Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

For administrator instructions on updating Template:In the news, see Wikipedia:In the news/Admin instructions.

In the news toolbox
Error reports (WP:ERRORS) Nominations (WP:ITN/C) Discussion (WT:ITN) Admin guide (WP:ITN/A) General criteria (WP:ITN) Death criteria (WP:ITN/DC) Recurring items (WP:ITNR) Awards · Sports · Discussion Current events portal (P:CE) Archives (2008–11)

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion in Template:In the news (ITN), a protected Main Page template, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.

Mauricio Macri Cambiemos candidate Mauricio Macri (pictured) is elected President of Argentina. Nineteen people are killed after more than 130 people were held hostage by gunmen at the Radisson Blu hotel in Bamako, Mali. AquAdvantage salmon becomes the first genetically modified animal approved by the US FDA for human consumption. The second-largest gem-quality diamond is found in Botswana. Russia's Federal Security Service states that Metrojet Flight 9268 was destroyed by a bomb. Ongoing events: Paris attack aftermath European migrant crisis Recent deaths: Kim Young-sam Kitanoumi Toshimitsu Mal Whitfield view - page history - related changes - Edit (admins only)

How to nominate an item In order to suggest a candidate: Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated. Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC. Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process. Remember, we use UTC dates. Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so. Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable source. The suggested blurb should be written in simple present tense. Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting. For recent deaths, please state why the person is notable enough to post - merely having a Wikipedia article is insufficient. Please consider alerting editors to the nomination by adding the template {{ITN note}} to the corresponding article's talk page. There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN. Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template. Headers Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with [Posted] or [Pulled] in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active. Items can also be marked as [Ready] when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked [Ready], you should remove the header. Voicing an opinion on an item Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a brief (or detailed!) rationale for your choice. Comments and other objections are welcome, but this is the basic form. Some jargon: RD refers to "recent deaths", a subsection of the news box which lists only the names of the recent notable deceased. Blurb refers to the full sentences that occupy most of the news box. Most eligible deaths will be listed in the recent deaths section of the ITN template. However, some deaths may be given a full listing if there is sufficient consensus to do so. The blurb of a promoted ITN item may be modified to complement the existing items on the main page. Please do not... ... add simple "support" or "oppose" !votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached. ... complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive. ... accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due a to personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN. ... comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s). ... oppose an item because it is not on WP:ITN/R.

Suggestions

November 24

Portal:Current events/2015 November 24
Current events of November 24, 2015 (2015-11-24) (Tuesday)

---

November 23

---

Ongoing: Military intervention against ISIL (swap Paris attack aftermath)

Aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle reportedly made its strikes recently, with France and Russia apparently leading the way. This is to swap the current link Paris attack aftermath to military intervention against ISIL which seems more precise and developing. Brandmeister^talk 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: The above choice of article is being updated MUCH LESS often than the Paris Attacks article is. The requested ISIL article has only been edited 4 times in the last 24 hours, and in the last week I see only 2-3 updates to the article I would count as substantial. The Paris Attacks article exceeds 50 edits in the past 12 hours, with at least 4-5 major content additions in that time span. Based just on that, the Paris Attacks article is the preferred target. --Jayron32 17:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Why not post the Syrian Civil War as ongoing? The terrorist attacks in Paris, the refugee crisis, the French and Russian (and many other nations, including the US) strikes on ISIL, all these news stories are directly related or are direct consequences of this civil war. All the while, the civil war is going on with an intensity that by itself would justify this civil to be posted as ongoing. And frankly, it should never have been removed. 93.215.90.237 (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I would agree. Just today it appears that the UK will be sending airstrikes against ISIL in Syria. Time to focus on the bigger picture (e.g. as noted by the IP above) and not just one of the many horrendous individual events, makes perfect sense for Ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

In the Syrian Civil War article, there are a few more substantial updates, but not as much activity as the Paris attacks article; its last 50 edits takes us back to October, and while there was a flurry of activity on November 21, the Paris attacks article is getting more updates more recently. Still more action in that article. --Jayron32 02:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if such a page exists but it would seem that if we had an outline page (one that follows WP:OUTLINE, not necessarily a prose-filed article but one that is more a inter-wiki link directory) that gave overviews of various articles that touch on the ISIL/Syria situation (including but not limited to the refugee crisis, the Paris attacks, the Metrojet crash, the various historical ruins destroyed by ISIL, etc.) that this would be an acceptable "ongoing" news target even though that specific page may not always be updated. It's this type of specific scenario where the situation is so amorphous and all-encompassing where I'd consider this a possibility; I would not, for example, recommend it at all for something like the Olympics (in that the current Olympics page should be a good overview prose article and not just an outline-level article). --MASEM (t) 20:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I was the admin who put 'Paris attacks aftermath' in Ongoing after the item rolled off, because related news was at the time continuously top of the BBC's news index and the article was being heavily worked on (~50 edits per day). I am entirely happy for it to be replaced with a more general ISIS-related article, as long as a suitable target can be found that is being updated frequently. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Move Metrojet Flight 9268 to Ongoing again?

"Metrojet Flight 9268" has been cyclically being removed and reappearing, but perhaps patience wasn't in our minds. This time, I hope patience is considered in regards to developments. Russia stated that the flight was bombed, exciting fears of terrorism. Afterwards, there aren't any more developments yet. Currently, it's at the bottommost. Shall we declare it ongoing again? George Ho (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose it's done it's time now we have confirmation of what the cause was. Let it slide off. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

"confirms" was changed to "states". --George Ho (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Any further determination will likely takes months (it took several to confirm what took down that MA flight over Ukraine). The story for all purposes is now stale and/or part of the larger issue of these various terrorist acts between Paris, etc. (though no linkage has been made at this time that I have seen). --MASEM (t) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Getting a little tired of this now. The Kremlin confirmed it. If you doubt the Kremlin, then you should doubt the White House and Downing Street etc. This is seriously becoming a drain on resources responding to each and every nuance of your posts. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Move on.--WaltCip (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• The article in question has just one substantial edit in the past week, nearly all the activity has been vandalism reversion and minor wording fixes. And that substantial edit: [1] is not any new information, but a retrospective discussion over claims Russia had made initially in the investigation. There has not been any substantial new information added to the article to justify its inclusion in any part of ITN, and the volume of new information is far too low for Ongoing. --Jayron32 02:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Pfizer deal

Updated articles: Pfizer and Allergan, Plc
Blurb: American pharmaceutical company Pfizer agrees to merge with Allergan for US$160 billion.
News source(s): Guardian, CNBC, Reuters
Nominator: Fuebaey (give credit)
Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: Significant business takeover. Big drug company buys out Botox manufacturer, to potentially create world's largest drug company. Tax inversion may also be involved - relocating from the US to Ireland would more than halve the corporation's tax rates. Fuebaey (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support, major businees transaction. sst✈^(discuss) 14:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Weak Support, It is just a merge rather than a buyout (the total value of the merged companies to be $160B, as opposed that much trading hands), but that said, this is a major deal in the pharma side. Pfizer's article has a few cns, but otherwise both articles seem ready to go. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose on article quality of Allergan. I thought about nominating this earlier today, until I looked at the article and saw that it doesn't actually talk about the company. It has bits about its corporate history and a list of its product and nothing else. -- KTC (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose because nothing has happened yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Time we had a discussion about this kind of thing. Not that I disagree with you, but how many times have we seen massive (mega-massive) business deals bummed out of ITN because they haven't signed, sealed and delivered the bottom line. I'll start something, hopefully you and the others around these parts can contribute so we get some guidance we can follow in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

TRM, Ping me when you get the discussion started. I'll add my two cents. Rhodesisland (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose we just went through this with Heinzkraft, whose merger nominated here as a "big deal" was followed within a few weeks by buyouts and layoffs. Consolidation during bad economic times is not the same thing as, say, the creation of Verizon as an integrated mobile, internet and full-service phone carrier with the merger of some local service baby bells and GTE. There's no promise of synergy here (i.e., no news) just cost cutting and tax avoision. μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support. This is news now and should be posted now; the actual transaction will likely not be in the news(as I state on TRM's discussion) 331dot (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support per SSTflyer. Banedon (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

November 22

---

2015 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series championship

Updated article: 2015 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series

Blurb: In motorsport, Kyle Busch (pictured) wins the 2015 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series championship.
News source(s): NASCAR.com New York Times
Nominator and updater: Dough4872 (give credit)
Other updaters: ZappaOMati (give credit)
Article updated
Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.

Nominator's comments: Notable subject concerning the championship in the highest level of stock car racing. Dough4872 04:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Looks like it's one of the events that are usually posted according to Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items#Motorsport, anyway. Zappa24Mati 04:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose – Large chunks of unsourced material throughout the article, which is predominantly made of giant tables and lists. Notably, most of the rule changes (which I assume are a notable aspect of the series) is mostly devoid of sources. Others might be verifiable through the wikilinks of drivers or the specific races, but there are dozens that need verification. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Looks like some of the rule changes (particularly in the preseason section) have sources, but they were placed in a way that made it seem like they didn't. NFLisAwesome (ZappaOMati) 17:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Commendable updates to the article by Dough4872 were made, including the addition of race summaries. Meets ITN criteria now and should be good to go (though I would suggest restructuring to place prose closer to the top...just a personal nitpick). Pinging @MurielMary, Fuebaey, and The Rambling Man: to give the article another look through and for another set of eyes to verify. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Since he missed the first eleven races of the season, should his injury be mentioned? - – Nascar1996 ^{(talk • cont)} 05:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Might be worth mentioning, along with Jeff Gordon retiring. Dough4872 06:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as article doesn't currently meet ITN criteria - article is largely lists and tables (criteria state update must include prose) and significant amounts are unreferenced. MurielMary (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support Article appears to have been updated, looks okay to me. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 10:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Adding "Kyle Busch won the championship", an image and some stats is an insufficient update for ITN. Ping me if someone adds a season summary, or at least a final race summary to the article. It would also help if someone sourced the pre-existing prose. Fuebaey (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• I can go around today and add sources to the article, most of the stuff is easy to source. Dough4872 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - of little importance outside the US, at least we should restrict ourself to sport events that have at least some global significance. 87.154.223.35 (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• The Super Bowl, World Series, Stanley Cup, and NBA Finals are featured on the main page every year, so I see no reason why the NASCAR Sprint Cup championship shouldn't as it is one of the biggest spectator sports in the United States, and also has international following. Dough4872 15:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• From the instructions: "Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• That's not the same, let's not be silly. 93.215.90.237 (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• It's only not the same because it's an event you personally aren't interested in. Otherwise, it's exactly what the rules tell you is an invalid reason to oppose an article being posted. --Jayron32 03:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support pending an update with a text summary of the season. 1 point winning margin when there is a 5000+ total seems unusual. Nergaal (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• That's the nature of the Chase for the Sprint Cup. Dough4872 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I am in the process of writing a sourced season summary. Dough4872 17:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

  Good to hear. The article is very poor, just a jumbled collection of tables and unreferenced bullet lists. It's not the quality of article we should be featuring at ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

  The sourced season summary has been added. Dough4872 21:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support Recurring event, and the article has been updated. – Nascar1996 ^{(talk • cont)} 22:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• The recurring event is discussed in WT:ITN/R; place your comments there for either preservation or removal. --George Ho (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Ko wins LPGA Player of the Year Award, youngest ever winner

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.

---

Articles: Lydia Ko and LPGA

Blurb: In golf, Lydia Ko (pictured) wins the LPGA 2015 Player of the Year Award, becoming the youngest winner in the 49-year history of the award
Alternative blurb: In golf, 18-year-old Lydia Ko (pictured) wins the LPGA 2015 Player of the Year Award, becoming the youngest winner in the 49-year history of the award
News source(s): USA Today Stuff NZ Toronto Star Golf.com The Golf Channel Vavel Sports Newspaper L.A. Times
Nominator: MurielMary (give credit)

---

Note: Lydia Ko article has been updated with a sentence, needs full end-of-season results to be added; LPGA has been updated with results

Nominator's comments: Although other wins from the end of the season are being reported, they are being reported as secondary to Ko's "youngest P of the Y" achievement. Another "youngest ever" achievement to add to a string of other achievements. MurielMary (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - We virtually never post individual sporting awards in any sport - the only one I can think of right now is the FIFA Ballon d'Or. I don't think that being the youngest winner is interesting enough or exceptional enough to justify posting this one. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Query to Bongwarrior there is also a current nomination for Kyle Busch's motorsports win, isn't that an individual sporting award? Please clarify your point. MurielMary (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• No, it's winning a championship. This golf award is honorary, to celebrate the accumulated success over the course of a year, it's nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• But isn't there an equivalent Driver of the Year award given to the driver with the most wins/points earned? Do we post that? Rhodesisland (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Per above. We practically never post individual sporting awards, including much better known awards. This doesn't equate to winning an individual sporting competition/trophy. "Youngest to win" is really only an interesting enough tidbit to mention in passing for something that would get posted anyway (i.e. "Jane Doe wins the Generic Sports Championship, becoming the youngest athlete ever to do so.") However, this could be a great DYK hook. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 10:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above and noting that we wouldn't post the men's equivalent award for the same reason. However, there is potential to spin off the list of winners into its own page and take that through the featured list process into "today's featured list" on the main page, or to get Ko's article to GA status and into DYK that way. Bencherlite^Talk 10:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per above reasons. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as with the Kachin jade mine disaster below, on another day I might have supported this, but with the quantity of ITN-worthy items right now I think there is no space for this. Banedon (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
• Close Thanks for the responses on this nom. I suggest that the agreement to exclude individual sporting awards is included in the ITN/C criteria so that it's clear for new editors (currently not mentioned there) MurielMary (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

---

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

[Posted] Argentine presidential election

Updated article: Argentine general election, 2015

Blurb: Mauricio Macri (pictured) is elected President of Argentina.
Alternative blurb: Cambiemos candidate Mauricio Macri (pictured) is elected President of Argentina.
News source(s): BBC, Bloomberg, Channel News Asia
Nominator: Fuebaey (give credit)
Updater: Cambalachero (give credit)
Article updated
Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.

Nominator's comments: New head of state/government for Argentina. Run-off result based on exit polls - still requires official confirmation. Fuebaey (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Easily. But could the blurb be a little longer, please? --bender235 (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment The second candidate, Daniel Scioli, has accepted his defeat. He's talking in the TV right now, the media may take a bit to reflect it. But the outcome can be considered confirmed. 68% of the votes have been counted. Cambalachero (talk) 00:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Notability is obvious, and the article is in very good shape. sst✈^(discuss) 07:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• comment legislative elections are ITNR too so we should conbine the blurb with the outcome there s well.Lihaas (talk) 08:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't that make it a very long blurb? Besides, the legislative elections were held a month ago, alongside the first presidential elections. The delay is because Argentina uses a ballotage system, so there was a second election last sunday, which is the one reported here. Cambalachero (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Important story involving a big shift in Argentine politics. Jusdafax 08:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• Posting. I'll bold Macri's article as well. Someone update the photo, please. --Tone 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Kachin jade mine disaster

Article: Kachin jade mine disaster
Blurb: At least 104 people are killed in a landslide at a jade mine in Kachin State, Myanmar.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: The Rambling Man (give credit)

---

Note: Just being reported, large loss of life, article currently a stub but can clearly be expanded.

 The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support in principle Massive loss of life. But article is one sentence '''tAD''' (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support And I've expanded the article a bit to support this. --MASEM (t) 00:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - On another day I might have supported this, but with so many worthy and more significant news items recently I have to oppose this. Banedon (talk) 06:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Given that the last new story was posted 2 days ago, and many of the others on the cusp of being stale, this seems like a poor reason. (particularly that none of the other present stories in the nomination process are related to major loss of human life). --MASEM (t) 06:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Of the items featured right now, I feel that the Paris attacks obviously must stay in some form because of its ongoing visibility. The bombing of Metrojet Flight 9268 is somewhat tied to the Paris attacks in terms of visibility, and the ongoing intervention in Syria is also a major geopolitical event worldwide. The salmon story, the diamond story and the Mali hostage story have only been featured for a few days, and there are three more nominations above this one two of which are ITN/R. Therefore ITN is very short on space right now, and something has to be sacrificed; I feel this is the best option. Banedon (talk) 07:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Bonkers. The death of nearly at least 100 people in an industrial accident isn't ITN-worthy? I guess it's because they're not Westerners. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
    • So much for AGF? Banedon (talk) 07:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
      • So much for logical opinions. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Landslide causing 90 deaths, definitely notable. sst✈^(discuss) 07:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support on notability; it is in line with our usual death toll criteria for such events. There also seem to be allegations that jade mining corporations might have breached safety standards. I have added a little to the article, but more work is still needed to expand. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - unfortunately these kind of disasters happen all too frequently. 87.154.223.35 (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - 100, possibly 200 deaths is massive for an industrial accident. EamonnPKeane (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind: this wasn't an industrial accident. Most of those killed were scavenging poor people that lived near this giant pile of earth, searching for pieces of jade to sell. --18:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Keep in mind that these scores of deaths wouldn't have been caused if it weren't for the mining company's disposal methods: i.e. an industrial accident. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Aircraft unit as current ITN photo

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.

---

The Russian statement on bomb conclusion has gotten old...er. We have newer blurbs, so either keep the current photo, use the fish photo (File:Salmo salar GLERL 1.jpg) as replacement, or no photo at all. I could not propose the big gem photo because it is unfree. I wanted to take this to WP:ERRORS, but I don't see it as an error... at all. George Ho (talk) 03:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment that's not exactly an ideal replacement, it's not really getting the gist of the story across. No photo at all is silly as we have (pictured) in the blurb so that takes care of any uncertainty as to which hook is related to the image. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Leave it be, it's not harming anyone.--WaltCip (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• I'm gonna withdraw this due to the Argentinian elections nomination with a photo. --George Ho (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

---

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

November 21

---

[Closed] Malta wins Junior Eurovision

No consensus to post a junior competition. Stephen 22:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Updated article: Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2015 and article to update: Destiny Chukunyere
Blurb: Destiny Chukunyere representing Malta wins the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2015 with the song Not My Soul.
News source(s): [2]
Nominator: BabbaQ (give credit)
Article updated

 --BabbaQ (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Generally youth competitions like this don't do well here; is there some notable reason to post this one? 331dot (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a cover of Aretha Franklin's "Think". I could support an original song if it were an actual innovation. This is not. μηδείς (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

  Have you actually read the articles you are opposing? She did not compete with "Think", she won her national final with that just to find the appropriate singer, and then participated in JESC with an original song. Facts... get it straight.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I misunderstood the meaning of "Chukunyere won the live national final in Malta, enabling her to represent Malta, with the Aretha Franklin song 'Think'" and have withdrawn my oppose on that basis. μηδείς (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Weak oppose posting this youth competition; competitions limited by age(this one is 10-15) do not represent a top level of competition in the career; we don't typically post youth sporting events for that reason. Unless there is something very unusual about this event, I don't see right now why it should be treated differently. 331dot (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose trivia really, hopefully not as much as a joke as the main competition, but hardly worthy of main page inclusion in a global encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, stop nominating junior competitions. Abductive (reasoning) 17:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per above reasons ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Two Bangladeshi politicians are hung for war crimes

Updated articles: Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed and Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury
Blurb: Two Bangladeshi politicians Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed and Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury are hanged for war crimes committed during the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war.
News source(s): (BBC), Al Jazeera English, (Hindu), (NDTV)
Nominator: Jenda H. (give credit)
Both articles updated

 Jenda H. (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• support - historical significant. Article standard is OK as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• support this seems a legit notorious capital punishment. Nergaal (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• comment - shouldn't it be "hanged" rather than "hung"? --Bcp67 (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I have corrected the blurb, there's no reason to post an altblurb for a grammatical correction. μηδείς (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Chowdhury's article is weak for a seven-term MP, with a political career spanning 30 years. It doesn't even explain his role during the war (not the indictments). Fuebaey (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

This is not an RD nomination looking to prove the notability of the man, this is a warcrimes nomination. The update is sufficient. μηδείς (talk) 05:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support either RDs/blurbs, but improvements may be needed per Fuebaey. George Ho (talk) 03:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. --bender235 (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Ready supported and updated as a warcrimes execution. The nomination has nothing to do with RD, and each target article meets the ITN update criteria. μηδείς (talk) 05:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support – good enough. sst✈^(discuss) 07:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. I was coming to post this, but some recent edits by a redlinked editor to Chowdhury have left me wondering if bias has been introduced; what pulled me up is 'Throughout his political career, Salahuddin became the centre of controversy several times with his vulgar remarks and actions.' referenced to a source that does not appear to use the word 'vulgar'. I don't have time to check. Also is his surname Salahuddin or Chowdhury? Both are used. The same editor has also added material to Mojaheed. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted much of what was added to the Chowdhury article, which was poorly written and sourced (indeed, Chowdhury was his surname). I removed some overkill, but some of the refs appear to link to front page news from 2011 which is no longer current. μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I am removing the ready tag, there is too much linkrot to support many of the claims, and editing by those more familiar with the case seems aimed more at POV than article quality. Both articles need a good going over, preferably by someone with local expertise. μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

2015 WBSC Premier12

Article: 2015 WBSC Premier12
Blurb: In baseball, South Korea defeats the United States to win the inaugural WBSC Premier12.
News source(s): Taipei Times, Japan Times
Nominator: Muboshgu (give credit)

Nominator's comments: This is a major international baseball tournament. The World Baseball Softball Confederation, a merged entity from the International Softball Federation and International Baseball Federation, created this event to replace the Baseball World Cup as "the new flagship pro baseball world championship." Has gotten continued coverage during the event. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose on article quality. No prose synopsis of the tournament, or even of the final game. An article of tables is not of sufficient quality to post on the main page. --Jayron32 18:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah I know. I'm just about to start adding game summaries. Would you change to support on that improvement? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I can't think of another reason to support anything. Either you've cleaned up an article to be main page ready or you haven't. Any other consideration is mostly irrelevant. If it just happened, and it has a quality article, there's no valid reason to oppose it, except "I think I know what people who aren't me should find important, and I feel the need to tell them all the time". I don't believe that's my job. If the article is good enough, and this is a current event, I generally would support. --Jayron32 01:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Okay. I wasn't sure if your oppose was based solely on quality or also the event itself. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • There's now two paragraphs on the championship game, and some sentences on all of the games of the knockout stage. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• Changed vote to weak support. I'd like to see more along these lines, but it's the bare minimum. --Jayron32 01:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'll be adding more tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose this does not seem to be covered significantly in the "Western" World. Nergaal (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I beg to differ. Yahoo! Sports, CBS Sports, WaPo, another WaPo, MLB.com, Baseball America, Chicago Sun-Times (Those aren't all links from the championship game, but they are from the ongoing coverage.) – Muboshgu (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
    • It's also not relevant if coverage is limited in "the Western world" as long as it is covered somewhere. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, I agree with 331dot, although we often don't post new sports competitions. In any case, CBS, Cuba, and the MLB have seen fit to cover this in their Saturday editions. So count me as a Weak Support. μηδείς (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• Article's quality is good, but oppose on the competition's notability. Unlike the World Baseball Classic, active Major Leaguers did not participate. --61.245.25.3 (talk) 04:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • This and the WBC are currently the two major international baseball competitions. One includes major leaguers while the other doesn't. I don't think that should make one more notable than the other, but YMMV. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose on notability - 250 people watched one of the quarter-finals? Hmm. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I... did not notice that. All I can say in response is that many games, including the championship, had over 40k in attendance. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Besides the Final, only the home team's semi and bronze final had 40k. If Japan, Taiwan or South Korea wasn't playing then attendance was 119(!) to 1,200 the entire tournament. And the Final had the nearest foreign country playing (South Korea understrength national baseball team). The "All-World team" has three dudes that are red links! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Kim Young-sam

Article: Kim Young-sam

Blurb: Former South Korean President Kim Young-sam dies at age 87.
Alternative blurb: Former South Korean President Kim Young-sam dies from acute heart failure at age 87.
News source(s): Korea Herald

Nominator's comments: Former President of South Korea. He's a former head of state...speaks for itself. I know the article's gonna need work like a lot more sourcing so I'll fix the article. Any help is welcome. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC) --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - His entire career section (the rationale for RD) is unsourced, if anyone needs improvement pointers. Fuebaey (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I've sourced most of it. But there's a 20 year gap between when he was first elected as a politician and his party leadership, as well as nothing after his Presidency (17 years). His article over at ko is massive, if anyone can read Korean and feels like translating. Fuebaey (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support, although political career section might need some refs. Brandmeister^talk 18:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support pending improvements that are underway to the page and fixing of sourcing issues; clearly very important to Korean politics aside from the importance as head of state(having been first civilian leader in 30 years). 331dot (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support pending improvements. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - pending some improvements. clearly a important and significant politician.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support on Article Improvements Clearly important but needs better sourcing. --MASEM (t) 20:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Note that I only support an RD. While a major world leader and clearly RD, the impact is not as great to merit a blurb. --MASEM (t) 03:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• @Brandmeister, 331dot, Capitalistroadster, BabbaQ, and Masem: I added blurbs, but the nomination is still RD/blurb. --George Ho (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support as in the news or recent death. Article has improved referencing. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support Former head of state, I've seen the news of his death fairly prominently, and the article seems to be good enough to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - post ASAP. -Zanhe (talk) 07:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Paku Alam IX

Consensus against. Bencherlite^Talk 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Article: Paku Alam IX
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Antara News, Jakarta Globe (Indonesian)

 --Erik Fastman (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as it's a stub, I'm not really clear on the notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not much of a Social Studies person, but was this person a sitting ruler? Ruler of Pakualaman, in central Java, Indonesia, according to our page on him. But I can't tell from the Pakualaman page if it is independent enough for Alam to be considered a sitting "head of state". Of course there is the whole stub thing, too. Rhodesisland (talk) 02:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose This doesn't look like a national leader (aka a head of state), nor is there any specific notability really clear here. --MASEM (t) 03:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• The nominator, User:Erik Fastman, might want to give an explicit rationale explaining the reason why the subject meets ITN criteria, along the lines of other recent RD nominations. μηδείς (talk) 05:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Former leader of a tiny subdivision, no notability. @Crisco 1492: any thoughts? sst✈^(discuss) 07:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Paku Alam IX as prince of Pakualaman has reigned over a considerably smaller area then Hamengkubuwana X (whom I'd probably vote to include, as the only reigning monarch in Indonesia who actually has legal recognition and power). Definitely RD material in Indonesia, but not for a worldwide audience. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

---

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

November 20

---

[Posted to RD]: Kitanoumi Toshimitsu

Article: Kitanoumi Toshimitsu
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Nikkei Asian Review, Terra Networks (Spanish)

Nominator's comments: Important figure in Sumo. 55th yokozuna and 5th most makuuchi (top division) championships (24). Also, incumbent chairman of the Japan Sumo Association. About Sumo RD, we posted Taihō Kōki in January 2013. 61.245.26.8 (talk) 12:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support: Top of field in Japanese Sumo wrestling and management. Article looks decent. Fuebaey (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly very important to Sumo. Article seems OK. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• Before posting, can we get a citation for the "fighting style" section? Otherwise, this would be ready to post. --Jayron32 18:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find an English citation for it (I can't read Japanese). Since it doesn't affect his overall achievement, I've commented it out. Fuebaey (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support RD Nergaal (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Top within his field of Sumo. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• We've got two bare supports with no rationale given, and no update of the article, although the update section of the nomination template was removed. Can the supporters do the work, rather than deleting and avoiding it? μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure you're reading the correct article? The one above does state when he died and the cause of his death. The article also covers the main points of his life (his wrestling career, stable ownership, the controversies during his administration of Sumo, death). If you happen to find a reference to his fighting style, feel free to add it, but I don't believe this shouldn't be posted due to a lack of trivia. Fuebaey (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Could you clarify what updates you require, Medeis? I thought we had long since waived the update requirement for RD. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The three-prose paragraph update requirement has been abandoned. If there's no update at all showing the subject's importance it should not be posted, and that was the case when I objected. That's not even to mention the fact that Nergaal and BaabaQ's (as usual) votes are simply votes, not rationales for posting. μηδείς (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Three paragraphs for a developed article seems a bit overkill to me. ITN only requires that, as a minimum, for new articles or sub-stubs. From recent experience, a basic RD update is a sourced date/cause of death and no obvious omissions from their life. I think the lead adequately summarises his importance, though you may need to click on links if you're not familiar with sumo. Fuebaey (talk) 04:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Posted. --Jayron32 03:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 November Bamako hotel shooting

Article: No article specified
Blurb: At least 170 people are taken hostage by gunmen at the Radisson Blu hotel in Mali.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: The Rambling Man (give credit)

---

Note: Will constantly evolve in the next few hours, will be moved and expanded, so be patient and assess the notability first, then quality. Once both are established (and I think the first is clear) then we can post.

 The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support notability Unfortunately so. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support on notability, sadly. Agree with nom's comments. Will unfold and develop. MurielMary (talk) 10:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Wait 80 people have been reportedly freed so far. Brandmeister^talk 12:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Wait – Developing. Sca (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Wait for stability, but support Even if the hostages are all freed without harm, this is a significant story. As I read this now, the raid to rescue the hostages is ongoing, so give it a few hours. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - that it is developing is a positive, not negative, in my opinion. Banedon (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

In journalism, "developing" means just that – it's continuing to play out; the outcome isn't clear yet. The term isn't meant to be negative. Sca (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I mean it's a positive for posting it to ITN, not negative. Banedon (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support Though the story is developing, I think we know enough and the article in question is of good enough quality that we can post now, and update the blurb when the story develops further. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Posted with updated numbers from article. Report future needed updates to WP:ERRORS for promptness as needed. --Jayron32 17:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support after posting - article is ready and the situation is great enough to justify posting .--BabbaQ (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Update Can an administrator please change tense at the front page so the story will read "were taken hostages" instead of are. Our readers shouldn't get the impression that this is ongoing stil. Iselilja (talk) 08:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• I have had a go at the wording, as we generally use present tense, but I agree this is confusing; I've also updated the numbers per current reports. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Iselilja: For future reference, when I said "Report future needed updates to WP:ERRORS for promptness", what I meant by that was "Report future needed updates to WP:ERRORS for promptness" I hope that helps! --Jayron32 18:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Move November 2015 Paris attacks to ongoing?

