Mali ceasefire ended

Nominator's comments: After a long-running conflict and intervention a ceasefire was signed, and now it looks like war will return. As a note, we posted FARC's ceasefire talks, here there is a result. The ABOLISHMENT of the agreement. --Lihaas (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the blurb doesn't even make sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is obviously a important development in a notable conflict. Thue (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle. A declared end to a formal ceasefire is notable, but the current blurb is not acceptable. 331dot (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: has violence resumed? Or is this just talk at the moment? Also, yes the blurb is terrible. Modest Genius ^talk 23:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment was the announcement of the ceasefire posted? If not, the blurb should remind it, I think. Egeymi (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment yes I agree the blurb sux and I was struggling with it too. Any alternative suggestions? That's what we can cdo instead of merely complaining..Lihaas (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Opppose as it stands. Seriously? One sentence? Someone needs to spank Lihaas for dishonestly claiming this article is updated. He's been here long enough to know such crap is beyond the bounds of good faith. μηδείς (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well it weas 2 sentences originally and more of an update then plenty of stuff we post (sports for eg). Anyways, you dint give a reason for support/oppose. You coiuld then just add "pending further update".Lihaas (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's just what "oppose as it stands" does means--without further update. μηδείς (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Junior Eurovision Song Contest

[Posted] Rugby League World Cup

Nominator's comments: ITN/R - article needs more detail on the final match itself --Bcp67 (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a separate article on the final at 2013 Rugby League World Cup Final. This should certainly be posted, but you're right it does need at least a few sentences of prose on the match itself. Modest Genius ^talk 19:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Rugby League World Cup Final has been updated with match summary. Genericchimera (talk) 08:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have put an alternative blurb in linking to the match article. --Bcp67 (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rugby league is a major sport in England (the country that hosted the final), Australia (the country that won the final) and New Zealand (the country that contested the final). Equivalent of, say, a World Cup final in ice hockey Hosted by Canada and contested between USA and Russia.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the linked article to the one re the final. --Bcp67 (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• All looks good, marking [Ready]. Modest Genius ^talk 17:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • However we should use the standard ENGVAR-neutral phrasing for sporting items:

The Rugby League World Cup concludes with Australia defeating New Zealand in the final

• • Modest Genius ^talk 17:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that - this was my first ITN nomination, apologies for not getting the phrasing quite right - thanks for sorting it out. --Bcp67 (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. That standard phrasing has been arrived at over a long period of dealing with complaints - it avoids the plural/singular issues (which annoy speakers of different versions of English), omits the score, and allows for links to both competitors, the competition and the individual game. There's no reason why you would be expected to know it! Modest Genius ^talk 11:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose can hardly support an AU vs NZ match simply because "it's on ITNR" when other matters of actual historical import like the Ukraine EU membership protests languish here for lack of attention. μηδείς (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Really epic interest. Even either of the Gaelic games in ITNR pulled bigger numbers. –HTD 19:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - major sporting event, ITNR. Only opposition seems POINTy --W. D. Graham 21:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well of course Aussie newspapers must've been pointy when most of their newspaper front pages had the NRL grand final this October while this "World Cup" was beaten by shark attacks yesterday... –HTD 12:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 05:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Pro-EU protests in Ukraine

Nominator's comments: This is big news in Europe and the article is in really good shape and being constantly updated. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: breaking news related to current event, widely covered in leading European media — NickK (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that blurb by Yulia Romero is not up to date anymore: protests were broken up at 1:30 UTC — NickK (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support I would support the alt blurb but it should also say that the Association Agreement was not signed and link European_Union-Ukraine_relations#Suspension_of_association_agreement. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Shall it be something like Following suspension of EU Association Agreement by Ukraine, anti-riot police forcefully break up pro-European Union protests in Kyiv? Please suggest better wording if you don't like it — NickK (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  The alt-blurb is OK, but it should mention it is the EU Association Agreement, for clarity. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done — NickK (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Moved this version to the blurb — NickK (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - definitly for ITN. Important new step in the Ukrainian history.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Altblurb as it is. I don't think we need to give chapter and verse. Details about the Association Agreement are in the article. Formerip (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• support (alt blurb) we didn't post Ukraine's refusal to sign the Association Agreement --Երևանցի ^talk 18:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oppose the thai protests are more notable than this in terms of the global coverage its getting.

Although if this goes up it should also have the agreement which was nominated earlier in the blurbLihaas (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support alt blurb. Significant week-long protests, a pretty good article, and a chance to feature a long-running story which hasn't previously been posted. Modest Genius ^talk 19:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Tens of thousands marching in Kiev right now, people are calling the protest a "decisive moment" and plan a national strike. Yet it is omitted by Wikipedia editors. Strange. The situation is apparently so rapidly evolving that it is better to remain silent than change the blurb every two hours :D --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This has sufficient support to be posted, I just can't decide on the blurb. The first blurb is strange (Despite their demands not being met, people keep protesting?), police intervention is just an episode in the ongoing protests and the non-agreement was 10 days ago (though it makes sense to include it). What about "Over 100.000 people protest in Kyiv following the suspension of EU Association Agreement by Ukraine"? Some feedback on this one, please, then ready to post. --Tone 13:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• A better blurb was suggested by NickK (see the discussion above), but it is outdated now. I would agree with your proposal. Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, the situation is being updated daily. On 29 November people were protesting despite their demands not being met, on 30 November anti-riot policy has forcefully broken up protests, today (1 December) between 350,000 and 500,000 people are protesting in Kyiv against bascially everything... against suspension of EU Association Agreement, against use of force against demonstrators and for the resignation of the government (Kyiv Post). The first blurb was perfect as of 29 November, the alternative one was good as of 30 November, now a new one is needed. I would suggest something like Hundreds of thousands protest in largest cities of Ukraine following suspension of EU Association Agreement and forceful break up of protests in Kyiv by the police on Friday night. Please be aware that this blurb may become outdated tomorrow as well :) — NickK (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the Kyiv Post live update link - it looks like a HUGE demonstration. Hopefully it will end up in peace. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — With an estimated 350,000 people demonstrating in Kiev on Dec. 1, [2] this story is among those conspicuous by their absence from ITN. Sca (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support notably genuine anti-government protest with arrests in context of wider story on EU membership. μηδείς (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, large protest, especially for an arcane topic such as EU trade partnership. Abductive (reasoning) 00:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This should go up, it's very well updated and pretty much lacks opposition. μηδείς (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Blurb Question: Articles look good, but I'm still not sure which blurb to post (none of them are exactly great or fully correct). I was thinking about the following blurb; can someone else confirm that this is correct: Following the delay in approving an Association Agreement with the European Union by Ukraine, thousands of Ukrainians protest in favor of better pro-EU relations. Or does anyone have any better suggestions/improvements? Spencer^T♦C 00:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the third blurb is the most up to date: Following suspension of EU Association Agreement by Ukraine, anti-riot police forcefully break up pro-European Union protests in Kyiv. --Երևանցի ^talk 00:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding of the article though, the Association Agreement was not in effect yet, as that blurb implies. The agreement wasn't suspended; its signing was delayed. Spencer^T♦C 01:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The media calls it a suspension. [3] [4] [[5] Although the president has promised to sign it sometime in the near future, it's not clear if they will sign it or not. I think that's why the protests continue and grew larger after the summit. --Երևանցի ^talk 01:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll just use this blurb then and it can be changed as needed. Spencer^T♦C 05:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. Spencer^T♦C 05:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] LAM Mozambique Airlines Flight 470

Nominator's comments: Perhaps the third deadliest aviation accident this year and reported hull loss. Brandmeister^talk 11:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - 34 deaths is sufficiently high enough that we should feature the accident on ITN. Mjroots (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Mjroots. CaptRik (talk) 13:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support same reasoning. Jonno - (Wanna talk?) 14:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support notable event and suitable quality article. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting. --Tone 16:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - notable. just for the record.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as not quite notable in number of deaths for a passenger aircraft, and with no other special circumstances given for notability. μηδείς (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Glasgow helicopter crash

Article: 2013 Glasgow helicopter crash (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Nine people are killed when a helicopter (pictured) crashes onto a pub in Glasgow, United Kingdom. (Post)
News source(s): BBC NBC News CNN Times of India
Credits:

• Nominated by Mjroots (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Nonsenseferret (talk · give credit)

Article updated

 --Mjroots (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Undecided This is a more unusual story than first glance because the crash took place in a built up area. I'd support if (sadly) the severity increases by a decent margin. Truth is, I don't know how often helicopters crash and I guess it's more comparable to light aircraft crashes which often don't make the news. I found the nomination for the last helicopter crash that I heard of (Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/January_2013#Helicopter_crash_in_London) and that was broadly opposed. CaptRik (talk) 10:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning towards support now that more details are clear, but equally i'm not sure that this story and the airline crash should both be up. CaptRik (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Undecided/Wait, but this is already a little different than the prior London crash, as this was a police helicopter that apparently landed on top of a crowded pub, in which there seems to have been many casualties(more than the London crash). 331dot (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, very unusual and sad, but still rather a local incident. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, unusual incident and huge coverage in UK, but even if fatalities are in the upper estimate of what's being reported it remains globally a fairly minor story. yorkshiresky (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Info - Police press conference on Sky News now states 8 fatalities. Mjroots (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support we posted the helicopter crash in London this is similar, with more fatalities and the sad juxtaposition of a police helicopter and a busy pub. Notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like we posted the London one, per the discussion linked above (I'm not sure if there's a better way to check?). CaptRik (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. My mistake, there was an urgency to delete it in fact... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, but perhaps combine with the other major air crash that is in the news. "In aviation, a Mozambique jetliner crash kills 34, and a helicopter falls into a Glasgow pub, killing 8." Jehochman ^Talk 17:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not. Nice to have a fresh view on ITN postings. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seconded, nice suggestion. CaptRik (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 20:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - if combined with the Mozambique crash.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jehochman's combined blurb idea. I'd probably also support it separately; police helicopters don't often crash into crowded buildings. I think we sometimes get too hung up on death tolls. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Rare accident, high death toll (for the particular area/incident type). Comments have been made by Scotland's first minister and the UK prime minister, and the Queen. However, the accident in the grand scheme of things is relatively small.--Somchai Sun (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

strongest possible oppose I was coming here to ask why someone hasnt created this page. Please answer what possible encypaedic worth does this have? Letys clarify that this is not a social media news sitem, nor is it wikinews, it is wikipedia "the free encyclopaedia"Lihaas (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey? You ask why someone hasn't created the page then say "letys [sic] clarify this is not a social media news sitem [sic]". What are you trying to say? Can you please try to write in English? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I am too at total loss regarding the point of the above rant by User:Lihaas. --hydrox (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Just doesn't seem significant enough. 8 deaths in one crash is a lot for a helicopter, but not for transportation in general. The Mozambique crash was a much bigger incident and deserved to be posted. Modest Genius ^talk 19:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: how many helicopter crashes in European cities with such death tolls can you recall? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two. But unusual != significant. Modest Genius ^talk 21:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would you do an old man a favour and tell me the other instance of eight+ deaths in a European city following a helicopter crash please? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • In addition to the 2013 Vauxhall helicopter crash (2 deaths), the Copterline Flight 103 crashed just outside Tallinn with 14 deaths. Actually I was mistaken; the second major crash I was thinking of was the 2003 Polish Air Force Mi-8 crash in Warsaw, which had 14 injuries, but no deaths. However, even if we just stick to the UK there have been plenty of major helicopter crashes outside cities: Sumburgh disaster (45 deaths), 1994 Scotland RAF Chinook crash (29), 1983 British Airways Sikorsky S-61 crash (20), 2009 Bond Helicopters Eurocopter AS332 crash (16), 2002 Bristow Helicopters Sikorsky S-76A crash (11). Those are just the ones I could find with Wikipedia articles. Modest Genius ^talk 22:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I asked for crashes with eight+ deaths in European cities. So none then. Thanks for your research and confirmation. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • <shrug> fair enough, if want to be that specific. I don't really see why it makes a different if it's in a city or the countryside, but there you go. Modest Genius ^talk 22:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • You don't see the difference between a helicopter crashing into a city centre versus one crashing into the countryside? Never mind, eh?! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Not if they affect the same number of people, no. Modest Genius ^talk 23:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Well, clearly they wouldn't, if one crashes in a city centre it'd "affect" more than one that crashes into the sea for instance. Honestly. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - its a big story with significant interest nationally and internationally --_nonsense ferret 21:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is hilarious to see news sites across the world leading with this story and the great and the good of wikipedia are debating whether it is worth a mention --_nonsense ferret 23:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to ITN! Just wait until the US wakes up!! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

heehee, it is pure pantomime so I guess it is the right season for it. --_nonsense ferret 23:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - now that the death toll has tragically increased to eight, it's on the front page of most international news outlets. James^x12345 21:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The death toll is high and has been on the news and getting attention. Miszatomic (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. We wouldn't post this if it had happened in Gdansk. Formerip (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prove it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (to formerIP) I don't think that's true if we can post a supermarket collapse in Latvia(or its effects like a resignation). But, much like TRM implied, I await your nomination of such an event to prove it. 331dot (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • • You know very well that my pilot's licence got revoked after that time I tried to prove we wouldn't have posted 9/11 if it happened in Helsinki. Formerip (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It absolutely is true. The two deadlier helicopter crashes were not even seriously considered for ITN. -LtNOWIS (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're entirely missing the point of the context of the crash. But never mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment - Articles can't be considered if editors don't nominate them. No nomination = no posting, simples. Mjroots (talk) 23:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Getting a lot of international coverage. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support combined blurb per Jehochman. 331dot (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Death toll is not high enough for an air crash. -LtNOWIS (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is the "death toll criterion" please? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Death toll is extremely relevant to the second criterion, significance of the event.-LtNOWIS (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • But it is not the be-all-end-all. Death toll is just one of many factors(which can include location, level of news coverage, reaction from prominent people, etc.). I don't mean to criticize your reason for opposing this, just FYI. 331dot (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral on whether or not this is posted. My gut instinct is no, but there does seem to be an emerging consensus to post this, and it is a somewhat unusual incident. However, I beg of you, can we please not merge this blurb with the completely unrelated Mozambique crash? They have absolutely nothing to do with one another, other than occurring on the same day and involving things that fly. We don't have so many successful nominations that we suddenly need to start conserving space on the template. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be the rationale for combining them (same day and things that fly). That's not enough? I don't think it's a matter of saving space so much as not bogging down ITN with the same subject matter. 331dot (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not also combine it with the Latvia story, since both involve a roof collapsing? Formerip (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both, however, did not involve helicopters crashing on them. Two aircraft crashing is, well, two aircraft crashing. We don't yet know what caused the supermarket roof collapse- and it was also the largest death toll for an incident in Latvia since 1950. 331dot (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opposed to posting this, but iff it does go up, it should be a separate blurb. There's no justification for combining them. Actually I didn't see anyone make a serious suggestion to do so... Modest Genius ^talk 01:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman did above on 17:41, 30 November 2013(and was also commended for having a fresh viewpoint). 331dot (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support separate blurb as-is Happened in an Anglophone country. Lowers the bar enough. Might or might not have been nominated and/or posted had it happened somewhere else, but I don't find that terribly relevant, as the ITN section is for items that are of particular interest to our readers. --hydrox (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Modest Genius. Contra hydrox, we should certainly not be exacerbating systemic bias by favouring items that occur in Anglophone countries. Neljack (talk) 05:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We shouldn't fight systemic bias by reducing stories that are posted from such countries, but by working to post more stories from elsewhere. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To quote, the primary purpose of the ITN is "to help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news." So considering that this happened in an Anglophone country and this is the English-language Wikipedia after all, it's likely that users might be searching for this article, right? Systematic bias is more of a content issue. --hydrox (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, posting this would be inconsistent with the not-posting of the bus crashes etc in Russia and China. Abductive (reasoning) 08:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apples and oranges. A bus crash is not a helicopter crash; buses crash much more frequently than helicopters crashing on crowded pubs. 331dot (talk) 10:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Under the general heading of transport accident----------------not different. Abductive (reasoning) 16:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support. Police helicopters typically don't crash. Helicopters typically don't crash into buildings. Aircraft typically don't crash in the centre of major cities. The last point alone makes this a very significant news item, and it would be news wherever in the world it happened so systematic bias isn't relevant here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Marking as ready - There seems to be sufficient consensus to post. As I'm the nominator, I'll allow another admin to review and decide if I've read the consensus correctly. Mjroots (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I count ten opposes and twelve supports of some sort. But with the waits and neutrals included there is certainly not a consensus to publish. μηδείς (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I agree with Abductive. SeraV (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This seems to be an instance of "One Englishman is a story. Ten Frenchmen is a story. One hundred Germans is a story. One thousand Indians is a story. Nothing ever happens in Chile." It is dramatic because it is on film and close to home. But it is not encyclopedic in a broader view. μηδείς (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Brushing aside the lunatic fringe who compare buses to helicopters, and the inflammatory use of an analogy about Englishmen in a debate involving Glasgow, I'm on the fence here. Medeis' underlying point could be taken both ways though: replace Englishmen with Americans, Frenchmen with Englishmen, and Germans with Scots, and that's probably where we are. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 20:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I see the need for this sort of soul searching - ITN exists amongst other things to help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news - we are not responsible for why the newscasters make the choices they do - ours is simply to follow what they decide to report on, not to right their wrongs. This item has been highly covered in news across the world. Readers are clearly looking for it - more than 12000 page views. It seems pretty simple. It is unquestionably encyclopedic, there will definitely be a page or two written into the history of the country to remember the dark day a police helicopter crash landed on a concert venue full of people. Really why won't that do? --_nonsense ferret 22:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll forgive me if I fail to see how replacing anti-Scottish English bigotry with anti-American English bigotry is an improvement, or why I should alter a quote in the first place whose relevance is clear to anyone with the reading comprehension of a 12-year-old. Fight it out amongst yourselves if this is somehow some sort of Brit-thang. μηδείς (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ITN has never been about proportionally matching coverage of news topics in the world; wide coverage is a necessity for inclusion at ITN, but having wide coverage does not demand being in ITN. And this is more a case because it's happening on BBC's home turf, and they have many multi-national arms to other countries, it is getting wide coverage de facto. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other news outlets still make the decision whether or not to run the story, it is not automatic. They run stories that they think their readers will be interested in. Wide coverage is certainly not the be-all-end-all reason to post a story, but it is an indication that it is of interest in many areas and/or that people might see it in the news and come here to learn about it. If that's not the case, then ITN should really be renamed to something else. 331dot (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

there's no requirement for us to second-guess why the international news agencies have covered this story so widely - merely we have to take into account that they did. Everything else is just gravy. --_nonsense ferret 23:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're not second-guessing other news sources, we're being selectivity for what we include in an encyclopedia, stories that are going to have a larger influence on the world at large to meet WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NEVENT. No one has said, for example, this crash is a non-story. People died, its a major news story. But it's also just an accident, a blip on the broader knowledge of mankind. Hence we should not be considering this type of story for ITN. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing two separate questions there. Those are guidelines for notability, and question whether an article should be in the encyclopedia or not. This event clearly is notable without question, as evidenced by the global, in-depth interest in the event. The question is, given it is notable, is it in the news so people will be likely looking for it? --_nonsense ferret 00:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the vast array of evidence presented that this is (a) in the news, (b) an encyclopaedic event, (c) an event that we have an article about, (d) an event that people are looking for our article on, and (e) an event that has an article with no cleanup or missing references tags, it seems to be exactly the sort of event that ITN is for. If people don't want to post good quality articles about events that are in the news on ITN then the purpose and scope of ITN needs to be redefined. Thryduulf (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comet ISON does something

Nominator's comments: This is getting quite a large amount of attention and in a few hours the long range comet will reach perihelion. Now obviously it could get chewed up by the Sun, but there is a decent chance it will make it alive. The comet is being called "Comet of the Century" and compared to the great comet of 1680 as it is very rare comet in terms of its origins, its tail, its orbit etc etc. We post Solar eclipses and in my opinion this event is a lot rarer and much more suitable for ITN in terms of encyclopedic content. Also its got a decent article. Please adjust the blurb... Also the event will be captured by SDO for those that care. ---- Ashish-g55 15:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative support, depending on the outcome. Falling appart will be a less attractive outcome than making it around the Sun. --Tone 15:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wish we could somehow post the SDO link so people can watch the outcome Live! Its amazing that there is technology out there that can show us these things as it happens -- Ashish-g55 15:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support Numerous comets are floating around in space, but being called the comet of the centuary makes it quite distinctive. As per Tone, subject to the outcomes, my vote patterns would change. Regards, theTigerKing  16:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Appears to be of scientific significance. --bender235 (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - fpr ITN. scientific significance.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, whatever the outcome. Appears a rare and interesting event. Has certainly been getting substantial press coverage. We should probably post an image. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Posting now for the benefit of the live link. The sort of thing that's perfect for an encyclopedia and will be of interest even if it breaks up. μηδείς (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the live link working yet? I can't view any videos but I'm notoriously technically incompetent. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There are various links you can find on line (just google ison live) the flyby is for the next two hours. The link I was watching had a British astronomer talking, since presumably the comet's on the other side of the sun now. μηδείς (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait. What we have here is:

• Headline: "Comet of the century"
• Paragraph 16: "Whether it really will be a comet of the century is unclear"

Formerip (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Bang, and the comet was gone. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Doesn't meet our usual criteria for comets: 'clearly visible by naked eye even to those who weren't specifically looking for it' (see WP:ITNR#Celestial_events and the several ITN/C discussions on comets referenced there). Essentially this was a case of 'it might be huge!' that turned out to be a damp squib. It disintegrated without ever being visible to anyone who wasn't already looking for it. Although it has been widely covered on social media, scientifically there isn't anything very special about it. I'm willing to reassess if the situation changes, but right now it's not significant enough. The 'comet of the century' label was wildly inappropriate hyperbole that now looks silly. Modest Genius ^talk 01:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a bit of speculation as to whether it survived. SDO could not see it but seems like some portion of it made it around the sun as seen by SOHO. So still dont know if it got destroyed or some part of it is still alive -- Ashish-g55 18:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it may have survived, but in much-reduced form. Modest Genius ^talk 16:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now I would support posting if it becomes visible to a naked eye. --Tone 18:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comet Lovejoy is already visible to the naked eye, and has been for several weeks. Unless you know where to look, you'd never know. I don't think that's a sensible cut-off, even if ISON does make it. Modest Genius ^talk 16:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for RD Somchai Sun (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you have a source confirming that. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support original, strong oppose alternative - as it appears to have survived, at least partly. Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 21:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? What's the story here? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • BBC News. Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 00:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose nothing to see here, Modest Genius makes a reasonable explanation as to why this is simply not that big a deal. Damp squib seems to fit the bill. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The Usual Suspects oppose this on the grounds that this is simply not a big deal, but of course it is, being a sungrazer that just travelled a light year over 1 million years, becoming one of the brightest and earliest detected new comets. It's had huge news coverage and huge reader interest. This is the perfect place to have come to look for info on it above the tabloid pablum--perfect except for the usual naysayers who keep this off the front page. Yes, there's a huge satisfaction had in saying no, and showing how above it all one is compared to everyone else. It's not a good reason to oppose a nomination like this. μηδείς (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hardly lived up to the billing, but nice whinge. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Usual Suspects cry systemic bias on anything that happens within the atmosphere outside of Asia, yet are systemically biased towards documenting anything that comes within 1 AU of Earth. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 20:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The sun is hot enough to melt ice... is not a news story in and of itself. It needs a bit of selling. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 20:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Chief of Army Staff of Pakistan Army appointed

Nominator's comments: The COAS is the top slot in the Pakistan Army and has historically been a very influential position in Pakistan, both in terms of military history and politics. Sharif is due to replace Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, who was ranked as the world's 28th most powerful man by Forbes in 2012. --Mar4d (talk) 03:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose. We typically don't post this type of position(below head of state or head of government). I don't think we would post the United States Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or the Secretary of State for Defence in the UK, etc. 331dot (talk) 03:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per 331dot. This guy could raise some serious cash for Movember, through. GoldenRing (talk) 11:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose As per 331dot. Posting this, does not mean that we stop posting ITNRs (appointment of President/PM of Pakistan). The army chief had been historically (since independence) an influential position in Pakistan (we never posted in the past in ITN), and most likely would continue to be (we should not post it in ITN in the future). The article should be posted only if it is Encyclopediac enough and not just on notability terms (The event would garner headlines around the world as Army chief of Pakistan is as important as PM/President of Pakistan in decision making). We do not consider ,as a valid argument, posting 1st or 28th "World's most powerful person of XXXX year" as rated by several magazines annually.Regards, theTigerKing  16:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Latvian Prime Minister announces resignation

Nominator's comments: We often post every fall of a government and the reason in this case is relatively unusual. The story with the roof collapse was posted few days ago, but this is a different one resulting from it. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oppose 1. we just posted the fire (who would have though that would be landmark? (tinpot lil country) 2. we actually don't post most falls of government. This is not exceptional as we posted that recently.Lihaas (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? "Tinpot lil country"? Who made you the judge of that? AlexTiefling (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

support The resignation of a head of state/government of any sovereign nation should be borderline ITNR and is definitely the sort of material that ITN seems to routinely cover, and more importantly than anything, the target article, while a bit short, contains no obvious problems.--Jayron32 03:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support surprised this took so long, an obvious update of the roof collapse blurb. μηδείς (talk) 03:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The unexpected resignation of a head of government due to a scandal/incompetence/mismanagement is notable enough for ITN. 331dot (talk) 03:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This seems a surprising development, potentially of interest to readers who followed the supermarket collapse story. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• support didn't see that coming. Seems very newsworthy to me. --Երևանցի ^talk 03:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting. --Tone 12:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silvio Berlusconi expelled from parliament

Nominator's comments: While Berlusconi has been prosecuted plenty of times before, he usually gets off due to appeals, expiry, or because he changed the law to make him immune (really!). For a long time, it looked like his political influence would save his seat in parliament this time too, since he was threathening to bring down the government. This actual follow-through consequence is unusual and therefore notable. Thue (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose just another shameful chapter in the recent political history of Italy. Nothing really to report.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I think we'd be posting because of his celebrity status rather than because of a really significant news story here. Could argue that the Latvian Prime Minister resigning on the same day is a bigger story. CaptRik (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, that's far more important than tat surrounding Silvio. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is the very recently former President of Italy, and a (still) hugely powerful politician and media mogul. That is not just being being a celebrity!?! I am a bit at a loss at how anybody can not find this item notable. Thue (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh. He has been posted (I think) three times in the past year, roughly, and once or twice before that. We posted the really big stories; this one is but a ripple. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Berlusconi was Prime Minister of Italy, not President. I have amended the blurb to reflect that. Neljack (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is significant news, given that Berlusconi has escaped this fate on so many other occasions and that it is likely to cause further political instability in a country that is in a fragile economic position. Neljack (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • But what does the expulsion of one person mean to anyone other than the individual? It's not going to change anything. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose we already posted his August 2013 conviction. Per the article, this is a continuation of the same process, that also included a ban from public office for two years. --hydrox (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose per The Rambling Man --Երևանցի ^talk 22:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

support sitting/former rime mnister getting booted out of parliament (not just office) is highly notable...and more than Latvia.Lihaas (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. We posted his conviction, as pointed out by others. Any other punishment is just gravy. 331dot (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question How often do legislatures expel -- by voting -- its members? –HTD 09:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not often, for sure, but this was not unexpected as a result of his conviction. 331dot (talk) 12:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then the question is, how often legislators are convicted while in office, and does the rule in this case tell the legislature to expel the member once s/he's convicted no matter what or it's upon the discretion of the majority if they're expelling people. –HTD 13:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • It was not expected 100%. He avoided being expelled for some time by threatening to make the government fall. Thue (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

German coalition agreed

Nominator's comments: Deal also includes “no new taxes” pledge; must be OK'd by SPD members in a poll Dec. 6. Sca (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is big news for Europe. I'm not sure the detail about the minimum wage is appropriate, though - there was lots of guff in the coalition agreement, IIRC. GoldenRing (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are some exceptions but they're supposed to go away by 2017. This would be Germany's first-ever national minimum wage — in itself a political milestone. (That's milestone, not millstone — ha.) Sca (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, German politics are important. I added an altblurb. Thue (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Is what's notable here the creation of the coalition, or the minimum wage? Hasn't it been known since the election in September that there would be a coalition and it was just a matter of working out the details? If it's the minimum wage then the blurb should focus on that. 331dot (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't completely clear that this is the coalition that would form. IMO we should wait to post the minimum wage when it passes. Thue (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks; I'll support the altblurb then. 331dot (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It really should include the amount of time the negotiations took, though — it's been over two months since the election. Sca (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding date of the election to the alt blurb. 331dot (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't spell out that talks w/SPD took five weeks, though. Sca (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: NYT story says "The accord ... will introduce Germany’s first minimum wage..." (my emphasis). [8] Sca (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This is largely of national importance, and as matter of fact, nothing has been decided yet: The leaders of these three parties have committed themselves to form a coalition government, but (in the SPD's case), there will be a referendum among all 400,000+ party members during the next weeks (the result will be known only by 15 December). If a majority votes against the proposed coalition treaty, the whole thing will be scrapped. The bit about the minimum wage is also not that important to be showcased on the Wikipedia front page (true, Germany is currently one of only a few Western states without one, but that lack is somewhat balanced by the highly developed welfare system and strong unions and works councils). And again, it's currently only a mere committment. If you really want an item for ITN, then you might want to wait for December 17: On this day, the Bundestag will (that is, must) elect a chancellor, regardless of what will happen until then (but there does not seem to be a snowball's chance in hell that the current one won't be re-elected).--FoxyOrange (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The CDUU/CSU & SPD have agreed to the minimum wage in writing — it's a done deal politically speaking — and their coalition will have an overwhelming majority in the Bundestag. Since the minimum wage was the SPD's primary condition for joining a Merkel-led gov't., it's highly unlikely that its rank and file will vote against the deal.

Disagree that it's merely a national story, since Germany is the acknowledged economic and de facto political leader of the EU. Sca (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Objections relating to an event being from a single country are not valid (see "Please do not.." section above).331dot (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: this should wait until after Chancellor Merkel and her cabinet are sworn into office. --bender235 (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's change the category title from In the news to In the history books. Sca (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I remind you that Wikipedia is not a news publication? By no means we're in a hurry to publish this information in realtime. --bender235 (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, I forgot ... wake me up next year ... and let me know what happened last year ... ZZZZzzzzzzz.... Sca (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do not post inaugurations/swearing in-s, we post the results of elections when they happen, which in this case is now. 331dot (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The election was two months ago, and we did post it. --bender235 (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've made a small tweak to the blurb - changing "minimum national wage" to "national minimum wage," which is the more usual and idiomatic term. Neljack (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

support ALT blurb highly notable country and long negotations. Plus we posted aus, can, uk more than once. The grand coalition makes it more notable as all legislation will pass. Markets much be rocking

wait according to the article it will be approved.rejected 6 dec. and per the popularity of the last grand coalition on the SPD that's quite an ifLihaas (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: BBC day-after story says, "Angela Merkel will return as German chancellor for a third term under a coalition deal hammered out with her old Social Democrat (SPD) opponents" (my emphasis). [9] Sca (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted to RD] Arik Einstein

Nominator's comments: Considered one of the best Israeli singers in Israel history, called the godfather of Israeli rock, published in dozen of websites outside Israel and dozens more in Israel. the Israel gov'nt including the PM and President also published statements about his death. 
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Seems to be an important figure in his field. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 13:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsure. On the one hand, he seems to be almost at the top of the tree in terms of Israeli rock singers. But is that too narrow as a field? Is it fair to say that there are a lot of more significant rock musicians that we would reject for RD? Formerip (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'm only aware he exists because his death is, well, In The News. But he does seem to be pretty huge in Israel and we do publish stories that are country-specific (or so the blurb at the top says) GoldenRing (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This seems to be of significant interest. Both the Prime Minister and President of Israel gave remarks on his passing, and RS citations call him "the father of Israeli rock". Teemu08 (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support given the reaction to his death; clearly he was notable in his field. 331dot (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support once again, a decent shout for the few characters that RD will allow. Please, somebody, sort the references out, they're a complete mess, but otherwise good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD Stephen 22:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Bay Psalm Book

Nominator's comments: Making headlines worldwide. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, when updated. I'd been wondering about nominating this. Besides being interesting in its own right, this cluster of auction records forms an interesting reflection of the current economic climate. The article is in decent shape and probably doesn't want a disproportionate update on this sale of a single copy, though a little more referencing in the appropriate section would be useful, both of the new record and of the old auction prices. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Little more referencing in the appropriate section added! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent, thanks. We might mention the 1640 date in the blurb. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A very notable auction of a 350 year old book.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minority topic + consistency with the art record postings.Lihaas (talk) 12:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, Making headlines, record price. 331dot (talk) 12:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Culturally significant story to anyone on the globe. CaptRik (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted with a slightly terser blurb based on the article's wording. Stephen 22:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Bill Foulkes

Nominator's comments: ManUtd 4th higest appereances player, played for 18 years, a Manchester United captain and 1958 Munich air crash survivor. Won championships and the first European Cup with ManUtd, who is the current English champions. 
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose relatively speaking not that important. Yes, surviving Munich and having a decent record with Utd is notable, but I'd be surprised if this makes any serious news tremors outside of Manchester. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Seems to be lacking in individual accolades. Teemu08 (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] US flies B-52 bombers over airspace disputed by China

[Closed] Ian Watkins trial

No consensus to post. Spencer^T♦C 04:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Articles: Ian Watkins (Lostprophets) (talk · history · tag) and Lostprophets (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Lostprophets frontman Ian Watkins pleads guilty at Cardiff Crown Court to a range of child sex offences including the attempted rape of a baby. (Post)
News source(s): WalesOnline BBC NY Daily News Perth Now
Credits:

• Nominated by [[User:SheffGruff (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)|SheffGruff (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)]] ([[User talk:SheffGruff (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)|talk]] · [((fullurl:User talk:SheffGruff (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)|action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/preload_credit&preloadtitle=ITN+recognition+for+%5B%5BIan+Watkins+%28Lostprophets%29%5D%5D&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=Ian+Watkins+%28Lostprophets%29&preloadparams%5b%5d=nominated)) give credit])[reply]

 SheffGruff (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Sentencing not due until 16 December. Leaky Caldron 17:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose even with the sentencing... Given that i would oppose had the trial of the indian dentists been nominated. Regardless of how shocking it is its still a local criminal case with no effect on the law. -- Ashish-g55 17:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A celebrity (admittedly one I haven't heard of, but that is of course irrelevant) pleading guilty to serious crimes is notable, and this is getting coverage. We post upon convictions(or in this case, pleading guilty), not sentencing, I believe. Don't see a ton of stores from Wales, either. 331dot (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This case is not strictly local as the investigation involved/involves international authorities and the band had notable success outside of the UK. SheffGruff (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support IF he gets found guilty/sentencing. --Somchai Sun (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • He plead guilty; no need to be found guilty. We don't typically wait for sentencing to post the results of trials/criminal cases. 331dot (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for fear of this becoming a tabloid section. Serious crime, but just because he's a minor celeb, it doesn't provide longevity. How much of mass sexual crimes of Savile, Stuart Hall etc have we featured on ITN? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point I suppose TRM... I've changed to "weak" support if he gets found guilty, but that will be another nomination another day so we'll see...--Somchai Sun (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No IF about it. He has pleaded guilty to the most serious charges. Leaky Caldron 18:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This has no non-local impact. The subject is an extremely minor figure. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I am not fundamentally opposed to featuring harsh sentences against celebrities, but Watkins is just too obscure of a celebrity. Lostprophets only had sustained success in one country. Teemu08 (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objections relating to the fact this deals with only one country are not valid: "Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive."331dot (talk) 03:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per TRM. Neljack (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Wow. What a disturbing story. But no, I don't think it's important enough to disturb the whole world with. Formerip (talk) 02:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Honduran election

Nominator's comments: Oddly no one has nominated this here as ITN. There is a disput e in the election but the electoral commission has ruled. --Lihaas (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not so odd since it doesn't seem to be in the news ("Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable source.") ITNR does not override the need for something to be in the news. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still confused why this is a requirement. Does no one read the article and check the references? There you can find the news sources you demand. This whole requirement of including another news source is ridiculous process wonkery that makes it more difficult and time consuming to nominate items at ITN/C and is basically instruction creep. Spencer^T♦C 20:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I completely agree. Wikipedia is (supposedly) not a bureaucracy. Doing a Google News search takes seconds and will give you a much better idea of how much an item is in the news than a few sources picked by the nominator. And in this case it's obvious that a national election will be in the news. Neljack (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The simple courtesy of providing a source also takes seconds. And it has been a problem in the past that stories have garnered supports based on a misleading nomination without sources. I think one got posted and then had to be speedily undone, although I can't remember what the story was. Formerip (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • (to Spencer) I'm not "demanding" anything; I'm only going by the instructions on this page for proper nominations(and I only bring it up with regular posters who should be aware of said instructions). It's not too much to ask to plug one news story in the 'sources' line of the template(that's what it's there for). It shouldn't be up to me to seek out information to support someone else's nomination, especially when we make it easy to do so. As FormerIP said, it only takes seconds. 331dot (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support though "controversially" should probably be left out of the blurb. For 331dot's benefit, here is evidence that this is in the news.[12] Neljack (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Ancient Buddhist shrine in Lumbini

Articles: Lumbini (talk · history · tag) and Maya Devi Temple, Lumbini (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The earliest known Buddhist shrine is uncovered by archaeologists in Lumbini, Nepal. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The earliest known Buddhist shrine is uncovered by archaeologists at Maya Devi Temple, Lumbini, Nepal.
News source(s): [13]
Credits:

• Nominated by FormerIP (talk · give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: No article as yet for the site, but maybe Lumbini just needs expanding. Formerip (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Significant archaeological discovery with potential implications for the controversy over Buddha's birth date. Will, I'm sure, be of widespread interest, and helps with systemic bias issues too. Neljack (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very significant discovery related to one of world's largest religions and one of the most famous religious figure and spiritual teachers who has ever lived. I agree with the implications that may come from it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Very interesting, but the article Lumbini doesn't mention the discovery, from what I can see. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. Can you think of any way that could be remedied? Formerip (talk) 11:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Please write or edit the article before nominating. You're greatly reducing the chance of this ever being posted by doing it backwards. Jehochman ^Talk 12:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how it works. I don't intend to edit the article, but that doesn't prejudice its chances of getting posted. It'll get posted if someone wants to do it. Formerip (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is correct that an article can be nominated before an update (as it suggests here but, while I agree that this is worthy of posting as a significant development for Buddhism, I need an update or an article to evaluate before actually endorsing it. If no one does, then this won't be posted. 331dot (talk) 13:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I didn't say you can't nominate it. What I said is that doing so prematurely greatly reduces the chance of this ever being posted. I came here looking to post something, and this is the only thing here this morning, but I can't post it because there's no update. By the time an update is ready, I predict three or four comments will have appeared to the effect "Oppose, not ready", and at that point the consensus becomes muddied and can't be sorted without a couple days of discussion, by which time other, better nominations will appear, and this one will get buried. Jehochman ^Talk 13:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any opposes based on article not being ready can be ignored and should not affect the consensus at all. The nomination is to decide whether this item should go on ITN... update is mandatory and should be checked at time of posting. Having said that, it should not be marked "Ready" without an update -- Ashish-g55 14:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I started the article Maya Devi Temple, Lumbini, which covers the story. Feel free to contribute. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support after Vejvančický's work. The new article is shorter than we usually highlight but adequate to cover the main facts. I have suggested an alt blurb to highlight it. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alt-blurb and for your help. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Posting. --Tone 16:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about adding an image of the temple? (Posted above). --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The secondary sources are very skeptical about the dating method used to support the claim that this temple is that old. Abductive (reasoning) 18:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific? It can be mentioned in the article, of course. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 101st Grey Cup

Nominator's comments: It's the championship of the highest level of play for Canadian football and is listen on ITN/R. Might not have been the best football game, but a great game for us Rider fans! --PlasmaTwa2 05:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've added a very crude game summary and a few other tidbits. It's hard to get all the information so quickly after the end of the game, but it will be added as it becomes available. --PlasmaTwa2 07:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per ITNR. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 15:27, November 25, 2013 (UTC)
• Looks to be in good shape to me, but someone should convert those bare urls. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting Jehochman ^Talk 02:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please fix the links so they point to the respective team's season page, i.e. [[2013 Saskatchewan Roughriders season|Saskatchewan Roughriders]]. Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone pay attention here? It weren't the franchises that played the Grey cup, it were the 2013 teams! --bender235 (talk) 08:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the convention here is to link at franchises, not the current (last since it ended?) season's teams. –HTD 08:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's correct. Not everyone might be aware of what exactly the teams are; and if they want information about the season itself, they can get there from that article. 331dot (talk) 11:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Hoax] Angola outlaws Islam

Appears to be either hoax or deliberate trolling. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Article: Ban of Islam in Angola (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Angola outlaws Islam and other religions deemed contrary to Angolan culture. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Angola outlaws Islam and starts to destroy mosques.
News source(s): onislam
Credits:

• Nominated by Soffredo (talk · give credit)

Article needs updating

 [Soffredo] 23:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps the article Ban of Islam in Angola should be merged to Islam in Angola. Nonetheless, the article does need more expansion. Spencer^T♦C 00:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• This could potentially be worthy of posting, but as Spencer said the article needs expansion. 331dot (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

support with a batter RS ref that's not partisan. and also support the merge orproposal above.

God knows what that idiot regime is up to in angola...stealing all the oil money no doubt [14]Lihaas (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this is certainly interesting as unusual. If it goes up it should have the mosque destruction included in the blurb. μηδείς (talk) 03:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely interesting, but sourcing needs improvement. As above, mosque destruction should be included if posted, and a total ban on Islam is confirmed. Interesting to ponder the repercussions for Muslims living in Angola – a not unsizable amount, I believe? 80.241.222.107 (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This all seems rather sketchy at the moment. The English language articles I've read (and there don't seem to be many of them at present) quote (unnamed) Angolan newspapers as reporting this. They in turn are quoting the Minister of Culture. If one reads the Minister's comments, it seems that the headlines are somewhat misleading. She says that "the process of legalization of Islam has not been approved by the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights...their mosques would be closed until further notice." So it seems that Islam may already be illegal in Angola, and that what has happened is that the Islamic authorities' request to be legalised has been rejected and the government is changing its previous de facto tolerance of Islam. I really think we need more information and reliable sources before we can post this. Neljack (talk) 06:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait - Lets see some serious sourcing and a solid article first. If this turns out to be a hoax, and we've posted it... I note that nothing has been published from the The Times, The New York Times, or The Guardian yet. The "best" source I've been able to find was IBTimes, which is not very reassuring. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Needs way more English sources for confirmation, and it's certainly not clear if the proposed laws constitute a total ban on Islam, or something else. 80.241.222.107 (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This needs expansion on the bit of the blurb that says "...and other religions". The current emphasis on Islam seems to be pushing a particular POV. HiLo48 (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose until the story is picked up by more credible sources. Formerip (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "But an official at the Angolan Embassy in Washington, D.C., who did not want to be identified while discussing the sensitive matter, said that there is no such ban, and that the reports are erroneous" (Also from the IBTimes, published after the one linked by Crisco 1492) This seems more likely to be the case. Let's wait it out. Ryan Vesey 02:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The ANgloan government denies the ban. The article Ban of Islam in Angola should probably be deleted.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose as the reports are either hoax, error or purposeful incitement. Jehochman ^Talk 13:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Posted] Iranian nuclear program agreement

 --– Muboshgu (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle, though few details of the agreement have been released yet. We might want to wait for some details to update the article with. 331dot (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• It's being called "historic". President Obama spoke about it. I'm sure we'll know a lot and have a lot of reaction by the Sunday talk shows. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I suggest rewording the blurb to reflect that a deal between Iran and the six world powers (5+1) had been reached by which Iran is to stop its nuclear program for six months in return for relief from some sanctions.[15] Mohamed CJ (talk) 05:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems Iran has to stop the nuclear activities above 5% Uranium enrichment only (it's not complete freeze). So maybe we could say: Iran and the P5+1 reach a deal to halt Iran's enrichment of Uranium above 5% for six months in exchange for a decrease in sanctions. We can also remove "for six months" and instead change "deal" to "short-term deal". Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No opinion on the rest of the blurb, but I agree that it should mention the lifting of sanctions to give it some context. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I added the sanctions to the blurbs. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait Barack "drone-strike Qaddafi-coup Mubarak-overthrow Al Morsi-overthrow Syrian-rebel betrayal" Hussein Obama's Nobel Peace Prize was also called historic. Let's get a little perspective first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 05:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? Obama isn't even mentioned in the blurb. There's 6 billion other people that aren't either, but their actions are also not being called in for relevance here. Let's keep focused on this news event rather than one from 5 years ago which is entirely unrelated. --Jayron32 05:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cant's speak for other nations, but "agreements" like this have no legal power in the US unless they are passed as laws (majority in both houses) or ratified as treaties (two-thirds of the senate), neither of which is going to happen. μηδείς (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this is a pretty big deal. Hot Stop talk-contribs 06:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The run-up to this deal has been in the headlines the past few days. Now that it's done, there's not a whole lot of doubt that this is ITN-worthy. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oppose "short term freeze" is the key. As such nothing hdas been made here.Lihaas (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first agreement between the US and Iran since the hostage crisis is not "nothing". 331dot (talk) 12:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. it is NOT between the US and Iran. 2. So is the first agreement on climate change (or much else) between the divisive first worls and redst (below). 2.1. so is the first step in militarization o f a conflict.Lihaas (talk) 13:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The US and Iran are parties to it; if neither wanted to deal with the other this wouldn't have happened.331dot (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But its not between the US and Iran...there are a bunch of international caveats to it. (Germany for one was a strong beneficiaty of financial trade with Iran...and theyre here for some reason which adds a whole new dimentsion that bilaterlal agreements would NEVER do)Lihaas (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can debate the semantics all day long, but the fact remains that diplomatic discussions resulting in any sort of agreement between the US and Iran have been rare in the last 35 years. It's significant. 331dot (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A deal between Iran and the US & co seemed a distant prospect only a few months ago. That one has now been reached, albeit one that does not solve all the issues, is a very big deal. Neljack (talk) 08:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is a major piece of international diplomacy. CaptRik (talk) 11:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support although the article is very much in need of splitting. There is Geneva interim agreement on Iranian nuclear program also, although it is not very detailed at the moment. Formerip (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The separate article maybe good, but the title is rubbish. At least as it stands it indicates that nothing has happened yet if it is INTERIM.Lihaas (talk) 13:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support — But I agree that a separate article on the agreement is absolutely necessary for posting. Sources: [16], [17], [18]. Sca (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support I opposed China's one child policy as it was a Governmental promise to its people. That may or may not happen. I would support it for two reasons, even if the deal fails in the short term. First, a deal like this one could not have been predicted a few months back. US says it as a historic first step. Secondly, the deal is of great interest in many regions (Middle East- Saudi Arabia, Israel, Palestine, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon) and others (US [Economic Sanctions], Russia, China, India (Oil relations), Pakistan, Afghanistan). The deal, could affect the oil prices in the short term, provide economic stability, may provide a sense of confidence to the financial markets and many more things. Regards, theTigerKing  16:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Marked ready Update of Nuclear program of Iran should be sufficient, with only a yellow tag that shouldn't preclude posting. The Geneva interim agreement on Iranian nuclear program article should be sufficient if the posting admin wants to go with that. Consensus here is pretty clear, despite the opposition of Lihaas and Medeis. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know you cared. μηδείς (talk) 01:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted version of ALT blurb highlighting the Geneva interim agreement on Iranian nuclear program article, which is in good shape. Further blurb comments are welcome; I'm not 100% satisfied with the linking. Spencer^T♦C 09:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Updated blurb:

Iran signs an interim agreement with the P5+1 countries limiting its nuclear program in exchange for reduced sanctions.

I've attempted to improve the blurb by reducing wordiness and identifying the other parties to the agreement. Jehochman ^Talk 12:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that looks much better. Spencer^T♦C 19:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Militarisation of Senkaku Islands dispute

Nominator's comments: Not 100% sure about this (especially compared to COP19) but it is a significant step towards what seems to be a coming conflict. And China did it first, which in a war anyone knows is more the capable. So its more dangerous now. wonder what the minds of the defence ministry are...?
I know that official vessels have been involved before, but this is now poilicy with ramifications --Lihaas (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Certain events dealing with this dispute get nominated occasionally; this sort of saber rattling is not unusual with this situation. Only if weapons are fired or some similar escalation should we post something about this. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose per 331dot --Երևանցի ^talk 19:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The story is in the news internationally and is a fine candidate for an ITN blurb. The update is thin but exists, and I suggest updating the lead as well. The article itself is fascinating and well-written, and the talk page shows the article is under sanctions, since editing a hot topic like this is difficult. I thank Lihaas for this nomination. Jusdafax 22:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I completely agree with what Jusdafax says. One does not have to start a war for there to be a significant development in an international dispute. Neljack (talk) 08:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This saber rattling is not a significant development, it has occurred for the last year or so. In January there was an incident as well as in February. It is true there does not have to be a declared war or extended conflict to be a significant development, but there should at least be the use of force or weapons, or some other physical confrontation. (We did post an occupation of the islands by civilians in August of 2012. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case where is "at least be the use of force or weapons, or some other physical confrontation" over Iran's nuclear programme? WHy the hypocrisy in the "first agreement" vs. the "first militarization"? This is not a policy decision, not just mere patrolling.Lihaas (talk) 13:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is the first agreement between the US and Iran since the crisis; that makes it significant. There have been many 'incidents' over these islands. 331dot (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No it is NOT between the US and Iran. that is your mispereception and WRONG as a reason. it is P5+1 + we had the Obama phone call that was rejected here.

There has never been a POLICY decision for militarization in China...that is a step towards armamantisation much bigger than US-Iran as it is not the first since 79 its the first EVERLihaas (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what you just wrote doesn't make much sense to me, but if you'll look at the links to prior nominations about this issue I posted above you'll see this isn't the first time something like this has happened. It also is not a "misperception" that the US and Iran both agreed to something, even if others were involved. 331dot (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, saber rattling. Also, hardly any of the North Korean stories have been posted, and those are much more serious. Abductive (reasoning) 20:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 United Nations Climate Change Conference

Nominator's comments: Climate change were notoriously dysfunctional in reaching an agreement with a divided rich/poor world. Something has come out of it. Also the "Warsaw mechanism" was agreed so we could add that --Lihaas (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this the story headlined here as Epic Fail? And is this more or less certain than the announcement of the change in China's one-child policy? For instance, will any agreement be ratified by the US senate? μηδείς (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That source is dated 3 days ago (and that walkout is mentioned on the page).

I don't know about the US Senate signing/approving it. But consensus has been generated on that agreement after years.Lihaas (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the current political environment ratification by the US Senate is unlikely; you need a 2/3 vote and that will be very difficult to get. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, we need to be globalsised + remember whatitsname TREATY WITH THE Ussr that was enforced without raticifucationLihaas (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - This is a big story currently in the news. I'd suggest trimming the blurb a bit. Let's avoid discussing the merits of climate change, the effectiveness of the agreement itself, etc. The question is, does the story and article merit an ITN blurb? I believe so. Jusdafax 22:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Significant news on a major international issue. Neljack (talk) 08:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, with all the walkout by ministers and NGOs, the conference cannot be (with ITN surety) said to be a success. It is hard to figure out what happened and what (watered down) agreement was reached, and I am not comfortable putting it on the Main Page. Abductive (reasoning) 17:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no one is saying/judging it as success or failure. The only mention is the objectivef act that the agreement was made (and after 19 years at that)Lihaas (talk) 15:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Obvious, large important conference. Thue (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine not to sign the EU Association Agreement

Nominator's comments: Although somewhat expected, this is a very important event not only for Ukraine, but also the EU and Russia --Երևանցի ^talk 03:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This would seem to be of considerable geopolitical significance. Neljack (talk) 05:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support such international political moves are quite rare. Nergaal (talk) 10:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oppose;' this is not permanent. This could, again, easily chcange with the next administration. And the recent history of anti-incumbency in Ukraine certainly does not clarify anything. Iys mere partisan politics.

Quoting the article: "The European Parliament's monitoring mission in Ukraine stated on 22 November 2013 there was still has a chance to sign the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement."Lihaas (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're jokoing. They aren't going to release Tymoshenko in 4 days. And Russia's isn't going to stop pressuring Ukraine. --Երևանցի ^talk 19:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never said they will release her, or that this administration would. i said the next administration could reactivate it. And the EU mission said that. This however, is merely suspended (temporary), BOTH the above nominations have happened, period.Lihaas (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For now, Ukraine has made a clear decision not to sign the association agreement. Whether they will sign it in a year or two or not sign it at all doesn't really matter. --Երևանցի ^talk 20:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the same vein, "for now" China has made a policy decision to militaryise the conflict not just of the incident but a policy decision. The world has also agreed as a matter of policy "for now" to come to agreement where decade + was not able to reach one. Its flagrantly clear that there is hypocrisy on these 2 ctopics at ITNC withing the same 2 days not just historical precedence.Lihaas (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is an important treaty, and while the standpoint can of course be changed later, it is an important development. Thue (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, China has made a clear policy decision to militarise the senkaku dispute. How can you honestly (and hypocritically) deny one and yet claim so for the other???@@!Lihaas (talk) 07:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support. A convenient place to post an ongoing story of Ukraine's oscillation between Russia and EU in its foreign relations. The article seems pretty good. A bit dry though. I've suggested an alternative blurb above. I suggest linking to Ukraine–European_Union_relations#European_Union_Association_Agreement rather than the other subsection, because this provides the necessary background and context. Modest Genius ^talk 22:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The other part is whats in the news. background/context can always be viewed b the reader on the pageLihaas (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose this is not a rejection of EU membership per se, but a refusal to release Timoshenko. The headline is basically, Ukraine rejects arbitrary demand by EU. μηδείς (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The intro says "all six motions on allowing Tymoshenko to receive medical treatment abroad were rejected by Ukraine's Parliament on 21 November 2013 and the same day a Ukrainian government decree suspended preparations for signing of the association agreement, endangering the formal signing scheduled for a week later". So I'm having difficulty understanding through all of the politics: is this final? Or is there a final action ("Ukraine refuses to sign...") later? I'm not sure if this is preliminary media political hype or something more final. Spencer^T♦C 09:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, political maneuvering with nothing actually having happened, and nothing having been resolved. Abductive (reasoning) 17:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Perhaps the protests surrounding this (2013 Ukraine protests) are more notable? Spencer^T♦C 22:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support posting the article 2013 Ukraine protests I'm a little bit surprised it isn't on the main page. It is a very important shift in the political situation in Ukraine which is crucially important also for Europe as a whole. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We cant judge protests to be "very important" within days of it. What repercussions happened? Is it in the international media?Lihaas (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

.Yes but this section is called "In the News", so we should reflect that. It is of course in the international media. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

well so are the 2 nom above..Lihaas (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Maurice Vachon

Nominator's comments: Full disclosure, I fully expect a bevy of "fake sport, not notable" comments and this to be rejected. I was originally not going to bother, but the amount of coverage his death has gotten has convinced me, so it's worth a shot. Mad Dog Vachon was a very influential wrestler (pro and amateur), especially in Quebec, where he was one of the most famous athletes. To me, that puts him over the edge (Quebec, you see, is its own distinct culture. Someone might say "Being an icon in Missouri does not mean one should get an RD blurb", but Quebec is more comparable to an entire region as opposed to one state). He had an influential 40+ year career, making his name in the Midwestern US and all over Canada. He's an icon in Quebec. And a Google News search for his name plus death gets 8000+ hits in less than 24 hours. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Interesting character. Was a genuine Olympic level amateur wrestler, with a Gold medal at the Empire Games, who later moved into the scripted entertainment industry. Re his latter career of pro wrestling being a "fake sport", it's best to just refer to our own article on Professional wrestling, which simply avoids calling it sport, saying it's "a mode of spectacle which combines athletics and theatrical performance". Nothing wrong with that. We post plenty of other "celebrities" from the entertainment industry. Just don't call it sport. So, long career, popular, well known. Hard to argue with any of that. HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The debate about it being a sport or not is not relevant; this man was clearly very important in his field(per the RD criteria). 331dot (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few years ago when Randy Savage died, a blurb nomination was turned down with many of the commenters believing that being a top name in a "fake sport" wasn't good enough. Though in all fairness, if the RD ticker had been around at the time, he probably would have made it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, it has happened in the past, which I daresay is those of us who have supported this have all pointed out that people's personal views about pro wrestling and its status as a sport are not relevant. I don't think 331dot's comment was aimed at you. Neljack (talk) 01:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It wasn't. Just stating my reasoning. :) 331dot (talk) 09:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I concur with HiLo and 331dot. He seems significant enough - see for instance the statement that "he was the first wrestler to understand the power of television. He was the first wrestler to speak to the camera." Our opinion of professional wrestling is neither here nor there. Neljack (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per nom: fake sport, not notable. μηδείς (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the argument was based on this person being a sportsman alone, that could be a valid comment, but it's not, so it's not. HiLo48 (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is a "fake sport" or not is irrelevant; this man was notable in his field. The RD criteria does not state "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field, except for fake sports". 331dot (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for RD. We would post the deaths of highly notable actors. He seems to qualify. --Jayron32 03:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Highy notable actors? Like whom, Doctor Who companion Mary Tamm? I.e., Romana I, (55,000 views the day of her death, unposted?) Or Vachon, 15,000 [http://stats.grok.se/en/201311/Maurice%20Vachon views the day of his death)? At least you do have the decency, Jayron, to admit he's an actor. Although highly rated is a joke. μηδείς (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: 1) Vachon's death was announced well into the afternoon (EST), so 15000 views within a few hours of his death is pretty impressive. amd 2) We're not talking about acting. Pro wrestling is its own industry and Vachon wasn't some supporting character on a TV show. Ignoring the "fake" aspect of pro wrestling, he was someone who was a headlining figure for 40 years and helped draw crowds of 20,000 fans all over the world on a regular basis. He's been inducted into just about every wrestling hall of fame he's eligible for, he's very famous in Quebec and wrestlers all over the world cite him as an influence. Comparing him to an actress known for a single role shows that you don't know what you're talking about and as such your opinion should be ignored. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose per Medeis --Երևանցի ^talk 04:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No new argument there, hence that's just a vote, and counts for nothing because we don't count votes. HiLo48 (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have just now, after all these years, noticed people vote " per user X" when they agree with that rationale? μηδείς (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed it years ago, first pointed out the pointlessness of it years ago, and have done so many times since. HiLo48 (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for RD. Clearly at the top of his field (which is what the criteria actually is), what that field is/was is entirely irrelevant to the RD criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment does this acthlete compare to Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson or Governor Jesse Ventura with his public impact, or was he just one of the early pretenders in choreographed fights? μηδείς (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. That's pathetic. YOU bring up the completely irrelevant argument that this isn't a real sport, then YOU call these people athletes? (Don't athletes participate in sport?) The nomination DOES NOT depend on pro-wrestling being a sport. Accept it as scripted entertainment, just like a scripted TV series, and judge this nomination that way. (But don't forget the earlier Empire Games gold medal either.) HiLo48 (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HEY. hIlO, YOU ARE NEITHER SCREAMING LOUD ENOUGH NOR READING CLOSELY ENOUGH. I never used the word "athlete". μηδείς (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't, but you certainly missed the point. HiLo48 (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if someone has edited your text, but that word (albeit spelt wrongly) is definitely in your comment above. Modest Genius ^talk 23:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think "acthlete" was Medeis' attempt to combine the words "actor" and "athlete". Tricky, maybe, but not all that smart. HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just another straw man argument from Medeis. Better off ignoring it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Vachon seems to be important in his field, which is all that matters here. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support clearly notable per The New York Times. Plus RD isn't bursting at the seams. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sorry, he just doesn't seem significant enough (in his field or anywhere else) for an RD posting. The shortness of his article is symptomatic of that. 'Popular in Quebec' isn't enough IMO. Whether or not professional wrestling is a sport (it isn't) is irrelevant to this nomination. Modest Genius ^talk 22:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • He isn't just popular in Quebec, he's huge in Quebec. He's very popular in Canada too and I think being one of the most famous and influential wrestlers from a country with a long tradition in pro wrestling qualifies. The reason his article is small is simple: He's from the pre-Internet era. Forgetting the POV-laden opinions, let's look at the criteria: "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." Let's see here:
  • 1) 40+ year career where he was at or near headline status for 90% of it. During that time he regularly helped draw crowds of over 20,000 fans and participated in 15,000 matches. And while his biggest area was Quebec and the Midwest U.S., he also main evented all over the world.
  • 2) 5-time World Champion.
  • 3) Inducted into just about every Hall of Fame he can be inducted into.
  • 4) Since his death, countless active wrestlers as well as the Prime Minister of Canada have commented on him. So yes, he was influential.
  • 5) In the words of Slam! Sports "The words 'Canadian icon' have rarely suited a better man. The love that the public had for him became even more apparent a year after his retirement when he was struck by a car while walking with his third wife Kathie in Des Moines, Iowa. Vachon had his right leg amputated below the knee. The story was carried by media across Canada, and he was flooded by letters from well-wishers." So he has had significant impact in his home province and country.
  • I'm sorry, but saying he "doesn't seem significant enough (in his field" indicates that you don't know what you're talking about and as such your opinion should be ignored. Sure, he wasn't a household name, but RD should be about more than just mainstream popularity. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I'd be much more worried about getting the article properly referenced, than arguing against opposes. The lack of references to essential claims and facts is what will doom this otherwise. μηδείς (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpion, I'm supporting this, but be careful when claiming things like "5-time World Champion". It's scripted entertainment. It wasn't his talent that made him world champion. The scriptwriters made his character world champion. His talent gave him the chance to play that character. HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. In this case, I'm saying "5-time champion" the same way someone might say "Academy Award winner". It doesn't necessarily mean anything, but his reigns (which add up to over two years) did come at a time when being a World Champion was taken more seriously than it is today. Today, being a world champion is just something to further storylines, but in the '60s it meant being the focal point of their company and being the one the fans wanted to see. So this indicates that was indeed considered a top name in his field at the time. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, did he revolutionise his field? If so, it's not mentioned in the article or nomination. If not, he isn't significant enough, especially given that his field is itself rather a minority pursuit. I don't appreciate being told that I 'don't know what you're talking about'. Modest Genius ^talk 01:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would submit that there is no requirement that one 'revolutionize' their field in order to be posted to RD; just that they were 'very important' in it. I think Scorpion makes a very good case for that. There is also no requirement that a field be something other than a 'minority pursuit'(not sure what that means). 331dot (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're making up your own criteria. It very clearly says "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field" and I think I've proven that he has. The only knock against him is his lack of mainstream fame, but that is overshadowed by influence. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article could do with more, & better quality, referencing. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. That tag at the top regarding that is glaring. I can't support starting with that basic fact. Jusdafax 22:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the page tag with various section tags. I would guess this could be brought up to snuff with about an hour's worth of work. μηδείς (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update I've tidied up and added more sources to the article. I'm still going to work on it, but it's definitely better than it used to be. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's better referenced (and better led!) but basic facts of family, career, and influence among others remain unreferenced, Two sentence/two ref update that he died and had grandchildren does not meet ITN guidelines. μηδείς (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced his 35 title reigns. Fake titles, sure, but that's a significant amount of prestige for a man in his field. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great. This should probably be marked ready if we get a source for the first sentence in early life, for the last sentence in later career, and one more independent sentence with a source in the death section. I.e., one specific factual claim and two comments on his influence. μηδείς (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added sources or altered or removed the things you were concerned about. Thanks for the help. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At this point all that's really needed is a one-or-two ref expansion on his retirement and personal life section. The ITN guidelines expect something beyond the fact that he died, which is implied by the listing, and that he had grandchildren, which is not really relevant to his career. μηδείς (talk) 05:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted to RD. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Magnus Carlsen wins the 2013 World Chess Championship

Article: World Chess Championship 2013 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Magnus Carlsen (pictured) wins the World Chess Championship. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Magnus Carlsen (pictured) defeats Viswanathan Anand to win the World Chess Championship and becomes the new undisputed World Champion.
News source(s): Times of India
Credits:

• Nominated by Thue (talk · give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Widely covered Thue (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per ITNR. The article is also in very good shape and every game is documented with analysis and comments.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The article is indeed very informative and interesting. Neljack (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative blurb I find the proposed blurb rather short and would like to propose an alternative with similar wording as to the conclusion of the championship in 2010 and 2012.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely the "and become new World Champion" part of your alternative blurb is redundant and should be removed as redundant? Thue (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I have to agree with that. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Its not redundant infact it should be undisputed world champion since that is the official title. Only 16th person to get it since 1886. Huge feat -- Ashish-g55 15:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • When we posted Anand defending his title in 2010 and 2012, the wording in the blurb included "to retain the title" and "to win fifth consecutive World Championship". Since we now have a new World Champion, it has to be properly included to give additional information. The information we know about chess is not something that each of our readers knows and every single blurb that emerges on the main page has to be neat and include enough information.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • People can read the article if they want to know more. I would still prefer a short blurb. Thue (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Most of the article looks strong, but it still needs to be updated in the "Schedule and results" and "Game 10" sections. Also there seems to be no reference for Carlsen's win. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone through the article and fixed what I thought had to be fixed. Please let me know what you think of it now. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the "seconds" section could be better and clearer explained as I pointed out on the talk page. It's a bit unclear who actually seconded Anand. And as for Magnus, it could be pointed out that the Danish guy who normally is the main seconder for Magnus recused himself from the Anand match due to longtime previousco-operation with Anand. But nothing that should keep the article from being posted in its present form. Iselilja (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • [To Toccata quarta] That looks good, thanks. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious support. Wonderful news for Norway and the world and blurb is linked to two good articles. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Use the short blurb and don't say "undisputed". It's only said sometimes and it's always undisputed since World Chess Championship#Reunified title (2006 onwards). "undisputed" will make many readers think there could have been more than one champion. If we want more details then I suggest: Magnus Carlsen wins the World Chess Championship by defeating the reigning champion Viswanathan Anand. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Posted. --Tone 17:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Pull Mugshot this is the second time we've posted this guy's image for the same award. Let's at least only post him every other year. Sanger's image is available. μηδείς (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

US Senate abolishes filibuster for most presidential nominees

Nominator's comments: While both technical (which should be ok for an encyclopedia) and US specific, this is a huge change in the political process and balance of power in the US Congress. They have been dancing around this for years, but the Republicans (who promised to use the filibuster responsibly to avoid this) have basically thrown out all restraint, precedent, and promises, forcing the Democrats' hand. Thue (talk) 02:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The blurb should say "Democratic" as that's the name of the party. "Democrat Party" is usually used as an epithet. 331dot (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A chance to feature an article that is already in good shape on the Main Page, especially for a significant change in procedure in the US Senate. While opposing it simply because it is a US centric story is invalid(see top of page) I am sensitive to concerns that this might not quite have enough of a worldwide impact for this page; but this is being reported around the world, and people in other nations might come here to learn about this and why it is important(or just why it is in the news), which is part of the purpose of this page. 331dot (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Ya gotta love democracy. Took me a while, and a read of the non-US sources, before I could get any real idea of what this was about. But it seems that by a vote of just 52-48 the Senate has abolished a ruling that required a vote of 60-40 to approve people for certain jobs. That seems just weird. I'm not opposing this, but can I suggest some attempt to at put it in language that non-Americans will have some hope of comprehending? Maybe draw on those non-US sources. HiLo48 (talk) 02:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. The alt blurb is an improvement, but is still obscure. I know what this means, but the general reader will not. Modest Genius ^talk 22:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggesting alt blurb. Open to changes; I agree it should have as global language as possible. 331dot (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose we wouldn't be covering this if it occurred in any other nation, and it's purely procedural to certain votes in one house of the legislature; things like senatorial privilege to block nominations aren't even being touched. μηδείς (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose American here, and this is really not a big story - it wouldn't have impacted the debates that lead to the shutdown a few months back, and if/when the Senate swings back to Republican-controlled, I can expect the practice to be re-instated. It's not like a new law that significantly affect the average lives of Americans. --MASEM (t) 07:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]