:::The the article is not updated. It says "peak speeds exceeding 821.45 miles (1,322.00 km) per hour" vs "and fastest speed of free fall at 1,357.64 km/h (843.6 mph)" for B. [[User:Nergaal|Nergaal]] ([[User talk:Nergaal|talk]]) 15:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
:::The the article is not updated. It says "peak speeds exceeding 821.45 miles (1,322.00 km) per hour" vs "and fastest speed of free fall at 1,357.64 km/h (843.6 mph)" for B. [[User:Nergaal|Nergaal]] ([[User talk:Nergaal|talk]]) 15:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
::::In your own words, if you care enough, you'll do something about it. If don't care enough, I'd suggest you go and work on something else. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 20:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per all above. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 15:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per all above. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 15:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support''', so looking forward to all those "high-flying Google [[Executive dysfunction|executive]]" headlines. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 15:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support''', so looking forward to all those "high-flying Google [[Executive dysfunction|executive]]" headlines. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 15:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Line 100:
Line 101:
*'''Oppose''' this is just a random stat, of interest to some people, maybe, that's broken every other year. All it requires is being a multi-millionaire to afford the attempt. Are we supposed to be a ticker for that? Try DYK. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 17:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' this is just a random stat, of interest to some people, maybe, that's broken every other year. All it requires is being a multi-millionaire to afford the attempt. Are we supposed to be a ticker for that? Try DYK. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 17:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
::To be fair, the record that Baumgartner broke had stood for more than fifty years. While it is sort of odd that it was broken again so soon, I think it's too early to say that it's now commonplace. --[[User:Bongwarrior|Bongwarrior]] ([[User talk:Bongwarrior|talk]]) 18:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
::To be fair, the record that Baumgartner broke had stood for more than fifty years. While it is sort of odd that it was broken again so soon, I think it's too early to say that it's now commonplace. --[[User:Bongwarrior|Bongwarrior]] ([[User talk:Bongwarrior|talk]]) 18:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
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.
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).
Luis Enrique Monroy Bracamonte, the prime suspect in the shooting deaths of two Northern California sheriff's deputies, is reported to be an illegal immigrant from Mexico. (Los Angeles Times)
Sixteen workers are killed after a coal mine collapses in far western Xinjiang region. (Reuters)
Law and crime
Despite an international campaign, Iran hangs Reyhaneh Jabbari, sentenced for the murder of a man she claims was in self-defence. (BBC)
Article updated 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.
Oppose on article quality - the last half of the prose part is lacking references and a bit too much proseline. Support RD on principle otherwise. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support upon quality improvement per Masem; in terms of notability he would seem to meet DC2. Even my local news ran a story about this. 331dot (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of the opinion that it shouldn't have been posted to Ongoing in the first place. Hong Kong is not on top of the headlines anymore. Are the protests really that significant right now? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal right now, but with the reservation that it can be added back in due course should events re-ignite. It was clearly easily notable enough for Ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This is one of the deadliest attacks on the Egyptian military in decades and the deadliest in the Sinai insurgency. The article requires some expansion, so any help would be highly appreciated. --Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The the article is not updated. It says "peak speeds exceeding 821.45 miles (1,322.00 km) per hour" vs "and fastest speed of free fall at 1,357.64 km/h (843.6 mph)" for B. Nergaal (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is just a random stat, of interest to some people, maybe, that's broken every other year. All it requires is being a multi-millionaire to afford the attempt. Are we supposed to be a ticker for that? Try DYK. μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the record that Baumgartner broke had stood for more than fifty years. While it is sort of odd that it was broken again so soon, I think it's too early to say that it's now commonplace. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2014 (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: School shooting by a fellow student is never a good thing. However, I will note that this doesn't yet have major international coverage (BBC has nothing yet), but its still early in the news cycle. --MASEM (t) 19:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sad but school shootings in the US are almost ten a penny (we have about 45 articles about US school shootings vs about 15 for the rest of the world), so they need to be extraordinary for some reason to be ITN worthy and I'm just not seeing anything about this incident that rises to that level. The Washington Post article even says "This was the second shooting at a school in the region this year. In June, a gunman opened fire on the campus of Seattle Pacific University, killing one person and injuring three others." [1]Thryduulf (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the above. Tragic, but not uncommon and unlikely to have any lasting impact across the country. Level of media coverage is fairly minimal outside the US (although it is the no. 4 most read story on the BBC right now). --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rare and tragic event in a pro-gun control state, while the US Murder rate is estimated to be at its lowest level ever mother Jones, Chart these events happen and this has been the top news story all day long, even displacing yesterday's Canadian double shooting. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2014 (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.
Article updated 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.
Weak support. Multiple gold medallist in international competition, and first black South African to be #1 in the world (in most cases being the first of $ethnicity in a country is not really relevant, but South Africa is a special case IMO). My support is weak only because the article is a little light on prose, but what's there seems OK. Thryduulf (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article:Chang'e 5-T1 (talk·history· ) Blurb: China launches Chang'e 5-T1 which will perform a loop behind the Moon and return to Earth. () News source(s):[1] Credits:
Nominator's comments: First re-entry from a Lunar trajectory since 1976. Significant achievement for China in its Moon program. --Hektor (talk) 11:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support- In my opinion, the best positive news stories we can post are in the field of space exploration, and this one has a mild political element as well. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 16:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The mission is going to take eight days. Would it make more sense to post it after it has completed the mission? Because right now the return aspect, which is the major distinction of the mission, hasn't actually happened. C628 (talk) 04:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For new types of rocket we normally post the launch. For space probes we post the launch and when they arrive at their destination. Given the timescale of this one, if it isn't posted today then it may be best to wait until it returns. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll wait for a comment or two more, then ready to post. When mission is accomplished, we can update the blurb, if it is still on ITN then. --Tone10:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"A weapon of mass destruction (WMD or WoMD) is a nuclear, radiological, biological, chemical or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to human-made structures."--Catlemur (talk) 09:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The use of WMD is notable, and this is in some better sources than the prior nomination below. I wonder if it merits a separate article, though. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose; though I reviewed the sources before posting my above comment, I am persuaded by what Masem says below. Waiting for further sources would help, I think. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I'd have to counter the claim this is an WMD, that first, I don't see any sources specifically calling it that (we should not be making that distinction as OR), and that as per NYT on this subject, they note that there were no deaths here, and in previous uses of homemade chlorine-based bombs, the harm was more likely from shrapnel and the like than from exposure to the gas (the gas does nasty chemical burns and that itself can lead to death but in terms of what one would normally called a "chemical weapon" it is not the same thing as what, say, would be making a huge international incident). Even the BBC writer [2] notes that classifying the chlorine bombs as chemical weapons is a bit of word play (And certainly not WMD). The lack of broad coverage based on other more critical events from the ISIS stuff in the past suggests that this is not really anything surprising (they have claimed that ISIS took over a chemical production plant that made chlorine compounds for pools, and there were plenty of unconfirmed reports in the past of the claimed use of chlorine gas), and that we have the ISIS ongoing, makes me think this is not as significant as it reads, only because it implies a more drastic situation when it really isn't. --MASEM (t) 13:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A Hamas member carries out a terrorist attack in Jerusalem by intentionally striking a group of pedestrians in a train station with his car killing a 3-month-old baby. (Times of Israel)
Mali confirms that a 2-year-old girl has tested positive for Ebola, marking the country's first documented case. (BBC)
Law and crime
A man attacks a group of police officers in New York City with a hatchet, injuring 2 before being shot dead. Police suspect the attacker was motivated by radical Islamic ideals. (CNN)
Politics and elections
Protesters in Iran call for increased security after four women are injured in acid attacks in Isfahan for allegedly not wearing veils. (AFP via ABC Online)
Science
Partial solar eclipse visible over much of North America today. (timeanddate.com)
Official figures will soon show that cases have topped 10,000 and over 5,000 people have died.I have no idea if this is standard practice (I know it is in ongoing events) but should significant milestones like this be reported separately. ShakyIsles (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is easy. ITN's not into records unless it's Messi, or if it involves round numbers unless it's a century in cricket. Well I think "a century" is round... –HTD12:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, snooker's OK. Compared to American football, tons of Mexicans and Canadians play it (who am I kidding lol). Messi and Ronaldo are closing in on Raul's Champions League goal-scoring record. Now that's an easy-as-ITNR-post-it-God damn it-now support. –HTD12:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, it's "easy-as-ITNR-post-it-God damn it-now support". It'll be futile to oppose against it. –HTD17:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We ought to figure out what milestones we would report on Ebola. I think we could report whenever a country is declared Ebola-free, and we could report when a vaccine is finally declared effective. I'm not sure body counts are very useful because the number are grossly underestimated. What upsets me is that the news seems to completely forgets the thousands dying in Africa as soon as two or three get sick in the US or Spain. JehochmanTalk12:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I'd like to know what kind of event should happen to merit the return of ebola as a blurb in ITN. These "arbitrary records" ain't it. –HTD13:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the flip side, I would assume that an organization like WHO or CDC would have a point of classification where they would call something an epidemic or pandemic which would be, for us, the point of being ITN. (or hopefully when they declare it eradicated.) --MASEM (t) 15:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They had already classified it as an "epidemic". I don't think it'll reach "pandemic" (common cold?) levels. The thing is if there less and less cases, the people would lose interest and once WHO says the epidemic is done, it's no longer in the news. –HTD17:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is already on ongoing, so visitors we see it in ITN. Otherwise you could argue the landmark would bring visitors looking for the subject, but in this case they will find it. μηδείς (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, believe it or not. An In the news candidate is opposed because it's in the news. I will qualify it by saying that this event is already in the news, and people can link to it from major websites like Google, Yahoo!, etc. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rear Admiral Anders Grenstad, while pointing out that Sweden's military operation is focused on gathering intelligence on a suspected foreign submarine in its waters, stated that military force could be used to make it surface. (BBC)
Indeed; I haven't seen a RS that has stated they even possess chemical weapons(though I suppose they could have gotten them in Syria). 331dot (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added Daily Mail and Kurdish Tribune articles on the topic.ISIS captured a lot of chemical warhead shells in Iraq recently, so it might be true.--Catlemur (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2014 (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; doesn't seem to be mainstream news; blurb is also not accurate as it is not a monument to Wikipedia, but to Wikipedia contributors. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2014 (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: Significant shooting (17 deaths), so the trial should be at least somewhat significant as well, particularly given that we posted Pistorius' trial (which pertained to only one death). --Jinkinsontalk to me17:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Lihaas: What 'precedence'? We deal with each event on its own merits, and this is very different than the Pistorius case. Might be notable, but still different. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No-one's going to point out that the article and the source given both say that only one guard was convicted of first-degree murder, not four as the blurb says? Oh well, guess I'll have to point that out, then. BencherliteTalk21:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Even if there are no casualties beyond the shooter(s), this is a significant event that is affecting the Canadian gov't. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd want to make sure its posted with proper details, but I think regardless of outcome it is ITN. Eg: how many shooters, is this related to the ISIL threat that Canada had recieved, etc. Things are still happening as best I can tell. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Big terrorist attack, regardless of the justification. It's an attack on the parliament building in the capital of a major country in the world. I believe this is unprecedented in Canada. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While no one has yet 100% affirmed this as a terrorist act, it comes exactly one day after two Canadian soldiers were run over by a car driven by ISIL agents, and subsequently caused Canada to raise its terrorist threat level due to other credible threats. Needless to say, this nearness of events is not going unnoticed by the press even if it is speculation for now. --MASEM (t) 19:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, sorry Masem, but you are inadvertently pushing FUD here. The terror level was actually raised last week, before either incident, and the guy in Quebec wasn't an "ISIL agent" - officials have said only that he was "self-radicalized". Though you are right that the timing of the two incidents is causing media to speculate links. Resolute19:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At the time I wrote that comment the only news was that the soldier's shooter was dead, and that they weren't sure if their might be other shooters. Are you suggesting that I was insensitive to the shooter, or advocating cannibalism? I don't expect you to know it, so I will refrain from telling you to stick your in your, but my boyfriend was shot to death in a car jacking, and I won't even describe what I went through as a NY'er on 9/11, so please keep your concern for my "if it bleeds it leads" comment to yourself. μηδείς (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am terribly sorry about the loss of your boyfriend. I too was in New York on September 11. My comment does not have to be personalized. I simply, and I hope uncontroversially, ask that we not use the word "meat" in reference to a human body. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A private note at my talkpage would have gotten my attention, and almost certainly convinced me, since the point was inessential, and I was literally thinking of a plate when I made it. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is not normal for Canada. Regardless of number of deaths its clearly a directed attack at military personnel and the Canadian parliament. Prime Minister Harper was awfully close by when this happened as well. This will be significant news around the world -- Ashish-g5518:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait we still don't have a clear picture of what is going on here and there's no point in rushing something to the main page until we do. I agree, it's not "normal" for Canada, I agree, it's shocking and headline news, but the news outlets seem nearly as clueless as we do. We can post it when we have a better idea of the bigger picture. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
STRONG OPPOSE on mere speculation. 0-1 deaths vs. much more in ME or Africa that don't get posted. like trying to say 6 million dead white people are more "never again" then the virtual extermination of an [red] peoples!Lihaas (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He's playing the race card for hyperbolic effect. It tells me a great deal about Lihaas - none of it good - and only confirms that he can be safely ignored. Resolute19:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that Lihaas' strong oppose vote is quite valid, regardless our opinion of the off-topicality of the comment that followed it. μηδείς (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support: A Canadian soldier on guard duty has been killed, and the shooting has already had a ripple effect with increased security in other national capitals. → Michael JⓉ Ⓒ Ⓜ 19:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. per above. Major attack with coverage all around the world. I was surprised to see it in Lat. Am. media so early in the day. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 19:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Per The Rambling Man, insufficient detail to make a useful blurb beyond stating the very most obvious (that a shooting occurred). I don't imagine we'll have to wait too long. Once information is more available, I would likely support regardless of motive, since it carries implications of an attack on a government due to location. - OldManNeptune⚓19:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I partially agree, but waiting for a few more details will not be harmful either. At this point, the best we could say in an ITN blurb would be that a soldier is dead and that an attacker traded gunfire inside Parliament - which may be worthy of posting now, but an hour or two might yield more concrete information. Resolute19:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree on waiting just a bit. Make sure the situation has settled to a degree so that we can get accurate "basics" right. (Example, there was a third location listed before but that's been proven a misstatement by the police). Probably a few hrs will be good. --MASEM (t) 19:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait It's still unclear what happened. If this was just a random lunatic shooting one person, that's very different from an organized terrorist attack. We need to wait for the basic facts to become known. JehochmanTalk20:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should be ready soon The situation has not changed for a few hours now, the article has been extensively edited and sourced. While there is some disagreement on the talk page about the article's title, there is a 'Reactions' section being populated, and the structure is otherwise quite good for a young article. --NaturalRX20:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since the title won't be included in the hook, how desperate is it that we wait? The name seems to be generally stable. Most either support the current name, or suggest that a final name can't be decided until a few days from now, once the media comes to an agreement. May we post? -- Zanimum (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Continue Waiting This appears to be a shooting by a lone nutjob. Also, the current blurb isn't suitable. Did we post the loon who jumped the White House fence? Do we post every time a loon shoots one or two people? JehochmanTalk23:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I dont understand rationale behind waiting if its single gunman. Large portion of city has been in lockdown and its been covered all day worldwide, literally. The article looks good as well. It actually is starting to look odd not seeing it on ITN by now. -- Ashish-g5523:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also do not understand waiting. In the U.S., all of the news channels have been reporting on it nonstop for hours. It's not only the biggest news story they are covering, it's the only story. → Michael JⓉ Ⓒ Ⓜ 23:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am curious whether we even had a nomination for last year's shooting by police of a the woman who drove into a barrier at the White House [3] or the knife-wielding man who just made it over the fence into family's quarters, or the rifleman who shot a bullet into the quarters 11 Nov 2011?[4]. Beyond the moral preening at this point we seem to have one islamist convert who has assassinated a soldier. This is not Canada versus the US. It's an ideology of murder versus London, Madrid, New York, Ottawa.... μηδείς (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The likely reason this story is HUGE (compared to those other two , which had wide national coverage but not wide international) is that with Canada announcing their support of strikes against ISIL and the events of yesterday, the press are widely speculating possible connections to Canada's actions and these "responses" (if they are that). But as others have said, in those event, the sole of the White House was effected; here, the core of the entire Canadian Parliment was shut down as well as around 10,000s of citizens living/working in that part of download Ottawa. --MASEM (t) 00:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was on the fence at first, but three things swayed me: 1) Part of this took place in one of the Parliament buildings. How often does this kind of thing happen in a major legislative building in a national capital? 2) This is getting massive media attention all over the world and has been commented on by major world leaders. and 3) A big part of downtown Ottawa was put on lockdown for a long time. So you have a large city (and national capital) where an important part of the city was shut down, and in some cases it's still ongoing. It just slips through, but I think it passes. People have been comparing it to the White House invasion. I'd compare it more to the Boston Marathon bombing, and I think that was in ITN. -- Scorpion042200:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. An attack like this on a parliament building is quite extraordinary, and will likely be remembered in Canada for many years to come. I'll confess, I happened to catch it on ABC News (which the BC News Channel broadcasts to fill space at stupid o'clock in the morning) and my first thought was "oh, another shooting spree in America", but when I realised it was Canada, where this sort of thing is about as common as rocking horse droppings, and the parliament building, I was genuinely shocked. This would be extraordinary in Westminster (not least because we don't allow any loony to walk into a supermarket and walk out with a firearm in the UK) and even on Capitol Hill, but it is all the more so in Ottawa. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have provided an alt blurb that describes the events as completed. The only thing that remains an issue is if this was a ISIL-related incident but that's not something that should block the blurb posting (eg we can change that later if it does turn out to be true). --MASEM (t) 00:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For short term posting, leaving out the terrorist attack part might be best until it's well established. I know the shooter has very questionable ties, but that doesn't mean it was directly such an attack. If while this is posted and its confirmed it was one, we can change the blurb. --MASEM (t) 04:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — I'm Canadian, and this is a massive news story up here. Canada is a very powerful country within the international community, and a relatively peaceful nation. An attack on the Parliament in Ottawa is significant, even if it was just a lone gunman acting on his own agenda. Kurtis(talk)01:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Updating my opinion to support, the blurb says what is known and while I might have hoped we'd see even more information than what we have now, the lockdown of Parliament is a significant event. - OldManNeptune⚓05:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: PM Stephen Harper has called it a "terrorist attack". Check the article itself for details. In general, the event is notable because it was a direct shooting and attempt to attack members of Parliament, not because of the amount of casualties. This is unusual for Western nations. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's unusual for a shooting to happen at a national parliament, but otherwise there is really nothing unique about this event. Lone acts of violence perpetrated by Muslim fundamentalists are sadly common in this day and age. Unless those acts of violence lead to catastrophic consequences (i.e. the September 11 attacks, Beslan, Mumbai, the In Amenas hostage crisis, etc.) they aren't notable or unique enough to be posted on ITN. -- Tocino07:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from two extraordinary things actually. The other was not mentioned -- which is that this happened in Canada. I don't think some people really have a concept of how rare such shootings are in Canada. There was a similar ITN discussion about three federal police officers being killed in Canada earlier -- dismissed as ITN-worthy in about five lines because apparently this kind of thing is not uncommon in some other parts of the world. (On average, Canada has 2-3 police killed in the line of duty in any given year across the entire country (StatsCan). Between 1961 and 2004, 120 police officers have been killed in the line of duty, but those numbers are heavily skewed toward the FLQ years and drop to zero or 1 most years in the 1980s and 1990s. Since 2005, there have been at least 20 police officers shot (or deliberately hit by cars), a good third of them federal police.) - Tenebris 09:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Support, post it already. Despite the low casualty count, this kind of an attack is quite unusual for Canada, and it is already clear that it will have significant political implications there. Nsk92 (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting now. I doubt that any additional information will become available until after several weeks of investigation, so it's rather pointless (and frankly disrespectful) to continue delaying posting this on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the blurb to better reflect the importance of the event. My blurb is now listed as the altblurb here. Please feel free to improve. JehochmanTalk15:11, 23 October 2014 (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.
Support. Would seem to meet DC2 and the latter part of DC1(had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region) given his publishing of the Pentagon Papers. 331dot (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeWeak Support. While a player in the events of Watergate, he is not Woodward or Bernstein, the ones that broke it. And while an editor of a major paper, I would not really call that the top of the field considering journalism. --MASEM (t) 01:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read his obits. His career wasn't just Watergate. That was the culmination of seven years of work as executive editor building the Post into the closest rival The New York Times has in American newspaper journalism. He persuaded Donald Graham to buy Newsweek, an investment that revitalized that publication and paid off for the Post Company for years. He was, really, the last of a type—the big-city newspaper editor as primal force. We will not see his like again, ever. Daniel Case (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to a weak support. Still not fully convinces of his importance once you subtract the Watergate scandal relevance, but also can't deny he is unimportant at all outside of that. Also not looking at a full RD list so no reason not to support something on the edge. --MASEM (t) 16:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on significance, oppose on quality: First of all: Holy shit, he wasn't dead yet? Second of all: a major historical figure, as a newspaperman, perhaps the best known of his time (the answer and American would give to "Name any Newspaper Editor" if the answer is not a blank stare, the person would answer "Ben Bradlee"). His specific involvement in most of the major Washington DC era journalism of the 1960s and 1970s, as a key historical figure in those news stories, also places him as a highly recognizable name, and therefor worth an RD link for that reason. However, the article has major sourcing problems. The sections "World War II", "Government Work" and "The Washington Post" are entirely unreferenced. For that reason Oppose on quality only. If anyone fixes those referencing problems, consider this vote a full-fledged support without me having to change it. --Jayron3201:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a minor talking head admired by some with a certain POV, but not an innovator in his field, just a witness on the sidelines of events he did not in any way influence. μηδείς (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Although he was well-known among U.S. journalists of era, the events (that inspired the film) that made Bradlee famous to the American public have receded into history and legend. I'm not convinced he's of sufficient current fame for ITN. (Anyway, most readers will think of Jason Robards.) Sca (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Current fame is not one of the RD criteria. One doesn't have to be currently famous to be very important to their field, or to have had a significant impact on the nation/region. 331dot (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, strike current fame from my comment and make it standing.
Watergate "has receded into history and legend"? How many other scandals brought down a President? Why are we still suffixing just about every scandal we can with "-gate"? Daniel Case (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That might be very useful for something in List of common misconceptions, but has no bearing on whether we run his death. Your language seemed to suggest that no one cares any more; I'd say the existence of those myths and the need to debunk them demonstrates the exact opposite. Daniel Case (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, Daniel. Watergate was a watershed event. (No pun intended.) I remember it very well. You missed my point entirely — it's Bradlee whose stature was at issue (and I've modified my view on that). Further, your tone seems unduly abrasive. How about assuming good faith, and showing some tolerance for the views of others — even those with whom you disagree? Sca (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Probably one of the bigger players in the field he worked in, as well as a key player in one of the most significant events in recent American history.--Yaksar(let's chat)16:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- per this piece in the Guardian, arguing that even more important that his part he played in Watergate were his actions in respect of the Pentagon Papers, publishing the documents in the Washington Post even after the New York Times had been hit with an injunction. The effect was transformative both for his newspaper and for American journalism. Jheald (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can see I'm in the minority, which in this instance makes me feel guilty. So I changed my oppose to a comment.
At the time of Watergate, I was a huge fan of Woodstein (and later, of All the President's Men). It was Woodstein doing the reporting — but perhaps I missed the significance of Bradlee's role. Sca (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment would post this but there are a few citation needed tags, and the Washington Post section (which, after all, is the key thing) is virtually unreferenced. Others may disagree, but I ain't posting this crap. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
References added. I've removed the tags and added several references. The article's not perfect but I believe it's ready but I welcome other editors to have a look.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
The Chief Executive Officer of Total S.A., Christophe de Margerie, dies in a plane crash in Moscow together with three members of the flight crew. (BBC)
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.
[8] is a source, but I'm not sure about this. Private jet and so causalities limited to a handful (I can't find a full #), and while Total is "big", they aren't "big big" nor is de Margerie a well-known name. --MASEM (t) 21:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reopened: closing this after 20 minutes with as one of the reasons with no support is a bit strange, one would think that some time would be needed to show that there is no support. Further, the claim that Tital isn't "big big" seems to be misguided: they are the 11th largest company worldwide (by revenue, according to Wikipedia). They are 11th in the Fortune Global 500[9], and 25th in the Forbes 2000[10]. Basically, they are very big big, as one of the top 25 companies of the world by most economic rankings.
Now, I agree that this nomination is badly formatted, and perhaps no blurb or RD is warranted, but it shouldn't be closed based on "no support" in twenty minute or based on somewhat misguided statements. Note that this is clearly major news worldwide[11]. It's the kind of death where you get (in e.g. the Financial Times or the Wall Street Journal) multiple articles, one about the crash and a separate about reactions or as a full length obituary (e.g. [12]) or to discuss his successor[13]. He really was at the top of his field, and his death came unexpected of course. Fram (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am seeing a lot of news coverage of this (even in my local news) but I'm not clear on which RD criteria he meets. Does he meet DC2? If so, why exactly? 331dot (talk) 14:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's my concern. It is not that Total isn't big, but his influence on the company? He's only been the CEO since ~2007, which isn't much time realistically to establish his presence as a positive influence, and just looking around, I'm not seeing anything that necessarily he was a good or bad CEO, just that he was CEO. The company is successful because of policies in place before his tenure at CEO. Hence the failure of being a leader in the field. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The former is a very common "self-congratulating" type of award I see commonly in the engineering/industrial sector. Not that it doesn't have meaning but it is not like a broad industry or business award. The other appears to be due to his efforts to support the arts in France. Neither which I would say elevates him to leader in the field. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support As of October 24, there are over 2,560 news articles about Mr. Margerie listed on Google News, proving that he was a leader in his field (business). His WP article has been greatly improved in recent days, as well. --Tocino07:54, 24 October 2014 (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, we already posted the conviction weeks ago. We always post just one story for criminal offences, unles the verdict is overturned (which was not the case here). --Tone09:19, 21 October 2014 (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.
Article updated 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.
Would support this on significance, clearly a world-class member of his profession. Oppose on non-existent prose updated. Near as I can tell, as of my writing this, the article's update consists solely of adding a death date. Some prose needs to be added somewhere to the text of the article. We probably don't need a "death" section (I usually don't like those that much) but some prose, a sentence or two, describing his death and any major events or illnesses leading to it, would be expected. Once that is done, consider this a support without my needing make any further comment. --Jayron3202:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone beat me to it; there's a small section death with sourcing. Could be cleaned up but not an issue for ITN. --MASEM (t) 03:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated 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: Former PM of Australia. Clearly RD material, but death by old age otherwise, and not blurb worthy. --MASEM (t) 21:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose He hasn't been PM for forty years and his profile has been very low for the past decade. Just a long-ago short-time leader of a mid-ranking country. --Pete (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fact that he was an MP of an English speaking former colony of Britain ranks him a little higher than some failed-state dictator of 40 years ago, given this is en.wikipedia μηδείς (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD article in excellent condition (FFA re-promoted in 2010 and kept up to standard by Wehwalt and others since then) and a leading Australian politician. Not many former heads of government live to the age of 98, of course, so he can perhaps be forgiven for his "very low" profile in recent years. BencherliteTalk23:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a note of process, there's talk at TFA about reposting this article as TFA on one of two upcoming relevant dates (the memorial service or an anniversary, both in early November). This should have dropped off RD by then, but just in case, should that TFA suggestion go through, we should remove this before that TFA date. --MASEM (t) 17:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would figure that with other areas of generally only allowing an article to be featured once, or in DYK once, that we should not duplicate articles in different sections of the front page. And in this case, the TFA date will be so far out that the RD part will be a stale story for ITN. If this was happening today (a day after this was posted) I'd likely keep both. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[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.
Oops, that's what I meant. I was having difficulty deciding on what article should be linked, but that is what I intended to link to. I changed the target article. Andise1 (talk) 08:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is not the origin of sexual intercourse, insects and molluscs have penises, and look at how barnacles do it. It's just the earliest evidence for it in a certain type of extinct fish. μηδείς (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I've understood the reports correctly, this is the earliest evidence of penetrative sex in any sort of fish but your general point stands. Thryduulf (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was my point. I don't follow sports and I do love biology, but I think Peyton outranks the placoderm here. This is a question of convergent evolution, and penes are quite common among animals of all types. Do not look up bedbug sex! μηδείς (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose When stripped of a clickbait-ish blurb like "scientists discover origin of sex" and given one that accurately states what was apparently learned, this is interesting but not front page science. I also highly question the choice of Penetrative sex as the linked article rather than Fertilization. - OldManNeptune⚓19:22, 21 October 2014 (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.
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.
An impressive record to be sure, and I am a HUGE NFL fan. But I oppose posting this record at this time. Posting records should be reserved for the sort of "unbreakable" records that happen once in a generation (I.E. Miggy Cabrera's Triple Crown a few years back, or someone breaking Ripken's consecutive games streak, or Dimaggio's hitting streak). The Passing TD record falls about every decade years or so, and it doesn't have the iconic sort of status as other records. Indeed, if we posted every record of this stature we'd post probably one per season. It's awesome, and I'm happy for Manning, but I don't see this as ITN worthy, given the other sports stories we usually post. --Jayron3202:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Torn on this. Jayron has the right point, but it does seem, looking at the current full roster of NFL players, this record is definitely not going to be further broken this season (beyond him adding more TDs to it), and won't be broken for a few more seasons at least from what I can tell. Even if it is surpassed in a decade, in the sense of ITN, that's long enough to make this a unique enough event here for ITN posting. --MASEM (t) 02:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: It isn't that the Passing TD record gets broken every season. It's that some equivalent career record (passing yards, rushing TD, rushing yards, rushing TDs, return yards, return TDs, receiving yards, etc. etc. you get the idea) gets broken about once every season. Again, it's a great accomplishment, but outside of NFL fans, it isn't the sort of once-in-a-lifetime record that gets much note except for a day or two. Manning will be remembered in general for his stellar play, but this singular record will not be something he's forever known for, like some of the iconic "never gonna be broken" records that ARE out there. --Jayron3211:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Major record in a major sport. Record likely won't be broken for many years (see this if you really feel like extrapolating the numbers [16]). -- Calidum02:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- I am of the opinion that records should only be posted for global sports like football and athletics, unless it is clearly the premier record in the sport. An example would be the home run record in baseball, which has far more prestige than this record. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably due to the number of different positions, what would be the premiere record for American football is not clear, but that said, clearly touchdowns completed as a metric of QB performance is pretty much the top record - if we were talking, say, a running back, yards run would be that one. --MASEM (t) 03:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What a "prestigious record" is is a matter of opinion. Football having varied positions should not disqualify it from having a notable record posted. What matters for ITN is the news coverage this is getting, which is significant and not limited to the US. 331dot (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure whose comment is addressed at whom here. In any case, the idea of cherry-picking a particular factoid from American football in an attempt to make it "newsworthy" is not my idea of something that would equate to Nobel prizes or similar. I imagine that there exists a "number of rushing yards" record holder and a "number of receiving yards" record holder and a number of "first downs in a season" record holder and a "number of field goals" record holder and a "number of interceptions" record holder and a "number of fumbles" record holder and a "number of other jargon" record holder? An attempt to compare it to a sport where scoring a century guarantees a win and scoring points is the only parameter is a little pathetic. But hey, this is American Wikipedia so no surprise. I guess we'll post this every time he breaks the NFL record, and set the precedent for all the other "prestigious" records in NFL. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm American, but I don't follow this sport (or most sports). I certainly don't consider this the "American Wikipedia" or believe that American topics deserve special treatment. As for "something that would equate to Nobel prizes or similar," I drew no such comparison. And the comparison that I made didn't equate the records themselves. My point was that you supported an item that had nothing whatsoever to do with any record changing hands. Neil Robertson became the record holder when he scored 62 century breaks in a season. Despite the fact that it was the fourth consecutive season in which the record was broken, maybe that achievement warranted a posting. But that isn't what it was about. It was about Robertson beating his own record for the 38th time. If we take your sarcastic "I guess we'll post this every time he breaks the NFL record" remark and constrain it to numbers that emotionally seem extra-special in a decimal numeral system, that's essentially what occurred in the earlier case. But I'm not even criticizing that decision. Maybe the number "100" had special cultural significance among snooker enthusiasts as an anticipated milestone. I'm in no position to assume otherwise. But that seems like a textbook example of "a factoid" (or "random stats fun for fans," as Fgf10 put it). So I find it rather odd that you now oppose the Manning item for that reason. You refer to "cherry-picking" the info "in an attempt to make it newsworthy," but I only know about it because it's been in the news. And others are saying that it's even being widely reported in other countries. This tells me that it's considered a noteworthy achievement in the context of its sport (and for the same reason, I assume that the "century of centuries" was as well). How can any of us gauge the cultural significance of something from someone else's culture? Certainly not through our own lenses. 24.0.222.22 (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you supported the Neil Robertson item too. How is Peyton Manning's achievement a "random stat," while a sportsman hitting an arbitrary round number by extending his own record for the 38th time (after others broke the record during the three previous seasons) isn't? 24.0.222.22 (talk) 09:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please link to three or four of the best news sources. To qualify, you need to show that this event has been reported in major media outlets in multiple countries. JehochmanTalk12:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, there is such coverage, but there is no policy which states coverage in several countries is required. It certainly helps, but is not required. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support given coverage in other countries, which might lead people to want to learn about Manning and/or the record. Record is one of the most notable in football. Also see my comment above. 331dot (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - Although I would love to have this stat posted, we did not post Lionel Messi's world record for most goals in a calendar year. Therefore, per precedence, this cannot be posted.--WaltCip (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not posting a certain story doesn't itself mean this one shouldn't be posted. Each story should be judged on its own merits, as consensus can change. Precedence only really comes into play for ITNR stories(and even then they aren't always posted, typically due to quality) 331dot (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside the fact that Wikipedia operates on consensus, not precedent, you are trying to compare a single-season record to an all-time record. Your argument would have been stronger if we were discussing a single-season touchdown record. Resolute18:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Calidum. A major record in a major sport unlikely to be broken any time soon. Opposes based on "only NFL fans" directly contradict the rule against opposes on regionality. μηδείς (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle a major career record, not a season's record; one of the leading nine sports stories on my (UK-based) BBC news mobile app this morning. A few "citation needed" tags but nothing that can't be fixed by someone with the relevant interests. BencherliteTalk18:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too sports statish. Are supposed to re-post again in a week when he gets another? And again the week after that? That's one of the problems with essentially arbitrary records such as this - the other would be that they are fundamentally difficult to compare without reference to the length of career, position played, number of injuries, effectiveness of the rest of the team (and how much they favour a player) and 101 other reasons over and above the skill of the individual with the record. Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's honestly one of the dumbest arguments I've seen. If you don't like football, just say it. But please don't post such a BS argument. -- Calidum03:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Lame" without any reasoning carries zero weight around here. "BS", again lacking any justification or evidence similarly has no clout. Claiming to know what I think is laughable when I can disprove you with two words - "You're wrong". So precisely where are the lame, bullshit arguments coming from here? Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 06:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think we should be sparing in posting these sort of records. I find Jayron32's point about the frequency of this record being broken convincing. Neljack (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Peyton's touchdown record is probably the most prestigious individual statistics record in the sport, and I say that as a Pats fan. The record won't be broken for a very long time. --Tocino13:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marked Ready I am no fan of Manning or any team he's played for, and I usually oppose most sports noms. But there is good consensus to post this, the record number of touchdowns is objective and as clear as runs in Baseball, the article has been updated by 1,600 bytes, and all citation needed tags have been addressed. μηδείς (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Fgf10. A noteworthy record I imagine, if you follow this sport, but not generally newsworthy, certainly not globally. So "Good consensus" ignores all the opposes? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Certainly not globally (newsworthy)" ... the links posted in the submission that are from Ireland, Great Britain, and Australia would suggest otherwise. Here's a few more global links, including Japan: [17], Germany: [18] Austria: [19] Italy: [20] The Netherlands: [21] New Zealand: [22], Taiwan: [23] --Tocino07:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"If you follow this sport" and "globally" are explicitly forbidden as reasons to oppose a nomination. Per NFL: Today, the NFL has the highest average attendance (67,591) of any professional sports league in the world[5] and is the most popular sports league in the United States. So yes, this is quite ready, technically and per consensus. μηδείς (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't see the "good consensus" that you do. Did you miss my reason to oppose? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC) "Record likely won't be broken for many years" - is that really a valid reason to post? ever?[reply]
Comment despite two attempts from those supporting this blurb, I've removed the "ready" (or similar alternative) tag applied. There is by no means a consensus to post this. Please leave it to someone independent of this to assess and explain why they do (or do not) see a consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2014 (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.
