---

Nominator's comments: First major crossing over the Firth of Forth in more than 50 years. B Class article. Would like a more recent image without the cranes. yorkshiresky (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Is there some sort of significance to this bridge opening? Is it being reported on outside of the UK? I think we need to ask ourselves if we changed the country from the UK to anywhere else if we would still post this. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, this isn't even the top news here in Scotland today (that would be the resignation of Kezia Dugdale). --LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose regretfully, but based on Luke's comments, this isn't really "in the news" per our usual expectations. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Article looks good, six year construction for a bridge that is nearly 3 kilometers long. However, it doesn't seem particularly newsworthy, especially compared to the upcoming bridges listed in this article. ~Mable (chat) 09:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I do like a good bridge, but for ITN I think there needs to be a superlative or something else really significant before we post. The ones claimed in the article that I can see are "the UK's tallest bridge", but that is only 50th in the world according to List of tallest bridges and so not really that spectacular; and "the longest triple tower cable-stayed bridge in the world" - List of longest cable-stayed bridge spans#Longest cable-stayed bridge decks puts that into context as the fourth longest cable-stayed bridge in the world, and the three longer all have more spans, but this is too technical for an ITN I think. Luke's comments are another reason to oppose. I also note that the article hasn't been fully updated with parts still in the future tense. Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Solid, well referenced article. --Jayron32 10:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well-sourced and well-written, I do not see the problem with nominating this event. Kirliator (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There does not seem to be any really unique or special about this bridge besides being a new bridge - not a new design, not the longest/tallest, not a critical piece of infrastructure. --MASEM (t) 13:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree with the oppose, I'm not sure I agree this isn't a critical piece of infrastructure - it's not the most critical bridge in the UK (I'd personally rank the QE2 Bridge, Second Severn Crossing, Kingston Bridge, Glasgow and Avonmouth Bridge higher) it is in the top 10 as the old bridge would need to be completely closed if this one wasn't built. Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant in terms of the number of persons/traffic size it serves and the need it serves. The Chunnel, for example, is a critical piece of infrastructure as it connects England to mainland Europe via road. Whereas if New York should build yet another bridge to Manhattan to help traffic alleviation, that's far from critical (in global scope). This seems to be helping to shorten an otherwise longer drive around a body of water, which is great and all, but not critical. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm actually pretty sympathetic to this. Infrastructure projects aren't major flashpoints like most most ITN postings, and its a little arbitrary when we post (groundbreaking? completion? opening ceremony?). However, unlike many of the things we post, which will be lost, in time, like tears in rain, projects like this will have a real, physical presence for decades, possible a century or two and will be written about in encyclopedias long after we're dead as meaningful entities, not just historical curiosities.

I understand that this isn't the sort of thing we do post, but would it hurt if we did? Say that we posted every $1bn+ public infrastructure project that had a decent article on completion? If this lead to a rash of quality articles on public infrastructure that would be a nice problem to have, though inevitably we'd let through more of Wikipedia's general bias into ITN.

Colour me neutral. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with this sentiment and I love a good infrastructure project in ITN, but compared to other bridges slated to be completed in the next few years, this one simply doesn't stand out. ~Mable (chat) 07:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose (and I say this as the author of six FAs on bridges). It's a nice-looking bridge and is going to have a significant impact on traffic congestion and on property prices in Fife, but the bridge doesn't set any longest-fastest-highest records, connect two previously unconnected places, or do anything else to single it out from any other bridge. As has been (almost) pointed out above, this isn't even the top story in the Edinburgh Evening News, let alone of significance to the broader world. ‑ Iridescent 16:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, actually, it is the longest bridge of its type in the UK. It would make a nice change to post some technology news instead of doom and gloom. Mjroots (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Woo!! Scotland in the news! Break out the ginger wigs and Tam o' shanters: [1]. -- C. U. Jimmy 123 (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC) far more substance than other news items I've seen recently.[reply]
  • I don't see how a bridge opening is a bigger story than the biggest boxing match of 2017. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm suggesting, like User:LukeSurl (who changed his mind), that this will be slightly more permanent. Whether that counts as "news" or not, I'm not sure. A lot of news is just hype, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess the difference is that the "boxing" match has already been forgotten while this construction will survive and supply for decades. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • A fight watched by 10 million people "forgotten"... They all have amnesia? How long will it take for the bridge to have 10 million people cross it I wonder? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure I see the analogy at all. And yes, the fight is long forgotten, it proved nothing and is completely out of the news. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A new bridge? So what? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support We haven't an architectural achievement posted on the ITN board since that tunnel in Switzerland was opened. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - lacks international significance and isn't the top story even in Scotland, as pointed out by Iridescent and LukeSurl. Banedon (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No international significance. More of a local interest story. Bridges open literally every day. AusLondonder (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's in the news and will get more attention when the Queen formally opens it. And I like the incidental detail about the discovery of the earliest known dwelling in Scotland. Andrew D. (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen? Queen of where?--WaltCip (talk) 12:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uganda? or possibly Dundee? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could be Queen Margrethe, who knows? There's so many possibilities.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, it's of interest to me of course because, well, I heavily contribute to the Scots Wikipedia, but international significance to qualify for ITN? Not really. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 06:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: Top news story for multiple agencies. 2017 North Korea crisis has a referenced paragraph in the Timeline section on this. LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose until North Korea hits someone with a missile or someone else is provoked into hitting back. They've overshot Japan with missiles before. This is just more saber-rattling. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that it's sabre-rattling, but I think it's significant sabre-rattling. Case-in-point, the two previous rockets you mention which overshot Japan in 1998 and 2009 were (ostensibly) satellite launches, whereas this launch is explicitly a military exercise. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support Article quality is sufficient and article is well-referenced. If I had any criticism, it's that the reactions section is WAY too bloated. Just because someone said it doesn't mean we're forced to include it, and the reaction of an unnamed Swedish source in the Swedish consulate is hardly important enough to this particular subject to merit inclusion. --Jayron32 11:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – According to the article as it is now, "An emergency UN Security Council meeting was called for later that day to discuss the event" is basically the extend of the impact of this event. I know that it is more significant than that, but not that much. Unless some party makes the decision to follow through with violence (be it North Korea actually attacking a country or Japan actually retaliating) there is just nothing really new about this. It's an extention of the standoff that has been going on all year. ~Mable (chat) 11:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose standard practice of the pariah state. We had a nomination not too long ago about the alleged rumor that North Korea had successfully miniaturized a nuclear warhead, but nearly all of us agreed that we should wait until that state actually strikes something other than the sea. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Saber-rattling still. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose pure saber-rattling at its finest. SamaranEmerald (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. They shot a medium-range ballistic missile over the territory of a hostile neighboring country. That's more than just saber rattling or aggressive rhetoric. Moreover, as LukeSurl notes above, the 1998 and 2009 launches over Japan were supposed to be satellite launches, while the August 29 launch was a military test. Nsk92 (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nsk92: There is very little in North Korea that is not run by the military, and it is generally agreed that the "satellite launches" were military tests in disguise. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such evidence to support your claim, unless you're claiming you've been given a security clearance now and could possibly know what the previous launches were actually doing. At any rate, such an argument is of little to no consequence, given that this time the DPRK publicly stated it was an IRBM launched over Japan (something they've never claimed or had the guts to claim before). Which is the reason it's a major geopolitical change. It's no different than how the US is hacked (or at least cyber attacked) by several world powers every day, and yet it isn't news... but you can bet your life's savings that if one of those countries came out and openly stated they were doing so... it would immediately be the Top Story around the globe. 185.206.224.108 (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose- Missile hits water, not very surprising and yet as we would expect. Now if this hits land and causes a large number of fatalities (albeit not recommended by the DPRK), then I would've support this. 161.6.156.119 (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - This is the new normal.--WaltCip (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting... this is an "unprecedented" launch by DPRK... this is the first time such a launch has ever occurred (an actual missile launch over the sovereign land of Japan... proving their ability to come within range of Guam). The response to this isn't going to be sanctions, even if the response isn't immediate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.206.224.108 (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the BBC: "This is the first time [the DPRK] has fired what is thought to be a ballistic weapon over Japan. On the two previous occasions its rockets crossed Japan - in 1998 and 2009 - North Korea said they were for satellite launch vehicles, and therefore not weapons." http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41078187 185.206.224.107 (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also Support - several of the oppose seem to not have read the article or news story. This is unprecedent, as the first DPRK missile fired over Japan. When was the last time a country has fired a military missile over another sovereign country? This does not happen often outside war. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reopened this due to your expression of support. The above comment that I initially removed was not an expression of support, but a comment, which is why I removed it. As stated above, North Korea has overshot Japan twice before with missiles(generally agreed to have been disguised as satellite launches). 331dot (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose we did not post the first two rockets being fired over Japan, you guys did no post the firing of the Hwasong-14, so it only makes sense that we not post this. 2600:1015:B100:8B14:141A:3365:FAE9:5013 (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "first two" were not nuclear capable missiles (as this one was reported by Japan/US intelligence to have been). This is literally unprecedented, and the Prime Minister of Japan said so himself. 73.78.64.221 (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The 2009 rocket was posted [2]. You're right that we didn't post in 1998, but that was probably because Wikipedia wasn't founded until three years later. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Japan's government was sufficiently concerned to warn its citizens. Surely its judgmenet is more RS than those of Wikipedians. Banedon (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• CNN: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/28/politics/north-korea-launch-unidentified-projectile/index.html : "Tuesday's launch was particularly provocative as it was North Korea's first ballistic missile to fly over Japan."
• New York Times: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/28/world/asia/north-korea-missile.html : "North Korea carried out one of its most provocative missile tests in recent years early Tuesday morning, hurling a ballistic missile directly over Japan that prompted the government in Tokyo to warn residents in its path to take cover. ... Only twice before has the North fired projectiles over Japanese territory: once in 1998, prompting a minor diplomatic crisis in Asia, and once again at the beginning of the Obama administration in 2009. In both those cases, the North said the rockets were carrying satellites into orbit. In this case, it made no such claim. ... Even when it flight-tested an intercontinental ballistic missile on July 28, it was launched at a highly lofted angle so that it reached an altitude of 2,300 miles. But it flew only 998 horizontal miles, falling in waters between the North and Japan. The North said at the time that it did so in order not to send its missile over a neighbor. Thus, the missile test on Tuesday was considered especially bold."
• USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/08/29/north-korea-fires-ballistic-missile-over-japan/611119001/ "North Korea has twice fired rockets that it said were carrying satellites over Japan — in 1998 and 2009 — but Tuesday's launch was the first time it fired a ballistic missile over the island nation." (previous unsigned comment posted by IP 185.206.224.107).
• Oppose - governments warn their people all the time - being overly cautious is a considerable part of their remit. This is just more angry yelling from the Supreme Leader with no real consequence. No one cares if the child is lobbing their toys from the pram unless they hit some one with one of them. So it goes for this projectile. Besides, if the United States has its way, we will having destructive weapons flying over the heads of non-combatant countries all the time. Just rhetoric at this point. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not about the warning. I know everyone hates Kim Jong-Un, but we shouldn't use that as a reason for not posting major geopolitical changes that will effect almost the entire world... inevitably. This is literally the first time a (nuclear capable) ballistic missile has been launched over Japan by the DPRK, and the DoD has revised its statement to note that it didn't just fall apart... its first two stages were, from the current sources available, successful. The Prime Minister of Japan has called this unprecedented, how can it possibly be that Wikipedia editors' opinions about world events outweigh the entire international media/political response to this event? Just because the boy cried wolf when there wasn't any wolf the first two times, we shouldn't think this is just "another case of saber-rattling" without evidence. That would seem to eradicate the entire point of having WP:OR. 185.206.224.108 (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - When you have CNN, USA Today, Financial Times, Bloomberg News, The New York Times and BBC all calling this an "unprecedented" action, that has never occurred before... and that caused major reactions in Japan, including real-world missile alerts to millions of civilians to get under cover, we simply can't pretend like this isn't big enough news to post here. We don't decide what's notable, the world does. And in this case, it's quite clear the entire world (including all of the international financial markets), are keeping a wary eye on this... and it's quite clear that it's completely notable. The previous President's of DPRK and the USA weren't as likely to push this to the next level, but as several analysts have pointed out, this very well might. - If someone can tell us how nuclear weapon news isn't relevant to all humanity, I'm sure we'd all be very interested. 185.206.224.108 (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unprecedented" is used a lot more often than its meaning should be as attention grabbing (eg google news returns 6.5 million hits on that word, which for it is supposed to mean, is extremely high, and right now it is being applied to this test, Harvey, and about 3-4 other current events in the last week). No one is questioning the severity of NK's threat, but they've had missiles that were already with range to hit Japan; the fact that they used this test to route it over Japan changes little else besides more NK posturing. We have to be careful when the media "cries wolf" not to fall into the same sensationalism trap, given that our purposes is not the same as a newspaper. --MASEM (t) 23:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know just how unfamiliar you are with this situation (or world/military/political history for that matter)... but the word "unprecedented" came straight out of the mouth of the Prime Minister of Japan. Unless Abe just got hired by Time Warner, I'm not sure your reply has any place here... besides to tell us your opinions on how media sources attempt to get ratings and that DPRK has attempted/failed to launch satellites in the past, which doesn't seem quite relevant. The Prime Minister of Japan doesn't bluff, nor has the PM of Japan been known to be a saber-rattler; they can't make offensive military actions, according to the treaties currently still standing, so I'm not sure I believe a country focused solely on defense is simply trying to help out News Corp's/Bloomberg's ratings. It's not the media I was talking about crying wolf, I was referring to the DPRK; this time they did more than just try to get attention, they made what can literally be seen as an act of aggression (and has been by Japan's/USA's governments). 185.206.224.108 (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A nuclear-capable missile is successfully fired in a deliberate act of aggression against a foreign country. This is well covered in the news. I fail to understand why anyone is opposing this? Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  They oppose because it is important to them that THEY control the narrative, and not reliable sources. They are angry that the reliable news media finds this newsworthy, and they use this corner of the internet to enforce their own personal control over the story. Elitism, in other words, pure and simple. --Jayron32 10:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Firing a missile over Japanese airspace goes way beyond sabre-rattling. Clearly news-worthy.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I personally think that posting an event intended to scare the public is not what the News bulletin on this site is for. I do admit this is an 'unprecedented ' issue, but as some users above have noted, I only see this as an act of saber-rattling as well as ranting and raving. Kirliator (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you "personally think" isn't what Wikipedia was built on. Unless you have a job title I'm unaware of, you aren't a journalist. Wikipedia editors aren't supposed to be journalists, and they should discontinue attempting to decide notability on their own "personal" merits as if this was an actual newsroom... or as if the term editor equates to actual editorial supervision (as in a newspaper). The media is covering this as a top story, therefore, so should Wikipedia. If not, there will be a clear geopolitical bias shown here by the the editorial community. There simply is no precedent for not covering an action from a nuclear power like this before. For heavens sakes, we had no issue posting boxing stats, but a deliberate launch by the DPRK over another country's airspace isn't front page worthy? What on earth is going on here. Would you seriously not find it newsworthy if a ballistic missile had launched over the USA or the UK? Is Japan just not important because they aren't an English speaking country? Seriously, many of you need to reevaluate your conclusions on this. 185.206.224.108 (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you or anyone feels ITN should just parrot the press, be a news ticker, or just list the most visited pages, I await your formal proposal. Otherwise, please stop criticizing those that participate in determining consensus, which is how most of Wikipedia operates. No one forces you to be here if you don't like us or how we operate. 331dot (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And my opposition has nothing to do with the fact Japan is involved; please do not make accusations of bias. 331dot (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is gained via discussion, argumentation, and sound reasoning used by those participating in both. It is ridiculous, therefore, in the process of finding a valid consensus to ask someone to stop talking (and passively-aggressively suggest they leave the site) just because you don't want to hear what they have to say. I've made my basis for my argument quite clear, now you can either reply with an argument with better reasoning... or, you can stop trying to play Sheriff. 185.206.224.108 (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Until one of DPRK's missiles hits something other than water (or is shot down, if such is possible). More gunboat diplomacy, 21st-century-style. Sca (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If DPRK hits an actual target... there's a high chance there won't not be any servers for us to post on (or at least the electricity to access them) in the aftermath of what could really happen (after all, you state an interest in the first two occasions in World History). But, please... obviously we know more about SE Asia/Pacific geopolitics than the Prime Minister of Japan - and every analyst in every source regarding this. 185.206.224.108 (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, Sca, I thought it was The Donald that had the gunboat here? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, 'twas Josef Teodor Konrad Korzeniowski. – Sca (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Extreme support – Unprecedented. 65.95.136.96 (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Fake news, you Western pig-dogs! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - When multiple reliable sources call a news event unprecedented, I'd say that overrides the poorly conceived rationales of opposers. I call on admin to post this blurb, discounting the !votes of a few ITN participants. Jusdafax 20:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose plenty of things are "unprecedented" but don't therefore automatically justify a position at ITN. This is getting closer to being posted. If it had actually fallen in flight and hit Japan or hit something on its landing, I'd be in favour, but right now, we're just rattling again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Russia shot a missile over the UK's airspace into the Atlantic (for the first time in geopolitical history), caused major panic via emergency alerts, and had PM May call the act "unprecedented", would you honestly come to the same conclusion? To most in Asia this would seem to be another case of WP:SYSTEMIC. 185.206.224.108 (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not log in to continue this discussion with your regular account? And as to your point, Russia hasn't been posturing and sabre-rattling and pouring pointless rhetoric over the UK for the past three decades. Russia hasn't been testing ICBMs or nuclear warheads near the UK. I'm sure this can find a home at ja.wiki or ko.wiki or nk.wiki, but right now this is just an incremental change from the last NK missile story we booted the long grass. And hell no, it's not bias, I was a strong advocate against the MOAB posting from the Americans a while back, how dull was that? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1. No, and I'm not violating any policy by doing so (I guarantee a checkuser can guarantee I'm not sockpuppetting here). 2. Might I add only some Wikipedia editors think this isn't giant news, only some Wikipedia editors, not the media, not the United Nations, and definitely not the Prime Minister of Japan. When did this become a newsroom exactly? It seems like every media source could have the headline "North Korea begins the first stages of WW III" and many editors here would just say... "meh, just saber-rattling". The thing everyone is forgetting is that what is often followed by an unfamiliar rattle, is a bite. 185.206.224.108 (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC) The Rambling Man changed his above comment after I had replied to it... I do not have the time nor energy to monitor each comment made and revise them. But, I find it necessary to point out that the entire point of asking if Russia did X would Wikipedia do Y was precisely because it hasn't happened before... just like there has never been a nuclear capable missile launched from DPRK over Japanese airspace. And as to your first point (not the irrelevant account question) Russia has been doing exactly that (saber-rattling/exercises/threats) to the EU... which if I recall correctly, the UK is still a member state of. And it's been for a lot more than just three decades. It, in fact, is the very reason NATO exists (and why US Marines just got stationed in Norway). So, once again, your argument has so many holes in it... it could be used as a colander. 00:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC) 185.206.224.108 (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • We'll post the bite, don't worry! All the best IP! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • 3. It would make sense that you would be against the MOAB posting, if you're against this. All that shows is that you potentially have an anti-war (or at the very least, anti-US led actions/wars) bias; sorry, but you being British shouldn't outweigh literally dozens of reliable sources. 4. Aren't you not supposed to comment on the actions of other editors that don't concern you? 5. No, this will be posted; your attempt to dissuade admins from doing so are going to have little if no effect considering you haven't provided an argument for how you somehow understand this conflict better than the PM of Japan. 185.206.224.108 (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • What a bizarre outburst. If you're so sure it'll be posted, just relax and wait for the admin to come and do that. I'm not attempting to dissuade anyone from doing anything, just offering my opinion. Thanks for being so expressive though, it's brightened my day a little. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, so bizarre. It's like it came out of nowhere... or perhaps someone made an obviously passive-aggressive comment prior to mine, but I'm sure that's just my brain talking. 185.206.224.108 (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • It was the "this will be posted" thing that did it for me. Sounded a little ... odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Odd? Why on earth would that be odd? Is it completely out of the ordinary here for you for you to not get your way? 185.206.224.108 (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                    • No, it's not "my way", it's my opinion. And things are frequently posted with which I disagree. The oddness comes from your definitive statement that "this' will be posted". A little authoritarian for an IP avoiding scrutiny I thought. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Semantics. And, in what way does a statement of certainty, (made from a logical assessment of the arguments for your side being much weaker than those for posting the blurb), become authoritarian? Do you think I'm going to magically log in to another account and then close this with all my clearly stated intentions of nefariousness? Quit the hyperbole, and quit playing with fire. I shouldn't have to ask ArbCom to put this page on their watchlist. 185.206.224.108 (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                        • For hyperbole, see "playing with fire" and "I shouldn't have to ask ArbcCom to put this page on their watchlist" and "this will be posted" and "your argument has so many holes in it... it could be used as a colander" and "literally dancing on the line that ArbCom gave you". I (and several others) gave opinions that you clearly don't like, you've expressed your dismay, I think we get it. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - the folks in Hokkaido don't get instructed to hide in the cellar every day, do they? Martinevans123 (talk)

  Looks like good practice at this momentous time. This is a drill, repeat, this is a drill. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  And if such a drill happened anywhere close to where you live you'd be singing a different tune. The MOAB dropped in Afghanistan, this IRBM launched over Japan. Obviously it will take major military power getting to the western hemisphere before you find anything related to pol/mil important enough to post. 185.206.224.108 (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, quite possibly, but this, as I noted, is a mere extension of the rattling. If it had actually hit anything, I'd be all over like a tramp on chips. But it didn't, so I'm not. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds utterly terrifying: [3] But then I guess I can't comment, as my country doesn't live under a certain 72-year-old shadow. Martinevans123 (talk)

  How close does the rattle have to get before it smacks us in the face? 185.206.224.108 (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Martinevans123, the empath!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  You're literally dancing on the line that ArbCom gave you. Stop please, it's distracting the shit out of this discussion. 185.206.224.108 (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't worry, IP:185. I don't feel belittled by all this sabre rattling. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, don't worry IP, I think Martin can handle it. And no, I'm not "literally dancing", I'm sitting in my study in bright sunshine, waiting for my BBQ, enjoying the moment and wondering what scrutiny you're evading. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  And I should have additionally noted: This was not a drill. Not one single Japanese civilian knew that the launch was going to happen before it did, and over 5 million Japanese people were warned in the region to take immediate cover (real world, not exercise). If you don't see how that's actual news, well I don't see what is. There is no policy anywhere that states "saber-rattling" (especially of this magnitude on the part of DPRK) isn't notable, nor that statements from political leaders like the PM of Japan (and several UN Security Council member states) are considered to be "saber-rattling" at all. When a sovereign nation, protected by the US (a nuclear power) by treaty has another nuclear power (North Korea) launch a missile over it... everyone with a lick of military experience would treat that with great severity. But, please... levity is clearly the tone I should be using here (and this is the last time I'll ask you to stop commenting on my lack of logging in... I did not come here to be harassed by you today). 185.206.224.108 (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I was being flippant with Martin, who invariably (until his empath revelation today) responds in kind with sarcasm and bizarre links. I wish you all the best with your endeavour here, your enthusiasm is clear for all to see, and hopefully you'll get what you want. But don't forget, most of us are just giving our opinions, nothing more sinister than that, unless you know more about all of us than we do. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  "most of us are just giving our opinions, nothing more sinister than that" - So being "flippant" on purpose towards another editor is... just "giving [your] opinion"? Please... 185.206.224.108 (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, Martin gives as good as he gets. That's all you need to know. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  From the NYtime article "Lt. Gen. Hiroaki Maehara, the commander of the Japan Air Self-Defense Force’s Air Defense Command, said that the armed forces did not try to shoot down the missile from North Korea on Tuesday because they did not detect a threat to Japanese territory. But when the government detected the launch and followed the path of the missile, it warned citizens in its path to take cover — just in case any parts fell on Japan." [4] This is a case of media sensationalism. Yes, they warned citizens to take cover but not because they feared a warhead detonating on JP. --MASEM (t) 00:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  From the mouth of the Prime Minister of Japan (otherwise known as Lt. Gen Hiroaki Maehara's boss, or the leader of the entire nation of Japan): "The ballistic missile launched by North Korea flew over our nation and landed in the Pacific Ocean. We, as the government, were completely aware of the movement of the missile since immediately after its launch and in order to protect the public we had a well prepared system in place. This reckless act of firing a missile over our nation is an unprecedented, serious and significant threat, one that seriously diminishes the peace and safety of the region, and as a result we have lodged a firm protest against North Korea. We have also requested an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council. (emphasis added)". You can keep trying to make this look like it's media sensationalism all you want, but it isn't. The only reason it's sensational is because the launch went over sovereign allied airspace, and the item launched was a nuclear capable ballistic missile that can reach Guam. Oh, and it had never, ever happened before. - Your argument is looking weaker and weaker by the second. 185.206.224.108 (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, Masem, for posting a good example of why this is being overhyped. We aren't any closer to WWIII than we were the day before this. Trump's position has not changed(and he was known throughout his professional life for misdirecting adversaries and keeping them guessing). 331dot (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  When your done with it, would you mind passing the crystal ball to me next? (And I'll note for the fourth time now that you've ignored and refused to actually counter any of my relevant arguments.) You really, really may not like who I turn out to be when I log in (there's a good reason I happen to be very versed in our site's policy), and I swear to god if I have to log in to my account to make you listen to reason, or even try to make you present any true reasoning of your own (as in presenting valid counter-arguments), this site has some serious, serious issues. The Foundation is working on editor retention, yet you seem to be working your hardest to not even consider that you might have reacted in a severely incompetent manner when dealing with new users. I'll allow you some time to reflect on that. 185.206.224.108 (talk) 01:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  WP as a whole, much less ITN, does not deal with reacting to Fear, uncertainty and doubt. No major power has issued a former challenge or declaration , initiated sanctions, asked the UN to step in, or any firm reaction to NK. Further, these types of international trespass events happen all the time. Just last month China warned the US about its patrols in its own waters, a fleet completely capable of launching nuclear weapons if it carried any. We obviously didn't post that. --MASEM (t) 02:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not interested in and have no desire to force you to identify yourself, you can edit as you see fit as long as you aren't socking(which I don't believe you are), but you clearly are not a new user. For the rest, see my reply above. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  And even think about the Chinese response. From the Telegraph: "The launch also prompted a stark warning from China that tensions on the Korean peninsula had reached a 'tipping point'. ... Foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said at a briefing in Beijing that the situation was 'now at a tipping point approaching a crisis'." That isn't even close to saber-rattling or media sensationalism, that's just a straight up formerly stated warning to the world at-large from the government of China (which is just... the world's second strongest superpower). 185.206.224.108 (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support First time launches have a precedent of being posted. The international seriousness is enough, that I have to assume "Western Pig-Dog!" opposes are jokes, not actual racism or insanity. μηδείς (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ITNR is only for first time launches of space-capable vehicles. Further, we actually don't have 100% on what missile type was actually fired, so we don't know if this is a new type or not. --MASEM (t) 02:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There are two sporting events covered in the template but an act of aggression by a nuclear-capable country with very tense relations with a notable world superpower isn't. -Einstein95 (talk) 08:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – largely due to the fact that this is technically seen as yet another test of a missile that basically ended with the same result as past tests, by splashing down on water. Sure it flew Japan, but I find it misleading that some of the sources, as well as some users on here, claim that it is enough reach Guam, however according to all of the provided sources, the missile flew roughly 2,700 kilometers, in case you guys are wondering, Guam is just beyond 3,500 kilometers, thus even if this same missile had been fired in the direction of the U.S territory and had the same results, it would've failed to reach the island. If you ask me, this topic is only the Red Scare all over again. KatnissEverdeen95 (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What on earth has this got to do with Guam? Are we back to the "only matters if it can hit the US" nonsense again? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • NK's goal is to threaten the US, so that does matter- but that user was only using Guam to judge the distance. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I see. Japanese citizens fleeing their beds, to hide in shelters, at 6am in the morning, is just an irrelevance then. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I pointed out above, the only reason those under the flight path of the missile were told to take shelter was in case there was falling debris from the missile itself; the gov't has no concerns that it would actually strike Japan once they identified its flight path. --MASEM (t) 13:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for clarifying. But I'm not sure that subtlety would have been immediately apparent to those being woken by their cellphone beeping alert at 06.02 on Tuesday morning. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC) p.s. I saw this as useful discussion not as "an argument". And I don't see how discussion makes something stale.[reply]
• Suggest Closing Discussion due to the fact that an argument has already broken out on this nomination alone, and that another one is beginning to spark. This topic is already beginning to grow stale. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose article is too brief to overcome the sense that this is a negligible escalation. HOWEVER, does anyone else get the sense that ITN has a blind-spot when it comes to reporting these "ratcheting" events? This is absolutely an escalation of prior tensions...but a small one. By a thousand cuts we end up in WWIII, and ITN doesn't post a thing. GCG (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

⇒ After 7,800 words, suggest close! – Sca (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - POV vilifying of North Korea. Unless that missile launch killed someone or until UNSC meeting decides to invade NK. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Many countries test missiles regularly splash downing into an ocean. Israel overflies Crete and/or Italy and/or Tunisia at about the same range when it tests a missile or space launches without a drama; should we do likewise for these launches? The missile was easily in space when it overflew Japan at about 400 km up. Objectively I don't think this is notable enough for the front page. Rwendland (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who's minding the shop? Sca (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

 Count Iblis (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as nothing has truly happened here, merely just the president asking the CIA for some evidence. Not notable unless evidence is found AND sanctions are imposed against Iran. Andise1 (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not ITN worthy until the Trump Administration actually finds proof of the violation. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 01:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a mere formality, the news is that the "proof machine" has been turned on. Count Iblis (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose We don't post accusations or similar types of stories. --MASEM (t) 01:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose until the agreement is cancelled or actual falsified evidence is made public as such. 331dot (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose mere accusations and investigations are for Current News, not the ITN board. As Andise1 and Hornzilla78 have noted, there is no evidence to suggest that Iran has violated the nuclear deal yet. SamaranEmerald (talk) 02:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: So finally the MSM admits that antifa are the violent ones. That itself is newsworthy. 172.56.15.108 (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Your pro-Trump bias is showing. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Such violent protests seem to be the new norm (and there's been plenty of similar ones in Berkerely over the last year), but the lack of deaths or massive property damage here makes this not appropriate for ITN. --MASEM (t) 18:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - yawn. When Antifa protesters start to kill their political opponents or reach a higher casualty count, call me. Besides, there is no article whatsoever about this attack, and your target article is a disambig page. Anything to get some good fake news for Supreme Daydreamer on the front page though. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There is 2017_Berkeley_protests#August_27, which would make more sense as a target article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, minor event in US domestic politics, not on a par with the type of events ITN posts. Target article is too broad in scope. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Close - Obvious bad faith nom.--WaltCip (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: The fight starts in a few hours (as of the time I am nominating this) so wanted to nominate it early to seek consensus on whether this is worth posting/make sure the article is in a good state. Andise1 (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongest possible oppose This is like posting when the price of ice cream changes. Not news.172.56.7.69 (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can get a bit brutal, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]
• Newsworthy topic. However, it would be a good idea to wait until we know the result.Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support on the merits. This match has been sufficiently hyped for long enough that it's newsworthy whoever wins. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have zero interest in boxing or MMA as a sport and even I'm aware that this is considered a huge match with expected 50M + viewership to watch the result. I would agree this is an ITN-worthy event; however, obviously we will need a summary of the fight when it is completed. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Extreme oppose - The hype will way surpass the actual spectacle.--WaltCip (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This was hyped enough to be on the top 25 several times and we know the result, so why shouldn't it be posted? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 02:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Would support if/when article is sufficiently updated. AIRcorn (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Where is the article on the fight? That needs to be the bolded item in the blurb. And it's "Irishman" or "Ireland's" not "Irish." Pawnkingthree (talk) 06:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tweaked the blurb to add the link. Mz7 (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support One of boxings biggest fights if not the biggest, ever. international impact too. the most bet on sporting event in history. GuzzyG (talk) 06:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except one of the contestants wasn't a boxer? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I too know little of boxing but do know that this is an important fight. 331dot (talk) 07:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose a pure money-making exercise with no lasting impact at all. No belts were won, lost or unified, just all about the hype. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a lot of money though. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's better than a punch round the lugs. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per TRM and Waltcip. Neljack (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentThe event is certainly significant - not just the boxing/MMA crossover but also Mayweather surpassing Marciano for the longest undefeated record – but there no details on the fight itself. Will support when the article is updated. Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per TRM. Vanamonde (talk) 08:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this saw so much news coverage leading up to the actual fight that not posting it would be silly. Let's not forget that the continued coverage indicates heavy interest as well, even if it's not for a title. Banedon (talk) 09:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but needs update. I think boxing is a stupid sport, but I'm also not afraid to admit this got a lot of coverage and interest both before and after the fight. No titles were exchanged, but some records were apparently set. However, I do think the target article needs a description of what happened in the fight before this should be posted. Dragons flight (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - All hype, no titles, belts etc at stake. Not ITN-worthy. Mjroots (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. One of the richest single sporting events in history, and massive news coverage around the globe. If we post women's golf and don't post this then calling this section "in the news" is laughable. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Suppose. This is one of the most significant sporting events in history. HampsteadLord (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you clarify its historical significance? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Isn't that beyond obvious? Richest fight in history. Longest undefeated streak with 50-0. A cross-over bout with the two top attractions in boxing and MMA. HampsteadLord (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Not that much richer than the last fight, and the streak is irrelevant, Mayweather fought a non-boxer. Freak show, was more like interesting than it might have been but ultimately trivial, just PPV money shot, encyclopedically bereft. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  TRM, see my comment below on historical significance. Whizz40 (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose right now No match summary, so this article doesn't match "In the News" requirements" Harambe Walks (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Massivly over-hyped match between a former champion and a mediocre boxer. A show match basicaly and another nail in the coffin of boxing. Nothing noteworthy about this match other than the promoters ability to milk viewers, which they did very well to be fair. 91.49.75.44 (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Mayweather's 50th professional win surpasses 1950s world heavyweight champion Rocky Marciano's perfect 49-fight record.[7] Whizz40 (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The idea that ITN/C is a gatekeeper for our readership is especially silly in this case. The top read articles on Wikipedia yesterday were

1. Conor McGregor
2. Floyd Mayweather Jr.
3. Joe Arpaio
4. Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh
5. Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs. Conor McGregor

The sporting events we currently have listed at ITN – 2017 Solheim Cup and 2017 Women's Rugby World Cup Final – barely registered. Nobody cares what you guys think we ought to be reading. They just go ahead and read what is actually in the news. Andrew D. (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and anal sex is also very popular with our readers, what's your point? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: Then "they" should be here participating. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's strange: we are posting non-events that nobody cares about, like those two, and debating whether to post important events that are in the news and which people are reading. HampsteadLord (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If people want to replace ITN with a list of the top 5 viewed articles, the talk page is thataway...... 331dot (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anal sex isn't news. This is. It was the boxing match of 2017. And yet we won't post it at "In The News"? Pending the update of course. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After you posted this, The Guardian posted an anal sex story. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And here's a useful source that combines the two. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

• Support. This is a good article on a topic which is highly newsworthy. The case for this is very strong and as used Andrew Davidson there is a large number of readers interested in this. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I'm not the biggest boxing fan, but this was a big news, big money, record-setting fight. Good enough for me. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because, imo, this doesn't reach the threshold of an ITN-item. Instead, this is spectacle and hype and PR, all of then rolled into one so as to create an "event." If it is news, it's been labeled and packaged as such, to appear like the real thing, instead of what it really is: a money-grab hustle. This is not real news. This is fool's gold. Christian Roess (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't like that it's news, it's still news. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not a question of what I like or don't like. What I like or don't like is "emotion." I don't let emotion take the place of facts and evidence when I make an argument. This is not news, and either you can see that or you can't see it. Nothing I can say will make you change your mind. You think it's news and I can see that it's not. Christian Roess (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the hype machines, per TRM, Waltcip and Mjroots. – SchroCat (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yes, the fight was overhyped, and arguably not even that competitive. However, like it or not, it was a major and unprecedented event in boxing, watched by millions of combat sports enthusiasts (as well as more casual fans) internationally. If e-sports is good enough to be on the front page, this certainly is. CompactSpacez (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This fight is one of the most financially successful bouts in boxing history. Not to mention, it was most likely Mayweather's, one of the sport's greatest, last fight and a record-setter at that. If that is not historically significant, I do not know what is. Do this many editors just hate boxing now?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There's enough support to post this, in my opinion, but the article is in need of a description of the actual fight. "Mayweather won, then retired" isn't enough information for readers. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are enough supporters when taken in isolation, but equally there is a lot of opposition. I'm not seeing a consensus to post (or to not post) at the moment. That might change when the article is improved, but it might not. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'm not seeing the consensus either. If is does get to pass, (and I fervently hope it doesn't), "defeats Irish Conor McGregor" reads as gibberish in British (and Irish) English. "The Irishman" would be grammatical (or "Irishman", if we're dumbing down to informal journalese). - SchroCat (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are the nationalities even relevant? AIUI they are competing as individuals not representing their country? Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree. We don't describe the nationalities of most people mentioned in ITN (i.e. we don't remind readers Roger Federer is Swiss every time he wins a major), and this doesn't seem necessary here. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nearly all the opposes seem to say so because it's just "hype" which by definition makes it "In the news" and thus should be listed. (Especially when the two sporting events on currently don't even come ANYWHERE close. But yes, let's deprive our readers of the "hype" (aka mainstream news) and provide the niche. GuzzyG (talk) 10:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If being in (mainstream) news was the sole criterion, ITN would be flooded with incremental updates on the minutiae of celebrities lives, the latest film releases, the latest results of several dozen football, rugby (league and union), American football, Australian rules football, ice hockey, cricket, baseball, basketball, hockey, motor racing, horse racing, etc leagues/competitions/events, the internal political updates of around 200 countries and their subdivisions, etc. I don't have an opinion about whether this event rises to a level of significance sufficient to be posted or not, but something being hyped beyond its actual importance is a valid objection. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Is it just me or are we still missing a description of the fight? --MASEM (t) 14:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• None of the supporters here seems very keen to add one? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not doing busywork for the sake of some articles which are being read by millions regardless. I watched the fight on YouTube soon after it finished but giving an account of what happened would be shot down as OR and it's probably not what our readers are looking for. If you check out the stats you'll notice that most of the attention is now on Mayweather's article which got 1.7M readers yesterday. Meanwhile Women's Rugby got 2.5K which is derisory. If you look at a professional sports page like the BBC's, even Quidditch gets more attention than women's rugby. Andrew D. (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did post selection become a fucking popularity contest? By your twisted logic we should drop all news in small countries because people will care less about it than Americans sports. Jeez... talk about a backward approach - SchroCat (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a reasonable amount of time writing a reasonable article on the game and submitted it here with no guarantee that it would get posted. In fact I was expecting it to receive quite a bit of opposition. Yet no one appears willing to add a couple of simple sourced lines to an existing article that already has good support for posting. At the end of the day it does not matter just what the readers want to read, but what our volunteer workforce are willing to edit. AIRcorn (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding sourced prose to an encyclopaedia article is about as far as it is possible to get from busywork. Your comments about women's rugby are irrelevant to how ITN works at present - if you want to change that you know where the talk page is. Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• How about all these Defenders of the Faith tripping over themselves to conjure new criteria when the current rules are insufficient to stop a story they don't like? Not encyclopedic! Pure hype! Sex is popular too! This article is plenty good enough to post, it's in the news, and people are looking for it. It has almost no chance of getting posted because the naked emperors have made their decree. I get that you shouldn't base your edits on if something is going to the mainpage, but you can hardly blame someone for getting discouraged. GCG (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The full description of the fight itself currently is this : "Mayweather Jr. defeats McGregor in 10th round." Is that really enough? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Then let that be their objection. THAT can be easily remedied. You can fight the anal sex defence. GCG (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not just go ahead and remedy it, if you feel strongly about it? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• And sourcing is not an issue [8] We don't need round by round, but it seems to suggest that while McGregor had the advantage in the first three rounds, Mayweather overpowered him and wore him down enough that the ref called the TKO by round 10. Add a tiny bit more and this is then set. --MASEM (t) 18:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Was just surprised that, in an article of 35,122 bytes, we just had those seven words. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, just a money-making spectacle. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 18:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • One that's in the news. By that logic, aren't all sporting events "money-making spectacles" that should never be posted? Where is that in the ITN rules? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking of seeking my fortune in standing long jump. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I added a fight summary section to the article. It's not super comprehensive by any means but it is something and can definitely be tweaked or expanded upon. Andise1 (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it's already out of the news. Hype only. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Says what happened. It's educational now! And still in the news. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, this should now be ready to post. Andise1 (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

⇒ 2,700 words of disagreement later. Sca (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support at this point, it's reasonably complete. There's a few numbers I'd want to see - namely how many people were estimated to have watched it (from post-match, not pre-match numbers) also noting there were a lot of illegal streams out there (3M viewers from those), how much betting money changed hands, and some of those types of details but they're not essential to the bout itself. Everything is now there and sourced. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support altblurb now that a fight summary has been added. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Would someone mind marking this as ready? Andise1 (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "retired boxer beats non-boxer for a lot of money" is not a news story of encyclopedic importance, let alone "one of the most significant sporting events in history" or other such nonsensically hyped comments. Bencherlite^Talk 07:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I hate, hate, hate this match. Hate the cynicism that allowed it to be scheduled. Hate the promoters' smug and accurate belief that the sheeple would hold their noses to hide the stench of the s--- they knew they were buying. Hate the media for churning a new non-story every day leading up to it, condemning the hype with their words while building it with their ink. I agree with every opinion raised in opposition here. But I don't IAR because IDONTLIKEIT. GCG (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - personally, I would rather apply hot lead to my eyes than watch this match. Nonetheless, the media coverage of it has been deafening, the amount of money involved is significant enough to shatter most records in either boxing or UFC, and the fight was watched by 100's of millions of spectators, a sum large enough to place it with cricket and football in the upper echelon of global sports. The primary objective of ITN is to facilitate readers in finding articles that they have interest in owing to the subjects of said articles being in the news. While anal sex may attract the attention of many readers, it does not do so because it is in the news, so to cite it is to construct a false equivalency. The opposition has thus far amount to little less than it was a money-making spectacle (a fact that doesn't relegate it from the news in the slightest, or else half of the items posted here would be excluded - acquisitions are just money-making exercises), it is not an important sporting event as no titles were involved (ignoring the fact that the fight enabled Mayweather to surpass Marciano, such rationale would see the niche, broadly ceremonial and honour-based Solheim Cup struck as it is not a Major of the women's game, but rather an elaborate spectator-aimed procession (no intentional sexism - similar sentiments are held by me towards the Ryder Cup)), it was all hype (and said hype is the reason why it is in the news - the Premier League is on ITN/R ahead of other leagues due to the hype it generates, especially on en.wiki) or WP:IDONTLIKEIT (not a valid argument against a nomination). A cornucopia of RS are reporting on this, and we are not divine deities who decide whether or not an item is worthy. There are no existing concerns with the article, and for all intensive purposes this should be posted. Like many others, I abhor the fight and everything it stands for, but I am not blind to the fact (a fact that can't be stressed enough) that it is in the news. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR - whether or not us noble custodians feel it should be, this is in the news and should be on ITN given its irrefutably, unquestionably gargantuan sporting scope.

• Support This event was probably the most-anticipated boxing match of the last few years and it got 100x the ratings of the Womens' Rugby World Cup. This is the very pinnacle of boxing and the article is in good condition. Tocino 03:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "very pinnacle of boxing" calls for a ^{[citation needed]}. Bencherlite^Talk 07:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'm not sure how "basically retired boxer comes out of retirement for £100m to fight non-boxer" could be considered "the very pinnacle of boxing". The Rambling Man (talk) 09:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted I realise there will be some here who don't like this, but it's my reading of the consensus. I'm generally weighing opposes on the grounds of 'hype' less than others; part of the purpose of ITN is To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news. While that's not quite the same as 'hype,' it's related to it and that part of the purpose is clearly applicable here. Opposes such as TRM's make more sense to me, but I think they are outweighed by the support. I'm still a bit surprised at the brevity of the description of the match, but for all I know, that's normal in boxing articles and I think the update is enough for this be posted. GoldenRing (talk) 09:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a shame, even more so because the majority of the support wasn't for the 50th win blurb either, just for the mere spectacle and cash freakishness. Especially as several other boxers have won 50 fights in their career.... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. 50 career wins doesn't get him anywhere near a list of top 10 career wins in boxing, and goes completely against the general approach of ITN not to post sporting statistics. Furthermore, opposing on the grounds of "hype" is completely in line with the purpose of ITN: "In the news mentions and links to entries of timely interest — that is encyclopedia articles that have been updated to reflect an important current event — rather than conventional news items". If an event is hyped, then by definition its importance has been exaggerated, and by posting this, ITN has been sucked into the hype. Bencherlite^Talk 10:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Then by all means suggest a better blurb; I was taking into account the (in my view well-founded) opposition to posting the nationalities of the contestants. GoldenRing (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Well I would rather see it pulled than re-worded. It's not in the news any more. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Pull. There is no consensus above to post - hype as being equally valid to concerns about significance for any other reason - we don't post almost any of the massively hyped UFC or WWE events for example. I fundamentally disagree with user:Stormy clouds unsupported-by-evidence assertion that this had "gargantuan sporting scope." let alone that this scope was irrefutable or unquestionable (particularly given that many people did indeed question it). The update to the article is also not really sufficient by the standards we expect of other sporting events. "The most anticipated boxing match of the last few years" is irrelevant really, on the first Sunday in September I'll be going to what is almost certainly the most anticipated event of it's kind for the several years, but I wont be nominating it here because this is completely irrelevant to whether it is newsworthy (it isn't) - being anticipated like that is solely a function of the artificial hype surrounding this event (per Bencherlite). It was best summed up by someone above, "very good boxer beats mediocre boxer." Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. GoldenRing quite adequately explained their reasoning for posting, which I agree with- many(though not all) of the opposes boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If people here don't find this newsworthy, then they should speak to the media. I would add that I saw far more news about this fight than about any UFC or WWE event(the latter of which is scripted and not a true sporting event). 331dot (talk) 10:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, most of the opposition related to the relative insignificance of the fight, i.e. it was just for the money, not belts, titles, etc. So I don't think it was in any way "IDONTLIKEIT" from most of us. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  What evidence have people provided for their assertions that it is not significant? Assertions without evidence are meaningless, and serve no purpose. They might as well be ignored. --Jayron32 10:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  As you know, the burden is on supporters to prove the significance. Many people have noted this is not a belt fight, not a world title, not a meaningful sporting competition, has little or no EV beyond the $$, so, what's the "significance". The Rambling Man (talk) 10:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) X2 @GoldenRing: While I did vote against this nomination, I am really struggling to see consensus here. We do not post stories purely on the basis of coverage in the news; if we did, we would have posted Kim Kardashian's jewel theft and other such trivia. Therefore any nomination, and it's supporters, must demonstrate significance as well; and in such a situation, opposition based on hype is relevant, and support that does not demonstrate significance becomes less strong. Pull Vanamonde (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull The circus has already left town on this, and it's not even yesterday's chip wrapper; what tiny legacy it may never have had is already long-forgotten. - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull rather than the opposition being wrong, some of the hyperbole from the supporters is simply incredible. Not only was this fight of basically no encyclopedic value, it had no real sporting value either. A lot of money went on it and was won from it, but that's not uncommon. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is not of encyclopedic value, I await an AfD discussion. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Although there is vocal opposition, I still think there is sufficient support to post this. I don't quite know what to make of suggestions that an item four days old is stale and I think I've explained my rationale, both here and here. However, any uninvolved admin should feel free to revert without consulting me if they think differently. GoldenRing (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Well some example of the support votes: "Support", "the pinnacle of boxing", "it's educational!", "why shouldn't it be posted".... so the vote-counting fails there, as does the "why this is significant enough for main page inclusion". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The latest daily stats show that this match is not stale as the two boxers are still both in the top 10. Other trending items include pages related to Game of Thrones and Hurricane Harvey. Women's rugby is the topic that is really stale as it had no traffic to start with. The hot item in women's sport is actually Maria Sharapova, following her victory in the US Open. If we just used these trending stats to drive ITN, the process would work so much better. Andrew D. (talk) 11:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's a reason we don't have any professional boxing entries on ITN/R, despite it being a major sport. With a vast array of belts and weight classes, there's no objective way to determine which fights are particularly notable. So we really only have the level of media attention to go on. And this fight, for better or worse, was one of the most widely covered fights in a while. Helps that it turned out to be a relatively decent contest after all, and not the embarrassment many expected. Floyd_Mayweather_Jr._vs._Conor_McGregor#Fight is pretty paltry though, but I guess it just passes. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Again with the IDONTLIKEIT voters making up criteria. "It's not in the news anymore" is not a criteria; when things happen, RS report on them for awhile and then they report on new things. That's why it's called NEWS. "Encyclopedic Value" is not a criteria; WP:N is, but if you tried to suggest this isn't WP:N, you'd get laughed out of town. So you use EV, which has no criteria and is utterly subjective. GoldenRing has done the right thing in ignoring those votes that have not followed the rules. There are a lot of people (incl admins) who have valiantly defended Law & Order here in the past who have lost their damn minds on this thread. GCG (talk) 12:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  No matter how many times you shout it, IDONTLIKEIT is still not relevant to the majority of the opposition (and certainly no more than the ILIKEIT is relevant to the support). I really couldn't care less about the event, but I do care that things are not posted to ITN without consensus and for reasons explained repeatedly, I do not see consensus for (or against) posting this. Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page, GoldenRing posted the following:

"On a pure nose count, I made it 20-13 in favour posting, which I think is often enough sufficient support for an item to get posted at ITN; there was significant opposition, but I didn't feel that it outweighed the support. I explained why I didn't feel the opposition had wholly made their case; essentially, the item was very much In The News and readers were obviously looking for it (given the page-view statistics quoted). I don't think dismissing that as being due to 'hype' really washes. It fits with the purpose of ITN, to bring attention to articles that readers may be looking for because they are in the news. Add to that that some of the support was on the grounds that the description of the fight itself was insufficient, and this had been rectified. I'm a bit bemused at the suggestion that the update is insufficient when this is the diff from the end of the match to now - with nearly 100 edits. If I've really missed something here, I could be persuaded; I'm no boxing fan, after all, and my inclination is to join the IDONTLIKEIT chorus. But I can't really see a 'no consensus' outcome as the right reading of this. GoldenRing (talk) 10:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)" [copied here to avoid loss of context. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)][reply]

Nose count is irrelevant. As repeatedly noted in the nomination, being in the news is necessary but not sufficient - it also has to be significant and that's where the disagreement lies. I and others, particularly Bencherlite, have explained why hype is relevant to sorting out the true significance of something. The number of edits to the article since the match is irrelevant, as is most of what has been changed - what ITN requires of sporting events is a prose summary of the match. There are a grand total of two short and fairly thin paragraphs describing what actually happened during the match which is really rather pathetic for something that is supposedly so signficant. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article about the match seems to be the weakest of the three linked articles. We should make Floyd Mayweather Jr. the bold link as he's the guy that won, establishing a new record, and his article has a reasonable account of the fight and plenty of history and background too. Andrew D. (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is that the match actually wasn't that important and somebody reaching an arbitrary number of wins is? Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and support - Biggest star in MMA (ever) fighting the biggest PPV draw in boxing (ever) and the greatest boxer of our generation. Two worlds coming together for the first time in an event of this importance. Mayweather, coming off from a two-year hiatus, and attempting to break his 49-0 record (also held by Rocky Marciano) to fight the most popular MMA fighter of all-time in his prime. Very newsworthy if you ask me. MX (✉ • ✎) 13:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In other words you're saying it was just a hyped exhibition match. All the more reason to pull. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Nope. My argument was that this was a historic event for combat sports. MX (✉ • ✎) 19:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  It was not part of a championship or competition, it wasn't a title fight, it wasn't between two great boxers or two great MMA figthers, it was an exhibition between two people from different sports competing to get sponsors PPV money in match of no more significance than the occasional rugby league vs rugby union games are historic events for rugby or for ball sports. Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  You'll need to tell that to the record number of people who purchased this on pay per view(according to the article) and who were projected to bet on it. Personally I don't like boxing, either, but this was clearly significant even if not a title fight. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @Thryduulf: You're wrong. This fight was not an "exhibition". This was an official, professional boxing match. In addition, boxing title fights are not a requirement for ITN (I'm not saying you're claiming that, but since you brought it up, I just wanted to clarify). MX (✉ • ✎) 14:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  "official, professional boxing match" and "exhibition match" are not mutually exclusive things as this fight demonstrates. Thryduulf (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and Keep seems like this is the big talk around this page it seems, I heard about this fight on the news station I generally watch daily, and it seems that this event is spreading like wildfire. I don't see the reason why this should not be posted. Kirliator (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Encyclopedic for Boxing as one of the biggest fights in history and the biggest of the twenty-first century. More newsworthy than the women's Rugby world cup. Saying something is hyped cannot be encyclopedic is complete baloney and subjective babble that is not fit for a encyclopedia, next you'll say The Beatles isn't encyclopedic because they were hyped in their hey day. GuzzyG (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull. Is it encyclopedic? Yep. Is it In The News? Yep (well, it was a few days ago). Does the hook tell us why? Er, no. Would we put up a hook for Hurricane Harvey that read "It's raining quite a lot in Texas"? Of course we wouldn't, but that's about the value of the one we've got now. Mayweather winning a 50th fight would never have got as far as ITN (or indeed out of the boxing sections of the newspapers), but it was purely the unprecedented freakshow element of the event that propelled it onto the front pages. Short version - we have a hook on ITN that doesn't explain why the story is on ITN in the first place. Fix the hook or pull it. Black Kite (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, there's still news about McGregor and Mayweather less than an hour ago and within 24 hours. This is still in the news, though probably not in the news you read or care about (not that that matters). MX (✉ • ✎) 19:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't the point, as I thought my comment made clear. It's the hook that's the problem. Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never said that was the point. It is just a comment for others to read, and a direct response to your "well, it was a few days ago". Cheers, MX (✉ • ✎) 19:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I've replaced the satellite image of Hurricane Harvey with a photograph of Floyd Mayweather Jr. because the blurb for tomorrow's featured article, Meteorological history of Hurricane Ivan, is accompanied by a very similar image.
  Should the boxing item be pulled before 00:00 (UTC) on 1 September and no new item with a suitable image has been posted, please revert to File:Saint Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insan (cropped).jpg or simply remove the section's image for the time being. —David Levy 23:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The day has ended, so File:Harvey 2017-08-25 2230Z.png is available for use in the event of the boxing item's removal. —David Levy 00:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep pulling blurbs looks ridiculous unless there is some blatant article issue or the posting admin went totally off the rails and none of those are the case. The oppose camp made their point, you don't like it. Don't worry, someone will bat 100 tests in cricket and we'll be posting it because 1 billion people in India soon enough. Move on already. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is that we don't post arbitrary sports records, such as batting in 100 tests, or winning 50 boxing matches (unless it is an over-hyped pay per view exhibition match it seems). I neither like nor dislike boxing and have even less opinion about MMA, but what I do care about is ITN stories getting posted when there isn't a consensus to do so - as there very clearly is not here (there isn't a consensus against posting either, but until now no consensus always meant something was not posted). Thryduulf (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why pulling any item ever "looks ridiculous". It's just an editorial decision. It's had it's time. I'm all for "moving on already"! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It must surely hold the record for the most post-posting alterations to a blurb.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Support, I agree that a blurb for Hurricane Harvey should not be added until there is sufficient information on the impact of the storm, but for now it seems appropriate to add it to ITN as an ongoing event, especially considering that the storm is expected to stay over Texas and possibly Louisiana for almost all of this coming week. Thanks. WClarke (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WClarke: That's not the intention of Ongoing, which is to highlight articles which are incrementally updated but whose individual updates would not merit posting blurbs. It isn't for merely posting something that is happening. 331dot (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose We generally do not do ongoings for weather disasters. Right now, there will be flooding, but it looks like extensive warnings have prevented any serious deaths, so we'll need to see how bad those floods are - will they be Katrina-like or much smaller in scope. If they rival Katrina, then there may be appropriate ongoing for the relief efforts, but we're still far too early to tell that. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose. Systemic bias much? It's the middle of hurricane/typhoon season in the northern hemisphere; what's so significant about this one that you'd think it warrants a slot in ongoing, in comparison to Typhoon Hato or any of the other destructive hurricanes that will follow in the next few weeks? ‑ Iridescent 16:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read the guidelines. The fact that an event will affect one nation is not a reason to oppose it. Your objection amounts to WP:OTHERSTUFF and this is the first major storm to hit the US in 12 years, the worst to hit Texas in over 50. Remember, Texas is the size of France. μηδείς (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not bite the newcomers. This seems to be a good faith nomination by someone who maybe doesn't understand everything here. 331dot (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of "newcomer" appears to differ somewhat from mine. ‑ Iridescent 17:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They were new to here, which was my point. I only hope they weren't scared off, as the more that participate here the better. 331dot (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent: I have over 1500 edits and have been editing for about a year and a half, so I also wouldn't consider myself a newcomer, though this is my first time posting a candidate for ITN, so sorry if my idea of an "ongoing event" is incorrect. I wasn't trying to do any harm. This storm is heavily affecting my region right now, and I was simply looking for a good temporary compromise to add it to ITN without a blurb, as proposed below. In this case, "systematic bias" is quite a heavy term to be using, especially considering that this proposal would only add a single wikilink to the main page. I don't like arguing on Wikipedia, I usually try to avoid confrontations on talk pages, and I have nothing further to say on this. Sorry. WClarke (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Not what Ongoing is for. 331dot (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this makes sense, given the storm is expected to last through weds and drop over 3 feet of rain, an entire year's worth in some of the range it will hit. μηδείς (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose obviously. This isn't TexasWeatherWatchapedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Blurb - Not sure about ongoing. As one of the TC editors, I would say that it would have been worth chucking up on the main page as soon as it made landfall since it was the first major hurricane (Cat 3 or above) to make landfall on the United States since Wilma 2005. Major hurricanes are renowned for causing major deaths and damages and its worth noting that Trump signed this off as a major disaster as it made landfall. The fact that it is very likely to stall for a couple of days just makes it worse imo. This is also going to be worse than Katrina in terms of rainfall which only dropped a max of 17" where as Harvey will be dropping between 20 and 40".Jason Rees (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, not looking to have any significant damage as far as death count or costliness. Sure it's severe flooding, but not big enough of a deal to warrant ITN recognition. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]