This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Saulos Chilima
A fire in a residential building in Kuwait City's suburb of Mangaf kills at least fifty people.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually - a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
Nominator's comments: This might be a premature nomination, but it is expected to land around 2 a.m. edt. Until then, we can get the article in a good shape for the front page (if people think it is not ready for the front page yet). Feel free to add an altblurb if you have a different version for a blurb. For anyone who does not know, Solar Impulse is a solar powered aircraft that is going to be the first plane to circumnavigate the United States only using solar power. Andise1 (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commment I've suggested an alt-blurb that highlights what I think is the significant aspect of the story in case people think it is worthy of ITN. Personally I'm reserving judgement until I've thought about it a bit more. Thryduulf (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The blurbs are incorrect. This isn't the around-the-world flight; that one is planned for 2015. This is a flight across the United States (not non-stop or anything, but still entirely under solar power). It's an interesting project, and I would probably support this regardless. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry to burst your bubble guys, but they have not yet circumnavigated the word. The first version of the airplane just finished going across the US, presumably to raise funds. The second version of the aircraft is supposed to go across the ocean(s), and I remember them mentioning that it would happen in 2015ish. Nergaal (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah sorry, I obviously misread the article. Thryduulf (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not as huge as the upcoming around-the-world flight, but still an impressive achievement and a pretty big tech story. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Major rail accident with a fire that burned for at least 12 hours after the accident, destroying at least a sizeable portion of the town centre. 100+ people are still missing and they haven't been able to get to the heart of the crash site yet so casualty figures are likely to rise. --Thryduulf (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did a couple of updates this afternoon because I had time, but I'm not reliable. I'd also put this nomination on hold until we know more. This could be a major disaster (100 missing right now) or just a spectacular explosion. pm (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support but wait on posting – Major disaster regardless of fatalities. Several thousand people evacuated with over 100 missing. Once the article is expanded a bit and more information comes, I'd be comfortable with this going up. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support if 30 buildings have truly been destroyed this is a major disaster already, even with no more fatalities, however article should be expanded more before posting. 188.238.36.251 (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Details are really slow to come in, there's been nothing new for a while except the confirmed death. This is why I initially recommended waiting a bit. Concerning the buildings, this image tells the story. pm (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Significant destruction such as this is notable, regardless of the casualties. Large number evacuated, too. 331dot (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - huge disaster whether or not a bunch of people died. Article is sufficiently updated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ready well-updated and unopposed, basically a whole town wiped out by an industrial accident. μηδείς (talk) 01:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A plane crashes at San Francisco Internation Airport. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 19:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support when more information is added to the article. Also, at present the article has a blatantly non-free image. Abductive (reasoning) 19:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This did not use the template. I had put the template on to make this correct, but I left the original comment. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 19:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a big event that can garner headlines. However, I do agree that the article needs more info and has to have the non-free image removed. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 19:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
close Two injured, one seriously enough to be transported to a hospital? μηδείς (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing this now would be improper; this is a good faith nomination. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for more details to come in on the nature of the casualties. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I won't say close, but early reports suggest no fatalities. It's only early reports, so that could very well change. But if there really are no or few fatalities, there isn't really an ITN story. If we reported every plane crash, ITN would be filled up pretty regularly with them. Without trying to seem macabre, a plane crash isn't an ITN story unless there are mass casualties. Redverton (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb could use some work, but it's an international event, even if no fatalities are reported. Why would only deaths make it notable? Steven Walling • talk 20:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because whilst plane crashes aren't necessarily a regular occurrence, they happen often enough that a plane crash is not in of itself a notable event. We don't post every plane crash, unless there's something particularly notable about it, and a plane crash with no fatalities is nothing particularly notable. Redverton (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm !voting to repost for sure, now that fatalities were confirmed. This is the first crash of a Boeing 777 involving fatalities, ever. Steven Walling • talk 01:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support I would normally oppose crashes without fatalities, but have you guys seen images of the airplane? The amount of damage to the plane makes the fact that there were no causalities incredibly notable IMO. At a first glance it reminds me of the Hudson river crash-landing a few years ago. Nergaal (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support That people are opposing based on the lack of casualties is unsurprising (given the way people think at ITN), but absurd. This story is obviously in the news, and the fact that there were no fatalities is irrelevant. Yes, we cannot and do not report every plane crash on the planet. However, this is a Boeing 777 operated by a major world airline with hundreds of people aboard (crashing at a major airport where traffic will be severely disrupted). This is only the second hull loss for the Boeing 777, one of the world's most populars planes, since it was introduced in 1995. The previous 777 hull loss was British Airways Flight 38 in January 2008 (with surprisingly similar circumstances: a crash upon landing at a major airport with everyone surviving), and that was posted. BA38 caused serious disruption at Heathrow and led to an investigation that uncovered a potentially fatal flaw in the engines on 777 planes (that almost took down another long-haul jet). Plane crashes and hull losses for wide-body jets are (thankfully) quite rare and all are, rightfully so, notable international news stories. -- tariqabjotu 20:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning oppose – I'd hold off until more details about the well-being of the passengers are known. With only two injuries stated thus far, there's nothing that really sets this apart from other plane crashes to make it ITN worthy. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posted per developing consensus. Tariqabjotu's point is very convincing.--v/r - TP 20:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's an understanding in all "support" comments on ITN/C that they're actually "support, provided the article is sufficiently updated". The Asiana Airlines Flight 214 article does not meet the update standards yet, regardless of whether notability standards have been met here. -- tariqabjotu 20:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was certainly quick. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For people look for a more macabre story, local news is now saying at least two fatalities and 12 taken to hospitals. Dragons flight (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per tariqabjotu. If more information should come forward that indicates that this is not notable, we can re-examine should that happen. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone explain the notability of this? Planes crash all the time.68.101.71.187 (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Still looks like a relatively standard aviation accident, despite 2 deaths I've read about. Brandmeistertalk 21:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A hull-loss accident of a wide-body jet operated by an airline with premier league standards at a major international airport is news whatever way you look at it and however many people are or are not killed or injured. Thryduulf (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Comment I've posted a couple blurbs and a photo. The article is improving and hopefully isn't too far from the quality needed for posting to ITN. -- tariqabjotu 21:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This seems to be fairly minor aviation incident, of course things could change. 188.238.36.251 (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - fatalities now being reported, third 777 hull loss. Mjroots (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, I said "second"... I didn't think it was too exciting to mention a plane catching on fire at the gate (we don't even have an article on that, and I doubt we would). -- tariqabjotu 21:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is the "posted" remark above accurate, or a support vote? μηδείς (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was posted briefly. The poster quickly pulled it, but didn't note the pull here. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pull. I don't usually support pulls, but this incident is relatively minor as others state, with few casualties so far. 331dot (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but it is not actually posted yet. Formerip (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An admin should fix that. μηδείς (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An admin should fix what? It was posted but removed by the same person after eight minutes, primarily because I mentioned that the article wasn't (and perhaps still isn't) long enough. -- tariqabjotu 22:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't say "posted" here in bold without also saying "pulled" here in bold. I am not about to start messing with that--an admin should, that's why they're alled admins. μηδείς (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Repost have you guys even read the arguments made opposite to your views? Nergaal (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for not posting is that plane crashes are not particularly uncommon and nothing really distinguishes this. Plus, it's a terrible mistake to take the view that we should blithely follow whatever 24h news carriers think is the most wow thing currently happening. I don't see any strong counter-arguments, but I do see a bit of scratching around to defend a weak position. I don't know if this is the second or third hull loss for a 777, but I don't think it's a clincher either way. Formerip (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I was going to say disproportionate US-centrism, but I'll try to find another way. It's going to be massive news on the TV screens and websites of our American and other English speaking readers, because it's in a very accessible place and pictures are readily available. It's a sad but very minor incident on the scale of global aviation. Can those who are understandably terrifically excited about it tell us if they would be even nominating it if it happened in a third world nation and there were no pictures? HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult to say. Part of the reason this is notable is because it happened at a major international hub airport in a country with first world airport safety standards and first world landing systems etc designed to make incidents significantly less likely. There are not many airports in the developing world that have that kind of technology and many (but not all) airports in those parts of the word have lower safety standards. I suppose I would be less likely to support if this was at a small regional airport, regardless of country. Without the pictures I don't think I would be supporting it this early because it would likely be harder to appreciate the severity of the incident, but if this exact incident happened at a comparably major international airport with comparable safety standards in say Kenya (although I have no idea of such an airport exists there) then yes I think I would still be supporting. For the record though I'm British, not American, and so this is not a case of home nation bias. Thryduulf (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, when I was last at SF Airport I was told, by officials there, that its technical facilities were crap. That was about five years ago. Dunno if it's improved since then. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My only visits were three weeks apart in 1995, so I can't help with any personal knowledge. A friend who is into planes rates SFO highly, but don't really know on what criteria. Regardless, the technical facilities will be being judged in comparison to similar US Airports (almost certainly inluding LAX) rather than airports in places like Nicaragua and the DRC. Thryduulf (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'm trying to think of an airport so third-world that there wouldn't be pictures of the event within a few hours, but so popular that an airline would find it worth their time and money to fly an aircraft there that could fit over 300 passengers. This comparison cannot be made because examples of such don't exist. And on what basis do you say that this was a "minor incident" on the scale of global aviation? One of the world's largest, safest, and most popular airliners experiencing a hull loss with passengers aboard is very much notable and of interest in aviation.
