|
October 22, 2014 (2014-10-22) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Health
Law and crime
Sports
Blackwater Baghdad shootings
Article: Blackwater Baghdad shootings (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Four former Blackwater security guards are found guilty of first-degree murder in the Blackwater Baghdad shootings. (Post)
News source(s): Fox News
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Significant shooting (17 deaths), so the trial should be at least somewhat significant as well, particularly given that we posted Pistorius' trial (which pertained to only one death). --Jinkinson talk to me 17:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- support per nom ';precedenceLihaas (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Lihaas: What 'precedence'? We deal with each event on its own merits, and this is very different than the Pistorius case. Might be notable, but still different. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support Well covered worldwide, article in decent shape, and the right time to post (at the verdict). --MASEM (t) 19:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
2014 Canadian Parliament Hill attack
Article: 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Canada's Parliament is put into lockdown as at least one shooter is witnessed firing shots in the area (Post)
News source(s): BBC; CBC Globe & Mail
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Even if there are no casualties beyond the shooter(s), this is a significant event that is affecting the Canadian gov't. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- This could be notable, but it might need to shake out a little first, let the "breaking news" aspect die down a tad. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'd want to make sure its posted with proper details, but I think regardless of outcome it is ITN. Eg: how many shooters, is this related to the ISIL threat that Canada had recieved, etc. Things are still happening as best I can tell. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Further justification: This is a domestic terror attack against military personnel, and threatened federal government politicians.
- --Natural RX 16:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support Big terrorist attack, regardless of the justification. It's an attack on the parliament building in the capital of a major country in the world. I believe this is unprecedented in Canada. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
-
- While no one has yet 100% affirmed this as a terrorist act, it comes exactly one day after two Canadian soldiers were run over by a car driven by ISIL agents, and subsequently caused Canada to raise its terrorist threat level due to other credible threats. Needless to say, this nearness of events is not going unnoticed by the press even if it is speculation for now. --MASEM (t) 19:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Ahh, sorry Masem, but you are inadvertently pushing FUD here. The terror level was actually raised last week, before either incident, and the guy in Quebec wasn't an "ISIL agent" - officials have said only that he was "self-radicalized". Though you are right that the timing of the two incidents is causing media to speculate links. Resolute 19:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- @BabbaQ: Where has this been characterized as a "terrorist attack"? 331dot (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support A major terrorist incident that is getting international coverage. In the UK this was the main news story on tonight's news. This is Paul (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Wait we still don't have a clear picture of what is going on here and there's no point in rushing something to the main page until we do. I agree, it's not "normal" for Canada, I agree, it's shocking and headline news, but the news outlets seem nearly as clueless as we do. We can post it when we have a better idea of the bigger picture. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Strong support: A Canadian soldier on guard duty has been killed, and the shooting has already had a ripple effect with increased security in other national capitals. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 19:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support. per above. Major attack with coverage all around the world. I was surprised to see it in Lat. Am. media so early in the day. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 19:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Wait Per The Rambling Man, insufficient detail to make a useful blurb beyond stating the very most obvious (that a shooting occurred). I don't imagine we'll have to wait too long. Once information is more available, I would likely support regardless of motive, since it carries implications of an attack on a government due to location. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 19:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- I partially agree, but waiting for a few more details will not be harmful either. At this point, the best we could say in an ITN blurb would be that a soldier is dead and that an attacker traded gunfire inside Parliament - which may be worthy of posting now, but an hour or two might yield more concrete information. Resolute 19:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- I would agree on waiting just a bit. Make sure the situation has settled to a degree so that we can get accurate "basics" right. (Example, there was a third location listed before but that's been proven a misstatement by the police). Probably a few hrs will be good. --MASEM (t) 19:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Wait It's still unclear what happened. If this was just a random lunatic shooting one person, that's very different from an organized terrorist attack. We need to wait for the basic facts to become known. Jehochman 20:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Should be ready soon The situation has not changed for a few hours now, the article has been extensively edited and sourced. While there is some disagreement on the talk page about the article's title, there is a 'Reactions' section being populated, and the structure is otherwise quite good for a young article. --Natural RX 20:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Ben Bradlee
Article: Benjamin C. Bradlee (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times ABC News Time USA Today Washington Post
Credits:
Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Misplaced Pages article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.Nominator's comments: He was a notable editor of a major newspaper. Andise1 (talk) 01:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support. Would seem to meet DC2 and the latter part of DC1(had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region) given his publishing of the Pentagon Papers. 331dot (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. While a player in the events of Watergate, he is not Woodward or Bernstein, the ones that broke it. And while an editor of a major paper, I would not really call that the top of the field considering journalism. --MASEM (t) 01:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Read his obits. His career wasn't just Watergate. That was the culmination of seven years of work as executive editor building the Post into the closest rival The New York Times has in American newspaper journalism. He persuaded Donald Graham to buy Newsweek, an investment that revitalized that publication and paid off for the Post Company for years. He was, really, the last of a type—the big-city newspaper editor as primal force. We will not see his like again, ever. Daniel Case (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support on significance, oppose on quality: First of all: Holy shit, he wasn't dead yet? Second of all: a major historical figure, as a newspaperman, perhaps the best known of his time (the answer and American would give to "Name any Newspaper Editor" if the answer is not a blank stare, the person would answer "Ben Bradlee"). His specific involvement in most of the major Washington DC era journalism of the 1960s and 1970s, as a key historical figure in those news stories, also places him as a highly recognizable name, and therefor worth an RD link for that reason. However, the article has major sourcing problems. The sections "World War II", "Government Work" and "The Washington Post" are entirely unreferenced. For that reason Oppose on quality only. If anyone fixes those referencing problems, consider this vote a full-fledged support without me having to change it. --Jayron32 01:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support One of 4 people to know the identity of Deep Throat --Johnsemlak (talk) 02:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose a minor talking head admired by some with a certain POV, but not an innovator in his field, just a witness on the sidelines of events he did not in any way influence. μηδείς (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- See my remarks above. Daniel Case (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Current fame is not one of the RD criteria. One doesn't have to be currently famous to be very important to their field, or to have had a significant impact on the nation/region. 331dot (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- OK, strike current fame from my comment and make it standing.
- Keep in mind, we're talking about Bradlee — not Nixon, Woodstein or Watergate per se. Sca (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Watergate "has receded into history and legend"? How many other scandals brought down a President? Why are we still suffixing just about every scandal we can with "-gate"? Daniel Case (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support, for all my reasons stated in replies to oppose votes. Daniel Case (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support -- Probably one of the bigger players in the field he worked in, as well as a key player in one of the most significant events in recent American history.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support -- per this piece in the Guardian, arguing that even more important that his part he played in Watergate were his actions in respect of the Pentagon Papers, publishing the documents in the Washington Post even after the New York Times had been hit with an injunction. The effect was transformative both for his newspaper and for American journalism. Jheald (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- I can see I'm in the minority, which makes me feel guilty. So I changed my oppose to a comment.
- At the time of Watergate, I was a huge fan of Woodstein (and later, of All the President's Men). It was Woodstein doing the reporting — but perhaps I missed the significance of Bradlee's role.
- Run that puppy. Sca (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
October 21
| Portal:Current events/2014 October 21
|
|
October 21, 2014 (2014-10-21) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
International relations
Law and crime
Sports
Denis Mukwege wins Sakharov Prize
Articles: Denis Mukwege (talk · history · tag) and Sakharov Prize (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Congolese doctor Denis Mukwege wins the Sakharov Prize for helping victims of gang rape in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Congolese doctor Denis Mukwege awarded the Sakharov Prize for helping victims of sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
News source(s): BBC NYT ITAR TASS
Credits:
Article needs updating
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
October 20
| Portal:Current events/2014 October 20
|
|
October 20, 2014 (2014-10-20) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Politics and elections
RD: Christophe de Margerie
Article: Christophe de Margerie (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Misplaced Pages article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Total's CEO died in rather unusual circumstances; could go full blurb. Nergaal (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Can you post the information necessary for the nomination? 331dot (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Was gonna nom it but hes not top of his field nevermind the reactionsLihaas (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- is a source, but I'm not sure about this. Private jet and so causalities limited to a handful (I can't find a full #), and while Total is "big", they aren't "big big" nor is de Margerie a well-known name. --MASEM (t) 21:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Reopened: closing this after 20 minutes with as one of the reasons with no support is a bit strange, one would think that some time would be needed to show that there is no support. Further, the claim that Tital isn't "big big" seems to be misguided: they are the 11th largest company worldwide (by revenue, according to Misplaced Pages). They are 11th in the Fortune Global 500, and 25th in the Forbes 2000. Basically, they are very big big, as one of the top 25 companies of the world by most economic rankings.
Now, I agree that this nomination is badly formatted, and perhaps no blurb or RD is warranted, but it shouldn't be closed based on "no support" in twenty minute or based on somewhat misguided statements. Note that this is clearly major news worldwide. It's the kind of death where you get (in e.g. the Financial Times or the Wall Street Journal) multiple articles, one about the crash and a separate about reactions or as a full length obituary (e.g. ) or to discuss his successor. He really was at the top of his field, and his death came unexpected of course. Fram (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- I invite you to provide a proper nomination. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. I am seeing a lot of news coverage of this (even in my local news) but I'm not clear on which RD criteria he meets. Does he meet DC2? If so, why exactly? 331dot (talk) 14:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's my concern. It is not that Total isn't big, but his influence on the company? He's only been the CEO since ~2007, which isn't much time realistically to establish his presence as a positive influence, and just looking around, I'm not seeing anything that necessarily he was a good or bad CEO, just that he was CEO. The company is successful because of policies in place before his tenure at CEO. Hence the failure of being a leader in the field. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- He got the "Petroleum Executive of the Year Award" for 2009, for what it's worth. And the 2010 "Pilier d'Or" of the French Institute Alliance Française. Fram (talk) 14:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- The former is a very common "self-congratulating" type of award I see commonly in the engineering/industrial sector. Not that it doesn't have meaning but it is not like a broad industry or business award. The other appears to be due to his efforts to support the arts in France. Neither which I would say elevates him to leader in the field. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Oscar Pistorius
OK, it's not going to happen. Mjroots (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article: Oscar Pistorius (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Athlete Oscar Pistorius (pictured) is sentenced to five years' imprisonment for the culpable homicide of Reeva Steenkamp. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
Article updated --Mjroots (talk) 09:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RD: Oscar de la Renta
Article: Oscar de la Renta (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC News, Variety CNN
Credits:
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Misplaced Pages article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.Nominator's comments: Big name fashion designer, so top of that field. RD due to old age, otherwise. --MASEM (t) 02:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Would support this on significance, clearly a world-class member of his profession. Oppose on non-existent prose updated. Near as I can tell, as of my writing this, the article's update consists solely of adding a death date. Some prose needs to be added somewhere to the text of the article. We probably don't need a "death" section (I usually don't like those that much) but some prose, a sentence or two, describing his death and any major events or illnesses leading to it, would be expected. Once that is done, consider this a support without my needing make any further comment. --Jayron32 02:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- BBC notes he was diagnosed with cancer in 2006. Let me add that. --MASEM (t) 02:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Looks like someone beat me to it; there's a small section death with sourcing. Could be cleaned up but not an issue for ITN. --MASEM (t) 03:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
RD: Gough Whitlam
Article: Gough Whitlam (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Misplaced Pages article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.Nominator's comments: Former PM of Australia. Clearly RD material, but death by old age otherwise, and not blurb worthy. --MASEM (t) 21:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think the fact that he was an MP of an English speaking former colony of Britain ranks him a little higher than some failed-state dictator of 40 years ago, given this is en.wikipedia μηδείς (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- (to Pete)He was still a PM. If being PM doesn't make one the top of their field, what does? 331dot (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support RD He was Prime Minister and has been considered a hero in Australia. Either way he was a former head of state. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support RD article in excellent condition (FFA re-promoted in 2010 and kept up to standard by Wehwalt and others since then) and a leading Australian politician. Not many former heads of government live to the age of 98, of course, so he can perhaps be forgiven for his "very low" profile in recent years. Bencherlite 23:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support. Meets all reasonable criteria. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Posted --Jayron32 00:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment As a note of process, there's talk at TFA about reposting this article as TFA on one of two upcoming relevant dates (the memorial service or an anniversary, both in early November). This should have dropped off RD by then, but just in case, should that TFA suggestion go through, we should remove this before that TFA date. --MASEM (t) 17:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Why? Where is that ruling defined? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- I would figure that with other areas of generally only allowing an article to be featured once, or in DYK once, that we should not duplicate articles in different sections of the front page. And in this case, the TFA date will be so far out that the RD part will be a stale story for ITN. If this was happening today (a day after this was posted) I'd likely keep both. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
October 19
| Portal:Current events/2014 October 19
|
October 19, 2014 (2014-10-19) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Religion
Science
Origins of sex
Consensus says no. Bencherlite 15:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article: Penetrative sex (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Scientists at Flinders University discover the origins of sex. (Post)
News source(s): Nature Sydney Morning Herald Al Jazeera ABC Health Canal
Credits:
Article needs updatingNominator's comments: Not sure how notable this is but I decided to nominate it to see. Andise1 (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oops, that's what I meant. I was having difficulty deciding on what article should be linked, but that is what I intended to link to. I changed the target article. Andise1 (talk) 08:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that was my point. I don't follow sports and I do love biology, but I think Peyton outranks the placoderm here. This is a question of convergent evolution, and penes are quite common among animals of all types. Do not look up bedbug sex! μηδείς (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Peyton Manning touchdown record
Articles: Peyton Manning (talk · history · tag) and List of National Football League passing touchdowns leaders (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: In American football, quarterback Peyton Manning throws his 509th career touchdown pass, a National Football League record. (Post)
News source(s): USA Today BBC Sydney Morning Herald Irish Times
Credits:
Nominator's comments: We do post sporting records from time to time, and this is a significant one. ----Bongwarrior (talk) 02:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- An impressive record to be sure, and I am a HUGE NFL fan. But I oppose posting this record at this time. Posting records should be reserved for the sort of "unbreakable" records that happen once in a generation (I.E. Miggy Cabrera's Triple Crown a few years back, or someone breaking Ripken's consecutive games streak, or Dimaggio's hitting streak). The Passing TD record falls about every decade years or so, and it doesn't have the iconic sort of status as other records. Indeed, if we posted every record of this stature we'd post probably one per season. It's awesome, and I'm happy for Manning, but I don't see this as ITN worthy, given the other sports stories we usually post. --Jayron32 02:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Torn on this. Jayron has the right point, but it does seem, looking at the current full roster of NFL players, this record is definitely not going to be further broken this season (beyond him adding more TDs to it), and won't be broken for a few more seasons at least from what I can tell. Even if it is surpassed in a decade, in the sense of ITN, that's long enough to make this a unique enough event here for ITN posting. --MASEM (t) 02:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Just to clarify: It isn't that the Passing TD record gets broken every season. It's that some equivalent career record (passing yards, rushing TD, rushing yards, rushing TDs, return yards, return TDs, receiving yards, etc. etc. you get the idea) gets broken about once every season. Again, it's a great accomplishment, but outside of NFL fans, it isn't the sort of once-in-a-lifetime record that gets much note except for a day or two. Manning will be remembered in general for his stellar play, but this singular record will not be something he's forever known for, like some of the iconic "never gonna be broken" records that ARE out there. --Jayron32 11:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, but when it comes to NFL this is the most prestigious one, me thinks. Nergaal (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support. Major record in a major sport. Record likely won't be broken for many years (see this if you really feel like extrapolating the numbers ). -- Calidum 02:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support. I am unconvinced by User:Jayron32's argument that posting one such thing per season per sport is bad. I say it's good for ITN. Abductive (reasoning) 03:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose- I am of the opinion that records should only be posted for global sports like football and athletics, unless it is clearly the premier record in the sport. An example would be the home run record in baseball, which has far more prestige than this record. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Arguably due to the number of different positions, what would be the premiere record for American football is not clear, but that said, clearly touchdowns completed as a metric of QB performance is pretty much the top record - if we were talking, say, a running back, yards run would be that one. --MASEM (t) 03:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
-
- What a "prestigious record" is is a matter of opinion. Football having varied positions should not disqualify it from having a notable record posted. What matters for ITN is the news coverage this is getting, which is significant and not limited to the US. 331dot (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Unlike Neil Robertson becoming the first snooker player to score 100 century breaks in a single season, thereby setting a new record for the 39th time that season -- the fourth consecutive season in which the record was broken? As far as I can tell, the significance was that "100" is a round number, which seems firmly in "factoid" territory. "509" doesn't have the same ring to it, but someone else actually reached 508 (the previous record) before his retirement. 24.0.222.22 (talk) 09:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's right. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Please elaborate. 24.0.222.22 (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- American football is too American for the tastes of some. Resolute 18:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Not sure whose comment is addressed at whom here. In any case, the idea of cherry-picking a particular factoid from American football in an attempt to make it "newsworthy" is not my idea of something that would equate to Nobel prizes or similar. I imagine that there exists a "number of rushing yards" record holder and a "number of receiving yards" record holder and a number of "first downs in a season" record holder and a "number of field goals" record holder and a "number of interceptions" record holder and a "number of fumbles" record holder and a "number of other jargon" record holder? An attempt to compare it to a sport where scoring a century guarantees a win and scoring points is the only parameter is a little pathetic. But hey, this is American Misplaced Pages so no surprise. I guess we'll post this every time he breaks the NFL record, and set the precedent for all the other "prestigious" records in NFL. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm American, but I don't follow this sport (or most sports). I certainly don't consider this the "American Misplaced Pages" or believe that American topics deserve special treatment. As for "something that would equate to Nobel prizes or similar," I drew no such comparison. And the comparison that I made didn't equate the records themselves. My point was that you supported an item that had nothing whatsoever to do with any record changing hands. Neil Robertson became the record holder when he scored 62 century breaks in a season. Despite the fact that it was the fourth consecutive season in which the record was broken, maybe that achievement warranted a posting. But that isn't what it was about. It was about Robertson beating his own record for the 38th time. If we take your sarcastic "I guess we'll post this every time he breaks the NFL record" remark and constrain it to numbers that emotionally seem extra-special in a decimal numeral system, that's essentially what occurred in the earlier case. But I'm not even criticizing that decision. Maybe the number "100" had special cultural significance among snooker enthusiasts as an anticipated milestone. I'm in no position to assume otherwise. But that seems like a textbook example of "a factoid" (or "random stats fun for fans," as Fgf10 put it). So I find it rather odd that you now oppose the Manning item for that reason. You refer to "cherry-picking" the info "in an attempt to make it newsworthy," but I only know about it because it's been in the news. And others are saying that it's even being widely reported in other countries. This tells me that it's considered a noteworthy achievement in the context of its sport (and for the same reason, I assume that the "century of centuries" was as well). How can any of us gauge the cultural significance of something from someone else's culture? Certainly not through our own lenses. 24.0.222.22 (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the essay! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Not "in the news" in the UK, for some reason. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC) unless you count the "SPORT: AMERICAN FOOTBALL" page as "the news"?
- The BBC might disagree. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- What does any of this have to do with the essay above and my oppose? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- "... I only know about it because it's been in the news." Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC) or not.
- I see that you supported the Neil Robertson item too. How is Peyton Manning's achievement a "random stat," while a sportsman hitting an arbitrary round number by extending his own record for the 38th time (after others broke the record during the three previous seasons) isn't? 24.0.222.22 (talk) 09:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- In this case, there is such coverage, but there is no policy which states coverage in several countries is required. It certainly helps, but is not required. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support given coverage in other countries, which might lead people to want to learn about Manning and/or the record. Record is one of the most notable in football. Also see my comment above. 331dot (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support based on international reporting of an American sport. This is an indication of importance. Jehochman 14:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose - Although I would love to have this stat posted, we did not post Lionel Messi's world record for most goals in a calendar year. Therefore, per precedence, this cannot be posted.--WaltCip (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Not posting a certain story doesn't itself mean this one shouldn't be posted. Each story should be judged on its own merits, as consensus can change. Precedence only really comes into play for ITNR stories(and even then they aren't always posted, typically due to quality) 331dot (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Putting aside the fact that Misplaced Pages operates on consensus, not precedent, you are trying to compare a single-season record to an all-time record. Your argument would have been stronger if we were discussing a single-season touchdown record. Resolute 18:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support per Calidum. A major record in a major sport unlikely to be broken any time soon. Opposes based on "only NFL fans" directly contradict the rule against opposes on regionality. μηδείς (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support in principle a major career record, not a season's record; one of the leading nine sports stories on my (UK-based) BBC news mobile app this morning. A few "citation needed" tags but nothing that can't be fixed by someone with the relevant interests. Bencherlite 18:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Too sports statish. Are supposed to re-post again in a week when he gets another? And again the week after that? That's one of the problems with essentially arbitrary records such as this - the other would be that they are fundamentally difficult to compare without reference to the length of career, position played, number of injuries, effectiveness of the rest of the team (and how much they favour a player) and 101 other reasons over and above the skill of the individual with the record. Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's honestly one of the dumbest arguments I've seen. If you don't like football, just say it. But please don't post such a BS argument. -- Calidum 03:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- "Lame" without any reasoning carries zero weight around here. "BS", again lacking any justification or evidence similarly has no clout. Claiming to know what I think is laughable when I can disprove you with two words - "You're wrong". So precisely where are the lame, bullshit arguments coming from here? Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 06:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose I think we should be sparing in posting these sort of records. I find Jayron32's point about the frequency of this record being broken convincing. Neljack (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support Peyton's touchdown record is probably the most prestigious individual statistics record in the sport, and I say that as a Pats fan. The record won't be broken for a very long time. --Tocino 13:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Marked Ready I am no fan of Manning or any team he's played for, and I usually oppose most sports noms. But there is good consensus to post this, the record number of touchdowns is objective and as clear as runs in Baseball, the article has been updated by 1,600 bytes, and all citation needed tags have been addressed. μηδείς (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose as per Fgf10. A noteworthy record I imagine, if you follow this sport, but not generally newsworthy, certainly not globally. So "Good consensus" ignores all the opposes? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- "If you follow this sport" and "globally" are explicitly forbidden as reasons to oppose a nomination. Per NFL: Today, the NFL has the highest average attendance (67,591) of any professional sports league in the world and is the most popular sports league in the United States. So yes, this is quite ready, technically and per consensus. μηδείς (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Article: No article specified
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
Beatification of popes is rather rare. Nergaal (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support but needs a bit of cleanup on the article. --MASEM (t) 18:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose what? Me nominating it? If other people really care about the news then somebody will put the energy into doing all the work. What is the point of putting energy into something that has a chance of snowballing one way or the other? Nergaal (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- No, oppose this proposal in its current form. And please try to make nominations correctly in future. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment This is certainly in the news, e.g. the following: Jinkinson talk to me 23:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose I might support if this were a canonisation, but not for a beatification. Neljack (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. No evidence this is in the news. Not working on the nomination is one thing, but all nominations should have some basic information(news sources, a blurb, target article, etc.). 331dot (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose per Neljack - if/when Paul VI becomes a saint, yes, but not for the intermediate stages. Bencherlite 18:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Comet C/2013 A1 passes Mars
Article: C/2013 A1 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: TBD (Post)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: This is a rare celestial event - a comet will pass very closely to Mars and will be monitored by the probes there. Regretfully, this will apparently not be possible to see from Earth without a decent telescope. --Tone 14:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Is this the first known comet observation that will primarily be done by human equipment located on a different body? (Eg have any previous Mars missions included the observation of a comet's passing?) That might make this blurb worthy. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comet_IRAS–Araki–Alcock's lead is a very good introduction to comet closeness. One too tiny to get an article despite being the recordholder for Earth is number one. This is 13 times closer. #2 was in 1770. #3 was in 1366. #4 was in 837 AD). I can't find if this is the closest non-gas planet flyby, but given those numbers it probably is. Otherwise "C/2013 A1 gets closer to Mars than any other comet approach known, thirteen times closer than the Earth record" seems better than the current blurb. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Good point. I was following a source that said "very close". We know one comet hit Jupiter. Also I think it is important to say that we have 2 rovers and five satellite probes observing. Jehochman 11:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- You have a point too. How about Space probes and rovers on Mars observe a comet fly by 13 times closer than the Earth record.? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Nasa's posted some images they'v captured on the flyby - I'd be happy to get these uploaded if this might be a better ITN picture for the moment. --MASEM (t) 23:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Weak, moot and rather pointless oppose But how is this really special? It's kind of like the discovery of the ozone hole, made the first year they looked at ozone over the SP with a satellite. It's anticlimactic. But I do like science, so this as as meh as you can get for a post posting oppose. μηδείς (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
October 18
| Portal:Current events/2014 October 18
|
|
October 18, 2014 (2014-10-18) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Environment
Law and crime
Last northern white rhinoceros male
Article: northern white rhinoceros (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: A male of critically endangered northern white rhinoceros died in reservation Ol Pejeta in Kenya. It was probably the last male of the northern subspecies of white rhinoceros capable of natural mating. (Post)
Alternative blurb: A last male of northern white rhinoceros capable of natural mating died in reservation Ol Pejeta in Kenya. There are now just six northern white rhinos left in the world.
Credits:
Article needs updatingNominator's comments: The word probably is included because there are some uncleanness if this specie is really extinct in the Wild.
- Support - an probably extinct species.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support and rather disgusting if true. μηδείς (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose This doesn't seem to change their classification of endangered-ness. Yes, the last male known, but that's in a controlled area, and this also doesn't negate what science can do. (Irregardless of this, the blurb really needs work - far too long) --MASEM (t) 23:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Guardian, Haaretz, Sydney Morning Herald and PBS all state that it was one of two male breeding rhinos - so it's not exactly the last one. Fuebaey (talk) 00:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose while tragic, there seems plenty of evidence to support the fact that there is still one male left. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Well, there is also lot of sperm in the fridge, but the point is last male is to old for mating. So natural mating of these rhinoceros is now impossible.--Jenda H. (talk) 10:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Curiously, that article says he is one of three males left alive, and that it is simply "suspected" that he is too old for mating. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - Sad news but we should probably only post such stories when a species is officially declared extinct, and the report is widely circulated in the news. Extinctions happen frequently, but most are unknown or pass without notice. Jehochman 16:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Nepal trekking disaster
Article: 2014 Mount Dhaulagiri avalanche (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: At least 39 people die and nearly 400 are rescued from the Himalayas following Nepal's worst trekking disaster. (Post)
Credits:
Article needs updatingNominator's comments: No time to create or find an article at this point, sorry. But can't believe this hasn't been nominated in some form. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- There is 2014 Mount Dhaulagiri avalanche--Jenda H. (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- That article seems to conflate two or more events - at Dhaulagiri and at Annapurna. If it is to provide the basis of a new article, it needs to be renamed as well as expanded. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Article now at 2014 Nepal snowstorm disaster. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- It is an outgoing event rescue operation has happen today. --Jenda H. (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Information regarding this disaster was difficult to come by in the first ~2 days. Rescuers and survivors were not able to relay their accounts until now...and that, is part of the tragedy. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Jenda H. (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support Large number of fatalities, top news. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Opppose this is a voluntary mass suicide assuming it's true. Compare this to the Rhino's who've been killed involuntarily, as opposed to these rich people with nothing more constructive to do than eff about on mountain edges. The extinction of the Rhino is forever. The death of a bunch of westerners is of no importance whatsoever. μηδείς (talk) 7:45 pm, 18 October 2014, last Saturday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)
- You're claiming that all of the victims wanted to commit suicide? Even if that were true, it would still be quite notable. And that includes all the local guides who were killed or injured? And how come you can make a comment dated "2 days ago"? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Medeis did indeed make this comment 2 days ago but an IP removed it, presumably in an attempt to raise the quality of discussion. Bencherlite 18:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Ah right. So a success there, and a failure, combined. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- The subject was moot but the IP sockpuppet (you know, the good kind of sockpuppet) effectively made Masem's comment below incomprehensible with his vandalism. In response to Masem, sorry to say it, but if 20 Yak Herders were killed in a storm we'd never have heard of it. That and eurocentrism are why I opposed. I don't see that focusing on an item where otherwise unnotable Westerners die doing things that can kill you meets the, will they still be talking about this 100 years from now criterion. μηδείς (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- support posting but the article really needs to be more than a few sentences. Disagree with Medeis' assessment as the casualties also appear to be yak herders - aka people that made their life there. --MASEM (t) 23:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support given the scale of the disaster. Neljack (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support when article created. Definitive death toll and victim names still to emerge, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- The article needs expansion, then I believe we have a consensus to post. --Tone 13:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Posting now. Good work with the expansion. --Tone 17:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Ben Dunk
Opps!! @Masem: the record he broke was only the highest Australian domestic List A score not overall. Still, being third is no mean feat and if anyone feels like reopening this feel free NickGibson3900 04:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article: Ben Dunk (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Tasmanian cricketer Ben Dunk scores the highest ever Australian one-day cricket score with an innings of 229 not out against Queensland in the 2014–15 Matador BBQs One-Day Cup. (Post)
Credits:
Article needs updating NickGibson3900 02:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Question List of List A cricket records is not clear what's happening here (I'm nowhere near an expert on cricket) - why is Dunk's record, claimed to be highest here, 3rd there ? What is special about List A cricket to make that special? To put the question in a way I would read it, this would be like saying the record for a baseball playing having the most Runs Batted In in a single game, but qualifying it as in regular season play compared to championship play. If the situation is close to the latter, this seems to be a very trivial designation to not meet ITN. (Also, we need a source). --MASEM (t) 04:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
LoL World Championship
Article: League of Legends World Championship (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: South Korean team Samsung White wins the League of Legends 2014 World Championship (Post)
Alternative blurb: In computer gaming, Samsung White wins the $1 million League of Legends 2014 World Championship
News source(s): Business Insider, WSJ, Forbes, NY Times, BBC, CNN, Glasgow Times, De.IGN, L'express, Gamestar.hu, Air Herald (Dubai), Levelup (Spanish), International Business Tribune
Credits:
Nergaal (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: I would kinda prefer having a separate article for this year's event, rather than having an article about the general championship tournament itself. Spencer 07:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Ideally sure, but I don't think that is a necessity. Nergaal (talk) 11:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- No it is not. LoL producers specifically didn't take part there as to not diminish the prestige of this LoL WC. Plus the prize is up to $25k only. Nergaal (talk) 10:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, prestigious! Yeah it is because of its large prize fund, just give gamers a $1m paycheck and this earns the title of being is a prestigious event, more than the IOC will ever pay out to its athletes right? Donnie Park (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Those events are not held on a stadium. If higher crowds is not a measure of prestige, then what is? Nergaal (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- IMO, the problem with eSports is that like boybands, tournaments are fickle, even boybands pack up stadiums and does that make them greater than others? Those that is listed in ITN are usually long established events and is this? Donnie Park (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose this is neither unusual nor important nor listed on ITN/R. This week there will be numerous other events more notable, bigger money, more coverage that we won't list. Jehochman 11:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Such as? Nergaal (talk) 12:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose- Championship does not have its own article. There are either very few or no sporting events we post that don't have their own articles. Also, if ITN does choose to take a brave leap into e-sports, the E-Sports World Championship would be a more appropriate event than this. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note here are some quotes from Forbes: "compete for the honor of being the best team of the most popular game of the world", "Worlds was a spectacle unlike anything eSports has seen before", "player count would still be miles ahead of the next closest game". Nergaal (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Forbes is not a great source. They are really lax about letting anybody publish anything on their website. Jehochman 21:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- I am reconsidering because I saw this in the news. Can you show that this has been reported on in multiple countries? I see US sources, and presumably it's all over the news in Korea. Has it been in the news in any other countries? Secondly, do we report the result rather than the start of the games? When will we know who won? Jehochman 12:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I've added some other links. Nergaal (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose, There are plenty of world championship events out there who will never see ITN (some because they get rejected) so why should this? I don't see the prestige of this event but then neither was I a LoL fan as I've never heard of it, plus the size of prize fund nor the amount of gamers out there shouldn't be used as an excuse to measure its prestige. If we were to allow this, are we going to give an ITN to the Call of Duty World Championship as thats one of the few games I seem to be aware of. As for eSport events, I only know of MLG, thats all. Donnie Park (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Donnie Park: If 1/5 of the entire population of the US, or the entire UK were to be playing CoD, then the CoD WC would indeed be worth posting on ITN. Also, LoL is one of the games featured at MLG events, and among those it has the largest user base by far. Also, in case you didn't check the article, the final was held on a stadium with some 60k spectators, a crowd much higher than those any event outside of soccer and NFL. Nergaal (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Nergaal:"crowd much higher than those any event outside of soccer and NFL" - you're having a Lot of Laugh right? Implying that the figure is higher than every of those games let alone those including the FIFA World Cup, UEFA Champion's League and Superbowl, am I right to assume you're having a laugh with that fact? So because it attracts large crowds it make it prestigious right? Also have I seen anybody calling a 3 year young event prestigious? Also where did you get the 67m gamers from? You mean 67m people playing video games including smartphones because I don't think that necessarily mean 67m people are playing LoL because until this nomination now, I've never heard of that game ever and have no intention to. As with ITN because you assume because of its prize purse, we to give ITN for that reason, also answer this; have we given an ITN to the Dubai World Cup, famous for its high prize money despite its young history? Also, are we going to give ITN to London, Paris or New York Fashion Week because like you imply, events that attract large crowds are ITN worthy, on the news all the time (unlike this LoL event) and is more prestigious to this Mickey Mouse event even though I have no interest in fashion? Donnie Park (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Donnie Park: From NY Times. BBC quotes: "On the industry reckoning, about 27 million people play it every day. At peaks, there may be more than seven million gamers playing it at the same time." "At the previous final a year ago, 32 million people watched around the world, online, or in cinemas." "This time, gamers all over the world crowded to cinemas at odd times of the day depending on the time zone." You cannot play the game on a smartphone or on a console, so unlike CoD or other US-popular games, that figure includes only PCs (and some laptops). If any of the fashion weeks would attract anywhere near 32 million people to watch it, or if they would get traditional sponsors like Coke, I would totally support them being featured on ITN. Nergaal (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Nergaal: Still, the viewing figures is only a claim by the developer. Next argument, "If any of the fashion weeks would attract anywhere near 32 million people to watch it, or if they would get traditional sponsors like..." - c'mon, do I need to argue that those I listed are the biggest fashion week in the world without doubt and I don't need anything to prove it and like said, I couldn't remotely give a damn about fashion, I mentioned it because these come on the news all the time. - you're here to look for ways to support your argument in regards to your favorite game when you have lost because everybody opposed your nomination and what next, are we going to argue your LoL WC vs F1 World Championship. My argument for oppose just like every other eSport events will always be that the industry is notorious for being fickle, I mean like the games in these tournaments with its developer, publisher and even staffs and industry people comes and goes, even the eGamers careers are short, look at Fatal1ty, his career faded when the new generation of FPS games came along that required a different way of playing. Going back to your eSport vs. fashion week argument, please let me know if these eSport you are arguing have got prestigious sponsors like Mercedes Benz and this horde including Canon, Amex and Swatch, and as I now answered your question, are you going to nominate the NY and the London Fashion Week for ITN yourself? Just knock it off and get over the fact your nomination have been rejected. Donnie Park (talk) 03:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Donnie Park: All your points about being fickle are wrong IMHO. Hypothetically, if a billion people would end up watching an event, be it new, old, or weird, it would get posted regardless. Take Moto GP: when people cared for the likes of Rossi and other charismatic riders, the MotoGP winner was posted - but now, because fewer people follow it, this ITNR item wasn't even nominated. If an event has followers, it gets posted regardless of how ridiculous is. And FYI, I did not compare this to F1. I did day that there are several actual sports with much larger fanbase, however, considering how completely neglected this topic has been by ITN, I expected some degree of leniency from voters. Nergaal (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
October 17
| Portal:Current events/2014 October 17
|
|
October 17, 2014 (2014-10-17) (Friday)
Disasters and accidents
Health
International relations
Politics and elections
Nigeria/Boko Haram ceasefire
Articles: Boko Haram (talk · history · tag) and Chibok schoolgirls kidnapping (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: The Nigerian military announce a ceasefire agreement with Boko Haram, including the released of the 200 kidnapped schoolgirls. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
Both articles need updatingNominator's comments: Hopefully a peaceful end to a long-standing civil conflict; the safety of the kidnapped schoolgirls will likely be lauded given the social media push that had. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- You'll have my full support if this is confirmed, ping me, User:Masem, if it happens and I don't respond. μηδείς (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Any flups on this yet? μηδείς (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- No, at least with the release. There's some of the Nigeria military officials that are worried that the Boko Haram group may be stalling on time. --MASEM (t) 01:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
October 16
| Portal:Current events/2014 October 16
|
|
October 16, 2014 (2014-10-16) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
UNSC election
Article: United Nations Security Council election, 2014 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Angola, Malaysia, New Zealand, Spain and Venezuela are elected as non-permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. (Post)
News source(s): UN
Credits:
Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.Nominator's comments: Article looks good, although UNSC doesn't look effective in recent conflicts. --Brandmeister 23:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support The article looks all right. Neljack (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Guarded Support New article is nicely developed, my only caveat would be that the objections to Venezuela probably don't justify a level 1 heading, and doing that is probably undue emphasis. However, that's a minor issue I'm not going to oppose over. 3142 (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose for now (Support for January) Per ITN/R: "In previous years, the item has been added to ITN when the new members take their seats (1 January) rather than when the results were announced (during October). This is because the elections are not usually heavily competitive, and 1 January is in the middle of a very slow news period every year." Last year there was at least a little controversy, when Saudi Arabia declined its seat. This year, there doesn't seem to have been anything noteworthy about the elections themselves. Smurrayinchester 11:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Wait. As noted on WP:ITNR itself, we post this item on 1 January when the winners take their seats. This is an exception to the usual rule of posting when the results are known, partly because the elections are hardly ever competitive - this year only Spain/Turkey was even remotely close. Modest Genius 11:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
EFDD collapses
Article: Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy, the main grouping of Eurosceptic parties in the European Parliament, collapses. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy, the group of populist Eurosceptic parties in the European Parliament, collapses.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
Smurrayinchester 13:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Neutral I am not sure how much this really matters even within the EU parliament, since for other than the phony Farage, nobody really heard of it. Nergaal (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment The page concerning this group doesn't even seem to include a clear idea of the goal or views of this group, just a timeline. I had to Wiki-walk to actually figure it out. Challenger l (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- oppose there will just be another coalition that will still not govern. and the next UK election page says theyre in a debate (big step up) with rising poplularity and a MP. this means bugger all...probs a reaction to their cockiness with all the votes
- Still if peeps think Sao Tome is nothing then tinpot Podunk latvia changes nothingLihaas (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
October 15
| Portal:Current events/2014 October 15
|
|
October 15, 2014 (2014-10-15) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sport
Sao Tome election
Article: São Tomé and Príncipe legislative election, 2014 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: The opposition Independent Democratic Action win a majority in the Sao Tome and Principe parliamentary election. (Post)
News source(s):
Credits:
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance. Lihaas (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- But
- Any two counties in NJ will have a greater population than this batguano taxhaven. μηδείς (talk) 05:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- ITNR means ionly the article shape can prevent it. If you want to question it on ITNR then discuss it on the talk page (and its been tried and consensus was against changing)Lihaas (talk) 08:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Items on ITNR aren't supposed to be there unless there actually was some lopsided vote at one point that put them there, not because a single editor took it upon himself to add the item. Unless you can show that there actually was ever such consensus, the statement is baseless. μηδείς (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed; ITNR states the elections of "all states on the List of sovereign states" are ITNR, and this state is on that list; until that is changed(which has been tried and failed before) this should be posted(assuming quality is OK). 331dot (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Being on ITNR means that the basics shouldn't have to be discussed, but there are instances and edge cases that might not necessary ITN items - not invaliding the whole of ITNR, but just that specific instance of it. (This is beyond the article quality issue). The ITNC should be focused not on the ITNR as a whole (That's a talk page if one is against that) but just that instance maybe not being an ITN this time around. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- weak Support. National legislative elections are (rightly imho) on ITN/R and the article quality is good. It would be better if there was more news coverage of this, but there is a little out there. Thryduulf (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose the ITNR criteria is illogical. We have a page called "In the news". We should not list items that are not actually "In the news". As such, minor countries, minor sports championships and minor anything else not receiving significant news coverage should be excluded. We should fix the ITNR criteria, but until that's done, we can ignore the broken criteria and do what is sensible. A good rule of thumb might be that the event should be covered by at least two (or three) news sources outside the country where the event occurred. If somebody shows me that this election meets that critiria, I would switch my vote. Jehochman 13:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- This is not a Super Bowl or GAA ITNR nomination. That means anyone can't oppose a blurb on importance (you could do so if the update is crappy). You can't disown the rules if you disagree to them. –HTD 13:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Then abolish ITNR period or seek change per discussion there not ITNC...and SEE THE PROPOSAL FOR THIS CHANGE AT ITNR WHICH WAS REJECTED'''Lihaas (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Dear god here comes jehochman yet again imposing his unilateral view. if you have a problem with ITNR discuss it there. try and get consensus to change against posting what you deem inappropriate. weve tried before you came along and MUCKED ABOUT AND consensus is against your unilateral view. ITNC is not the place discuss consensus changes that did NOT approve of said change.Lihaas (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Lihaas. CALM. DOWN. Bolding and italicizing your points is not making them any easier or indeed more pleasant to struggle through. And please work on proofreading your posts; they are bordering on illegibility.--WaltCip (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- No rule can account for all situations, so there are always common sense exceptions when intelligence is used to say, "Applying this rule now would be stupid, so we don't do it." Consensus can change and often does. Just because there was a discussion long ago and somebody imperfectly recorded the results on ITN/R does not mean we are bound to follow it forever. We can have a discussion right here, right now, and decide to make an exception. If this is not posted, then somebody can go to ITN/R and update it to reflect the reality that items though otherwise qualifying won't be posted if they aren't actually "In the news". Jehochman 00:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Let me try to provide a better explanation because there have been objections to my opinion. The page WP:ITN/R is a guideline, not a policy. As such, it is generally followed but there are occasionally going to be common sense exceptions. It says as much right at the top of the page. When an item is on ITN/R, there is a presumption that the item will be listed once there's an update and once the article quality meets standards. However, editors may still make a case to reject the item if there is a cognizable reason for an exception, such as lack of significant news coverage. If you look below you'll see that I quickly posted the ITN/R item about the election of Evo Morales. Bolivia isn't a very large or significant country, but the item had appeared in many international news sources, as evidenced by the links, so up it goes without controversy. In contrast, this item about São Tomé and Príncipe has one minor source listed. It is valid to reject the item based on that distinction. I hope this explanation helps everybody to get behind a consensus. Thank you. Jehochman 13:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- You are absolutely correct that an item should not be posted if it is not in the news and does not get a quality update. That isn't a radical idea, it is what is supposed to happen. 331dot (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose please show me a big-news site which covers this story. Nergaal (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support Opposition to this falls into two categories: (1) It isn't in the news, and (2) It isn't in the bit of the news that I read. (1) is patently false; the article itself is sourced to several reputable news outlets that are generally accepted as WP:RS. As for (2), well, WP:BIAS, anyone? Where's User:HiLo48 when you need him around? We're going to consign this perfectly good nomination to the dustbin simply because it's about a small, non-English-speaking country and so doesn't get major international news coverage. And one of the purposes of ITN is supposed to be, To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them. Big fail on that point, then. GoldenRing (talk) 02:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
RD: David Greenglass
Article: David Greenglass (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Misplaced Pages article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD. Count Iblis (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose His involvement with the Manhattan Project is interesting - but I'm not seeing how he meets the criteria at all. Challenger l (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support. Key figure in a major historical event, the Rosenberg trial. Gamaliel (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose, known for one event, barely deserves an article let alone featuring on the front page. Abductive (reasoning) 03:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Suppose suggest we drop the subjective, "were her 1960's torch songs notable enough" criterion and simply post these minor banana republic dictators whenever we've the space, so long as were not bumping real people. μηδείς (talk) 05:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose per Abductive, this is mildly interesting, nothing more. Not seeing how the subject meets the RD criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the news toolbox
David Lynch in 1990