Oppose not offended by this, but think we should wait for actual full sainthood unless something more unusual happen*s. As for soldiers getting medals, let's wait for the top medal for the top soldier. μηδείς (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose what? Me nominating it? If other people really care about the news then somebody will put the energy into doing all the work. What is the point of putting energy into something that has a chance of snowballing one way or the other? Nergaal (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No evidence this is in the news. Not working on the nomination is one thing, but all nominations should have some basic information(news sources, a blurb, target article, etc.). 331dot (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This is a rare celestial event - a comet will pass very closely to Mars and will be monitored by the probes there. Regretfully, this will apparently not be possible to see from Earth without a decent telescope. --Tone14:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this the first known comet observation that will primarily be done by human equipment located on a different body? (Eg have any previous Mars missions included the observation of a comet's passing?) That might make this blurb worthy. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A rare event which will be followed by the probes of different space agencies, making this relevant to many people. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comet_IRAS–Araki–Alcock's lead is a very good introduction to comet closeness. One too tiny to get an article despite being the recordholder for Earth is number one. This is 13 times closer. #2 was in 1770. #3 was in 1366. #4 was in 837 AD). I can't find if this is the closest non-gas planet flyby, but given those numbers it probably is. Otherwise "C/2013 A1 gets closer to Mars than any other comet approach known, thirteen times closer than the Earth record" seems better than the current blurb. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I was following a source that said "very close". We know one comet hit Jupiter. Also I think it is important to say that we have 2 rovers and five satellite probes observing. JehochmanTalk11:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nasa's posted some images they'v captured on the flyby [26] - I'd be happy to get these uploaded if this might be a better ITN picture for the moment. --MASEM (t) 23:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak, moot and rather pointless oppose But how is this really special? It's kind of like the discovery of the ozone hole, made the first year they looked at ozone over the SP with a satellite. It's anticlimactic. But I do like science, so this as as meh as you can get for a post posting oppose. μηδείς (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[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: She died on the 18th but this seems to be hitting the news in the last few days(my local paper ran the Washington Post story). Longshot given the current state of the article and not being recent, but I still felt this deserved a nomination as she seems notable in her field(fighting female genital mutilation). Got an OBE for her work. --331dot (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - I'm a bit concerned at the lack of depth of coverage in these obit articles as well as our article; her cause is certainly nothing to ignore, but I think the focus on the cause (which is going to continue on without her) over herself indicates she did not have as much significance for being a leader in the field. --MASEM (t) 14:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose This doesn't seem to change their classification of endangered-ness. Yes, the last male known, but that's in a controlled area, and this also doesn't negate what science can do. (Irregardless of this, the blurb really needs work - far too long) --MASEM (t) 23:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sad news but we should probably only post such stories when a species is officially declared extinct, and the report is widely circulated in the news. Extinctions happen frequently, but most are unknown or pass without notice. JehochmanTalk16:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That article seems to conflate two or more events - at Dhaulagiri and at Annapurna. If it is to provide the basis of a new article, it needs to be renamed as well as expanded. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Information regarding this disaster was difficult to come by in the first ~2 days. Rescuers and survivors were not able to relay their accounts until now...and that, is part of the tragedy. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose this is a voluntary mass suicide assuming it's true. Compare this to the Rhino's who've been killed involuntarily, as opposed to these rich people with nothing more constructive to do than eff about on mountain edges. The extinction of the Rhino is forever. The death of a bunch of westerners is of no importance whatsoever. μηδείς (talk) 7:45 pm, 18 October 2014, last Saturday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)
You're claiming that all of the victims wanted to commit suicide? Even if that were true, it would still be quite notable. And that includes all the local guides who were killed or injured? And how come you can make a comment dated "2 days ago"? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The subject was moot but the IP sockpuppet (you know, the good kind of sockpuppet) effectively made Masem's comment below incomprehensible with his vandalism. In response to Masem, sorry to say it, but if 20 Yak Herders were killed in a storm we'd never have heard of it. That and eurocentrism are why I opposed. I don't see that focusing on an item where otherwise unnotable Westerners die doing things that can kill you meets the, will they still be talking about this 100 years from now criterion. μηδείς (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
support posting but the article really needs to be more than a few sentences. Disagree with Medeis' assessment as the casualties also appear to be yak herders - aka people that made their life there. --MASEM (t) 23:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Opps!! @Masem: the record he broke was only the highest Australian domestic List A score not overall. Still, being third is no mean feat and if anyone feels like reopening this feel free NickGibson3900Talk04:19, 18 October 2014 (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.
QuestionList of List A cricket records is not clear what's happening here (I'm nowhere near an expert on cricket) - why is Dunk's record, claimed to be highest here, 3rd there ? What is special about List A cricket to make that special? To put the question in a way I would read it, this would be like saying the record for a baseball playing having the most Runs Batted In in a single game, but qualifying it as in regular season play compared to championship play. If the situation is close to the latter, this seems to be a very trivial designation to not meet ITN. (Also, we need a source). --MASEM (t) 04:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[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.
Comment: I would kinda prefer having a separate article for this year's event, rather than having an article about the general championship tournament itself. SpencerT♦C07:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not. LoL producers specifically didn't take part there as to not diminish the prestige of this LoL WC. Plus the prize is up to $25k only. Nergaal (talk) 10:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, prestigious! Yeah it is because of its large prize fund, just give gamers a $1m paycheck and this earns the title of being is a prestigious event, more than the IOC will ever pay out to its athletes right? Donnie Park (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, the problem with eSports is that like boybands, tournaments are fickle, even boybands pack up stadiums and does that make them greater than others? Those that is listed in ITN are usually long established events and is this? Donnie Park (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is neither unusual nor important nor listed on ITN/R. This week there will be numerous other events more notable, bigger money, more coverage that we won't list. JehochmanTalk11:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- Championship does not have its own article. There are either very few or no sporting events we post that don't have their own articles. Also, if ITN does choose to take a brave leap into e-sports, the E-Sports World Championship would be a more appropriate event than this. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note here are some quotes from Forbes: "compete for the honor of being the best team of the most popular game of the world", "Worlds was a spectacle unlike anything eSports has seen before", "player count [...] would still be miles ahead of the next closest game".Nergaal (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am reconsidering because I saw this in the news. Can you show that this has been reported on in multiple countries? I see US sources, and presumably it's all over the news in Korea. Has it been in the news in any other countries? Secondly, do we report the result rather than the start of the games? When will we know who won? JehochmanTalk12:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, There are plenty of world championship events out there who will never see ITN (some because they get rejected) so why should this? I don't see the prestige of this event but then neither was I a LoL fan as I've never heard of it, plus the size of prize fund nor the amount of gamers out there shouldn't be used as an excuse to measure its prestige. If we were to allow this, are we going to give an ITN to the Call of Duty World Championship as thats one of the few games I seem to be aware of. As for eSport events, I only know of MLG, thats all. Donnie Park (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Donnie Park: If 1/5 of the entire population of the US, or the entire UK were to be playing CoD, then the CoD WC would indeed be worth posting on ITN. Also, LoL is one of the games featured at MLG events, and among those it has the largest user base by far. Also, in case you didn't check the article, the final was held on a stadium with some 60k spectators, a crowd much higher than those any event outside of soccer and NFL. Nergaal (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nergaal:"crowd much higher than those any event outside of soccer and NFL" - you're having a Lot of Laugh right? Implying that the figure is higher than every of those games let alone those including the FIFA World Cup, UEFA Champion's League and Superbowl, am I right to assume you're having a laugh with that fact? So because it attracts large crowds it make it prestigious right? Also have I seen anybody calling a 3 year young event prestigious? Also where did you get the 67m gamers from? You mean 67m people playing video games including smartphones because I don't think that necessarily mean 67m people are playing LoL because until this nomination now, I've never heard of that game ever and have no intention to. As with ITN because you assume because of its prize purse, we to give ITN for that reason, also answer this; have we given an ITN to the Dubai World Cup, famous for its high prize money despite its young history? Also, are we going to give ITN to London, Paris or New York Fashion Week because like you imply, events that attract large crowds are ITN worthy, on the news all the time (unlike this LoL event) and is more prestigious to this Mickey Mouse event even though I have no interest in fashion? Donnie Park (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Donnie Park: From NY Times. BBC quotes: "On the industry reckoning, about 27 million people play it every day. At peaks, there may be more than seven million gamers playing it at the same time." "At the previous final a year ago, 32 million people watched around the world, online, or in cinemas." "This time, gamers all over the world crowded to cinemas at odd times of the day depending on the time zone." You cannot play the game on a smartphone or on a console, so unlike CoD or other US-popular games, that figure includes only PCs (and some laptops). If any of the fashion weeks would attract anywhere near 32 million people to watch it, or if they would get traditional sponsors like Coke, I would totally support them being featured on ITN. Nergaal (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nergaal: Still, the viewing figures is only a claim by the developer. Next argument, "If any of the fashion weeks would attract anywhere near 32 million people to watch it, or if they would get traditional sponsors like..." - c'mon, do I need to argue that those I listed are the biggest fashion week in the world without doubt and I don't need anything to prove it and like said, I couldn't remotely give a damn about fashion, I mentioned it because these come on the news all the time. - you're here to look for ways to support your argument in regards to your favorite game when you have lost because everybody opposed your nomination and what next, are we going to argue your LoL WC vs F1 World Championship. My argument for oppose just like every other eSport events will always be that the industry is notorious for being fickle, I mean like the games in these tournaments with its developer, publisher and even staffs and industry people comes and goes, even the eGamers careers are short, look at Fatal1ty, his career faded when the new generation of FPS games came along that required a different way of playing. Going back to your eSport vs. fashion week argument, please let me know if these eSport you are arguing have got prestigious sponsors like Mercedes Benz and this horde including Canon, Amex and Swatch, and as I now answered your question, are you going to nominate the NY and the London Fashion Week for ITN yourself? Just knock it off and get over the fact your nomination have been rejected. Donnie Park (talk) 03:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Donnie Park: All your points about being fickle are wrong IMHO. Hypothetically, if a billion people would end up watching an event, be it new, old, or weird, it would get posted regardless. Take Moto GP: when people cared for the likes of Rossi and other charismatic riders, the MotoGP winner was posted - but now, because fewer people follow it, this ITNR item wasn't even nominated. If an event has followers, it gets posted regardless of how ridiculous is. And FYI, I did not compare this to F1. I did day that there are several actual sports with much larger fanbase, however, considering how completely neglected this topic has been by ITN, I expected some degree of leniency from voters. Nergaal (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[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: