[Withdrawn] Update: Volkswagen's new CEO, Oliver Blume

[Closed] Tesla Model X

[Posted] Russian air strikes in Syria

 Jenda H. (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Russia formally entering the Syrian civil war is obviously a hugely notable development, and has already put much pressure on the US to rethink its involvement. Thue (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Just noting that the target article has been nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian intervention in the Syrian Civil War. At two sentences, it is far too short to post in its current form anyway, even assuming it is kept. Bencherlite^Talk 14:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I closed it as a speedy keep, since the article will grow or at least end up merged in the parent article. --Tone 15:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Wait – At least for now. Another tremor tumult chapter in the Mideast mess. Sca (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb & neutral ongoing. It is a new development, but as of yet not significant enough for a blurb. Mamyles (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb, support ongoing. Another development in the ongoing story. Not enough here to write a full article, nor to justify a blurb. However it does show that there is sufficient development to justify putting Syrian Civil War back in the ongoing slot. Modest Genius ^talk 15:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb - we should not post the claims of Russian propaganda unquestioned. At best it seems doubtful that they have targeted IS, see for example The Independent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.69.93 (talk) 11:09, September 30, 2015‎

Right, Russia claims they attacked ISIL but nearly everybody else say they attacked moderate rebels who have nothing to do with ISIL. We could say they attacked anti-government forces without going into the disagreement in the blurb. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - notable development in this story. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. Countries bomb each other almost daily over there. France recently launched air strikes and no one so much as blinked. I am not seeing anything that suggests long term significance at the moment. If that changes we can revisit the topic. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Well there's a fundamental and obvious difference between France and Russia taking part, but never mind, it's very informative that you consider the two to be equitable. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support France and Russia are not the same. Russia's involvement with Syria is more significant, as the news coverage attests. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support though the name of the group should be that of the article (ISIL). It's not just that Russia is bombing Syria but that they have warned the US to stay away from its planes and also called for an international coalition. [1] 331dot (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Added altblurb, as it is abundantly clear that Russia did not strike ISIL positions and it has acknowledged it is acting in support of Assad's embattled government. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Russia's intervention in Syria is a major development for sure and a clear step forward in the war against ISIL. The comments with strong anti-Russian sentiment above are completely irrelevant, as ISIL's presence is a much bigger problem than al-Assad's government. Even if confirmed that Russia extend military aid to al-Assad's government, it's simply because they both are allied parties in battling against ISIL. More striking to me is the United States' reluctance to join Russia in this intervention and their "willingness" to continue battling against ISIL without the legitimate Syrian government being one of their allies.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone questioning the truthfulness of Russian propaganda and the claims of the Russian government is anti-Russian. The claim that other editors have a strong anti-Russian sentiment is uncalled for, and I would kindly ask you to retract it. As for your statements about Russia's motives, this is what the Russian government says and claims, but it is unclear to what extent these public claims reflect the real motives. After all it is reported that Russia's air strikes so far did not target IS, but rather the Free Syrian Army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.73.242 (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The news reporting that Russia don't target ISIL's troops is the official position of the United States echoed by the Western (mostly American) media. Under the given circumstances, when everyone accuses the other for doing something, including the non-sense claims made by the US that al-Assad's government aid ISIL, the worst thing is to politicise the matter and blame the actions undertaken by the others.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I requested that you retract the claim that I have an anti-Russian sentiment. Could you please do so, or is that the way you conduct discussions here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.73.242 (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't blame particularly you but, if you insist so, the use of the words "Russian propaganda" in all comments posted by a single user doesn't convince one to have different opinion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just wow. I am not anti-Russian, for your interest, and given your new comment I am expecting an apology from you. It' not your right to accuse other editors of being anti-russian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.73.242 (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support big news and even bigger news trying to determine exactly who the Russians are targeting. Given that uncertainty, best if we used an alt blurb which just talks of Russia joining in bombing runs in Syria... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have proposed another blurb which reflects exactly what is written in the target article. Russia join the Syrian government in the fight against ISIL and its other enemies (please see in the lead and the infobox). Of course, we may change it once the uncertainty of what they really target is cleared.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with adding whole Syrian opposition (including ISIS) into blurb. The first blurb was added in rush and doesn't reflect reality properly. --Jenda H. (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Altblurb 3 – Ham-fisted Russian intervention does seem significant. (Altblurb 3 offered above.) Sca (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but wait. While this is definitely a significant development, we have to be careful with the blurb, because so far it seems unclear who Russian jets actually attacked. Russia claims it is against ISIS, but other sources disagree. Since we are in no rush (because Wikipedia is not a news media), we can wait until the picture clears. --bender235 (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's why Alt3 sez reportedly. Sca (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Altblurb 3. Russian launching airstrikes is big news. Third altblurb captures nuance of current situation until more reporting comes in . -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Altblurb 2. It's the entrance of a major power into the war, and thus deserving of ITN. Supporting Altblurb 2 because the original blurb and altblurb 1 are both incomplete. Altblurb 3 calls IS terrorists and / or jihadists, which is not something Wikipedia should make a stance on. It's pretty clear at this point as well that Russia is targetting the Syrian opposition (see the main article). Banedon (talk) 02:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Objection: Where is the evidence, beyond the infamously mendacious Kremlin's say-so, that Russian jets attacked ISIL at all? As far as I've seen, they have exclusively hit areas where ISIL holds no territory (but the Free Syrian Army and other rebel groups do). -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like this? The Telegraph, "The Russians continued their aerial bombardment on Thursday. Targets included Jisr al-Shughour and Jabal al-Zawiya, areas under the control of Jaish al-Fatah, the Army of Conquest, an alliance of Islamist groups which have won significant victories against the regime this year. They also included Isil targets in Raqqa and Deir Ezzour provinces, including a Syrian Air Force base which fell to Isil earlier this year after a long siege." Banedon (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Obviously this is a big news item precisely because the Russians are doing something the West and the Arab states do not want. One may suspect there is more to this, you have to consider what all the fuss is about for making sure that the forces don't accidentally target each other. That's really not a very complicated issue, as there is no air to air threat from ISIS. The Russians are not even attacking ISIS and only bombing in areas where the moderate rebels are active. US bombs won't accidentally hit Russian soldiers, but perhaps the worry is that Russian bombs may hit undercover US agents. That would also explain why the US asked Bulgaria to close its air space. The US knew that the Russians would simply fly over Iran and Iraq, this would only cause a few days delay. But that few days might have been enough to extract some of its undercover agents from the area. It could be that there are still quite a few agents left in the area or that the US also wants to extract rebel fighters out of that area. Count Iblis (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This source criticizes mainstream media's omission about al-Nusra Front's alliance with al-Qaeda, a terrorist group, and believes that anti-government rebels are not as "moderate" as supposed to be. George Ho (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Altblurb 2: major news. 178.135.80.223 (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Update – U.S.-led anti-'IS' coalition calls on Russia to stop airstrikes outside 'IS'-controlled areas. Added to article. I think it's time to move on this. – Sca (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is a major move that is shaking up a war that has been a virtual stalemate for the past few years. And it's rightfully receiving tremendous coverage.--Tocino 15:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Consensus to post; not a strong consensus on which alt blurb to use, so went with alt blurb 2. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Nexus 5X, Nexus 6P