Honestly, this is truly aggravating. ITN/C is happy to shoo in stories that most people probably don't see in the news because they check some superlative boxes, but when we have a story that is in the news, we need to find any excuse to take a wait-and-see approach. --tariqabjotu 23:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I said close above when there were no reported deaths and say oppose now that this has made it into the ranks of very minor deadly air accidents. We'd never post this if it happened in San Jabip. μηδείς (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no basis for that, and we likely never will have any. Planes of this size don't fly to tiny towns in remote places; how can we make that comparison? It is likely true that CNN would not have wall-to-wall coverage if a 777 crashed like this in Jakarta, and it is likely true that CNN would have nonstop coverage if a 737 landed like this in Los Angeles, but the inequity of coverage should not shield the notability here. We post plane crashes that meet notability standards from all over the world (e.g. 2012 Kazakhstan Antonov An-72 crash), so I fail to see the problem here. More likely, if this crash had happened in "San Jabip", we would have gotten no objection. -- tariqabjotu 23:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is in front page on newspapers does not actually mean that that story should also be on wikipedias front page, at least that is my understanding, we do not post new stories there everyday after all. This is interesting story certainly, but since it seems deaths have mostly been avoided this is not in my opinion notable enough unless something changes. Size of the accident plane should not be a factor here. 188.238.36.251 (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how many Americans understand how disproportionate their news coverage is? (I acknowledge that my own country's is pretty bad as well.) As I said earlier, "It's going to be massive news on the TV screens and websites of our American and other English speaking readers, because it's in a very accessible place and pictures are readily available." One could argue that the imbalance is so bad that many people in western nations don't see it because they even don't see what happens elsewhere at all. I want everyone to have a look at the school shooting article below. 42 people, mostly kids, killed. Did it make your TV news? This is a global encyclopaedia. We must look beyond the balance chosen by TV executives in wealthy nations. HiLo48 (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you overstate the exclusivity of this problem to western nations; people are more interested in stories that are closer to them, both geographically and emotionally -- that's just the way things are. That being said, I already addressed this point above: the inequity of coverage should not shield the notability here. Yes, stations like CNN are devoting more airtime to this story because it happened in the U.S. However, the fact that they do so doesn't mean that every one of their top stories is trivial and not worth ITN's attention. This discussion should be about the notability of the story as it is, not a rehash of the same tired arguments about the quality of American news coverage or the alleged insularity of its viewers. -- tariqabjotu 00:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't misrepresent me. I did not say "that every one of their (CNN's) top stories is trivial and not worth ITN's attention". Nor did I suggest anything like that. Resorting to misrepresentation weakens your case. HiLo48 (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right. The comment I responded to said nothing about this particular incident and was just pontification about the bias of U.S. media. In conjunction with your oppose vote, it is obvious what the thrust of your opposition was. I don't really care what you believe "weakens my case"; everyone involved with ITN knows well that you have a reputation for yelling U.S.-centrism at every news story, so there is no need to really refute your remarks to that effect. Therefore, you can ignore my preceding comment if that makes you feel better. -- tariqabjotu 01:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So now we're at the stage of personal attacks and labelling editors, eh? I have tried very hard to choose my words very carefully here. All you are doing is discussing and insulting me, rather than rationally discussing my words. As I've already said, such posts significantly weaken the case for posting this. HiLo48 (talk) 03:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Please see [2] Two deaths, 181 hospitalized, 1 person unaccounted for. SarahStierch (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we all already knew that. HiLo48 (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't in the article until that was confirmed (about ninety minutes ago now) and some people opposed explicitly because there were no fatalities, so, no, it is not correct to assume everyone knew that already. -- tariqabjotu 01:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pull I was quite aware two people were dead when I reposted my opposition above. This is historically and encyclopedically minor and, if I dare say so, hugely, what do they call it? Youessocentric? Who in the world s going to care about this a month from now except the victims and plaintiffs to the lawsuits? μηδείς (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first fatal crash of one of the most popular airliners, following 18 years of service, "is historically and encyclopedically minor"? And it's US-centric, despite the fact that this was an international flight from South Korea on which 78% of the passengers were of Chinese, South Korean or Japanese nationality? —David Levy 05:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse post as administrator. I was just headed to post it myself when I saw it already had been. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 01:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support post. People are focusing far too much on the death toll here--the crash of a plane the size of a 777 is a rare event indeed (and was in fact a Korean airplane in case no one noticed) and suitably notable.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interrupting a wikibreak to support this item. I find the opposition mind-boggling. A Boeing 777 crashed — resulting in a hull loss — and people are suggesting that this constitutes a minor aviation incident? Even before the fatalities became known, such a claim was simply incredible. HiLo's assertions, while typical of his participation here, come as a bit of a surprise. This was an international flight (originating in South Korea), for which the reported passengers included 141 Chinese, 77 South Koreans, 61 Americans and 1 Japanese citizen. And as Tariq noted, the crash of British Airways Flight 38 (which occurred in the UK) was posted too, despite a lack of fatalities. —David Levy 05:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
David, like Tariqabjotu before you, you chose to attack and misrepresent me rather than carefully consider and comment on the actual words I carefully chose. As one of those who challenge the majority view at times, I get used to this treatment, and I know it takes a while for new ideas to take root, with rude behaviour like yours being a normal part of the process, but it's still a bad look for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not attacking you. I'm expressing disagreement with your position, which I don't intend to misrepresent. (Please explain how I've done so.) —David Levy 05:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say "while typical of his participation here" is a bit gratuitous, but I do not see how HiLo48's position on this candidacy is being misrepresented. -- King of♥♦ ♣ ♠ 06:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whether one agrees or disagrees with HiLo's comments at ITN/C (and I've done both), it's undeniable that many involve claims of bias, particularly related to events occurring in the United States. In noting this, my intent wasn't to insult or degrade him. My point was that despite the frequency with which he presents such arguments, I was surprised to encounter one in this particular instance. —David Levy 06:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have still failed to understand my point. I wonder what I should put that down to? Given the most likely explanation, I see no point in again trying to explain it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you regard as "the most likely explanation". I do know that your refusal to explain how I've misrepresented your position leaves me unable to address your concern (or even determine whether you've understood my point). —David Levy 07:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Pull for lack of encyclopedic content. ITN items are supposed to be BOTH relevant AND encyclopedic. Since almost nothing about the technical details of the crash are known, casualties are very low, and impact is also low at this time, I can't see why this this in ITN. If people want to read about the crash, they can visit whatever other news site they want. To address Tariq's points above; if this crash lead to an investigation that uncovered a technical flaw in the aircraft (as was the case for the first 777 loss), then the article becomes ITN worthy; or if the crash disrupted traffic at a major airport for more than a few minutes, then it becomes ITN worthy; or if this were the first crash of a type, then it becomes ITN worthy. None of those are true, however. Lastly, internet new sites cover nearly everything that happens, since it doesn't cost anything to shuffle around their frontpage. I know ALL of the news sites here gave the crash top coverage on their websites, for a few minutes before moving on to whatever sports or gossip thing. Simply having an event covered in the international news is not sufficient for ITN inclusion. 91.153.150.45 (talk) 08:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"First crash of a type"? Like the first fatal crash of a Boeing 777? —David Levy 08:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"if the crash disrupted traffic at a major airport for more than a few minutes" according to [3] of the next 10 flights scheduled to land at San Francisco 3 are delayed, 1 has been diverted and 6 have been cancelled. I'd say that is more than a few minutes disruption. Thryduulf (talk) 08:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the first-of-a-type angle is to be taken, it needs to be included in the blurb. "The first crash of a B777 to cause a death occurs in such and such" for example (there is already an altblurb, so I won't replace it with another one but if someone else wants to please do so). And have you ever been to SFO? Those delays/cancellations are completely normal for that airport (and completely normal for most major airports). That's not an out of ordinary disprution at all.91.153.150.45 (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That fact that it is the first fatal crash of a 777, or indeed that the plane is/was a 777 is too detailed for the blurb. The blurb is a headline that shouldn't contain technical information. As for the disruption, the entire airport was closed for 5 hours and the incident runway and the one parallel to it remain closed nearly 15½ hours later, that is not normal disruption at all. Thryduulf (talk) 09:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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: what a BORING game and thoroughly anticlimacic. Bartoli 2 pts from championship. Lihaas (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support wait for the winner of the men's tournament and make one blurb for both winners. Hektor (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Article recently created, needs expansion before can be posted, quite clearly. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support upon expansion of article. Large-scale attacks on children are notable. 331dot (talk) 13:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What does age have to do with notability? That article has not much to add nor with repercussions. It could go on a list of terrorist incidents page( where I have added it). Itll just end up being an orphan stub that will be neglected, like nost article created just for ITN. opposeLihaas (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Attacks on groups of children (especially when they are targeted, as is the case here) are rare and particularly heinous, making them more notable. The casualty numbers are also increasing. This story is now on the front page of NBC News and other organizations, indicating they find it notable enough to do so- and this is the "in the news" page. 331dot (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being about children makes it more notable because the children were put there by adults. Adults generally have a choice. HiLo48 (talk) 23:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - 42 dead now and 100+ missing is quite significant even in an unstable region. (Note, most, but not all of the dead are students - altblurb proposed). Article has been updated to minimum standards. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think its ready. The articles main relevant section is just 2 paras long, which again can fit into the list of terrorit incidents page. Background can be found from a Boko Haram link. Don't see how this warrants a separate article. That said it is [barely] updated as required. So why not link this to the terrorist incidents page where the update requirement would still be met and we avoid a stub article once off ITN.? (that's isf we decide to post)Lihaas (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This would presumably the appropriate incident list article. As you can see, it would not be appropriate to have even 2 paragraphs about this incident there, as it is a pure list. Around a dozen other suspected Boko Haram attacks have stand-alone pages, see Template:Campaignbox Nigerian Sharia conflict. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nigeria is considered relatively stable compared to its neighbours but regardless of that, the event is significant enough to be posted on its own merits. After quickly skimming through the article, it appears sufficiently long enough to be posted. YuMaNuMaContrib 18:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Far too high a death toll to ignore. Abductive (reasoning) 19:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Saddening event with significant loss of life. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Altblurb. SpencerT♦C 21:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: I am not sure if countries granting him asylum is notable for ITN, but I think it is. Andise1 (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Probably should accept Chapman's proposal to marry, I'm not sure whether he can leave the Sheremetyevo airport since his passport has been revoked by the US (which is the reason why he's still in Sheremetyevo). Brandmeistertalk 08:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's inevitable that ITN will revisit this story, but not now. If he actually pops up in Nicaragua or Venezuela or somewhere else, then probably. If he's extradited or captured (or has an "accident"), then certainly. But I don't think that the mere offer of asylum is a big enough development. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Just there will be an endless stream of country who will offer asylum to Mr. Snowden. Donnie Park (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Traitor is a matter of opinion(though I share it). 331dot (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep your personal politics out of this. It's irrelevant. HiLo48 (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I meant to say that too. I apologize 331dot (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For an encyclopaedia perhaps also a matter of facts. --ELEKHHT 12:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; he's still got to get to either of those countries. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree that we need to wait, but getting to Nicaragua isn't that difficult, he can e.g. go to Vladivostok and board a cargo ship to Corinto. Count Iblis (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He can't enter Russia without documents (his passport was revoked) and they won't give him asylum unless he shuts up(which he won't). 331dot (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Ortega can give him the necessary documents. Assange has all the documents that Snowden has, so Snowden doesn't have to say anything himself anymore. Also, Russa has said that should it be necessary for Snowden to be in the terrotory of a country first before he can apply for asylum there, that he can be brought to the embassy of that country by a diplomatic car of that country. The interior of the diplomatic car will then be considered as foreign territory. So, in principle, there is no problem for him to get asylum in e.g. Ecuador. The reason why this hasn't hapened is thus not due to the lack of documents, but due to US pressure. Therefore the fact that Nicaragua and Venezuela have come out supporting his bid for asylum is significant. But we have to see what happens next. Count Iblis (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Bongwarrior. Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Reconsider when something actually happens. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support an amergency summit and several Latam leaders (half) have brought the issue up.(Lihaas (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)).[reply]
These latin leaders can offer anything they want- it is meaningless until he actually makes it there (which is by no means certain yet). 331dot (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia 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 long time NBA referee who refereed nineteen NBA Finals games and five NBA All-Star Games. He worked every NBA finals in the 1990's. He is also known for his famous foul call on Scottie Pippen which cost the Chicago Bulls the fifth game of the 1994 NBA Eastern Conference Finals. Andise1 (talk) 06:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm not seeing much ITN-worthiness here. What I see is a man who did his job for 27 years - of course he botched the occasional call and reffed some Finals games. That's what his job was, after all, and it's not really a profession that easily lends itself to being considered influential or important. People don't pay money to watch the referees. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:ITND. What was the significant contribution this person made to the field of sport? Was the deceased "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field"? It doesn't look like it to me. --RA (✍) 10:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Reading the article I don't see which criteria he meets. I don't see evidence he was notable as a referee(one controversy isn't enough) such as awards, entry in to the Hall of Fame, etc. 331dot (talk) 11:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support we don't really post refs here and he has hd a notable career.Lihaas (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"We don't really post refs here" isn't a reason to post one. Why is his career notable? 331dot (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I don't even see why he has an article, let alone be on the front page. Abductive (reasoning) 19:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
--27.142.180.151 (talk) 04:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Am I right to understand this is a promotional event? μηδείς (talk) 05:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's fair dinkum, fight to the bitter end rivalry between the inventors and owners of the game and some ill-bred, ill-mannered, upstart colonials. HiLo48 (talk) 05:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As a big rugby fan, I can assure Medeis that this isn't a promotional event. However, I'm not sure it warrants posting. It is ultimately a tour by one team of another country. I'm not sure that there is any basis for differentiating between this and a Northern Hemisphere tour by the All Blacks, the Springboks or the Wallabies. I know Lions tours are huge in Britain, but I don't think the Southern Hemisphere teams regard playing the Lions as any bigger than playing each other. Neljack (talk) 08:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can also assure Medeis that the tour is not promotional. However, like Neljack says, it's no different to a Southern Hemisphere tour of the north. A significant event in rugby but not significant enough in rugby to merit an ITN. --RA (✍) 10:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"it's no different to a Southern Hemisphere tour of the north" - Except the SH sides tour every year and visit multiple contries on each tour whereas the Lions only tour once every four years and visit three countries in turn, so they vists a given country once every 12 years. A player from a host country will only play the Lions once in his career. FerdinandFrog (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Well pointed out. --RA (✍) 13:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The current blurb assumes there will be a result today - what if it's a draw? LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 11:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The tour is over. Lions won the 3rd test 41-16. --61.245.26.3 (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I know many rugby fans but outside of England I honestly don't know how notable this really is. My understanding is that in the UK outside of England this is sort of regarded as of secondary interest vs Welsh/Irish/Scottish rugby.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The death toll from clashes between supporters and opponents of former PresidentMohammed Morsi rises to 52 with another 2,500 people injured, after over 30 people are reported dead after clashes. The Egyptian Army clashes with protesters supporting Morsi. (Egypt Independent)
The Syrian opposition calls for immediate humanitarian aid to Homs after the Syrian army and Hezbollah step up their siege of the city with increased artillery shelling and incendiary bombs. (USA Today)
In three states—Wisconsin, Minnesota (where an elderly person's death was reported), and Illinois—in the United States, Whole Foods Market Inc. is recalling three types of the Crave Brothers (based in Waterloo, Wisconsin) Les Freres cheese, sold in 30 states and in Washington, D.C., due to concerns that it may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, which causes listeriosis, dangerous especially to the immunocompromised and pregnant women. (NBC)
Minister of Foreign Affairs Paulo Portas reportedly gives an ultimatum to the Prime Minister asking to exonerate the Minister of Finance Maria Luís Albuquerque in order to keep the first in the Government, as the President Cavaco Silva has demanded.
The African Union has just suspended them. Pretty big development. can we add that to the blurb?Lihaas (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not significant enough and a usual measure regarding the interruption of the constitutional rule.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Usual>? UIt doesn't happened everyday that a country is suspende.d That too of Egypts stature. Most significant int'l repercussionLihaas (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See also [[#[Posted] Egypt update]]. Four things have happened: Protests, Morsi ousted in a coup, Mansour installed as interim leader and AU suspension. Ideally the four should be mentioned in the blurb, but the last is the least important if there isn't space. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Normally this would've posted. Orgs like AU usually suspends a member once a coup happens. We may leave out the earliest event of the four, but one can argue that it (the protests) is the most important. However, one can also argue that the anti-Morsi protests are no longer news so... –HTD 14:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We should just leave the blurb be unless something absolutely enormous happens. Its a developing story with lots of things happening. The upper legislature has just been dissolved and the army have been shooting people dead for example. Out of context, there are probably ten ITN-worthy stories in Egypt today, but we can't incorporate the whole story into the blurb - that's what articles are for. Formerip (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia 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: A well known singer who was the lead singer of the band The Nolans. I suggested a blurb in case people feel she might be worthy of a full blurb status. If not, then her death is suitable for the recent deaths section. Andise1 (talk) 07:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb - Her death has been widely and extensively reported. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb. I came here having seen the news and was going to propose her for RD had Andisel not got there first. I oppose a blurb because she was not a major influence in her field of music and did not apparently win any major awards. Thryduulf (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with this person, but I'm having a hard time seeing which of the death criteria she meets. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like Bongwarrior, I also do not see which of the death criteria this individual meets. Her article does not indicate a great deal of awards or other recognition in either acting or music which would indicate she was at the top of her field in either. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD combination of group's and her personal notability, early death, reader interest in her, and open space on ticker. μηδείς (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Not In the Mood for a Support (Oppose), I thought The Nolans were solely known in the UK because they are on TV a lot, other than my other reason is that I can't remember the name of a single Nolan other than TV personality Colleen, who is on TV a lot. In short, not not have that notability to meet the criteria. Donnie Park (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose certainly notable to a small section of British people of a certain age but barely scratching the surface of ITN-worthy notability. Sad loss, but we sadly lose people like this every day. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No evidence that she was widely regarded as a very important figure in her field. Important, perhaps, but not very important. Neljack (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (both RD and ITN) Per WP:ITND, what significant contribution did Bernie or the Nolans make to music? Was, "The deceased [...] widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field"? No. We cannot post a death to ITN/RD every time a musician dies. --RA (✍) 10:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not sufficiently notable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Newsworthy because it is the world's largest offshore wind farm. --Brian Everlasting (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think "world's largest" of something is generally notable, especially in the field of energy production. 331dot (talk) 00:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mere size here is a matter of addition, not engineering achievement. And if we post this, are we going to post every new field that outsizes it? μηδείς (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it's "in the news", is that a bad thing? Maybe if a new "world's largest" one is coming along in the next week or so, but I don't believe that's the case here. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - if updated beyond the 1 sentence "it happened" - event has a large impact on power production of a major country and symbolic importance around the world. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article is in a good shape and informative. Some more update would be welcome, I agree. I suggest the altblurb, instead. No particular need to mention Cameron and Easter eggs links are not a good thing to use here. --Tone 05:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that this is not the worlds largest wind farm, it's the world's largest offshore wind farm. There are two larger onshore wind farms listed here. Don't know if that makes it any less ITN worthy, just thought it should be pointed out. --kelapstick(bainuu) 05:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Many past "world's largest" ITN/C's have been rejected simply because someone could make one larger in the future, and this seems to be more of the same. If it was the case that with this wind farm, in this example, was to completely offset the country off fossil fuels, that might be something more significant, but that's not here. It doesn't help that it needs the "offshore" to be the world's largest. --MASEM (t) 05:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Offshore wind farms are more technically difficult to build than onshore ones. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive project, and no larger farm is currently under construction so will remain the largest for a while. --ELEKHHT 07:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support (not sure what Abductive is looking for, one massive tower that could generate enough electricity for half a million homes and reducing carbon emissions by nearly a million tons a year? Is that even possible?) This is a major success in renewable energy terms, and provides us with an opportunity to put some good news/global news on the main page. Alt blurb is preferred, although perhaps tweaked a shade to ensure people know it's named after and position near London, England, not any other version of London. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's like the IRS buying a lot of bullets or some rich guy buying a fleet of cars. The individual items are of no especial notability, and the mass purchase is just cash being thrown around. There's no technological or scientific advance. μηδείς (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well there we should agree to disagree. I think providing electricity for half a million homes (i.e. over a million people) from one offshore farm is a truly innovative achievement and doesn't relate at all to a rich guy buying cars. This is a decent engineering achievement, after all, by default we post flights into space even though they've become somewhat regular since the advent of the ISS. Why not some good news, some good engineering achievement? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why not post the failed Russian launch? Or the largest landfill getting approved? Or the next 3-D printer hitting the market? Because these things are incremental and boring, that's why. Abductive (reasoning) 21:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion, of course, and we all naturally respect it. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Would we normally name the officiating dignitary in the blurb? I don't think we've done that in the past for Chinese bridges or New York skyscrapers. Formerip (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I also think the Alt blurb is the better one. --ELEKHHT 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bolivia files a complaint at the United Nations over what is called the "kidnapping" of its president. (The Guardian)
Morales's fellow South American leaders condemn what they consider to be an act of aggression by the U.S. and its allies. Protests take place at the French Embassy in Bolivia. (Al Jazeera)
Law and crime
Ecuador announces the discovery of a bugging device used to listen in on its embassy in the United Kingdom. Ecuador's foreign minister Ricardo Patiño declares it as "another instance of a loss of ethics at the international level in relations between governments". (The Guardian)(Al Jazeera)
No consensus to post. --Tone 04:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I know this may not the most high profile event of the last week but I think Steinway and Sons definitely passes muster as a notable company (read teh article if you don't know why), and it's a very notable cultural event related to a company familiar all around the world.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The blurb tells me nothing about why I should care about this. What makes it different from any other company buying another? Just because the subject is notable does not mean that an event relating to them is newsworthy. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. $438 million is peanuts when dealing with large companies; also not seeing evidence this sale was widely covered. 331dot (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 331dot and Thryduulf. Neljack (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Marconi stuck the stake in his industry a century ago. μηδείς (talk) 01:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia 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: B-class article is surely eligible for recent deaths
the quality of the WP article does not make him notable. Ayways, no indication he's been outstanding in his field so opposeLihaas (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. He invented the computer mouse, which is good enough for me. However, his article credits him with inventing hypertext, we doesn't look to me to be correct. AFAICT, he invented something which he termed hypertext but is nothing to do with what we now refer to as hypertext. Correct me if I have this wrong. Formerip (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hi FormerIP. I won't correct you, but will point to Wikipedia's article and the history of hypertext. Perhaps that context will help. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, that seems to confirm what I was saying (?). Formerip (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, on the contrary. According to Wikipedia, hypertext was invented by Nelson and Engelbart. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It says that the year after Nelson developed hypertext "Engelbart demonstrated a 'hypertext' (meaning editing) interface". Not the same thing. Formerip (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I can't help you if you can't click a link to the history of hypertext. Maybe this demo can help. Look at clip 22. My last post here. Bye. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has lots of "citation needed" tags. Neljack (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Many people who are using a mouse when accessing Wikipedia could attest that he is notable in the field of computing. 331dot (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I support RD only, not a full blurb. 331dot (talk) 02:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong support as a fully-fledged ITN per WP:ITND: "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." Doug Engelbart defined the computing concepts we take for granted as end-users e.g. mouse, teleconferencing, word processing, hyptertext (e.g. HTML) - even collaborative editing, something close to Wikipedia's heart! Just see The Mother of All Demos. I've added a blurb. --RA (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fix blurb. Right now The Mother of All Demos sounds like something that was invented and presented by him. -- King of♥♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD only - highly notable in his field, but nothing to suggest a full blurb is warranted. However, the article is most certainly not B-class; it isn't even fit for posting given the large amount of uncited material. I would also expect some reactions to his death to be added to the article. While not crucial for ITN, fixing the short choppy paragraphs would also be necessary to reach B-class. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I cited six "citation needed" instances. Three are left for anyone who'd like to help. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mandela is not dead yet. And the man's name was Engelbart, not "Mouse". As to the two men's contributions to humanity and their respective fields: as someone with an interest in both men's respective fields of contribution, if I was in alone in a room with both but could only talk to one ... I honestly think I'd talk to Engelbart.
But, in any event, we don't just post the deaths of politicians to ITN. We also post the deaths of artists, business people, thinkers and, yes, inventors - particularly ones whose thoughts, ways and inventions have had as great and as lasting an impact on humanity as Doug Engelbart. --RA (talk) 08:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Bill Gates would get a full blurb from the computer field, but I'm not really sure this man rises to the level of Mandela or Thatcher (I believe the last person to get a full blurb). 331dot (talk) 11:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In his field, he surpasses them. I don't recall any significant contributions to technology made by either Mandela or Thatcher. In terms of contributions to humanity, I would say he surpasses them also (certainly one of them) - but that's not a fair comparison. It's comparing oranges to apples.
We don't just post politicians. Neither do we just post people because many of us have heard of them. I thought the posting of Gore Vidal and Maeve Binchy sorted that question out.
Certainly, I would imagine the death of Bill Gates will appear in ITN. But in terms of significance of contribution to technology, Doug Engelbart and Bill Gates are not in the same league. Bill Gates, a very adept software developer, would agree. Gates' contributions is as hugely significant business man (and over the fullness of time, as a philanthropist). In business Gates stands with the same stature as Engelbart. --RA (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did Steve Jobs get a full blurb? If not then there is not justification for Engelbart imo. Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He did, although there was no RD option then. But Jobs founded one of the major companies in computing. He's not really comparable to an inventor. Formerip (talk) 11:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Jobs not really comparable to an inventor!? Jobs had 313 patents. For comparison, Engelbart had 21 and Bill Gates has 9. As for that Jobs "founded one of the major companies in computing". Yes. (And don't forget Pixar.) And Engelbart was one of the major visionaries in computing. (So too was Jobs, which only makes the two more comparable — unlike, say, Mandella and Thatcher vs. Engelbart.)
I think ITN tends to have too narrow a focus on businessmen (and business) and politicians (and politics). An encyclopaedia ought to encourage — and promote — a broader appreciation of knowledge. We have the content. --RA (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's clear that, within the field of technology entrepreneurs, Jobs comes near to the top of the list. But computer hardware inventors is probably quite a crowded, flat field. Our article History of computing hardware (1960s–present), for example, mentions a few inventors, but not Engelbart. Formerip (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't mention Jobs either. Also, with the notable exception of the mouse, Engelbart was more a software guy and his contributions were in the area of HCI. --RA (✍) 00:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD. --Jayron32 02:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb Certainly highly influential, but doesn't meet the very high threshold for a blurb. Neljack (talk) 02:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Either one works for me, as just letting people know that he existed is important, considering all that he did for computing. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blurb BUT if MoaD needs some expansion if it will be linked (and it would have to be linked). Nergaal (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posting to RD for now. If a consensus is achieved for a full blurb, we can still put it on. The article has one section that needs more references (I believe this will improve soon) but otherwise it's good. --Tone 05:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD, Oppose full blurb. Medeis is right. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Medeis is wrong. Different men, different fields. Both giants. --RA (talk) 08:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Medeis apparently "wins" (?) and we get a nice RD listing. Now, how do we revisit Elizabeth Sladen? μηδείς (talk) 01:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You'd have to bring her back to life, and then kill her again, the details of which would likely make her reanimation and redeath full-blurb worthy. --Jayron32 04:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ITND, was Sladen widely regarded as a very important figure in the field of acting? What were her major contributions to the field? How long lasting will they be? What impact have they had on humanity? She was not of the kind of stature with her field (as far a I know) as Thatcher, Engelbart, etc. were within theirs. --RA (✍) 12:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reincarnation and a second death would surely be newsworthy, and attract significant attention from many news sources. --Jayron32 12:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. I get the feeling that if Jesus was nominated for ITN, he'd be kocked down as, "Mandela? Yes. Sandals? No." And wasn't he supposed to have done the whole resurrection thing? :-) --RA (✍) 13:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but he isn't within the ITN window. That's the problem. 2000 years is a few days too long ago for us to use at ITN. Maybe you could get it on DYK? --Jayron32 13:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RA's understanding of Jesus' message is "sandals"? In any case, I supported just an RD listing, and that's what happened, so I still win. Mwahahaha. μηδείς (talk) 04:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Morsi is either under house arrest or taken to a military barracks. Either eway that's a big update needed to the blurb. Even if overcomes this coup, as its being called, this is a big move. And if he is removed as prez, then its ITNR.Lihaas (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait It's looking very much like a coup's happened, I agree, but we don't know anything for certain. In a few hours, we'll know what's happened. At least, I hope we will by then. Once it's a clear a coup has happened, defo support for ITN. Redverton (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reiterate wait Ok, we're all pretty positive Morsi's been ousted. But, it's far from unknown for a military to declare a takeover, only for the incumbent president to come on and proclaim he's still in charge and resisting a coup! We are not a news ticker, in a rush to publish anything without confirmation. We're better than that. Suggest we wait until we're all utterly positive that the military and their appointed leaders are in full control. Redverton (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
we posted the "revolution" immediately. Though that article should be changed as its not a revolution. Only a leader resigned without institutional changes )As a revolution does_). We dint call the Romanian protests that resulted in a resignation a revolution.nLihaas (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now support Morsi has released a statement calling this a coup. Whilst that is hardly the end of the matter, it does at least acknowledge that, for now, the military is in control. So, support. Redverton (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for this to settle down a bit and the details to come out,(looks like Morsi is out) but definite support once we have some info. 331dot (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Sisi announced the coup and Morsi is not president anymore. Very significant event, showing that not every move to topple the dictators, particularly in the Middle East, does not lead to better government, unfortunately.Egeymi (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but wait per above --Երևանցիtalk 19:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Think it's ready - Support - Coup confirmed now. I've added a blurb, it may be too long. Hello32020 (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Name of new president is wrong apparently, wait on that. Hello32020 (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article update doesn't explain the recent events very well and needs to be updated to reflect more details of the coup. SpencerT♦C 19:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The new prez is being called Adli Mansour on Al Jazeera live right now.
also strong support the coup has happened. if there is a counter-coup in the ocoming days/weeks, we can then update it as such. Lihaas (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - when this is posted, make sure to pull the Egypt protests blubr - no sense having two blurbs about (basically) the same story. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Goes without saying. ;) Looking for some latest sources now..Lihaas (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support and alternate blurb added - Since the mass protest blurb actually now links to the coup page (they turned the protest page into the coup page), we might as well keep mention of the protests. --Kitch(Talk : Contrib) 20:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: There's a big difference than the man in Berlin has the Donor does not have the gene that makes them immune to HIV. This can be added to the blurb, but it may become too big. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose They may have been cured, but medical authorities have been at pains to emphasise that this has not been officially declared so. In fact, it will take a year before it can be officially declared, as they wait to see if no remission happens whilst off relevant medication. If medical authorities officially declare a cure, I will be the first to support it on ITN, but for now it just ain't so. Redverton (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to make it vary clear that it wasn't a cure by not saying cure in the blurb or put it in quotation marks in the post. This post was for that only 3 times in history has this happened (The fact that virus is no longer seen in the body). If you want to oppose on the ground that this isn't a cure that's okay, but I want to make sure that I'm not trying to pass this off as a cure. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. However, my point still stands - no cure has been officially declared, so this story has no worth for ITN. Redverton (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Redverton; we don't yet know if this is a functional cure. 331dot (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See above as I tried to make it clear this can't be called a cure yet to begin with. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, but I still oppose, as Redverton does. 331dot (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: I think we should proceed like for Beatrix, article on the outgoing King for abdication, and article for the new King when taking power Hektor (talk) 14:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per what we did with Beatrix. An actual change in head of state is ITNR, when we know when it will occur. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer of powers is announced for July 21. Hektor (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good idea, posting now and when the transfer occurs. --Tone 15:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support per precedence. But if its less than 3 weeks away then there'll be too much of this here. Otherwise its an obvious support. I'm just concerned about posting it twice in a short time. Itll be off ITN for about just over a week before it back.Lihaas (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support when the transfer occurs Transfer is in less than three weeks, and we can wait for it. -- -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support when it happens, per above. Since it is a short time away, we can post this when it happens. --Jayron32 17:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per 331dot and Tone. Mjroots (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support now and when the transfer happens, as long as the two don't appear at the same time. Thryduulf (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. These days, ITN cycles fast enough that we will likely have around 2 weeks between the events. --Tone 06:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Even though a news item about three suspected habitable planets was recently posted to ITN, I think this is a notable news story as well. If anyone has a suggestion for a different blurb, feel free to change it or make an altblurb. Andise1 (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - No new planets have actually been located. This is just a paper about a statistical model of habitable zones, which revises upward an existing estimate of the total. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to state exactly the same argument. It's a nice piece of research but not an ITN story. --Tone 09:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alex; the figure is an estimation, not an actual count. 331dot (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. This is not the discovery of 60 billion such planets, but an estimation of home many exist per a certain model. -- -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Only a few earthquakes each year surpass 20 deaths. Rescue efforts are in an early stage at current, so death toll is likely to rise. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. More than 200 injured as well, and thousands of buildings damaged. Neljack (talk) 06:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Obviously not as bad as other earthquakes that have hit the region in the past few years, but nonetheless serious. Also, what Neljack and ThaddeusB said. AlexTiefling (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the comments of the people above. CaptRik (talk) 07:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support BBC's article reports it as a 6.1, which should likely be in the blurb (eg, I expect that 22 to go up). --MASEM (t) 07:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we be patient please? Reports are, not surprisingly, varying wildly regarding victim numbers and other impacts. How about we wait, maybe 24 hours, until reporting is likely to more closely match reality? HiLo48 (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although it shouldn't be the only criteria, the fact that it still killed a significant number of people makes it uncommon I think? CaptRik (talk) 12:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Article quality is there, notability is confirmed by the casualties (the Indonesian news still has this on ticker, but don't quite think that counts towards international notability) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Local sources are reporting death toll at 42 and very likely to rise.[6]. Article has been updated according and should be ready to post (of course article+blurb will be updated as new information arises.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
its certainly ready with consensus. For the record I would oppose as its damage seems small compared to notable earthquakes.Lihaas (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
France and Portugal refuse to allow the plane of Bolivian President Evo Morales to land on their respective territories after suspicions that Edward Snowden was on board. (The Washington Post)
Evo Morales's plane diverted to Austria amid suspicion that Snowden was on board
NOT POSTED
Consensus is not to post this aspect of the Snowden story. Thryduulf (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose No certainty at all that Snowden was on board, nor that anything will come from this. HiLo48 (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The news here is that the Bolivian President's flight has been diverted because of suspicions that Snowden is onboard. That is unusual and noteworthy regardless of whether the suspicion is true. This is the second story (behind the situation in Egypt) on the BBC News, Guardian and NY Times websites at the moment. Neljack (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - a minor blip in the news at most. I doubt it even warrants mention in Morales' article. If/when Snowden is captured or granted asylum, then I would consider posting but we do not need daily updates on his suspected wearabouts. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stand-by This has the potential to develop into a major diplomatic conflict: "Bolivia accuses United States of 'hostile act'", "Bolivian vice-president Alvaro Garcia [...] described Morales as being 'kidnapped by imperialism' ", "Argentinian president Cristina Kirchner has tweeted that she has been advised that Peruvian president Ollanta Humala will call a meeting of the Union of South American Nations to discuss ongoing events.", Cuba's Foreign Ministry: "This constitutes an unacceptable, unfounded and arbitrary act which offends all of Latin America and the Caribbean", Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino: "We consider this a huge offense, and I will call for a UNASUR special summit ", "Uruguay president José Mujica “indignant” at the “humiliating situation”" all reported by The Guardian. -ELEKHHT 05:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - This is a developing story. Whether or not Snowden turns up, the situation between Bolivia and the various EU nations involved may be worth posting - or could fizzle out. AlexTiefling (talk) 06:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support diverting a sitting President's airplane is notable in itself. 95.166.216.227 (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Whether Snowden is on board or not is irrelevant, although mentioning it in the blurb is fine. Kirchner and Correa have also made scathing remarks on Twitter. pm (talk) 07:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Minor point in a long saga. There's no real story here unless it evolves into something more. CaptRik (talk) 07:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose However, I toss out the idea if we need a PRISM/Snowden sticky if these types of actions keep up. --MASEM (t) 07:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The political ramifications for this are clear, though the actual newsworthiness is questionable. Although, if any major sanctions or scrapping of trade agreements occur as a result of this international bullying, I'm all for posting news of that.--WaltCip (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support Funny, diverting the plane of a sovereign with diplomatic immunity is actually an act of war. But this seems to be going no where. Talk about "third world countries". France just frisked Morales on the corner at the behest of J Edgar Hoover, μηδείς (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any source for the "act of war" thing? --hydrox (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Detaining and forcibly searching couriers with diplomatic immunity has been an act of war since Ancient Greece. Unfortunately we don't have a comprehensive article on the subject, and dictionary definitions are very vague: "an act, usually aggressive, that causes war". μηδείς (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is notable without snowden even. 188.238.107.147 (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Head of states have diplomatic immunity, which amongst other things grant safe passage, it is perfectly possible that france, spain and the rest have broken international laws by refusing the air permits of morales plane, austria have certainly broken them if they searched Morales plane without permission. Perhaps the blurb should be changed since Snowden is not really relevant here. But I wouldn't call this silly. 188.238.107.147 (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand, heads of state are granted safe passage but that doesn't extend to anyone travelling with them. Anyone else travelling with them can be refused legally, including flight crew and other passengers. It's a technicality, but an important one. CaptRik (talk) 08:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Was it safe to deny him airspace and force a landing? Abductive (reasoning) 18:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless you live in freaking Bolivia who gives a rats (censored). Nottruelosa (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Nominator's comments: Previous IAU namings have been covered. --BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 21:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. The IAU no longer considers Pluto a planet, therefore the names of its moons are less relevant than those of planets(by the IAU definition). Looking in the archive I see that the discovery of the fourth moon was not posted for that reason. Can you cite examples of the naming of other minor bodies being posted in ITN? 331dot (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support perfect for ITN. Also a canard to say Pluto is no longer a planet, unless maybe dwarf people are no longer people. A change in categorization doesn't mean a change in nature or essence. μηδείς (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not comparable; dwarf planets are not planets, as the opening sentence of the dwarf planet article says and as corroborated by many sources (including NASA). -- tariqabjotu 22:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are not major planets. Anything else is a bizarre torturing of the language. Even then, it doesn't matter for the nomination--Pluto's the tenth round body orbitting the sun, and a little more notable on its own than the IAU. μηδείς (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a change in categorization, it is a change in definition. We wouldn't post moons of Ceres or Eris. 331dot (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am unaware of our policy of not posting newly discovered moons of Ceres or Eris. μηδείς (talk) 01:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Something does not have to be a written policy for it to not occur; but I don't believe the moons of other dwarf planets would pass ITN. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Just the naming of the already-discovered satellites of a minor planet. Semantic ridiculousness from the IAU aside, this isn't a big deal. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per AlexTiefling. Neljack (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The big deal part is that it's only ever going to happen once. There aren't comparable bodies left unnamed in the solar system. This will be part of the history of Astronomy a millennium from now--it's not some soccer score. μηδείς (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can honestly have no idea whether any satellites of minor planets remain undiscovered. Even if you count major planets, it's not so long ago that new satellites of Saturn were discovered and named. Your premise is simply false. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no body the size of Pluto closer to the sun with a hydrostatic shape and in orbit around Sol directly that hasn't been discovered. Do also let me know about the moons of Saturn's moons, that would be interesting. But feel free to find even yet another reason to contradict me again. μηδείς (talk) 00:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot prove the non-existence of something. As Alex said you have no way of knowing what is or is not undiscovered in the solar system. This is not an astronomy journal and unless we are going to post the naming of all minor asteroids and dwarf planets, we shouldn't post this. Pluto is not technically a planet, according to those in the know. 331dot (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but that there might be a planet hiding behind the sun, or an evil demon deceiving us all is an absurdly silly argument. The space has been searched. In precisely this case one can indeed make a negative statement. There is unequivocally no dwarf planet with a moon closer than Pluto, and no school child who hasn't heard of Pluto. (FYI< it is universal negatives that generally cannot be proven.) This is a textbook encyclopedic nomination. μηδείς (talk) 02:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(1) This isn't Pluto we're naming, it's two of its moons, discovered less than two years ago. (2) But I wouldn't regard the naming of, eg, Sedna or Quaoar as post-worthy in itself. (3) This 'closer than Pluto' thing is your own invention. It's quite apparent that objects in this general class (moons of dwarf planets) may be quite numerous, and that Pluto itself may yet have undiscovered satellites. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Because Pluto as a (dwarf) planet is culturally influential: Pluto the cartoon dog, Plutonium. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 10:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, while the naming of asteroids isn't notable, the naming of moons is and Pluton is still a notable component of the Solar System. Brandmeistertalk 11:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The IAU might disagree, since they now consider it equivalent to Ceres and Eris, along with the many other similar bodies in the solar system. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still Pluto is the Solar System's largest dwarf planet by diameter (2,306 km vs 950 km of Ceres), which is one of the reasons why it gets more attention than Ceres or Eris. The naming of new celestial bodies within the Solar System is almost always notable in my opinion, although we didn't post the previous moons. It's not the same as other objects anywhere else in space that are discovered almost daily. Brandmeistertalk 12:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pluto is likely not the largest dwarf planet by diameter. Eris is reported to have a radius of 1163 ± 6 km. Compare to Pluto's 1153 ± 10 km. Also, Eris is certainly the largest known dwarf planet by mass. 50.198.153.78 (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pluto is a major part of our solar system, and has historically been one of its planets. It is interesting and one of them is even a Good Article! -- -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is list of naming announcements for moons of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune since Wikipedia began:
Many more moons of Jupiter and Saturn yet to be named. Nestrs (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question was the discovery of P4 and P5 posted on ITN? Also, I note that's nine namings over a period of 13 years, seems rare enough to be notable. μηδείς (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Such namings are not science, are not the result of hypothesis testing, and mean nothing. Their discoveries were slightly more interesting. 71.178.184.73 (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very Simple if they weren't posted then they should be now. μηδείς (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The discovery of P2 and P3 in 2005 was posted without much discussion but I can't find any ITN discussion of their naming in 2006. The discovery of P5 was posted but P4 wasn't. Nestrs (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Post-Post comment There are reasons why naming of Kerberos and Styx is more notable than new moons of the gas giants: 1) slight surprise at dwarf planet having all these moons, 2) Pluto's moons were put to a public vote, 3) the IAU issued a press release and 4) press coverage. Whereas if yet another new small asteroid-like moon of Jupiter or Saturn is discovered it doesn't make as much difference because the gas giants already have dozens and dozens of such moons and are expected to have zillions more smaller and smaller until you get down to the size of rocks making up the planet's rings. Nestrs (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia 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: She was daughter of the Egyptian king Fuad I and first wife of Iranian Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, serving as Queen consort on the Iranian throne from 1941 to 1948. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose no individual noteworth and even then over the last tumultuous 30 years in the region shes been nowhere.Lihaas (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Other than being married to the Shah, I'm not seeing what is notable about her (charitable work, policy influence, etc.) 331dot (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, she was a member of the Egyptian royal family and was a very well-known figure in the past decades. I think her death reminds people the history of both Egypt and Iran both of which are very significant or highly cited countries in recent days.Egeymi (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sultan's Eldest daughter, of nation with larger population than Britain, and Queen Consort of Iran, again, with a greater populace than Britain. μηδείς (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see how she meets any of the death criteria. No evidence that she is widely regarded as a very important figure in her field (whatever that is - royalty?) or that she had a major impact on her country or region. I'm not sure of the relevance of the comparison to Britain - I wouldn't support a British royal unless it could be demonstrated that they met one of the death criteria (which I doubt many of them would). Neljack (talk) 00:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The shah has been out for over 30 years and no one who speaks English knowns who she was. This is the English language wikipedia. If we were nominating for the coptic, Egyptian Arabic,Farsi or azeri language wiki I would put support. I do not understand how she was at all significant to the English speaking world. Iran and Egypt are larger then England but their English speaking population combined is less then the entire population of Montenegro. Nottruelosa (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not Anglophonopedia. We do not rely on the relevance of our subjects to English-speakers. AlexTiefling (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if it was Farah Pahlavi who died, I would wholeheartedly support (after article cleanup as its a sad mess), but I don't see the impact here with Fuad Secretaccount 02:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - Secret makes a good point, but on balance, a queen consort is a pretty prominent person, even 30 years on. For me, the only relevance of all these reference to the British (NB not solely English) monarchy is to remind me how anglocentric a lot of coverage of royalty is. AlexTiefling (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If Fidel Castro dies we need to place it, but overall thousands of people exist in the world who are more notable then her. And we would not put them on the front page when they die and have not Nottruelosa (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination is not intended to demand posting a blurb on the main page, but only to put her name in the bottom of the box. Fidel Castro is definitely far more significant than she was, but he would surely qualify for a full blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD. --Jayron32 02:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] China elder law
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 19:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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:No article (talk·history· ) Blurb: In the first case of its kind, a Chinese woman is ordered by a court to make regular visits to her mother. () News source(s):[7] Credits:
Nominator's comments: AFAICT, this may fail for lack of an article to update, but I though it was worth a nomination anyway. Formerip (talk) 09:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose without an article to evaluate, though I would probably be inclined to still oppose even with an article, as this is just the implementation of a Chinese law to combat elder abuse/neglect (according to the source given), something which is already against the law in other places. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very unusual news item. While that should not mean an automatic oppose, it does set the bar much higher for the article quality, in order to make the case for posting it. Since there is no article at this time, I will oppose. Thue (talk) 10:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A small point of family law. No wider significance. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the others. This could be used as part of a section about China in the Elderly care article, but it isn't global news. Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
At least 47 people are killed and more than 90 wounded in two separate bomb blasts in Pakistan, one in a Shiite suburb of Quetta and the other in an attack on a paramilitary convoy in the northwest of the country; a Sunni extremist group reportedly claims responsibility. (CNN)
Two suspected militants and a policeman are shot dead during a gun battle in Tral, Jammu and Kashmir. (BBC)
Vítor Gaspar, Minister of Finance of Portugal, resigns due to lack of support and willingness to strengthen austerity measures, prompting a political crisis. The Minister is replaced by Treasury Secretary Maria Luís Albuquerque. (Globe and Mail)
Cirque du Soleil death
Consensus not to post. As a side notice, the article could make it to DYK instead. --Tone 09:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Nominator's comments: First on-stage death in the 30 year history of Cirque du Soleil (which stages 100s of shows yearly on every continent). The story has generated headlines around the world (see sample above). --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - While the death is unusual and being well covered, this is a news blip; the performer was otherwise non-notable and if this happened outside of a show's performance, wouldn't qualify for RD ticker much less a blurb. --MASEM (t) 02:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support A pretty decent article, and clearly in news sources. I can't come up with any reason based on the criteria to oppose this. --Jayron32 02:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Technically this article fails WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E (yes, understanding that the L part no longer is met). The death should not be a separate article and should be a by-line in the Cirque or Ka articles. This is exactly the article type that needs to be moved to Wikinews and fails to be an ITN. --MASEM (t) 02:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a biography; it's an article about a notable accident (hence the article title). The level of detail would not be appropriate for the Ka or Cirque articles (it is covered briefly in both), which makes a standalone article the best choice. (Incidentally, Wikinews is primarily for original reporting.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if its strictly a biography or not - the article is focused on a person notability for one event, their accidental death. The article is far too details for an encyclopedic treatment, which is why it can fit into either other article to the level of detail that is appropriate. And Wikinews takes any news stories though does accept original reporting as well. This is not the type of article we want to support on Wikipedia under WP:NOTNEWS. --MASEM (t) 02:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is in no way a routine news story (the purpose of NOTNEWS is to "disallow" routine stories) and its not a biography, so biography guidelines are not relevant. Big stories - like this one - can and often should have standalone articles. As to what kind of article "we" want, we'll have to agree to disagree. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, this does fall under all those, as well as WP:NEVENT. Stories that have a burst of news coverage - as this has - are routine news events and in this case have very likely long-term impact on the world at large. Hence not appropriate for WP coverage. --MASEM (t) 03:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tragic yes, but I don't think this rises to the level of ITN. This event is unlikely to have a major impact. -- King of♥♦ ♣ ♠ 02:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose she may have been a high-flying bird, but she was not the world's fastest. She was seen twice a night, not once in 22 years. And she died risking the death she was paid for, not being killed by green technology. μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Medeis, it's in exceedingly poor taste to trivialise a woman's life and death in order to complain about your own unrelated nomination not making the grade. And is that a point I see you making about green technology? ITN is not a suitable venue for you to pursue your own political ends. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Political ends? Seriously? The show is notable, she was not. The possibility of her death was an expected part of the attraction. Unfortunate, but unless a real crime occurred certainly not for ITN or oven an article. [[[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)][reply]
Forget your signature, Medeis? As it happens, I agree with your vote on this - although I disagree that 'the possibility of her death was an expected part of the attraction' - circus acts expend a great deal on making this appear to be the case, while preventing it in actuality to the greatest extent feasible. What I was objecting to was your crass string of false parallels to your ridiculous bird-and-wind-turbine story. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point was, the ridiculous bird story was still top of the news yesterday in the US, while they make songs about danger posed to "the daring young man on the flying trapeze". μηδείς (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as a newsworthy but not notable event. I even have my doubts as to whether this article ought not to be deleted. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 04:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I don't think her death will have a big impact, but it did receive coverage worldwide. How about nominating it for RD? The article is well sourced and written. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 04:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, this doesn't merit RD. She was not notable on her own in any capacity. μηδείς (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Tragic, but part of the nature of the business the person was in. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A single tragic event without wider context. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support a [in]famous first for the world's most renowned of its kind. Per AlexTiefling: the same goes for the firefighters.vLihaas (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you mean 'per'. And 19 firefighters died - and we post multiple deaths much more than single ones - in the context, as I noted at the time, of a major heatwave throughout the Southwest. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes on the first. but on the 2nd: "single tragic event without wider context". still a single event without wider context..Lihaas (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did I mumble, or something? In what way is the widely-reported heatwave in the southwestern United States not the wider context for the deaths of 19 firefighters in a brushfire? AlexTiefling (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very sad event, and of high human interest, but not rising to the level of ITN. JehochmanTalk 13:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Nominator's comments: Now that the army has issued an ultimatum to both parties, some major development will follow. Not sure about the blurb and the timing of the posting but we should keep an eye on this one. --Tone 16:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support biggest protests, 4 resignations. Though change the name as its not only Tahrir Square. Also pro-govt support and burning of MB office and protests at prez palace. Perhaps Cairo protests (though I have heard of some violence in Upper Egypt)?Lihaas (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has been renamed. Therefore, I lodge my support. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The ultimatum is exceptional, even for tumultuous Egypt. Thue (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Probably the biggest worldwide news story today and yesterday. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, big news. Where was the article? Abductive (reasoning) 17:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this has been big news, widely reported. --LukeSurlt c 19:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support but the blurb should reference the army's ultimatum. That's a clear indicator of the seriousness of the situation. Neljack (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems like the story may shortly be either that a deal has been reached or that there has been a military coup. Perhaps we should wait, rather than trail the story. Formerip (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We can always update the story later. The story is notable as it is now, so why not post now? Thue (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm prepared to post but the blurb (across Egypt) doesn't match the article name (just Tahrir Square). If the article/blurb is to be about all demonstrations (probably a good idea), it should have a general title I'd think. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is big news everywhere across Egypt there are protests to oust the current president. I updated and reformatted the article a bit but it still needs some work. There are many news outlets reporting the news and 4 ministers resigned already with more to follow. The army will intervene within 48 hours if the protesters demands aren't met. Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posted - of course article work can and should continue, but no reason not to post now. The blurb can be updated if/when something else of note happens. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see no one noticed the typo in the nominated blurb... -- tariqabjotu 01:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention teh fact we don't normally wikilink country names. Doh! Not my best moment there. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't wikilink countries, shouldn't the wikilink 'Croatia' also be removed from its pertinent blurb? —Avenue X at Cicero (t· c) sends his regards @ 21:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that we don't link countries at all; it's that we only link countries when they're highly relevant to the story. For example, we wouldn't link to United States in the firefighter story because the country is just given to give context about where the fire was located (the state does that too, but we generally link states and/or cities so people can click to them if they're unfamiliar with them). If we had a story about, say, a British actor dying, we wouldn't link to United Kingdom because it's, again, just for context. However, Croatia is most certainly central to the story about it entering the EU (that's about as central as you could get), and I would argue Egypt is central to the story here as well, rather than incidental; people wanting to learn more about these stories would likely be interested in reading the country articles. -- tariqabjotu 22:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per your comment shouldn't it be 2013 Egypt protests?
Having just added to the page there was no wording on the protests ta all. How was it posted? Its still a little short but I tried to add something to the actual protests an dnot just reactions and backgroundLihaas (talk) 06:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hun? The article is solely about the protests, so I have no idea what you mean by "there was no wording on the protests". --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to its current incarnation there was only background and response information. Nothing on the protests itself. See prior to my first edit.Lihaas (talk) 12:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Beginning of a UN mission in a zone that has seen lot of confilict in the last 12+ months. Seems noteworthy as its at peace now before the election --Lihaas (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obvious historical importance. Thue (talk) 11:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The presidential election later this month would seem a more natural time discuss Mali. Over the long-term the UN has averaged about one new peacekeeping mission a year, and while such efforts are generally encyclopedic, I tend to doubt that most of them rise to the level of major news. Looking at the typical sources, the current intervention in Mali doesn't seem to have attracted much attention. Dragons flight (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IMO ITN should focus on encyclopedic developments. If we use the criteria "rise to the level of major news" as in "covered on the front page of newspapers", we should cover Justin Beiber more... Thue (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, I see 31 distinct stories on the main page of Google News (none of which are Mali or Justin Beiber, though to be fair Lady Gaga does get a nod). Of those, I would say about 15 or 20 involve events that could naturally be incorporated into encyclopedia articles. Everything on ITN is related to encyclopedia developments, but not all encyclopedic developments necessarily belong on ITN. In this case, UN peacekeepers replaced a French / West African peacekeeping force. By itself, in my opinion, that just isn't much of a story. On the other hand, the upcoming elections later this month will probably make a much better story. Dragons flight (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just scanning Google News, and the MINUSMA seems way more historic than most of what featured there. We should of course also post the upcoming elections - Mali has been through a war, of course we can post 2 stories about it! Thue (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this is encyclopedic material. The article is developing. --Tone 16:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2 days of consensus and article updated.Lihaas (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is a significant development in that part of the world, an UN group to help keep the peace rather than an international coalition to topple dictators or other such things that have happened over recent years. We should judge the upcoming elections separately when/if they happen. MINUSMA looks to be a fairly long-term support mission. I do have some minor concerns about the lack of content in the article currently. CaptRik (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. The update is decent and there is a rough consensus to post. Omitting the election link, that will be a separate story later. --Tone 09:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a prelude to the World Cup and as such is not a top-level tournament. 331dot (talk) 00:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The blurb should probably be shortened to just "Brazil beats Spain to win the 2013 Confederations cup." Andise1 (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I assume it is being proposed precisely because Spain's 29-game win streak ended. At least I assume that is what the blurb is supposed to mean - the article doesn't mention it and no source was provided, so I can't be sure what was meant by "breaking Spain's record 29 games without a loss". --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Four years ago when it was the evil USA vs Spain, this was gleefully opposed. Let's see this year... –HTD 03:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very important international cup watch my millions of people across the globe. Definitely newsworthy. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 04:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is the gaming being discussed here what in America would be called Soccer? μηδείς (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is the version of football that is actually played with the feet, not with the hands. Nergaal (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the head is legal for propelling the ball too. Should be called hootball. HiLo48 (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support with altblurb as proposed; this is definitely being reported in conjunction with the protests, which are themselves football-related, as the cost of the World Cup is one of the main grievances. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Meh TO me this is a pretty over-blown tournament on the importance scale and in reality doesn't have much of an effect on the future world cup. In 2 years international teams can go through a lot of changes, just take a look at the current Brasil team. My vote is neutral. --Somchai Sun (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per 331dot. This is widely acknowledged to be a glorified "shakedown" tournament for the World Cup hosts. --LukeSurlt c 19:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the blurb "In Football, Brazil defeats Spain in the 2013 Confederations Cup". Highly notable tournament that's also received additional news attention due to the protests. -- Anc516(Champs!) (Talk ▪ Contribs) 05:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That should be "In Association football, Brazil defeats Spain in...". That's the agreed name for the sport in this encyclopaedia that has to discuss at least six professional sports that each call themselves football. HiLo48 (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support though I believe the blurb could also say that Brazil won it for the third consecutive time. Three-peat sounds good, although haven't ever heard it being associated with Association Football. —Avenue X at Cicero (t· c) sends his regards @ 11:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not updated - the Confederations Cup article has no text about the game itself and very little on the protests. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not prose other than the lead (though weve posted less) but there is plenty for the alt blurb section with several paras.Lihaas (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The President of the European Parliament demands an explanation from the U.S. for allegations of spying, while new sources hint that the NSA could gather information from several European countries and had placed microphones in the Embassy of Italy to the U.S.. Many European leaders declare themselves greatly disappointed and the issue may bring serious political and economical consequences. (The Guardian)
90,000 people attended the 'Concert per la llibertat' (Concert for freedom) for the independence of Catalonia, organized by Òmnium Cultural and the Assemblea Nacional Catalana in Camp Nou in Barcelona, Catalonia. (Vilaweb)
Article:PRISM (talk·history· ) Blurb: Leaked reports allege that the NSA has been spying on the offices and embassies of many of the United States' allies () Alternative blurb: The US Secretary of State, John Kerry, describes as "nothing unusual" reports that the USAspies onEU offices and embassies. News source(s):SMH, Guardian Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: The US is expected to provide an explanation for the allegation over the coming days; the EU parliament president has stated that EU and US relations would be severely impacted if the allegations were true, and various commentators have noted that the allegations could have a direct impact on a proposed Trans-Atlantic trade agreement worth potentially billions of dollars. YuMaNuMaContrib 13:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Suspect the proper target article, at this time, is PRISM. It may takes days or weeks for the relation article to distill the proper information, but it is more in line with the scope of reactions to PRISM. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it accordingly; I got a bit carried away and mentioned more details than I should in the EU-US relations article. YuMaNuMaContrib 14:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The matter goes beyond PRISM. It includes offline, old-fashioned bugging as well. --RA (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize it's quite possibly much larger than that, but it is a bit of a crystal ball right now. The relations could totally break down. Or in 24 hr the powers that be agree that it wasn't much and it was a blip in the overall PRISM story. For an ITN posting, the story stems from ongoing discovery of how deep PRISM runs. If, say, the EU formally disbands any US agreements, that itself would likely be a seperate ITN item that would feature the appropriate relationship/agreement article. But this facet, of the bugging, is news of itself and needs posting, and PRISM (or a larger article on the general discovery of how deep all this stuff has been) seems to be the right target presently. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I was going to add that EU-US relations or a dedicated article would be best - but for ITN it depends on where the content gets added. If the content is added to PRISM (or a new PRISM spying controversy article, or Edward Snowden, or Edward Snowden leaks) then that is appropriate for ITN. --RA (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very serious matter that has put the EU–US Free Trade Agreement into threat. Alternative blurb provided. --RA (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the threat to the trade agreement is the primary rationale, then the blurb should be worded to reflect that, and possibly we should wait until said agreement is affected. Countries have spied on other countries (friendly or otherwise) since the beginning of time, so I wonder if this is really that shocking an event as the media claims it is. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The threats of repercussions for the trade agreement is an example of the seriousness. But the matter goes beyond that. The depth and degree of spying (e.g. listening devices in embassies and UN offices) is shocking. While some degree of spying between the two blocks is to be expected, relations (up until now) were assumed to be friendly. Looks like it wasn't seen that way by both parties. --RA (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to that, it's alleged that 500 million emails and phones calls to and from the EU have been intercepted and according to the most recent media reports, several other allied countries, including India and South Korea were also spied on; it's that type of scale that's concerning here. Anyways, the coverage of the allegations by the media and the potential implications of this on the US' international standing could justify a separate article. YuMaNuMaContrib 15:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support It seems to me that it's not really for us to decide how shocking or bad this is. The relevant thing is the reaction, and it certainly seems to have sparked a major diplomatic reaction in Europe, as well as getting extensive international media coverage. Perhaps the blurb should refer to the reactions of European leaders, as that is part of what makes it so notable. Neljack (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reaction so far is noise. That's not notable. When it becomes action we can reconsider. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we already posted the original discovery, we cannot update ever time some twist of interpretation comes out in the news. μηδείς (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree completely with Medeis, and let's stop being surprised that spying occurs (and has for millennia), and that spied upon people express outrage each time it becomes public. Don't kid yourself that they didn't already know this was happening. HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll formally oppose this; countries spy on each other all the time(even on friendly countries) and will continue to do so. If there is a specific effect (such as the aforementioned trade deal being scuttled in the future) then we can talk about that, but as Medeis said we can't post something new every time. 331dot (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There are several notable stories about spying, and we should of course post each notable distinct story, if it is notable and distinct enough (which this is). As for all contries spying, it is still notable when it gets found it. Thue (talk) 08:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Spying is not notable. Getting caught is. --RA (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is headline news in Europe. Count Iblis (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note – if more sources catch on to this, it should be worth noting that this is the greatest loss of firefighters since September 11. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just re-wrote the hook to reflect that, as others will probably note that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SupportI'd like the article to be improved before posting. short, but this is the best we can do at this moment in time. YEPacificHurricane 04:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Major news, and part of the wider story of the heatwave and wildfires in the South West. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Top story on BBC news currently, even ranking ahead of the largest ever fire in the West Midlands. Large numbers of firefighter deaths are fortunately not common. Thryduulf (talk) 08:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Same as above, 19 firemen deaths is an unusual amount. Donnie Park (talk) 09:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a significant event in its own right. It's both unnecessary and inappropriate to bring the September 11 attacks into this. Just let it stand on its own. HiLo48 (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose especially mention of the single largest loss of life since 9/11 sa that is purely us-centric. On a general note, this has no in the news repercussions, and on the international media (bbc for the moment, ihow long will it last?)Lihaas (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support As newsworthy as the serious road traffic accidents we report around the globe. Also agree the blurb should be specific to this event only. CaptRik (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: proposed an alt-blurb too. Not sure if I've linked things correctly. CaptRik (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative blurb looks good, although "United States" generally suffices (although there are others, the USA is the primary topic). I think we also link countries from ITN blurbs, but I'm not completely sure of that. Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Updated (alt-blurb), thanks. CaptRik (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It is a very unusual number of deaths for firefighters. That said, I would suggest leaving September 11th out of it. 9/11 was such an exceptional event that trying to draw comparisons to it does not seem all that helpful. Dragons flight (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Blurb should mention this is a wild/brushfire, in Arizona. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I deliberately left out mention of Arizona in the alt-blurb as I referenced the country itself. I'm not sure what our normal convention but I don't remember us mentioning counties/regions/states etc when the country is mentioned. CaptRik (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the wild/brushfire aspect should be included. The way the original blurb reads, without being familiar with the actual fire, makes it sound like it was something happening in New England (where there are a lot of named "Hills" within urban centers, and the reference to 9/11). At least establishing that it is a wild/brushfire doesn't narrow the geography but gives better reason to why so many have died so far. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How to do you feel about the alt-blurb now? I clarified that it's a wildfire, linking to the main article, and replaced the location with a link to Yarnell. CaptRik (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Much better; I'd expect the reader will have a good understanding of how difficult wildfires are to contain and ergo why the lost of life here is significant. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support 19 dead firefighters is tragic, note-worthy news no matter which way you look at it (aka the ending of the blurb, no real opinion of that). --Somchai Sun (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
well I agree there was consensus but perhapos should have waited for a few more hours for the rest of the world to comment.Lihaas (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Almost 13 hours isn't enough? --Tone 16:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This "rest of the world" nonsense only gets pulled out when a US story gets posted. For the record, the hours this was open were probably the least friendly to the Americas possible. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So case in point, it is NOT because of the US factor.
Also bear in mind, I did say it was a legitimate post. HJust a general ITN standard it should wait. (and there have been ITN discussion on this)Lihaas (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So case in point, it is NOT because of the US factor. Huh? Case in point how? This is a U.S. story, and you argued that this story needed more time to allow the "rest of the world" to comment, even though the discussion took place overnight in the United States. On the other hand, it was during waking hours in Europe, Africa, Australia, and Asia throughout most of the time this was open and available for comment. So... what part of the "rest of the world" was not given ample time to comment? South America? Yes, this objection (often from you) that the "rest of the world" was given the chance to comment is limited almost exclusively to U.S. stories, and it's quite clear here no one else is miffed by this posting. -- tariqabjotu 01:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: "first time the former leader of an African state has been tried by another" at the behest of the AU. --Lihaas (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs a lot of work, many controversial facts need sourcing. μηδείς (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support if properly updated. Part of a very long-running story. Wouldn't normally support arrest, rather than conviction, but national leaders being tried for crimes against humanity take a long time to reach the verdict stage. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] 15 birds discovered in Brazil
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 21:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Nominator's comments: Rare and significant event, reportedly the first one since 1871. The scientific description is expected in July, but their taxa and some other data are already known. --Brandmeistertalk 17:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now on the basis that the update isn't sufficient. It doesn't tell me anything useful about the species other than their genus (and none of those articles has any mention of this news) and a note on their range (that doesn't tell me which range relates to which genus, let alone species). Following the hook, I want to know a bit about each of the species and a bit about the discovery but I'm just lead to dead ends. If this information isn't available yet, then it's probably best to wait until it is. Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stale - discovery was announced June 5. [9] --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, can be suspended until scientific descriptions are published. Brandmeistertalk
Oppose - As was justly noted in the nomination for the bird discovered in Pnomh Penh, new species are discovered quite often. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but not 15 birds simultaneously. Brandmeistertalk 08:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes, expeditions are mounted to do just that. Abductive (reasoning) 17:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Posted] Croatia becomes the 28th member of the European Union
Support but I what was the actual last requirement that was completed a week ago? Nergaal (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ratification by all member states. The last formality looks to have been the depositing of the German instruments of ratification with the government of Italy (see Treaty of Accession 2011#Ratification). Thryduulf (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then out that into the timeline table. Nergaal (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a major Europeaen and itnernational topic. The last accession was 2007 and it will be several years before the next one if I'm reading the Future enlargement of the European Union article right. Thryduulf (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very significant event not only for Croatia, bur for the whole Europe. --Երևանցիtalk 02:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very significant event for the country and the EU. Egeymi (talk) 04:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Significant news story, particularly when you look at the number of articles this will change. doktorbwordsdeeds 04:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Expansion of a notable international organization; a rare occurrence. 331dot (talk) 07:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. per above. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 08:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Significant for Croatia (minority topic). Mjroots (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ocomment there is only 1 sentence of an update "Entry into force and accession of Croatia to the EU is set to be 1 July 2013, as all 27 EU members and Croatia have ratified the treaty before this date"Lihaas (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a few more sentences. Mallweft (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support A country becoming a member of the EU is definitely news.--Somchai Sun (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Many unions exist around the world and they always add nations Nottruelosa (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are only two comparable unions, the African Union and the Union of South American Nations. The African Union's last two accessions were in 2011 (South Sudan) and 1994 (South Africa). The Union of South American States has not expanded since its formation in 2004-2011 (depending on what you count as formation). In what way therefore are either of your points factually true? Thryduulf (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the articles for those organisations you'll find that they cover a huge range of organisations that range from talking shops with no power and little influence, to trading clubs, to sports governing bodies, to scientific treaty organisations, to transport regulators, etc. You are not just comparing apples with oranges, but apples with the entire food department of a major supermarket. Thryduulf (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, Thryduulf. It's evident that the above oppose has no weight to it whatsoever. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support A new EU member state is indeed significant news. Should be posted at midnight local time. -- Bruzaholm (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was going to oppose this, I agree with Nottruelosa, and saying her vote is weightless is a bit bullying, no? But the target article has been getting about 1,000 hits a day for some time now. μηδείς (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't there be a limit to how uninformed a vote can be before we may call it weightless? Thue (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bullying!? You're kidding, right? In what way does my comment constitute bullying? I wasn't commenting on the editor in question at all, you make it seem as if I'm being forceful or rude in getting my point across. Here's a more detailed explanation: When weighing up the argument Nottruelosa gave Vs. the counter-argument Thryduulf gave it was clear the oppose had no weight to it, ergo why I called it "weightless". --Somchai Sun (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to argue the point. You obviously know what I meant by bullying, and if you disagree you can suggest another term for it, but the criticism stands. μηδείς (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside the bullying issues, I think somebody who does not know that EU is the closest political entity to a federation without actually being one that there is out there, and that the level of integration within EU is well above the levels of any other unions out there (i.e. how many unions have their own currencies?) does not merit having their opinions receiving significant weight on this issue. Nergaal (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Medeis, Wikipedia is not a source. The number of hits is blindingly irrelevant to whether or not this is in the news. But as it happens, Nergaal is right, and you and nottruelosa are wrong - the EU is a sui generis international organisation. I'd gladly support the addition of a new state to the USA for ITN; an entire sovereign country joining the largest single market in the world gets my nod too.
Support Agree with what has already been said, the EU is one of the most well know organisations. Croatia officially becomes a member at 12 midnight UTC+2 (22:00 UTC) so at the time of writing in just 15 minutes. -- [[axg//✉ ]] 21:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support as discussed above. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 [http://example.com] 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: