[Ready] Argentina in default

Nominator's comments: A national default will affect everybody in Argentina, and obviously have large consequences in the international financial markets. Thue (talk) 08:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support once updated, breaking news now. Brandmeister^talk 08:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A nation in default has many effects, and this is getting decent news coverage. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This will likely do serious damage to Argentina's economy.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Likely" is the same speculation the below was rejectedLihaas (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• strong oppose S and P don't determine shit, they just give their opinion (same as the declaration below). If you follow the facts argenitina wmarket /bonds raised yesterday on speculation of an imminent deal. For gods sake, this is an encyclopaedia THINKLihaas (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Standard and Poor's is one if the Big Three (credit rating agencies), so they do actually determine shit. The rating of bonds are directly determined to the Big Three, with various laws saying which actual consequences those ratings have. Thue (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • On that evidence, one would hope Lihaas would change his vote...um and yes, it's an encyclopedia but this is ITN/C Lihaas. You know it's special. --Somchai Sun (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm stunned at how ignorant this !vote is. I think it's an important milestone as it greatly affects global perception of economic stability. If nothing else, it's making headlines all over the place.--WaltCip (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose- My thinking is actually somewhere along the lines of that of Lihaas, what he's saying isn't actually so ridiculous. Would we post S&P declaring Argentina to be in default, then Moody's declaring Argentina to be in default, etc? Where does it end? As far as I can remember we've never posted anything like this, and I don't really don't think this is the type of milestone that belongs on ITN. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Fitch has cut Argentina's rating as well. [1] Moody's is reviewing their stance, which could take up to 90 days but much less. [2] Is there reason to believe Moody's might act quickly? I'd support this if all three major agencies acted, but I'm not sure about two of three. 9kat (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with update. Argentina has defaulted on $29 billion on debt, which the NYT ref doesn't note.[3][4] I'm suggesting an altblurb with that stated more prominently, since it's a number that the average reader will understand, and it's notable even without mentioning S&P or Fitch. Maybe add ", triggering credit downgrades" if needed. 9kat (talk) 03:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with altblurb. Huge story, all over the news here in Europe. Lihaas being his usual tactful self notwithstanding. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer the altblurb too. Thue (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support altblurb — Most media (such as AP) now call it default. When a sizable country defaults on debt, it's a significant story. Sca (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]
• Support with altblurb. Story has fundamentally altered now that it has become universally accepted. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 16:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support once the richest country in SA, now one of the only 1st world countries to default, post it already. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marked Ready--article is untagged and support almost unanimal. μηδείς (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The article mentions neither the $29 billion figure or S&P, so neither blurb makes sense right now. The lead doesn't address the latest stuff either. I tagged the article as outdated and removed the [Ready]. 9kat (talk) 01:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The posting admin determines the blurb--the fact you have a problem with a blurb while not suggesting an alternative is between you and a licensed professional. μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I suggested the current altblurb... My problem wasn't with the blurb itself, it's that the article doesn't reflect either blurb at the moment. The IP editor below me has some good further suggestions that I don't have time to properly evaluate right now. 9kat (talk) 03:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not quite. Government debt should read Government bonds, since other debts (direct loans, multilateral groups like the Paris Club, bonds issued under European or Buenos Aires Law) are not affected. Keep in mind also that "default" as a verb is just too misleading, since payments to regular bondholders were made -as they have since 2005- but are being stopped by the Griesa court (the NYT article used here states that The case wound its way through the United States courts until 2012, when a federal judge in Manhattan issued a ruling that said Argentina could not make payments to exchange bondholders without paying the holdouts). The phrase should perhaps read: Payments to bondholders with US$13 billion in Argentine government bonds were stopped by District Court Judge Thomas P. Griesa at the behest of holdout bondholders. ([5])

Please consider using the link above, as it is also from the New York Times (same day, same co-author) - but is far more complete than the earlier snippet, and specifies among other things that the funds are being held by court order at the Bank of New York Mellon (the New York transfers agent for Argentina). Readers might want something with some context and a little background. Thank you. 98.166.157.157 (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Big story with international impact. A worthy ITN addition. Jusdafax 05:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I have marked the article as now updated. Thue (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Should be pulled This item really confused me, because I can't find any mention of the default in the linked article. Because of that, I think this item should be pulled, at least until the article is actually updated. User<Svick>.Talk(); 21:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, pulled my own post. On a quick inspection, I saw no obvious update either. My apologies. Perhaps User:Thue could clarify which article has been updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "judicial rulings" section had been extensively updated, but I apparently missed that the actual default was somehow not mentioned. I have added some text mentioning the default. Thue (talk) 08:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re-noted as ready but waiting for independent admin to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, R.M., it would be selective default per S&P's own definition [6] (and only on New York-issue bonds, the only ones affected by the Griesa ruling -[7]). I might add that as of today Griesa was forced to lift his freeze on payments on all Argentine bond trustees except Bank of New York Mellon (JP Morgan Chase was the last remaining bank, besides BONY, to remain under the stop payment order - [8]). To be up to date by the time it goes up tomorrow, then, the blurb should perhaps read:

A $539 million bond interest payment deposited by Argentina at BONY was blocked by District Court Judge Thomas Griesa. Standard & Poor's declares Argentina in selective default as a result.

98.166.157.157 (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Needs Attention and Support. Is this go to go back up? The article looks good to me but it looked good to me before it was pulled too. Rhodesisland (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Dick Smith

Nominator's comments: Well-known makeup artist, winner of an Academy Award and Honorary Academy Award. Highly notable in his field, nicknamed the "Godfather of Makeup", USA Today describes him as "legendary" [9], BBC Connormah (talk) 05:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose- Close, but I'm not sure it could be universally claimed he was at or near the top of his field. For example, this random list made by some random blogger doesn't even make mention of him, and none of the comments suggesting others note him either. Maybe if Pat McGrath died I'd support her for RD, though I know that's not exactly the same world, fashion vs. movies. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 06:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Academy Award-winning makeup artist with an impressive resume. Article looks like it's in excellent shape with proper referencing from top to bottom. Challenger l (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Huge thanks to User:Philip Cross for this - I've been extremely busy as of late and it's great that he took it upon himself to clean the article up. I've added his name as the updater. Connormah (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• That Academy Award has been given about 40 times and there are even a few multiple winners, and Dick Smith is not one of them. There do not exist 40 makeup artists whose death we would post; there is not enough evidence to say he was at the top of his field. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support certainly one of the top in his field, worked on seminal movies. His work on The Exorcist and The Godfather was unparalleled at the time, the pioneering use of foam latex (game changer for the industry) an Oscar and an honorary award from the Academy in 2011 (which is given for "extraordinary distinction in lifetime achievement, exceptional contributions to the state of motion picture arts and sciences, or for outstanding service to the Academy") so yes, top of his field. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This seems like an easy post. Two Oscars is a decent shout and people like Rick Baker describe him as legends. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose until we get a rationale that tells us more than he won an oscar. Did he do the makeup for Star Wars and Planet of the Apes? μηδείς (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support He did iconic makeup for Marlon Brando in the Godfather and Linda Blair in The Exorcist, just to name the most well known. He pioneered aging makeup and was in general a massive influence in all stage makeup before the age of CGI. His obits in Time, NPR, and NY Times should help everyone here understand his importance a bit more. Makeup artistry might be a dying artform, but this man definitely deserves props for all he's done over the years.99.42.165.162 (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, 99, I have removed my opposition. μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Two Oscars, one Emmy, a BAFTA, lifetime achievement recognition by his "guild" and his work has been called was considered revolutionary but is now considered the standard. All this seems to me to put him at the "top of his field." Rhodesisland (talk) 02:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Marked as ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest posting. I know we're not supposed to vote count but there is only one standing oppose; the nomination has been standing for a while so those who want to comment have had time to do so; the article looks good. All seems in order. Let's post it. Rhodesisland (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. Would someone kindly double-check my work [10]? That part of the template is a little different than I'm used to with the recent addition of the Ongoing section, and I saw there was some sort of issue with the coding a week or so ago. It looks fine as far as I can see. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me. I find the whole coding bewildering, we need a better solution than the current one.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2014 Malin landslide

 --Jinkinson talk to me 20:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose- Not a lot of international coverage, and the dreaded imaginary and arbitrary death toll bar isn't reached here. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 01:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, pending article improvement. As things stand right now, the death toll (around 20, I think) isn't exactly insignificant, and that number is expected to increase significantly. Article needs some expansion, however. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support death toll has passed fifty and article is fit enough for ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. BBC is now putting the death toll at 60.[11] Article could do with keeping up to date but is adequate. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Marking as ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Spencer^T♦C 15:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Ongoing: 2014 Libyan conflict

Worst violence in the country since the 2011 uprising. The Guardian and The New Indian Express called this conflict a civil war. The US closed its embassy four days ago [12] and French and British nationals were evacuated today [13] and some British diplomats were attacked during the process.[14] At the moment, the article is outdated but I'm currently trying to expand it. Any help would be appreciated. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Recently there was an airpot seizure attempt and one aircraft was burning there. I've heard in the news that Libya has requested international help. Brandmeister^talk 16:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - an escalation of violence indeed.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose- I would support iff the article is expanded to include July in the same way that May was done, not like the way June was done. Also, wouldn't the article be more aptly titled Timeline of the 2014 Libyan Conflict, because that's how the article is structured. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The July part is in Post-civil war violence in Libya and I'm thinking about merging it with this article. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, those two articles need to be sorted out. What each article is supposed to be and the way they are formatted is a real mess. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 18:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well I don't really get that part, but yes, the nominated article is pretty outdated. We already have the needed content but it's in the post-civil war article and I intend to move it, but first I must politely inform the current updater there about my intentions, which I already did. As for your concern about the title, I don't know why we should rename it to Timeline of [main article] because in that case we will have to split some stuff to avoid being left without a main article. I believe it is too early to decide on that because we don't have any WP:SIZE issue yet. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is that as is, the entire article is a timeline. Read any other decent war article, and you'll see more than just a timeline of the conflict. There needs to be background, responses, etc. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've significantly expanded the foreign reactions section with Algeria, Egypt and Tunisia's involvement so that it becomes more that just a timeline article, although I personally don't see any problem if 90% of a war article was in timeline format. Hope this satisfies, and I'm still working on it. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok it's not amazing, but I appreciate the work you've put into it and am willing to support now. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, per nom.Brigade Piron (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion - Clearly, there is not enough room for every ongoing armed conflict to be listed in the template. What we can do is in the "ongoing" section, replace all the links to armed conflicts with a link to List of ongoing armed conflicts.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not like that suggestion. I think it's rare to have more than one or two wars which constantly have major stories, which is what ongoing should be for. However if you read the newspapers in most parts of the world right now, there are two and maybe even three conflicts (Libya being the questionable one) that are getting significant stories nearly every day. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the statement that there is not enough room for every conflict, but the link to the list isn't really workable since that article isn't being updated with new information; the articles for the individual conflicts are. Spencer^T♦C 15:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, per nom. In reference to User:Bzweebl's comment, the 2014 Libyan conflict has since been expanded to include July.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I still oppose due to article quality though. If it's fixed up (just a little, not too much needed) to look more like a full article and not just a timeline, I will support. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

oppose using that logic we should post Iraq, Syria and Ssout SudanLihaas (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Using that logic we shouldn't post anything. Do you see any Iraq or Syria articles around here that are good candidates for Ongoing? Also, did anything significant happen in South Sudan recently? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. Talks recently reopened in South Sudan, and they delayed the start of South Sudanese gold production a year which is incredibly important because one of the reasons the country has been faltering is because it's economy is too one-dimensional (based entirely on oil) and that one natural resource is currently the center of many of the battles they are waging with the insurgents. So a whole lot is going on in South Sudan actually. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The talks were delayed [15] and I think the halting of gold production could warrant a full blurb. Not the kind of stuff for Ongoing in my opinion. However, I'm not saying that I oppose any item on South Sudan. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And both Syria and South Sudan were recently rejected for the same reasonsLihaas (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support- See discussion below my oppose vote. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to Ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Fastest serve in women tennis history

[Closed] Zhou Yongkang

Pangolin

Articles: Pangolin (talk · history · tag) and Asian cuisine (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ All eight species of the pangolin are being “eaten into extinction” to satisfy the demands of Asian cuisine. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The International Union for Conservation of Nature adds four more pangolin species to its list of species threatened with extinction.
News source(s): {Starits Times), (ITV), (Independent)
Credits:

• Nominated by Martinevans123 (talk · give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Another species bites the (Asian) dust? Martinevans123 (talk)

• Comment According to the sources all eight species of pangolin are threatened by their deliciousness (not just the Indian species). Mmmmmmm, pangolin. Belle (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks, have adjusted, although unsure which species Gonzo is. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • They don't look that tasty. Put me right off my bottlenose dolphin soup and koala bear steaks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once you get past the revolting thick scaly skin, they're really quite tender inside. Just like many Admins (allegedly). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

• Oppose. We have posted confirmed extinctions in the past (e.g. Western Black Rhinoceros) as well as the discovery of new species, but this item is just a warning by conservationists. Spencer^T♦C 15:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, wait for them to become extinct and that will be real news? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actually. For ITN, these "arbitrary points" (not just for extinction but for things like trial cases, business mergers, government actions, etc) could each be their own ITN entry, which would flood nominations. We have decided to only acceptable to post a "final" point of such stories - which would here be the case if the species is labelled "extinct" - yes, it seems like too late, but we're here to highlight quality articles that happen to be in the news, not be a news ticker. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly I concur with Masem here. We'd have a permanent ticker for super-endangered species like the Javan Rhino if we kept reporting they were near extinction. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I could really go for a slice of Javan rhino pie right now. Nice thick crust and plenty of gravy. Mmmmmm. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice with the Dodo dumplings, Baiji-burgers and Tarpan toast, I hear. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

• Oppose- This is a case of newspapers deciding to take the time to feature an article about this, nothing's really happened yet. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 19:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Posted a support earlier today, it seems to have disappeared down the memory hole. Gamaliel (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Many species are on the verge of extinction and are reported as such. 331dot (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is an entire order of mammals, comparable in taxonomic level to all bats, all whales, or all primates, not just some "species". μηδείς (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per 331dot, and my previous comment. This just makes the papers because of the Asian food angle, more tabloid than a bunch of poachers just killing rhino for their horns. Besides that, several of our articles on the various extant pangolin do not list them as critically endangered, in fact one (tree pangolin) is just "vulnerable" (the IUCN agree). Finally, according to our article, there are nearly 2000 animal species that are "critically endangered", there seems no reason to single out these scaly fellas. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... shucks, am now getting mixed feelings about this one. You know, like "sweet and sour"... Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

• Altblurb proposed and support per Medeis and because of the recent shocking numbers we have. More than a million pangolins are believed to have been snatched from the wild over the past decade. This is an alarming number and it's not just papers wasting time because the same article also quotes an IUCN specialist who says that the practice "has left very few in China, Vietnam and South East Asia" and that the poachers are now turning their attention to the "rapidly diminishing" species in sub-Saharan Africa. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • An excellent altblurb which I fully support. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Listen, my heart is entirely behind the story, but it's really not ITN-worthy. If species of Pangolin are still being categorised by IUCN as "vulnerable" there's no immediate threat of extinction (which I believe this story is revved up to make us all believe). As I said above, over 2,000 animals are critically endangered, is this the precedent we want to set that when one or two species are added to that red list, we must post it? We'll need a wildlife ticker for sure... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now that would be titillating! Would open many eyes. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My problem with the story is what are we reporting? That something has been going on for a full decade? What is the one big event that is being reported here, seems more like an ongoing thing. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 18:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, there is that too. Nothing newsworthy seems to be being suggested here other than a marked decline in pangolin numbers (apart from the unpleasant-to-eat tree pangolin). It's a tabloid story that's titillating and saddening, but ultimately not Wikipedia ITN-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, as I thought, a tabloid story. Not that titillating for the pangolin, though. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Fair enough, a blog at Scientific American could be considered more than tabloid, but my point was that the headline of the pangolin being eaten into extinction is a tabloid approach to a widespread problem of endangered animals. That some have the misconception that this means all species of pangolin are suddenly critically endangered is just one erroneous side effect of such a "headline". People don't eat rhino so that's not as "important" as pangolin. As noted, there are thousands of species close to extinction, this is only of "interest" because people have eaten a lot of them. We ought to be concerned over all critically endangered species (i.e. we can exclude some of the pangolin species because they're ok for the moment), yet most won't get the salacious tabloid headline treatment because they're not thrilling and tangible like a pangolin. Disclaimer: I have seen a pangolin "in the flesh", while tracking leopard in Namibia, and it was certainly a highlight, more so than seeing an actual leopard (which are commonplace and "not threatened", perhaps we should BBQ them instead). It was an unrepentant scaly sod, the size of a 16 pound bowling ball, with the strength of ten men. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Choose whatever "headline" you like. Pangolins are endangered - because they're considered a delicacy on the restaurant tables of Asia. If it goes on, they'll be extinct. Enjoy your BBQ. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, I agree with you entirely. ITN isn't used to right great wrongs. But the pangolins are no different from the Javan rhinos. Or the other thousands of critically endangered species. Or am I wrong? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... you can't get a rhino on the barbecue. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

True, and only two species of Pangolin are listed as critically endangered. Four of them are vulnerable so the bizarre "eaten to extinction" claim for the whole order of Pangolins is at best purely erroneous, at worst, complete fabrication. It's worth those who are under the misapprehension that the article title is the truth to actually read the IUCN definition of "vulnerable" etc, here. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought The Independent a WP:RS and that I could believe "(IUCN) has just added the four African pangolin species to its list of species threatened with extinction." A bit of WP:OR never goes amiss, does it? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose They are only vulnerable, and wow that main blurb seems to be taken right out of a magazine head. Don't see the point in posting trends. Besides, if we post this do we have to post about the hundreds or thousands of possible insects who are becoming even more endangered? Someone think of the insects!75.73.114.111 (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with altblurb- My original problem is gone now that there is an actual story to report, not just a trend. Plus this is an extreme minority topic, which I know doesn't exist anymore as ITN policy but I still take it into account. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RD: James Shigeta

Nominator's comments: He was a Japanese American singer and actor. Well, not well-known, but readers at main page should be aware of this person. --George Ho (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose- By no means a superstar, but I am familiar with him and he did have some memorable roles. Based on our usual threshold for RD postings, I feel he falls just below the bar, but others might disagree. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The article looks like it's in good shape, but sadly, I don't see him as being notable enough for RD. Challenger l (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Recognized actor, but not "top of his field". --MASEM (t) 20:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support OK I have a conflict of interest (I added his birthdate), but I wanted to point out that he was a rare Asian-American star and we should have a bit more diversity on the main page. That's all. Coretheapple (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• How is adding his birthdate COI? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I completely understand this, but the standards of notability don't have anything to do with ethnicity or national origin - they have to do with how well known someone is, and far more to the point, how much they stick out in their field. Challenger l (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI NY Times obituary today[16] described him as "an actor who challenged social boundaries when he emerged in the late 1950s as one of the first Asian-Americans to play leading roles in Hollywood." Come on guys! Coretheapple (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being one of the firsts is not necessarily equivalent to importance. In contrast, Sidney Poitier (should we ever lose him) not only was one of the first, but also help led for advancement of African-descended actors in Hollywood. Without exploring too much there are other Asian-american actors that I think would be the equivalent to Poitier, such as George Takei, that not only were first from that diversity group but also actively helped to pave the way for more. --MASEM (t) 19:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Masem, hardly top of his field. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I love his work and it's clear that ITM has diversity issues, but he doesn't meet the notability bar required here. Gamaliel (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- It's important to note that our diversity problems have almost nothing to do with race. The problem is focusing too much on certain places, for instance too many Americans on RD. So this wouldn't do much to combat that, because he was on American shows and is known to Americans. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 19:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. A while back I attempted to get a well-respected and widely-known figure in the Spanish-speaking world listed, and it was resoundingly ignored because she had no US presence. I suspect had Shigeta had the same career in Japan and was never in Die Hard, he wouldn't have gotten nominated here. Gamaliel (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I must regrettably come down opposed on this nomination. "He just doesn't meet the notability bar required here." Per Gamaliel. Rhodesisland (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Possible Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty violation by Russia

[Posted] Yukos

Nominator's comments: The most important judgment in the history of Russia after 2000, when Vladimir Putin came to power. --TarzanASG (talk) 07:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support $50 billion! Blurb is way, way too long. Thue (talk) 08:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pretty major fine by an international court against a country that is front and centre these days. Added an altblurb and slightly tweaked the grammar of the first sentence in the original blurb. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 09:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Highly significant ruling; if only by the enourmous amount of money involved and the authority of the insitution. The “Hague court” should however absolutely be changed to “Permanent Court of Arbitration”, as there is some degree of ambiguity wether a “court of arbitration” is a court and (more importantly) a “Hague's Court” suggests it is a municipal court. L.tak (talk) 09:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support altblurb as a notable international judgement/court case, but suggest parentheses be removed from the blurb. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thats an optional addendum to the altblurb, since there's no altblurb2 parameter. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• ? I personally support this, I've boycotted the company since it's fraudulent seizure, but under current circumstances, can we assume this judgment will ever be effected? μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a notable judgement, making the front of the Financial Times offering an indication of its global financial significance. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the alt-blurb and personally agree with 331dot about the brackets not being necessary. CaptRik (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Pacific Islands Forum

Nominator's comments: I know this particular summit is not ITN/R and there is a general sentiment against posting the mere occurrence of summits on ITN, but let me explain why this is particularly important. This year's major topic is climate change, and this is due to the fact that many islands in these countries are very close to sinking. According to the AFP article, some of these Pacific islands are a few meters above the water. This article about the danger of most of Kiribati sinking in the near future emphasizes how big of a concern this is for them. The USA, China, India, and other major powers are all sending representation to this year's summit. --Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose while this is more important than the Cook Islands election, there would be too much reverse-systematic bias if such a remote/irrelevant part of the world gets so much ITN coverage. Nergaal (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Australia, New Zealand and some 40 million people are remote and irrelevant? Stephen 23:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  And if it's irrelevant why are the US, China, India and other major power sending representatives to this summit? China, for one, has been quite active in recent years in attempting to extend its influence in the area with various aid and diplomatic initiatives. Neljack (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  They will be joined at the forum, running from July 29 to August 1, by observers from countries including the United States, China and India. Do we know who these "observers" are? The ABC article does not say, but my guess is that if they were government representatives, they would be identified as such. Probably a few of the attendees come from these nations. They could be tourists looking for a tax break, for all we know.

  Your guess is wrong. The observers include John Podesta and Catherine Ashton.[17] Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 16:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. I don't know about government representatives per se, but they certainly seem to be in with the heads. --Pete (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I might support this if there was an article for this year's event. Formerip (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I might do that either tonight or tomorrow morning. I know I haven't written anything yet like I said I would but if this looks like it might gain consensus for posting I'll definitely make sure to either add an update or write a new article. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm in agreement with FormerIP; it seems a notable enough international gathering, though. 331dot (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because this is just a propaganda grab. Sea levels in Kiribati are the same as they are twenty years ago.[18] Let's save our front page for real news stories, not made up ones. Otherwise we might as well just get a random feed of media releases. --Pete (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Your personal view on the science of climate change is not really relevant. What is relevant is that the international community is taking this seriously, as seen by the representation from major powers - probably because there is a scientific consensus that there will be sea level rise as a result of climate change. Neljack (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've got one of those minds that retain trivia - but not the important stuff, as my dear wife reminds me - and I remembered a news article on the subject from years back. I see this as a stunt, designed explicitly to grab media attention. My personal views on climate change aren't worth a tinker's cuss, but I do know a little bit about tricks used to steal headlines and publicity. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - atleast something new and important and not another dumb war...--Stemoc (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Updated- The article should be ready to go now. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 19:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. "Reverse systematic bias" is OK by me. Formerip (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A notable international gathering of a good chunk of the world is notable. 331dot (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Would it be preferable to hold off until the forum ends, and base the blurb on the closing press release? As I recall, the last summit we posted (BRICS) got several "so what" comments in main-page errors. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The practice on ITN for years has been to post at the beginning of summits. See ITN/R for the list of summits that are always posted; those are posted at the beginning. If there is a consensus to post at the end of the Forum that is fine too, but the precedent is to post at the beginning. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think practice has most commonly been to post at the end. Formerip (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No it's not.[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not clear from ITN/R that there's consensus to post at the beginning, though I'm not arguing that that has been the usual practice. The negative response to posting the BRICS summit suggested that it might be time to reconsider existing practice. Further, this is not an ITN/R event, so we're presumably posting it on the grounds that it is more significant than average for these summits (and we're having a light news week). I'm easy either way, but having made a few edits to the article it would probably be better left to another admin to post. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• True, I didn't realize it doesn't explicitly say that at ITN/R. Either we could open a discussion on the talk page on not posting at the beginning of the summit, or the easier way to do it would be to judge it on a case-by-case basis, in which case an admin decide whether to post this now or after the summit is finished. If the latter I could repost the nom and all the discussion on it on July 1. And this would presumably be posted on the grounds it's more important than average for these summits, as I indicated in my nom comment. And I'm not sure what the connection is, but you are welcome to exclude yourself from posting this due to having edited the article. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It's my view that we have too many summits even on ITN/R - the case for adding one in addition to those needs to be particularly compelling. In this case it's a relatively niche forum on the world stage compared to some of the others. The climate change element makes this additionally problematic since it risks becoming POV by selective coverage - would we be as eager to post an OPEC summit dedicated to rubbishing climate change? I wouldn't have thought so, even if it's clearly a more significant organisation. 3142 (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, yes.Lihaas (talk) 14:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. Spencer^T♦C 18:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why? A 5 to 3 does not constitutes consensus to me. Nergaal (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was not overwhelmingly strong, but to me was in favor of posting. Additionally, the article as a whole was of a high enough quality (in the context of multination conference articles) to push this toward posting. Spencer^T♦C 20:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Zillow and Trulia merger

[Closed] Canadian Open

[Closed] Eid

[Closed] Costa Concordia

Hungarian Grand Prix

Nominator's comments: Not strictly on ITNR, which lists only Monaco GP, but still looks notable. --Brandmeister^talk 20:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose so what? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I quote: "Please do not... add simple "support" or "oppose" !votes. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached."131.251.254.110 (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to elucidate since you have asked so kindly: so what is the significance of this GP win over any other? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose without also agreeing to The Rambling Man, regardless to what my comment last year, let me point this out to the nominator, the Monaco GP have more provenance to every other GPs out there and is one of the few pre war GPs that is still running. Regardless how Mr. BCE treats it nowadays as they are no different to all other rounds, it even have the provenance to rival every other major races in the world and that includes Le Mans and Indy 500. So to have something to say to this nominator, do that answer the reason why Monaco is included in ITN/R? Donnie Park (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Hungary have an F1 race? Wow. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Since 1986. Stephen 22:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Time window's closing on this one quickly, but I don't find the significance in the race world for this to be posted. Rhodesisland (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Tour de France Championship

 
  – HonorTheKing (talk)

• Support: ITN/R sports event. ends today. could include in the blurb that he now won all three grand tours, becoming the sixth rider to do so.
    – HonorTheKing (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- Incredible tour by Nibali throughout. Now all that's needed is an update. Anyone interested in writing one? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternatively we could do the lazy approach, where we run a blurb that looks like this:

In cycling, Vincenzo Nibali wins the Tour de France.

That article is clearly updated, so this nomination should be ready to go. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am concerned that there is virtually no prose to discuss the win, just the one unreferenced line in the lead (and the unreferenced standings in the table), unless I'm mistaken. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added references for that line in the lead. It seems to be a general style to discuss the Tour in terms of the overall structure and omit any details of the competition. It makes for very dull articles. Belle (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps a more suitable target article which discusses the result in more detail would be more appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Vincenzo Nibali is updated, but the bulk of his earlier career appears completely unreferenced. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the short blurb once the intro of the article is expanded in a similar manner to the lead of the 2013 article. Nergaal (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and needs attention. The lead never got expanded but it is pretty well referenced and other than the lead compares nicely with last year's article.Rhodesisland (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict ceasefire

European Court of Human Rights decision regarding Poland and CIA black site

Nominator's comments: This is major news regarding the controvercial CIA practices. 21:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm neutral on posting, but that this the most overlong blurb I've seen in weeks. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I also agree the blurb is far too long. I also wonder if Black site is the best target for the bolded link; either an article on the court case or linking to the claimants' article or articles would be better. 331dot (talk) 08:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - when the blurb is made shorter.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with shorter blurb. Suggestion: The European Court of Human Rights ruled that Poland violated the European Convention on Human Rights by allowing the CIA to interrogate Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. Gamaliel (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Support, but black site has an orange tag that needs to be resolved. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering why the Poles are being blamed for something that U.S. spooks did at an obscure site in obscure Masuria. Sca (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with a shorter blurb - something like Gamaliel's one. Significant as the first court decision to confirm the existence of the black sites. Getting plenty of international news coverage. Neljack (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose a laughable verdict and a judgment without jurisdiction. Poland might as well sue England and France for WWII and get a $1,000,000.00 settlement. 01:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Your personal views on the correctness of the decision are not terribly relevant, Medeis. But perhaps you'd like to explain how the Court lacks jurisdiction in a case against Poland - a party to the Convention - for acts done on Polish territory? Neljack (talk) 03:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support obviously significant, but the blurb needs work and the target article has a maintenance tag (although that seems to be less of a worry these days). The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Ongoing: 2014 West Africa Ebola outbreak

First confirmed death in Nigeria. More and more serious, in the "deadliest outbreak ever". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support- Good to have one that's not war or sports related, not sure why it was removed. Recent deaths is low right now (fortunately), so no reason not to add a fourth ongoing. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was removed because the article was not being updated. Outside of number changes to the tables and other statistical changes, little if any information from July events was being added to the article. Spencer^T♦C 23:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

L:Dang, another visionary article creayted by yours truly ;)Lihaas (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The number of suspected cases has recently gone over a thousand, the article appears reasonably current, and the outbreak is getting coverage every few days by the BBC. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Seems to have recieved sufficient updates for Juli. Thue (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There are a lot of events in the news for this item (e.g. this) but not much is being added consistently to the article, as is a requirement for ongoing. Spencer^T♦C 22:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the link. I'm following the outbreak for the Viruses portal and will try to be more proactive in adding material. (There's a tension in these articles between news sources & sources that meet WikiProject Medicine's stringent requirements for reliable sources; often editors prefer to wait until official WHO reports are in before adding material.) Espresso Addict (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Central African Republic ceasefire

Nominator's comments: This is major news for everyone closely following the conflict, a pretty significant step towards reaching peace. --Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Significant conflict sadly under-reported in Western media. A ceasefire isn't always a milestone (witness Israel-Gaza) but this seems to be the result of detailed negotiations so I'm willing to grant it some credence. 3142 (talk) 04:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A significant step in resolving the conflict. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Thue (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• 2 peeps in 6 huirs is hardly consensus..Lihaas (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 supports and no opposes in 10 hours is good enough, IMO. We should be able to make such decisions in 10 hours. Also, counting my own (non-expressed) support for it gives 3-0 support-oppose. Thue (talk) 07:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to forget the nominator. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that there was anything wrong with the decision to post 12 hours after the nomination, in light of the support for the item; however, the original news report may have been inaccurate—see WP:ERRORS. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original news report was not inaccurate. The Séléka representative in Brazzaville, General Mohamed Moussa Dhaffane, reached an agreement with the anti-Balaka and signed off on it. However, now that news has returned back to CAR, another major Séléka leader has refused to accept the ceasefire and is now calling for the very same proposal for a partition that was proposed at the beginning of the talks in Brazzaville but was quickly shot down by the President of the ROC and the anti-Balaka. So all-in-all, the only thing that really changed is maybe the ceasefire is not having as much of an effect as was hoped. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 06:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] ISIS blows up Jonah's tomb in Iraq

[Closed] 2014 Herat shooting

[Closed] Arseniy Yatsenyuk resigns

[Withdrawn] Forced female genital mutilation in Iraq

[Posted] Air Algerie Flight 5017

 EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 09:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Air Algérie loses contact with a plane flying from Ouagadougou to Algiers. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 09:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait losing contact is not an ITN story. If this pans out to be another aircraft disaster, we can assess it, and the article then. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait and support if it has actually crashed etc ..--BabbaQ (talk) 09:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Losing contact actually is an ITN story after nearly half a day, although it seems like the wreckage has been found now. We need to wait for the article to be more than a stub, though. Formerip (talk) 10:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that we'd post it as "missing" after such a period. It wasn't clear to me that it had been reported as such since 2.55am. Can you link me to the article claiming wreckage? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Various lesser news outlets (e.g. CCTV, IBT) have been reporting that it is confirmed to have crashed in Niger. Could be a false alarm though. Formerip (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BBC reporting that an Air Algerie spokesperson has confirmed the crash, no more details. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

THREE air disasters in a week? Damn! get the old bike/canoe out.. Lihaas (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm....disappeared over a conflict zone yet again...don't tell me it was MNLA/MOJWA?Lihaas (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support iff it turns out to have crashed with significant loss of life. That it will be the third aircrash on ITN is not a reason to bar it from appearing. These things happen that way sometimes. Mjroots (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: added blurb with additional information. Replace "X" number of people as reports come out. Airline officials have now confirmed the airplane crashed. Support. 70.26.174.115 (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as soon as it's confirmed where the crash occurred. (Or we could just use the # if it remains unconfirmed, added as altblurb.) I changed the location to X in the blurb, because it's also unclear if it happened in Niger or Mali. 9kat (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportIt has been confirmed as crashed by the Algerian officials. 146.185.150.122 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Quite a big death toll and another crash. Nathan121212 (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle per User talk:Nathan121212, since Reuters quotes unnamed Algerian official as saying plane with 116 "has crashed," [29] but wait until there's more definite word on a death toll. Sca (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pending better confirmation of location/loss of life estimates. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: If posted, use alt blurb for now as the number of deaths is not yet known. Blurb can be updated with the # of deaths at a later time. Location has now been confirmed as Mali, indicated by more recent sources and the article page. 70.26.174.115 (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also support posting now. If for anything the fact that three major plane crashes has occurred so close to each other.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The plane is still not "officially" crashed. RSes are tenuously quoting sources, and all still using terms like "apparently", "probably", "feared" (or attributing to an anonymous Algerian source.) We could post it as missing and update. 9kat (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now confirmed as crashed with the loss of all 116 on board. Blurb updated. Mjroots (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait based on article quality. The problematic element is the claim it was lost with all hands - the article makes this point but I see no reference to that. Having looked at half a dozen sources I don't see any making that assertion. If this is ITN ready headline facts such as that need to be substantiated and I'm not seeing it. I'll admit I haven't read through every reference in its entirety (I'm suffering hand injuries at the moment making navigation very slow and tedious) but that is beside the point - principle claims such as that should be referenced in the article. 3142 (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Update — Guardian reports wreckage of AA 5017 found near Tilemsi, Tombouctou in central Mali. [30] Sca (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting alt blurb. Spencer^T♦C 21:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AP quotes a Burkina Faso official as saying wreckage found "near the village of Boulikessi in Mali." [31] Sca (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are several claims of wreckage, including that one. See AH5017#Claims_of_wreckage. 9kat (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Update required Article now says 117 people were on board. Blurb needs to be corrected. Nathan121212 (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

117 might be a mistake. The article still says 116 except for one table, and the few news sources I just glanced at all say 116. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] President of Iraq

 --Shiite (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per notability of event. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but only because of the significance of him being a Kurd. Under most circumstances I'd probably oppose because he is just a figurehead who was chosen by the Council of Representatives of Iraq and not elected by the people. I think the blurb should also be changed to reflect that so it doesn't mislead the reader into thinking he was directly elected. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative blurb: Fuad Masum is elected President of Iraq by the Iraqi Parliament. How about this? Shiite (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - notable. significant.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The suggested target article is a stub that doesn't mention Fuad Masum. Masum might be a better target but it's a microstub of 70 words. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- writing Wrote an update for Fuad Masum. And BTW, I prefer the altblurb. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 16:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Thue (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Matmo

Nominator's comments: This may belong under a later date, but I'm not sure what date the deaths happened on so I'm putting it here, because this is when the typhoon made landfall in China. --Jinkinson talk to me 23:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Execution of Joseph Wood

[Closed] Commonwealth Games Opening Ceremony

[Posted] Ongoing: Operation Protective Edge

Nominator's comments: This has been getting equal to more coverage with Ukrainian unrest and Flight 17. I'm guessing there won't be much argument over adding it as a sticky as a replacement for the current blurb, because it has turned out to be an ongoing event more than a one-time thing. --Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I support this, but - per the discussion when we previously posted this to Ongoing[34] - it shouldn't say "Operation Protective Edge", which is the name used for it by one of the parties to the conflict. There are obvious neutrality issues with that. I believe "Gaza offensive" was what was used in the end,[35] and that seems suitable and neutral. Neljack (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Towards which side is Operation Protective Edge biased? If you look at the article, you will see that it is the article where all the information we would want to point our reader to is found. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Israeli side. They chose the name and unsurprisingly they made it sounds protective, which feeds into their narrative about this highly controversial offensive. As we did before, we can simply link to the article like this - Gaza offensive. Neljack (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza offensive sounds just to be the opposite, making it sound sympathetic to Gaza. Is there anything we can include that doesn't call it something defensive or offensive? How about Israel-Gaza conflict? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 01:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that it makes it sound sympathetic to anyone. I wouldn't have thought "offensive" was pejorative term - I could see what you meant if we said "invasion", but we aren't saying that. Neljack (talk) 02:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And "Protective Edge" is pejorative? I don't think it's a question of whether or not the term is pejorative. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, on the contrary the problem with "Protective Edge" is that it sounds positive. Neljack (talk) 06:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally i'd go with Gaza Conflict as the most neutral name, as the sides that are fighting are really Israel and Hamas, not the Gaza peoples themselves. CaptRik (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as ongoing with as neutral a name as possible. CaptRik (talk) 07:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as "Gaza conflict", "Israel-Gaza conflict", or similar. More familiar to readers when it's in Ongoing form without a full blurb. 9kat (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- I have changed the wording in the suggested "blurbs" for neutrality as suggested. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now moved the blurb to Ongoing, as it was the bottom item and we needed to balance the Main page. Gaza conflict, as suggested above. --Tone 11:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] TransAsia Airways Flight 222

Article: TransAsia Airways Flight 222 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ TransAsia Airlines Flight 222 crashes in Taiwan causing 51 deaths. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ TransAsia Airways Flight 222 crashes in Taiwan, killing at least 47 people.
Credits:

• Nominated by Eugen Simion 14 (talk · give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: At the risk of having 2 plane crashes on ITN, this is still noteworthy for its casualty numbers Lihaas (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least 51 people were killed after a plane crash in Taiwan. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 13:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

support per notability on deathsLihaas (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, just read about it the news seconds ago. Brandmeister^talk 14:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, the accident is receiving international coverage. Heymid (contribs) 14:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, major aircraft disaster. Wouldn't worry about having two of these on ITN. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: blurb probably needs a comma before the participle, per en.wn. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 14:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Alt blurb displaying the correct name of the airline: "TransAsia Airways" as opposed to "TransAsia Airlines" and indicating that the number of deaths is at a minimum of 47 and could increase, also taking into account the suggestion of It Is Me Here (talk · contribs). 184.146.109.234 (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Might be worth tossing Typhoon Matmo (2014) into the blurb since it was likely the cause of the crash. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with image as used in article. Use this.Nathan121212 (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Marked as ready 184.146.109.234 (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Ongoing: 2014 Commonwealth Games

Requesting this now, as I know how long people take to come to any decissions here. The 2014 Commonwealth Games will start tomorrow. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support second only to the Olympics really in terms of international athletics tournaments. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative oppose. I believe we should stay with the Olympics and FIFA World Cup. These two are trully worldwide events while the Commonwealth Games, Asian Games, UEFA European Football Championship etc. are limited to the continent/Commonwealth or similar. We can feature the opening ceremony as a blurb, though. --Tone 20:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the FIFA World Cup finals include 32 countries, while the Commonwealth Games have 71 nations involved. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but in principle any country (190+) can qualify for the World Cup finals. Or for the Olympics. Not the case with the Commonwealth Games. I'm kind of conservative when it comes to sport events on ITN, especially the ongoing. --Tone 20:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • We posted the World Cup finals, 32 teams, not the qualifying. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • In Denmark, people watch the FIFA world cup finals, even though we didn't qualify. I am pretty sure that is the case in most countries. Not so the Commonwealth Games. Thue (talk) 10:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • After the World Cup, this is the second largest sporting event of the entire year featuring 4,500 athletes from 71 countries. It's significant. You don't watch it? So what, hundreds of millions do. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • While I don't deny it is big, I was merely refuting your argument that it was directly comparable to teh FIFA world cup. Thue (talk) 09:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • I compared the number of nations only. I don't recall making an "argument that it was directly comparable" to the World Cup. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

support per trm, but we should link it to a chronology type page a la olymoics. (although Asian games is up there too)Lihaas (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support A reasonable large international event (going by # of countries listed on the linked page). --MASEM (t) 20:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for ongoing. Ongoing was not intended to be for sports events in progress. WC was posted without discussion. The opening of the Games is ITNR; that should be sufficient. I'd even be open to posting the closing. 331dot (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's being used as a sports ticker. We posted the World Cup, and this encompasses a heap more countries, many of them more niche than the WC finals. It'd be nice to use the spare Ongoing slots when we can. What's the harm in that? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it was envisioned to be about news stories in progress to avoid having otherwise "routine" coverage of those stories being repeatedly submitted for ITN. Mind you, it needs to be big enough - we did not post the Tour de France (a very niche event) but the Olympics, World Cup, and these Commonwealth Games all seem like reasonable topics that fit the concept. --MASEM (t) 22:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose As Tone says, we should stick to the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup. There are heaps of sports events that one could make a case for if we lower the bar. Our present coverage of sports is quite sufficient, in my view, without them colonising the "Ongoing" ticker. Neljack (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Next largest sporting event in the world after the FIFA World Cup, Olympics and Paralympics. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The next sports event that comes along will be the "next largest after WC, Olympics, Paralympics, and Comm Games". Where is the line? 331dot (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Presumably the Asian Games, which has a larger "default" audience that the Commonwealth Games should be ahead of this, right??? –HTD 23:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Presumably you'll nominate it when it starts, simple as that. Or do we now have to suffer the endless original research about perceived global interest, viewership, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Either me or someone else would nominate it. Heck, South Korea forgoes mandatory military service if their guy wins a gold medal (nope, winning the World Cup would lead you straight to the barracks). If this is listed in "ongoing", damn sure the Asian Games should too, as per the Commonwealth Games article: "The games are the fourth largest multi-sport event in the world, after the Olympic Games, the Asian Games, and the Maccabiah Games." –HTD 19:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking forward to it. Now what does that have to do with this nomination? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Like I said, if the first and fourth (I don't think the second-largest was even suggested), logically and if we have some semblance of fairness, the third should go in too. –HTD 23:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• An interesting and reasonable thought. But what does that have to do with this nomination? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This nomination shall be the precedent. –HTD 12:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No, not at all, we don't post A because we posted B because of exclusively C. We'd need to discuss it here first. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]