[Closed] Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc

[Closed] Kidnapped Israeli teens

Ongoing: South Sudan

South Sudanese Civil War is ongoing, humanitarian crisis is tragic. We should post it as ongoing Lihaas (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support though it would be nice with some more recent updates in the article. Thue (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• So you think we should have a timeline section and/or article?Lihaas (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There already is a timeline-ish section, but the June update only consists of three sentences: South_Sudanese_Civil_War#Another_Ceasefire. Surely there is more to say, if the conflict is hot enough for ongoing. Thue (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Deforestation in Indonesia

Article: Deforestation in Indonesia (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Deforestation in Indonesia became most extensive in the world, with 840,000 hectares lost in 2012. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A study shows that the rate of deforestation in Indonesia became the highest in the world in 2012, surpassing that of Brazil.
News source(s): Reuters, Guardian, SMH, The Hindu, Irish Times, Scientific American
Credits:

• Updated and nominated by Elekhh (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Here's a rather rare chance to feature environmental news. Also noting how a similar ITN candidate in 2010 hasn't been posted despite broad support. --ELEKHH^T 01:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose arbitrary, unconfirmable POV-driven press release about a trend. Why not point out that the almost entirely deforested eastern US is no mostly reforested given the land is no longer so much used for crops and firewood? μηδείς (talk) 02:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't understand WP:RS and WP:POV. --ELEKHH^T 03:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me guess, you're the nominator. μηδείς (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I think it is a very good opportunity to bring attention to the subject on ITN through this recent development. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 06:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too vague, particularly with the unclear comparison to Brazil. It would have to be reframed as something like "A new study shows that Indonesia lost more rainforest than any other country in 2012." But this is just one study that contradicts current Indonesian and UN figures (and other studies), and I'm not sure that revised 2012 figures in that fashion are ITN-worthy. ToBk (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what's vague but please feel free to suggest alternative blurbs. I would have thought that academic journals are more neutral than governments. --ELEKHH^T 15:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the story, oppose the blurb as given. Surpassing Brazil is presented as an arbitrary milestone here; if it's phrased in a way that makes it clear that Indonesia is now the world "leader" in deforestation that'd be a lot clearer to the reader. GRAPPLE X 16:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I amended the original blurb, and provided an alternative. Please feel free to edit it directly or make concrete suggestions as to how to improve it. I am not a native English speaker, nor a journalist, nor a frequent ITN contributor. --ELEKHH^T 23:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That works for me now. It now gets across that it's top of the list, rather than hinting at it without stating it. GRAPPLE X 05:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Grapple X, it's a notable story, but the seemingly arbitrary comparison to Brazil will miss most people's radar. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - clearly notable subject.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Agree that this is notable and ITN-worthy. Jusdafax 04:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, based on strong sourcing and definitely notable news. I am not sure a comparison to Brazil is needed, since it's now "the highest in the world." Challenger l (talk) 05:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 23:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• WTF? this might be worth an ITN slot, but the current blurb does not do a good job as to why is this relevant. By rate of deforestation I understand % not sq km. Somebody should find a better blurb. Nergaal (talk) 08:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest you make a proposal and suggest you do it at WP:ERRORS as that's the correct venue for further debate about blurbs already published. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Ebola outbreak in West Africa is now the most deadly in history.

Nominator's comments: This is important as it is the deadliest Ebola outbreak in history, and it is continuing despite efforts of the WHO and Doctors Without Borders to contain it. I feel this is more important as part of the news than the discovery of the smallest elephant shrew, for example. ¬ laonikoss ^(talk) 19:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - We last posted the Ebola outbreak in March of this year, when there were over 70 casualties. Since there are five times as many now, I think this is deserving of a repost. However, any future posting of the Ebola outbreak - if there is one - should be for a significantly higher figure.--WaltCip (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for Ongoing. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I nominated this a few weeks back and it was poo-pooed, but it's clearly a real issue and a genuinely concerning outbreak of a super-deadly virus. However, I would be tempted to include it as an Ongoing news item, rather than just a simple blurb (we had one of those a few months ago....) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

wo! another article I make reads history...Lihaas (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb - as a major point in the story. I have suggested an alt, as the main blurb is rather long (and an outbreak is spreading by definition as long as new cases are occurring.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb The fact that this is now the deadliest Ebola outbreak in history is well worth inclusion on the Main Page. Including this in "Ongoing" would not actually communicate this significant news to readers. If there are still regular updates in this story when the blurb comes off, it can be shifted to "Ongoing". Neljack (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest we change "in history" to "known ever" or "recognized" in blurb
• Posted Stephen 03:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This is not well updated to reflect new events since this was last posted. For example, according to the chart, there have been a large rise of cases in Sierra Leone in the month of June, but I see nothing in the prose to outline these new events, or what the government might be doing in June to respond, etc. There seem to be updated for March-May, but nothing since then. Not suggesting a pull, but I wish the update quality of the more recent events would be considered before posting. Spencer^T♦C 04:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, it is not updated. Suggest pull as even the "deadlist ever" fact isn't in the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Mea Culpa, that claim is now referenced in the article. Stephen 04:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Update needed The WHO puts the death toll at 467 as of today. [2] Blurb should be updated. [ ToBk (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (a) this is why I suggested it should be in Ongoing (b) once an ITN item is posted, it's best to post these kind of request at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Islamic State

ISIS has declared itself to be simply "the Islamic State" led by the first caliph since 1923. It has called upon all Muslims, especially militant groups, to recognize its authority. This is a significant development with the potential for deep international implications. Check out this Haaretz article for some details but be aware it's a breaking story

• Wait - Let's see how things develop. I'm not sure how significant is the declaration regarding the crisis in Iraq. How will it change the course of the conflict? It is still disputed whether it is a real 'state' or not and the ISIS offensive is being halted by Iraqi forces as we speak. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq update

The oil stuff is old news now. Apparently counter-terrorist operations are the topic of the day andit seems Tikrit is next scene. We should update the blurb. BloombergDW

Propose: Iraqi forces launch counter terrorist operations to retake Tikrit from ISIL Lihaas (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Commment, this seems more like a case for just going back to a "Iraq conflict" item in the Ongoing ticker. Abductive (reasoning) 14:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Maybe wait for a day or so to see if Tikrit is actually recaptured; that'd definitely be worth a new blurb. (The current material is a bit stale.) Bouncing it back and forth between Ongoing and a blurb doesn't seem ideal, especially if we pull the blurb early to do so. (But maybe featuring events from a conflict like this for a shorter length of time in blurb form is okay. I guess we're still figuring out the best way to use Ongoing.) ToBk (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto on figuring out ongoing...but seems like theyre advancing...and , as shown, multiple sources are saying soLihaas (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] New mammal species

Nominator's comments: This is the smallest species of elephant shrew yet found. It was identified based on physical characteristics (i.e. this isn't just a split based on genetic testing). New mammal species are rare - only 2 or 3 a year - and always worthy of posting IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rodents are the least interesting slice of all mammalians. Nergaal (talk) 21:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Elephant shrews aren't rodents, but rather Afrotheria a clade that includes elephants, manatees, aardvarks, etc. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I'm okay with the state of the article now. This sengi is new to science, not some subspecies that has been known about for a long time. It would be nice if there was an image. Abductive (reasoning) 21:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Interesting discovery, and a decent amount of media coverage. Not sure if new species are worthwhile unless there's something notable past just being new (and trivial stuff like being the smallest.) However, given that ITN still has the NBA Finals from 15 Jun due to an apparent lack of news, it couldn't hurt to post. ToBk (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rodents are indeed the least interesting clade of all mammalia. μηδείς (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Interesting item for all nationalities. Article a bit thin but acceptable, but I agree that the article would be a lot better if it included a photo of this discovery. Though it is a small consideration in my reasoning, I also agree that the stale basketball finals being bumped would not cause any regrets on my part. Jusdafax 22:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Prepare for "A new species of elephant" (Or variations on the theme). Belle (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody expand on ThaddeusB's comment above about Afrotheria in the article, please. I saw a line saying they were more closely related to elephants than mice and took it for vandalism. Belle (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I guess you could say they are "more closely related to elephants than mice", that piece of information isn't really relevant. Plain old shrews aren't rodents either. Mice are. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few words to explain it - since the animal is (accurately and helpfully) described as looking like a mouse, it is also wise to say it isn't closely related to one. (Besides, the RS love that angle so it should be at least mentioned on Wikipedia.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and well explained in the article. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of the KT extinction most of the animals resemble mice or insectivores, with scaly tails, whiskered noses and rather "average" features for mammals. All sorts of mammals across most order have retained some form like this. The opossum, the mouse, the shrew, the solenodon, the tree shrew, the elephant shrew, the mouse-deer. In the past, most of these were lumped together as insectivores, but it turns out that three shrew is more closely related to human, the elephant shrew to the afrotheres, and the mouse-deer to the dolphin than any of there groups to each other. μηδείς (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Interesting and definitely for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Bobby Womack

Nominator's comments: Seems worth an RD based on his career and honors. Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductee. --wirenote (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No way. I mean, support, but you're very lucky not to be shot for your message, Wirenote. Formerip (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support pending article cleanup and a bit more expansion on death. RRHoF inductee assures notability for RD. --MASEM (t) 01:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Needs some major referencing work. Easily worthwhile for RD inclusion when and if that is done. --Jayron32 01:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Some sort of actual rationale might help. At least with Anne B Davis people could say Alice? of course. Or Alice, no. Here we have policy quoted back. μηδείς (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on article quality alone. Support notability as highly significant in his field, making news headlines around the world. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support after article improvement The kind of person RD was made for. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It's All Over Now... Teardrops from Ron. If ITN's got a conscience, should be posted. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't in Womack and Womack. Formerip (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I say he should have been!! I mean, Cecil was his brother, after all. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Noted singer/songwriter. Article has improved in the past hours to an acceptable level, though it would be a good idea to get those cite tags fixed up. Jusdafax 22:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Legend in his genre. Daniel Case (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nationally and internationally important musical figure, and the referencing is now sufficient such that it should not be a barrier to posting. Chubbles (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are entire paragraphs of this article that remain unreferenced, including serious BLP issues such as the claims that a drug addiction caused the death of an infant. Those are the issues that mean this can't go on the main page. Stephen 04:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on article quality grounds. Womack is certainly notable enough, but the article needs a good deal more proper sourcing than it currently has. Challenger l (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement

 Thue (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose based on confusing links in the blurb and a maintenance tag at the top of the target article. Support, though, on the significance. This is all over the news and is a good candidate. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt blurb Also, shouldn't we include Georgia and Moldova who signed the AA today at the same place, at the same time as Ukraine? Why single out Ukraine? I know, Ukraine is a huge country and the recent events clearly illustrate its importance for both Russia and the EU, but I think Moldova and Georgia are also very important. But I'm not insisting or anything, just suggesting. --Երևանցի ^talk 20:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually forgot about them; though Ukraine is the most notable due to circumstances, it would make sense to include the others too. Thue (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support iff including Georgia and Moldova. All 3 countries are in similar tensed relations with Russia so singling out Ukraine is unbalanced. Nergaal (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Didn't we already post this a few months back? [3] This one is just the economic part of the agreement. It was more significant back then because it was during the Crimean crisis but now we already have the Ukrainian conflict in the Ongoing section. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Nergaal, I would only support this if combined with Georgia and Moldova. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support combined with the other countries. Neljack (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support under any other such circumstances this qould be posted without question, and if the fact this is under ongoing is a problem thenTAKE IT OUT OF ONGOING. μηδείς (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The Ukraine agreement article has a lot of orange tags. The other two agreements don't appear to have articles. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The tags are all of the 'give more info' or 'fix grammar' type, it's probably just someone who prefers to place suggestions for article expansion in article space instead of on the talk page. Narayanese (talk) 09:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Platinum strike

Nominator's comments: This is an article I have been meaning to write for some time. I finally got it started this evening. I will do a lot more work on it tomorrow, but wanted to nominate now so there would be some chance enough people would see this and comment to form a consensus. (Sorry about the late nomination - it has been a very busy week for me.)

The strike was a massive story in South Africa - at or near the top of the news every day for months. The effects were wide reaching - platinum prices rose to a three-year high (SA produced 40% of the world's platinum) and the human effects in SA were huge. I even saw a story about pet populations being abandoned in mass because of the strike effects. (This isn't all in our article yet, but will be tomorrow.) This is a great opportunity to feature a seldom posted region (despite speaking English, SA is rarely mentioned around here) and topic (as you all know I have been actively campaigning for more business-related stories.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is coming along. Guardian commentary calls this "the political story of the last year or so" in South Africa and says "20 years from now, when someone, somewhere, considers the moments that really brought long-term change to the South African political system, this strike is going to feature." If people chose to reject this, so be it , but it would be a real shame if it fails simply because no one notices the late nomination and offers an opinion... --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't care one way or another if this is posted, so I didn't comment. But I imagine that people see the outcome as some sort of sad, foregone conclusion. Abductive (reasoning) 20:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  It could be that people just don't care, but I imagine it is mostly that few have seen this nomination. It's always hard to get enough comments to form consensus on late nominations. Of course, if you nominate w/o making the article first people oppose based on that. It's a real Catch-22. At least Wikipedia will get a nice article on an important subject whatever happens here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted, a late nomination that has failed to garner much commentary, however by that virtue it is also unopposed. Article is well written and referenced. Stephen 04:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  A bold posting, thank you. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RD Ana María Matute

Nominator's comments: Ana María Matute was a member of the Real Academia Española and only the third woman to win the Miguel de Cervantes Prize, the foremost literary honor in the Spanish-speaking world. --Gamaliel (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• By now you now how it works for me. A decent nom for RD but oppose on article quality. Needs some serious referencing until we post it or Arbcom mandate we do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no objection to objections on the basis of article quality, but while it's not GA material yet, this article seems to have sufficient references. I'm willing to improve the article but I'm not quite sure what you're looking for specifically. Gamaliel (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, let me elucidate. We have sections such as "Awards and honors" and "Select list of works" (is that even grammatically correct?) without a single inline reference. I could tag the article but I was hoping you'd understand why I opposed. I'll add it to my ready reckoner of "reasons why ITN nominations fail". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've integrated the five line "Awards and honors" section into the biography section and re-titled the other section "Bibliography". Gamaliel (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Suppose given her role as leader of the upper house of the Japanese Diet, Ambassador to the world's second greatest economy, and majordomo for the heads of state and government for 8 years. μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the above comment is in the wrong section, as it is about somebody entirely different. --Orlady (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is Tennessee one of the three states that has not yet legalized the teaching of irony to minors? 03:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think the referencing is passable (even that massive number I put in next to Bibliography. In fact I like that one best of all: it's bold and uncompromising, it's saying "Look at me, I'm big and I'm a reference" ) Belle (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Definitely notable enough - but the article is not much more than a stub. Challenger l (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Of what field is she near the top? Women who write in a particular language? A Nobel Prize, or some award without the language restriction, would help her nomination considerably. 79.76.127.101 (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's just the second most spoken language in the world. Would a Booker Prize nomination also be invalid? Gamaliel (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose She does not satisfy any one of the three criteria at ITND. So, she should not be mentioned at RD.HotHat (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted to RD] Eli Wallach

Nominator's comments: Legendary actor of screen and stage. --Challenger l (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Tuco support from me. Definitely a legend. Mjroots (talk) 07:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment clearly notable in my mind for RD, but the article needs further references, so it's an oppose at the moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: This man is a legend and very notable for a RD post. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• there are two kinds of spurs my friend...Support, clearly top of his field, long career to boot.--Somchai Sun (talk) 07:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Probably one of the oldest ever (kirk douglas the other)...--Stemoc (talk) 08:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for RD: He won numerous prestigious awards in his career, so it should be a go on this one.HotHat (talk) 09:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support once article is in suitable condition. An actor of sufficient standing and reputation for RD. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - sourcing is pretty weak (multiple unreferenced paragraphs) and should improved before posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pending article improvements as identified above. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Clearly notable. Gamaliel (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I feel doubly terrible because I had no idea he was still alive and he appeared in several of my favorite movies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.224 (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It doesn't matter if his article is currently ugly as this is the ideal opportunity to engage people in improving it. We have a limited window for this and so should strike while the iron is hot. Andrew (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid you're completely wrong. It does matter, the quality of items on the main page has to be of a certain standard, unlike our DYK friends. Once we've got it up to scratch, we'll post it. Hopefully all these supporters will spend a little time improving the article they so want to see on the main page, you as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh no, not this discussion again. It is infinitely more productive to actually fix up the article than argue here that it should be posted in poor shape. ITN has a rule against posting poorly referenced articles and no amount of arguing is going to make this article an exception to that rule. If you think that rule should change, start a discussion on talk, but debating it here is pointless. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh yes, I'm afraid so. Since Arbcom got involved, this issue of posting garbage articles to the main page has become more and more popular. I would be happy to do that if the instructions said we could, and if people wish to change the instructions to allow us to just post articles on popularity without paying consideration to WP:BLP and WP:V etc, let's get that RFC up and running! In the meantime, articles posted to ITN will be well-referenced and without maintenance tags, and the sooner people, including our Arbs, deal with that, the better. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What arbcom case are you going on about? --Jayron32 23:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe TRM is referring to the personal comments of one arbcom member who said Casey Kasem should be posted despite its low quality (at the time). --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• But what did that have to do with ARBCOM? I was not aware that a part of the requirements for accepting a position on ARBCOM was "members of ARBCOM must not express a different opinion than The Rambling Man in a public forum." --Jayron32

• It was related to the idea that if we didn't do as this Arb wanted us to do, he'd do it himself. That's all. Now back to your box. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There's some point in holding back breaking news when the topic is new and uncertain, such as Flight 370. But there's no reason for delay in a case such as this, where the facts of the matter are clear, the topic is long-established and all we're doing is putting a simple link on the main page. The Eli Wallach article got quarter of a million hits yesterday, before it was linked on the main page. People don't need the main page to find articles - Google will take them straight there. All we're doing in RD is recognising a plain fact. If we hold back because our article isn't spiffy then we're distorting our summary of the news for internal reasons and this is not WP:NPOV. RD is quite biased towards coverage of American deaths and these excessive rules seem to be part of the problem. They should be struck down and it is good that arbcom members support this. Andrew (talk) 06:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll repeat what I said to the Arb, if you want to actually do something about it then you'll need to formulate an RFC to change our instruction set to allow us to post material which has maintenance tags and potential BLP violations in articles which are under-referenced. So much effort is expended here whinging about the failure to post material quickly, yet little-or-no energy is expended on improving the articles in question, except usually by the ITN regulars, admins who work their socks off around here to keep the ITN section neat and tidy and prevent it becoming a laughing stock, much like DYK. So, you have a choice, do something or do nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Obvious RD material. I have just read the article, and find it decent for posting. There is a section tag, regarding referencing, that should be removed, as the section has numerous references. Jusdafax 19:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several [citation needed] tags that you could help with if you really believe this to be worthy of the main page. It won't be posted until these issues are resolved, simple as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It looks, as I scan over it, to be devoid of any major issues (no major tags, no need for them as far as I can see) and he's a legend in his field. An easy support. --Jayron32 01:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The article's been referenced. While it's not in the best shape I think it's suitable to go now. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD, with thanks to those that took time to reference to every citation needed. Stephen 01:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting thanks to User:Light show who did a great job fixing the article up to the standards required. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] "Like a Rolling Stone" auction record

Nominator's comments: We don't post a lot of culture/entertainment news, but here is a good opportunity to do so. We have posted a variety of auction records in teh past and I believe this one will be a particularly strong interest and it is being well covered in major news sources. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Kinda ironic that the lyrics to that song make so much. (But who was Napoleon?) Martinevans123 (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the one "in rags"? Go to him now, he calls you, you can’t refuse! Sca (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

yes, that's him, the one who inspired a band. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

And a video (Note: Be sure to use the up & down buttons.) Sca (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Trivia - compared with e.g. "Iraq update: Border crossings seized and Baiji oil refinery captured" below, this is not truly important news. Thue (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not yet decided on this, but there is nothing that says we only have to post warfare, disasters, and tragedies. Having some not-terrible news is a good thing. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, then compare with something positive, e.g. warrent now required to search cell phones in the US (and the US are often trendsetters). Some lyrics selling for $2 million is still trivial compared to that; there are many positive things happening which are not trivia. Thue (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many people across the world know the lyrics to this song? Yes, US artists are often "trendsetters" in popular music. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Everything is trivia to someone. 331dot (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, one of the basic ideas of Wikipedia is that we can objetively distinguish between what is important and what is not important, as seen on e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Is anybody seriously saying that some lyrics selling for $2 million is more important than 300 million people in the US gaining the right to not have their cell phones searched without a warrent? - I refuse to believe it. Thue (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A prison population that large is definitely non-trivial. They're gonna take a lot of searching. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

This is not any more "trivia" than the dozens of other auction records we've posted in the past... ITN is not an "either or" situation - we can easily post this and Iraq and cell phone search warrents and more. It is also incorrect that AfD determines importance. AfD focuses on notability and notability derives from being noticed (covered in reliable sources), not importance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is a combination of being noted and being important - many subjects being kept are far less talked about than pop culture. As I have mentioned in previous discussions, I personally believe that being ITN worthy is about more than being noted in the news. Otherwise we would be posting all Justin Beiber's changes of girlsfriends. Thue (talk) 09:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly many things are notable that are "far less talked about than pop culture". Of course pop culture items are also kept. When we are consistant, anything with significant coverage in at leats two reliable sources is kept. Of course sometimes people !vote based on their personal belief about a subject, ignoring the notability guidelines. And sometimes participation is insufficient to establish a subject is notable in spite of votes to the contrary. And rarely there are overriding issues that lead to deletion despite notability. But, AfD is fundamentally about notability which is not the same thing as importance. Equating the two only leads to unnecessary arguments, confusion, and poor decisions. (ITN, of course, does decide importance.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also find it odd that you argue here that Iraq is important, yet haven't bothered to support it below. Likewise, feel free to nominate the cell phone story. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was so obvious that supporting it would just be piling on. But supported now Thue (talk) 09:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, I'm pretty sure other historical documents have auctioned off for much higher. Abductive (reasoning) 02:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  That is certainly true - the record is for music, not all documents. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  It's too narrow an event. Remember, ITN is for events. Some handwritten lyrics could be categorized as poetry, art, or literature, but it isn't music. Abductive (reasoning) 21:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Try telling the people at the auction it wasn't an event. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  "Narrow" doesn't mean nobody is interested. Abductive (reasoning) 01:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Sotheby's and the BBC categorized this document as a "popular music manuscript". Mick gold (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, Like a Rolling Stone is a WP:FA which tries to give the context of this recording, critical commentary on the meaning of the song, and the reasons why Rolling Stone magazine should have selected it, in 2004, as number one on their list of the "500 Greatest Songs of All Time" [4]. The fact that Dylan's hand-written lyrics have now set a world record for the sale of a popular music manuscript at auction surely demonstrates how this song still exerts a strong fascination - both in cultural and financial terms. This sale has elicited comment from BBC [5], The Guardian [6], Time magazine [7] Mick gold (talk) 08:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Whatever else might be said about Bob — and a great deal of verbiage has been aired by a great many people — he's in a class by himself, and Like a Rolling Stone is the most quintessential work of his entire oeuvre, IMO. (And I'm from Minnesota!) Sca (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Mild support attempting to compare this story with Iraq is utterly absurd and not what this section of Wikipedia is intended for. Clearly this a modern culture news story and worthy of consideration, I thought I'd already read Abductive's worst ever complaint, but his current one here takes the biscuit ("I'm pretty sure that eggs is eggs, but this egg ain't no egg what I ever saw") The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  "Narrow" is an argument other people regularly use here. You seem to have a personal grudge against me. Get over it. Abductive (reasoning) 01:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh I am. Really, but don't believe your own hype. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I really don't think that my being opposed based on the idea that this is a manuscript, and manuscripts such as a handwritten copy of The Tales of Beedle the Bard by J.K. Rowling recently sold for more is illegitimate. Abductive (reasoning) 02:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is the type of story that falls short of ITN's general "importance/impact" but because of the state of the article, exceeds DYK's allowance, yet feels like the type of story that would be good front page material ("new" information about an article that is otherwise of good or better quality). It's not so much trivia but current changes in well-established content. Do we need something to handle the likes of this? I would otherwise weak support inclusion in the current ongoing lack of new items being posted. --MASEM (t) 22:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More than 40 years since its release, "Like a Rolling Stone" remains highly regarded, as measured by polls of reviewers and fellow songwriters. A 2002 ranking by Uncut and a 2005 poll in Mojo both rated it as Dylan's number one song. [8] Sca (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• By the numbers, 3 support+2 weak support+1 comment in favor (by Mick gold) vs. 2 oppose. I think that warrants an assessment by an uninvolved admin as to whether it has consensus or not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Vote counting is frowned upon. It's by strengths of arguments. Manuscripts have sold for more. Examples which haven't been posted Abductive (reasoning) 02:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  What part of "as to whether it has consensus or not" made you think I was equating #s with consensus? --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Because you were enumerating them. If you had said, "I think all the arguments have run their course", then that would be clearer (and what I hope you really meant). Abductive (reasoning) 03:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  "Vote counting is frowned upon" is the first thing people run to when they know they've already lost the argument. It's a meaningless statement that says "I know no one agrees with me, so I'll just say this hoping the admin realizes I am right and everyone else is wrong". Consensus determinations are not made merely on the raw count of votes, but that doesn't mean that the numbers of votes themselves are meaningless, and it's poisoning the well to make the claim that, should the admin determine differently than you in the end, they must be doing so for the wrong reasons (because, of course, if someone disagrees with you, they must be doing so for the wrong reasons). --Jayron32 04:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Outnumbered, perhaps, but not lost. I don't believe you guys are wrong, this is all just a matter of how we individually see the event. There have only been a few instances where something got posted that made me really unhappy, because they were factually incorrect. This wouldn't be one of them. Abductive (reasoning) 04:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  And that poor cat. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The pump don't work.... Why? Sca (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Abductive: - I just meant the #s warranted a closer look. If a !vote was say 2-5, there would no need to request an assessment, but if it is ~5-2 it is worth requesting a proper assessment of consensus. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANSWER: 'Cause the vandals took the handles. [9] Sca (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I may be biased in that I have been one of the major editors of the "Like a Rolling Stone" article. But I believe it is clear that this song has had a major cultural impact, and this auction record underlines the depth of that impact. If it were a trivial song, nobody would be paying $2 million for the manuscript. This is a worthy cultural story to include in the In the News column. Moisejp (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx, RM. Picking a nit: Suggest adding 2 commas, thus:

Lyrics of "Like a Rolling Stone," handwritten by Bob Dylan, sell at auction for a record US$2 million. Sca (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-posting oppose per Abductive. I could possibly see posting if a manuscript broke the $30M for the Codex Leicester, but "music manuscript" is too narrow and trivial of a category. (At least it finally bumped the NBA Finals after two weeks, though!) ToBk (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, anything that gets to be wallpaper on Microsoft Plus! has to have a much bigger cachet, doesn't it(?) (But the chorus is a bit dull, I find). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Ramón José Velásquez

Nominator's comments: Velásquez was a former national leader. He's notable for a RD posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)--[reply]

• Neutral on RD suitability, but opposing for now on lack of references, at least one section has none at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral per TRM; article sidebar states he was an acting president(not actually president). 331dot (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So was Gerald Ford, and I'm sure you remember his death.  — TORTOISEWRATH 03:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ford was very much president. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 03:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was an acting president after succeeding the actual president Nixon. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, he was the president. Plain and simple. I don't know if you're trying to make a point or just really misinformed, but please check your facts before posting here. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 06:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ford was actually President. Per the 25th Amendment "the Vice President shall become President". That was the convention as early as John Tyler, though it was not written down in the Constitution until that Amendment. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Seems double standards not to, especially considering the really poor coverage of Latin America here.Brigade Piron (talk) 07:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Iraq update: Border crossings seized and Baiji oil refinery captured

Nominator's comments: First confirmations of oil refinery being seized (supplies 1/3 of Iraq's oil), rather than just claims. The extent of border crossings being seized is unclear, but seems notable with significant coverage. Although we have this in Ongoing, I think these events merit a mention, especially since ITN is pretty stale. (Oldest item is 10 days now.) --ToBk (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Not sure about worth a new posting, but I think the entire point of the Ongoing section was to be able to keep stories with constant events possibly worth posting (or on the margin, perhaps like this one) on the template. Spencer^T♦C 00:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pending update. This is a large amount of territory captured, and control of two of Iraq's international borders as well as its largest refinery is notable. International interest and implications. Update is thin and needs fattening up. Jusdafax 01:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - This is why we have 'Ongoing'. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support iff updated. This is a significant development that is worth posting regardless of "Ongoing". We did post Ukrainian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 shoot-down despite having the main article linked in Ongoing (I think the main article should have been removed from ongoing while the blurb was up). Ongoing should not prevent significant developments from getting a full blurb as they would get it naturally. Ongoing is for stories that are still in the news when the blurb is about to be removed from the template (as long as the article is regularly updated). Mohamed CJ (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Significant milestone in an important conflict. Thue (talk) 09:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Syrian chemical weapons

 Thue (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support when updated (one sentence doesn't count) as a significant milestone in a long-run story. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but agree with ThaddeusB, a larger update is needed. The lede should be updated, and even details like you provided in this nomination are good facts to include. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support upon update; a category of weapons being removed from a country is significant itself, aside from a notable development in Syria. Article does need more, though, as the above users have said. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose a scheduled "event" of no importance compared to other current world news. Release of condemned Somali mother far more worthy and of interest. μηδείς (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  So nominate Meriam Ibrahim if you think she is worth posting. Complaining that something wasn't nominated is rather stupid. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! (And don't bother nominating that story, it's a completely uninteresting non-item) 131.251.254.110 (talk) 10:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Support for this blurb as well, of course. 131.251.254.110 (talk) 10:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis should feel free to nominate that story. Mind your own business. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMO Meriam Ibrahim would be a good nomination and I would support it. Mohamed CJ (talk) 11:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that story exists, it the status were clear I might nominate had I more time. The fact I offered it as a better example in my eyes than this one is no insult to anyone, but editors are free to take it as such if they enoy taking insult. μηδείς (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per ThaddeusB. Mohamed CJ (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support although would like to see a slightly larger update (to what is admittedly and literally a good article). The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted after a small expansion. Stephen 02:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mauritania Presidential election

Article: Mauritanian presidential election, 2014 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Mauritanian President Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz is re-elected with over 80% of the vote which most of the opposition boycotted. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz is re-elected President of Mauritania, with the opposition largely boycotting the election.
News source(s): Aljazeera, Reuters
Credits:

• Nominated by Alifazal (talk · give credit)

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Current Event --Ali Fazal (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Like hell he is, but that's not for us to decide. "Over 80%" please.Brigade Piron (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Elections for head of state are ITNR; I've proposed an altblurb. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the altblurb - but not "all" the opposition boycotted it. Ali Fazal (talk) 11:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added "largely". 331dot (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with altblurb. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - article is very insufficient (1 paragraph) as current. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with altblurb.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose article needs serious work. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support altblurb, with the suggestion that we update and point to Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz instead. Gamaliel (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Dennis

Nominator's comments: Significant in 1960s counter-culture and went on to become a successful and influential publisher --Andrew (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose perhaps is credibly notable enough for RD but the article is substantially under-referenced. I imagine the nominator himself would be surprised if this sub-standard piece of work made it to the main page in anything like its current form. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The article has more references than Horace Silver or Stephanie Kwolek who are currently listed. Andrew (talk) 06:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well if those articles are under-referenced, they should not have been posted either. Cheers. (P.S. you do realise we don't just "count" the number of references, right?) The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've no idea what you do; it seems quite arbitrary. Anyway, if those others aren't adequate, why aren't you rushing to pull them? Andrew (talk) 06:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I said "if" they were under-referenced. Please be more careful when reading what others write. And do try to fix up the under-referenced sections of your nomination, I've tagged the worst offending sections to help you focus. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Maybe it's my own lack of experience in this, but I'm having the hardest time figuring out exactly why this person was notable, aside from a trial about 40 years ago. Millionaire publisher, I get. Challenger l (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Alstom

Nominator's comments: This is a large business deal, yes, but there is a lot more here than just the $ figure. The deal became a major political issue in France, as the gov't passed new laws to give itself new abilities to intervene in deals affecting infrastructure. In the end, the got got approval by allowing the government to become Alstom's largest stakeholder and take an active role in many of the GE purchased businesses. Thus, this deal has a major political angle in addition to the significant business angle. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't believe a "vote" will have taken place over this. Formerip (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The FT source (now behind a pay wall, but free earlier) said something like "a government panel voted unanimously to approve the deal", but yah better to use other wording - blurb adjusted accordingly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose $17b Means nothing without a hell of a lot of else--with a lot of else--in which casae a support is easy. ````— Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) voted below, no need for duplicate --Tachfin (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• First "$17B means nothing" is a pretty silly statement. Second, did you bother to read the nomination statement and linked news articles? There is a lot more here than a typical business deal. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support One of the biggest stories of the year in France, and very significant in a country where foreign companies have traditionally had little role in providing public services. (Would be nice to have the timeline section cleaned up a bit though - a lot of the 2014 part should go in the "History" section as prose) Smurrayinchester 07:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment certainly worthy of consideration, but the blurb is rambling (TM), and needs serious tightening. And I'm not sure if "deciding to allow" something to happen is as newsworthy as something "actually happening" (even if it may seem inevitable)... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Tightened blurb. Belle (talk) 12:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  In general, the initial announcement is the most noteworthy stage. However, here there was real doubt that it would go through (as noted, the gov't passed a decree specifically to give itself the power to block it.) Now the gov't has agreed to allow the deal, in exchange for various concessions, making big headlines. So here, passing regulatory hurdles was the biggest stage of the deal. The legal completion of a deal is never big news. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Highly notable power management acquisition, one that goes across international borders. --WaltCip (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but.... Various editors have said in the past that ITN doesn't carry enough business news, and here is some business news of unquestionable importance. But most of the prose in the article is unsourced. Formerip (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with appropriate updates and sourcing. This is a huge deal - all the major new outlets are talking about it, and it's unquestionably about the biggest players in the industry. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose mere transfer of ownership. Postworthy business deals should have to do with synergistic things like "Ameritel and Genetech merge to form Genitel, worlds largest artificial phone-sex insemination company"; or "Compuserve buys Packard to develop new social-media driven road-rage killbots. Mere zloty-count is not encyclopedic news. μηδείς (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  You already opposed yesterday - please strike one of you duplicate !votes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I did look for but didn't see my name, Tachfin has done the striking with my appreciation. μηδείς (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I've started referencing & cleanup work - it may take a while as the article was not in good condition, as noted by several comments above. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support an interesting story, a decent article (although I'd prefer to see some improvements to the referencing of the "Company structure, products, and services" section which seems to rely on a self-promoting "About us" style reference alone). The Rambling Man (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support, huge story of major political/economic and industrial significance for France. France, as some might not knonw, runs an economy of state-managed capitalism, that is some kind of vastly improved and liberal communism, where foreign take-overs are really frowned upon. This has caused a major controversy in France, especially that Alstom is the manufacturer of the flagship TGV and nuclear power plants (I know those divisions are not concerned by the deal), and that it benefited from a huge state bail-out in the early 2000s after it nearly went bankrupt because of Alcatel. Industry-wise, you should know that there aren't that much major Gas turbine manufacturers in the world before take over there was only: GE, Siemens, Mitsubishi, Alstom. The number is now reduced to only 3. It is also significant for GE (one of the biggest conglomerates in the world) because they'd lay their hands on some proprietary ABB (top-notch industry group) technology, which was previously bought by Alstom And finally, come on, 17$ b not much? that's more than the GDP of some 50 countries, and a deal more significant than most sports news/banana-republic elections that gets posted regularly on here. This is by all accounts extremely significant, especially that Business/industry stuff rarely gets any coverage on ITN Tachfin (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Referencing is mostly better now, but please let me know if there are any additional concerns. Otherwise, this is ready to post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 02:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted to RD] Stephanie Kwolek

Nominator's comments: Female inventor of well-known substance died, aged 90. Seems appropriate for RD. --Abductive (reasoning) 02:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Now this is a person I'd not heard of until her death. When I heard the news, I wondered if she'd be nominated and I pondered my response. First thought: her invention certainly is notable, but is she? Second thought after having looked at her page and the bio's in the news: I think she has the awards and recognition in her field to be called very important in her field. The article looks well referenced, but is it a little slight? Perhaps some more prose could be added?Rhodesisland (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • But you have heard of kevlar. Abductive (reasoning) 17:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I have heard of Kevlar, but not the inventor; and I have heard, and love, many songs written by Gerry Goffin. So, even if I had never heard his name before I would acknowledged his importance because of the number of hits and accolades he has. Even if we've never heard of the person behind the "great important" thing or in the somewhat niche area doesn't mean that they don't have enough accolades or importance to be recognized here. Rhodesisland (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support notable scientist, half-decent article. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. She essentially created her field (polymer chemistry) according to her article; that would meet DC2. 331dot (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - A truly revolutionary materials scientist. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment sorry, it seems she died on June 18. I don't know how that affects the position on the ticker, if at all. Abductive (reasoning) 17:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• was just coming to nominate this - multiple small reasons to add up to support EdwardLane (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A pretty straight forward one this, her invention (if you will) makes her top in her field for RD. Somchai Sun (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing: Iraq

This was posted as "ISIS offensive". I think it would be preferable to change it to "Northern Iraq offensive", "Iraq conflict", or similar. "ISIS" is too obscure for the ongoing text, so many readers will have no idea what the item is without clicking. ToBk (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Although people are learning what ISIL or ISIS is, the offensive has stalled. "Iraq conflict" is better. Abductive (reasoning) 02:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Text Adjusted --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One person constitutes an consensus? The offensice was clearly by ISIS moving in. No one else from the northern parts is on the offensicve marching forth. Its ISIS0-led with a smackering fo fellow jihadisLihaas (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, keep in mind that the initial addition didn't require consensus either, since that's how Ongoing works. (Not sure whether or not I like that yet.) As for "no one else", what about the Kurds who've taken Kirkuk and other areas? ISIS allies? But the combatants don't even really matter; the point is that "Iraq" is a familiar term, and we have very limited space on the Ongoing line, which people are likely to just quickly glance at without hovering/clicking each link to figure out what a potentially unfamiliar term like "ISIS" is. I guess WP:EGG sort of applies. ToBk (talk) 11:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article title is "Northern Iraq offensive" - that is far more than "one person" deciding what it is called. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that violates the founding principle of Wikipedia, that every change, even obvious uncontroversial ones, has to take place through committee with appropriate waiting periods /s. Thue (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Gerry Goffin

Nominator's comments: In the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Worth an RD. --wirenote (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, he was inducted in the Hall with his (much more famous) wife, Carole King, so he is at best half of an inductee. Also, something strange is going on with their page views. Back on Jun 9th, Carole King's article was viewed 43,561 times. His was viewed 5626 times that same day. Could it be that he died on Jun 9th, and it hit the news today? In any case, I am uncomfortable with his induction into the Hall of Fame being even 50% on his own merits. When his wife has been getting 4.85 times as many page views as he over the last 90 days, it makes me wonder... Abductive (reasoning) 02:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Your reasoning makes Carole King half an inductee in the Songwriters Hall of Fame, half an inductee in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and half winner of a Grammy Trustees Award for Lifetime Achievement of the Recording Academy, too. All of these awards were awarded to them jointly, as a songwriting team. Goffin's many achievements are not diminished because King later had a solo career. 79.76.127.101 (talk) 05:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Following Abductive's logic above, Mick Jagger and Keith Richards are only 1/8 inductees in the RRHF each and therefore will not be anywhere near qualified for RD mention when they die. Just because someone is inducted with a band or partner shouldn't diminish their full standing in which ever HoF they're in. Rhodesisland (talk) 07:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those people have other claims to fame. This Goffin guy, who none of you ever heard of until this nomination, isn't worthy of posting to RD. Abductive (reasoning) 16:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Never heard of? Wow, that says loads about your ignorance. 79.76.127.101 (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd heard of and been listening to Goffin's music since the early 1970s! Please don't presume to tell me what I know or who I've heard of. What other claim to fame do Jagger and Richards have that are not directly tied to their fame in the Rolling Stones? Their work with other artists and fame/notoriety as celebs stem only from their band and each was only a small portion of the group, following your reasoning. Rhodesisland (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Name some people who wrote songs for the Rolling Stones, but weren't in a band of their own. See? Abductive (reasoning) 23:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • But that's not the point you were making. You were saying he did not meet the criteria because he was the lesser half of the songwriting team or at best all accolades are only 1/2 his and I find that logic flawed. Are you now saying he's not noteworthy because he's just a songwriter and not a performer or that he doesn't meet the criteria because you had never heard of him? Rhodesisland (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Goffin had a meaningful career and is notable. Plus his achievements are not half because he also had a solo career. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as meeting DC2 in the field of lyricists. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose' per abductive. People actually spoke about Bernie Taupin's role along with Elton John. μηδείς (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose until article is improved, but strongly support when it has been. It's a dire article at the moment.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some work done on it. More needed, but looking a little better than it did. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and Support as per Ghmyrtle. A giant in popular music composition. Where would Carol be without him? Hard to believe his article could look like that. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• As several above, he's clearly worthwhile as a subject for inclusion in the RD ticker, unfortunately the article is not in a state worth putting on the main page. Consider this a support on the person, but oppose on the article quality. If and when the article is fixed up, I would fully support. --Jayron32 22:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Jayron. The article is in need of cleaning up, but the individual is suitable for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Article still needs additional improving but in my view has come to the point where we should post to RD, given Goffin's high stature in the songwriting world and his impressive number of hits. Jusdafax 02:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It's looking much better. Is it ready to go yet? Rhodesisland (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted following good work on the article from User:Ghmyrtle and User:Martinevans123. Thanks you two! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SCOTUS ruling on software patents

Nominator's comments: An anticipated ruling that invalids some concepts of software patents (not all). --MASEM (t) 19:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I'll ask the obvious question: so what? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The allowance of software patents in the tech industry has been a huge problem in recent years. This ruling at least invalidates those software patents that simply try to take an concept that existed without computers and try to claim novelty on adding the computer to it. --MASEM (t) 19:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, thanks. Still seems relatively insignificant in the big scheme of things so my oppose stands. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is somewhat difficult to describe the significance of this ruling if you haven't following the harm that software patentability has caused the tech industry and innovation there, and that this ruling addresses a significant plague of money-grab attempts in that. It certainly is more significant in the long-term than the results of most sporting events. --MASEM (t) 13:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is not really a case that breaks much new ground. It's really an application of previous cases to a slightly different factual situation. I'm pretty sure the US Supreme Court will hand down more important decisions this term. Additionally it is simply an interpretation of the US statute, so it is unlikely to have much influence in other countries. This may be of considerable interest to tech people, but we have to cater for a general audience here, and I don't think this is significant enough. Neljack (talk) 23:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support technical is not a synonym for minor. μηδείς (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Even press within the patent world isn't claiming this is saying much over established case law [12], and it's a very weak ruling compared to software patenting rules in Europe. MChesterMC (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

40 Indians abducted

Nominator's comments: No idea if this is notable enough for its own blurb, but I decided to nominate it to see if it was. Andise1 (talk) 02:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose this specific instance, but support some new Iraq blurb, or maybe Ongoing. 40 workers being abducted is a small story compared to, say, Iraq requesting U.S. airstrikes, or the attack on the oil refinery. ToBk (talk) 03:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The parent article is part of the Ongoing section. Spencer^T♦C 02:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Suppport except this seams on going. Any reason it shouldn't be ongoing?" 01:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Felipe VI

Article: Felipe VI of Spain (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Felipe VI (pictured) becomes the new King of Spain. (Post)
News source(s): Euronews, etc
Credits:

• Nominated by Brandmeister (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The abdication blurb, posted before, did not specify Juan Carlos' successor, so I think this may be the chance. --Brandmeister^talk 23:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Change of head of state is ITN/R. This was how we did things with last year's various abdications - one story for the announcement, focussing on the retiring monarch, and a second for the succession, focussing on the succeeding monarch. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Has he been crowned in an official ceremony yet? The newslink provided was about his imminent take over and his article says he WAS crowned on 19 June but according to my calendar it's just barely 19 June in Spain 2 AM or so. Has this happened yet? Rhodesisland (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's going to be a coronation. The articles have been updated rather precipitately - and will need to be fixed before this goes on the homepage. Felipe became king at midnight local time, by law. No proclamation or coronation needed, although I believe he addresses parliament as king tomorrow. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support it as by the time it gets posted it will be a done deal, but his article has even less references than his dad's did. Alex, don't make me do citing again [bats eyelashes]. Belle (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do what I can - casareal.es has at least been properly updated this time. But the article is in poor shape, and people keep adding uncited nonsense to it. I'm pretty busy at work today; I'll try to fix it tonight if no-one else has, but it shouldn't just be down to me or you to do this - let's all fix it. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Even if there is going to be a coronation, I believe we usually post the accession instead. The coronation is often quite a while later - for instance, Queen Elizabeth II wasn't crowned for more than a year after she acceded to the throne. Neljack (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per precedent set by recent abdications in Belgium and the Netherlands. Mjroots (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

is this even top of the news in spain itself? Considering high irony of it following the wordt defending champs?Lihaas (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is top of the news in Spain itself. As for the rest of the sentence, I can't make head nor tail out of it or even guess at its relevance to this nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course it's top of the news in Spain: [13] El Pais there with a huge 'Felipe VI' splash on its front page. The World Cup is a long way down. Football and monarchy don't have a great deal of connection - why is this ironic? AlexTiefling (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the Spanish team decided to quit the World Cup ASAP and return home to celebrate the accession of the new king and queen consort. This may be the reason why they suddenly lost to Chile 2:0 and previously were crushed by the Netherlands. Brandmeister^talk 12:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, classic Like ;)Lihaas (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Haha", please take your banal chat and illegible text to some forum somewhere, anywhere, just not here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, take your constant sniping at everyone and everything you don't like to your own weblog. You are not god to lecture and practice what you preach!Lihaas (talk) 07:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's just you Lihaas, just you and your illegible and inappropriate text. Everyone else here manages to contribute constructively. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It is ITN/R and he has been officially sworn in now. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article still needs work. Please feel free to add sources or improve the quality of the writing. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as per Mjroots. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, definitely a news worthy candidate. Monarch changes are typically put up, even for smaller/lesser known countries. Mythio (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for a BLP it's pretty damned short on references, I've tagged one whole unreferenced sections but at a further look, there are plenty of other paragraphs without a single citation. Support the notability of the event, but improve the article before posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support He is not being crowned in deference to the present economic situation in Spain. He was 'sworn in' in the Spanish parliament building, El Cortes, yesterday (19th June). No banquet just a tapas party - I kid you not! [14] Richard Avery (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — A new (and relatively young) European royal, sworn in June 19 — according to televised reports, to much popular acclaim in Spain. (He's on French & German versions of ITN today.) Sca (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, and get on with it. So what if the article has some issues? This is a change of monarch. Head of state changes are always reported--usually as soon as they happen. This is a simply unconscionable delay. Don't let's allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Lockesdonkey (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - article is looking better, but there are two sections that are rather light on refs. The lead is also pretty short. Fix those areas up and I'll be happy to post this. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - can you take another look, please? It's not perfect, but I've fleshed out the lead, added some more references, and removed some fluff. Thanks. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It's looking much better. Is it ready to go yet? Rhodesisland (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Thanks AlexTiefling and anyone else who worked on this to bring it up to standards. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting thanks, good work on the cleanup everyone involved. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted to RD] RD: Horace Silver

Nominator's comments: Article does need a lot of work. Silver is very notable and is very well-known in the Jazz musician community --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I don't think his article needs that much work. The discography section is particularly good. A very notable jazz musician. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on article quality alone. Silver is notable enough for RD but the large maintenance tag at the top of the page says it all, it's woefully bereft of citations. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I do hope other editors will help here. There are 38 articles on Wikipedia for albums by Silver and an equal number for albums on which he played.) Martinevans123 (talk) 12:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC) )[reply]
• Oppose "Well known in the Jazz Musician community" =/= "webll known Jazz Musician." There have been hugely influential and well known people like Winfred P. Lehmann and Calvert Watkins within the linguistics community but only the late Greenberg, and Chomsky and Labov would really merit listing as being recognized by people outside their field. μηδείς (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• NY Times - "pianist, composer and bandleader who was one of the most popular and influential jazz musicians of the 1950s and ’60s". CTV News "influenced generations of jazzmen with his distinctive hard bop sound".. Washington Post "helped define hard bop jazz". I don't know how you can argue he wasn't a well known jazz musician. Connormah (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• BBC News - " top US jazz musician, ... has been described as one of the most influential musicians in the history of jazz ... One of the most highly regarded pianists and composers in jazz", The Guardian - "Based in California since the 1970s, Silver was granted various honours by the US state and, in 2005, received a President's Merit award at the Grammy Salute to Jazz ceremony", The Daily Telegraph - "was one of the most exhilarating and influential forces in jazz over the last 65 years.". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to add that, while Medeis perhaps has a point that Horace Silver as a performer was probably not as famous as Miles or Louis Armstrong or John Coltrane to people without any specific interest in jazz, his influence as a composer did in fact transcend jazz. Ray Charles, Steely Dan, James Brown, the list goes on. Ok, this is anecdotal, but I know several people, not interested in jazz per se, who own (and like) Love and Peace: A Tribute to Horace Silver.

I'm not commenting on whether the article's quality meet ITN's standards, but I am saying that I believe he was and is notable enough by whatever standards apply here. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - RD is well deserved and article is acceptable with a good discography. Jusdafax 08:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Too much of the article is unreferenced. The number of references used is irrelevant, what matters is how much of the material is referenced. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - how much is "too much"? Will it help to insert ref tags after each individual sentence, instead of at the end of a complete paragraph (see Daniel Keyes)? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• By my count, 10 of 18 paragraphs have no references at all, so it is not just a question of adding extra tags, but rather it is quite clear that at least half of the article is actually unreferenced - that is far too much IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Added. There was a source that covered every item of the discography, which I had added, but someone's kindly removed that, for some reason. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC) ... so another day before he falls off the list here?[reply]

• Posted - thanks for improving the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for posting. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Khattala captured

• Nom. --bender235 (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not a notable figure in the same way as Saddam Hussein or bin Laden being captured/killed. If he's convicted of anything some day, maybe. ToBk (talk) 03:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted to RD] RD: Tony Gwynn

Nominator's comments: Member of the Baseball Hall of Fame, possibly the greatest pure hitter in baseball history. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. He was one of the greatest baseball hitters of all time; clearly passes the RD criteria. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 15:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Obviously. Probably one of the greatest baseball players of the past 30 years, obviously top of the field, member of the 3,000 hit club, 8 time batting champion. Will update if needed. Secret ^account 15:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD. Easy call. Gamaliel (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD. One of the most decorated players of his generation. Resolute 16:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD little surprised the article hasn't been nominated for GA as it's one of the finer baseball bios I've looked at lately. "See also" could use trimming but otherwise I'm moderately impressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bagumba has done the most work by far on Gwynn's article, and should be the one bringing it up for a GA nomination. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd fully support the nomination and be happy to review it if requested to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Muboshgu: I've been improving it for the sake of improving it, not necessarily for GA purposes. No problem if someone else is inclined to nominate it.—Bagumba (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • You've done a great job, well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Post-posting support His career stats speak for themselves. Somchai Sun (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2014 Mpeketoni attacks

Nominator's comments: Notable attack that is gaining widespread coverage. Andise1 (talk) 07:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on notability grounds, article needs a lot of work, I'll see what I can do. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Added reference to Al-Shabaab to the blurb. --bender235 (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support once the article has been more fully developed. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, Brigade Piron (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - article is still fairly barebones. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Ready - I fleshed out the article a bit so it should be ready to go now. (Was already borderline postable before.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted I did a lot of work updating this and supported it, but it has unanimous support and the article is adequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] NBA Finals

 Lihaas (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:What the hell? Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 01:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we have a real blurb please? I get it might be an attempt at humor but a serious blurb should be included as an altblurb if nothing else. 331dot (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

really, you cant replace the controversy with "beat". WP:FUN #Chillaz...and no, im not bein g condescnending . life don't just just get better than thisLihaas (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unconstructive post. Try again. Seattle (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A pipe and a cognax? Yall need to chill.

And don't tell me, when you have a harem of rubbish posted just todayLihaas (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While Lihass's antics are indeed unnecessary, I don't think we really need to go on about this. The blurb for the NBA final is pretty standardized. Basically we can just use the same wording as the NHL wording already posted.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YES that's the point. We all know the ITNR blurb to be posted!
and woo hoo! Leonard!Lihaas (talk) 04:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongest support ever to the suggested blurb, I also humbly suggest "Lebron cried" somewhere in there. –HTD 05:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

#yeahbaby #hellyeah and LIKE LIKE LIKELihaas (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support - provided an alt blurb; article needs updates, and my weak support is that we should probably time this out with the other sporting ITN/R's that have happened. As this is the latest, I'd give it a few days. --MASEM (t) 05:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's in WP:ITN/R, and the article has been updated with overview and highlights of the series.—Bagumba (talk) 10:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Change blurb ENGVAR neutral phrasing needed. 131.251.254.110 (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't necessarily object but I'm curious as to how the wording is not neutral; the Heat were indeed defeated. 331dot (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's after WaltCip boldly changed Lihaas' original blurb: [15] AlexTiefling (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's the ENGVAR neutral "defeats" that favors BrEng. –HTD 12:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How mature. Anyway, traditionally we have avoided blurbs like this to avoid defeat vs defeats issues. For instance, the blurb could easily be "In basketball, the NBA finals are won by San Antonio Spurs" avoiding this whole issue altogether. EDIT: There seem to be users confusing NPOV with ENGVAR neutrality as well. Completely different things, people! 131.251.254.110 (talk) 12:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Defeat is correct in both American English and British English here (and, from what I gather, all major varieties of English), so there's no need to reword. -- tariqabjotu 14:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with more update ITN/R, but really some prose on Leonard being the MVP (in the body) would be nice. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Muboshgu: You might have overlooked 2014_NBA_Finals#Series.—Bagumba (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had indeed. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The article is update and the event is ITNR. Marking ready. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 15:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted by The Rambling Man [16]. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Daniel Keyes

 --Gamaliel (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator note: American author of Flowers for Algernon, winner or nominee for of the top awards in two fields, winner of the Hugo and Nebula for science fiction, finalist for the Edgar for mysteries. Gamaliel (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment usually a good idea to tell us why we should be interested in this nomination, what Keyes was notable for, why you'd consider him suitable for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, got called away from the keyboard. Gamaliel (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries, thanks for getting back to us. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nominator note. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on article quality, lots of unreferenced claims. Shocked that anyone would support with such shortcomings. Will try to look into fixing it tomorrow. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are considering this article for RD, not GA or FA. While many statements are unreferenced, none of those appear to be controversial or problematic. Unlike the mainpage FAs and DYKs, to state the obvious there are timing issues regarding when we post an ITN item and especially an RD: if we take long enough to polish the article, the death isn't "recent" any more. In that context, I believe the article is acceptable for posting in its current form, and I certainly see no reason for "shock" that it's been supported. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once you understand the quality control we impose on items going to the main page, you'll understand that this is not ready. Your belief that it is ready to post is misguided at best. You are familiar with WP:BLP? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um, yes, I'm familiar with WP:BLP (I've given talks on the subject at Wikiconferences, written about it offsite, and written six decisions about it). It is my considered judgment that the concerns motivating the BLP policy are not implicated in this or similar instances. I would of course welcome more opinions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then you should know we seldom (if ever) post an RD with maintenance tags or citation requests. What would be ideal would be for all these keen supporters of this article to roll their sleeves up and do something about the issues on the page, rather than idly claim that the article is "meh... good enough for main page" when we're trying to uphold a high threshold of quality and referencing, unlike, say DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think that is particularly fair (featured articles on authors that had no citations for the bibliographies have appeared on the main page) but what-ev-er [picture some sort of "street" gesture to accompany this - probably some variation on me flapping my hand loosely in front of your face]. I've referenced or removed all the offending items. Perhaps somebody with mastery of the citation templates can convert my references to "pretty". Belle (talk) 11:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well where was the evidence that he wrote those books which don't have Wikipedia articles? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • In the reference at the end of the section (or at Amazon). Maybe you meant before my excellent referencing work, so I'll strike that before we get too hot under the collar. Belle (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think The Rambling Man is experienced enough to know the time constraints that "In The News" imposes: he's proposing we wipe its face with a hankie, not that we send it out for a month for external peer review. That said, I don't see that much to worry about in the article - there are a few unreferenced claims but nothing earth-shattering: we haven't said that he invented fruit or married a moon-camel. Belle (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • I know of and respect The Rambling Man's experience on this page, despite disagreeing with him on a couple of candidate items. My comments were addressed to anyone reading the page and thinking about commenting, not just him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support posting now; article looks adequate.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment are we sure that an image of a recently deceased author can be used under "Fair use" when it's clear that many free pictures of him could exist? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  No. I nominated it for deletion. However, I don't think that shoudl be enough to keep the article off the main page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support notable author with many awards to show for it. Regarding the state of the page, that is still up to the consensus of the community whether it is acceptable to post. If say 11 people support and 1 opposes on grounds similar to TRM, then it gets posted per consensus. I'm tired of reading this whole "We don't post articles like this"... who is "we"? We are the people commenting on this particular item, not some pre-established regime of administrators who have the extraordinary veto power over ITN. The traffic these ITN postings bring to the page will surely result in corrections, improvements, and better sourcing... And BLP? Whow does that apply if this is RD? Kind of counter-intuitive. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus is about strength of arguments, not numbers. An argument that points out the page is deficient per established standards is implicitly stronger than one that says "post regardless of quality". If you disagree with our (the ITN community) established standards, then you should propose they are changed. (Incidentally, this particular article seems to have been fixed up, so the point is mostly moot here.)
  • Yet another example of someone who believes vote counting is the way consensus is achieved. Not the case. If everyone said "jump off that cliff" but one person said "but if you do that, you'll die", you'll go with the cliff jumpers, right? We don't post garbage to the main page. We leave that to DYK. Finally, please actually read BLP before exposing your ignorance of the policy for believing that it doesn't apply here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, you must mean the parts such as "The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death - six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime." (emphasis mine). I don't see anything about every statement being referenced, or non-contentious statements needing reference. Per the RD criteria, an article of approximately B-class is sufficient, without major omissions. A section of WP:ITN indicates that articles with orange or red tags are generally not added to the ticker. Please, feel free to show me my ignorance. Further, what makes your "article of bad quality" argument any greater than my support for the notability of the person in question? What makes your argument any better than the numerous people who have countered that the article is in adequate condition? Is it yourself? Please point out the "established standards" that decree this article as insufficient. Hell, I'd ask for the discussion that led to those standards being imposed, but I've come to terms with the fact that nobody actually reads things, and they just post bogus and generalized fallacies based on what they assume it to be about or that their argument out-strengthens all oppositely-poised arguments. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your aggressive opening post related to a discussion that took place while this article was woefully under-referenced. It is now in a much better state. Thanks for your insightful comments, much appreciated. I hope to hear more from you at ITN in future, assuming you can get here soon enough. Another alternative is that you actually do something about these referencing issues yourself rather than bitch about the fact we don't post sub-standard articles. Read the ITN instructions. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's aggressive because I see the same argument from you time and time again, and yet again, you have not provided anything to back up your position. I read the ITN instructions, and I reread it each time to ensure no new clauses have been snuck in. The version you are referring to would be this one, prior to you stocking it up with tags. Again "we don't post substandard articles" - who is we? We are the people who voice opinions here, and if we decide an article should be posted despite some minor issues, than we shall. The influx of readers will put to use that magical concept of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and we will have a more substantial article. It will happen here once this is posted, even with the recent improvements. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, once again, thanks for your concerted efforts to improve the article you're so determined to get posted. You really have enhanced the place with your whinging and bitching. Time now to take a break and let the rest of us pick up the mantle and get it ready to post. Thanks again, you've been magnificent. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • And thanks once again for not backing up your riff-raff with substance. See you next time, where I will once again post quotes from the supposed "rules" and be kindly responded to with pointless dribble - because there is nothing in the text that backs your personal opinion. Should we just appoint the few admins who make up "we" to ITN directors, so that they can back up their opinions with "cause I said so"? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • I hope that you can, one day, actively help here at ITN with articles and RDs rather than simply whinge. But I won't hold my breath. Of course you could have sought the opinion of any other admin, and asked them to post anything you personally feel should be posted. There are very few of us who give a damn about the quality of what we post here, testified by the numerous immediate votes here and at other RDs who support complete tripe. If you want to help, do so, and if you want to be an admin and help post stuff sooner rather than later, do that too, and if you think I (or any of the other admins who don't post garbage to the main page) aren't doing our jobs properly, feel free, in fact, be encouraged to seek our desysop. Otherwise, take your pointless dribble and riff-raff (whatever they are) and stick them. You haven't done anything here to be helpful, unlike the many others who have contributed, if you want someone to actually value your opinion, you'll need to work on how to gain their respect, because baseless whining won't do that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]