[Posted] Taliban captures Kunduz

Nominator's comments: Taliban captures provincial city for first time since 2001. This is big event for whole Central Asia. Jenda H. (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good article quality, notable event in the Afghanistan conflict. Spencer^T♦C 18:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The first provincial capital to fall to the Taliban since the American invasion. Neljack (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This shows that Taliban strikes back and is on the move. George Ho (talk) 05:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Talibans are at it again. Notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Marking ready. Spencer^T♦C 07:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Cyclonebiskit (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] The Waters of Mars

NO CONSENSUS

In the hope of saving people time and energy, I'm opting to close this nomination with "no consensus" (vote tally was 18 supporting and 13 opposing). Arguments on both sides are reasonable, but the rationale put forth by opposing arguments is stronger as many of those supporting put forth little reasoning (the strongest argument I read is that science is incremental and this particular discovery/confirmation has notable implications). This announcement, in essence, is a repeat of announcements by NASA in 2011 and 2013 but with greater confidence. The only notable difference in this announcement is additional evidence that further confirms the previous assumptions/theories. The media often suffers from amnesia and picked up on this announcement as if water had never been noted on Mars before, which is contrary to the truth. Continued reports in the media appear to mostly be rehashes of the same story that was announced on September 28, so this event can also be considered "stale" to a small degree. If you have concerns about my reasoning for closing this, or simply that it's been closed in general, feel free to bring up discussion on the talk page. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Articles: Mars (talk · history · tag) and Seasonal flows on warm Martian slopes (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ NASA has found key evidence that water is flowing on today's Mars (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ NASA announces that satellite images show evidence of liquid water flows on Mars.
Alternative blurb II: ​ NASA announces that its Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter captured spectrographic evidence of liquid water on Mars during warm seasons.
News source(s): Nature Geoscience The Telegraph
Credits:

• Nominated by Hektor (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Seems to me an interesting development Hektor (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed comments for convenience of viewing other nominations ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support – discovery speaks for itself. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Rescinding support in favor of "I have no idea what to think" Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Strong support - We've always been told that water is needed for life. This discovery, while not proving life exists there, gives us an indication that a key requirement is indeed present. 198.169.189.230 (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Hence the name eau de vie. Sca (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Strong support It can be the discovery of the decade. Jim Carter 16:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Strong support (And at first I was wondering why a Doctor Who episode was being nominated...) --MASEM (t) 16:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Strong support - Fully agree that it is a major discovery. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment - You can use a modified version of the blurb from my tardy nomination as an alternative blurb for your nom if you want. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Support – But do keep "evidence of" in the blurb. (Altblurb offered above.) Sca (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Strong support Discovery of water on an extraterrestrial planet, even if in question is Mars, answers a highly debatable question which has been present in the mainstream scientific circles for decades.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Question: wasn't this already discovered back in 2011? Indeed that's when the Seasonal flows on warm Martian slopes article was first written, and was featured in ITN on 5 August 2011 (diff). Unless I'm missing something, this is just confirmation of a story we already ran on ITN over four years ago. Modest Genius talk 16:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Oh and again in 2013. Modest Genius talk 16:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] My understanding, not being an expert here, is that the prior discovers were all that signs that water had flowed on Mars at some point in the past (million years or so). Today's announcement is that from evidence obtained in the last year with the Mars Observer, there is likely water flowing today on Mars, that all that water in the past hasn't just up and evaporated. --MASEM (t) 16:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Nope, the announcements were both for liquid water now. Quoting the 2011 announcement 'evidence of liquid water on the planet's surface today'. Modest Genius talk 16:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Okay, so reading more closely, the news appears to the result of detailed analysis from the Mars Observer via the use of infra-red spectrometry that observed - over the time the Mars Observer watched - the appearance of specific types of salts on hillsides where they had not previously been detected, timed with the seasonal changes on Mars, with the only possible way they could appear is via the flow of briny water. The 2011 news was mostly from visual images of darker-colored paths that could have been from the flow of water but could also be a geological related thing. The appears of these salts, on the other hand, per [2] is a smoking gun for the existence of water. --MASEM (t) 17:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Yes indeed, which is straightforward and rather boring confirmation of a result that was announced twice before. Modest Genius talk 22:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] It may be confirmation but it is confirmation that eliminates several other possible theories that they had at 2011 of what this was and leaves the "water on Mars" as the strongest hypothesis. That's key here. --MASEM (t) 00:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] It was always the strongest hypothesis. They've eliminated several other possibilities, which is great. But in 2011 we felt the evidence was strong enough already to post, so piling more on top doesn't really change things. Modest Genius talk 09:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Oppose. After more digging and following the discussion here, there's really nothing new. This is simply confirmation of a result that was already known, already reported, and already featured on ITN. There's so little new here that there isn't even properly updated article - almost all of the information on Wikipedia is based on the 2011 and 2013 announcements. Note that Nature didn't think this was important enough to feature in their flagship journal, but instead shifted it off to their less-prestigious subsidiary. Yes it's nice that they got confirmation via another method, and that's good science, but I still cannot fathom why the media is recycling old news based on an over-hyped press conference. Modest Genius talk 22:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Oppose/Stale, NASA makes these announcements to try to ensure their funding requests are met. Note that the Wikipedia article on this was started in 2011. Abductive (reasoning) 16:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Bleve the 2011 announcement referred to salt water. Perhaps this is thought to be fresh water, since it supposedly condenses outta the atmosphere? Sca (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] This water is as salty as water can get. Abductive (reasoning) 16:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Indeed, it is in fact a detection of wet salts etc., about as far from fresh water as it is possible to get. Modest Genius talk 16:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Okay, experts, how do the little green men manage to survive drinking it? Sca (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] If this gets posted, please use File:Warm_Season_Flows_on_Slope_in_Newton_Crater_(animated).gif. Nergaal (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Which was uploaded in 2011! Modest Genius talk 22:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Stong Support any Doctor Who sighting is ipso facto ITN material. μηδείς (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] + Extra "cool point" for the Latin. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] AD MAIOREM GLORIAM VIKIPAEDIAE μηδείς (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Wait!!! - Can we get a reliable scientific resource that isn't Telegraph or Guardian? We know by now how the media likes to blow these things out of proportion.--WaltCip (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] This news is predicated on the publication of this paper from Nature Geoscience. --MASEM (t) 18:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Stong Support - definitely for ITN. Could be really important finding.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Pile-On Support per pretty much everything above this line. It's an obvious ITN winner. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment: Seasonal flows on warm Martian slopes needs to be updated with the information that was recently discovered. Everything there currently seems to be based on information that was previously known. SpencerT♦C 19:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] That's because there's virtually nothing new to report. They confirmed the earlier finding with another method. End of story. Can easily be covered in a one sentence update. Modest Genius talk 22:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Weak oppose Sure there's a lot of media hype but I'm not seeing enough substantial change from what was posted in 2011 to merit a new posting. SpencerT♦C 07:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Admin note: I would post this, but I am having a hard time finding an article or section which we can link to that contains a prominent description of this stuff. I've scoured Mars, Water on Mars, and Seasonal flows on warm Martian slopes looking for a reasonable well-referenced and lengthy expansion, and can find nothing useful. IF we have a good article to direct readers to, the consensus is this is important enough to do so. As yet, we don't have such an article. If someone can point me to that article (in case I am missing it) or if someone can get on fixing the problem, I'll post this with all due haste. --Jayron32 19:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] The details updated are under "Brines" for the Seasonal Flows article (as I just looked). Mind you, its not written as clear to say "this discovery is clear evidence of water" as we are talking here, but it is included. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Is that information updated? All of the references in that section seem to be from 2011-2013, and seeing sentences like These observations are the closest scientists have come to finding evidence of liquid water on the planet's surface today. make it seem like it still needs to be updated with recent findings. Also added alt 2 - previous blurb - as a starting point to edit to come up with a blurb for this item. SpencerT♦C 21:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Yes, when I looked: it included the Nature paper that was published today and one of the news blurbs published today (See the sentence about finding chlorates and perchlorates). Also note that I modified that blurb from "photographic" to "spectrographic" evidence since they are using spectrometry to discover this. --MASEM (t) 21:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Support confirmation of discovery that will have ramifications in terms of future scientific missions. -- Callinus (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Obvious support per above. A lot of people first visit Wikipedia to find out more about this kind of news, so the articles need to be top notch and updated. 1.39.62.181 (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Support - The new article is informative and well-sourced at first glance. Opposers fail to convince. Jusdafax 19:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] There is no new article. Seasonal flows on warm Martian slopes was written in 2011, following the original announcement by the same team. It was featured in ITN at the time. Modest Genius talk 22:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] I can't help that you are so gullible. Abductive (reasoning) 00:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Weak oppose I intended to support this, as standard ITN procedure is to post science discoveries when a reputable source claims full confirmation; but the article not only dates to 2011, it was evidently posted ITN at that time, meaning we (Wikipedia) felt it was proof enough to be worthy of the front page at that time. I would find it hard to reconcile posting it twice on the same merits of strong evidence, and stripped of that, this announcement is just further confirmation of the same, which we do not typically post. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 23:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Oppose NASA makes this "announcement" whenever their budget is up for renewal, in the hope that journalists won't bother to check their facts and will just reprint their press releases, and make it look like they do more than they actually do. They made this same announcement in June 2000, just to give an idea of how long this has been going on. ‑ iridescent 23:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Support. I would like to see sources for the claims about this being announced to influence NASA's budget. That's just personal speculation without them. This is further evidence of what has been just a theory and is being widely covered in the news. This is a notable aspect of space exploration. Wikipedia users will want to learn more about this, which is one of the purposes of ITN. 331dot (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] To clarify what is important about this paper from the past: In the past (including much earlier), the evidence for water on Mars is from two primary data points: the photographs from the number of probes we've sent, and surface samples that indicate salts do exist on the surface of Mars. The photographs have shown different-colored material moving in a manner that would suggest water flow but could have been from , say, granular motions as well. What the paper today has done is use spectrographic data to look at those different colored areas, throughout a Martian year, and identified that they have IR spectra that match very specific salts that were not present in the area before. Specifically: somehow those salts moved downhill during the course of Martian seasons, so that the only way they could do this per this paper and NASA is that there must be highly briny water coming to the surface to do that. While those were clearly hypothesis from the previous photographic and material evidence, they weren't as strong without actually "seeing" it happen and knowing what is moving as they have been able to do with the Mars Observer (even the 2011 announcement was still along the lines of "the best hypothesis of several" but far from being the cincher this is reported as) It remains a hypothesis that there is flowing water on Mars, but this paper makes an extremely strong case that it is the right conclusion eliminating other theories to the reasons for the different colors on the photographs. I also disagree that this was precluded on NASA's funding. The paper was done by a professor out of GA Tech and the timing is based on its completion of the peer-review and publishing cycle; that itself was likely work that had to be predicated on the 2011 discovery to plan out the best timing and locations to do the research to get the best results. Normal delay in science. --MASEM (t) 00:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Say whaaaat? Sca (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Strong support: Not the first time this theory has been seriously discussed, but a milestone in that Earth's premiere space exploration agency is now officially putting its weight behind it. This is a big deal, and just because scientists made a convincing case in 2011 that has now apparently been confirmed by NASA shouldn't prevent us from getting with the times and posting this ASAP. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] NASA got behind all of these: the 2011 release was made by NASA. As was the 2013 release. As, indeed, have several previous ones. NASA has always been 'officially putting its weight behind it'. Modest Genius talk 09:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment. If this must be posted, please use some variation of Alt Blurb II so that Wikipedia does not look quite so stupid. Abductive (reasoning) 00:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Support. Even if it's not that significant (which I don't agree with), the hype around the announcement is grounds enough for me to support the proposal. Besides, the fact that this discovery resulted in a publication in Nature is clear indication that something happened here that didn't happen in 2011 or 2013. Banedon (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] The discovery was not published in Nature. It was published in Nature Geoscience, a completely separate journal owned by the same publisher. It's only been around since 2008 and is much less prestigious. Mostly it publishes papers 'passed down' from Nature itself because they weren't exciting enough. Modest Genius talk 09:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] My bad. Regardless, Nature Geoscience is a peer-reviewed journal which would presumably reject anything that wasn't novel (such as regurgitating of 2011 or 2013 material). It also has an impact factor in the double digits, which would imply it's one of the most prestigious specialist journals out there. Banedon (talk) 09:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Yes indeed. But it publishes a dozen or so papers every month. As do many other equally prestigious journals. That doesn't mean they're each significant enough for ITN coverage. Modest Genius talk 10:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Sure, but do the other papers get press conferences? Banedon (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Several each month, just from that one journal [3]. Modest Genius talk 11:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] I'm referring to coverage from sources other than that journal. Banedon (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Strong support: This is a historical scientific accomplishment that it should be known! 70Jack90 (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Oppose Too much recycled hype for something that has been up at ITN twice before. This seems like those perennial stories that a cure for cancer has been discovered. I'm also suspicious that this is happening when there's a movie called The Martian on release. For an interesting account of what's really going on, please see Emily Lakdawalla. For all that it's a blog, she seems more reliable than anything you'll find in the MSM. Andrew D. (talk) 07:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Actually, I find that The Guardian is questioning this – "The Martian and Nasa – a coincidence too good to be true?". We should not indulge this movie's marketing. Andrew D. (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment Nevermind... Google has it as a doodle today with the usual link to Wikipedia, so people are bound to read the articles regardless of what ITN says. w.carter-Talk 09:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] That's usually the case. For example, ITN snubbed Jeremy Corbyn but the hits on his article were still over 10x those for the supposedly more important events. Andrew D. (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Support - Clearly a significant story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Why isnt this story posted. It is clearly notable. And a clear consensus has been reached for posting. With a suitable blurb. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Oppose – Old news. (And I just read that Elon Musk plans to establish a Mars colony with a population of 80,000 by 2040.) Sca (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] The news organizations running the story this week would seem to disagree that this is "old". Science sometimes takes time to be discovered and released. I don't really understand the 'old' criticism and am still waiting for evidence this was deliberately timed with a movie or with NASA budget requests. 331dot (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] I meant that this announcement is getting old. It's been ballyhooed in the media for, as of Wednesday, three days. Sca (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] That happens all too often. Instead of ITN it should be called ITNLW (as in "Last Week"). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Marked Ready regardless of conspiracy theories on the timing of the announcement, we have a significantly updated target article, pretty strong (three to one) consensus towards posting, and our readers would, one assumes, come here to see what we have on the topic. I strongly suggest the posting admin go with the flowing water blurb, since we have known for quite a while that water had flowed on the surface. What we have now is direct visual evidence of water that is in the process of flowing. μηδείς (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Support Very notable. This is being covered everywhere and is certainly RTN material. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment Why are the oppose votes being treated as conspiracy theorists? The article was already posted ITN in 2011 with this blurb: "NASA announces that it has found evidence there may be liquid water on Mars during warm parts of the year." Well, that's pretty much exactly what we have here, isn't it? The very same blurb, just slightly reworded? We didn't even upgrade from theory based on observation to direct sampling, it's still just further observation. This isn't to downplay it, I'm actually a space/rocketry enthusiast and would like to see as much science and space ITN as humanly possible, but are we really posting incremental advances in evidence (we didn't post the recent story on the moon's exosphere, for example)? I also feel obligated to point out that while a vote count provides clear consensus, a great number of those votes are little more than "clearly notable" with the expectation of SNOW, which is, if I may say, a poor practice for ITN to get into. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 05:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] As I've tried to point out before, while it is the same possible conclusion that the photographic studies have suggested, the methods used here are reaching the same conclusion with a much higher confidence level due to spectrographic methods, eliminating several other theories to explain what they had previously seen by photographs. It is the same blurb, for the most part, but approached from a stronger scientific background. And while I would be against normal "incremental" advances in science, we are talking about the nearest planet we can visit and that these readings provide greater possibility that such a mission would be possible, which is one of the pinnicles of scientific research here. --MASEM (t) 05:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Sure, I understand the implications, I'm just unconvinced that they meet the bar for posting the same thing twice, especially when the results were "as expected." While I share your enthusiasm, I must also point out that you are crystal balling as a result - as well as conceding that my concerns are well founded, but for appeal to emotion (which I share, I couldn't bring myself to do more than a weak oppose). - OldManNeptune ⚓ 06:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] OldManNepture makes good points. Masem, we understand the science here. Simply re-stating it isn't going to change anyone's mind. The crux of the matter is that this is a new line of evidence for something that we were already pretty certain about, and that was posted on ITN before. Modest Genius talk 10:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Unmarked - Despite majority, I'm still convinced that more work and approve are needed. --George Ho (talk) 05:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] What work do you feel is needed? 331dot (talk) 06:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] I didn't mean article editing. The primary sources themselves still must research further to confirm existence of water in Mars. They said they confirm water flows, but they haven't tested the waters yet. George Ho (talk) 07:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] I'm unclear on what your personal views on Mars exploration and science have to do with unmarking this section which seems to have clear consensus for posting. If that's your rationale for opposing it, fair enough, but there still seems to be consensus here to post this widely covered development. 331dot (talk) 07:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Re-marked as ready; personal opinion of the matter does not override consensus. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] I don't see how this is a "personal opinion". I read arguments, and somehow I'm compelling by arguments pointing out insufficient substantial developments on the topic. Supporters say it's still huge news development just because NASA says so. Marking it as "ready" with consensus split (50:50) would imply ignorance and bias. --George Ho (talk) 07:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] If you disagree with an official government finding for whatever reason, it's your right to do so. You believing that more research or work is needed is just that, your belief. That doesn't change the fact that this development was widely reported as a notable advancement. 331dot (talk) 07:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] (edit conflict) I count 18 supports (excluding stricken ones) and 7 stated opposes (8 if I am to assume you're in opposition). A roughly 70/30 split is hardly the same as 50/50. For what it's worth, I rescinded my support. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 07:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] This discussion is starting to smell.......... bad. --BabbaQ (talk) 06:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Strong Support – This isn't water that used to be on Mars. It's there, right now, as we type. Surprised this hasn't been posted despite extremely obvious support, but an annual event like the SE Asian haze gets fast-tracked to Ongoing. Twirly Pen (Speak up) 06:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Strong Oppose: Non-notable, there is water on other planets, it's not unique at all. Wake me up when indisputable evidence of alien life is actually discovered ... not expecting this to happen in our lifetimes. 10:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.181.22 (talk) Question - What is supposed to happen when Curiosity arrives there and we get further evidence of it? A fourth post? What about the time we get a sample back (or a human scientific there) to confirm the findings? I think this is huge news, but I've also noticed that people here is very reluctant to post developments of the same issue. 190.162.75.156 (talk) 10:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Oppose - Appears to be re-confirmation of existing understanding. See article in 2011. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 11:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Oppose. Per Modest Genius. Rhodesisland (talk) 11:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Unmarked as ready - I'm still not seeing a consensus here.--WaltCip (talk) 11:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Oppose as an insufficiently new development to merit a further posting on the same topic. BencherliteTalk 11:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] It's a good thing Wikipedians are smarter than the sources are, eh? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] And remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper that grabs anything and runs with it just to get a big headline. That we knew about this for some time renders the nomination somewhat moot. No need to get shirty about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] It is simply ridiculous that this has not been posted several days ago. Just my opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] You are correct, we now have actual images of flowing water, rather than just circumstantial evidence that water has flowed at some undefined time, and an article that has been expanded by thousands of kb, and more than two-to-one support. This should go up immediately. μηδείς (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Oppose hype about something that's been going around for some time now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Long March 6 and 11

Nominator's comments: And two new launchers in less than one week is an impressive feat. Also LM-6 marks the transition of China to kerosene propulsion. Hektor (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• General support but I feel the articles are lacking. For example both mention payloads but what are they for? The articles both need expansion before this can be ITN. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I just checked the zhwiki versions of the two articles and they are no better, so we cannot expand these articles by translation from Chinese Wikipedia. sst^flyer 15:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a good chance of a Long March program summary article? --MASEM (t) 16:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree with Masem, this seems significant but both articles are stubs, and the payload lists on both are all redlinks with no summary. The rocket performance details are the strongest point in the current article but most front page readers aren't likely to gain much from that alone. That said, I'd like to see this posted, because rockets. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 20:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The ITNR list has first launches of a type of rocket listed. 331dot (talk) 00:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ITNR does not guarantee posting if the article(s) quality is not up to par, which is the case here. --MASEM (t) 00:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree; I just mentioned it because it hadn't been. The quality issues are obviously valid. 331dot (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• No need to support as this is on ITNR. It should go up once the articles are in shape, but at the moment they're both uninformative stubs. Not the sort of thing we want to show off on the Main Page. If we get some actual referenced articles before this goes stale then it can go up. Modest Genius ^talk 09:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose based on articles as it is at the moment. -- KTC (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As a close follower of Chinese spaceflight, the reason that there isn't more information on both pages is that the Chinese really don't like to talk about both of them. Unlike the development of their larger siblings, the development of LM-6 has been in tight wraps and almost nothing is known about the LM-11 (hence the lack of technical parameters on that page, because we have no idea!). Heck, the Chinese apparently refuse to show any photos of the LM-11 first launch because it apparently uses a TEL launcher car (in contrast with the Russians, which have no problem showing off their Topol-M TEL)! Given how little the Chinese have released, the current articles are probably as best as they could right now. Alas, that doesn't really give them a chance on the front page. On the other hand, when the Long March 7 and Long March 5 rockets fly next year, I think they have a much better chance because the Chinese do show them off a lot as their next generation flagship rockets. Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fully appreciate that because the Chinese generally don't broadcast their scientific achievements, that we can't really develop the articles. I will point to my previous suggestion: What if we use Long March (rocket family) as the target article, which does need clean up but is more complete about the program, with the two above articles as non-bolded links for that? --MASEM (t) 20:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is certainly unfortunate that China is so secretive about it's space programme, but ITN exists to highlight decent-quality Wikipedia articles that have been updated to reflect recent news. If there isn't enough information to update the article, there is nothing ITN can do with it. Shifting the bold link to Long March (rocket family) might help, but that article would still need several sentences of update on the new launches. That might still be impossible if there simply aren't any available sources. Modest Genius ^talk 10:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose—the articles simply aren't of sufficient quality for highlighting in this way. For example, I've looked for basic information about (any) of the long list of redlinked payloads listed in the LM6 article, and can't find any info. Purpose? Mass? Orbital altitude? etc. I've started a discussion on the Talk page to try to find others with more information. My guess is that a bunch of Chinese students might have flown some microsat educational payloads of the size that would have allowed a single LM6 launch to transport that bunch of payloads, and I hope one of them may have links to Chinese university PR media that might tell us what was launched. But none of that info is in the article today. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Astrosat

 Banedon (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support once a couple of unreferenced grafs are properly cited and a copyvio scan is performed. The article generally looks to be in good shape, provided it isn't ripped off from a non-public domain source, and notability for a nation's first satellite of this type seems clear. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Kudzu1. Something on the way the article is written smells of a scientific-like press release but that could also just be some writing that needs improvement. --MASEM (t) 04:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when ready. It needs a little work on sourcing but overall it looks to be in decent shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as non-notable. India sent a satellite to Mars just recently, which is a significantly more challenging task. This is comparatively weak tea. Are we going to post every odd satellite launch (numbering in the dozens per year), or accept that such pigeonholing is a suitable replacement for actual firsts?128.214.53.18 (talk) 08:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle. This would be significant enough even if it was launched by Nasa or Esa, but being ISRO's first space observatory just makes it even more notable. However, the article could use some work - there are unreferenced sections and paragraphs, questionable prose, and a general lack of quality. Should be plenty of sources now to bring this up to scratch. Modest Genius ^talk 09:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when ready. Per the others above.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Added an alt-blurb which makes a bit clearer what Astrosat is. Smurrayinchester 07:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Notable feat for India and its space industry. Good article. --Tocino 09:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note – Once the "Ground support" and "Participants" sections are referenced, this will be good to go. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 09:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting. --Tone 09:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Phil Woods

 shoy (reactions) 12:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Multiple Grammy Award winner with a distinguished international career. Article can use a bit of lovin'. Good nomination. Jusdafax 13:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support – Desperately needs sourcing improvements, but worth posting once this issue is addressed. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 13:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Notable enough for RD, with four-time Grammy Award winner. Dearth of inline cites though; Unreferenced discography and an almost unsourced biography section. The only cited parts seem to be his Grammy wins and his brief personal life. Fuebaey (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[closed] Catalonia election

RD: Frank Tyson

Nominator's comments: Renowned and accomplished English cricketer whose career was short but who then made a lengthy second career as a well-respected commentator. Death is receiving international attention. Kudzu1 (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can't really judge as having little knowledge of cricket, but looking at the article, are we sure that the lyrics of the song are in the PD? Otherwise that's a massive copyvio. The article otherwise seems okay for sourcing and I would support assuming that others reasonably demonstrate that he was important to the sport. --MASEM (t) 18:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good catch. Deleted. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose 17 tests is not notable enough for RD. Even otherwise he doesn't have the global stature as Holding, Boycott, etc...or even the comic Dean Jones.120.62.13.133 (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support best cricketer in the world in 1955 per Wisden. This is far more notable than the Hall of Fame stuff we see for every baseball/basketball/football nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support As a cricket follower, this is the sort of name I'd expect to see on RD. He played in the 50s and his name is still well known to followers of the modern game. His playing career may have been cut short by poor circumstances, but he was clearly a great player, and he had a supplementary career as a well known and respected commentator. My support is only weak because I'd place him below Arthur Morris (who was definite RD material), and there has to be a cutoff somewhere. (On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if Dean Jones didn't make the RD cut - his main claim over Tyson is recentism, in my opinion.) --dmmaus (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per the IP comment. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - Although he wasn't at the same level as Marshall or Lillee, he was one of the fastest bowlers of all time and quite successful in the limited number of Tests he played. 1.39.62.111 (talk) 06:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shoaib, Lee and particularly Bond's limited career are all just current examples of "one of the fastest bowlers of all time and quite successful". Where do you draw the line if you were to set this precedence?120.62.35.224 (talk) 12:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson bowled genuine fast about 50 years before Shoaib and Lee. He was also the world's leading cricketer, unlike Shoaib and Lee. But Shoaib and Lee would both be reasonable shouts for RD (in many years to come one imagines). The Rambling Man (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, does the name Johnny Unitas mean anything to you?--WaltCip (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but only because I enjoy sports from around the world, not just from own little microcosm of specialist games like association football and cricket and kabaddi and freediving. I also like Frankie Goes to Hollywood songs. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, just checking. I'm okay with having a diverse selection of sports at ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose a one year best of six decades ago in one of the world's smaller countries not internationally followed or feted hardly deserves to be called influential or major. Did they change the wickets from bone to metal due to his violent slam dunks? μηδείς (talk) 05:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  "Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  An addendum needs to be added to that rule which says "...except regional amateur sports, which are fair game for criticism" so that we can avoid the bitching and bellyaching that occurs at ITN anytime one of those is nominated and fails.--WaltCip (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I'm not seeing any evidence that the subject was at the top of his field, other than for a few games in 1955. --Tocino 09:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Query I occasionally close/post ITN stuff, but not frequently enough to make this judgment call alone. Opinion is evenly divided on this - no consensus - but ITN is a little stale (currently nothing at RD, and I just removed a blurb from 9/20, bottom one from 9/22), this article looks in good shape, it wouldn't be pushing any other article off the page, and it seems better to give the reader something rather than nothing, so... what harm can it do? Is there any opposition to posting borderline cases when (a) there is a lack of current items to post, and (b) the article quality is not disputed, just the noteworthiness? If it was up to me I'd post this particular item. Any strong objection? if we don't do it now, we should close this, it will be considered stale soon. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  All good with me, RD is empty, this will get a couple of days... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] John Boehner resigning

[Posted to ongoing]: 2015 Southeast Asian haze

Nominator's comments: See the above nomination. Affects millions of people and multiple countries, particularly more disruptive and long-lasting than previous years (we did post one in 2013), international coverage. HaEr48 (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support – Notable environmental event, but like anything involving the atmosphere its severity ebbs and flows and notability might be questionable (especially given that this has essentially become an annual occurrence). Given that it's a prolonged event, it's more suited toward ongoing than a blurb. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - notable event that's been ongoing for weeks, and affects millions of people. Banedon (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - event is clearly still happening and has been happening for a while. Article is high quality, well updated, and continuously maintained for new information. Check and check, all requirements met for ongoing link. --Jayron32 11:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ongoing. This has reached hazardous levels, nearly as bad as the 2013 case, and affects a very large area. Mamyles (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting. --Tone 14:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Colombian justice deal

[Posted] 2015 Hajj stampede

[Closed] Ugrunaaluk kuukpikensis

[Posted] RD: Yogi Berra

Nominator's comments: Legendary baseball player and manager, Hall of Fame inductee, pop culture icon for his "Yogi-isms", etc. Kudzu1 (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Support – Unsourced pieces scattered about the article (including his death at the time of this comment) holding back my full support. Once those are covered this is a no-brainer for RD. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 06:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support for blurb – I'm not terribly familiar with how notable someone has to be to warrant a blurb, but I'd venture to say Berra was about as notable as you can get in Baseball. I may have some personal bias, however, since I grew up in New York. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 07:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a New York Mets fan and thus no great fan of the Yankees. But even I grasp that Yogi was a giant in sports. The standards for blurbs are not spelled out with great clarity and a good deal of it is discretion based on consensus. But in general blurbs are given only very rarely if the death was not unexpected. Past precedent suggests that if your death was not a shock, then you have to be a truly iconic figure to get one on your death. The last such case I can recall was Sir Christopher Lee. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I guess it finally is over (Sorry. You just know his epitaph will be some variation on that line). I'm real glad now that I did Harmonica Incident last month when I did. Daniel Case (talk) 06:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD only - Iconic baseball figure, obvious RD addition, but he died peacefully at an advanced age, and I don't see the case for a blurb. Jusdafax 06:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Pre-emptive Snowball Support – might even deserve a blurb. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 07:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Article is in good shape. "The future ain’t what it used to be." YB --Light show (talk) 07:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Known well enough for this baseball ignorant European to know of him. Oppose for blurb though. Fgf10 (talk) 07:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support (I see a snow storm in the forecast for this nomination.) One of the most iconic figures in American sports, so much so that I too might consider this to be blurb worthy. Article is in decent shape though I did add a ((CN)) tag to one paragraph. Overall I think it is in acceptable condition for posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb per my above comment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted to RD – Tentatively posted to RD but discussion is still open for an "upgrade" to a full blurb. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 07:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb RD only, death at 90 is hardly unusual and I don't think he rises to the level of Mandela... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "support RD only"? Nelson Mandela was also posted as a blurb so your current vote reasoning is inaccurate. Andise1 (talk) 07:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That "Nelson Mandela" standard holds no water anymore. One of the latest persons to get a blurb was a German book author, who clearly did not rise to the level of influence of Mandela.--WaltCip (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on global influence. This fella, while clearly loved by the US, is a nobody elsewhere. No disrespect, he just lived a long time, made some daft quotes, and Americans love him. The rest of the world is "meh" about the situation. The Mandela standard is something we should strive for, whether or not it's been degraded for American actors or German authors. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb, support RD A great player, but not among the absolute top echelon of all-time baseball greats. His odd sayings were entertaining and made him an iconic figure but hardly warrant a blurb. Neljack (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – There's virtually a "pick-em" of sources that consider him the greatest catcher of all time. Literally too many to list here. Being considered a top player out of 10 positions in a sport that is ~150 years old certainly qualifies one as "among the absolute top echelon of all-time baseball greats." Also appeared in (and won) more World Series over the course of his playing & managing career than anyone else in the history of the sport. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 08:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Yogi was, in fact, a top-tier Hall of Famer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 08:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Just want to say that baseball is wildly popular in some countries yet practically inexistent in others. Neither opposing nor supporting, but baseball seems less a sport of global appeal than, for example, soccer or athletics. Banedon (talk) 08:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but Yogi Berra was a legend - he's one of only a handful of baseball players I (as a non-sport-following Brit) can name. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD, Oppose blurb Died in old age, just what RD was made for. --86.135.158.125 (talk) 09:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, neutral on blurb - A legend in his own lifetime. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, oppose blurb. Less famous internationally than his namesake - who is probably the only reason why his name is known at all outside the US. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, oppose blurb Death was not surprise, and not a global cultural icon that the rest of the world will pause regarding death. RD is exactly for this. --MASEM (t) 11:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that a blurb is probably a bridge too far here, though an obvious RD. 331dot (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting support RD, oppose blurb - not Babe Ruth nor Yogi Bear, I'm afraid. starship.paint ~ KO 14:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Guess who Yogi Bear was named after... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.148.249 (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry for my ignorance. Still, I believe the bear is more popular worldwide, rather than just considering the USA. starship.paint ~ KO 23:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yogi was a giant in the game of baseball (and also for his contributions to linguistics) but a blurb isn't necessary. RD is fine. RIP to one of my favorites. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] "Happy Birthday" copyright ruled invalid

Nominator's comments: One of the most famous copyright battles, and while there is possibility of more legal action (including potentially someone else claiming copyright on the lyrics), this is a big point in this. There's also additional legal aspects of the case (Warner/Chappell paying back licensing fees) but that's less a key factor here. MASEM (t) 05:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support if article found up to snuff, which it looks like it might well be. Most importantly, this is a victory for the free-culture movement of which Wikipedia (and by extension all of us) has been a major part. I think that gives us extra incentive to front-page this. Daniel Case (talk) 06:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – A frivolous lawsuit that was going to go nowhere with the record company. In fact, I thought it was always in public domain. I don't recall anybody using the song significantly for commercial gain. Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 07:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  As mentioned in our article, as of 2008 the company was earning roughly $2 million per year by demanding royalties from people who wanted to use the song in TV, movies, and other public venues. Dragons flight (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  According to [6][7], Happy Birthday has been the highest earning single song of all time, generating roughly $50 million in income since its creation. Dragons flight (talk) 08:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, consider me schooled. This still doesn't strike me as blurb-worthy news though. Maybe good for DYN... Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 08:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Few knew it was even copyrighted. And few would have cared if they had. --Light show (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Interesting case, but it should be made clear that this only applies to the US. Blythwood (talk) 07:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, it would affect the copyright in the rest of the world since the originating copyright is with the US, per the Berne Convention. Presuming that no one steps forward to claim copyright on the lyrics, those fall into the PD in the US, and thus in all other Berne-abiding countries, it would fall into the PD there too. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support - This is a well-known case in the field; arguably the highest-profile piece of copyright trolling ever. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I think Martin Shkreli has easily run away with that coveted title in a matter of days... Twirly Pen (Speak ^up) 10:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair point. But that's about the scale of the competition. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support altblurb. Probably the most well known case in this area of law, and affecting a major industry(media). 331dot (talk) 10:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - "I didn't know" is not the same as "nobody else knew". For those who have even the slightest education in the world of law, this is considered a pivotal example and a pivotal moment in copyright law. We don't have much of an opportunity to feature law in ITN; we should seize it.--WaltCip (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - My earliest memory of copyright law zzz (talk) 11:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This has been a landmark copyright issue for decades, and the final resolution of it is being widely reported in major news sources. The article is of sufficient quality for the main page. --Jayron32 12:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is the world's most recognized song and the one that has generated the most all-time royalties. Discovering that it is suddenly free (and turns out the company shouldn't have gotten those royalties in the first place) is a big deal. WaltCip is right that we don't often feature legal cases, and this is a good opportunity to do so. Dragons flight (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Be aware that since I posted this ITNC, people have added some (reasonable) cn tags to the article that should be dealt with before posting. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is one of the most famous English songs, and until now has been the highest grossing licensed song. It looks like article tags have all been resolved. Mamyles (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: We don't get stories like this very often, but the copyright on the highest-grossing song of all time being ruled invalid seems like an obvious choice for ITN. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted alt blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Volkswagen emissions cheating scandal

Nominator's comments: Though new, the article is of reasonable size and well-referenced Jusdafax 10:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Update: Martin Winterkorn resigns

• Should we add to the current blurb to indicate the resignation of Martin Winterkorn? The story of his resignation is becoming the top headline in this story. See, for example [9] or [10]. --Jayron32 16:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support something like "Volkswagen CEO Martin Winterkorn resigns as the company admits...."? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support updating blurb. It seems highly relevant. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support major development in the story. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as an important related event. TRM's proposed blurb change looks acceptable. Mamyles (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Updated it's not ideal as far as I can read, but the facts are there. Feel free to hit me up at ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Whoever finally got diesel into the blurb, thank you. Sca (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The article is now the subject of an ANI report. Jusdafax 03:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems more of a localized content dispute rather than a "article is copyvio, need to remove from ITN" case at this point, but I'll keep an eye on it just in case. Spencer^T♦C 20:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Per Spencer, this is a pissing contest between two small groups of editors, and a behavioral issue rather than a problem with the article itself. Outside of the context of the bad behavior between the two parties involved, the article is still of sufficient quality. --Jayron32 11:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately, I'm familiar with a couple of the quibbling editors, and am minimizing my involvement. Happy to elaborate, but happy not to as well. The ANI close was brilliant, thanks. Jusdafax 12:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] 67th Primetime Emmy Awards