It's there. Bencherlite^Talk 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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

---

If the newest nomination of some genetically modified salmon is approved, what will happen to blurbs older than the November 2015 Paris attacks? Now with recent arrests in Europe related to the attacks, shall we feature the event as ongoing? --George Ho (talk) 05:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It'll still be the third item in the news box. The Myanmar election will get pushed - and that's definitely stale by now. Arrests and raids are footnotes to the main story, quite frankly. Smurrayinchester 08:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

No prejudice against moving it to ongoing when it's ready to roll off the bottom. There's still several stories to go, so I don't know that we need to discuss it now. When it is the bottommost story, it would be either admins discretion to move it to ongoing, subject to community consensus if the community were to disagree with it. I suppose we could have the discussion early, but I don't see the need; it is hard to predict if the article will still be being actively updated when the time comes to make the decision. --Jayron32 10:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment – Agree with Jayron. In its various ramifications it's still a top story. Sca (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Also agree with Jayron32 ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, could not be a more premature notion. Abductive (reasoning) 17:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Change your mind, Abductive? --George Ho (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support (in principle) that this be moved to ongoing when it would normally age off the page due to newer stories. μηδείς (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• @Jayron, Smurray, Cyclonebiskit: The story is now bottommost. Change your minds? George Ho (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Nope, if an Administrator does not decide on their own to move it to Ongoing, then we can have the discussion. Unless and until that happens, the situation has not changes. --Jayron32 19:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I've seen ITN have 8 or even 9 entries. The current 4 entries is on the really low side. Nergaal (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I already asked a reinsertion of other older blurbs, but that's in the user talk page. I can ask again at another talk page. --George Ho (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

If we had 9 entries, we'd have an absurd amount of white space in the leftmost column. See Wikipedia:In_the_news/Administrator_instructions#Balance. If you wish to change the policy and require a certain number of blurbs regardless of other design considerations, please start an RFC and get people to support such a policy. --Jayron32 20:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I have squeezed in the diamond item without removing the Paris attacks; balance looks ok at most widths on my monitor, but then it did before the removal of the old 5th item. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• @(Again) Jayron, Smurray, Cyclonebiskit: We are getting newer nominations, which will push out the event. What about now? George Ho (talk) 05:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

---

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

November 19

---

[Posted] Genetically modified animal deemed fit for human consumption

Updated article: AquAdvantage salmon and article to update: Genetically modified food
Blurb: Salmon becomes the first genetically modified animal approved the by FDA as fit for human consumption.
Alternative blurb: Salmon becomes the first genetically modified animal approved the by the United States FDA as fit for human consumption.
News source(s): NYT, WSJ, Time, BBC, Reuters
Article updated

Nominator's comments: It is the first time anywhere in the world a food agency approves a meat to be fit for consumption. This sets a precedent. Let the paranoia of the uninformed begin. Nergaal (talk) 03:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Quote: "It's the first genetically engineered animal for food that's been approved anywhere in the world". Nergaal (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support pending updates to the second article – (THIS IS HOW THE GOVERNMENT FEEDS ITS COUNTRY CANCER) If it's indeed the first GMA approved definitely a support from me. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Plants have been approved before, but not livestock. Nergaal (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support - it may be approved only by the FDA, but what the FDA says is widely followed worldwide. Banedon (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support First animal approval is an interesting enough development. Maybe world hunger can be solved in our lifetimes. Mamyles (talk) 03:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • 1. There is enough food, some is thrown out without reaching a hungry person, some makes people fat. I don't know if one only is a minor contribution or not. 2. Eating animals is a horrific waste. You could make 10 pounds of bread for the amount of grain it takes to make 1 pound of meat. The livestock I believe eat more food than the people. There's too much farmland in the world, rainforests and endangered species habitats are being destroyed for it. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree. Unfortunately, media markets all over the Western world have sung the praises of meat for decades, and it will be difficult to get them to break their old habits, regardless of how much they may be made aware of how their love for meat is contributing to catastrophic climate change.--WaltCip (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The problem isn't solely a lack of food, it's that food is hard to grow in regions that need it. One use of GMO is to allow high-yield food to be grown in places that would not otherwise be tenable, such as semi-arid regions of Africa. Another is to make food more nutritious, such as Golden Rice, which alone could save a million lives yearly. Mamyles (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Specifying the country name might be a good idea. Isa (talk) 07:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support interesting and notable development. Agree with Isanae, could add "the U.S." to the blurb i.e. "approved by the U.S. FDA" MurielMary (talk) 10:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support; a notable development in this industry, even if they have yet to find many places willing to sell it. 331dot (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support: Story clearly important. First article (the one on the salmon) is ready to go. The genetically modified food one has a lot of CNs, but I think we can post if the only target is the salmon one. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Update: Paris shooting/bombing

While acknowledging initial opposes based on a since altered blurb, consensus is still against updating the Paris event. Fuebaey (talk) 02:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Updated article: November 2015 Paris attacks
Blurb: Abdelhamid Abaaoud, chief suspect in the Paris attacks that killed 130, dies in a raid by French police.
News source(s): BBC, New York Times, Reuters, AP
Nominator: Sca (give credit)
Article updated

Nominator's comments: Given widely reported confirmation that suspected mastermind Abaaoud was killed, it's time to update the blurb for this (almost) week-old story. Sca (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose because of the blurb suggested: "suspected mastermind"/"massive raid"? Are we suddenly The Sun? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose mainly because of the "suspected" aspect. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose my own thoughts before reading TRM's comment were exactly "suspected mastermind"/"massive raid"? It might be time for this to go to ongoing soon, but certainly not to go all tabloid on a patsy with a $10,000 budget. μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

A patsy with a $10,000 budget – Huh? Sca (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

That's the figure I heard on the radio yesterday. The Mail says less than 7,000 pounds and quotes experts: Experts say the costs involved were a fraction of the £85,000 used in the foiled plot to attack U.S. ships in the Strait of Hormuz in 2002 or the £48,000 price tag of the suicide and car bombings that killed more than 200 in Bali in 2002. A patsy is someone who is assigned the blame for actions arranged by others. μηδείς (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I know what a patsy is. I don't see how the fact that this was a monetarily inexpensive terrorist operation in any way lessens its signficance. Sca (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Then "huh" is the wrong word choice. Next time make it clear you do understand but that you don't agree, and I won't waste my time in providing a good faith explanation. μηδείς (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

As a compound modifier, good-faith should be hyphenated. Everyone knows what a patsy is. Explaining it struck me as condescending and sarcastic.

Sca (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I have never heard "huh?" to mean anything other than lack of comprehension or belief. I gave a simple explanation of what a patsy was because your "huh?" seemed to imply you either didn't understand or believe what I said; not simple disagreement. Taking your comments as made in good faith is the diametric opposite of patronizing you. μηδείς (talk) 04:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, "huh" referred to the entire phrase, not to "patsy" per se. But let's bury the hatchet. Sca (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Per above: I was at a gym yesterday where they had both CNN and Fox news on, and while CNN was going over broad manners dealing with the Paris attacks, Fox was engaged in focusing on this raid (with the same sensationalist language) and scaremongers with the claimed video found. The stark difference is pretty summed up above. Given they also caught 8 suspects and are going through the location with a fine-tooth comb (eg they aren't saying if they found another cell), I'm not yet sure if an ongoing is needed but that remains open. --MASEM (t) 21:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Most of the main news sights I've seen today use "suspected mastermind," but some use "top suspect" or "chief suspect," and I'd be fine with either of those. Fine to drop "massive" if it makes you queasy (although from what I've read, it was a big operation with much gunfire). Sca (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• While I'm sure ISIS prefers the connotations of "mastermind", it's more accurate to call him the "alleged ringleader". That said, many analysts suspect he was despatched to the French organizing job by higher-ups. Oppose replacing current blurb. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - That is quite possibly one of the worst blurbs I've ever read. It's subjective, clunky, and really there is no point in usurping the blurb that is currently posted in ITN for the sake of this cable news-esque hot take.--WaltCip (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'm revising my vote on the basis that most of the sensationalism in the blurb actually was struck out, but I still do not believe it is worth dropping an ITN event from the ticker. As Sca says, the difference in connotation between "chief suspect" and "suspected mastermind" is an ocean's width, but until we get all the facts we ought not to jump to conclusions about what this is.--WaltCip (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• I stand by my nomination. I watched two news shows Thursday evening (U.S. time), PBS's Newshour and Deutsche Welle's (necessarily Europe-centric) English-language news program. Both led with this story. That means journalists in responsible positions here and in Europe judged this the No. 1 story in the world on Nov. 19, 2015. (DW used the admitted cliché "in a hail of gunfire." The News Hour called Abaaoud "the ringleader," and outlined his activity in 'Islamic State.') This story is definitely in the news, and indeed at the top of the news. Sca (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support - I can't understand the rationale behind the oppose votes. The blurb reads OK to me, although I'd still prefer something like "Abdelhamid Abaaoud, chief suspect in the Paris attacks, is killed in a raid by French police." This does not have to mean a current blurb be dropped; it can simply replace the blurb on the Paris attacks. Banedon (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Blurb edited to remove portions previously stricken through. Death toll up to 130. Sca (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Ambivalent Target article is already highlighted on the main page. Not opposed, but not supporting either. --Jayron32 01:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose This twist in the story is already noted in the Paris Attack blurb, which is still on the ITN ticker. The story here is the larger attack, which involved multiple perpetrators and victims, and re-focusing the blurb on a single person gives undue weight. Readers starving for up-to-the-minute details on this event can click on the event's link in ITN, or go to any news site on the internet.128.214.53.18 (talk) 08:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose To me it's part of the bigger story of the Paris attacks, not a new story on its own. MurielMary (talk) 10:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Footnote of the original story. It's nothing like Bin Laden, who was hunted down for ten years after his plot '''tAD''' (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyone interested in fairly detailed background on Abaaoud can read about him here. Sca (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

---

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

November 18

---

[Posted] Karowe AK6 diamond

Updated articles: Karowe AK6 and Lucara Diamond
Blurb: The world's second biggest gem-quality diamond ever, is found by a Canadian company in Botswana.
Alternative blurb: The world's second biggest gem-quality diamond ever, is found in a Lucara Diamond mine in Botswana.
News source(s): The Telegraph, Bloomberg, BBC
Nominator: W.carter (give credit)
Updater: Ktr101 (give credit)
Other updaters: W.carter (give credit) and Arsenicum-82 (give credit)
Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: Biggest diamond find in a century and second biggest gem-class ever. Find hit the media on November 19, but the announcement was on the 18th. There is a non-free photo available, not sure if it can be used here though. w.carter-Talk 10:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support in principle, but the article needs to be way more than one short paragraph. Needs a lot of work. Significant find and sure to break the record for most-expensive diamond whenever it's eventually sold (probably years away). Modest Genius ^talk 14:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Ditto. A great story for a change, but needs some more content. --Tone 14:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree that the article is way to short, but it's just been dug up so there is only the press release to go on so far. More will be added as soon as available. w.carter-Talk 14:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support - a once-in-a-lifetime event. Banedon (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support Although now we'll probably find another one next week, rendering Banedon's argument invalid. :) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support notable and interesting. I've suggested an alt blurb which omits the unimportant point of the company's ownership. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Quality is sufficient to post, but I agree that it should be longer. Perhaps there are more details about the mine it was found in. Mamyles (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support, biggest diamond found in 110 years. Also, there's an image in the article. Abductive (reasoning) 17:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Would have marked this ready, but it doesn't quite meet the three full prose paragraph size requirement for new articles. μηδείς (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• This is still too short to post; it is marked as a stub, and rightly so. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - post, biggest diamond found. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Lord, BabbaQ, do you not understand that you are supposed to give a rationale why the claim is important enough to post? You are even wrong on the facts this time, it is not the biggest diamond found. Luckfully, the article has been expanded and posted, but "support because I support votes" do not help. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I think your tape recorder is stuck. Time to change tapes.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support the article length seems to be on the ok side. Nergaal (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Posted. Small expansion since my last comment seems adequate. I have shortened the blurb to one line to avoid having to remove the Paris attacks. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted to RD]: Mal Whitfield

Article: Mal Whitfield
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Ihcoyc (give credit)

---

Note: Article is brief but references are there.

Nominator's comments: Former Tuskeegee Airman who went on to win multiple year Olympic golds in track and field, then became a US sports ambassador in Africa. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support Multiple gold medals at the Olympics is as good a measure of "top of one's field" as there could be, and the otherwise storied life adds flavor. Article seems okay.128.214.53.18 (talk) 07:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support per the IP, award-winning multiple Olympic gold medallist, certainly significant in the field. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - little notability and minor impact on his field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.77.54 (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Posted Article quality is sufficient, significance is established by facts in the article. --Jayron32 13:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll just point out that historically we have waited for at least 4 supports before posting an item like this before it is a day old. I neither disagree with the posting nor blame the poster, but I think maintaining the four supports precedent is a good one. That being said, Post-Posting Support. μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Wild Horses (The Rolling Stones song)

I'll just point out that WP:BURO is much older a precedent than even that one. --Jayron32 05:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I said you werrn't a burro, Jayron. μηδείς (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

If my borough had burrows for burros, it'd just be a town of assholes... --Jayron32 05:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] U.S. National Book Award

No consensus to post. SusanLesch (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Article: List of winners of the National Book Award
Blurb: Fortune Smiles by Adam Johnson wins the U.S. National Book Award for fiction, and Between the World and Me by Ta-Nehisi Coates wins for nonfiction.
Alternative blurb: Adam Johnson, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Neal Shusterman, and Robin Coste Lewis win the U.S. National Book Awards.
News source(s): The New York Times, Guardian Telegraph Der Spiegel
Nominator: SusanLesch (give credit)

Nominator's comments: Good news for a change. Sorry I don't know the policy for US awards (this is not listed at WP:ITNR). SusanLesch (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Since it's a national award, I don't think it's international enough for ITN. Banedon (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

We have all sorts of national awards, both US and non-US(see the film section of the ITNR list). Requiring everything to be international would leave very little to post to ITN. The question is does this have notable news coverage, which can and should include international coverage; the nominator has already given one UK source about this award. 331dot (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I am leaning support but I would wonder if SusanLesch could explain a little more about the award, such as its prestige. 331dot (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Can't you just read the article National Book Award? Banedon (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I am interested in what the nominator has to say. 331dot (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Found a German news story. 331dot (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
      • ITN does list the Man Booker Prize as recurring so I thought maybe you'd make room. [revised] SusanLesch (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Major book award. Just wish we could get Neil Shusterman in the blurb too! Rhodesisland (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. I'd be opposed to putting these awards up every year, but the Guardian article does suggest unusual factors in play this year (and ITN has been slow with so much European news being Paris attack aftermath). The problem is the suggested target (bold) article does no more than list the books and, as there is no year-by-year article for this award, it is hard to see how this might be rectified without undue focus on this year's awards. Could an article be created for Fortune Smiles, and the two books be made the targets? Or if Fortune Smiles is less notable (as seems perhaps the case), just focus it on Between the World and Me, which has an existing article of reasonable quality. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support because award is non-controversial and National Book Award related articles look good. Remove the pipe from 'National Book Award' in the blurb because it is confusing. Brian Everlasting (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose "~"? We've already got the Pulitzer, and one of the awardees to this highly variable prize isn't even linked in the blurb. μηδείς (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Medeis: "~" is part of my signature. I didn't have anything to add beyond support. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose the books or the authors should be the targets of the blurb, the current target, the list, is weak and just notes these wins in passing. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support on Alt Blurb, provided that the actual award page is linked in the blurb, not the list of winners - it's just a list and gives no information on the significance of the award. MurielMary (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Minor award compared to Literature Nobel or Booker which we post. Fourth literary award (and at least second from US in the same field) looks redundant to post. Brandmeister^talk 12:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment – On the fence. Does "National" make it only of U.S. interest? Sca (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

No, the "national" part is not a problem. The real notability of the prize and its winners is. The prize could be called the "Not to be Posted at ITN Prize" and we would still post it if it were important enough. In this case there are bigger prizes and we are simply not slow on news. μηδείς (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

We post the UK-based Booker Prize. Is that regarded as significantly more, uh ... significant? Sca (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

PS: Those ain't horses up there, sonny, they're burros. Don't ask me why they're there. Sca (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

See previous section. Not that it makes any further sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, previous nomination. I'll just sep it out, fulfilling my community service obligation for today. Sca (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

*Comment: Why is the Booker Prize more important (which it must be if it's recurring?)? Our article about it is almost completely trivia. That said, our article about this prize is almost all bureaucratic details (and why did James Patterson win a lifetime award?) Neither one looks very important. I might withdraw this nom pretty soon. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

---

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

[Closed] Ongoing: 27th APEC Summit

No consensus to post this to Ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Article: APEC Philippines 2015
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): New York Times ABC News NBC News CNN Philippines
Nominator: Hollyckuhno (give credit)
Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.

---

Note: For Ongoing events section only.

Nominator's comments: The APEC Summit's economic leaders' meeting is an ongoing event happening from November 18 to 19 attended by economic leaders and/or representatives of 21 Pacific Rim economies. Hollyckuhno (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose "Travel impact" and "Homeless people"? μηδείς (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The sources are meant to verify the event is happening. Hollyckuhno (talk) 03:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

My point is that people should read the article. Fully one third of it is a criticism section, with a section on travel impact and a section on homeless people. These are given a huge ammount of attention for such and article. There's also the gem that: "This will be the first APEC meeting for Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau since their inaugurations on 15 September 2015 and 4 November 2015, respectively." Of course any summit will have new attendees. The article also needs a total going over for grammar and idiom. There's a statement that people "took on" social medial to protest. I assume what is meant was that they "took to" social media to protest, not that they sued socioal media, or engaged in denial of service attacks against it. There's no demonstration of any sort of major impact, and the article is not in the shape needed to be featured at ITN if there were. μηδείς (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Ongoing is meant for events where the article gets incremental updates with things that individually might not merit posting . It isn't meant for events in progress unless new newsworthy developments will come out of this every day, which seems unlikely for this type of meeting.331dot (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The event itself is newsworthy. An economic meeting that is attended by economic leaders that represents 50-60 percent of the world's economy is of international interest. I am not nominating this as a stand alone headline, I only intend this to be included on the Ongoing events section as to inform Wikipedia users of an international affair that is taking place on this very day. Hollyckuhno (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that it should be a stand alone headline, and with this type of event we usually note the conclusion of the event, along with anything notable coming out of it. Ongoing is not meant merely to post events in progress, but ones where the article would have incremental updates, as I describe above. 331dot (talk) 11:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose on procedure. As the above comments show, this is not what Ongoing is for (although I wouldn't blame someone for being mistaken). This nom would have better luck as a standalone headline, but as the G20 nom below shows, merely being an international gathering is perhaps not enough for the support of most.128.214.200.219 (talk) 10:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose ongoing because that's not what ongoing is for (it's not a "what's happening in the world today" slot). Unless and until there's an actual story to post, then this can't make ITN. I note in passing that the "see also" section reveals that 11 of the 20 leaders met last week through G20 and 13 of them will be at another regional summit next week, so these sorts of high-level meetings are really rather routine. Bencherlite^Talk 11:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose ongoing, this is either full blurb per ITNR (or ITNC at this rate if these pointless junkets keep getting shunned at ITNC) or it's nothing. Not ongoing at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – Per TRM. Sca (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

---

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

[Posted to RD] RD: Jonah Lomu

Article: Jonah Lomu

Blurb: New Zealand national rugby union player Jonah Lomu (pictured) dies at the age of 40.
News source(s): The Guardian Sky News Australia
Nominator: Donnie Park (give credit)

Nominator's comments: A global superstar in rugby, even to people who don't know much about rugby. Donnie Park (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support RD tag blurb - Top of his field. Article in good shape. Not so sure if he's major enough for a blurb. He is certainly notable for a blurb. Shaped the sport's industry. I was about to nominate him but you beat me to it mate! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support (edit-conflicted while filling in the template). Really shocked to hear this news. Carcharoth (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Support - but use "NZ linking to the New Zealand national rugby union team instead of All Blacks...some people will not get the reference..--Stemoc 00:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Revised it. Donnie Park (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support - exactly what the nom said: I don't know much rugby, even to the point that I can only name one non-Australian player - Lomu. Unquestionably belongs in RD (assuming the sad news is true). Just clarifying: strong support for RD, even as the article stands. Neutral on having an ITN blurb: I will defer to people with more knowledge about rugby or NZ. Adpete (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Article needs work (lots of unreferenced material for which no doubt references can be found) but obvious support for RD. Not sure on blurb but he was one of the biggest names in rugby union (the BBC report I'm listening to while typing this said that "many regarded him as the greatest rugby player of all time") and this is a very big story. Bencherlite^Talk 01:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Needs improvement Many paragraphs are unsourced. Meets notability as New York Times in 2014 called him "one of the most recognized rugby players in the world."[3]—Bagumba (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support for RD. His name was known well beyond the sport. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support RD on article improvements, Oppose blurb - Notability for RD is of no question. As for a blurb - the fact that for the last ten years he's had dialysis and other issues related to his kidneys means that while this was a sudden death, it wasn't wholly unexpected, and his importance otherwise to the world at large is not sufficient for a blurb. Article is in terrible shape though for posting, most of his career sections unsourced. --MASEM (t) 01:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support Happy with blurb or RD. Probably the only rugby union player to ever transcend the sport (think the equivalent of Michael Jordan in basketball). The article is in good enough condition to be on the main page -- I'd like to see it improved, but it's acceptable to me. -- Shudde ^talk 01:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support either when the article is in shape. I think he's one of only about two non-Brit rugby player I could name (and the other one is a Frenchman whose name I'm not completely certain of). Thryduulf (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly meets the criteria; this even was in the news to a degree where I live. I think a blurb is fine here, given he is described as a "legend" in most stories that I perused on this. Many including PM Key have commented on the death, and the possibility of a state funeral has been discussed.[4] We also don't post much about rugby or New Zealand. 331dot (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

well we posted about "NZ" winning the "rugby" world cup 16 days ago :P ..--Stemoc 03:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Question. Is this nomination for RD or for a full blurb? Rhodesisland (talk) 02:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Choose whatever fits best, Rhodesisland. This nomination is open-minded. George Ho (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, in that case....Rhodesisland (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Not ready I've pulled the ready tag. I tagged specific sections in the article that have no or need more refs, and a few personal data sentences that should be sourced. Otherwise, I think this is close.—Bagumba (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support RD on article improvements, Oppose blurb. Ditto Masem. Rhodesisland (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support RD or blurb, outstanding All Black and figure in international rugby as well. MurielMary (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• As a New Zealander I would love to see a blurb, but as a Wikipedian I don't think he quite reaches that level. AIRcorn (talk) 03:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Aircorn expresses my sentiments too. Neljack (talk) 05:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support blurb - major figure in rugby, known worldwide. Mjroots (talk) 06:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - it's just funny how someone who transformed the global oil industry is not notable enough for RD, but for a rugby player even a blurb is considered. Shows nicely what systematic bias is. Obviously oppose blurb and RD, it's Rugby, not anything of real importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.67.96 (talk) 07:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Some people do consider rugby important, like the Prime Minister of New Zealand and many readers. If you feel other stories should be posted, it is up to you to convince people of it. From the available information it wasn't clear to me how the oil industry was "transformed" by that individual. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Then read the article or something on the web. Clearly most of those who opposed did not even do that, because they were not even aware that the guy was the oil minister of Saudi Arabia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.77.54 (talk) 11:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support Full blurb, per all the supports above. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support RD No more blurb inflation please! Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• SS sport-transformingly famous all over the world. --Dweller (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support RD, strong oppose blurb. Significant figure in rugby, but he had long retired and his death has no widespread implications. Raising this to a blurb would make a mockery of even having the RD section, which is where this should definitely appear. Modest Genius ^talk 11:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support RD after improvement, oppose blurb - Notability is most definitely not in question here. However, there are still some issues with referencing. There is no need for a full blurb, the death is sad, but not unexpected. Fgf10 (talk) 11:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Posting. Only one section is still thin on references but I see there's constant work on the article so this should be fixed soon. I agree, RD is the case here. --Tone 11:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Post-posting support blurb - He died at an unusually young age and he's at the top of his field. Those two factors alone should qualify him for a blurb. I don't want to hear anything about a Mandela standard after the last few blurbs that have been posted.--WaltCip (talk) 12:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

He stopped playing rugby many years ago, so is no longer at the top of his field. Modest Genius ^talk 12:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

By that logic, he's no longer at the top of his field because he's dead.--WaltCip (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's absurd and certainly not necessary that the person had to be top of his field at the point of his or her death. Obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, that should be the distinguishing feature for blurbs. At the top of their field at the time of death, leading to major implications -> blurb. Had retired, declined in significance or was otherwise no longer at the top of their field, but had a significant historical impact -> RD. Lomu had not been one of the world's best rugby players for the last ~decade, so he falls into the latter category. Modest Genius ^talk 15:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

There were no implications when Thatcher died, she hadn't been PM for the decade or more before she died. She got a blurb. Mandela died 14 years after being the top of his field. He got a blurb. Your logic isn't that ... logical. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I opposed a blurb for Thatcher, following the same reasoning (don't remember about Mandela, was probably posted before I commented). Modest Genius ^talk 14:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

In the context of sports, I agree with Modest Genius. Examples would be Senna or more recently (but arguably) Bianchi. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

What makes sportspeople at the top of their field different from politicians or film stars? Mandela, Thatcher and the guy from Fast and Furious were all blurbed, their deaths didn't have "major implications".... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

If a death had "major implications", it would have to be something like the assassination of a top political figure, and so would likely be an ongoing item rather than merely a blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support blurb death is entirely unexpected according to his family, it's all over my news, international notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Unexpected but not unanticipated, given his medical condition (Nephrotic syndrome). In other words, they knew he would likely die young, but they didn't have any time frame to expect exactly when. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
    • And Thatcher and Mandela's deaths were likely too. I don't really see your point other than try to refute the indisputable fact that his family have stated that this sudden death was entirely unexpected. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support full blurb when it comes to rugby (which has an international audience larger than say American football) this guy is the biggest name - pretty much Tom Brady of the rugby union. Plus, the death seems completely unexpected since he was taking care of his health problems. Nergaal (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I am counting 4 explicit blurb opposes and 10 explicit blurb supports + the nom. Nergaal (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Count doesn't determine consensus; arguments do. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - The article still has a major section tagged as unreferenced, and there's several paragraphs throughout lacking references. While I don't feel it appropriate to pull this as an RD at this point (it's decently sourced, it's not like a complete BLP failure), this is a serious matter before this can be even be considered a blurb. --MASEM (t) 16:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Finally finished a run through of the article. Not perfect, but hopefully satisfactory for the front page (I know it is already there, but it seemed conditional on further improvements). AIRcorn (talk) 08:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
• Keep it as RD That's why we instituted it: so news items don't get bogged down by notable deaths. With Thatcher and Mandela, the response was so major that a blurb was appropriate. For the German chancellor, I don't think it was. For him, I don't see the need either. Blurbs for deaths should be reserved for the most extreme cases. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Roger Ebert, Robin Williams, Frederick Sanger, Hakimullah Mehsud, Aruna Shanbaug, Nayef bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud, Helmut Schmidt, Günter Grass ... All deaths of the aforementioned were posted as full blurbs. Granted, a good number of these postings were contentious and resulted in fiery discussions subsequent to the posting as to whether or not these warranted blurbs, but blurbs they were. I don't mind if you don't post this as a blurb, but for God's sake, drop the "Thatcher and Mandela" cliche because we all know that standard is so frequently flouted it doesn't even apply here. --WaltCip (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

That's more than I had thought were posted as blurbs since RD was implemented. I agree with Williams, since it was so high profile and surprising, but the others? I'm not sure they should've been posted as blurbs. Partly because I don't know who some of them are... Standards here are inconsistently applied, which is a problem, but the answer isn't to simply stop trying to enforce them. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

If your concern is preventing future posting of blurbs that don't meet the arbitrary standard that a handful of people around here have set, then that ship has sailed. These postings range as far back as 2012, when RD was recently instituted, to as current as earlier this month. Consensus had plenty of time to change in those three years and it has remained mostly the same throughout. The hard truth is that the threshold for a full blurb posting is not as high as people think it is, and that in all of the above cases, the posting administrator believed that the qualifications and requirements for meriting a full blurb were met. Just as with regular ITN articles, if a posting was incorrectly made, it is at the discretion of other presiding administrators to pull an article (see the Holm-Rousey fight). If you want to dispute those postings on the basis that standards were inconsistently applied, then the entire ITN system needs to be re-evaluated to see where consensus does stand. Until then, on the basis of precedence, Jonah Lomu deserves a full blurb as much as the other candidates do. The Mandela and Thatcher standard does not exist.--WaltCip (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

People are more than welcome to base their decision on precedence, just as others may choose to ignore it. There are no firm rules, aside from using consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Keep RD Generally, I don't think rugby union reaches the same viewership and magnitude as association football, for example. And as much as I like to read and watch, I never heard of Lomu before. Brandmeister^talk 20:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

November 17

---

[Posted] [Closed] Russia declares Metrojet Flight 9268 bombed

Okay, enough chat. Users are reminded that WP:ERRORS is the place to post ... errors. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Updated article: Metrojet Flight 9268

Blurb: Russia's Federal Security Service announces that Metrojet Flight 9268 (pictured) was "unequivocally" destroyed by a bomb.
Alternative blurb: Russia's Federal Security Service announces that Metrojet Flight 9268 (pictured) was destroyed by a bomb.
Alternative blurb II: Russia's Federal Security Service announces that the crash of Metrojet Flight 9268 (pictured) was caused by a bomb.
News source(s): Guardian, Reuters
Nominator: Smurrayinchester (give credit)
Article updated

Nominator's comments: No sooner did we pull this from ongoing, than a major new development occurs. Could put this back in Ongoing, but might also deserve own blurb. Smurrayinchester 09:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• How reliable is the Russian investigation team on this? Frankly, what about on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17? Also, read the criticisms on the Service; accusations have been human rights violations and corruption. George Ho (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

  Yes, but all the (many) blurbs attribute the claim to the FSB, none of the blurbs are stating this as absolute fact are they? I have no idea what human rights violations has to do with this news item. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

  Just an example of FSB's... unreliability and untrustworthiness(?). George Ho (talk) 10:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

  Of course, and all other such organisations have never had any such criticism. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support In this case I don't see a compelling reason not to trust this, and FSB cited the results of relevant analysis on substance traces. This is also consistent with ISIL claim. Brandmeister^talk 10:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support, alt blurb, per Brandmeister. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support Given that only Russia and Eygpt investigators are involved, even if there is question on trustworthiness, this is about as official as it will get. Note that Russia says they've held 17 workers at the airport and two are of critical interest, so they already have suspects and acting on it. --MASEM (t) 10:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support Good article, credible claim. Go for it! Altblurb seems good. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - has been posted already twice, no reason to post any new development to the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.81.60 (talk) 10:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no reason to announce the finding of the cause of the crash? 331dot (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Important development with broader implications. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support on update; official finding of a cause is notable; questions of trustworthiness are not relevant, as the readers can decide for themselves. 331dot (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Post-posting comment – Given the barrage of previous coverage on this point, suggest we say "confirms" rather than "announces." Sca (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, confirms is better. μηδείς (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe concludes? That is was a bomb is technically a hypothesis though one they appear to have enough evidence to support to engage in police/legal action and would likely have high confidence in before doing so. "Confirms" implies they knew exactly what happened which doesn't yet seem to be the case. --MASEM (t) 23:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Ambiguous. See homonym. Sca (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The evening news used the term "confirmed". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You guys all know where WP:ERRORS is, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It was simultaneously posted there. Sca (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

That's the place for this stuff, it doesn't need to be here after posting. Thanks for your understanding. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Je vous en prie. Sca (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Etiam tibi.--WaltCip (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Incertum quo fata ferunt. Sca (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

---

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

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: