S. shooting", whatever that is anyway. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait. There's no reason to rush. Formerip (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support This was on a 'secure facility' and particularly if related to terrorism it is definitely noteworthy.--NortyNort (Holla) 19:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - death toll of 12, significant for a US shooting all things considered. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - 12 dead in a mass shooting at a US Navy "complex" for lack of a better word, article seems to be in good enough quality. ~ Charmlet -talk- 21:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, it is notable whether or not the US has frequently witnessed such events.Egeymi (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support once updated. The last time this many people died from one act of violence in D.C. was... I'm not even sure. The War of 1812? So yeah, definitely passes criteria. But the article needs a lot of work still. There's clearly no shortage of information to cite, yet this is less than 400 words. — PublicAmpers &#38;  (main account • talk • block) 21:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 9/11 Neljack (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * None of the 9|11 attacks were in Washington, D.C. --  tariq abjotu  23:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I forgot the Pentagon is in Virginia. It's still in the metropolitan area though. Neljack (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - highly notable. -Zanhe (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose As Eric says, we turn down bombings etc that kill more people than this on the basis that they are common in the country where they occur. I don't see why the same reasoning shouldn't apply to shootings in the US. The unfortunately reality is that that the mass murder of a dozen people is quite common in the world. Being in the US does not mean that it is more important that it would be in Iraq or Nigeria. If the death toll rises to 20 or so, I would be inclined to change my mind. Neljack (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The difference is between a country/region where there current exists political unrest with open and daily violence that unfortunately often hurts innocents (our stickies), and in a country where there's no open violence and there is a large attack against civilians. The US may have gun problems and people die every day from them, but a mass gun attack like this is rare, and thus why it gets covered. --M ASEM (t) 23:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Certainly prominent in the news, and the article is not terrible. -- Jayron  32  00:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Mass shootings in the US are too common. It seems like one every month or two. In the news should be for unusual or notable events, not another US mass shooting.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is in the top dozen shootings in the last century. Every other month is sloppy math.  Can we base our votes here on something a little more secure than a vague opinion of America, please. μηδείς (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Martin is in fact correct. There has been more than a mass shooting every month in the US over the past four years.. Note that he did not say a shooting that kills this many people, he said a mass shooting. Neljack (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there some actual relevant point to that? This is apparently the eleventh or twelfth worst shooting in US history, regardless of undefined claims that other shootings have occurred.  You'll note above various people, including myself, suggesting we wait for the facts.  We certainly have enough now. μηδείς (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It is the 17th mass shooting (4 or more victims) in the US this year, that's 2 a month.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Ready well updated and good consensus to post. μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak support, this is more than your run-of-the-mill mass shooting (a necessary oxymoron in the context of ITN), even when factors such as the frequency of mass shootings in the country and the fact that this took place on a military facility are taken into account. Those are relevant factors though, hence "weak". I would however strongly suggest that the posting admin review the redacted material before posting. In my opinion what has been removed at the time of this post does not affect the consensus, but the final determination is yours to make. —WFC— FL wishlist 02:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  03:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Why post? This is just another spree shooting in the USA. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 04:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha, don't even waste your breath. It's a US topic, therefore it will always get through ITN. It's the unwritten rule. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 06:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Instead of just criticizing widely covered 'in the news' topics because they are from the US ("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.") why don't you search for non-US related events to nominate? 331dot (talk) 07:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not criticising but making the observation (as above) that these shootings are a monthly occurrence and thus they do not justify FP prominence. Those that take place on military bases are no special case as firearms aren't exactly out of place. ;-) It's not our job to "find" non-USA news items as what happens in the world is largely beyond anyone's control. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Colorado floods

 * Support. Flooding disaster in an area not typically known for flooding; large helicopter rescue operation, thousands of displaced people, significant infrastructure damage. Making news outside the US as well. 331dot (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose this wouldn't be news in 99.9999% of other locations. There's no great article or really anything encyclopedic to say, other than that people died due to rains. μηδείς (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Meanhile 21 Mexicans are confirmed dead. μηδείς (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not just that a few have died; 1200 people are missing, thousands are displaced, 19,000 homes damaged or destroyed, significant infrastructure damage, second largest helicopter rescue operation in US history(first being Katrina) This is being covered outside of the US, including the UK, France, even in the Times of India. I certainly do hear about other similar floods in other areas; if you want to see them nominated, do so. 331dot (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I most certainly do not want to see other floods nominated. This is an encyclopedia, not a daily disaster blog. μηδείς (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not a disaster blog, but this is "in the news", which this flooding clearly is, around the world. As Jayron states below, part of the role of ITN is to direct readers to articles or information they might be coming here to learn about. 331dot (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You are quite aware there are dozens of stories "in the news" every day. This is simply not a story that will be of interest to encyclopedia readers of the future, as compared to historical firsts.  The story is not encyclopedic.  I will grant if any significant portion of those 1200 is dead, it will be bigger news.  But this is certainly a total based on a number reported to police because cell phone service is out, or based on estimates.  When a hundred dozen or even four dozen bodies are found this can be revisited.  As it is it pales in comparison to the Mexico story, which should also not be posted. μηδείς (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of where it says this page is to post news stories that will be of interest in the future; it is for posting news stories of interest to people now. Even if that is true, how do you know what will be of interest to people in the future? 331dot (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Further, the WP:ITN page's first line states "The In the news (ITN) section on the main page serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest", not mentioning potential interest in the distant future. 331dot (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * the hurricane and tropical storm hitting mexico at same time has killed mroe and has done more damage. I was going to nominate that but didnt since the scale did not seem to be big enough. In interest of neutrality i will oppose this as well. Or we can put both up? -- Ashish-g55 16:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support A major story prominently in the news that people would come to Wikipedia to find more information about. -- Jayron  32  16:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Anyone who wants to nominate the TS/hurricane in Mexico is free to do so. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Of course, the reason why this is a big news story (and being a big news story is the only relevant thing to consider here), is precisely because this is an unusual event. I've read that this is not a once in a hundred year flood but more like a once in a millenium event (ignoring that climate change may have changed the probabilities here). Count Iblis (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per 331dot and Count Iblis. Colorado is an unlikely place for such severe flooding, and it is quite clearly in the news internationally.--Chaser (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per above. I was thinking it was about time to nominate this. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. This is getting significant international coverage, it's exactly the sort of thing ITN is supposed to feature. Thryduulf (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - significant damage and disruption caused, with a death toll that is likely to rise much higher than it currently stands. --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted a tweaked version of the blurb. As a meteorology student, I can say that flooding from a stalled cold front != monsoonal flooding, even if the atmospheric moisture is a result of a monsoon (true "monsoonal flooding" would not involve fronts). Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 21:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Completely agree with Medeis. Hard to believe it would be posted if it occurred anywhere else. Neljack (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Have there been similar instances of floods in atypical areas not being posted? With thousands of displaced, millions in infrastructure damage, and thousands of damaged homes? 331dot (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Whether or not this particular item would have been posted if it had occurred elsewhere is not a reason for or against this particular item being posted. Are you saying that you do not think this item of this significance in general rises to the level of posting, regardless of where it occurs? Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 21:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I thought was obvious from what Medeis said, I wouldn't support it being posted if it occurred elsewhere either. And whether it would be posted if it occurred elsewhere is a relevant consideration, given the importance of addressing systemic bias. If I believe that the posting of an item would be an example of systemic bias, I am entitled to point that out. Despite the complaints about such arguments, there has never been any consensus here to disallow them. Neljack (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * 2013 China-Russia floods Worst flood in "several decades" (China) or "a century" (Russia) in the affected areas.
 * 2013 Afghan-Pak floods
 * July 2013 china floods
 * 2013 Alberta Floods
 * Uttarakhand flash floods
 * 2013 Central European FloodsWidespread and serious flooding event. At least 8 fatalities. Seems to be higher water levels than the 2002 European floods.
 * I had planned to go back a whole year, but I only had to go back a few months to find all these. 99.999% seems inaccurate, in fact 100% of these were posted when they happened elsewhere. I don't think it's surprising that highly organized and wealthy countries like Canada, the USA and Europe would have fewer fatalities, and since WP:MINIMUMDEATHS remains elusive, body count alone means precisely nothing. Thanks. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Costa Concordia salvage

 * Lets be pedantic...there is @NO" news source proivided ;)Lihaas (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --LukeSurlt c 09:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support when a result is known. This is the top story (or near the top) in many outlets; largest operation of its kind ever attempted. 331dot (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The blrubs are slightly odd. The story here is really that "World's most expensive salvage operation has begun" or something similar. The full procedure will likely take lots of time. i'll Support none the less as it does seem to interest a lot of people -- Ashish-g55 14:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The salvage operation will be ongoing for months. First they right the vessel, then float it, then tow it to Sicily, and break it up for scrap. What's the major milestone? Currently the parbuckling of the vessel is "in the news". I think we should report this, as the subsequent developments will probably be less dramatic. This is probably the peak coverage. I've tweaked the blurb so that it pretty closely matches the BBC report. Jehochman Talk 15:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, the sources say that getting it into the cradle is the clincher. Follow the money; €520,000,000 spent on building the cradle and other systems involved in righting the ship into the cradle. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) I agree that this is the notable moment, and not the actual towing or scrapping of the vessel. They can't move it unless they refloat it, and a failure to do so would result in a large environmental disaster. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support certainly a newsworthy story, even though it's not going to be complete immediately. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per the comments above that this is likely the most significant state of the process. Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support this is a massive undertaking & very news-worthy. Post when it's finished...--Somchai Sun (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as per above. Note that the salvage will not be complete till tomorrow, we should wait until then. --LukeSurlt c 21:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I understand the point about this being the most expensive salvaging operation, but to me that point is additional trivia when the important part is the original wreck itself (posted). We didn't post manslaughter convictions related to this story when they occurred either. This was originally going to be a full oppose, but given the update to the section describing the salvage effort (Costa_Concordia_disaster), this is only a "weak oppose".  Spencer T♦ C 22:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We didn't post the manslaughter convictions because even the prosecutors said they were minor, they and the media are all saying that the outcome of the captain's trial will be the significant legal moment. Whether we post anything on the legal side though doesn't affect the notability of this event as the largest ever marine salvage operation, which is what it is being nominated for. Thryduulf (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, this is the largest vessel ever salvaged (at least in one piece.) Abductive  (reasoning) 05:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Upright, the wreck is now uprighted, should any admin have actually been waiting for that to post. I don't know if it should be posted to Sept 16th or Sept 17th. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 07:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

William Ruto

 * Wait we usually post verdicts, not the beginnings of trials. This should be renominated when the trial ends.  Also, a five sentence update on the trial would be needed to mark the article as updated--that should best be done when the trial is over and sentencing is passed, not now. μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak support. I have no problem with waiting for the end of the trial, but in this case we have a sitting Deputy President (essentially a Vice President) on trial at the ICC, which is a rare event indeed(and would be even if it was a national trial) and as such I would support posting now. 331dot (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Arrests, perhaps, and verdicts, but I can't think of a single "trial begins" that's ever been posted. Given both the verdict and the arrest are more notable than the opening of arguments posting this would imply all criminal prosecutions should be posted three times, at least. μηδείς (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree, but what is notable here is that (quoting The Telegraph) this is the "first sitting deputy head of state to go on trial at the International Criminal Court". This isn't just an average trial. 331dot (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Moot. Chronologically, this trial-start item would be below the Thomas Bach item on the template, meaning it would be too old to appear at all. Waiting till the trial's conclusion is our only option (Kenya withdrawing from the ICC, if that bill passes, might also be a story). --LukeSurlt c 21:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: The main article is International Criminal Court investigation in Kenya - but it needs updating. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

RD: Salustiano Sanchez

 * Oppose - oldest living man, but quite far off the oldest living person. Far from the all-time longevity record for men. Not ITN-levels of noteworthy in terms of longevity. --LukeSurlt c 14:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment there's been a rather odd inconsistency to this, with other nominations shoed in. I am not sure why we would even nominate these in the first place unless they are an absolute record-breaker. μηδείς (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose A man who was rather unremarkable died. The only reason he was notable was because he lived to be pretty old. If I recall correctly, James McCoubrey was not listed here either. (Quick summary: McCoubrey was thought to be the oldest man alive at his death, until Sanchez was verified.)  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 17:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I must agree with what other people have said here. If we were talking about the death of the oldest person ever, I'd be arguing for a full blurb.  However, this person doesn't even hold the record for the longest-living man.  If we posted him, we'd have to post every single time the next holder of oldest man dies, and the turnover is rather frequent as you can imagine. Redverton (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is being covered in the news, but precedent here seems to be that only the death of the documented longest-lived human of all time would warrant posting on ITN. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Agni V

 * Oppose - fairly routine suborbital test. No major firsts. -- W.  D.   Graham  13:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose This was test fired once before as well. First test firing is the only one notable for such things -- Ashish-g55 17:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Test fired before, no notable firsts.  Lastly, only the first/last launch of rockets intended for spaceflight are ITNR, not ICBMs. 331dot (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I cannot support or oppose this nomination as there are NO news sources provided. Andise1 (talk) 04:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Vuelta
- Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  07:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'd support this, but the article needs to be updated and expanded. Mentoz86 (talk) 07:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support only because Horner broke the record for being the oldest winner of a Grand Tour, which is evidently supported by most of the news reporting his win by primarily focusing on his age.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support because of his age, and I would even go ahead and add "at 41" to the blurb. Nergaal (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support but only if the article is updated a little. This is arguably the second-most prominent cycle tour in the world after Tour de France.  As such, it would be great if cycling fans could get behind this and update it to make it worthy of main page inclusion.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - A notable cycling/sport event. The age of the winner is also fairly eye-catching... --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

William Ruto

 * Wait we usually post verdicts, not the beginnings of trials. This should be renominated when the trial ends.  Also, a five sentence update on the trial would be needed to mark the article as updated--that should best be done when the trial is over and sentencing is passed, not now. μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak support. I have no problem with waiting for the end of the trial, but in this case we have a sitting Deputy President (essentially a Vice President) on trial at the ICC, which is a rare event indeed(and would be even if it was a national trial) and as such I would support posting now. 331dot (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Arrests, perhaps, and verdicts, but I can't think of a single "trial begins" that's ever been posted. Given both the verdict and the arrest are more notable than the opening of arguments posting this would imply all criminal prosecutions should be posted three times, at least. μηδείς (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree, but what is notable here is that (quoting The Telegraph) this is the "first sitting deputy head of state to go on trial at the International Criminal Court". This isn't just an average trial. 331dot (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Moot. Chronologically, this trial-start item would be below the Thomas Bach item on the template, meaning it would be too old to appear at all. Waiting till the trial's conclusion is our only option (Kenya withdrawing from the ICC, if that bill passes, might also be a story). --LukeSurlt c 21:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: The main article is International Criminal Court investigation in Kenya - but it needs updating. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

RD: Salustiano Sanchez

 * Oppose - oldest living man, but quite far off the oldest living person. Far from the all-time longevity record for men. Not ITN-levels of noteworthy in terms of longevity. --LukeSurlt c 14:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment there's been a rather odd inconsistency to this, with other nominations shoed in. I am not sure why we would even nominate these in the first place unless they are an absolute record-breaker. μηδείς (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose A man who was rather unremarkable died. The only reason he was notable was because he lived to be pretty old. If I recall correctly, James McCoubrey was not listed here either. (Quick summary: McCoubrey was thought to be the oldest man alive at his death, until Sanchez was verified.)  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 17:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I must agree with what other people have said here. If we were talking about the death of the oldest person ever, I'd be arguing for a full blurb.  However, this person doesn't even hold the record for the longest-living man.  If we posted him, we'd have to post every single time the next holder of oldest man dies, and the turnover is rather frequent as you can imagine. Redverton (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is being covered in the news, but precedent here seems to be that only the death of the documented longest-lived human of all time would warrant posting on ITN. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Agni V

 * Oppose - fairly routine suborbital test. No major firsts. -- W.  D.   Graham  13:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose This was test fired once before as well. First test firing is the only one notable for such things -- Ashish-g55 17:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Test fired before, no notable firsts.  Lastly, only the first/last launch of rockets intended for spaceflight are ITNR, not ICBMs. 331dot (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I cannot support or oppose this nomination as there are NO news sources provided. Andise1 (talk) 04:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Vuelta
- Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  07:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'd support this, but the article needs to be updated and expanded. Mentoz86 (talk) 07:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support only because Horner broke the record for being the oldest winner of a Grand Tour, which is evidently supported by most of the news reporting his win by primarily focusing on his age.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support because of his age, and I would even go ahead and add "at 41" to the blurb. Nergaal (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support but only if the article is updated a little. This is arguably the second-most prominent cycle tour in the world after Tour de France.  As such, it would be great if cycling fans could get behind this and update it to make it worthy of main page inclusion.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - A notable cycling/sport event. The age of the winner is also fairly eye-catching... --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] 2012 Delhi gang rape case defendants given death sentence

 * Support. It was notable on September 10, and it's more notable now that there's a sentence. -LtNOWIS (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I supported posting the conviction, I support posting the sentencing. – Muboshgu (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support but blurb is wrong It should read that the four adult defendants were sentenced to death. The fifth defendant, a juvenile, was sentenced to three years at a reform facility in a separate trial. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Added--LukeSurlt c 11:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support as per nom, others above, and previous discussions. --LukeSurlt c 11:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Posting Jehochman Talk 11:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is an article Capital punishment in India which might be a better link. --LukeSurlt c 12:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Post Blurb Posting - Strong Support I had nominated the article way back in December 2011 for ITN. Considering the gravity of the crime committed, the widespread global media coverage the incident had received and the subsequent protests and public debate on rape laws made it an ITN blurb. Nirabhay (Delhi Braveheart) losing the fight with her life resulted in the rewordings to the blurb. I am posting my comment now as people may contest that the journey ain't over -> Supreme Court->President of India->Challenge to the President Order in the Supreme Court->Final Hanging....a long process. The article is not updated in many sense. Take for instance: the mother of braveheart receiving a presidential award for the extraordinary courage displayed by her daughter, Christiane Lagarde beginning her Davos speech by referring to the courage of the Malala of Pakistan and the Braveheart of India, President of India mentioning the incident twice in the television speeches- once during the Christmas eve address to the nation and later during the New Year eve, parents receiving an posthumous award from  Hillary Clinton... and the list goes on. The article would receive global coverage as it marks an important event in the lifecycle of the journey. My comment is for those who may oppose its posting or ask for a pull request.  Regards,   theTigerKing   17:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * can we remove the silly "2012" from the blurb. That's more for article title differentiation and looks silly there as its not a proper noun. Link to the page ocfcourse but don't show that.Lihaas (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm normally against including years. But when referring to a non-current event, it is not uncommon to include the year. This is particularly true when the event is as generic as "Delhi rape case". At least point them in the right temporal direction (ah... yes, I remember hearing about that case last year...). --  tariq abjotu  18:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

[Attention needed] [Ready] Issus has interlocking gears on legs

 * I support this in principle, but the blurb needs work. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. An interesting story, but nature is weird and wonderful. That's not really news. Formerip (talk) 11:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is huge news if you know anything about biology. No circular or gear structure has been discovered at a level above the flagellum or cilium prior to this. If it has, let's see the source, FIP. μηδείς (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't believe the hype. This structure is not a full 360° gear. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * How about "Insects in Issus genus are discovered to have a biological form of mechanical gearing"? &mdash; rybec   14:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This seems much more of a DYK item to me. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So nominate it there. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * could only be nominated there is someone can produce a fivefold expansion of the article - it's not a brand new article. EdwardLane (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support an entirely unexpected discovery among macroscopic animals. Like discovering vertebrates with wheels. μηδείς (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Clearly "encyclopedic news". 88.88.162.176 (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Very big in evolutionary theory. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * support alt blurb as nom but article still needs work. EdwardLane (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per FormerIP. Although I really do wish to note that the alt blurb is very badly stated; gears were discovered, but they definitely were not shown to be the only animals to have them. We simply found the first species. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  22:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Addressed altblurb per Ericleb01. μηδείς (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose, structures are not the full 360° gears people are thinking that they are. As User:Medeis says, "no circular or gear structure has been discovered at a level above the flagellum or cilium" and none ever will be. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I can understand (although strongly disagree with) opposing this on a judgment of notability, but my comment shouldn't be construed as disparaging the claim based on a lack of full 360 degree circularity. They are indubitably gears, and indubitably a unique discovery on a multicellular level. μηδείς (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The discovery should not be parsed by distinguishing between single-celled and multicellular life forms. The gear are not "loose" within the organism. They are (if I had to guess) derived from and quite similar to the stridulatory organs seen in crickets. So people should not believe that these are like the rotating gears in a car or anything like that. I direct this comment at people such as User:Patar knight who are confused enough to make wildly incorrect statements like "Very big in evolutionary theory." Abductive  (reasoning) 05:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you feel this is not important or notable, that is your privilege, but most would seem to disagree; the NatGeo article refers to this as "astounding" and is described as "This is to our knowledge the first time that proper, engaging, counter-rotating gears have been seen in the animal kingdom.". Patar knight's statement is not unreasonable. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That quote, "This is to our knowledge the first time that proper, engaging, counter-rotating gears have been seen in the animal kingdom." is from one of the discoverers and is HORRENDOUSLY UNRELIABLE. How dare you attempt to sway the debate by putting it here. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If the discoverers get their discovery published in Science I would say they are reliable. How should supporters convince people except by pointing out the exceptionality of the discovery by quoting or referencing relevant sources? 88.88.162.176 (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It was a big thing when it was discovered that the spiral flagella of bacteria have a wheel mechanism, a first. This is the first discovery of gears at the multicellular level.  I'll consult with an engineer later to see what the technical terms are.  I am fairly certain a gear doesn't have to be a circular cog.  In any case, the terminology doesn't matter.  If Abductive wants to claim this is no big deal it's incumbent on him to provide sources that show that this is not a first.  He can't expect us to prove a negative in light of his personally argued objections. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (to abductive) It is not "horrendously unreliable" to claim that "to their knowledge" something is the first to be discovered. If they are in error, I await your posting of evidence of that, as does most of the worldwide media.  "How dare you attempt to sway" the debate with your uncited personal opinion. 331dot (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Ready the article is updated, with a good consensus. μηδείς (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please post, this has two-to-one support and the article is updated. μηδείς (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The update, for a new article, seems poor. A second opinion would be great. --  tariq abjotu  15:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless one starts making stuff up there's nothing much left to add to the article, which is basically a list, in regard to the discovery. Note the article has gone from the merest stub to having three full paragraphs as well as a five sentence update on the gear mechanism. μηδείς (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is what the criteria say constitutes the minimum for a new article. The neglect this nomination and article have faced over the past couple days seems to suggest this is less news and more along the lines of "oh, that's cool". --  tariq abjotu  17:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Oh, that's cool" hardly conflicts with our stated purpose: "To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them." This is not a "new, event-specific article". I am not a new support. I have commented on this case earlier from a very different IP. 62.249.160.249 (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I understand Tariq'a objection in concrete terms. Whether you take this as a new or an updated article it has been expanded to fulfill both the three paragraph and three new sources requirement. Within biology it's a huge new discovery, a mechanism once thought unique to human engineering. μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added a few more sentences and a link to gear. Please post this, there's no reason for it to fall off the queue. μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment It would be good to have a wikilink for those gears to clarify what it's all about. Brandmeistertalk  19:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] RD - Ray Dolby

 * Support RD. He has received multiple awards, but the article could use a bit of expansion.  Spencer T♦ C 00:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support RD as totally top in his field. He was even set to receive a star on the Walk of Fame next year.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 00:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Obvious once it's updated. Just one sentence now. μηδείς (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support RD - Article is a bit thin, but there's not much question about the subject's notability. A true innovator. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * support: household name &mdash; rybec   02:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose For things like this the company is often far more familiar than the actual individual. Read the sources carefully: he invented Dolby NR: a system for reducing hiss on a pretty much obsolete audio format that was designed from the outset to be cheap and physically small as opposed to hi-fi.  Surround sound, DTS etc may bear the Dolby name but that is credit by association rather than this man's accomplishments. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 04:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * One could make the same claim about Thomas Edison. He hired people to invent things, and only started a measly little company. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a great story for soothing the popular psyche about the existence of "the American Dream" but it was never true. GE was formed by the merger of what were already megacorps. Where is the relevance in any case?  Show me one thing that Edison the man did that Dolby the man directly built on and I might reconsider. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 05:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Regardless of our opinion of your bizarre conspiracy theory that there are no people behind corporations, just corporations all the way down, doesn't it strike you as sad you are reduced your very own self to trolling here under a single-purpose sockpuppet account? Something about the beam in your own eye. μηδείς (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I ask you to either withdraw or justify these comments. I'll admit as much as I don't choose to log in for article edits but that is irrelevant to this slur.  Specifically:
 * How am I trolling? Simply because I don't agree with you?
 * What conspiracy theory?
 * Whom I a sockpuppet of, since as you acknowledge at the time of posting I was the single contrary opinion? Whose voice did I reinforce?
 * I await your answer with great interest since I consider this last post to be ungentlemanly in the extreme. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 03:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for RD. Clearly notable in his field.  Even if he didn't work on every aspect of the sound system or other technology, he still brought together and directed who did.  Bill Gates did not program every line of code for every version of Windows but he still brought together people, directed them, and had ideas- no one would dispute he would be listed on RD(hopefully far in the future) Steve Jobs did not build circuit boards and program iPhones and iPods, either- but he was posted(and got a blurb) 331dot (talk) 08:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support RD per above. Oppose blurb though. – Muboshgu (talk) 11:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted to Recent Deaths.  It Is Me Here   t / c 12:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why was this posted without an update? Pull, please. μηδείς (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Made a couple of updates. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I added a ref. Post-posting support by the way. Good call. Jus  da  fax   22:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Voyager 1 leaves the solar system

 * Added alt blurb since leaving solar system doesnt necessarily say it entered interstellar space.. -- Ashish-g55 18:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment third nom is the charm? The article has a one-sentence update. μηδείς (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Edit the page This belongs here. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 19:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I know it's an essay and not a policy, but per WP:Proseline, the #Heliopause section makes me want to run into a wall. Why are the dates bolded? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Didn't we already discuss this multiple times before in the past? I don't know if we posted it or not, but very few months or so the popular press picks up on some arbitrary milestone as "leaving the solar system"; Voyager 1 has already "left the solar system" multiple times in the past, depending on whatever fuzzy boundary you are defining as the edge of the solar system.  It's has been, is now, and will be for the foreseeable future the farthest man-made object from earth.  Unless that particular distinction changes, there's nothing particularly noteworthy about an object moving away from us getting farther away.  That's what it does.  All the time.  Breaking its own record for distance will continue to happen every second of every day, and we don't need to report these arbitrary milestones merely because some it was a slow day at the science desk of some newspaper and so they felt the need to remind us of Voyager 1.  -- Jayron  32  19:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * According to Talk:Voyager 1, this was posted on June 15, 2012. Not sure why specifically. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Leaving solar system always meant entering interstellar space since there is nothing beyond that but next star. Yes there were milestones like entering/exiting heliopause, bow shock etc. but this particular milestone is FAR from arbitrary... -- Ashish-g55 19:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong support - As long as we have an update. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb - I have replaced the alt blurb with one that is factually indisputable. NASA did today announce, for the first time, that Voyager 1 has reached interstellar space, the first man-made object to do so.  Jehochman Talk 19:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose when this was posted last summer after the second time it was nominated the NYT source quoted NASA officials as saying this was the "moment" they had "been waiting for." Apparently we have the same moment a second time this year as well?  How many times over the next decade will this happen? μηδείς (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is actually confirmation that Voyager left the solar system last year, on 25 August 2012, so it's not applicable for ITN, it's stale news. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * June 25th 2012 posting was false and NASA announced that it was in a newly discovered region of solar system called the magnetic highway.
 * http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1189:_Voyager_1 &mdash; rybec   19:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean, Voyager has left the "solar system" 22 times?!! O rly?  Lol.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the first time it has reached interstellar space. See . Also, it took NASA a year to collect and study data proving that Voyager 1 had reached interstellar space.  Science isn't always instantaneous. The news is the announcement. Jehochman Talk 20:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well at the very least, the blurb should say it left entered interstellar space over a year ago. That's fact.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Entered is what I think you meant. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment As one of the submitters from the previous times, I know the issue came up of whether that point (entering the heliopause) was significant or not, and the issue at the time is that NASA had no idea of the distance across the heliopause, it could have been a few months, it could have been a few years. It was a point of contention, but I believe that it was resolved with the understanding that entering and exiting would be notable ITN events with a good time distance between them.  Given that the only known next event that VoyI expects to see is it running out of power, I doubt we'll have anything else to update from now on, so this is not really a problem to post again. (Mind you, if we posted every 22 times that the xkcd jokes at, that would be an issue.  We're talking here about an event separated by more than a year, and arguably sports events get more frequent updates.) --M ASEM  (t) 20:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose for current blurbs. The terms "leaving the solar system" and "reaching interstellar space" are both too vague for me. If NASA is saying something along the lines of "exiting the heliopause", it might be ITN worthy, but the article (and blurb) should reflect that.  S Pat   talk 20:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I dont understand your oppose... how is "exiting the heliopause" itn worthy but not "reaching interstellar space". NASA specifically announced it in those words because that is what happened. How is it vague? -- Ashish-g55 20:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is this exact same item's third nomination. It has been posted once and rejected once due to the inherent obscurity in the definition of "solar system" and the moment an object crosses its border. This still holds, and one ITN mention for one and the same event is enough. Would obviously support this if it was April 1, though. --hydrox (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support alternate blurb. It is factually correct and a very notable event. --Philpill691 (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Close this is stale. As TRM's Nat Geo source mentions above this is simply confirmation of the news we posted last summer when it was first released.  This has become a joke, see Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead. μηδείς (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have a link? I think you are confusing two different things.  This is the first time that scientific confirmation has been published.  It's like a crime that happened a year ago, and the court just declared the verdict.  It's news.  Jehochman Talk 22:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I like that analogy, and I wholeheartedly agree. Girona7 (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A link to what? To the article's talk page where it says this was listed on ITN last summer, which I supported?  Or a link to The Rmabling Man's post above in this very same thread where he links to the Nat Geo article explaining that today's announcement by NASA is confirmation of last August's story?  Why should I provide links to links that have already been provided? μηδείς (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong support Even though this is confirmation of an earlier report, this is how science works. Many people did not comment on the event last year because it was as yet not confirmed. Many outlets around the world are already covering this news today, and it will be news over the next few days. I think Wikipedia should cover it, too. Lastly, there are many people who do not check Wikipedia every day. For those who may have missed it -- and even for those who may have caught it -- I think this is important enough to repeat, with the clear update about the confirmation.  Girona7 (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this is about the tenth time it has been announced - the problem is that nobody really knows where the edge of the Solar system is, and new regions have been discovered after it has been announced. This might actually be the "real" one, but it's already been announced far too many times. -- W.  D.   Graham  23:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Bloody hell I was going to suggest this when I got home from work, I'm glad I didn't now. Support if it makes any difference.  Black Kite (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose without mention of the metric used to verify it has left the Solar System; per Phil Plait, "I'll note there is some argument over what constitutes the boundary of the solar system.". Sceptre (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose We posted when this left the heliosphere, and it seems at this point each further announcement is another arbitrary measurement, similar to other nominations about the price of gold reaching $500, then $1000, then €1000 and so forth. The whole accomplishment is that it's been further than anything else, and we've posted that already.  Spencer T♦ C 00:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The oppose votes include original research or other irrelevant logic. What matters is hat this event is currently in the news.  Jehochman Talk 00:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's nonsense, Jehochman, the Nat Geo source has been provided to you above by TRM, please read it. It says today's formal paper confirms the announcement Voyager left the solar system last August 25th, which we posted at that time.  The current blurbs are stale and falsely imply this is happening now, not a year ago.  Have you read that source or not? μηδείς (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see what you refer to. Can you post a link to our prior blurb. I think you have confused different things.  Jehochman Talk 01:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Prior blurb can be found here (the previous nom).  Spencer T♦ C 01:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - This is significant enough (and subtly different enough from the previous story) to justify posting, and it's undoubtedly in the news. Last year's news seemed to be that it had merely reached the border of the Solar System, while the latest news is that it has crossed the border into interstellar space, which is a bit more complex and noteworthy than crossing the border into Wyoming. The distinction might not be enough for some, but it's plenty for me. That being said, this should probably be the very last Voyager 1 update that we post until it loses power (or achieves sentience). Because the event actually happened last August (but not last June, when the previous update was posted) the preferred wording should be "NASA confirms" or "NASA announces" or something similar. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: For those interested in previous nominations regarding Voyager 1 reaching certain areas on the edge of the solar system:
 * In_the_news/Candidates/December_2010 (not posted)
 * In_the_news/Candidates/October_2012 (not posted)
 * In_the_news/Candidates/June_2012 (posted)
 * In_the_news/Candidates/December_2012 (not posted)
 * In_the_news/Candidates/May_2005 (posted)
 * -- Spencer T♦ C 01:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for that list! Reaching the heliosphere (June 2012) is clearly different from what is being reported now, reaching interstellar space.  The unposted items are irrelevant; they were correctly not posted.  The May 2005 ITN about the Heliopause relates to an inner layer, not the same either.  The solar system has layers.  It is newsworthy, very much so, each time Voyager's instruments detect a new layer.  This is experimental confirmation of what otherwise is just theory, very exciting stuff for scientists. We need to avoid hyped, imprecise language like "leaving the solar system". We can post the current news about reaching interstellar space (exiting the heliosphere), and then some time between now and 2025 +/- 5 years we will probably post that Voyager 1 has ceased communicating, whenever that happens.  If Voyager 1 happens to stumble upon something really interesting and unanticipated in the meanwhile, I am sure we will figure out what to do.  Okay?   Jehochman Talk 02:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There was a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters this March, also about the data from 25 August 2012. The New York Times story in the nomination mentions a Science article from yesterday; the Science abstract says that on 9 April 2013 there was the first observation of a phenomenon indicating Voyager had crossed the heliopause. Support if the new Science article, which NASA [//spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=41548 waited for], is mentioned along with the NASA announcement. &mdash; rybec   03:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb. What's notable here is really that Voyager 1 has entered interstellar space, so that should be the focus of the blurb. Entering interstellar space is not "arbitrary" as if saying it reached a certain distance is; there are certain qualities about interstellar space that don't exist within the System.  And lastly, whether it was posted a year ago or not, this is "in the news" and this item is in the news now. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * support alt blurb my initial concerns have been alleviated by other supports that have explained the significance of this event. -- Jayron  32  11:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Question to opposers: do you guys realize that scientific discoveries are made well in advance before their report? For example the DNA of lemurs is studied months before news of new lemur species are published in the literature, and we usually wait for the peer review part to put stuff on ITN. Support. Nergaal (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Open the pod bay doors, Hal Support.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 11:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I seriously didnt think there will be any opposes to this, since last time this was nominated it was not NASA that announced it. And decision was to wait. Not sure why people are calling it stale news or that this happened long ago... it took a year for them to verify and release the information. Before NASA officially verifies anything, its all speculation hence previous noms were not posted. Every news media out there still has this or atleast had it on front page. IMO its a pretty big accomplishment to reach interstellar space and should be posted -- Ashish-g55 13:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: Why don't we make it "NASA confirms..." instead of "NASA announces..."? That is what is particularly newsworthy, and it answers any questions as to why Wikipedia would mention it again after initial reports that it had happened... Girona7 (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. Support iff we use "NASA confirms...". This is big news this time for this specific reason, and there's no higher authority than NASA in this regard. --LukeSurlt c 15:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that the changes in the blurb and subsequent discussion of the objections have produced a consensus to post this. Could an uninvolved administrator take a look? Jehochman Talk 16:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but the blurb is still a little misleading, it would need to say that Voyager 1 did this at least a year ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * NASA confirms that on Aug 25, 2012 Voyager 1 became the first man-made object to reach interstellar space. Jehochman Talk 16:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Great. Personally I'd prefer to be slight less precise "...in August 2012...", but I won't quibble :) --LukeSurlt c 16:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support along similar lines to the second half of Bongwarrior's argument. I question why we posted last year, but beyond the technicality TRM raises I see no good reason not to post this one (and it is a technicality, because we're either damned for prematurely nominating what we think has happened, or we are damned because verification took too long). The only grounds for a future nomination in our lifetimes would be permanent loss of power/communication, or if our current understanding of what lies beyond the solar system is show to be way off. As an aside, it's nice to strike a perennial topic off of the list. Now we just need to sort out Gibraltar, Lionel Messi, transatlantic race rows, and deaths.—WFC— FL wishlist 16:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong support. Major milestone, regardless of how 'obscure' you think it is, this is the first time mankind has left the Solar System. Even the previous naysayers now agree that Voyager 1 has passed all the boundaries, regardless of which definition is used. It's also passed the peer reviewed paper threshold - this isn't just a press release. Major coverage in all serious media outlets. Modest Genius talk 17:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh and for why this announcement is different to the various previous claims, and really is definitive: How Do We Know When Voyager Reaches Interstellar Space? Modest Genius talk 17:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Medeis. The revised blurb is no better; just the same (nonspecific, almost impossible to precisely define) event described in different words. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 17:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong support This is clearly a significant achievement, and this seems like it's the real deal this time. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - I have been mulling this over, seeing as we have had some opposition, but in the end I am convinced that this is a news item that is truly worthy of ITN... international in scope, astonishing in content, and an inspiring tribute to those responsible for this 40 year mission. By the way, the coverage has been strong in the media, and is on the front page of my LA Times today. The concerns expressed are noted but it is time to give this item an ITN blurb. Jus  da  fax   22:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - This is merely a confirmation, and that's when news articles go on the front page. It definitely deserves a place - this is historic. Decentman12'  talk 18:43, 13 September 2013 (EST)
 * Could we post this already, please? Jehochman Talk 11:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, this one is for the ages. Nsk92 (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  14:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Syrian chemical weapons deal

 * Wait If this is implemented, it's an obvious support. But there are some things in the Russian proposal that the U.S. does not agree with, so at this point it's anyone's guess as to whether or not this will be implemented. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would have thought these latest developments would have a new article, rather than 2013_Ghouta_attacks (which is, unsurprisingly, NPOV tagged). --LukeSurlt c 16:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * International_reactions_to_the_2013_Ghouta_attacks --LukeSurlt c 16:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Russian-sponsored plan probably should have its own article.
 * As to waiting, I think the fact that Assad reportedly has publicly agreed to international control is itself significant; in his interview with Charlie Rose on Sept. 9 he refused to even confirm that Syria had chemical weapons. Sca (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm open to the opinions on others, regarding whether this is sufficient to post or if we should wait for a formal agreement. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Wait. Assad agreeing to it isn't news. The UNSC agreeing to it will be, though. Formerip (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait for a UN Security Council resolution. Jehochman Talk 19:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Footnote: Syria applies to U.N. to join the international ban on chemical weapons (Reuters). Sca (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, wait for them to actually join, as an alternative to the UNSC resolution. Jehochman Talk 12:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose So, whose weapons will they find? Saddam's?  When they are actually found and destroyed we will have verifiable news. μηδείς (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait for a UNSC Resolution or the actual seizure of weapons. I might support posting Syria's joining the Chemical Weapons Convention but I haven't seen a great deal of coverage on that yet(if Syria has even formally done it yet). 331dot (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait – if this happens, it actually happening will be huge news. If it doesn't happen, the fallout will almost certainly be huge news. —WFC— FL wishlist 16:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In response to Sca, Syria acknowledged in July 2012 that it had chemical weapons . &mdash; rybec   18:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Update Sept. 14 — In Geneva, the U.S. and Russia agree on a plan to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons, ending with their complete destruction by mid-2014. Reuters: BBC:  AP:  Guardian:  London Times:  NYT:
 * After three and a half weeks of international wrangling, this would seem a crucial breakthrough and should be posted now.
 * — Sca (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb once the target article, Framework For Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons, has been updated. Jehochman Talk 14:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Brain-to-brain link

 * Comment Peer review or it didn't happen. Doesn't this fail WP:MEDRS? Also, Rajesh P.N. Rao isn't contained in the blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Blurb revised. &mdash; rybec   19:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Peer reviewed publication in a decent journal or it didn't happen. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is cool, but it's ultimately just a stunt, not a scientific advance. Looie496 (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Stale, reported in late August. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Closed. Jehochman Talk 18:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] California city to establish agency to buy out mortgages

 * Oppose given this is an impairment of contract Contract Clause, it is forbidden by the US Constitution, and would likely be stayed, appealed, and overturned were it actually put into effect. μηδείς (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Although a Wikipedia user's legal opinion is not relevant to its newsworthiness, I oppose this as there is no guarantee this will happen, as it states they don't have the votes to seize mortgages even though they did to approve the program. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I'm pretty sure this was approved a while ago by (a town in?) another state. Also, of marginal interest in the US, let alone anywhere else. Abductive  (reasoning) 21:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment this is not an illegitimate nomination. If the news item actually were to succeed it would be huge news in the US, again see Contract Clause. I oppose the nom since I don't think it would get beyond the local council vote.  Local councils vote all the time for rather bizarre Biblical and anti-science or anti-state/federal constitution stuff.  That being said, if this is to be closed it should be done using the     template or the     template if it's closed with prejudice. μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: this story in the San Francisco Bay Guardian says there was another vote during the same meeting, in which five councillors were "against a resolution to rescind the city's offer to purchase 624 underwater mortgages and halt any effort by the city to seize those mortgages through eminent domain." In response to Abductive, I've added additional news sources. I had assumed that the AP story and the sources in the article would show wide coverage. The AP story calls it a "first-in-the-nation plan" and other stories make the same claim. Whether it's been done in other countries, I don't know. The blurb could say "first in the U.S." &mdash; rybec   04:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have reopened the nomination for time for more consideration.  Spencer T♦ C 06:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Closed - really, per WP:SNOW.  This doesn't have any chance of passing, 0% chance.  The nomination clearly states why this does not meet the ITN criteria. Preliminary movements towards something that might or might not happen are not suitable for ITN.   Jehochman Talk 12:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Anna Lindh assassination

 * Oppose I opposed the anniversary of the coining of Stockholm syndrome and see no reason to support this. It's not "in the news". I'd also oppose someone trying to nominate today as the 12th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, btw. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Only an american can link 9/11 attacks to the assassination of Anna Lindh.. btw. Other things happens in the world..even if America was the victim of that tragedy.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Jesus Christ this American bashing is ridiculous. Check your calendar. The connection is the anniversary, and I was opposing any "anniversaries". – Muboshgu (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You want another non-9/11 reason for an oppose? The update is one sentence, the article is barely sourced, and it's appropriately orange tagged. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The only one having an "American agenda" here seems to be you.. geez relax.. I am not going to respond to your erratics anymore.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're the editor who nominated the Stockholm Syndrome anniversary right? I guess you're Swedish and nominating from that perspective, which is fine. My opposition was straight against any post having to do with an anniversary, and given that I can see One World Trade Center out of my living room window, the fact that today is September 11 is not lost on me. After all of the cries of "American bias!!!111!" I've seen on this page, I don't like seeing my nationality brought up here, as it isn't relevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you see La Moneda Palace on this anniversary? Then Sept 11 will not be lost on you...terrorism works in cleansing a democratic sovereign regime ;)Lihaas (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose BabbaQ, Lord knows I agree that ITN overall is too U.S-centric, but this behaviour of yours is silly. Of course an anniversary like this won't be put up, and it's not because it isn't an American story either.  What is notable about the anniversary in of itself?  Nothing.  It's just 10 years.  An arbitrary number.  Anniversaries like could only be appropriate for OTD.  Furthermore, whilst I absolutely won't tell you what you can and can't nominate, if you're going to put up anniversaries like this and that Stockholm Syndrome stuff - that you really should know by now aren't going to get put up - only to follow up with a round of America bashing, I think you need to rethink your priorities here.  And no, once again, I'm not an American, so you can't accuse me of defending an agenda. Redverton (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Redverton, your accusations are kind of silly and definitly unfounded. I only nominated news here and instantly got this "American agenda"-comment by Mubosghu, why would I otherwise mention America at all if Mubosghu had not brought it up again. Mubosghu has to move on from our previous Stockholm Syndrom/Norrmalmstorg robbery discussion which he still seems to think about for whatever reason and not bring it up everytime I nominate something, simple and clear. Also I have never said that Anna Lindh wont be on ITN just because it isnt an american story so do not put words in my mouth thank you. To respond to your actual vote I say you are ofcourse entitled to that and I think it is disrespectful of you to insinuate that I was going to attack you for it..--BabbaQ (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I will no respond and totally ignore any similar kind of nonsense accusations. --BabbaQ (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment It didn't occur to me earlier, but this assassination might be well suited for "On This Day". – Muboshgu (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Could try, but I think they prepare that in advance and only normally update for errors. Formerip (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not think that is possible this year atleast. But good suggestion.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OTD/SA requires, among other things, highlighted articles to be properly sourced. The refimprove on top of the Anna Lindh will need to be dealt with properly before the assasination can appear on OTD.  As part of the normal ITN update process, Howcheng is fairly good about checking previously suggested articles to see if they have had any deficiencies corrected (ineligible and unused suggestions are kept in the "staging area" of the days OTD page).  Anyone truly interested in seeing Lindh mentioned on the Main page thus has just under a year to correct problems with her current article. --Allen3 talk 14:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Anniversaries are for OTD. --LukeSurlt c 15:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose pointy nationalist POV per Norrmalmstorg robbery precedent. μηδείς (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Catalan Way

 * Support. An event covering 400km of land seems remarkable enough. Catalan interior ministry calculated that at least 1.6 million people participated in this demonstration. (1, in catalan), (2, general info in English) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ESM (talk • contribs) 19:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Same reasons mentioned--Kippelboy (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support 2 million people in a 7 million country.--Arnaugir (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment According to the sources provided by ESM and this article of The Washington Post, I've changed the blurb from "Hundreds of thousands of Catalans" to "More than one million Catalans". --Davidpar (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support It is being covered in dozens of newspapers and media outlets in many, many countries all over the world, indicating high interest. See in Catalan, but with links to articles in original languages.--lizcastro (talk) 23:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose and pull You just had to fall for this Catalan nationalist gibberish. Look at these votes; User:ESM is Catalan, User:Kippelboy is Catalan, User:Arnaugir is Catalan, and User:Lizcastro is Catalan. "Hey lets form a big human chain so people start caring about our meaningless problems." And they fucking succeeded. Th4n3r (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's fair to point out that all the comments were from Catalans, and, given the nature of the subject, it might be better to get more geographically diverse participants in this discussion. However, the rest of your comment is unnecessarily offensive and shouldn't be taken into account. --  tariq abjotu  02:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose and pull per Th4n3r. I may change my decision once recurrent voters post their opinions. As of now, I oppose. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 02:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Moving to weak support per reasons below. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 14:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Pulling I thought posting this was highly premature. I also would probably still vote support.  But I am a pro-Catalan partisan.  The issue I see is verifying the number of participants.  I won't call for pulling, and if we do pull I would want the option of a very swift reposting.  Past procedure has been not to post a nomination so swiftly unless it has at least four supports on top of the nominator and no opposes.  This had three when it went up.  We still have majority support, so a pull seems premature.  But I can't objectively add myself to the supports yet.  BTW, I have strongly supported and participated in updating prior pro-independence Catalonian nominations. μηδείς (talk) 02:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support continued posting unless it is revealed that the number in the chain has been vastly overstated. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * oppose pulling unless someone can prove human chains this long are common. politics aside the blurb is about an unusually long human chain. this doesnt happen often as far as i know -- Ashish-g55 05:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose pulling - This is a major demonstration. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong support: the logistical magnitude of the event, the sheer number of people involved and the ample coverage in media all over the world make it a shoe-in for ITN.--Leptictidium (mt) 06:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support and oppose pulling The demonstration seems to address a very important sign towards the independence of Catalonia. It's also very unusual to see such a mass demonstration involving almost one quarter of the country's total population.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kiril. Also, we should probably have some standard wording for pull/don't pull.  Skimming this discussion, it's easy to misead "Oppose and Pull" as "Oppose pull" and vice versa.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MChesterMC (talk • contribs) 11:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Think this was posted too hastily - a short series of users who don't normally post here promptly turning up to support a story about a nationalist publicity stunt ought to have led to alarm bells, not posting within a few hours of the nomination. Support purely on the basis of numbers, but the story should be pulled if it turns out the numbers are exaggerated. Formerip (talk) 11:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The numbers are taken from international media like The Washington Post or RT and even Madrid-based press:, . --Davidpar (talk) 11:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The numbers are, undoubtedly, taken indirectly from a press release put out by the organisers. Formerip (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The numbers were relesed by the Catalan interior ministry and the present journalists gave it validity. Here is aerial video of some parts of the 400km human chain. --Davidpar (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose pull/support Okay let's think about this for a second: even if the numbers are inflated and say, only half the size, it is still a notable event. And c'mon - ignore the nationality of the nominator and just look at the sources. COI is not handled on ITN/C (My comments are aimed at no one in particular). --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Post facto support and keep Massive event, international coverage, why wouldn't we cover this? BTW, love the arguments about the initial supporters, when do we ever hear that when some minor and unworthy US item gets posted straight away with solely US support....? 131.251.133.27 (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't hear about it because that doesn't actually happen.--WaltCip (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support continued posting It is indeed a notable event. We all are aware of how evil demonstration numbers can be, but I'd like to stress the historical value of this event. Inspired in the Baltic Way, it is one of the most (if not the most) participative demonstration for a democratic right in Catalan history. That, imho, makes it remarkable enough. Now please excuse me while I make some edits in English wikipedia so as to be taken seriously. --ESM (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment if there were 1 million participants covering 250 miles that means one person per every 16 inches of the distance. That's an entirely incredible (i.e., unbelievable) number.  One person every four feet would mean about 300,000 participants.  Given there's no visual poof the line was actually complete the number is much likely much smaller. μηδείς (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Once the general, 400km picture is sewn, we'll share the link and you'll be able to check whether the line was complete and otoh notice that, in some parts of its route, there was more than one line of people. In the meantime, some pictures here. Cheers. --ESM (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am all for Catalan independence, I shepherded last year's protest through the nomination process here. But I am also old enough to remember the farce the was Hands Across America.  This will also be the third year in a row we will have had a Biggest Catalan Independence Protest Ever on the front page. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Might as well list this at ITNR? (lol) – H T  D  05:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

RD Keith Dunstan

 * Support recent death listing. Jehochman Talk 12:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on article quality alone. I could support since he's Order of Australia, if the article is expanded and improved. Also, this is not sufficiently updated. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for RD per HiLo and Jehochman but Muboshgu is quite right, the article is not in great shape to say the least, and has been tagged for sourcing for a long time. It will take a bit of work. Wish I could help but I am crunched for time. Jus  da  fax   04:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Me too. RD postings should not depend on Jusdafax and me having free time on our hands. If it really is our rules preventing posting this, and not just the fact that this guy is not a American singer/actor with very short fame, there's really something wrong here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Penis Envy much? Do the work and stop the bitching, HiLo.  It's not like 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots got posted because it's an American article and I am a bigot. μηδείς (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't get it, do you? YOU should do the work! HiLo48 (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Steve Dodd wins Jimmy Little Lifetime Achievement Award at the 19th Deadlys
I know this isn't exactly life shattering but Steve Dodd is a featured article and the award is a significant one in Indigenous Australian culture.


 * Dodd seems to be an old, (perhaps beloved?) character actor. His article alone doesn't show him to be highly influential or the top of his field.  An award limited to an ethnicity is problematic.  I certainly would oppose any such ethnic award I could think of in the united states meriting an ITN blurb.  Perhaps there is some proof of significance I am missing? μηδείς (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is an award limited to a (disadvantaged) ethnicity problematic? That just seems to be your political POV, which is not relevant to our decisions here. Neljack (talk) 06:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Medeis asks a valid question; unless someone can point them out I don't see the giving of specific awards like this posted often, if at all- especially those of particular ethnic groups. I don't believe we post any awards from the BET Awards,, NAACP Image Awards, Latin Grammys, etc. Why should we post this one? 331dot (talk) 08:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Precisely because our system bias has meant nothing like this has been posted before. HiLo48 (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure an affirmative action program for awards given by ethnicity/racial based groups would set a good precedent, regardless of the racial/ethnic group. 331dot (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * How often have they been nominated? Neljack (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Ticks all the boxes. Good, well established article, properly updated. A leader in his field which, to reply to Medies, has been a somewhat narrow one all his life, black Australians, but that's hardly Dodd's fault. Given what he is, he is right up the top. HiLo48 (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * And here I thought his field was actor, HiLo. μηδείς (talk) 06:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Is that a joke too? HiLo48 (talk) 06:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, frankly I find your racial patronizing highly offensive, and your implication that not sharing your identity politics is bias personally insulting. If Dodd has accomplished anything it was by his individual effort as an actor, for which he deserves all due praise, and not by the effortless accident of his birth.  His chosen field is "actor", not "black Australian".  What an insult to other Aboriginals to pretend he is somehow their superior in the field of Aboriginalizing. μηδείς (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Featured article, significant though not famous awards. Sort of content we want to showcase on the Main Page and that people are unlikely to have heard of, but likely to find interesting. Neljack (talk) 06:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Reluctant oppose. Because there is no article for the award and the article for the ceremony is a stub. That doesn't indicate that someone being given the award is a major event, in the scheme of things. To put it another way, if the bolded article has to be the bio, that's a red flag. Formerip (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose award is of insufficient notability and newsworthiness. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose An award recognizing accomplishments by members of a small minority of Australia's population smells too much like a big fish in a small pond. --Allen3 talk 13:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Firstly, I'm not seeing where this is in the news (the source given is from the group giving the award) Further, this is an award for a small subset of a nation's population.  Lastly, I don't see this sort of award posted often, if at all (even from groups with more general criteria). 331dot (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Syria Sticky
With all the talk about Syria lately, I think a Syria sticky would be a good idea. Thoughts? Andise1 (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Which article would be linked? Syrian civil war is very long and, unsurprisingly, is orange-tagged for neutrality. --LukeSurlt c 07:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this can wait. If indeed there is a concrete step in the U.N. process, that will be posted I'm sure. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We could link to Portal:Syrian civil war which is a better introduction to the conflict than Syrian Civil War --LukeSurlt c 16:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Thomas Bach

 * Support, but this could be included into the existing blurp about Tokyo having been awarded the 2020 games, to something like


 * "During the 125th IOC Session, Tokyo is selected to host the 2020 Summer Olympics, and Thomas Bach (pictured) is elected the 9th President of the International Olympic Committee."
 * or (to avoid the dual IOC/International Olympic Committee)
 * "During its 125th Session", the International Olympic Committee selects Tokyo to host the 2020 Summer Olympics and elects Thomas Bach (pictured) as its 9th President."
 * --FoxyOrange (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems perfectly reasonable to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * definately notably, came here to nominae it too. I too support Foxy Orange. Needs an update though. Perhaps some more on his election and who he ran against, etcLihaas (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * there is one thing which I don't understand. Tokyo and Thomas Bach have been both elected using the same eliminatory voting process (with each round the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated). So why use the verb selected for Tokyo and the verb elected for Thomas Bach ? 83.163.5.82 (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Great question. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, what about
 * "During its 125th Session, the International Olympic Committee announces Tokyo as the host of the 2020 Summer Olympics and elects Thomas Bach (pictured) as its 9th President."
 * or
 * "During its 125th Session, the International Olympic Committee awards the 2020 Summer Olympics to Tokyo and elects Thomas Bach (pictured) as its 9th President."
 * --FoxyOrange (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support combined blurb. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support combined. I made the proposal on Saturday for the 2020 Olympics. Hektor (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support we could also fold in the wrestling perhaps. --LukeSurlt c 18:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support combined blurb, perhaps using "awards" for Tokyo and "elects" for Bach. -- Mike (Kicking222) 18:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support combined blurb including wrestling. -Zanhe (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - combined blurb.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted as a combined blurb. Feel free to suggest improvements or edit.  I put the new blurb at the top, and put the election to the front of the blurb. Jehochman Talk 15:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * For info: I have made a comment about the blurb at Errors. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 09:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

2012 Delhi gang rape case

 * Support Receiving wide coverage; resolution of a notable legal case in India. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Significant case, significant news coverage of said case. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I came here to nominate this myself.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  14:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - normally I'd oppose but this is an international story as noted, and in the news all over. Jus  da  fax   19:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait the article says sentencing (perhaps to death) begins tomorrow, so this could either go up with the understanding that it will be updated or we can just wait. μηδείς (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The sentencing hearings begin tomorrow, but that doesn't necessarily mean the sentence will come tomorrow. The juvenile's sentencing phase took months. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We do normally wait for sentencing, though. Formerip (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am of no huge opinion one way or the other, but it would be odd to have it come off ITN next Tuesday and then have sentences of death passed on Weds. μηδείς (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

For info, sentencing is set for Friday, according to the BBC. Formerip (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems better to Wait for the sentencing. Did we have an ITN when the original crime and subsequent protests occurred? Jehochman Talk 23:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A consensus has developed over the last year or so that ITN should wait until sentencing to post. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support but wait for sentencing. I agree with the others, the sentence will be a key part of this aspect of the story. Resolute 01:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, FormerIP. μηδείς (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - Definitly for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

[Attention needed] RD Saul Landau

 * I'm afraid this item is now too old to appear in the template. --LukeSurlt c 14:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I put it in the 9 September section because that was when he died. &mdash; rybec   15:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Twerking

 * Comment Twerking incidents are ITN/R. --  tariq abjotu  02:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 0_o Resolute 02:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Article needs updating. Stephen 02:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I like the extended alt blurb better, but could perhaps 'self-immolates' be changed to 'sets herself on fire'? 203.206.185.55 (talk) 04:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Suggest we speedily close and remove, or hat. Jus  da  fax   04:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Judasfax. Humor or sexual elements to a story do not represent a reason to post. 3142 (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose and close The video was a hoax created by Jimmy Kimmel.. In any case, I understand the video was posted about a week ago and it is obviously not ITN-worthy. Neljack (talk) 05:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support But only if she set fire to the Van Gogh at the same time.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 06:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm sure this is somehow American-centric. Somehow. -- Plasma Twa  2  06:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Is this a joke? —  - dain   omite    07:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support sticky - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  07:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - obvious hoax. Can we close this now, please? Oh, and next time, try 'girl' or 'woman' instead of 'female'. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong support clearly news of international importance. Sticky asap plz thnk of teh lil gurlz. --Somchai Sun (talk) 08:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Surely ITN hasn't become a complete joke, has it? SNOW close. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

[Attention needed] [Posted] Norway election

 * News sources please? 331dot (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup. No source, no vote. Formerip (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - when results are in.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - per BabbaQ. --Simone 20:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Added BBC source. --  axg //  ✉  ]] ''' 21:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Appreciated, but it would be nice if the nominator (a regular here) learned to do so. 331dot (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps read the article itself. Which is what ought to happen before "votin"Lihaas (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I certainly do read the article; that is not the issue. This being "in the news" we need some evidence that a story is indeed "in the news".  We have a 'sources' line in the nom template for a reason- to make it easy to determine that.  Do you think it's there just to take up space and not be used? 331dot (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to defend Lihaas on this one, at least to some extent. Sure, Lihaas sometimes nominates ITNR events before we have a clue of the outcome or whether the article is going to be developed – in fairness the outcome is irrelevant for an ITNR event's eligibility, and from the looks of the article so far it seems highly likely that the work will be done. But Lihaas's habit would actually be a big net positive (drawing editors' attention towards upcoming items) if it wasn't for the fact that other regulars vote (yes, "vote", not "!vote") for stories without even reading the article. —WFC— FL wishlist 17:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If people giving their opinions here aren't looking at the articles, then they should be called out on it and their opinion weighed appropriately; the sources line in the nom template helps to establish that an item is in the news- one can update an article that isn't in the news or only covered in a small area. 331dot (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Post once results are known and put in article. 331dot (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment It appears that Labour, not the Conservative Party, has won a plurality . However, the centre-right parties look set to win the majority of seats and Stoltenberg (the PM and Labour leader) has already conceded defeat. Given that, I think it would be a bit misleading to say "Labour win a plurality" in the blurb. I'm not sure what we should say instead. Maybe either "Centre-right parties win a majority of seats in the Norwegian parliamentary election, 2013" or "Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg concedes defeat after his government loses the Norwegian parliamentary election, 2013. Neljack (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm,. there is no precedent for this. We could [ppost the result and the governmen formation? We did that for usa, uk, aus and (i believe) canada.Lihaas (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Updated and ready to post...just as soon as we figue a blurb.Lihaas (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Something along the lines of "A loose coalition of centre-right parties led by the Conservative Party wins a majority in the Norwegian parliamentary election" would be accurate. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Ready I've used IP88's as the altblurb, ommitting the word "loose" as unnecessary. This is updated and the blurb can be changed if there's further discussion. μηδείς (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem with the change; it was only a draft and I was unsure about whether "loose" was neccessary myself. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Using "loose" would only be essential if indeed it were expected to fall apart imminently. μηδείς (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Posting. Jehochman Talk 23:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually i think saying the centre-right coalition is deceptive as no government has been formed and there is no coalition yet, in the interests of actual facts (and constitutionally the Labour party should get the first chance to form a government (never mind it will fail) so it should read the Labour wins a pluralitylyLihaas (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Sunset at Montmajour

 * All praise the article's creator, too.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. Interesting, rare, and encyclopaedic. I've expanded this beyond stub class. --LukeSurlt c 13:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support A rare and interesting event("new" paintings from deceased famous artists); receiving wide coverage. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support — "The first full-size canvas by Van Gogh discovered since 1928" (BBC) seems a major arts find — but should it be in ITN or TFP? Sca (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The article would also qualify for DYK as well at the moment, but I think the system basically gives ITN "first dibs" :) Featured picture status takes a while to obtain, and I don't think there's any reason a ITN picture couldn't later be a TFP. --LukeSurlt c 15:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing against an image being POTD after being ITN; only DYK disallows former ITN articles (speaking as someone who has experience in both areas). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - Saw this pass twitter feed, beaten to the punch in the ITN/C, glad to see the article already for it. --M ASEM (t) 15:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support 1) It's Van Gogh 2) Rare event 3) My cats name is Mittens. --Somchai Sun (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ready article is updated and support is universal. I think there is a reason why, 10,000 years from now in the Dune universe, one of, if not the only artifact still existing from Earth, is a Van Gogh painting. μηδείς (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  19:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Venezuelan Bus Crash

 * Strong oppose. If we posted every traffic accident that killed one person we would (regrettably) be posting thousands every day. This is a story for the local newspaper, not ITN. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose - Random traffic accident, not the type of news WP should be including at all. --M ASEM (t) 15:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment How is this a Mexican bus crash? --  tariq abjotu  16:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The title was fixed by ComputerJA.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  18:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose of course this is a very traumatic incident - I say this as someone who has been in a major car crash before - but it simply isn't ITN worthy news, let alone not being notable enough for an article of its own.--Somchai Sun (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose and SNOW close. While some levels of casualties in accidents (of any kind) are debatable as to their significance, only one death is clearly not significant enough for ITN. Also not seeing evidence of international coverage of this crash. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose While I don't understand the opposition to traffic accidents that kill lots of people, killing one person (even if many others are injured) is not sufficient. Neljack (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Venice Film Festival

 * Comment. The Sacro GRA article would need a lot of expansion. I hope it gets it, but I don't think we should post otherwise. Formerip (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Agree with FIP. I think the film festivals should be scaled back on ITN/R (what?!) to include just Cannes and include the others if there is a slow news week.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Feel free to propose the removal of this (or any ITNR listed event) at the discussion page for ITNR. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the problem here is the lack of update, not ITNR. μηδείς (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Minotaur V

 * To clarify (since this is rare) the first launch of a type of rocket is ITNR. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - ITNR convinces me. Even without it, it is a story of fascinating impact, in the news, and of international interest, as the frontiers of human science are expanded. What is that moon dust? Jus  da  fax   18:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ITN/R so no-brainer (and no arguments)...get it to at least GA status before it touches down/gets to work? ^_^ --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - per Jusdafax. Miyagawa (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, both for the new launcher and the mission itself. However I would turn the blurb around to lead with the probe and cut out the unnecessary detail. I've suggested an alternative above. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 21:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The LADEE article has a sufficient update, and this is ITNR so I'm marking as ready. Note my comment on the blurb is now even more important due to the location of the update. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  14:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose current treatment. ITN/R status here is for the rocket, not the payload, therefore it is the lead article in any blurb where ITN/R is asserted.  If the relevant article isn't ready ITN/R doesn't transfer to the element that isn't covered by it. Premature posting does nothing to encourage the ITN/R element to be built up to standard. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose and pull per Monumentally incompetent. You can't simultaneously assert ITN/R as a reason to reject objections and then focuse on something that is not ITN/R.  That's a simple bait-and-switch. 3142 (talk) 04:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's unlikely that a nomination that instead focused on the LDEE specifically (and in which ITN/R wasn't invoked) wouldn't have achieved consensus for posting; space launches of this nature are generally supported at ITN. (Also, I'm not even sure your understanding of ITN/R is the consensus understanding; we often post, for example, articles about sports ITN/R items with an athlete's name, rather than the competition, bolded.) There's no reason to pull due to a technicality, especially as I glean from your remarks that you don't actually have an objection to the story itself. A request to pull is not an accepted tag for ITN nominations, so I'm reverting it back to the current status of [Posted]. --  tariq abjotu  06:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Games of the XXXII Olympiad

 * I think it would be best to mention the host city and the new IOC president in the same blurb. I don't think the new sport is important enough to mention, but I don't suppose there is any actual harm in listing that also, if it can be done without making the blurb overly long (I doubt that it can be). Either way, my preference would probably be to omit the new sport. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support mentioning both the host city and new IOC president in one blurb. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I fully agree. Please note then that I would support putting the blurb tonight as soon as the 2020 host city is elected, and update it on September 10 (Tuesday) when the IOC president is elected. Hektor (talk) 06:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can update it gradually, but there are three days between the elections and there is a little risk that the blurb will vanish from the main page during that time. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support including the host city and the new president in one blurb. It's quite likely that there won't be a new sport, since it's widely expected that wrestling will be successful in its attempt to remain in the Olympics. I don't think "wrestling doesn't get kicked out of the Olympics" would be a sufficiently big story, though perhaps a new sport would be. In any case, it might be difficult fitting that into the blurb too. Neljack (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Though since the presidential election will take place three days after the choice of the host city, the blurb should go up with just the latter and then be updated and bumped up when the former is announced. Neljack (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'd go for the host city and the new sport. I know the presidency does not change hands regularly, and it's not like it isn't a big deal. I just think it's likely to be less interesting to readers. Unless, perhaps, it is someone already well-known. Formerip (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the Public Domain rationale on File:125th_IOC_session_official_logo.png is a bit dubious. I wouldn't put it on the main page. --LukeSurlt c 12:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support host city and presidency - I just had the thought of coming here and nominating it, so I've obviously supporting! Miyagawa (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Result of the city vote should be known around 20:30 UTC. Hektor (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. But why not make the blurp just "Tokyo is elected host city of the 2020 Summer Olympics"?--FoxyOrange (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support and second FoxyOrange's proposal. -Zanhe (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support: Post now for city. Update blurb for president. Support sport if new sport is selected, not if wrestling is retained. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Yes. Post now for city. It's in the news NOW. HiLo48 (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Unready No. Update now the article.  It's not updated YET. μηδείς (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as "The International Olympic Committee selects Tokyo to host the 2020 Summer Olympics." "Elect" seems overly technical and pedantic, and saying "was selected" is very much passive voice, which we try to avoid. Also, the noun "host city" is less direct and to-the-point than the verb "host." CaseyPenk (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment:Why the delay in posting? Consensus to post the host city was reached before the decision.More than 12 hours. later still no update, this should have been done yesterday evening. yorkshiresky (talk) 07:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess the chocolate fireguards are dripping onto the logs of ignorance. Go Tokyo!  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I've expanded this a bit with some "reaction". --LukeSurlt c 11:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd go as far to say this is Ready now. --LukeSurlt c 12:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It'll be 2020 before the admins pull their fingers out.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Is that really necessary? As yorkshiresky seemed to acknowledge, the problem was the update. It was only marked ready at 12:02 UTC, and was posted within an hour and a half. C'mon. --  tariq abjotu  14:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Posted by . --  tariq abjotu  14:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Australian federal election

 * Comment Re the blurb... Australia has a parliamentary system. Voters do not vote directly for the PM. Assuming the result is clear enough quickly enough (it wasn't last time; it took weeks), the blurb should read something like "The xxxxx party wins a majority of seats in the Australian federal election, making yyyyy the Prime Minister." HiLo48 (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The blurb has been amended accordingly. YuMaNuMa Contrib 00:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that the election is likely to be won by a coalition rather than a party, and its leader will not become PM for a couple of weeks (until appointed by the Governor-General after final results are in), so "making yyyyy the Prime Minister" would be misleading. I would suggest this as a blurb, following our usual practice for election blurbs: "The Coalition, led by Tony Abbott, wins the 2013 Australian federal election. Neljack (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right that the Coalition seems likely to win, and that should be clarified, but with that word having a uniquely Australian usage, different from almost anywhere else, I think it needs more than just a Wikilink to tell the world about it. How about "The Coalition of the Liberal Party and National Party, led by Tony Abbott, wins the 2013 Australian federal election"? HiLo48 (talk) 03:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're probably right. I was going to say something more than just "The Coalition" until I saw from the article on it that it technically comprised four parties (Liberal, National, Country Liberal. and Liberal National), which complicated things a bit. But the Liberal National Party is apparently just a merger of Liberal and National in Queensland, and the Country Liberal Party is sort of a mixture and only exists in the Northern Territory, so perhaps we could refer to the Coalition as "the Liberal-National Coalition". I've seen it called that in the international media and it is referred to as such in the disambiguation note at the top of our article too. Neljack (talk) 06:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. "the Liberal-National Coalition" sounds good. (I wonder if we should try to explain to the Americans that Liberal means conservative?) HiLo48 (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Liberal in both Australian and US usage are essentially equivalent terms. Both Democrat and Republican parties would be well on the right side of Australian politics. --Pete (talk) 10:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WTF? You're truly obsessed. That's the first post you've made in nearly a week, and the only one on this page this year, and it's to contradict me. Do you comb Wikipedia in minute detail every day to find things you can say I've been wrong about. You're a very sad case. HiLo48 (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Crikey! Are you stalking me? Never mind. Seems to me that Australian Liberals fall a lot closer to the American idea of liberal than (say) the average Democrat - both major US parties would be seen as well on the right-wing side of Australian politics. --Pete (talk) 22:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support This is a good news, so I say support... Hanamanteo (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Good news? I'm sure those supporting the losing parties won't think so. Not a good reason really. HiLo48 (talk) 05:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * :D --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support metioning the winning party or coalition and perhaps its leader, but not the PM until his name is known and confirmed. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment "Coalition" is not a proper noun and is not capitalized. I'd also express a general distaste for generic piping - "The coalition" or any similar term could redirect anywhere and the link should bear a meaningful relationship with the target.  The actual story is obviously worth posting given a decent update. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 10:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You've encountered a unique and confusing aspect of Australian politics. Please look at Coalition (Australia). Note the capital C. It's a virtually permanent coalition of a couple of larger parties that tends to exist even when the parties are not in power. To add further confusion, one of the members of this Coalition is the Liberal Party, Australia's major conservative party. HiLo48 (talk) 10:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll resist commenting on how upside-down that is ;).
 * In terms of whether coalition is a proper noun, what do major news sources do? Formerip (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Capital C all the time. See here. It's so common and ingrained a usage in Australia that I'm certain many Australian people don't realise that the words "coalition" and "liberal" have very different meanings elsewhere in the world. HiLo48 (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support and get this on the main page ASAP. User:HiLo48's blurb suggestion in the discussion is a little more accurate.  (Something like "The Liberal–National Coalition, led by Tony Abbott, wins the 2013 Australian federal election".)  — <span style="border:1px solid #000073;background:#4D4DA6;padding:2px;color:#F9FFFF;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em"> AjaxSmack   14:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support-A farewell and good tidings is in order for Kevin Rudd! Also, this is INT/R. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support And post it now.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 16:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Very topical event, and should be added. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - per above supports. I see clear consensus, so will mark as ready. Jus  da  fax   18:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Can someone point to me where the update is? – H T  D  20:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, because it needs one, and I have changed the note accordingly. Jus  da  fax   21:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What update is needed? The current text appears to address the comments above where appropriate, and the bolded article text appears to be up to date from a quick scan. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you point to me what section is the updated one? The only update I see is the infobox. Nothing in the prose tells me that "the Liberal–National Coalition win an absolute majority in the House of Representatives as Tony Abbott (pictured) is elected Prime Minister of Australia." In fact, Abbott won't be elected until parliament convenes. The "Timeline" section ends on September 1, but the election is on September 7! – H  T  D  05:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Abbott is currently the leader of the party that's the major partner in the Coalition which has, for all intents and purposes, won the election. The formal process is that in that capacity he will, some time in the next few days, visit the Governor General and tell him he is able to form government. The GG will then swear him in as Prime Minister. It doesn't depend on parliament meeting. HiLo48 (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * According to this, "The Prime Minister is chosen by a vote of the members of the government." I'm unsure if "government" refers solely to the ministers, the members of his party/coalition, or the parliament per se. Well of course, he should have to go to the GG once he is chosen. – H T  D  06:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Government" refers to the elected members of the ruling party, or in this case, the Coalition. I guess that, theoretically, a new vote could be held now and the leader could change, but that would be unprecedented. HiLo48 (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The "as Tony Abbott (pictured) is elected Prime Minister of Australia." bit isn't strictly accurate - he wasn't elected PM, as this position isn't up for grabs directly (it goes to whoever leads the party who controls the house of representatives). I'm not sure what the best alternate wording is though - "and Tony Abbott (pictured) becomes Prime Minister of Australia." might be an improvement. Nick-D (talk) 05:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Post as soon as possible, someone, please. This is very important news, and Kevin Rudd, when he was elected leader of Labor midway, was put on the news post-haste. Someone do this quickly, please. (btw, good riddance to him) Decentman12 (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2013 (EST)
 * We're not interested in your political opinions. Such comments NEVER help. HiLo48 (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - yeah, look, parliamentary elections with an indirectly elected leader are obviously more complicated but all reliable sources are now describing Abbott as the "Prime Minister-elect" with the presumption he will be sworn in over the next few days. That's what they're saying in the news, and this is "In The News". I don't think we're going to run into too much trouble. Stalwart 111  11:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just finished adding a results table for the House of Reps and some prose in the "Post-election" section. Is that good enough?  If so, can someone uninvolved in updating the article mark this as [Ready]? —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Good enough. The article is still something of a data dump, but the final section is decent enough. Marking ready. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  22:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] G-20 summit

 * Support - The target article is somewhat thin on the content side, but that will grow. Definitely in the news, and of international interest. Perfect candidate for ITN. Jus  da  fax   18:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * On ITNR, updated, marking ready. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 23:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  05:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * BRICS wasnt posted and that is ITNR/. Why was this done so without discussion?!Lihaas (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Lihaas, perhaps the BRICS-related article wasn't updated? If you have concerns about a past discussion, WT:ITN might be the best place to go.  Spencer T♦ C 00:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Dutch Peacekeepers found liable for Srebrenica

 * Support Indeed a significant decision that will surely get plenty of international attention. Suggest changing the blurb to make clear that it is the Dutch state that has been found liable, not the soldiers personally. Neljack (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral on posting, but the proposed blurb is somewhat misleading. The Supreme Court ruled that the Netherlands shoulders liability for three of the 7,500 deaths in the Srebrenica massacre; while "some" might be technically accurate, I think that to most readers it would suggest a higher proportion than 0.04%. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Agree that the blurb should say "three deaths" rather than "some of the deaths". Neljack (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * comment alter the blurb please, I was under the impression that the 3 were a 'test case' for 'The three men were among thousands who took shelter in the UN compound'. And yes dutch state were found liable not the individual soldiers but I couldn't figure out a correct sounding blurb for that. EdwardLane (talk) 08:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Some sort of clarification will be necessary in the blurb by someone familiar with the case. μηδείς (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Think the blurb should say something like: The Dutch supreme court confirms state liability for the actions of Dutch soldiers which facilitated the Srebrenica massacre.
 * My understanding is that these were test cases. The principle of liability is the important thing here, so "three" would be misleading. It would be good to see this posted, but the section still needs updating and copyedting. Formerip (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support that blurb, good job formerip EdwardLane (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Altblurb I have added a slightly shortened version of FormerIP's suggestion as the Altblurb. μηδείς (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Bull run decryption program

 * Support. Especially the confirmation that the NSA has been inserting back doors in hardware, software, and standards (though previously suspected) is highly notable. NSA's collection of private keys through hacking and court orders is also highly notable. The NSA has basically highjacked the Internet security structure. Though it should be noted that the NSA can't actually hack HTTPS and SSL in general. Thue (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am pretty sure Snowden released all these things in one go. these newspapers just want to take their sweet time and slowly reveal one classified program after another. Its getting annoying... couple weeks after it'll be another thing that he released. We get it NSA snoops on anything and everything. -- Ashish-g55 18:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And we have posted almost nothing of it ITN. This news item in isolation is insanely notable - I am baffled that people here are so opposed to posting it. Thue (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Reluctant oppose because the article is so short, and can not be foreseen to develop much further, because all information about this programme is so incredibly scarce. We know very little (actually nothing) of its specific technical capabilities, like which encryptions it can actually defeat. Quoting The Guardian, after pressure from the intelligence community the publications that ran this story "[...] removed some specific facts but decided to publish the story because of the value of a public debate about government actions [...]." If we actually had information about the specific cryptographic advances NSA has supposedly made, this would be a very interesting story. --hydrox (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support this is actual technology news, as opposed to, say, the Verizon buy out. μηδείς (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. One of the core responsibilities of spy agencies is cracking encryption and codes. The existence of this program should be utterly unsurprising.  In that vein, this seems little more than an incremental update on the already-ran fact that the US government is spying on its own citizens. Resolute 19:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Inserting actual backdoors into encryption standards (and getting caught) is not business as usual! On the other hand, would you also argue that the military's job is to wage war, so ITN should not feature any news involving a military waging war? Thue (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Put in parallel, an ITN story on a military going to war would be equivalent of our posting the revelation that the NSA is spying on its own citizens. The latter was posted, and the former would also be posted, of course.  This story is like running an ITN blurb on troop movements. Resolute 23:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A parallel would be the military using chemical weapons. Backdooring encryption standards really is not business as usual. Thue (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is non-news. NSA receives billions of dollars to make codes and crack codes.  It is not news that a secret government agency is able to do what they are supposed to do.  Per Resolute, this is a minor, incremental update of a previous story.  Jehochman Talk 20:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The head of NSA also thinks this is "not news" .  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  07:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The newspapers were asked not to publish specifically these articles because of national security, but posted edited but still revealing article anyway - calling that "not news" is insane. Don't be fooled by diversions in the information war. Thue (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The point I was trying to get through is that downplaying the importance of these revelations is exactly what the NSA wants.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  13:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Their desires, one way or the other, are not relevant to this process. -LtNOWIS (talk) 01:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose all in a day's work for these guys. No surprise at all that someone else has been buying useless junk on my credit card.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The backdooring of encryption standards is NOT "all in a days work". It is entirely unprecedented. Thue (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Jehochman. Also, ITN is not an Edward Snowden ticker. We don't need to post every "new" release from the information he took. 331dot (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * When was the last time we posted something from the NSA documents? Not for a while, unless I'm mistaken. Neljack (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I remember, we only posted the initial revelation, and the grant of asylum in Russia. Our Snowden coverage is proportionally wastly smaller than the newspaper coverage. Thue (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's correct (both of you) but I have seen proposals to do so. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Important new revelations, raising questions about internet security and privacy with considerable public interest. Widespread international coverage. Neljack (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment the oppose comments that suggest we should already all know exactly what the NSA is doing border on the assertion of psychic ability. Indeed, why don't those who suggest this is "no surprise" tell us what other secret domestic spying and other illegal activities the US government is up to?  I don't see any reason to wait for the press to cover it, when editors here are so knowledgeable. μηδείς (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * They are filtering everything and reading/listening/looking-at whatever is flagged as "interesting". I don't see this revelation as being different from the one that was already featured. With ITN we don't post every new facet of the same story.  This news is significant, but it's not separate enough from the story we already featured to be featured again. If more details are revealed about "back doors", I might change my opinion.  If the back door is just a method of complying with a subpeona, that's not really newsworthy.  If NSA have found a way to crack PGP or quickly factor really large composite numbers, I'd be impressed and might reconsider. Jehochman Talk 02:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support This chunk of the story does seem to suggest that they can 'crack' really large composite numbers - not because they are better at the maths required but because they have forced the people writing encryption protocols to use particular factors (that are then known to the nsa) making cracking any public key encryption possible where normally it would need a supercomputer - all they would need to say is you must use this large prime as part of the composite number - the code appears encrypted but is effectively not encrypted to anyone knowing which large prime is used. That's described here as "adding a common exponent to a public-key exchange protocol," EdwardLane (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Though not stated explicitly in the article, the back door in the encryption standards has to be talking about stuff like this. A confirmation of that really is extremely notable, and much more than just another subpoena. Thue (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - This is another big twist in the ongoing spiral of online spying. The "back door" revelations are new and highly significant. This is a big breaking story with international implications and clearly ITN-worthy. Jus  da  fax   19:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. It's a long-running story, and this is a significant development so a good point to post. Deliberate installation of back doors into entire protocols is a major new revelation, and entirely unprecedented. However, I would prefer to avoid naming Snowden in the blurb, and instead having a link (on 'reveals'?) to 2013 mass surveillance disclosures, which has much more relevant content. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 23:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, this is not about the NSA having cracked a code, that's indeed part of their job (although had that happened, that would still be Breaking News because 256-bit AES requires a supercomputer far longer than the age of the universe to crack using brute force). Rather it is about the use of backdoors, which violates the contract every internet user thinks he/she has agreed to. Count Iblis (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ready The article is updated and support is over 60%. I have added a shorter altblurb. μηδείς (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  22:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Rochus Misch

 * Oppose. The ITN criteria for deaths are not met: Misch neither held a high ranking office, nor was he "a very important figure in his field". His death did not create a major international impact. A listing at "recent deaths" would me more appropriate.--FoxyOrange (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think it was worth nominating this, as it is a very interesting fact. Unfortunately, it's a little too trivia-like for ITN. Recent deaths would be a better place for it. Redverton (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose (both blurb and RD), as per FoxyOrange's reasoning. This is, essentially, trivia. --LukeSurlt c 14:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose A low-ranking, entirely minor — if interesting — historical figure, not significant. Sca (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I would think that being the last survivor of the Fuhrerbunker and being Hitler's personal bodguard would fulfil the notability of being an important person within the field.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 18:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Which field would this person be notable in? 331dot (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment definitely not blurbworthy, and can't imagine any circumstance in the last 60 years where his death would have been anything other than a backpage (in)human interest story. Not worth pushing any current RD off the ticker. μηδείς (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunate would have made an interesting RD for people thinking "who?" and clicking on it. Certainly not worth a blurb, obv. Black Kite (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're overlooking the fact that posting Misch would mean taking down one of the existing listings, all of which are more notable. I'd be in favor of some sort of ranking system for RD so that this could go up when one of the other listings is stale, but without pushing another listing off prematurely. μηδείς (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose any mention. Not worthy of a blurb, and does not meet the RD criteria.  331dot (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Tamu Massif

 * Support Iff it is ready to post reasonably quickly. If not the whole rationale of posting is lost.  It's obviously of note but there have been quite a glut of these scientifically notable but otherwise largely ignored "news" items over the last few months.  At least it would naturally displace the existing geology story in the template if posted. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Think the blurb should say "largest in the world" and leave the solar system out of it. What proportion of the solar system has been thoroughly surveyed for volcanoes? Formerip (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Except for Pluto and Ceres, and the outer Kuiper bodies, the entirety of the solar system has been surveyed for volcanoes. Mercury, Venus, and Mars have been mapped, as have all the tectonically differentiated gas giant satellites.  The Earth and Titan are the only bodies with surface oceans, and this volcano wasn't found until now because it is over a mile under water.  It's not believed that the gas giants have volcanoes.  We shouldn't be dumbing down blurbs on editorial ignorance.  Unless there's a source that you know says otherwise this is far and away a huge find. μηδείς (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would go with "on Earth" to be clearer. --  tariq abjotu  01:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with this. Why engage in second-guessing the sources because you think the solar system has not been surveyed? It most certainly has been surveyed, and no big volcanos have turned up except Olympus Mons. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * By Jove, let's just stick to this earth. Support alt blurb.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb. A very newsworthy discovery. Thryduulf (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb. This isn't just slightly larger than Mauna Loa.  It's an order of magnitude larger.  It's kind of a bad joke on our lay readers and an insult to our educated readers to portray this as just larger than the next terrestrial competitor. μηδείς (talk) 02:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb. If our own planet hasn't even been completely surveyed of volcanoes (and had them measured) we certainly don't need to mention the Solar System in the blurb. 331dot (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Frankly, other than your own ignorance of the topic, 331, do you have some basis for that? We have full maps of the surface of every terrestrial body in the solar system closer than Pluto and other than Ceres.  The earth is an exception because one or two miles of water on the surface is a unique difficulty.  Is there some other planet you fear has an ocean hiding a volcano? μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Drawing a map from satellite imagery is very different than actually exploring another planet or moon. Unless you've been to Titan or Europa recently you cannot categorically state we've found every volcano in the Solar System. I know of no scientist who would make such a claim, unless you hold a degree in astronomy. 331dot (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, people with degrees in astronomy have long stated that Olympus Mons is the largest in the solar system. They have gone to the trouble of mapping Titan and Europa, and no such volcano exists. So this subsea volcano is the second largest. No magical weaseling or Wikilawyering is needed here, thank you. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What you offensively call "weaseling" and "wikilawyering" I call common sense. If we just found this volcano on our own planet, underwater or otherwise, who knows what we will find when we actually get to other locations in the Solar System. That said, I would be satisfied with "known Solar System" in the blurb. Additionally, most news sources I am seeing are describing this as the largest on Earth in the headline, and mentioning the Solar System and Olympus Mons in the article itself. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll call it worse than that; you are engaging in WP:SYNTHESIS of the sources in your head. Real sources say that vulcanism in the solar system is rare, and creates (other than Earth and Mars) small. Abductive  (reasoning) 14:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It's very simple to add the word "known" to a blurb when that is found necessary. I don't think it is when one also says "discovered" in the same blurb.  But one can add "known" much less destructively than other options. μηδείς (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm fine with either blurbs, however the first one is more interesting and has got me reading articles for some hours this morning.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  04:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support with a preference for the original (+"known" per Medeis). Yes, something larger could be found under the ice of Europa, or a known formation could be re-analysed like this one was and found to in fact be a single volcano, but for now it is certainly the second largest known volano in the solar system.  To those supporting only the alt because a new volcano may be discovered: This one was found by analysing data on a known structure (discovered early C20 according to the page), so it's also possible that something larger could be found on Earth through similar analysis. I'd say it's notable as the largest known, despite this. MChesterMC (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support with preference for the original blurb, per Mohamed CJ. Organics LRO 14:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted. I've mentioned both the Earth and the Solar System so that everybody is happy (or no one). --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. μηδείς (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Good choice of words.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  13:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is an admin not involved in the discussion here reverting the consensus version of the blurb, and why has he not been reverted by another admin for his disruptive edit? μηδείς (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The correct place for discussion of errors is at Main Page/Errors, and not here. Also, I think the current version, arrived following discussion, is an improvement. PhilKnight (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no error here. There's your arbitrary removal of material that was discussed during the nomination because you are an admin and you can do that sort of thing.  Given your personal confusion had nothing to do with removing the fact that this is the second largest known volcano in the solar system, you could simply act in good faith and restore that to the blurb. μηδείς (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the current version is acceptable, and I don't intend to make any further edits to this item. If you want to propose a modification to the current version, I suggest you post your preferred version on Main Page/Errors. PhilKnight (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] New species of bats

 * There are approx. 1,240 species of bat. Bats is a far to general article for this story. I'm not even sure this discovery would warrant mention in that article. --LukeSurlt c 14:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, this study revises the phylogeny of the bats, showing a different tree than had previously been worked out. So the Vesper bat article (and others?) will need some changes. However, if one looks at that article, one will notice that there are existing bat species that are redlinks, showing the complete lack of interest in bats even from Wikipedia editors. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose, the scientists themselves say "Many vespertilionid species lack external taxonomically informative characters and are therefore difficult to identify using morphological keys. Consequently, the possibility of adding new distribution records or even discovering new species is still high". I also oppose on the grounds that these new species have not been properly described and named, merely discovered by their DNA. Now, if the nominator could find some secondary sources that emphasize the revision of the phylogeny and crafts a blurb about that, I might change to support. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Abductive. This is more like finding out from a blood test that your brother, whom you've always known, was actually fathered by that man your mom had an affair with, rather than like discovering you have a brother no one ever suspected existed. μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Abductive. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] RD Ariel Castro

 * Support It's certainly In the News, even here in little old Melbourne, Australia. I expect it's bigger in America. HiLo48 (talk) 06:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose He doesn't have his own article; that alone should disqualify him from RD. Also, I should point out that we haven't posted anything about this case; I'm not sure why this would be the one thing we post about this on ITN, especially with no context. --  tariq abjotu  06:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If it's his unexpected death we are posting, we should be discussing a blurb about this event, and as Tariq said we have posted nothing about this case before, we don't need to start now. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Normally we wouldn't have posted anything because we would wait for a trial and conviction. We don't need to wait now. μηδείς (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Tariqabjotu and 331dot sum it all up.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 13:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support If we can say something like the decade-long kidnapper of the three women is found dead in his cell. μηδείς (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per 331dot etc. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tariq makes the point well, we haven't ITN'ed any of this before, the suicide of this criminal isn't all that, other than to put a spotlight on the way the US jail system works when he was supposed to be on suicide watch. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * According to the BBC article he was on an enhanced watch but not a suicide watch, although I don't know what the practical difference is/was. Thryduulf (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe the fact that he's dead is a clue...Formerip (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That he's dead is only a clue that whatever watch he was on failed. It doesn't give any clue about what that watch was. Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. His death isn't as important as the story itself was, and if we didn't ITN that... Resolute 18:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Is the suggestion that he qualifies for RD by being "widely recognised as a very important figure" in the field of crime? His crimes got a lot of coverage because it was a sensational story, but I don't see much wider significance beyond the many other cases of serious crime that occur every year. Also, he may be a household name in the US, but I doubt he is worldwide. Neljack (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Some nice Wikilawyering happening in many of the above posts. Won't fight it. But something really needs highlighting. Given that Castro's death has probably been mentioned in thousands of news services in almost every country in the world over the past 18 hours, probably more than any other item in the current active list, there is clearly something wrong with our title "In the news". I know we need some sort of guidelines, but something's obviously not quite right here. Please don't respond with existing rules. That's been done above. HiLo48 (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what wikilawyering you're talking about. There is no standalone Ariel Castro article; it seems hard to justify someone being notable enough to be included on Recent deaths when he's not notable enough to have his own article. I don't think Ariel Castro is well-known enough, without the context of his crimes, to be posted onto ITN; four months ago, the name was completely unknown. This could, of course, be posted as a blurb, but I'm struggling to understand why the discovery of the three women was not in the news enough to be posted and his admission and thousand-year sentence were not in the news enough to be posted, but his death is. Perhaps this story should have been posted, in retrospect, but it just seems like an odd point to just change our mind about the notability of this story. --  tariq abjotu  22:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just on a point of fact, he is actually notable enough for his own article, it's just that we have a (perfectly sound) policy that prevents him from getting one by trumping GNG. All the same, I agree that we can't post someone to RD if they don't have an article. Formerip (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with there being no consensus to post here, damnatio memoriae is quite fine with me. But had this story been nominated (it wasn't?), the objection, as with the SA girlfriend-shooter, would have been that the subject had not been found guilty in court.  Now that that issue is moot, nominating the story for posting is hardly bad form or worth immediate closure. μηδείς (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ariel Castro was found guilty (as he pled guilty) in a court of law, and sentenced accordingly, a month ago; that wasn't even nominated. The discovery of the three women was nominated in May, but there was strong consensus not to post. To be honest, I really don't understand the obsession with waiting until someone is found guilty of the crime (that did not appear to be the objection to the story about the women's discovery anyway). --  tariq abjotu  02:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tariq. μηδείς (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Just an FYI, it was big news here in Canada too. Oh, and I'm fine with not posting this in recent deaths; I just proposed it in case anyone else saw him as significant enough to warrant mentioning. Kurtis (talk) 05:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I still think that we need to think about the fact that an item that really, truly was in the news all over the world isn't "In the news" on Wikipedia. Sure, we have rules that meant it didn't make it, but it does make Wikipedia seem pretty weird. Are we really sure that those rules make sense? HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Remember the "Occupy" movement was not put on the front page either. I think it's better that we don't always chase the white heat of what's making the front pages. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should change that section heading on the Main page to "Some items that are in the news but not necessarily the biggest ones". HiLo48 (talk) 08:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] RD Frederik Pohl

 * Support sfi-classic. Death section only two sentences, but remainder of article well updated. μηδείς (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for RD, award-winning author, prominent in his field, worthy of the two words which would constitute the RD update. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per Medeis and The Rambling Man. Thryduulf (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per Medeis and The Rambling Man. 331dot (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Definitely. Black Kite (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Posted to RD BencherliteTalk 22:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Marked Ready I am marking this ready as well supported. The update is to the whole article, not just the death section, in case anyone wants to object. μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Library of Birmingham
Moved up from September 1 to correspond with the date of the opening


 * Support but without "the largest public cultural space in Europe" which is vague puffery. μηδείς (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Question What exactly does "largest" mean here? Largest by square footage? Largest collection? Most capacity for visitors? The article (and even the citations) didn't really answer this question for me. Teemu08 (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note I placed this under a 3 September heading (which has been removed) because that's the day it opens. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Bots add the dates at the appropriate time, and as I understand it adding or removing dates prematurely messes up the bot. Just FYI. 331dot (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Noted, thank you. Perhaps an edit notice to thet effect would be helpful? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is such a notice at the top of this page, under "Please do not..". :) 331dot (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The second bullet point under a level three heading, whose level 2 parent heading is "Voicing an opinion on an item"... Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not every warning can be in large bold print at the top of the page; users adding or removing dates is not the biggest problem on this page, usually informing someone who does it is more than sufficient. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've moved the warning to a (hopefully) more logical place. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as a notable public space in a large country. I agree with Medeis's change to the blurb. 331dot (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think this will be the largest Local Authority library in the UK, not the largest public library. It will be less than a fifth the size of the British Library and a third the size of the BL Document Supply Centre in West Yorkshire. Formerip (talk) 10:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In American terms this will be the largest city library in Britain? μηδείς (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * AIUI, the BL is outwith the definition of "public library". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * How so? Formerip (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Because it's only open to the public by prior appointment, and you have to prove the material you wish to access is unavailable elsewhere. Black Kite (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've used the British Library. That's just not true. I don't see how it would prevent it from being a public library, in any case. Formerip (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It certainly used to be the case that you couldn't just turn up and access everything. For a lot of stuff you had to give 48h notice. Anyway this is all moot I think. Black Kite (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Public Libraries Act 1850 refers. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - largest? this is a national story at best.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if so (this is a significant building by Dutch architects; holding collections of international importance), is that a reason to exclude? We have at least two stories on the current homepage which are "national at best". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Objections based on an event being from a single country are not valid; Do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive."331dot (talk) 11:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So, can we run this tomorrow (tomorrow starts in ~8.5 hours, UK time)? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we can if the blurb is fixed to say something like largest local/municipal/etc. library in Britain and if we get at least three more good and referenced sentences of prose in the construction, holdings, or an opening section. μηδείς (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added some more; see also below. Just over two hours to UK midnight... Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We can add "...by Malala Yousafzai" . Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Update itr's fairly clear this will get posted if it's updated, and not if it isn't. We need attention from the nominator or a Birminghamster. μηδείς (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Updated in what way? Did you see my comments immediately above this? It's near midnight here in the UK; I'm going to bed now. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Could somebody respond, please? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No comment on the merits of the story, but the article looks adequate and there's only one (invalid) oppose !vote. Marking [ready]. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as a very interesting and newsworthy story. The largest "public cultural space in Europe" is a very big deal of international importance.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that should go in the blurb. How can it be not be the largest public library in Europe at the same time as being the largest "public cultural space" in Europe? Why do the Pompidou Centre (five times as big), the Prado, the Tate Modern (both twice as big) and so on not count? Obviously, the PR people must have found a way.
 * And, per the above discussion, it should be "municipal" or "city", rather than "public". But yes, it's updated. Formerip (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just used it to support my vote. The blurb should be subject on improvement before posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Posting it now Jehochman Talk 13:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Image Can we not use this image? It is a little more attractive than Heaney. μηδείς (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Heaney has been there for three days, so ✅. Black Kite (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we please fix the blurb, though? It is definitely the biggest municipal library in the UK, but it is not the biggest municipal cultural space in Europe. According to the article it is "20,798m² (plus 6,804m² shared with the Birmingham Repertory Theatre)". But the Cent Quatre in Paris is 36,800m² and Amsterdam Public Library is 28,500m². These are both municipal sites. I'm pretty sure there will be other examples. Formerip (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed Please fix blurb. The claim is dubious in the extreme, and reads more like a press release than an encyclopedia excerpt.  Largest municipal/city library in Great Britain is good. μηδείς (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (e/c with Medeis) Blurb has been reworded per comments here and WP:ERRORS. BencherliteTalk 21:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Uh... so what's so interesting about this story then? Just the largest library in the UK? Really? --  tariq abjotu  23:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As discussed above, not even the largest library in the UK. Probably in the top ten. Formerip (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's quite pretty, and neither dead nor sports-related. μηδείς (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So am I, but I don't get posted... MChesterMC (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You haven't been nominated, if you are in the news feel free to correct this. Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Post-posting weak support Damn Brummies always trying to big up their city! A moderately notable le grand opening with some interesting architecture (if you ask me Birmingham needs it ^_^) and a rather different story for a change. --Somchai Sun (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Microsoft's purchase of Nokia's mobile phone division

 * Support Very important. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose current wording: They are buying just the mobile phone division. Support if changed to "Microsoft announces that it intends to purchase Nokia's mobile phone business in a deal worth $7.2 billion, pending approval." ViperSnake151   Talk  04:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No. The front page described the Dell/Micheal Dell deal as a done thing a few months back.  It's still up in the air.  It pays to wait for the paperwork for things like this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MonumentallyIncompetent (talk • contribs) 06:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Receiving wide coverage, significant that a once-notable and widely known manufacturer of mobile phones is leaving the market. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait. Formerip (talk) 10:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * For what? And why? 331dot (talk) 11:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, there's a note up above saying "Deal is pending approval". That seems significant. HiLo48 (talk) 11:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The announcement of business deals typically gets more coverage than the actual conclusion or approval of the deal; it's in the news now. Saying "wait" is essentially saying "oppose". 331dot (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was just breaking into the first line of Please Mr Postman by the Marvelettes. I guess it doesn't come across properly on the internet. ETA: The Beatles version, which does actually start with the word "wait".
 * Obviously, I mean wait until it is a done deal. That announcement may make less of a splash, but that doesn't prevent us from posting it. It's nothing new for us to post something a while after the main news event (e.g. The Ashes). Formerip (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Wait. For that it is an incomplete transaction. I would had supported it for that ten years ago before smart phones, you either had a Nokia, a Motorola, a Ericsson or anything else that came and went, so that explained how big the company was then, now they clearly are a shadow of its former self. Donnie Park (talk) 12:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I updated the wording of the blurb to be more clear, as ViperSnake151 noted. As for whether or not the "pending" part matters, this announcement will get by far more press than the approval, regardless of whether or not it will be approved. There isn't much preventing this from being denied, either. --  Anc516  (Champs!) (Talk ▪ Contribs) 12:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose as usual, this is simply a flow of money to a better expected rate of return, not a harbinger of great new innovations. μηδείς (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Mild support only because I like the idea that Mircosoft appears to have sent a mole into Nokia in the form of Elop to make this deal more affordable.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Although Nokia's phone business had already almost diminished, the brand is still very well-recognised and this was the leading business story of the day globally. Waiting is not sensible: there are two reservations in the acquisition plan (non-approval by shareholders' meeting scheduled for 19 November 2013, and non-approval by regulation authorities), both of which are only theoretical at best. --hydrox (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, one of the sources says, "Nokia is a deeply troubled company and is rapidly losing relevance." Also, allegedly important cell phone blurb already disgraces ITN presently. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Deeply troubled does not mean it's not notable ITN-worthy. Nokia is still one of the largest mobile phone makers and one of the most recognized brands in the world. -Zanhe (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between notable and ITN-worthy. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant ITN-worthy. I've stricken out notable. -Zanhe (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support: one iconic global brand buying another is far more consequential than most of the sports items that we regularly feature on ITN. -Zanhe (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would've opposed the Verizon one if I'd seen it before it was posted, and this is less important. And incomplete. Black Kite (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Ronald Coase

 * Comment. Undecided at this moment, but regardless of my opinion my experience here has told me that just winning a Nobel Prize is not a ticket onto ITN or RD(rightly or wrongly).  331dot (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. He has an eponymous theorem which is deeply influential in economics. His passing had a full article in the NY Times, Forbes and Bloomberg News. Seems strong evidence that this is a relevant current event. He was apparently also the oldest Nobel Prize winner. 0x0077BE (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Very important economist, a pioneer of the influential law and economics movement (applying economic analysis to law). The Problem of Social Cost has been incredibly influential with its analysis of transaction costs - it is the most cited law review article of all time. Neljack (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Duplicate nomination/support for Coase as an RD entry added for 3rd September by, with the comment "Coase was particularly known for his theorem explaining how the economic efficiency improves in case of externalities and no transaction costs. He was also the winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1991.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)". It was supported by  with the comment "Nobel Prize in Economics => automatic support for RD. Thue (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)".  I have taken the liberty of deleting the duplicate nomination and moving their comments here instead. BencherliteTalk 22:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, no, Thue, that discussion has been had before, perhaps your support will be automatic, but there are a ton of nobel prize winners. μηδείς (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support I was going to oppose, but after reading the article ("If you torture the data long enough, it will confess") I am impressed. There's a citation needed tag, and the prose could use some work.  I am not sure whether I will be able to get to it in a timely matter. μηδείς (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Marked Ready the nomination is well supported, the article is updated and the sources (New York Times, Washington Post, Slate Magazine, Forbes) describe him as one of the greatest of the last century's economists. μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Still a CN tag. Tisk tisk.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 03:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * the answer was in the essay itself discussed in the tagged discussion. μηδείς (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  06:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Complaint -- As one of the most influential economists of our time - an assertion supported by virtually every obituary - there is no reason Coase should be consigned to the RD line as opposed to a full entry in ITN. If Seamus Heaney is worthy, Coase is certainly far more, there is no reason whatsoever that Coase should not have a full entry. Simfan34 (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * But Heaney's not worthy. He was posted over a few hours on a weekend that's a holiday in the US.  The ticker is fine for notable old men dying of old age, which is where Heaney should have ended up. You should express your complain under Heaney's nomination and on the errors page. μηδείς (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that whether or not Heany is worthy is different from whether or not Coase is worthy. I definitely think Coase is worthier than Heany, but just because his death was not unlikely does not mean it isn't newsworthy. The flip side is also true that just because one Nobel Prize winner was not worth a full entry does not mean that no Nobel Prize winners are worth a full entry. I think that if John Nash were to die, for example, there would be no question as to whether or not he deserves a full entry. Coase is not as famous as Nash, but certainly within his (high profile) profession, he's close. 0x0077BE (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not complaining about Heany. I am saying Coase should be on there, on his merits, as a leading expert in an important line of study. Simfan34 (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Agreed. I am new to this page and so I would like to make clear that I did not intend my support for the RD line to be mutually exclusive with a full entry. Coase is probably one of the top 5 most influential economists of the last 50 years. (Updated to sign properly - was IP for some reason) 0x0077BE (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Diana Nyad

 * Support this is quite a no-brainer once updated. Perhaps a qualification of professional/non-stop in the blurb to honor Cubans who've don the same thing in slightly different circumstances. μηδείς (talk) 18:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No Cuban has ever swum it. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, not in such comfortable and publicized circumstances. But your universal negative is unsupported in a wider context. μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't believe any Cubans have swam the entire length; they usually get partway out in a boat or makeshift boat and swim if it sinks. This swim is being reported as the second successful attempt.  No media is putting a "professional" qualifier on the feat or otherwise acknowledging any alleged Cuban swims; we shouldn't either. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your point seems to be that the accomplishments of non-professional swimmers without professional support are less important than those of well-to-do privileged folk with media support and no nearby attack vessels trying to kill them as escapees. I personally know someone who sam the whole way, with no support, using a large plank like a small surf board, allowing rest.  I do support this nomination, but not her deification. μηδείς (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That doesn't sound like it's the same thing. Either way, we go by what reliable sources say. --  tariq abjotu  21:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine, reliable sources do say that "Professional 64-year old long-distance swimmer Diana Nyad swims from Cuba to Florida with special gear and a 35-person support team."
 * This is not a soapbox for Cuba's political refugees or situation; but anyway, the issue is not whether or not the swimmer is professional, but whether or not others who have swam the same area are documented and covered in the news, since this is the "In the News" candidates page. If you have a news story of a Cuban refugee swimming or paddleboarding or whatever from Cuba to Florida, I would be more than happy to support it. I don't think it's "deification" to report what the press is reporting. 331dot (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We are not a web mirror. When one says "comprehensive encyclopedia" it doesn't mean parrot. You may also note, 331, that I was the first to support this nomination. So the implication that what I am interested in is soapboxing is insulting bullshit. The blurb should simply be accurate. μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, we aren't a mirror, we are "In the News" and this event is indeed in the news as described originally. 331dot (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - came to nominate it. Note, however, that she is not the first to do the swim but rather the first to do so w/o a shark cage (which aids substantially in drafting).  --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Even leaving off the qualifier "without a shark cage" she is only the second person to accomplish this(and the first was in 1997). Clearly a rare feat; top story on NBC and CNN, and most sources describe this as "historic". 331dot (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Widely reported and historic event. Likely to be interesting for readers, too. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 19:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * altblurbmention her support team and gear, omit unprovable claim she is the first to do so. μηδείς (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Our job is not to prove anything, but to report what is being reported, which is that she was the first to do this w/o a cage. It can (and should) be phrased in that context. There is no reason to provide the entire count of her support team and any technical gear she used in the blurb; that's what the article is for. I don't recall any other blurbs about personal achievement going into that much detail. 331dot (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Notable achievement.--Somchai Sun (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a wonderful accomplishment, and it is someplace on the front page of most news sources. Jehochman Talk 22:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is not really unprecedented at all. Note the clarification factored into the sources - without a shark cage.  In other words it's been done before.  When you have to clarify an achievement like that to achieve a "first" it's notability goes way down.  It's isn't even some heroic case of derring-do that she somehow put herself at risk given that she was surrounded at all times by 35 support staff.  Really then, what is of note here? 87.114.54.152 (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has been done before- once in 1997. People aren't doing this every day(even if there are unrecognized Cubans doing so, they don't on a regular basis or this would indeed not be a notable achievement) Even with support staff she was still at risk from jellyfish stinging her(which prevented past attempts at doing this). Further, I know of few achievements which are performed alone or without some level of involvement from others. 331dot (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * re the Jelly fish she was wearing a face mask against those. Does that mean the first person to do this without the mask is also worthy of ITN?  The first to do so bollock naked?  The first to do an equivalent swim in slightly colder waters or between any other two arbitrary points?  It's a clarified first: it doesn't matter how you try and explain them the clarifications are still there. 87.114.54.152 (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The mask was not a guaranteed protection against jellyfish, it was to prevent her from breathing them in. We're not talking about some feat which has been done by thousands of people with protective gear and she was the first to do it without such gear. We also are not talking about something ridiculous like the first person to cross Broadway in Manhattan with a chicken while reading two books at the same time.  This is only the second time this has been done and the first was around 15 years ago.  Could you do it? 331dot (talk) 09:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not the first time this strait has been crossed. Simple as that. Fgf10 (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is it in the news then? It is still a rare event; even with a qualifier it is only the second time and the first was not recently. 331dot (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * We missed the last update by about 17 hours, so this one, and even one more that becomes ready, could be posted now. I've crafted an alternative blurb that captures the essentials newsworthiness:  she's 64; she did it without a shark cage which is much harder (nevermind the sharks, the cage creates a drafting effect that adds to swimmer speed).  Jehochman Talk 13:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a shame that so much of the article's discussion of her Cuba to Florida swim is not actually about this attempt. --  tariq abjotu  15:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think more details will be added in time. Jehochman Talk 16:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted, consensus is clear, there is a one paragraph update which is more than sufficient, opposes reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Secret account 00:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Verizon Wireless

 * Question. Is this really a merger?  Verizon is simply buying Vodaphone's 45% stake in Verizon Wireless(where they already owned 55%), not the whole Vodaphone company. 331dot (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether it is classified as a merger or an acquisition, I am not sure, but it is definitely an M&A transaction. We could replace "M&A" with "corporate" because that's the exact word used by Reuters. Jehochman Talk 17:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong support - As noted by nom, the third largest business transaction in history. For the record, it is NOT a merger.   Update could use some work. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose It is a buyout--an "unmerger". When Bell Atlantic and GTE merged to form Verizon they need cash, so they sold a large stake in their overseas phone service to Vodaphone whith whom I believe they arleady had some sort of arrangement.  Now that Verizon no longer need the cash, it wants full control back.  This isn't really news.  This doesn't mean any brand new age of telephony.  It's basically the repayment of a loan, with the collateral being returned. μηδείς (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's the third largest corporate deal ever. It is not just the repayment of a loan.  The equity buyout was negotiated, and Vodaphone makes a handsome profit.  No doubt Vodaphone will be looking for something to do with the cash.  This is quite significant for the telecom industry. Jehochman Talk 18:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, with the exception of "quite significant for the telecom industry" you have just repeated exactly what I said. The problem is that the "quite significant for the telecom industry" is true only for stockholders and middle managment.  It's not like they have announced the roleout of DSL, picture phones, or texting. μηδείς (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To call this "not really news" is ridiculous. This ends a 14-year relationship which has lead to NUMEROUS high-profile disputes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess I will say this is "not really news" again to see if you'll scream louder. I am intimately aware aware the corporate news on this, and have been since before Verizon was formed.  The Vodafon alliance was always looked on as a temporary partnership of convenience, and now looks like a good time for both parties to separate on mutually beneficial terms.  That is not something like the groundbreaking on the hyperloop, the debut of the segway or even the release of Mr. Garrison' Entity. μηδείς (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Seriously, for a merger to be ITN-worthy there should be secondary sources explaining why it is revolutionary. An example might be if Google buys General Motors with the intention of turning it into an all-electric vehicle maker. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Good example, it could use an essay, so we could vote "oppose per Abductive's criteria". μηδείς (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a really unfair standard. We don't require any other story to be "revolutionary".  And this deal is quite important - see for example the linked news story which explains how this ends 14 years of disputes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What I was trying to say is that the story has to crossover—out of the business pages—into the news. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * NY Times has quite a bit of information on the potential impact of the deal. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support – of greater world interest than re-living anecdotes about blackberries and tadpoles, however masterful. Besides, all but one of the current items relate to death or ancient history, and the one that doesn't is news from four weeks ago. —WFC— FL wishlist 19:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support One of the largest corporate deals in history and getting plenty of international media coverage. For those who doubt the impact of the deal, the Wall Street Journal says its impact will be "colossal" and it "could spark a new round of mergers across the telecom industry." And it could have a significant impact on the British economy. Neljack (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per ThaddeusB, et. al.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong support-Per Neljack. Additionally, without delving into issues surrounding notability nor response length, someone dying is not "revolutionary". I wish to make it clear that I support the inclusion of notable deaths on ITN, I use this argument simply to quash the "revolution" criterion. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 02:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So what we have here is a bunch of notvotes saying, "I agree with the user above" and "I wish to WP:pointly disagree with a user above". Abductive  (reasoning) 03:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not pointy. What would be pointy is if QatarStarsLeague opposed every death nomination on the grounds that it wasn't revolutionary, even though they didn't support that criterion. As the page says: "As a rule, someone engaging in "POINTy" behavior is making edits which s/he does not really agree with, for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition." Neljack (talk) 04:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "simply to quash" Abductive  (reasoning) 05:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Pointing out that your criterion would lead to silly results if consistently applied is a perfectly legitimate argument; what would be problematic is if QatarStarsLeague starting opposing other items based on the criterion despite not really believing it was a good criterion. Neljack (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support per Neljack -- Ypnypn (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 20:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hemisphere Project

 * Oppose. Stale; no longer in the news.  331dot (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is my first nomination and I'm unsure what's considered "stale" but there was a mention in an AP story published 7 September in the Las Vegas Sun. A Huffington Post piece from 6 September has a few paragraphs about it. &mdash; rybec   23:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Firstly, welcome. :) You were correct to post the nomination on the date closer to when this story broke (though the NYT article says September 1st) though I'm not sure it is in the news widely enough currently to consider posting it now.  That's just my opinion, though, and others may disagree. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

RD: Tommy Morrison

 * Comment: Professional career could use a few more references.  Spencer T♦ C 06:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A bunch of citations have been added. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support there will be high reader interest. μηδείς (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - I'm not dead set against posting this, but I'm awfully lukewarm. I think it would be a stretch to consider Morrison a "very important figure" in boxing - although he had a good record and he was a heavyweight champion, his belt was only one of four possible heavyweight championship belts, and he only held it for just under five months. In addition, at the time Morrison won his belt, the WBO was considered more of a second-tier sanctioning organization - it wasn't recognized as one of the majors until sometime in the early 2000s, I believe. (I'm not a boxing fan, so I apologize if I got any of the particulars wrong, but the gist of my argument should be correct.) --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Bongwarrior. Neljack (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Real Madrid Break World record to Sign Gareth Bale
*Weak support. I'm not sure if this is the sort of thing we post(record breaking sports contracts), but I do know this is getting decent coverage, even in the US(which isn't typically disposed towards soccer news) I would suggest that the blurb does not need to mention the previous record holder. 331dot (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment We did post David Beckham signing with the Galaxy, but that was way back in 2007. But you could argue that there is a precedent.-- Mike (Kicking222) 22:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak support. Ignoring the 1992–2001 period (rapid growth due to the emergence of the Champions League and clubs becoming increasingly confident that the flow of money would not dry up), this is a rare event, and of international interest. Oppose any mention of Ronaldo. —WFC— FL wishlist 20:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose really not newsworthy outside ardent football fans. As WFC has noted, we've gone through one period of seriously stupid transfer fees already. This is trivially interesting but nothing more.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Support given its very wide coverage. We've got decent free images of Bale as well (which would need a crop).  Agree the blurb doesn't need to mention Ronaldo. Black Kite (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's a business deal. Not a big one on that scale. And which "world" record did it break, anyway? If it's just within soccer, then this is nothing. Following that lead we would have to post every highest price for every sports person in every sport. And we won't. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, given that soccer is played worldwide, then it is indeed a world record. I'd guess it's actually the most money paid for any sportsperson's signature in any sport. I have to admit I'm wavering on this one, though. Black Kite (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It is far from the most for "any sportsperson's signature", but as for money paid for the transfer of a player from one team to another, I would have to think that it's a record. -- Mike (Kicking222) 22:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I meant, the terms tend to be synonymous here. Black Kite (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Is "here" the UK? That's an honest question. I would never think of using that terminology; if you ask me (or, I'd imagine, almost any American) what "most money paid for any sportsperson's signature" referred to, they would say Alex Rodriguez's $275m contract. Not chiding you at all, just wanting to clarify. -- Mike (Kicking222)
 * Without meaning to be too dismissive, a degree of AFL/NFL "what makes soccer so special?" is to be expected with a nom of this nature. For the record, while this unquestionably meets the ITN criteria in a literal sense (the highest value transfer of all time to the most successful club in European history in what most would consider to be the world's most popular team sport), my weak support is based as much on the lack of recent updates and emphasis on death as anything else. The cynic in me would point out that the staleness has kept Syria on the template... but anyway. If we post on the basis of the €100 million barrier being broken for the first time, then we can ensure that we do not set a precedent. —WFC— FL wishlist 22:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, UK - it is common to see and hear "X team has paid Y pounds for the signature of player Z", or more commonly "X have signed Z for Y pounds". The amount the player is being paid is rarely stated (if indeed it is even known). Black Kite (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose although I am happy it's not a Tebow or Aaron Hernandez or Alex Rodriguez story. μηδείς (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And I'm glad you're happy. —WFC— FL wishlist 22:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Moderate support. A story not connected to anyone dying, at last. Formerip (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think a contract signing is ITN-material at all. We do not post the majority of sports items, such as records or retirements of major stars, and I don't see what makes this as notable as a championship (I don't believe soccer's popularity makes anything major that happens in the sport automatic ITN-quality where it would not in any other sport). -- Plasma Twa  2  06:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sports trivia is not really all that important in a world history context. Thue (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I can understand the attraction of posting this, and the precedent set the last time the record was broken. But at the end of the day it's just a player moving teams. ITN (rightly) restricts itself to posting the results of sporting competitions, not the factors which may or may not influence what those results might be. On the other hand, the news is slow right now. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A soccer record, perhaps, but the NFL, NHL and NBA have all had $100 million+ contracts, while MLB easily eclipsed this transfer, going as high as $270 million.  €100 million is a very sexy number, but it is still an arbitrary figure, and not a world record. Resolute 14:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To be fair, those were all total contract values, not transfer fees. Many football transactions have cost more than €100M once multiple years of salary, agents fees, image rights etc. are added on. The number referred to in the Bale story is just the transfer fee, not all the other items. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, Bale is apparently paid €21M/yr just in salary, as has signed a 6 year contract. So more money on total salary than the actual transfer fee. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If what you're saying is correct, then salary + transfer would be about €247m (£21 = €24.6 by using the same percentage by which £85.3 = €100). That's ~$326m, I think.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  16:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's more than the $275m Alex Rodriguez makes, but not by that much percentage wise (I don't want to say $50 million is chump change). – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * But let's not forget that this story is about the transfer only and that a hypothetical Alex Rodriguez nomination would likely face similar opposes.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  17:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose This is a sports transaction, which is of lesser importance than a non-sports business transaction. This doesn't fundamentally change the game in any way. Further, soccer is strongly represented in ITN/R and other posts that get consensus from time to time. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm not a football fan (I only watch big matches), but I find this news to be of worldwide interest. FYI the page was visited 80k times yesterday .  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  15:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose because it's not nearly as important as Verizon buying out Vodaphone for US$130 Billion (1000 times as much money as this deal). If we are going to run a business transaction, why not that one?  Jehochman Talk 17:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. The more I read here, the less I support it- if this money is just a fee from one team to another. I'm inclined to agree with Muboshgu's reasoning above- though I still understand this is being heavily covered in the news. 331dot (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose One-sport record. As mentioned, it is dwarfed by both of Rodriguez's MLB contracts. Teemu08 (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. This will be a weak support if that matters, though I'm not a believer in that sort of !vote.  However this seems to be getting a fair bit of coverage.  The baseball drug ban was posted a few weeks ago and one of the support !vote rationales read something like 'baseball news doesn't often reach my country'.  This has certainly got coverage across the atlantic.  This is certainly viewed in the football world as a very significant story, and it's a record within the sport that won't likely be broken for a few years (I won't attempt to compare it with an MLB contract).  My sense is this is less significant than transfers in the last decade involving David Backham or C Ronaldo but it's still in money terms a record-breaking transfer.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support This is a record in football, so I like this news... Hanamanteo (talk) 09:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Can we please just delete nonsensical, pointless posts like the above? HiLo48 (talk) 09:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This user is a newbie who is starting to improve their comments (they were previously only posting simple votes) per comments on their talk page. Let's continue to help them instead of just removing their posts. They might simply be referring to the fact that this was a record in soccer/football as a rationale for their support. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, they are certainly NOT "simply...referring to the fact that this was a record in soccer/football", because they also said "I like this news". It's important to help a newbie by at least pointing out that whether or not we like something is irrelevant here. HiLo48 (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That may be,(though "I like this news" could mean they "like it" for ITN) but removing their posts is not the answer. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I can accept not biting the newbies, but the post is inappropriate. It doesn't belong. It should be removed, but with a "nice" explanation to the newbie. An inappropriate post is an inappropriate post, no matter who makes it. HiLo48 (talk) 11:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with the post. Saying you like something may not add much to your vote but it is hardly a hanging offence. Formerip (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)I can think of no better way to discourage someone from posting here than by removing their posts, no matter how nice an explanation is given to them. The post is not vandalism, vulgar, or a personal attack, and provides a reason for their support. There is no rule that says a reason has to be lengthy, worded eloquently, or deemed appropriate by HiLo48 to be posted here. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Compared to the most expensive sculpture and photograph that made it to ITN in the past years, the coverage Mr. Bale's transfer is greater than those two put together yesterday. Those who opposed haven't changed my opinion last time during the car auction record nomination months ago. Like I said, this is more like double standards or IMO, are some Wikipedia editors snotty art and literature lovers who think sale record regarding sport and automobiles do not have a place in ITN. Donnie Park (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support a world-record transfer between two internationally renowned teams doktorb wordsdeeds 13:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support with a more neutral blurb. Nergaal (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support: very significant news in Europe, at the very least. And, hey, we had Cory Monteith on ITN, so we can have Gareth Bale. Sceptre (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Momčilo Krajišnik

 * Support - definitly for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose at the top of what field would he be, eyebrow grooming? His conviction would not have been posted, let alone his release. μηδείς (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a new story. He hasn't died. Formerip (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced his conviction wouldn't have been posted (convicted of extermination, murder, persecution, deportation, and forced transfer) but I would need to see some news coverage of this before deciding whether to support it or not. Lihaas, it would help your nominations if you posted some news sources with them. 331dot (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Lihaas, you're the only person I ever see post possible blurbs without including news references, and there's exactly one in the article regarding his freedom. Additionally, I don't think- even if it was a direct quote from BBC News or the New York Times- we would use a phrase such as "a hero's welcome". Things like that make it very hard to support a nomination. -- Mike (Kicking222) 22:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thats cause on each nom the references are with the update.Lihaas (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a slot in the nom template for "sources" for a reason. An article can be updated without being in the news to the level required for even considering posting an item. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but saying "the references are with the update" is unacceptable. First, as 331dot said, there's a reason "sources" is a field on the template. Second, I obviously read the article, and I noted in my comment that there was only one reference in said article regarding his release (so even if more had been added in the four days between my comment and your response, the crux of your response would have still been moot). Third, there's STILL only one reference about his release in the article. So, to summarize, you nominated an article that you knew was under-sourced, then told me that you didn't have to provide sources in the nomination because they existed in the article, even though those sources clearly were not there. -- Mike (Kicking222) 22:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Death of David Frost
Support as RD. --Johnsemlak (talk) 11:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Support As the article will tell anyone who is interested, he was a lot more than a journalist. He played a huge role in British comedy of the 1960s, hosting, among other shows, The Frost Report, which launched the television careers of John Cleese, Ronnie Barker and Ronnie Corbett. Not a bad little achievement. HiLo48 (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC) }}
 * Support as RD, and HiLo makes the case very well. Jus  da  fax   11:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support not forgetting that he did interview Richard Nixon, which was immortalized into a play then a film, which for is one of those, explains why he was significant internationally. Donnie Park (talk) 11:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Yet his crowning achievement was, of course, Through the Keyhole. And, supposedly, he held the record for the most miles traveled by Concorde. RD, obviously. Formerip (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as per FormerIP and Donnie Park. A very notable personality in journalism. --Droodkin (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per nixon interview. otherwise national story.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. This has been nominated as a blurb, so it might avoid some confusion if people make it clear whether they support that or just an RD listing. Formerip (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - RD only - notable in his field. --Somchai Sun (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support either RD or blurb, another death at the top of their field with international significance and coverage. Black Kite (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I know my place.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * support RD. came her to nom it. But pending the requisite UPDATE hIGH PROFILE INTERNATIONAL REPORTER.Lihaas (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support blurb: passes WP:ITND criteria 2. Sceptre (talk) 12:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, although given that there have been two deaths in quick succession, neither of which were unusual circumstances and the first was not in unusual circumstances, I would request that Seamus Heaney goes to RD if this is to become a full blurb. Personally I would prefer that both were RD, because neither death was unusual, but I acknowledge that my view on when to RD and when to blurb differs from the general consensus. —WFC— FL wishlist 12:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Corrected —WFC— FL wishlist 12:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just as a follow-up, perhaps the blurb should touch on the circumstances of his death? It was somewhat unusual, and would therefore strengthen the argument for a full blurb. —WFC— FL wishlist 12:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 74 year-old man dies of heart attack. Why is that unusual? Formerip (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If dying whilst doing something life-threatening propels someone from no ITN coverage to a full blurb, dying whilst doing a job which wasn't life-threatening should surely merit a full blurb in Frost's case, given that he qualifies for ITN anyway. —WFC— FL wishlist 12:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support blurb Internationally renowned broadcaster as shown by the breadth of coverage and tributes. While his death wasn't unusual it was unexpected. yorkshiresky (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb Certainly meets the death criteria but his death itself isn't a newsworthy enough story. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Added alt blurb. —WFC— FL wishlist 13:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb. Important figure in journalism, but not significant enough for a full blurb IMO. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Significant broadcaster. Meets criteria. Miyagawa (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support RD, Neutral about blurb. A very significant figure in journalism, but I'm not sure he is as influential in as Seamus Heaney was in his field, and I don't think having a heart attack age 74 qualifies as unusual circumstances regardless of what you're doing at the time. Thryduulf (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support blurb internationally significant broadcaster, unexpected death. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - one at the very top of his field. Mjroots (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb and a good time tom move him and Heany to RD together. Heart attack for a 74 y/o old is not unexpected and adds no notability. μηδείς (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, a leading and respected figure in his field. Egeymi (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Marked Ready the consensus seems to be for a full blurb. Considering I knew who Frost was in America by about age 10, a full blurb is not objectionable. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * NO, because YOU knew who he was at 10 that does NOT make a full blurb not objectionable. Are you seriously claiming your whim and fancy determines that? Lihaas (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Medeis is suggesting that because she has been aware of Frost's prominence since she was 10 (and considering that's an English journalist's significance in the US), she doesn't object to the full blurb.  Lihaas, please try to express your opposition with some kind of logical background and demonstration that you understand the preceding comments. Oh, and avoid the SHOUTING nonsense.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And yet below, Medeis is (still) virulently opposing Seamus Heaney because RD blurbs should be reserved only for "statesmen in office". Or are there two Medeises? Formerip (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You people need to learn the meaning of objectivity and detachment. I still oppose this being a blurb.  You check what I have written above, I will wait while you do so.  See?  I oppose a blurb for this.  But I also recognize that there is a good majority in favor of one.  And the article is ready, so I have marked it ready because it is ready, not because I want it to go up as a full blurb.  Although I oppose a full blurb, I do not find its being posted objectionable in the way I would the recent MTVA performance by that ex-mouseketeer.  It's an objective observation that I knew who Frost was long before I knew who most Brits were, admitting which hardly merits a screaming response.  As for virulence, Seamus Heaney (whose Beowulf I own) elicits a ho hum, not rabid hysteria. μηδείς (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Copy-edit: Removed unnecessary commas from blurb and alt. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  <sup style="color:#000;">( Je vous invite à me parler )  19:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb. Clearly notable in the field of journalism, but I don't think he was at the tip-top of his field to warrant a blurb, and he certainly isn't at the level of others who have received blurbs. 331dot (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support blurb (can't post this per WP:COI because of criticism to my post below for a similar situation) per reactions to his death, and one of the most respected journalists in the later half of the 20th century. Not to mention all those stale items we have ITN, please nominate more content this for example. I'm too busy to go though global news and look for suggestible candidates Secret account 21:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm surprised at the level of support for a blurb and I think it's a mistake. I think blurbs are for people who are truly exceptional in their field. As in you try to think of someone more significant than them, then after a while you think of someone, then you realise that the person you thought of is actually dead. I'm not knocking David Frost, and I'd definitely put him in my all-time top 50 list of TV personalities named David. But I think any admin that posts this needs to be really sure I have things backwards. Formerip (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, but Frost was standout in his generation of political commentators and interviewers. You may wish to belittle it by your "best David" list, but the community disagrees with you.  Deal with it and stop trying to unduly influence any posting admin with your "backwards" speak.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * How is that undue influence? It's either fair comment or it isn't, and I can be ignored just like anyone else. Formerip (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I was surprised as well, given that Heaney (who is almost certainly more notable in his field than Frost was in his) was such a close call. I guess his more worldwide profile is something to do with that. Black Kite (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted to recent deaths. --Orlady (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Seamus Heaney] has 50% fewer pages views than Frost both before and after posting. Either Frost deserves a blurb, or Heaney should be put on the RD ticker. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It would help if you would mention this on the Heaney thread, if you haven't. μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Miley Cyrus blows them both out of the water. But, luckily, that's not how we decide what's important and what isn't. Formerip (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Both are old men, who worked with words. Comparing page views tells us that more of our readers are interested in Frost. Be saying that "we" judge you are saying the handful of people who comment on ITN/C are more important than the thousands of readers of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for the readers, not your notions of what is important. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes ITNC editors do have to make decisions like that. But we do take into account recognition people get from authoritative sources.  Semeus Heaney received the Nobel Prize, which is about the highest honor anyone can get in any field.  So so it's certainly possible that Heaney is more notable than David Frost despite page views, which are not insignificant but don't necessarily represent notability, ore even reader interest necessarily.  I'm making no assertion on who is the more notable of either of these men, but certainly a Nobel counts for a great deal.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A play and a movie were made out just of a set of interviews that Frost did. Other Nobel laureates were not posted. My argument is sound; people are more interested in Frost. Consensus for a blurb is about the same here as in the Heaney nom. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, people are much more interested in twerking. Formerip (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Specious argument. My argument is that Frost and Seamus should be treated equally. Besides, if Miley Cyrus were to die, not just twerk, would you oppose posting that? Abductive  (reasoning) 19:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)