Hillary Clinton hospitalized

Fiscal Cliff

Nominator's comments: This has been all around the news for a while, even outside of the US (as "when America sneezes, the world catches a cold" etc.). Pretty important, especially if the US goes over the cliff. I'm not particuarly attached to either of the blurbs I've written, so please do modify them. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This has been big news for a while. Although it's possible the parties will reach a deal, I doubt it.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Pending support Even if they reach a deal, this will be big. But it could be the case that they don't reach it today but are able to band-aid it in one or two days more. Definitely wait to see what happens today from Congress. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It is no 'cold', nothing really scary or dangerous. More hype than substance to it. Ворот93 (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Nothing really scary or dangerous"? This thing can wreck the U.S. economy.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Market traders may panic but apart from that nothing great will happen. Again, it is all about the hype. Ворот93 (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the stock market is forward-looking (by about six months, they say), this non-event is already priced in. There will be no crash. Abductive (reasoning) 20:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta agree with FT - this is rather serious and top-news in the UK where I am. 85.211.124.161 (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It can wreck the economy, but maybe it won't. It can't do anything until the markets re-open after the New Year. Formerip (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain how my family having 400 dollars less a month to spend won't hurt the economy? If anything, it'll hurt american families big time. gwickwire^talk_edits 20:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because the next Congress can make a deal retroactive, that's why. Abductive (reasoning) 20:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, yes. Practically, no. Give me one tax bill that has been made retroactive in the past 4 years. You can't. Because this Congress does nothing. I'm sitting here watching C-SPAN and some Senator is talking about school busses, not fiscal cliff. If they make a bi-partisan retroactive bill that passes both houses and the president, I'll be really surprised. gwickwire^talk_edits 20:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my opposition to posting; consensus here at ITN/C is not to post stories of nothing happening. Abductive (reasoning) 20:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait until there are some actual effects to report. Formerip (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for entry at the time New Year reaches the US, since there will inevitably be effects. If a substantial amount of effects are extended to a later time, I'd go for changing "the effects" to "effects" in the blurb, or choosing the alternative one. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if the Fiscal Cliff comes into force

  Oppose if there is a deal. At this late stage deal to postpone the fiscal cliff would mark a transition from normal business with a bit of brinksmanship, to normal business with a bit of finger-pointing as to why certain elements of the deal were included. A failure to agree a deal would without question be major economic news with effects far beyond the US. There is a possibility that a deal could be significant enough to post, but it looks far more likely that any agreement will be a temporary reprieve in order to buy time to negotiate a proper package in the coming months. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 16:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, and kudos to Luke for nominating this early. I may disagree with the suggestion that a deal should be posted, but starting the discussion early was certainly a good idea. Happy New Year everyone! —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 16:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Either way this is In the News, and worthy of a blurb. I also wish everyone a Happy New Year! Jusdafax 16:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The bill was passed in 2011. That it will actually take effect is not news, just political drama. μηδείς (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - A deal was reached this morning.--WaltCip (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, I think but I'm open to better informed voices. Just as the measures could be headed off at the eleventh hour, can they not be rescinded at the first hour? If a tax increase is only in place for a very brief time, if departments are able to resume spending at the previous level before any real impact is felt, then this is a cliff below which a trampoline can be pulled out at any time. Kevin McE (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly, that they can be repealed or amended at any time is the essence of it. There is no fact of nature involved here. The only real exigency is that withholding for the different tax rates must begin, and might be changed on very short notice. But "possible accounting chaos headache" is not really an ITN-worthy subject. μηδείς (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support posting if no deal is reached by 12:00 AM EST tonight. Otherwise, support a blurb on the deal reached. gwickwire^talk_edits 20:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose if nothing happens, Neutral if a deal is reached. I feel that this story is overblown, since a deal struck when the new Congress convenes can be made retroactive. Presently, even if a deal is reached by midnight, it is too late to avoid some aspects of the "cliff", such as mailings that have already been printed. Also, this story is confined to a single nation. I would not be the least troubled if it was never posted to ITN. Abductive (reasoning) 20:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The House of Representatives has basically wrapped any chance of a vote they have today, so we will technically go over the "fiscal cliff". gwickwire^talk_edits 21:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And as this article says, they can vote that retroactively reverses that, and given that there are talks to a deal being close, I would not rush to post this. --MASEM (t) 21:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't suggesting a rush. As I said above, at 12:00 post it. And if anyone can provide any proof Congress will actually work together (gasps from around the world) to do anything, much less agree on how to retroactively do something, then please tell me. From the office of the Clerk of the House: "1:37:58 P.M. - The Speaker announced that the House do now recess. The next meeting is subject to the call of the Chair." and representatives have been leaving. Even if the Senate sends something to the House today or (not) tomorrow, it's highly unlikely there will be a Quorum to conduct business, and therefore we are pretty much going over it for the time being. It's called ITN, not "wait until we know facts before posting". If there's a retroactive deal (or any deal) struck, we can always update it later. gwickwire^talk_edits 21:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some people here happen to be under the strange impression that "something is going to happen" if Congress doesn't "prevent" it. But what is going to happen is exactly what Congress voted for, various spending cuts and tax increases. How it can be viewed as some sort of natural disaster if the laws Congress passed are enacted is beyond me. Every law works this way--it goes into effect unless repealed or amended. Why aren't we talking about the 'Obamacare Infection' as well as a 'Fiscal Cliff'? Many parts of that law will also go into effect generating new regulations and tax increases unless it is repealed. This 'the sky is falling' hysteria is the press and politicians at there worst, and a neutral international encyclopedia shouldn't be trumpetting it. μηδείς (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • These aren't laws being enacted, this is related to the expiration of laws. Ryan Vesey 22:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • One, that's technical nitpicking--Congress chose the dates the tax cuts would expire--and two, there are spending cuts that will come into effect, not just tax increases. What will happen is the will of Congress alone. One might as well panic that the alarm clock will go off at the time for which you set it. μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, it's not nitpicking, it's correct. Congress chose those dates a long time ago. They knew they'd have to revisit it now. They aren't revisiting it. By the way, the issue of the fiscal cliff isn't just the Bush taxes.. It also includes items such as other taxes, and other economical news (such as our lack of a true, required by law, budget the passt 3 FYs). This is newsworthy. gwickwire^talk_edits 22:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose They're still talking about a deal occurring after today and being retroactive. We can post once an agreement is or is not made. Ryan Vesey 22:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved by gwickwire to order correctly gwickwire^talk_edits 22:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]
• Support this is exactly the same as the austerity bills we rightly posted for Greece (and Italy and Spain? I dont remember), so it ought to be posted as well. --IP98 (talk) 02:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another comment for all: This is (and may have been for a while) in today (yesterday UTC)'s current events portal as something along the lines of "the US goes over the fiscal cliff after the House said it would hold no vote Monday". See above for more. gwickwire^talk_edits 02:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Nothing happened - the story of the 112th United States Congress. Plus, this is really more of a "curb" than a "cliff", as these matters can still be addressed in early January with minimal impact. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, it's 2013 now (eastern time). Are we gonna add this or what? A temporary deal has been reached [1]. Is this worth mentioning?-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 05:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Comment A deal has been reached (CNN). On that note, Oppose I think the whole thing is really overblown, as others have said above. If the deal hadn't been reached, will re really be talking about this months from now? -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 05:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A temporary deal has been reached by about 3-5 people. The Senate has not (as had been promised by Obama and Biden earlier) voted on it yet, and Biden has been skeptical that it will even pass the democratically controlled Senate. Much less the House. So, no a deal has NOT been reached yet, as it has to pass both houses still, and then Obama. Technically, we're over the cliff right now. Regardless of any bill, we went over the cliff. That's like saying "I'm a lifeguard, a kid's drowning, I saved him after he started drowning, so he wasn't ever drowning." No. We're over the cliff. Due to failure of government, this happened. It shouldn't matter that a deal is "in the works" or "agreed upon" or "up for a vote" or anything else, regardless of all that we are still over the cliff. gwickwire^talk_edits 05:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there was absolutely no progress on the deal such that all the events of the fiscal cliff would have been in full force for a week or so, that's one thing that would definitely be notable. However, all signs point to a deal happening, with retroactive terms, as soon as both houses are back in session (Weds). This would make any news element on the cliff seem out of place. I would argue - lets see what the headlines say tomorrow because as I'm reading stories now, while the impact of the cliff technically go into force, it's going to be fixed so fast that the reports are going as doom-and-gloom as they were before. --MASEM (t) 05:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And to follow up, I just saw on the news that the Senate passed their part of the bill, the House is expected to vote on that tomorrow at noon EST. So yes, while technically the cliff happened, it's being resolved quickly, making this much less a story. I still think we should ITN it, but wait until we're sure that passage has happened to avert it. --MASEM (t) 07:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether or not we have plunged off the cliff into a bunch of big & pointy spires at the bottom, is this really something that we will talk about in the future? Yes, this is crystal-balling, but most of these political topics in the US end up being forgotten about weeks later. The media needs headlines to sell papers, and they've rode this story harder than Lindsay Lohan at a coke-party. Remember this? That was the same story, all kinds of hype about whether or not a last-minute deal would be reached, then a deal was struck, then it went quiet. I don't see this being any different. Most people are already completely in the dark as to what the fiscal cliff is in the first place, other than the fact that they see it in the news and people say it's important (funny example (yes, a joke)). -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 07:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "Large, stable, developed federal state agrees budget". --RA (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beijing Subway now the world's longest

Nominator's comments: I know this would make for two rail-related Chinese superlatives in the current ITN box, but in previous years we have posted such expansions of the Shanghai and Beijing Metro networks, and infrastructure is a topic that is under-covered in ITN. --Colipon+(Talk) 19:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The update to the article, at Beijing Subway#2008–2012: rapid expansion needs references. Spencer^T♦C 20:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, um, the New York City subway system has 1,056 km of track. Abductive (reasoning) 20:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because New York City has the awesome four tracks per line (two express, two local) over much of the system, for an average of 3.14, while most subways in the world have only two. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would still make NY the longest, though (?). Formerip (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only by length of track and number of stations. Not by length of lines. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, significant milestone. I suggest we also link to List of metro systems, though that might need updating. I was surprised to find that the London Underground is only slightly shorter at 402 km Modest Genius ^talk 17:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportWell if I interpret the article correctly, it appears that Beijing will have 1050km by 2020. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll set a reminder on my phone. Formerip (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose then. It appears to be a legalistic interpretation of "longest" which many readers will object to. Abductive (reasoning) 05:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not legalistic. New York City has more tracks per se, but Beijing covers more ground. You could create a one-line, two-stop subway with hundreds of sets of tracks lined up and beat out New York. If you were to beat Beijing's record, however, you would actually have to cover 450 km, one way, one track. Big difference there. I'll support this, by the way. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 06:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: The significance of records like these involves the infrastructure required to break the record. Since the New York subway system still exceeds Beijing's by 614 km, there is no significance. Ryan Vesey 06:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're comparing infrastructure to infrastructure, surely Beijing has at least two tracks per line so you should give it 884km, almost as much as NY. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yawning oppose China gets another infrastructure record which is really a minor deal these days. Plus, this record could be taken back by NY if then add another station somewhere. Nergaal (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominator's Note: When Beijing Subway added a large chunk of tracks back in 2010 with the opening of the Fangshan Line, Yizhuang Line etc, it was posted without much hesitation here on ITN. I am not so bent on highlighting the record as much as I am nominating this item for the sake of the opening of Line 6 and the extension of two other lines - all of which amount to a similar degree of network expansion as the ITN item in 2010. So in other words, alternative could be "Beijing Subway expands to 442km with the opening of Line 6 and the expansion of two other lines." Colipon+(Talk) 15:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could add it to ITNR? Formerip (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine why that was posted without hesitation. There's nothing ITN significant about a subway expanding. There's nothing new involved, nothing special involved. Ryan Vesey 18:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose that Beijing's system is now slightly longer than Shanghai's seems not that interesting really - we're not talking a brand new system but rather an expansion of a previous one. And, as the comments above bring out, it's pretty technical what counts as "longest" diluting the significance of setting the record. LukeSurl ^{t c} 18:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - As the Beijing Subway has the longest total route length, it's assumed that it covers a larger area or covers an area more comprehensively than the NYC subway system, in my opinion, that's more of a milestone than track length (think about how much time it takes to plot the stations and plan the route, survey the geography of the area, lay out the electrical grid, with track length, you're just simply laying out more tracks). YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 21:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There's something of the "best of three......five.......eleven......" about this story and given all things involved in this nomination, I just can't see any justification for including it on the front page doktorb _words^deeds 21:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted to RD] Death of Rita Levi-Montalcini

 --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for ticker; death of a leading and prize-winning specialist in her field. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose There are at least five Nobel prize winners per year, thus we'd expect about the same number Nobel prize winners to die per year. Prior to the ticker I think we generally agreed a Nobel prize (and the general academic distinction that is associated with that) is not, in itself, sufficient for a posting. I'm not really sure where the bar exists for the RD ticker, but I think this must be somewhere towards the low end. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support we post more than 5 Hollywood actors in a month, but we very rarely post scientists that don't have Nobels. Nergaal (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that if you post something like that, you can only expect to be challenged on it. Would you care to name the last three months in which we have posted more than five actors (I won't even restrict you to Hollywood). Kevin McE (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Luke: more like 10 laureates per year, and so this has repeatedly been rejected as an automatic pass to ITN. We are repeatedly told that the threshold for inclusion is no lower in the RD era. It would need considerable greater impact for me to be able to support. Kevin McE (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (Weak) for RD I am opposed to listing Nobel Laureates just because they are Nobel Laureates, but she seems to have been unique on several accounts, and this is making news outside Italy when many laureates die without significant mention in the press. μηδείς (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's possibly because it's December 30th and the news is fairly slow. LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: she is the first Nobel laureate to live to 100. Nergaal (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, in addition to be one of the Nobel Laureates she has other unique characteristics such as having significant scientific contributions, being a female scientist, her age and her ethnicity.Egeymi (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every Nobel laureate will have made significant contributions to science (or economics or peace). Re: ethnicity, a little bit of trivia: 20% of Nobel laureates are Jewish. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you eliminate these two points, then focus on other two and the other points that she uniquely had, but I failed to state. It is hard to understand why she is not qualified to be posted for RD.Egeymi (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • But Luke, how many Jewish Nobel Laureates are female Italian centenarians senators-for-life who die on slow news days? μηδείς (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Heh, as I stated above, my opposition is only weak. I reckon if this passes you'd be able to put together a similar argument for posting most Laureates to the ticker, though (in my opinion at least) that probably wouldn't be such a bad thing. LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • My weak support cancels your weak oppose. I am basically going by the fact that she's got a blurb on the front page of Fox News online, and that she's mildly interesting otherwise. Fox News doesn't list just every old female Italian centenarian senator-for-life Nobel Laureate who passes. μηδείς (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for ticker. Female Nobel laureate in the sciences. Topped various online news sites for a short while. Abductive (reasoning) 22:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very interesting background story, and she was still politically active as recently as 2008. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 00:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There's only one sentence in the article about Levi-Montalcini's work that led to her Nobel Prize. Being one of her most important accomplishments, there should be more in the article about that than just one sentence. Spencer^T♦C 00:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for ticker at least: Notable for being a Nobel laureate, and a woman at that (+ 100 years old, which is a novelty). I think the article has been expanded enough too. -- Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 00:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for ticker, oppose blurb Nobel laureates are important enough to note, but not necessarily enough for a blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Has this been updated? μηδείς (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for both There's nothing I can see permitting Nobel Laureates a free-pass to the front page. From what I can gather, there's nothing about this person or their nomination which would ordinarily get support for the front page doktorb _words^deeds 02:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for ticker Nobel laureate, and thus quite notable. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD --Jayron32 03:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Central African Republic rebellion

 Olegwiki (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait - Until a peace deal is made (or if one is not and the rebels take over the capital). -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait until the conclusion of this conflict, as FutureTrillionaire says. 331dot (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD William Rees-Mogg

Nominator's comments: An elder statesman of British journalism: infinitely better known than Quinlan from the same field who made RD. 14 year editor of The Times, former vice chair of BBC, chair of Arts Council; still having articles published this month at age 84. Much higher in running order on BBC bulletins and on readers in BBC web site "most read" section than Greig below. --Kevin McE (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A man of well regarded repute over generations, a high ranking person in many British establishments which have a large world-wide reputation. He's exactly the figure whose place in history is right for the front page doktorb _words^deeds 18:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Nice to see that he was still active. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 22:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and Eric. – Connormah (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Kevin's nomination. Notable and for good reason. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are there no admin's out there? Kevin McE (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Notability gets you an article, not an ITN listing. I'll happily change my vote if someone shows where he was considered at the top of his field, rather than just a long-time executive in journalism and broadcast. μηδείς (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted by User:Stephen. Spencer^T♦C 23:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

[Posted to RD] Death of Tony Greig

 Regards, theTigerKing  07:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:Updated. Notable English Test Cricketer and Commentator.Regards, theTigerKing  07:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: for RD list, not full blurb. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for RD, oppose full blurb, this is a person with fantastic achievements in the past, but a death secondary to lung cancer is not extraordinary, and I don't find the impact of the death in itself to be notable enough for the initial list. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for RD. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 08:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for RD Prominent both as a player and a commentator. He was a controversial figure and played a major role in the World Series Cricket breakaway, which had a significant impact on cricket. But I don't think his death is a sufficiently big story for a blurb. Suggest also a slight rewording of the blurb to read "Former England cricket captain and commentator Tony Greig dies aged 66." I think the fact he was captain is worth noting, and he wasn't just a test cricketer - he was also a highly successful one-day cricketer, as his key role with World Series Cricket would suggest. Neljack (talk) 08:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for recent deaths, oppose full blurb. Significant figure in world cricket, as a player, administrator, and commentator. IgnorantArmies – 09:24, Saturday December 29, 2012 (UTC)
• Support Either full blurb or RD ticker. Anyone who opposes, I intend to make them grovel... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A threatening attitude is not the way to build consensus. Kevin McE (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course. How incredibly ignorant for a generalist reader not to recognise an obscure event specuific quote from 36 years ago. Kevin McE (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How incredibly ignorant of you not to even bother looking at the article you're commenting on. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How incredibly stupid this bickering is... _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 20:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for RD: proposed text not interesting enough to warrant a full blurb. Note that there is no notability difference between RD and a full blurb, so if a good blurb were proposed I might reconsider. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 11:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please point out your justification for "no notability difference between RD and a full blurb", because you've said it twice now and I must have missed the memo. And everyone else must have as well. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 20:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read the archives. There was explicit consensus that the introduction of RD should not lower the notability threshold at ITN; that it was simply there to streamline dull blurbs on people that clearly should be posted. If the blurb is eye-catching, we post a blurb. If it's [Name] [job] [died], we don't. I believe the French term is sens commun. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 13:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It clearly wasn't common sense, because everyone here is trying to promote bare links to blurbs. I had no idea that there were no more death blurbs. In fact you're the first person to actually mention this in RD nominations, so anyone who had not read the discussion would have no clue what that norm for RD submissions was. This should probably be highlighted at WP:ITN – where there is absolutely no mention of the ticker or procedure relating to it. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 23:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support for RD only: very strong oppose to any suggestion of full blurb. Can we please have a proper discussion on the threshold between the two, which should have taken place before RD was implemented, and which has been attempted but hijacked by abolitionists. Kevin McE (talk) 13:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Updated nomination for RD.Regards, theTigerKing  15:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what you were doing with that last edit: you have changed your request to RD inclusion, but added a second blurb. If you are making a RD nomination, you need to put yes in the recent deaths field, and delete or leave empty the blurb fields. Kevin McE (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that at present the article currently has 4 orange-level maintenance tags which rules it out under the standard ITN criteria - Dumelow (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Top of his field? This guy seems to have been a character, but what indicates he was even near the top of his field? One source says "He was diminished, too, by his indifferent on-field performances in World Series Cricket, where he seemed to cast himself as pantomime villain." [2] μηδείς (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In what way was Charles Durning at the top of his field? Or that bloke who played Quincy? Medeis follows one rule for American celebrities, another for the rest of the world... 87.114.90.71 (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well regarded individual both in his sport and outside of it, established person of merit in his field doktorb _words^deeds 18:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There are multiple references-needed tags for several unreferenced sections that need to be addressed in the article before possible posting. Spencer^T♦C 19:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting Many references were added and all but one of the references needed tags was resolved. Consensus was clear so there's no need to hold this up any longer. Spencer^T♦C 21:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Protest This should not have been posted with the tag unresolved. μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This has now been resolved. Spencer^T♦C 07:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Blurb updated] Delhi gang-rape victim's death

Nominator's comments: The girl was very widely covered by national and international media. Her death has already become huge news within a few minutes. Deserves a fresh ITN hook. If approved, suggest removing the hook on demonstrations against the rape. --TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Since this story is already featured, we should update the entry (and not promote it chronologically), perhaps by adding "and murder". BTW, the victim was not a girl. (ETA: I guess they weren't protesting against a murder, so some other way of updating instead....) Formerip (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure she is a girl, as is stated multiple times in the article. See below for my take gwickwire^talk_edits 01:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As is stated multiple times in the article ??!?? It's on Wikipedia FFS. She was 23. Formerip (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support chronological promotion and updating. The death means we cannot really use the previous blurb, or location in the time frame of ITN. Definitally worth updating, as having it non-updated is wrong. gwickwire^talk_edits 01:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose how does her death have a wide impact? We should wait for actual protests or something before REposting this. 01:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nergaal (talk • contribs)

This blurb is not about the protests. Its more about the death of the girl, which seems to be very much big news. Check the number of sources to verify that.(8 hours after the death now) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: updating is fine, but I oppose bumping! Nergaal (talk) 06:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Updating blurb. Death means charges may now be murder, not only rape. - 220 of ^Borg 02:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Just update the blurb we already have.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Update existing blurb, do not bump it or add a new one. Modest Genius ^talk 03:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Update existing blurb. MikeLynch (talk) 04:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To all those with update !votes, please specify whether your !vote is to update without chronological promotion or with. IMO it is useless to update the blurb without promoting it chronologically, as it makes no sense to have such a highly important news as the fourth hook. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• How about "The victim of a gang rape in Delhi, which sparked widespread demonstrations across India, dies as a result of her injuries." I'm uncomfortable with adding "murder". It might be chargeable that way in the United States, but I don't know enough about Indian law to post anything that implies specific criminal charges against living people. Support updating and bumping.--Chaser (talk) 06:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Update existing blurb without chronological promotion Alternate blurb: The victim of a gang-rape in Delhi, which sparked widespread demonstrations across India, dies in Singapore.Regards, theTigerKing  07:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Update existing blurb. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 08:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to adequately update the blurb without bumping it. Either we speak about the protests alone, in which case we cannot speak about the death; or we speak about the death; in which case we cannot make the sneaky update. ITN does not change the order of blurbs (from what I gathered in a nom after the Sandy Hook shooting where adding the hook in the second place was not allowed). And this death either deserves a separate blurb or none at all. I think its better if I withdraw the ITN nomination if its about the latter. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updated - There is clear consensus here to update the existing blurb without bumping it to the top. I am not aware of any rule that prevents this and it certainly used to be commonplace when I used to edit ITN more regularly - Dumelow (talk) 11:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I don't get it. If the blurb is now about her death (which, in its current phrasing, is the case), and not about the protests, then why isn't it bumped to fit chronological order? I don't see the big deal anyway. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 20:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem logical that the blurb should be promoted now that the subject has been changed from the protests to the death. Formerip (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be beyond our collective wit to compose a blurb that retains the focus of the blurb (thus not requiring bumping) while recording the death: A fatal gang rape in Delhi sparks widespread demonstrations across India. or (given that fatality was an unknown at the time of the demonstrations) ''A gang rape in Delhi, in which the victim received fatal injuries, sparks widespread demonstrations across India. Kevin McE (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something like that would also be my preference, but it seems like we've chosen the other door. Formerip (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about promotion of blurb The brutal assault and rape of the woman was not a notable event. What was notable was the protests that followed, lockdown of the capital which resulted the incident to be covered by foreign media. The unfortunate death of the girl and the silent protests that followed, was hence, covered by the media around the world. Has India and the world changed (till the time of posting this comment) after her death? The answer is NO! The blurb reflects the same.Regards, theTigerKing  03:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the blurb patently does not reflect the lack of change in India and the world. I think you are expressing a preference for a blurb that focuses on the protests, and yet you have not commented in favour of the proposal that does so. Kevin McE (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tu-204 crash at Vnukovo airport

Nominator's comments: Very notable air crash. Breaking news on every Russian TV channel. --Ворот93 (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose in what way is this "very notable" other than the fact a dodgy airline has crashed at a dodgy airport killing (sadly) a handful of people? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  An international airport of the second largest city of Europe is "dodgy"? Ворот93 (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Mercifully few deaths, although each is sad. Although it is in the headlines today, this is very much a tomorrow's chip paper story: it will not lead to nationwide mourning, major reviews of plane safety, or anything else. Our 2012 Aviation accidents records 17 deadlier incidents, the majority of which were not posted. Kevin McE (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Disagree on (almost) all counts. The crash occurred near the capital so it will not go off so easily. Also, this crash is going to kick off systemic re-examination of Tu-204 wheel brakes (as stated in TV reports). Ворот93 (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per the reasons given. 331dot (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree with the statements given by my honourable friends above. doktorb _words^deeds 22:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not notable enough for ITN. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fontella Bass for RD

• American R&B soul singer dies at age of 72. EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 08:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for all Not important enough for either blurb or ticker doktorb _words^deeds 10:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not a leader in the R&B field. Spencer^T♦C 13:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not quite a one hit wonder, but not much more. Kevin McE (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for blurb and ticker. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jiroemon Kimura, oldest male in history

 61.245.25.17 (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally I support this, though recent precedents seem to suggest consensus is this sort of item isn't noteworthy. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, on the grounds that I would prefer to give him a full blurb when he dies, such as "Jiroemon Kimura, the longest-lived verified male in history, dies at the age of one-hundred-and-something." —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 10:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm with WFC on this. There's not a lot of substance to the story, in any case, so let's wait until he dies. In fact, let's try to decide sooner rather than later if we're more likely to support an age-story on death or on confirmation of holding a record, because I don't think we can have both doktorb _words^deeds 11:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The advantage of posting at death is that we can actually post the new record, rather than simply the point at which the previous record was overtaken. Besides, if we were to post now, people would cite this posting as a reason not to post his death. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 12:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Not a great assumption; especially if Kimura lives to be much older than this. Let's not WP:CRYSTAL this nom. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 21:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Congratulations on one of the silliest quotations of CRYSTAL in the history of Wikipedia. Regardless, given that this nomination is not going to succeed, if you were to successfully undermine my point, you would simply be undermining the consensus that we should post a full blurb when he dies. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 07:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Either you edited your comment or I misread it, but I replied to that because I thought you said that the longer the man lives, the more notable he gets, which is why I quoted CRYSTAL. My bad if that wasn't the case. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 23:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per WFC. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WFC. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because merely remaining alive is not noteworthy. Will also oppose anything more than RD when he dies, because his life will have made no more impact on others than that of any other elderly gent. Lots of people who have been record breakers in one respect or another die every year, and will not be posted. Might rethink if there is major news coverage (far beyond mere mention in bulletins and obituaries) when the time comes, but I doubt that will occur. Kevin McE (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain why being the longest lived human being (to be documented) is not noteworthy? I can accept that simply noting anyone who reaches 110 or what have you isn't, but I don't understand that reasoning applied to the person who has lived longer than all other human beings before them. If it was you, I think you would want it to be noted here. 331dot (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, he will not be the longest lived human being ever reliably recorded until September 2019, should he live that long. He is merely the longest living of his half of the species.

There are thousands of achievements that are attested as records: many are totally superficial, many (including this) are only records by restricted criteria, and some are the result of historically notable and relevant endeavour. Whether the holder of a record would like to see that recorded on ITN is possibly the weakest argument I have ever read: David Rudisha might have liked to see his 800m WR recorded here in the summer, but that was not a consideration.

Longevity is not the result of historically relevant achievement on the part of the record holder, and is not automatically more worthy of mention than any other record. Nor is it treated as such by the media.

Mere survival is not the pinnacle of human achievement. Kevin McE (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the criteria to be listed here is that something be the "pinnacle of human achievement", we might as well get rid of ITN, because not too many things posted there would meet that standard. We're here to point out significant and interesting information, not just notable achievements for humanity(and humanity figuring out how to live that long is certainly notable). Survival is not just about a record; it's about surviving all events and random chance that could stop such longevity. Not too many people do that and the odds of doing so are fantastically small. We're not talking about who can eat the most hot dogs or kiss the most people in an hour. 331dot (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've already acknowledged that many records are totally superficial: don't try to undermine my argument by raising issues that I have made it very clear that it does not rely upon. More to the point, this is not earning most Academy Awards, gaining multiple Nobel prizes, being the composed/author who has sold most works, or numerous military decorations. Doing those things would be outstanding in a field of expertise: being kept alive largely through the efforts of others, while spending most of one's time in bed, is not a field of expertise. His "achievement" is only a record by virtue of elimination of the majority of the human race from the reckoning: a Venn intersection between reaching 115 years, 253 days and having a Y chromosome. Kevin McE (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An RD would be idiotic. He is far better known as the oldest man in history than as Jiroemon Kimura. Surely in such cases we either post a blurb, or not bother at all. For the record, when he dies, I will be arguing Blurb or nothing for the reasons I gave when the previous oldest person in the world died. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 11:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The argument for reduced blurb in RDs has been presented and has not gained consensus. Very few people are more known for their name than for their "achievements". Those few that are (Mandela, Pope, QEII) are probably precisely those for whom a blurb will be appropriate on their death. As I've already said, if global news coverage at the time of his death is enormous, my mind could be changed, but that seems unlikely. Kevin McE (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has not convinced you, and has not gained consensus, are (thankfully) two distinctly different things. I would suggest you read the multitide of comments above, entirely in agreement with my rationale, as well as the comments that go further than mine and actually want a blurb now. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 07:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have misunderstood. Had "the argument for reduced blurb in RDs" gained consensus, then the RD line would currently read something like Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. (US general) – Gerry Anderson (British animator and TV producer) – Charles Durning (US actor). That has nothing to do with anything that I have, or have not, been convinced of. In the case of the current proposal, we are agreed on opposing it: I am disturbed that the above reads rather like an attempt to tell me that I would not have a right to argue for RD when this man's death occurs. Perhaps I will be in a minority when that comes about: that does not preclude my right to present a dissenting opinion. Kevin McE (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Futile Support - I think these sorts of record-based stories are inherently encylopeadic and are useful adverts for Wikipedia's content. LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support for reasons I gave at the discussion 331dot linked to. Becoming the world's oldest male, ever to exist, is an impressive feat to be recognised, and I wonder why the opposers believe that his death is more noteworthy than the record itself. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 20:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  He will be older tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow, and so on, for as long as he lives. By posting the record at his death, we are posting the new record that he has set, as well as recognising his passing. If we post now, there is zero chance of us getting consensus for the latter. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 11:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  But he has set the record already. The record is that he lived longer than any known male, which he set yesterday. That's the news. There is nothing notable about him dying because it's inevitable and, according to you ITN editors, "predictable and not notable". _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 19:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  But when he dies, it'll be "world's oldest man dies". At the moment it's "man becomes oldest man by virtue of the previous record holder dying." We post hereditary monarchies on that basis because there's some vestige of power and responsibility when one is replaced by another. But in this case, there's nothing of any importance being passed from one person to another, it's more of a fluke of nature than most monarchies are. doktorb _words^deeds 22:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't understand your point. We can look at the 100 m dash record the exact same way: "man become fastest sprinter by virtue of the previous record holder not being able to run faster". _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 00:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Not quite, it is "man becomes oldest man by virtue of passing age at which previous (gender specific) record holder died." But still as much a fluke. Kevin McE (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted to RD] Death of Norman Schwarzkopf Jr.

Nominator's comments: Major figure during Desert Storm. Recommending for listed blurb. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for full blurb, one of the most successful military commanders of the last 40 years. μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for full blurb but only because he was the coalition leader in the Gulf War. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a RD ticker. Oppose a full blurb. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for RD ticker only. Significant figure, but not enough for a full blurb IMO. Also, don't use the euphemism 'passes away' in the blurb - 'dies' is much better (see WP:EUPHEMISM). Modest Genius ^talk 02:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for RD ticker only - Here comes another fight over a full blurb vs RD ticker. RD ticker is the place for most all deaths. Just say no to full blurb. Agree that wording of blurb should be 'dies.' Jusdafax 02:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for either, just post it already. Abductive (reasoning) 03:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for full blurb, many notable figures been dying lately so RD has a backlog, and he's probably the most historically significant and notable for the blurb because of his involvement in the Gulf War. Undoubtedly one of the most significant military commanders of the late 20th century, article is in poor shape though. Secret ^account 03:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How about an update? -- tariqabjotu 03:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When this was posted, the news was out for about 30 minutes, and only a perfunctory morgue-style obit was available. I'll get to it tomorrow if nobody else does, but I'll be opening presents with the kids, so don't expect that soon. μηδείς (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support only RD. He was briefly extremely notable but didn't gave long term notability like Colin Powell, David Petreaus, or Wesley Clark. He died of old age in retirement. Not huge news.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support one way or the other, but please, no "passing away". Lampman (talk) 07:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD per arguments above. --Tone 08:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for full blurb ✍ Mtking ✉ 12:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose promotion to full blurb: RD was brought in to avoid blurbs that did no more than record the fact of a death. There is nothing about the nature of his death or the response to it that is newsworthy, it is simply the occasion for publishing the obits. Kevin McE (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as RD' as per Kevin. Not at the level of news that warrents a full blurb. LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Promote to full blurb. "Schwarzkopf was involved in rescuing men of his battalion from a minefield [in Vietnam]". "Commander of the 1st Brigade of the 9th Infantry Division". "Named Deputy Commander of the Joint Task Force [during the Invasion of Grenada]". "Promoted to General and was appointed Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Central Command ... responsible at the time for operations in the Horn of Africa, the Middle East and South Asia." "Prepared a detailed plan for the defense of the oil fields of the Persian Gulf ... which was as the basis for Operation Desert Shield". "General Schwarzkopf's offensive operational plan ... was the "left hook" strategy that went into Iraq ... and was widely credited with bringing the ground war to a close in just four days." "Offered the position of Chief of Staff of the United States Army". Sorry, but all of this is pretty big to not merit full blurb status. Highly decorated, highly accomplished. Don't let the Death Ticker force our standards too high. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 21:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Had absolutely no idea we banished death blurbs as the norm. This should have been made clear here or on the main WP:ITN page when the ticker was introduced. Clearly a lot of people here and on other discussions didn't get that memo either. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 23:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Ticker only. Death will have no major ramifications, article has orange tag, would contribute to systematic bias. Formerip (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Opposed to full blurb per Kevin. On notability grounds there is no difference between RD and a full blurb: anyone on RD is notable enough for a full blurb. But Eric's post above demonstrates just how difficult it would be to retain neutrality with anything other than the tried and detested [Nationality] [name] [why he was famous] [dies at the age of whatever-it-is]. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 11:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then why do we even bother with deaths in the first place then? And "tried and detested"?^{[citation needed]} What other way is there to present a death? _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 19:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Upgrade--if Eric is in favor of a full blurb that means this nomination should be upgraded according to the proposed criteria when RD was instituted. μηδείς (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you please show me where this discussion is? Because WFC is saying this and you're saying that and I don't see any discussion – because ITN is so secretive with its discussion. (In fact I only noticed the WT:ITN page a week ago...) _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 20:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the talk page and search the archives back in August for various discussions under recent deaths. I am having keyboard trouble and am using a family member's computer or I would find the link for you. If you have trouble, CI will see if I can do it later. μηδείς (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the Meantime more than two thirds of the votes here are in favor of a full listing, only one third are opposed. The listing should be upgraded. μηδείς (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is an appalling misrepresentation of facts. I count eight definite rejections of a full blurb (Future Trillionaire, Modest Genius, Judasfax, Johnsemlak, Kevin McE, LukeSurl, FormerIP, WFC), which means you will have to find at least seventeen !votes that specifically specify preference for a full blurb: I can find six (Mesem, Mdeis, Presidentman, Secret, Mtking and EricLeb). Two (Abductive and Lampman) have stated that they are indifferent as to which type of posting, while wanting it brought to the mainpage. I'm intrigued as to where you will find the other eleven full blurb preferences that must be found for your comment to have any semblance of truth. I would suggest that retraction and apology is the only honourable course. Kevin McE (talk) 13:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The simple fact is that this nomination was for a full blurb, and the vast majority of votes here support a full blurb. People who opposed a full blurb nomination voted that way explicitly, and they count as 1/3 of the votes. Per the discussion when ITN/RD was set up, when the majority of votes supported a full blurb, a full blurb would be posted. That is the case here. μηδείς (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

" the vast majority of votes here support a full blurb" - nonsense. I count at least eight people explicitly opposed to making it a full blurb. Please demonstrate how you came to your conclusion of "the vast majority" supporting a full blurb. Shouldn't be too hard should it? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • • You seem to be right, Rambling. I was apparently double counting supports somehow. Nothing to do with eggnog though, it's only 3pm. μηδείς (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's it? No apology for presenting false data, no withdrawal of your claim? You respond to RM saying that there are eight, but ignored for several hours my specific naming of those eight, even when I had specifically challenged you in user talk space to address the issue when you were online several hours earlier? Kevin McE (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Eric, full blurbs have not been banished, they can still be nominated and are supposed to be for heads of state, exceptional artists, unexpected deaths, etc. Given Schwartzkopf was commander in chief of the largest and most successful international coalition since WWII, it seemed to some of us he deserved a full blurb. μηδείς (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I said "banished ... as the norm". I assume that we would reserve the blurbs for high-profile deaths, or deaths of high-profile people though. And I don't think his meets that. Not quite, anyway. I'm Neutral on a promotion based on that line of reasoning. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 00:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Dennis O'Driscoll

• Support for RD, article has a few glitches. quickly succumbed to his fate isn't exactly in like with the WP:MOS. Also Irish Times lists is death as Dec 24. --IP98 (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RTÉ says the 26th and someone on the talk page says the 25th so there is some confusion. The only thing certain is he died recently. --86.40.103.60 (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Can someone suggest one of his better poems? μηδείς (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Better" depends what you like I guess. Here is one. --86.40.108.143 (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I prefer poems with strict form, but I liked his imagery a lot, and loved the comparisons with Australia. μηδείς (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has anybody noticed how Medeis treats non-American noms? It's hilariously bias. He never gives a support/oppose on noms that are not American yet are clearly going to pass, he treats non-American sources as if they are not reliable - take a look down below when he quoted one American source for an American nom, then went all "Questionable" about a non-American source for a non-American "Oooo, looks like we're going to need more sources for that!" and called the only people who would want such a story posted "fanboys" - ITN/C is treated like some kind of different universe to the rest of Wikipedia. This is a disgrace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.102.210 (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame that poetry is so neglected. Oh well. --86.40.108.143 (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another one I found interesting but, again, these things are entirely subjective. --86.40.108.143 (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Richard Rodney Bennett (for RD)

Nominator's comments: Noted English composer for many works. Knighted for his contributions to English film/music. (BAFTA award and 3 Oscar noms). Not significant for full blurb but sufficient for ticker. And yes, the article is lacking updates. --MASEM (t) 06:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral comment This is not an oppose as such, but if he's not significant enough for a full blurb, surely he shouldn't be posted? When the ticker was introduced, the argument was very clear – that the ticker was primarily there to prevent ITN from becoming an obituary, as well as to filter out blurbs of the form "[Nationality] [occupation] [name] [dies at the age of] [age]". It was made equally clear that the ticker would not and must not lower notability requirements. Has something changed that I've missed (it might well have, I'm not particularly active nowadays)? —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 07:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In making the nomination, I knew I wasn't going to fight for a full blurb, but one could easily be made for this, eg "Sir Richard Rodney Bennett, composer for film and television works, dies at XX". However, given all the other recent tickers that have been posted in the last few days, this seems to be at the same level of importance/notability as the other entertainment-related deaths. --MASEM (t) 18:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for all Not notable enough for either blurb or ticker. As WFC says, the ticker was not designed to be an obituary service. doktorb _words^deeds 10:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ITN itself was not designed to be an obituary service, but it's beginning to look that way. Why, given that Wikipedia already has a Recent deaths page, does ITN/C have to be clogged up with obit nominations (and the toxic arguments they engender)? 87.114.90.71 (talk) 11:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I did not in any way, shape or form suggest that we post too many deaths (or too few). I simply said that the death ticker was introduced to ensure that a flood of significant deaths would not alter our standards for inclusion. In the same way that an election ticker has been considered from time-to-time to ensure that a flood of significant elections would not, in itself, prevent some from being posted. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 12:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not at all bothered by this nomination. Why should this thread be the venue for complaints about other nominations or that we even list dead people? The man was a three-time academy award nominee. Voting opposed is always an option. We don't need to discourage good faith nominations. As for "toxic arguments" in other threads, the talk page is the place for that--or you could simply refrain from making them. μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per ITN/DC #2. Short resume, three oscar noms, not exactly standing out as "widely regarded as important in his/her field". --IP98 (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, not a lead story on the BBC or elsewhere. Please stop nominating everybody who has an article when they die. Abductive (reasoning) 19:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing wrong with a lot of nominations. We're here to find (diverse) stories to post on the section, not to restrict it to a select few extremely high-profile cases. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 21:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted to RD] Gerry Anderson RD

Nominator's comments: Thunderbirds and other iconic animated programme creator --Kevin McE (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support pending update. I was actually about to nominate this myself. Popular entertainer who created some extremely popular programmes. The article is fairly extensive but poorly referenced; it needs a prose update of some form. Modest Genius ^talk 18:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Highly regarded person in his field, with a significant back catalogue to his name. Culturally important too. doktorb _words^deeds 18:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as I was e/c'd when trying to nominate it myself. A legend in his field. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• FYI For those to whom it's not clear, Gerry Anderson was the producer of Thunderbirds (the puppet sci-fi series parodied in South Park's Team America: World Police) and Space 1999, which parodied itself. Some sources and support outside British fanboys and the BBC talking about how the man was a titan in his field would be helpful. μηδείς (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, Kevin actually already mentioned this in his nomination comment. Please, calm down. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, drop the personal comments. Um, he did not mention the series probably most known to Americans, or that his works were the subject of parodies and usually considered flops. Um, I suggest you focus on supporting the nom, not attacking me. Um.μηδείς (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now then, no personal attack, just asking you to calm down with your tone (e.g. "British fanboys"!) and re-read the nomination which already included the information you deemed so important you needed to repeat it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal opinion of the man's shows doesn't count as a reason to support this nom--i.e., fanboy OR is OR. Find some sources, and more than just the BBC, calling the man the top of his field. You are wasting your time addressing me. 19:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't we all know that!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as creator of programs having had worldwide impact, such as Thunderbirds and Space 1999, capturing the wonderment and faith in technical progress of the 60s and early 70s. Hektor (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Several of Anderson's shows—Thunderbirds, Captain Scarlet and Stingray—have had decades of enduring appeal on this side of the Atlantic, and the man is credited with pioneering an entire animation style. I'd say that's more than enough to be considered "top of his field". GRAPPLE X 19:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  And i am a fan of Space 1999, but do we have sources saying Anderson was at the top of his field? μηδείς (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, you are being deliberately obtuse doktorb _words^deeds 19:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The Telegraph, The Guardian and The Times are all superlative in their obituaries. Have you any basis for your dismissal of the BBC, one of the world's most respectable news sources? GRAPPLE X 19:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems to be a personal gripe and can be easily dismissed doktorb _words^deeds 19:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to this nomination, but calling me obtuse is acting the fool. There's no point in people giving their personal opinions as fans of his work without providing the refs, none of which had been done until afterwards, and provided reluctantly, as if it were some sort of burden. I still don't see a source outside the UK, or any quotes about him being at the top of his field--and if the field was children's animation, he wasn't. μηδείς (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. New York Times, too. Better? GRAPPLE X 20:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep your (Fart--oops.) bodily functions to yourself please. Still not seeing anything superlative even in the NYT Europe section. μηδείς (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's absolutely nothing superlative mentioned in any of the three British periodicals mentioned above (although I am not going to pay to get behind the Times' paywall); just that he entertained a generation of kids. Some quotes would be nice. μηδείς (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He created some of the most well respected and groundbreaking shows on television. doktorb _words^deeds 20:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where were the quotes for Jack Klugman? He went straight up without you objecting, Medeis – in fact, you acted like a cheerleader. And now you appear to be rejecting Anderson on the grounds of nationality, a tactic you object to very strongly if anyone uses it to discount your two-bit American TV celebrities and forgotten senators. 87.114.90.71 (talk) 11:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, notabl and well-known in the field of science fiction and puppetry. Mjroots (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Probably the world's most recognized puppet film creator. As sources obviously demonstrate, "[t]he deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." --hydrox (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for ticker, reasonably good demonstration of importance in sci fi TV. --MASEM (t) 21:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, from what I see he seems to be well-known and recognized in his field to be posted here. The drama here I feel is unnecessary ad tiresome. – Connormah (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Some article sections could use references and/or cleanup to remove some of the inline tags, such as Gerry_Anderson#Sylvia_Anderson.27s_increased_role, Gerry_Anderson#Live_action, Gerry_Anderson#Unfilmed_James_Bond_script and Gerry_Anderson#2000s. Spencer^T♦C 01:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – without question at the top of his field. I would prefer a full blurb though – as I consistently argue for in comparable nominations – because his field was not front-of-house (musician, actor, athlete, head of state etc). —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 05:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD --Jayron32 18:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question I am not going to pull the posting without consensus here and I was not around for the recent deaths ticker discussions so I may have missed something. But the article seems below par to me (certainly below the standard we consider for full ITN postings). The sole update to this article in relation to Anderson's death was "Gerry Anderson died on 26 December 2012 at the age of 83 after his diagnosis of dementia", no further details or reaction on why this was significant. It seems woefully under-referenced with only 14 of the articles current 58 paragraphs having a single reference - there are no references at all between the 7th and 25th paragraphs. It certainly doesn't meet the five sentence update ITN guidance and would fail for having an orange/red-level tag on it (someone would be hard pressed to argue against a ((refimprove)) tag - though I hate the things). Whilst I concur with the suitability of the subject for an RD place I do not think that the state of the article merits it, unless we do not expect RD posts to comply with the general ITN rules? - Dumelow (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in this discussion from earlier this month. Kevin McE (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure there was consensus to do away with the update rule, was there? I support a requirement of five sentences but think it should be an article-wide update, not strictly limited to the death itself. The problem is fixed easy enough, give me an hour and I will make sure it is updated. μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC) It looks like Footballgy has already updated the article in spades [3]. μηδείς (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That update isn't fantastic by any account. Fully 60% of the character count is direct quotes, the remainder being introductions to those quotes. The single non-quote sentence "... is survived by his widow Mary and son Jamie as well as three children from former marriages — Joy, Linda and Gerry Jnr." is lifted word for word from the Metro article. I have removed it from the article. But that is besides the point, we are talking about expected standards at the point of posting.

Personally I would be happy with a lower standard of update for deaths, to require 5 sentences of filler when the only real news is "x dies of y at age z" is a bit over the top, any elaboration can be added when further details emerge later. The ticker surely exists solely to direct people to articles they are looking for already (otherwise people have no idea who the deceased are as there is no description), whereas the main blurbs actually convey information so it is reasonable to assume a certain standard of backing information in the article. All I ask is that if this is the case we formalise this in some way, otherwise it is unfair on the posting admin who has to act without any guidance/back up from the rules - Dumelow (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware the old rules are still in place. I had my obvious problems above with the terribly sloppy way this nom was handled, with people giving their OR opinions as support that he was the "top" of the puppet sci-fi animation field (how about Ray Harryhausen or Jim Henson of The Muppets and Farscape, both of whom far outrank him in regard and success?) and then facing paranoid accusation that my wanting support from sources was some nefarious anti-British campaign based on a personal gripe! But at this point, regardless of the quality of the update, there is no technical reason for a pull, and I don't think anyone opposes the nomination. I would probably add some quotes from obituaries in papers of record about his pioneering status. But someone with more knowledge of the subject than I can handle that if they like. μηδείς (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely - leave it up. But if this to be the standard we expect of RD noms (which I have no objections to, as stated above) we need to rewrite the rules - Dumelow (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No we don't. Trying to change the rules because Medeis is at his most passive aggressive isn't consensus building. If we're to have the ticker - and Lord knows I've never liked the idea - we can't keep falling over ourselves to redefine what those rules mean. My preference, and I'm not alone, is to ditch the ticker. Ideally, I'd ditch all death nominations from ITN completely, it's the only way we're going to get any peace doktorb _words^deeds 22:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Jim Henson doesn't qualify for the recent part of recent deaths, and Ray Harryhausen doesn't qualify for the deaths part. --Jayron32 23:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding what Dumelow is stating with regard to the deaths-related update, I'm disappointed that this was posted given the quality of the rest of the article (not that I'm advocating a pull). My understanding is that RD's don't need to have as great of the deaths-related update, but the article as a whole should be of very good quality. And it seems as though my comment above was ignored and the article was posted even though there were clear referencing issues, which lessens the quality of the article as a whole. I don't support pulling, but I feel this sets a dangerous precedent if we are going to accept the "lower standard of update for deaths" and not at the same time require that articles be of very good posting quality. Spencer^T♦C 06:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Worlds longest high speed rail line opened

 --Johnsemlak (talk) 15:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Looks like a world record to me, and the article looks up-to-date. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose pending clarification. The article doesn't make the statement worlds lognest high speed rail line, and it looks like several sections still aren't complete. --IP98 (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that IP98's former wiki identities include StopChinaNow and TheSinophobe, and that he has a position against any story involving China. Kevin McE (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exactly a secret, given that I list those users on my current users user page. --IP98 (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not bring ad hominems into this.--WaltCip (talk) 18:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm opposed to a fascist empire bent on world domination. I'm also opposed to posting engineering stories before the project is finished. The two valid and factual objections, overlooked by WaltCip, remain unaddressed. --IP98 (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You would appreciate the fact that my admonishment was directed towards Kevin, not towards you.--WaltCip (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Walt, I do, I'm sorry. --IP98 (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that you think that drawing attention to a clear bias in an editor's attitude, dissimulated by a change in name, is worthy of admonishment. It is not an ad hominem attack (You know nothing of my opinion of the Chinese government), it is declaration of COI. Kevin McE (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, Kevin, no dissimulation intended here. I would still be calling myself "StopChinaNow" but I was banned for an offensive name. I proudly list them on my user page. You've not uncovered any sockpuppetry, I'm not hiding a thing. Yes, I'm opposed to a fascist band of sadistic baby butchers. I don't hide that either. I'm also a good faith contributor who has been here for a long time, who has looked at the article and nomination, and made a considered objection. You've elected to ignore those objections, and derail any hope for consideration with your hateful remarks. Yes, I oppose the fascist "government" of imperial China, but this is WP:ITN, not the UN commission on human rights. Drop it please. --IP98 (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies in as much as COI was clearly not an appropriate phrase to be throwing around. Kevin McE (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Whilst other countries talk, China builds, and this seems to be another highly significant news development. Also would be good for us to get something
• Support. Notable event. NickSt (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but with a shorter blurb. Nergaal (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment since my original oppose was hijacked with unfounded claims of a COI. Mercury Tower was rejected because even though it was tall, it wasn't finished. Shard London Bridge was posted because it was finished. I see no reason not to wait until 2015 when the entire line is done from one end to the other. --IP98 (talk) 22:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This a pretty big deal, and not just for China, but internationally. In particular, in the U.S. high speed rail is a hot and controversial current political topic, and this event will certainly have an affect (now, and not just in 2015 or at some artificial future date) on the political debate surrounding it. Nsk92 (talk) 23:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - It's notable, a record, and ITN-worthy. Marking as ready per consensus. Jusdafax 00:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The blurb could be better, but the event is worth putting on ITN. Black Kite (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The article looks good and I'm willing to post, but can I get a cite in the article for this being "the world's longest high-speed rail route"? Or link me to where it says that in the article? Spencer^T♦C 01:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Done I think. I added the world record info to the lede. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) Furthermore, I'm a bit confused by some of the information. All of the news reports suggest that the Beijing-Guangzhou portion constitutes the longest high-speed rail line, but the article notes a (complete) continuation to Shenzhen and a further (inexplicably incomplete) continuation to Hong Kong. So... is the Guangzhou-Hong Kong portion a separate line, as the Guangzhou–Shenzhen–Hong Kong Express Rail Link article suggests? And, either way, why does the BBC and the Washington Post (via the AP) say the line from Beijing to Guangzhou is 2,298 km when our article says the length of the entire line, including the incomplete segment to Hong Kong, is 2,230 km? That table in the article isn't sourced. -- tariqabjotu 02:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  2,298 km is the "rate-making distance", that is the distance the Ministry of Railways want to used to work out the ticket price. Price of Chinese train is fixed, defined by a set of formula based on the distance. I can't find public references of the 2,230 km Beijing to Hong Kong claim at this moment. But anyway it cannot be 2,298 km Beijing to Guangzhou + some 200 km Guangzhou to Hong Kong (over 10% difference) as the public news articles suggested. However, the real distance can be easily independently verified from satellite image. OpenStreetMap also has a rather accurate route ready for this verification at http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2201704 Python eggs (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  To answer Tariq's question: the 'full line' stretches from Beijing to Hong Kong, but the opened revenue segments currently only constitute the portion between Beijing and Guangzhou. This portion of the line itself has been constructed in segments, with the Beijing-Shijiazhuang and Zhengzhou-Wuhan segments opening on December 26 for full service, but the Shijiazhuang-Zhengzhou and Wuhan-Guangzhou portions of the line having already been operational since earlier this year and two years ago, respectively. Technically this is one large railway line that consists of several "sub-lines". It is the longest operational high speed rail in the world insofar as Beijing-Guangzhou is the world's longest continuous and contiguous high speed service. I hope that clarifies. Colipon+(Talk) 23:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't clarify. Our article says the Guangzhou-Shenzhen segment was completed a year ago. So if Beijing-Hong Kong is one continuous line, at the very least you'd expect news reports to be talking about the Beijing-Shenzhen segment being the world's longest. Is that last segment just completed, and not actually open for business as revenue track? Look, I'm not trying to hold this nomination up, but I think some alignment with the sources is in order. Python eggs said "I can't find public references of the 2,230 km Beijing to Hong Kong claim at this moment", and yet that unsourced claim is still in the article, alongside another set of unsourced figures (that are slightly discrepant). When considering how to write the blurb, I thought it would make sense to say something like "The [X]-km Beijing-[Y] line opens as the world's longest high-speed railway"... but I don't know what X and Y are. And even if "X-km" is omitted, should Y = Guangzhou, or should we say "a part of the Beijing-Hong Kong line"? -- tariqabjotu 23:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Your confusion about the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong section is understandable. Currently, to my knowledge, the longest-running train only goes from Beijing to Guangzhou. To get from Beijing to Shenzhen, one remains on the same line, but must transfer trains. But in any case, the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong High Speed Rail is part of the larger Beijing-Guangzhou-Hong Kong high speed rail. Presumably, when the Hong Kong section of the line is completed by 2015, there will be revenue service between Beijing and Hong Kong, which would make that service defeat the current record held by Beijing-Guangzhou. Colipon+(Talk) 23:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok. I don't think that information is in the article, but ok. I'm not comfortable posting this myself, but I wouldn't object to anyone else doing so. -- tariqabjotu 23:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, 766 km of these 2000+ km opened in one day (12/26/12), over one third of the final route if it's 2230km. And why squabble about it not being finished? Shenzhen North is in the metropolitan area of the planned end (Hong Kong). Only 24 more miles of route are left to be built (39 km). the distance in comparison (center to edge), (US), proof of distance Nearly this entire distance is 217 mile an hour/350 kph trains which is quite an achievement. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Posting. The article and the rail line are long enough. --Tone 08:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012–2013 named winter storms

Man rams schoolchildren with car

[Posted] Kazahi plane crash

BBC. Nergaal (talk) 17:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - per nominator, many deaths. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 18:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Article now exists (created a redirect from your red-link). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support significant story from a part of the world we don't cover all that often. The update is fine – ideally I would like the article to be a little bit longer, but I am certain that it will have been expanded by the time there is consensus to post. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 18:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Decent start of an article, and the death of the acting leader of the border patrol adds some significance. At the same time, a rickety old soviet era plane crashed with 27 people on board. It's pretty mundane, in a tragic sense. I don't know when this aircraft was built, but the AN-72 article lists it as "low level production" so I'm guessing this wasn't shiny and new). I mean, an A340 slamming into the runway at Mumbai would be easier to support. Anyway, we seem to be quick to post all aircraft crashes, but with so many planes in the air around the world, is it really that big of a deal? --IP98 (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Article currently too short for a stand-alone article; needs expansion. Spencer^T♦C 18:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. I don't think the level of casualties is enough to warrant posting it as an ITN item. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question - 28 casualties in a shooting is enough, but 27 in a crash isnt? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answer - Yes. There is a difference between an accident which kills 27 people at once, and an individual who chooses to murder 28 people. Just like shooting one or two people isn't enough (I live in Miami, it's almost daily), but an A330 crashing into the ocean is enough. --IP98 (talk) 23:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; as IP98 said, there is a difference between deliberate murder of (mostly) children and an accident. If the number of deaths in this incident is high enough to list in ITN purely based on the number, I have to wonder what would be the floor for the number of deaths in order to be listed. 5? 10? 20? 331dot (talk) 01:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say 20 would be a good number to start with, as long as you do not get other aggravating or (un)aggravating situations. Any number that high to be killed at once, and its bad enough to warrant being here.

And do note that had the number been somewhere aroung 200, there would have been no doubt on whether to include it or not. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I raised "what is the minimum deaths" once on WT:ITN and no one would touch it with a 10 foot (3 m) pole. --IP98 (talk) 01:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Terrible crash. NickSt (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It's getting good coverage around the world, and I was surprised to find it as a headline at CBC. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 01:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The news has recieved quite a good coverage throughout the world, and needs to be added. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This article still requires considerable expansion before posting. It is barely 1100 characters at present - Dumelow (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, notable event. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted -- tariqabjotu 00:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted to RD] Death of Charles Durning

• Support. Feted stage actor; Tony and Drama Desk awards seal it for me (though to note, he didn't actually win an Oscar for his screen work). GRAPPLE X 21:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Grapple. Suggest removing the "same day as Jack Klugman" bit from his article though. It doesn't really add anything. --IP98 (talk) 22:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The Huffington Post has called Klugman and Durning the "Titans of Character Acting". Here is not the place to make the bad suggestion that we remove what notable sources say from articles. μηδείς (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for ticker As someone who hates the death ticker, I always hesitate before supporting nominations, but in this case I'm convinced by the notability and suitability for the front page doktorb _words^deeds 01:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Even with the ticker, we must resist the temptation to post every actor who dies. Almost by definition, a character actor will usually be a lower-tier celebrity, and that seems to be the case here. I have a hunch that although many moviegoers would recognize the actor, few would be able to say, "Oh yeah, that's Charles Durning." He has had a nice career, but not an exceptional one. I frankly wouldn't have posted Klugman either, although I enjoyed the work of both actors. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What temptation? Whether we list someone or not is not about "resisting temptation". ITN/RD was designed for exactly this situation, when more than one notable person dies in a week. Durning certainly qualifies as notable, as his "King of the Character Actors" and "Titan" description in the media attests. As for the recognizability argument, who in the world would recognize Dina Manfredini other than her townspeople? The point of listing in cases like this is to connect the people to the article, not to show our skill at temptation-resisting dieting as editors. If I didn't know who Durning was, but loved him as Pappy O'Daniel in O Brother, Where Art Thou?, I'd be particularly thankful for the editors of Wikipedia for helping me make that connection. To suggest we need to resist that is contrary to the very mission of the project. μηδείς (talk) 06:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being notable isn't enough, and the function of the ticker isn't to post every notable death. It still has to meet the death criteria, and I don't think this one does. Was he a good actor, with many roles? Sure. Was he "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field"? I honestly don't think so, unless you sufficiently narrow his field to "character acting". This is basically a nomination for that guy who was in that thing, and I would hope our standards haven't relaxed that much. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per bongwarrior. We can't put up every b-list Hollywood actor, and that seems to be what he was for the most part. The theater work is perhaps more compelling but at the end of the day actors in the US are considered great for their work on screen.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The Sources NYT: "Extraordinary Actors Ennobling the Ordinary" "an astonishing 207 acting credits" "household-name status" HuffPo "Character Actor Titans" " storied careers" "Klugman and Durning reign supreme" Telegraph "World War Two hero who became one of Hollywood's top character actors" NPR "king of the character actors". How this doesn't amount to top of one's field beats me. μηδείς (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the ITN candidates need only be lead role actors to avail a RD after their deaths. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Academy nominated, 9 emmy nominations, 3 golden globe nominations and one golden globe winning performance, and 1 tony award. B-list is not exactly what I would call him. Definitely a candidate for RD ticker. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Ready? The article is updated, there's 3-1 support for this nom, with opposes being based not on the nom itself but on opposition to posting actors. Can an admin comment if there is some other impediment to posting this? Otherwise I think it is ready to go. μηδείς (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opposition to posting actors. I oppose this particular actor because I don't think he is notable enough for ITN. I thought I had made that clear enough. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, Bongwarrior. Consensus at this point, however, is to post and the sources are unequivocal, so i am wondering if there is some other reason this hasn't been marked ready. Given I have listed myself as an updater I don't want to do so, but I do believe it is ready. μηδείς (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Significant in his field. I'll mark it ready, so we can post it. Jusdafax 23:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is the type of person the death ticker is meant for, at least to me. Hot Stop (Talk) 03:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted to RD, cheers - Dumelow (talk) 09:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted to RD] Death of Arthur Quinlan

• Neutral yes, prolific. Could probably meet ITN/DC #2, but the article doesn't support it. --IP98 (talk) 13:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose user 86.40.201.132 below has shown me that Quinlan does not pass ITN/DC #2. --IP98 (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Might I ask in what way? --86.40.201.132 (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support plenty of firsts and notable accomplishments in his article, there will be plenty of reader interest. μηδείς (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which would those be? "He would simply start up his 1939 Morris 8 and head for the airport."? Any awards won? Special recognition from his peers? --IP98 (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary member of the NUJ as it seems you hadn't noticed it in his article. Also being recognised and referred to by the name of your city/location of birth is pretty significant. Or would you prefer actual trophies and medals? This is journalism, not sport, not music, not film. --86.40.201.132 (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The NUJ bit is deadlinked, and it's a trade union. Looks like they gave an 80 year old member "member of honour" status. For the awards, Pulitzer Prize is a start, off the top of my head. I mean, the whole article reads like the story of a cooky old man who trundled off in his 39 Morris to interview people at the airport. Am I missing something? --IP98 (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Pulitzer Prize is a U.S. only award. Your objection is that he failed to win an award he was ineligible for? And the type of car he drove even comes into it? I doubt very much he was a "cooky old man" all through the 20th century. Or maybe the reason he was so successful was because he was a "cooky old man", that is if he was one? --86.40.201.132 (talk) 18:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Pulitzer Prize is a U.S. only award. Your objection is that he failed to win an award he was ineligible for? Nope, and didn't say that. You stated that This is journalism, not sport, not music, not film. I was merely pointing out that there are awards for journalism. And the type of car he drove even comes into it? Nope. Type of car is totally irrelevant. The question remains, totally unanswered, did he do anything in his long career other than interview celebrities at the airport? --IP98 (talk) 18:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's more to his biography than him driving to an airport and the politicians and royalty mentioned are not minor celebrities. I don't know what else you expect journalists to do. He did his job. He didn't win an Olympic medal, he didn't make pop music, he didn't kill anyone. But he did his job. --86.40.201.132 (talk) 18:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians, popes, kings, movie stars, all celebrities in different categories for different reasons. He did his job, sure did. That's 100% correct, but simply doing ones job does not make that person "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field". As such, this item fails ITN/DC #2, and if ITN/DC matters at all anymore, this should be vigorously opposed. --IP98 (talk) 18:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no high profile awards for Irish journalism, so asking whether he won one or not is entirely useless; he never won the Superbowl either. GRAPPLE X 18:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope, IP 86, you see how frustrating it is to have a valid nomination met with ridiculously piddling and contrarian opposition. μηδείς (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're accusing me of "ridiculously piddling and contrarian opposition"? --IP98 (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for RD, very influential journalist Secret ^account 17:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for ticker And I say this as someone who hates the ticker. Significant enough for a mention on the front page and the article seems to be in a largely good state doktorb _words^deeds 18:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

he has had a unique opportunity to meet and interview countless world leaders and stars as they passed through the airport. and He would simply start up his 1939 Morris 8 and head for the airport. should probably be rewritten. Doesn't seem to fit with the WP:MOS. --IP98 (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Only a televised special behind David Frost in terms of notability; even then his actual work is arguably more important. GRAPPLE X 18:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what work is important? Interviewing people at the airport? What? --IP98 (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you maybe want to drop that bone and stop badgering, you'd notice that Quinlan was the sole Westerner able to interview Che Guevara, one of the century's defining figures, which is slightly more notable and important than being privy to a glorified press conference by Richard Nixon. There's also the matter of being a neutral interviewer of Cold War leaders from both sides (Reagan, Carter, Johnson, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Gromyko, Castro...) along with a key religious leader. But no, it's ok, he did all that from the back of a Morris so fuck him. GRAPPLE X 18:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Morris has nothing to do with it. So he interviewed famous and important people: thats what journalists do. We can't post the death of every old newspaper reporter. Any major stories? Investigative journalism? The NUJ is 100 years old with 38000 members, does it not have any recognition other than "honoured old man"? --IP98 (talk) 18:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Ready? This article definitely seems technically updated and ready. But since I cannot judge the praise heaped on Quinlan from the Limerick Leader I'll leave it to someone else to add the [Ready] tag. μηδείς (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for ticker only. Doesn't quite cut it for a full blurb. Black Kite (talk) 20:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The article seems a bit hagiographic. What's this line about the first Irishman to get a jet across the Atlantic about? Overall I don't think the article is very good. Neutral otherwise.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD --Jayron32 18:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted to RD] Death of Jack Klugman

Nominator's comments: Odd Couple and Quincy, M.E. actor --Kevin McE (talk) 11:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for Recent deaths, noted actor through the decades. Jusdafax 12:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Here we go again... 87.114.90.71 (talk) 12:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose sorry, ticker or not, I see no reason to abandon ITN/DC. The deceased was (1) not in a high ranking office of power, (3) the death has not impacted current events, and (2) I see no evidence from the article that the deceased was widely regarded as important in their field. Beloved sure, for a time, but important, no. The death ticker was conceived and implemented to deal with the unmanageable flood of recent deaths which met the ITN/DC requirement. This does not. --IP98 (talk) 13:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for ticker. Lead actor in two long-running hit series, notable roles from 12 Angry Men til his death. There will be quite a bit of reader interest, similar to the recent posting of the TV astronomer and certainly more justified than Dina Manfredini. Checkviews shows a long-running average of over a 1000 hits a day [6] well before news of his death. μηδείς (talk) 17:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those wrongs don't make this right. There was no consensus to abandon ITN/DC when the ticker was implemented. --IP98 (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing wrong with the posting of the astronomer. Quincy is even airing right now in Australia. Hardly an unknown figure. μηδείς (talk) 18:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On what, the "40 year old reruns network"? It's a really simple test: Was Klugman "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." or not? --IP98 (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make sure I understand. Your complaint is his 40 year old reruns are being rerun on a rerun network? Rather than where? He's a classic. μηδείς (talk) 20:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Moore was presenter of the world's longest-running television series with the same original presenter; Manfredini was the world's oldest living person, the oldest recorded Italian-born person, the 10th oldest person ever recorded, and the longest-living immigrant. What did this guy do to match those two in terms of encyclopedic newsworthiness? From the details presented here, absolutely nothing. --86.40.201.132 (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a really simple test: Was Klugman "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." or not? --IP98 (talk) 18:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith on your part in asking that question, yes, he was an iconic lead on two TV hit shows, one a Drama that foreshadowed all the modern day forensic dramas, and the other a comedy, as well as being recognized for his film roles, his overcoming throat cancer and the loss of his voice to return to acting, and his legal battles over actor's compensation. Plus see the over 1,000 hits a day for his article linked to above predating his death. μηδείς (talk) 20:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does that make him a very important figure in his field? Your first statement is a nice piece of WP:OR, if he was that groundbreaking, find a WP:RS that says it and add it to his article. Throat cancer == nothing to do with being important in his field. Suing NBC and settling out of court somehow makes him battling for actors compensation?? Lastly, if checkviews had any importance whatsoever then you would have been tripping over us to heap support upon gangnam style. --IP98 (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Article needs a bit of TLC: There is a section with a refimprove tag, and the Filmography section needs cleanup. Spencer^T♦C 17:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the unreferenced bits of the talk show section. I see the cleanup tag with the filmography section, but am not sure what's the matter. μηδείς (talk) 18:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is what that section looked like before. I'm not sure if removing all of the problem areas out of the article is the best solution, but the article is in better shape now. Spencer^T♦C 18:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the tag is asking for more than just a bullet-pointed list. in an ideal world something like this could be put together, but for what we're asking I'd say the filmography is fine as is. Could remove the tag safely or just overlook it for a posting as it's not a vital concern (like ((cn)) or ((refimprove section)) would be). GRAPPLE X 18:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support He was Quincy! Seriously though, please don't bring back that recent death ticker. Total chocolate fireguard. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But this is a "recent deaths" nomination. You surely aren't suggesting that this guy be given the full honors!? --86.40.201.132 (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am. And don't call me Shirley. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen anything like this since the Anita Bryant concert. --86.40.201.132 (talk) 21:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for ticker. While not unexpected, this has been covered by quite a few news outlets on both sides of the bitter ITN divide. GRAPPLE X 18:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Ready I have removed the cleanup tag, as the red links and strange formatting have been removed. I have added another few sentences on the death itself to buck-up the update requirement. There seems to be only token opposition versus widespread support and all the technical barriers have been removed, so I am marking this ready. μηδείς (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)7[reply]
• Support for ticker only. Black Kite (talk) 20:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD ticker --Jayron32 23:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Egyptian constitutional referendum

Nominator's comments: While we don't include all referenda, this is an important development in the Egyptian story. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Major Egyptian development. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, dito. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is big news for Egypt, despite some opposition leaders calling the referendum fraud. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I added more about what the Amendment itself proposed in the article, but the item blurb could also perhaps be more descriptive, saying what the amendment was about? In addition, preferably the article should have some mention of the results to the referendum if possible. Otherwise, the article is in good shape. Spencer^T♦C 19:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slightly more insistent comment. This really should not be posted until the article contains details of the results of the referendum. Formerip (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pile-on insistence. Wait for the results, which are supposed to come in tomorrow. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 21:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per the reasons given. 331dot (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but could the blurb provide a little more detail? Any sort of structure approved that's worth mentioning? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]