[Posted] 2015 Breeders' Cup

Nominator's comments: First time in history for a racehorse to win this set of four races (Triple Crown + Classic) Montanabw^(talk) 00:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Sorry, failing to see the significance. American Pharoah has not just been on ITN - it has been here three times in the past six months. While the Triple Crown was indeed a feat, I'm not getting the same sense here - either from the news sources or the article. Even if there were consensus to post, the article fails to provide an adequate update via a main race summary. Fuebaey (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To put this in perspective, he broke the Keeneland track record today by more than five seconds. The Breeders' Cup is run against older horses. The "Grand Slam" is legacy-defining, an achievement without precedent. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support An extremely exceptional horse and first-time achievement. Story should not be penalized from ITN just because it isn't about a train wreck, a plane crash or someone blowing little old ladies up in a market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.21.139 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• DYK material – "firsts" are seldom considered for ITN in regards to sports and are better suited at DYK. The event itself is not included on WP:ITN/R#Horse racing but I will submit I know next to nothing about horse racing. If notability of the event itself is established, I may have a better idea how to vote. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cyclonebiskit, we had a long discussion about adding the Breeders' Cup Classic to ITN/R and the complaint was that it would make too many American horse races, and some people argued that there were too many horse races listed in general. Just FYI on that. Montanabw^(talk) 06:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Breeders' Cup Classic is the largest purse in US Thoroughbred racing and the fourth largest purse in the world. As American Pharoah was set to be retired to stud at the end of 2015, this was the only chance to test him against an older, more experienced field. And he trounced them. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 02:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support given above explanation. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support: Seems significant. Would like to see more of an update regarding true significance, though, as I'm not an expert on horse racing. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. No doubt American Pharoah is going to be one of those once in a lifetime prodigies remembered for decades after, like Secretariat or Sea Biscuit. That means they might appear several times. I would think the Breeders' Cup winner should be ITN/R if it isn't already. Winning this horse race makes the article front page worthy all by itself. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Article is not ready - There's no prose about the results of the races, outside the mention of the grand slam aspect. This is far from sufficient for an update. --MASEM (t) 05:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • • There are 13 races, and we already have separate articles on all of them, the Breeders' Cup Classic article has all years... glad to work on whatever you need, if you could clarify. Montanabw^(talk) 06:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just found out before your comment. I'm unmarking it right now. Georgie says "Happy Halloween!" (BOO!) 05:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Are you talking about American Pharoah? The lede to this Featured Article is updated, and there's a new "Grand Slam" section covering today's Breeders' Cup victory. The other three Triple Crown races are recounted in detail. What more does it need? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 05:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(No, @Vesuvius Dogg: I think they mean 2015 Breeders' Cup, that's the boldfaced article... we had Pharoah as ITN when he won the triple crown. )

If we are going with the Breeder's Cup as the target article (and even if not and we're going with Am.Pharaoh), there's very little actual update in prose. --MASEM (t) 06:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem:, we are going with 2015 Breeders' Cup, which was only created a week ago. Per my comment above (13 races, each with separate articles) can you clarify what you need? I just added quite a bit more prose, is it better now? Montanabw^(talk) 07:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. As a note, we're not looking for super quality in ITN articles, but just that the update is there, and since the race was completed, something more than a result table is needed and the few para of prose you added is exactly sufficient. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support - I'm not clear on how significant this is, because I don't know much about horse racing. However, what I've read suggests that it is significant and possibly ITN material. Kiwi128 (talk) 09:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This win puts American Pharoah on a very short list of the greatest horses ever. This columnist [1] for example, following Saturday's victory, calls him 'immortal' and a 'Mount Rushmore' horse. --SubSeven (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted with a simple blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• WTF is ""grand slam" in American horse racing"? Nergaal (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this just a term pretty much invented in 2015? Nergaal (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nergaal: Interesting question. To my knowledge the term was first propagated on June 7, 2015, one day after Pharoah won the Triple Crown, by Bob Ehalt on his influential ESPN racing blog. In retrospect, one might argue that "Grand Slam" was an invention of the Breeders' Cup/Keeneland promotional team. As it was by no means certain at that point that Pharoah would continue to race the full season, as a rhetorical enticement for him to delay retirement, it worked. By the time Pharaoh raced in the Haskell a couple months later (August 2), it was being used casually by NBC television commentators, the promise of great things yet to come. Maybe "Grand Slam" deserves its own cynical article, but I am not cynical enough, one day after seeing him triumph so handily and shattering the Keeneland course record, to undertake that yet myself. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless wether this item should be on ITN, a grand slam is a jargon which NEEDS explaining (i.e. wikilinking of some sorts). Nergaal (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to the idea of creating Grand slam (horse racing) (as there exists one already for National Hunt Racing in the UK) but not sure we really have more than a definition. Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 01:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we could somehow confirm Ehalt's first usage—how would we go about that?—we'd have the germ of fhe article. We can certainly credit him for having used it as early as June 7. His was the first usage I could find when I was Googling in early August. We do have the term defined two different ways (for colts and fillies) in the "Equestrian Sports" section of Grand Slam. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I support this being posted but I think the blurb should be a brief explanation of what was done. I might suggest "Triple Crown winner American Pharoah wins the Breeders' Cup Classic, becoming the first horse to win all four races" or something along those lines. Besides avoiding debatable terminology, it removes ambiguity by specifying "four and only four" races won. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 05:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2015 Rugby World Cup Final

 SounderBruce 17:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose unless and until a reasonable-length prose match synopsis is written. The very second that is completed, consider this a full support. --Jayron32 18:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think we need to mention that it was the highest-scoring final. Neljack (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support despite disappointing outcome. Perhaps should mention that the All Blacks are now the most successful team in the history of the World Cup. (see alternative blurb). Capitalistroadster (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Added altblurb. It's on ITN/R, so all it needs is an update. Add a match summary and we can post this. Fuebaey (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note article has a match summary so should be added. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support – I don't know how usual the Australia–New Zealand rugby rivalry is, but I was hoping that any other nation would have made it. That shouldn't affect the annual tournament's recurrence. Georgie says "Happy Halloween!" (BOO!) 06:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Alt Blurb 2 is fine. No need to mention highest scoring or most successful team. AIRcorn (talk)
• Support - This is a notable sporting achievement. The Cup also has a huge TV audience, so it is an event that many visitors would likely be interested by. (That being said, I'm a New Zealander, so maybe take my support with a grain of salt.) Kiwi128 (talk) 09:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as ITN/R now that a reasonably-sourced match summary has been added. Alt 2 blurb is the usual standard for sporting tournaments on ITN. --Bcp67 (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt 2. Post the result, not the trivia. Resolute 14:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted a few things still need referencing but the update for the final is okay. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Closest asteroid this big in at least 9 years

Clear consensus against posting this. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Article: 2015 TB145 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
News source(s): http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?
Credits:

• Nominated by Sagittarian Milky Way (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: This object we had no idea existed only 3 weeks ago will come within 1.25 Moon distances and a direct hit would've been well over "all nuclear bombs in the world going off in one place at once". The fireball would've been hot enough to ignite trees within a 270 kilometer wide circle; 45 miles away, it would get the brightness of 51 suns in 0.185 seconds, then wood would ignite, then there'd be a magnitude 7.4 earthquake, then it'd rain rocks the weight of light bowling balls (solid or molten? IDK), then there'd be enough overpressure to tear human limbs off and 301mph winds (worst tornado ever level).

This is the closest object this size that we know of between 2027 and 2006 or even 1925. It's 0.6 kilometers wide and the fastest object to enter Earth's "sphere of influence" in 3 centuries (126,000 kph). (I can't find a list that covers more than 1900 to 2200AD). It'll have the fastest angular motion of any potentially hazardous object between 1927 and 2029 (1 Moon width every 2 minutes!). Scientists will use the opportunity to get the highest resolution images ever of an asteroid from Earth,

Also it's on Halloween, most likely a dead comet, and it looks like a freaking skull Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This seems much more suited as a DYK, and the fact the NASA blurb downplays any potential impact aspects, it's hard to justify this for inclusion at ITN. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even days after discovery probability of impact was 150 sigmas which is impossible. That'd be like a person with a 2350 or minus 2150 IQ (if it were a perfect bell curve, it's not). NASA doesn't need to upplay potential impact risks because stupider or dishonester people do that too much already and they're actually honest people that speak accurately, unlike CEOs or FIFA or marketers or politicians or lawyers. Also, the error ellipse is 3 kilometers wide (thanks to radar) which means they know how much it clears by to better than one part in 100,000. It's the ones decades in the future where there's a maybe 1 in 1 million chance of impact that'll shrink to zero when they get more data. If there actually was any chance of hitting we would have the location pinned down to 3km at worst now and probably wouldn't have had time do shit about it (besides evacuate). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Per Masem. For most people, a non-event. Sca (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this (and the fact that we are an encyclopedia) is the relevant statement: "This is the closest object this size that we know of between 2027 and 2006 or even 1925. It's 0.6 kilometers wide and the fastest object to enter Earth's "sphere of influence" in 3 centuries (126,000 kph). (I can't find a list that covers more than 1900 to 2200AD). It'll have the fastest angular motion of any potentially hazardous object between 1927 and 2029". The article is in good shape, and I am frankly surprised people think this is not ITNworthy because the object will not strike the earth. μηδείς (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I can see why some find this interesting, and I can see why others goes meh. It's relatively big, but not actually *that* close. (Think <1 lunar distance.) At no stage is the object AFAICT above a routine 1 on the Torino Scale. -- KTC (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well some people wouldn't think of meters as relatively big cause they don't realize how powerful solar system speeds are but really anything having to do with hitting is not relevant or needed for ITN cause they're such low probability events. Near Earth objects, extrasolar planets and cosmology-type things are some of the biggest current research areas in astronomy and as additions to human knowledge about something beyond than our small blue dot they're posted sometimes. And doubling resolution seems like the least important of the remainder (electronics advance all the time). So I agree with Medeis' assessment. It's not that beyond the Moon, either. Only 1.2 times further when the Moon is far from Earth. (It passed 0.74 lunar distances from the Moon before Earth but I didn't think that was important enough to mention). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose posting a non-happening; seems appropriate for DYK. 331dot (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it's only a "support" if we're doomed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be more accurate to say that it would definitely be a support if we were doomed. ;) Other aspects of the situation could have made it more appropriate for ITN, such as observation potential. Kiwi128 (talk) 09:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support – Sensationalist comments in the nomination aside, asteroids are not something we often get to feature. It's in that murky area at the border of ITN and DYK, but given the media attention to it I see no harm in showcasing this. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Wikipedia isn't a reference to itself. And this asteroid is passing quite a ways away. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's close by astronomy standards (the NASA list of close approaches can only be set to display 5, 10, ~20, ~40, ~80, ~120 and ~200 lunar distance maximums (the orbits of Earth and Mars average 205 lunar distances apart) and even if TB had been only 150 meters @ 1.266 LD that seems to happen about twice per decade). Only the brightness of the one in 2006 is known so TB is only probabilistically more likely to be larger than the 2006 one so that couldn't possibly be the blurb. Of all the ways one could word the relative infrequency I was not suggesting comparing it to Wikipedia with an asterisk* needed, that would be incredibly unimaginative and navel gazing. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - This sort of thing interests me greatly, but I don't think it is ITN material because of its lack of relevance for most visitors. It seems like most people would not have seen it (observation was apparently reasonably difficult), and it posed no threat whatsoever. However, it would be great DYK material. Kiwi128 (talk) 09:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Posted] Kogalymavia Flight 9268

Article: Kogalymavia Flight 9268 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Kogalymavia Flight 9268 (aircraft pictured) crashes in the Sinai Peninsula en route to St. Petersburg, Russia with the loss of all 224 people on board. (Post)
News source(s): Aviation Herald Mirror Sputnik
Credits:

• Updated and nominated by Lihaas (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Casualties not yet known for sure and whether there are survivors as it occurred just a few hours ago. Many deaths reported (if not all). Updated a lot recently about the movments, etc. Lihaas (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with expansion. The BBC is now reporting that most of the people on board have died. [2] Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support upon update; major aircraft accident. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As it is the top story for last 12 hours on most news channels around the world and why not Wikipedia. Sheriff (report) 11:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

btw- its not even been 12 hours since it happened. Someone in the media must b highly prophetic (or responsible?).Lihaas (talk) 11:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, notability is obvious. sst✈^discuss 11:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - top story. notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - easily notable enough. Dismas|^(talk) 12:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Per previous. Let's get this out there quickly. Sca (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Article in good shape for posting. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As already been noted, notable enough. Jim Carter 15:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 100 victims is a sufficiently large plane I'd think. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Target article says 224 deaths (no survivors). Same per AP, Reuters. Sca (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I've reworked the blurb now it is known there are no survivors. Mjroots (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted -- KTC (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there anything in the article about ISIS claiming to have shot it down? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Sca (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Merge-Posted] 2015 Bucharest nightclub fire

Nominator's comments: High death toll incident (and with 155 in hospital it could rise) in a country we don't cover often, it has gained reaction from the Romanian president and is currently the second most read on BBC News. The article needs very significant work before it could be featured though. Thryduulf (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

oppose mere macabre death count doesn't make it noteworthy of itself.Lihaas (talk) 02:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per above. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose barring any significant impact on the world at large. --MASEM (t) 03:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Masem: The instructions say "Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country.". Please can you explain how your comment is not an instance of this? Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • My statement is not to meant to make the country were it happened a factor. It was a very much preventable accident in a nightclub somwhere. That does not make it a notable long term event that meets WP:NEVENT nor WP:NOT NEWS because it does not appear to have any long term impact out of the club and ppl involved (read: to the rest of the world at large). --MASEM (t) 12:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support upon update; notable event being widely covered in an undercovered part of the world(on ITN). The fire affected largely youth as it was at a rock concert. Government leaders in Romania have commented on this and altered their schedules; an emergency official said this was "without precedent". 331dot (talk) 09:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nominator, major disaster without precedent in Eastern Europe. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 09:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Support' major disaster, highest death toll since Brazil nightclub fire. Gizmocorot (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw support article posting out of current ITN context. Gizmocorot (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per those above, a sad event but not really ITN; nightclub fires are unfortunately fairly common. Where is all this "without precedent in Eastern Europe" coming from? It's not even without precedent in the last three years in Romania, and there have certainly been considerably worse incidents in East Europe in recent history. IIRC we did run the similar Formosa Fun Coast explosion, but with 500 injuries and significant ongoing international coverage that was an exceptional case. ‑ iridescent 10:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• When has there been a nightclub fire with a high death toll? Donnie Park (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Romanian officials are stating this is without precedent(in the NBC article). 331dot (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• An event with 17 injuries (10 serious) is hardly precedent for one with 27 deaths and over 150 hospitalised. It is being cited as without precedent in Romania, not without precedent in Eastern Europe. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Eugen Simon above uses the term "Eastern Europe". 331dot (talk) 10:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) @Thryduulf, look up; someone is claiming this is 'without precedent in Eastern Europe' two lines above me, which it clearly isn't. @331dot, both the other incidents I mention (Lame Horse fire and 2012 Sighetu Marmației explosions) were certainly nightclub fires. ‑ iridescent 10:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I apologize; though the bigger event was in Russia while the other was much smaller in scale than this one. What matters is how this is viewed in Romania. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot Iridescent, clearly politicians talk crap to pander,. there word is not gospel.Lihaas (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a high number and not been such incident for a long time. Donnie Park (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The Formosa Fun Coast explosion only killed 13 people. Seems notable to me that so many years after The Station nightclub fire and the other sound-foam ignition fires (eg Lame Horse fire, Kiss nightclub fire) that there are still clubs with non-flame retardant sound foam. -- Callinus (talk) 11:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Since, there were incidents in last few days which are more important and had more far reaching affects than this. This is more of Romanian centered story instead of a global story. Putting this on ITN would mar other important stories by pushing them down in the list. Sheriff (report) 11:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can request ITN be expanded to include more entries. Not a valid argument that more 'important' events happened same week... Gizmocorot (talk) 11:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SheriffIsInTown: A common complaint here is that we have not enough turnover, not too much. Turnover is not a bad thing. If there are 'more important' events (importance is relative to the person) I invite you to nominate them. Also, the fact that this event is in Romania is immaterial(see "Please do not..." above). 331dot (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - significant number of deaths, notable. Top news in all media along with the plane crash.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Nightclub fires are a well-known genre of accident and often follow a pattern (poorly signed exits etc.), so an interesting topic to cover as well as a clearly notable event. Blythwood (talk) 12:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Oppose – Tragic for victims and families, but I don't see the wider significance. Nightclub fires with multiple deaths, some more lethal than this one, are fairly common worldwide. This wil fade quickly as a topic. (But I can see I'm in the minority.) Sca (talk) 13:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was only one person dead at the Fun Coast for awhile, then two for awhile and I had no idea it eventually reached 13. Some mortally wounded might hang on for quite awhile here too so the death toll could rise. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, decades ago as a reporter I covered this one, in which 165 died. There have been quite a few of these tragedies. Sca (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A relatively high number of casualties (injured included) and these kind of fires make for important case studies for organizers and safety officials world-wide. --Pudeo' 15:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this is borderline, the notability being only due to the death toll, not some heretofore unknown principle that heavy metal fireworks displays kill nightclub audiences. But even if we were to post based on deathcount, the article now begins "The Colectiv nightclub fire was a fire". Serious quality improvements are needed. μηδείς (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't decide yet, but I won't make comparisons, especially to the Taiwanese park dust explosion, which I nominated months ago. The injuries toll is tremendous, and deaths are tragic and sudden. Unauthorised polytechnics must have been responsible for this; two band members died. The standards of ITN have been set high; we editors might be split in this because there have been other similar incidents before. We already posted this at Wikinews; so did the press. But ITN's quality of news shouldn't be the same as American (or restricted Chinese) mainstream news. C'mon, we should make ITN's quality higher, but I'm still undecided. Georgie says "Happy Halloween!" (BOO!) 18:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at The Station nightclub fire where a heavy metal band's pyrotechnics killed 100 people in almost identical circumstances. The horrible thing is that the Romanian band didn't learn that lesson. But ITN is not about causes. I will not be upset whichever way this goes, but looking at it from a historical perspective it doesn't strike me as making the cut, except for the death toll. μηδείς (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Deadliest event in Romania in terms of number of victims since 1989 revolution, and deadliest of its kind since Kiss nightclub fire. Alexandru M. (talk · contribs) 21:23, 31 October 2015 (EET)
• Support given the number of fatalities. Neljack (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Notable event in Romania; we've posted similar events to ITN multiple times before (Formosa Fun Coast explosion, Santika Club fire, etc.). Spencer^T♦C 19:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support far more tragic and far more unusual than the regular mass shootings encouraged in other places around the globe. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sca (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to have anything to do with ISIS or Boko Haram. Can you explain what you mean by "regular mass shootings encouraged in other places around the globe"? μηδείς (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Medeis: Standard unwarranted jab at America to continue beating this poor, dead horse. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I tried my best to make ITN different from the international (not American) mainstream press, but somehow death and injury tolls, circumstances, and even the nature of the incident are too overwhelming to make it different from the press anymore. Still, I'm not happy with overemphasis on usual interior nightclub fires, not counting this year's Taiwanese one, which took place outdoors. I thought, "Can the city or Romania enhance the safety of nightclubs?" I want to lean toward "oppose" because other stories that we've posted are more usually impactful than this. However, it's too overwhelming to go to this path. But I'm not leaning "support" either... yet. This is "unusual", but airplane crashes (usual they have been), sports events, awards, and elections make "unusual" criterion useless and futile. More blurbs can be added to emphasize the tragedy; why not add a Romanian heavy metal band's involvement, a stampede, and/or an unauthorized equipment? Georgie says "Happy Halloween!" (BOO!) 21:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Casualty counting form a well-known issue with pyrotechnics. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I don't think this is notable on an international level. With all of the items vying for ITN, an isolated fire of this size with a well-understood (and not surprising) cause is not front-page material IMO. And the causality count is not enormous compared to many other tragic events that occur regularly. Kiwi128 (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - that is a major disaster in Romanian recent history with three days of mourning. - Gsvadds (talk) 12:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - This event only has regional notability, not global. Plenty of people die from fires every day. South Nashua (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There is no requirement of "international notability"; we discourage such arguments under "Please do not..." above. We cover events affecting only a single country all the time. 331dot (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Affecting a single country is different than being notable only in a single country. This item is not notable outside of where it happened given the context. South Nashua (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact remains that single-country arguments are not valid. I read much news coverage about this where I live, so it has some degree of notability outside Romania. 331dot (talk) 02:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree with your statement. Guidelines are recommendations for decisions, nothing more. Otherwise, there wouldn't be discussions on decisions, the decisions would just be made by following the guidelines. There's nothing wrong with a disagreement, and again, I also disagree with you about the notability of this news item. South Nashua (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I certainly hope that people are making decisions based on the guidelines, as otherwise they would have little meaning. Most of what we post is notable in only one country(most general elections, sporting events, some natural disasters, etc.) and if we declined to post them all because of that, very little would be posted. But yes, you can certainly make whatever arguments you wish, regardless of their validity. 331dot (talk) 11:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • • Likewise. A natural disaster is far different than a fire in a club. And calling someone else's comments invalid doesn't help increase the validity of your own comments. South Nashua (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not intending to increase the validity of my comments. It isn't me saying so, it is this page: "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." Nevertheless, thanks for the discussion. 331dot (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • • Not sure what that page is and I'm unsure how that addresses my concern (broader notability, there are plenty of notable things that are notable beyond just where they are), but that's okay. I also thank you for this discussion. South Nashua (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Right now, the oldest blurb is the airplane disaster in Egypt, which happened a day later. Time for all of us to cool down and go elsewhere. --This is George Ho actually (Talk) 21:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I see that the DYK will outbalance the other side in a couple hours. I'm not closing this discussion yet, but there won't be enough room for this story for long. --This is George Ho actually (Talk) 21:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Never mind; I measured the length incorrectly. --George Ho (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ho hum, posted anyway... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Stale] 2015 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships

Nominator's comments: Possibly the greatest gymnast in recent times and an up-and-coming 18 year old winning record world title hauls. The event hasn't completely finished (apparatus finals still to go) but the all-round title is the highest individual title available. Depending on the blurb: main article needs a lot more prose, and the individual articles could do with some extra sourcing. Fuebaey (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 08:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Donnie Park (talk) 10:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Isn't it "all-around" and not "all-round"? 59.88.205.4 (talk) 11:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, my mistake. Fixed. Fuebaey (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - per nom. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• These articles still need a lot of work. Female bio is tagged for lacking adequate sources. Event article looks short in prose. Male bio looks like it's in good shape, but it's the only one.

Did a bit of copyediting. Altblurb should be good to go. Fuebaey (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm seeing very little in the way of inline referencing, where do I go to verify the medal tables, the individual results etc? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had an extra day to work on this, on something I'm mildly interested in as well. Oh well, too many fresh stories at the moment. Fuebaey (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per notability. Gizmocorot (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Stale] RD: Mel Daniels

Nominator's comments: Basketball Hall of Famer, one of four players to have his number retired by the Indiana Pacers. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose - Seems to me like this would only meet Recent Death Criteria 2, and probably only weakly. Daniels seems important in his field, but IMO he might not be notable enough for ITN. Kiwi128 (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if improved Major player, member of the Basketball Hall of Fame demonstrates RD#2, as do all of his other honors (ABA All-Time Team, 2x ABA MVP, 7x ABA All-Star). – Muboshgu (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Daniels is a Hall of Famer. 02:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support - per Muboshgu.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose: Article is pretty short and we've historically applied stricter scrutiny to athletes than simply being in their sport's hall of fame. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Leaving aside the Hall of Fame, he was a seven-time all star and two time MVP. Seems to meet DC2. 331dot (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for such a supposedly notable individual, article is barely above stub class, has about 1/3 without inline referencing and includes something called "Mel Daniels curiosidades y datos en espanol". Expand and reference, and we have a possible contender. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Wizardman 20:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2015 Japan Series

Article: 2015 Japan Series (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In baseball, the Fukuoka SoftBank Hawks defeat the Tokyo Yakult Swallows to win the 2015 Japan Series. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In baseball, the Fukuoka SoftBank Hawks, led by Series MVP Lee Dae-ho (pictured), defeat the Tokyo Yakult Swallows to win the 2015 Japan Series.
News source(s): Japan Times, USA Today, CBS Sports
Credits:

• Nominated by Fuebaey (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Muboshgu (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: Noticed this on ITN/R, even though I'm not someone who follows baseball. Will probably be overshadowed by its more famous cousin next week. Needs some match summaries, if any baseball fans out there care to work on this. Fuebaey (talk) 04:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It's ITN/R. I'll get WP:BASEBALL on it. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I've updated the article. It's not nearly the size of 2015 World Series, but this should be sufficient for the main page. I'll be adding more details for the next hour or so, and tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm unsure whether this is ready. It's a baseball tournament, so it is listed in ITN/R. "Game 5" section looks short, despite efforts to emphasize it. What troubles me more is the lack of consensus here. I mean, there isn't one person voting for it yet. Georgie says "Happy Halloween!" (BOO!) 19:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's on ITN/R, so nobody needs to "vote" on it. It only needs to be approved in terms of quality/update. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the summaries are there. I don't think there was an issue with Game 5, but Game 4 could do with more than two sentences. Rest seem short but adequate. Fuebaey (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I added more for Game 4. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support – Being a recurring event strikes again *sigh*. Georgie says "Happy Halloween!" (BOO!) 23:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Does an admin mind posting this before it gets stale? Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, TRM. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Stale] Tanzanian presidential election

Article: Tanzanian general election, 2015 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ CCM's John Magufuli (pictured) is elected President of Tanzania. (Post)
News source(s): NYT, SABC, WSJ
Credits:

• Nominated by Fuebaey (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: Closest fought election in decades. Based on official result but main opposition has yet to concede. Please note that the result came out on Thursday (African votes are comparatively slow). Since we don't post until confirmed, I'd rather we treat these like late RDs (where deaths are posted when they are announced in the media, not when they occur) instead of lumping them with stories that are about to roll off ITN. Fuebaey (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, impressive article. Easy call based on notability and quality for strong support. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

wait the election is still undr dispute. I added some to the page on the controversy. Or at the very least mention the controversy over the CCM (and the first time the opposition united under 1 candidate)Lihaas (talk) 02:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Raif Badawi

Articles: Raif Badawi (talk · history · tag) and Sakharov Prize (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Saudi blogger Raif Badawi is awarded the 2015 Sakharov Prize. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Saudi blogger Raif Badawi is awarded the 2015 Sakharov Prize for the defense of freedom of thought and human rights.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Saudi blogger Raif Badawi is awarded the 2015 Sakharov Prize for defending human rights and fundamental freedoms.
News source(s): BBC The Guardian European Parliament
Credits:

• Nominated by Cyfraw (talk · give credit)
• Updated by George Ho (talk · give credit) and Fuebaey (talk · give credit)

Article updated
One or both nominated events are 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.

 cyrfaw (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Another free-speech hero. (The comma after Saudi bloger isn't necessary or correct.) Sca (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think this is a reasonable ITN blurb, but that said, looking over Badawi's article, there's one section unsourced (though it contains a named quote source, so should be easy) but I'm more considered on the second half of the article. I would like a second opinion because my first read through it it felt like it was WP:COATRACK on how much attention the Charlie Hebdo incident (particularly the post-incident rallies) in contrast to what attention Badawi's lashings got that happened at the same time. It is not that there isn't discussion outlining the different responses but as not an area I'm really familiar with it does feel wording choices are made to focus heavily on the different reactions, calling out on the world on why they didn't support Badawi more. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Significant, it is the first time a Saudi was given this award. --Egeymi (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I remember we posted news regarding this award in the past. And this time, too, it is clearly significant. --bender235 (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - significant. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Significance on the merits is already established as this is ITNR; as Masem states there are some sourcing issues. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - a long-term, high-profile free speech campaigner granted an prestigious award, placing him alongside many very prominent public figures. Kiwi128 (talk) 08:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sakharov_Prize#Laureates has numerous notable people. Important topic that has implications for EU foreign policy. -- Callinus (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Again, comments on the merits are not necessary as this is ITNR. Sourcing needs improvement before posting. 331dot (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Added sourcing. --cyrfaw (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd run with the third wording (alt II), as it's useful to avoid regionally-different spellings when we can. GRAPPLE ^X 14:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I reformatted the whole "International reactions" section, but it still has a lot of quotes; more like quotefarming. George Ho (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It definitely is far too much quotefarming. The COATRACKing issue is not as bad but I feel that with that many quotes (and as long as they are), it's pushing a very specific POV; yes, much of the rest of the world was critical of the fact that he faced the lashings for standing up to human rights, that's important, but it needs a bit more neutrality before it can be ITN. We don't need to document every single reaction out there, a summary with a few choice quotes from predominant world leaders would be sufficient. --MASEM (t) 17:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gutted another 10kB of quotes/refs. I think it might be passable now, though could do with another set of eyes to recheck. Fuebaey (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuebaey: once the last citation tag in the "Personal life" section is dealt with and the under-construction template is removed, I'll go ahead and post it. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Fuebaey and I were able to make the article very clean from yucky stuff. Now the article is all set to go... right? Georgie says "Happy Halloween!" (BOO!) 02:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted alt blurb II – Kudos to Fuebaey and George Ho for vastly improving the article in a timely manner. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] China abolishes one-child policy

Nominator's comments: A significant political step in one of the world's leading nations. Also, it's the sort of news that ITN seldomly covers (no catastrophe or sport event). Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. A notable change in public policy for China. Brief updates have been added to the lead and in the article itself; a little more would be nice, I think. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support - This change is definitely ITN appropriate and the article is fine, my only hesitation is from the linked article above this is a plan and not yet the actual revocation of the law/policy; it would likely make more sense to post on when the law is officially removed from the books. But I suspect this will be the point of major coverage. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think the blurb should be clarified to mention that China, though it's abolishing the one-child policy, is effectively switching to a "two-child policy", which is still a government-imposed limit.--WaltCip (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ever heard Love Minus Zero/No Limit? Sca (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle but suggest more specific blurb per WaltCip. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as WaltCip has noted, perhaps "in favour of a two-child policy". The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as very notable, interesting news. I also think that the blurb should highlight the two-child policy, rather than implying that government restrictions have ended. Mamyles (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the alt-blurb. Notable change, and One-child policy is a reasonably quality article that will help readers learn more on the subject. Pedro :  Chat  15:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but oppose use of word impose in blurb. Gizmocorot (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

impose: "1. To establish or apply by authority. " Seems to fit perfectly. Also conveniently contrasts in diction with the positive-connotation word "abolish". Mamyles (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

added alt blurb with introduces instead of impose Gizmocorot (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Introduces implies a sort of optionalness not known for in policies of this nature put forth by the PRC leadership. Introduces implies they're making a suggestion or a recommendation. Imposes is exactly what is going on here; the PRC leadership tells the country what it will do with regards to their reproductive system, that sounds a lot like imposing. --Jayron32 01:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we make "two-child policy" the 2nd article to bold? This is George Ho actually (Talk) 18:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I wanted to post but then realized that there's an update missing - the main article says nothing about the new policy. And the update is super thin at the moment. Makes sense to fix this first. --Tone 18:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a sentence to the article linking to two-child policy, and mentioning continued criticism of China's reproductive policy. Still not a large update, but it should serve to meet ITN's minimum update guidelines. Mamyles (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as a major political development regarding a very prominent policy. My preference is for "in favour of" in the blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - will likely have significant impact on the future demographics of China and the world. Prefer Alt Blurb 3. -Zanhe (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a major development in a major world power. Prefer Alt Blurb 3. Banedon (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - a substantial change of a very controversial policy in a world superpower. Kiwi128 (talk) 08:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted alt blurb per reasoning by Jayron32. Feel free to pick at it and swap to "favo(u)r" or "introduces" if discussions swing that way. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 08:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Bidhya Devi Bhandari

Article: Bidhya Devi Bhandari (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Bidhya Devi Bhandari (pictured) is elected President of Nepal and the first woman to hold the office. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Bidhya Devi Bhandari is elected Nepal's first female President.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Bidhya Devi Bhandari (pictured) is elected President of Nepal.
News source(s): (BBC News),(The Guardian)
Credits:

• Nominated by बिप्लब आनन्द (talk · give credit)

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: First female President. Biplab Anand (Talk with me) 07:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The article needs some work but otherwise a new head of state is ITNR. --Tone 07:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Head of State is ITN/R, albeit for a ceremonial role. While she is Nepal's first female President, her predecessor was the country's first President (the country previously was a constitutional monarchy prior to 2008). Update wise, this was a stub yesterday and now no longer is. However, the first two sections lack inline citations. Fuebaey (talk) 08:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuebaey: Citation added. Thanks--Biplab Anand (Talk with me) 09:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this ceremonial? Our articles on the seats of power in Nepal are very vague on this and while I know they are not the target article it would help tremendously to be clear if the president position is ceremonial or one of power. --MASEM (t) 13:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I had a look at https://asiafoundation.org/resources/pdfs/AGuidetoGovernmentinNepal.pdf (chapter 2). Yes, it's ceremonial, the president can delay but not reject decisions. Narayanese (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. I would still Support since it is a elected position with some power, and her article is in decent shape, as well as ITNR. --MASEM (t) 19:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per ITNR. Article is of decent quality. 117.221.121.244 (talk) 10:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Sca (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
• Support as ITNR. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli was not posted because of article quality issue. Let's not miss this one. Article is in decent shape. -Zanhe (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "first woman" in blurb. It is about as condescending as possible. "First woman X" started being insulting about 80 years ago. Just say she was elected, please. μηδείς (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added another ALTblurb. Satisfied, μηδείς? --George Ho (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with the "first woman" blurb. It is a landmark and real progress in Nepal, and nothing condescending about that. -Zanhe (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The fact that she is the first female president is also being prominently featured in the news coverage. Neljack (talk) 03:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanhe: Tx.. Medeis- I don't think there is condescending about the blurb at all, Even the guardian and the NYT reported saying she is the first female president. Thanks--Biplab Anand (Talk with me) 04:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Alternative Blurb I think for a female to get elected as a president of a country is a good enough reason to be In The News, there is no need to mention "(pictured)", sounds odd since the picture is there and must be of the person featured in the story. United States couldn't elect a female president in over two hundred years while Nepal's second president is female. Mentioning the gender adds an additional value to the story. Sheriff (report) 04:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly support - this would be front page news material (as an election) even if Bhandari wasn't the first female president. Kiwi128 (talk) 08:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted alt blurb (with picture), adds flavor to what would otherwise be a bland ITN/R post (and it's a notable part of the story). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Cassini Enceladus flyby

[Closed] Ongoing: Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War

[Posted] RD: Philip French

Nominator's comments: One of notable British film critics and radio producers. He was appointed OBE and given "Critic of the Year" in 2009. George Ho (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as very important to his field; we posted Roger Ebert and this person seems to be similar. His successor said he inspired "a generation of film critics", had gotten recognition related to his field. The update seems cited but I don't know if anything more can be said about his death. 331dot (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added another small detail about his death, but that's all I can do. George Ho (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Article looks fine. Notability as a leading critic is enough to merit posting. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Leading writer on his specialist topic. I've read his book Westerns which is absolutely fascinating and insightful, so support. Blythwood (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per above supports, which I find convincing. Article marked "ready" so suggest we post. Jusdafax 17:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Ranjit Roy Chaudhury

Nominator's comments: One of prominent Indian pharmacologists. Also chairman of WHO–Indian Gov. joint programme. He had two awards. George Ho (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Sure seems to meet RD#2. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'm not entirely sure about whether he meets the RD bar (not my field), but I think the state of the article nudges this over. Sad how many notable non-Western bios only get written after they've died. Fuebaey (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Afghanistan earthquake

Article: 2015 Afghanistan earthquake (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ An earthquake of 7.5-magnitude strikes Afghanistan. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A 7.5-magnitude earthquake strikes Afghanistan, India, and Pakistan killing more than 150.
News source(s): (NBC News),(Fox News)
Credits:

• Nominated by Fauzan (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Major earthquake of 7.7 magnitude Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 11:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Support - pending article improvement. --Saqib (talk) 12:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the article a bit. Should be ready enough to go on the main page? Blurb needs to be changed. Majority of casualties are from Pakistan so this is not purely Afghanistan earthquake.--Saqib (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on improvements - No question on importance. I would just give this a few hours to get the initial details and death estimates right and clean up the article a bit. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait Visited 5 different news source and gotten 4 different death and injuries count, none of which matches what's currently on the article. Give it a little time for more information to come out. -- KTC (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Article not ready yet.--WaltCip (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alternative blurb with death toll... Gizmocorot (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and marked as ready. Just needs agreement on a blurb ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - alternative blurb and with the article in its renamed form (Hindu Kush earthquake) Spiderone 16:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alternative blurb with death toll. Capitalistroadster (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Although, it's after the fact but you need to remove India from the headline as earthquake did not affect India much, it felt in India but then it felt in so many other countries as well, if we are not mentioning those then we do not need to mention India. Casualties are only being reported from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Sheriff (report) 17:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Update death toll to 310+ or atleast over 300.--Stemoc 07:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  It was already  Done although WP:ERRORS is the more appropriate place to report items after they have already been posted to the MP. --Jayron32 00:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Stale] RD: Flip Saunders

Nominator's comments: One of prominent NBA coaches who died so suddenly. George Ho (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Saunders was a good coach, but he was not of the transcendent level, like a Dean Smith or Jerry Tarkanian (who both deserved RD, so please don't re-litigate those postings). – Muboshgu (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Appears to have been just a regular coach who had some success. No championships, and no coach of the year honors. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Stale] Ivorian presidential election

Article: Ivorian presidential election, 2015 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Alassane Ouattara (pictured) is re-elected for a second term as President of the Ivory Coast. (Post)
News source(s): France24, Reuters, VOA
Credits:

• Nominated by Fuebaey (talk · give credit)

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.

 Fuebaey (talk) 06:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: ITN/R. Article could be larger, but it is adequate. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - ITN/R. -Zanhe (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Not exciting or splashy, but decent article and INT/R as noted. Jusdafax 10:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on the merits not required as this is ITNR; update and blurb are all that it is needed. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not gonna close this nomination. Unfortunately, newer stories have been posted, leaving no room for this story. I mark this as "Stale". --Georgie says "Happy Halloween!" (BOO!) 02:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support National-level election. South Nashua (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Stale] Omani elections

Nominator's comments: Well, as a general election in a sovereign state, this is ITN/R as far as I understand. However, the election does not really make a difference and there is no winning party as parties are illegal in Oman. Feel free to discuss. Maybe someone could create a table with all the winning candidates? I don't really have time for that now... Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: At this point, the article should not be posted in my opinion. If one were to replace the dates, # of voters and names of candidates, this article could reasonably used as an article for an Oman election from a previous year. There should be text outlining what makes this election different, even though it's "fixed". Without an update like that, I wouldn't consider the article to be sufficiently updated. Spencer^T♦C 15:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This falls under ITN/R, but I agree somewhat with Spencer in that the update is insufficient. It should ideally summarise the results of the election, even if the candidates all stand as independents. The final paragraph (four sentences) attempts to do this but only mentions one winning candidate, out of 85. Fuebaey (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was the only candidate that I could find that was picked out in the coverage of the election. For everyone else, there is just a winner's list... Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Guatemalan presidential election

Nominator's comments: Former comedian versus former first lady in a presidential run-off, with a landslide. Fuebaey (talk) 06:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – important governmental change. --Jenda H. (talk) 12:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Update odd there is no update I can see, given the actor Morales won 70% of the vote. I can't get to this for a few hours, but it should obviously be posted once it's updated. μηδείς (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was a late night nom, so I didn't get to it until now. I've added some prose, albeit incomparable to the seemingly comprehensive Spanish version. There's scope to expand, but I think it gets the main point across. Fuebaey (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• ASAP more than 3KB five sentence three source expansion for rather unusual landslide opposition presidential election. μηδείς (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - explanation needed on this notable election? George Ho (talk) 04:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Spencer^T♦C 04:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Hamilton F1 World Champion

Articles: Lewis Hamilton (talk · history · tag) and 2015 Formula One season (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Lewis Hamilton (pictured) wins a third World Drivers' Championship in Formula One, after his team Mercedes secured the Constructors' Championship. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In motorsport, Lewis Hamilton (pictured) wins the Formula One World Drivers' Championship and Mercedes secures the Constructors' Championship.
News source(s): Guardian
Credits:

• Nominated by Zwerg Nase (talk · give credit)

One or both nominated events are 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: Notability should be a no brainer. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Highly notable. Gizmocorot (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and sit back waiting for all the "well it's not over yet, what about the other races" brigade to demonstrate their position. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: (edit conflict) The blurb implies the constructors' championship was only just decided when it was decided earlier in the season. The bolded article should be 2015 Formula One season rather than Hamilton or Mercedes. Newsworthiness isn't an issue as both are covered under ITNR. -- KTC (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to suggest an altblurb, I agree that it should be made clearer that the constructors' was decided earlier, but I tried to keep the blurb short. Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's such a big deal, replace the word "as" with "after" before "his team". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Added Altblurb. The season (ITN/R article) is updated but not fully sourced. For those that don't follow F1, we could use the infobox picture rather than one that looks like a random driver in a car. Fuebaey (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I believe he is quite well recognizable with his helmet. Also, he is a racing driver after all, and he achieved the feat looking like that. The infobox photo is a little old, there's a newer one from two weeks ago, but he looks like a jackass in that one... Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a person who hasn't followed F1 in years, "recognisable" assumes that everyone knows what his helmet looks like, which is similar to a football (soccer) fan describing Cristiano Ronaldo, to a layman, by the colour of his boots. Fuebaey (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, what the hell is wrong with an actual photo of Hamilton himself? This bizarre image is impenetrable to most of our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. He has secured the championship. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Winning (or clinching?) the title in one of the world's largest, if not the world's largest, motorsport is an obviously huge deal. Zappa24Mati 23:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but oppose both blurbs as is - the blurbs should make it clear that it is the 2015 Formula One season that is being referred to. So for instance in the alternative blurb, instead of "Formula One World Drivers' Championship", I'd prefer "2015 Formula One World Drivers' Championship". Banedon (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 04:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Polish elections

 Fuebaey (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support First conservative win since collapse of communism in Poland in 1989. Gizmocorot (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment glad to see we're not itching to use "plurality" which makes little sense to most English speakers. Lead is still based around exit polls so obviously oppose until the reality dawns. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Actually, if the exit polls are correct, this is going to be an outright majority, so this wouldn't be an occasion to use the word "plurality". It's not really the first conservative win (Law and Justice was already in power 2005–2007), but it would be the first time since 1989 that the winning party woulnd't need to form a coalition. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support pending article improvement. Article has quite a few unsourced sections. -Zanhe (talk) 23:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait until Monday. Official results are announced then. All we have at the moment are exit polls. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Strong support – Law and Justice winning 39 percent is an ominous development for the EU. (Note: I don't think Sejm, the Polish word for parliament, will be understood by most English-lang. readers.) Sca (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • That's what one may expect in an indirect democracy, unlike direct one. Platforma Obywatelska exhausted itself while all other parties, except Law and Justice, remained impotent. Brandmeister^talk 16:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Sejm" is one of those words that for some reason is used a lot in the media (for example the Telegraph uses it without a gloss), probably because it lacks a direct English translation (similarly, articles on German politics usually use Bundestag, because the most literal translation "Federal Diet" is rather confusing). Smurrayinchester 16:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: nearly all english language readers have the ability to click the blue link... --Jayron32 18:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not make the blurb instantly intelligible to the reader? Or would that not be the Wiki way? Sca (talk)

PS: I'd never heard the word sejm 'til I lived Warsaw in the mid-'90s. It's not an English word, and its Polish orthography makes it unpronounceable to unschooled English speakers (even though it's actually easy to pronounce). Sca (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support for the alternative blurb. Important development in Europe. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait until Tuesday, The official results have been released showing Law and Justice getting 37.5 per cent of the vote but the official number of seats will not be announced until Tuesday. I would suggest that we not put anything up until we get the official results. See US News and World Report

Preceding comment posted by Capitalistroadster – Sca (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I wasn't able Tuesday to find "official" results, but I don't think we should delay posting this significant story any longer. Sca (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb mentioning Ms Szydlo, as she is the candidate to be Prime Minister, although she is not the party's overall leader '''tAD''' (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Post already. The etymology of 'sejm' "household" is clear enough that challenging it is beyond bizarre. μηδείς (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Sejm' old offensive blather. Sca (talk)

• Note - As of my post, the article has been tagged for accuracy. Might be a good idea to clear that up before putting this one on the Main Page. Jusdafax 16:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – updated with official results from Reuters. Sca (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still top-tagged with disputed factual accuracy. Could someone resolve it? Brandmeister^talk 19:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, it may be "post now" or "post already" but with a nasty maintenance tag, we need to work it out. Having said that, I'm not clear on what parts of the article need fixing, There are whole paragraphs without inline referencing and the table claiming to referenced by [38] is pure fiction. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Marking ready: Tag has been removed as Talk page indicates clear consensus for the current presentation (prime ministerial candidates instead of party leaders in infobox). -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – – Sca (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Old news. Sca (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know why altblurbs are written in Polish language. There must be a reason or a mistake. George Ho (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George, this is the Pollish-langauge version:

W wyborach parlamentarnych w Polsce zwyciężyło Prawo i Sprawiedliwość (na zdjęciu prezes partii Jarosław Kaczyński) uzyskując 37,58 % głosów w wyborach do sejmu. – Sca (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only Polish found in the blurbs are proper nouns. I'm not sure why the second (French) and third (German) blurbs were added but perhaps you could ask the proposer. Fuebaey (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To show how far behind we are. Sca (talk) 01:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:POINT. Ask some questions if it doesn't make sense to you. --Jayron32 01:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fish, vistors, and news.... Sca (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. Consensus seems to be the updates are sufficient, and maintenance issues seem to have been dealt with. --Jayron32 01:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting comment: Extremely disappointing to see this took three days to post, with the rationale for holding up posting being a tendentious tag that even a cursory glance at the Talk page would demonstrate shouldn't have been placed. I'm glad it's finally up, but jeez, one hopes to see more initiative from the editing community -- yes, that includes the good folks here at ITN/C -- in getting stuff like this ship-shape. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Fully agree with preceding comment by Kudzu. – Sca (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Maureen O'Hara

Nominator's comments: Very legendary and successful actress --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• support - notable and accomplished actress.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose mostly unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support but needs improvement - As TRM points out, most of the article is unreferenced. I'm not fully sure on her meeting the RD criteria but would edge in favor of meeting that. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Obvious candidate for inclusion. Gamaliel (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support. Notable, influential definitely - one of the last of her generation, but the article needs much more thorough sourcing. Challenger l (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support – Per Masem. Very famous. Sca (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Famous actress with a long career and numerous film roles with John Ford and John Wayne. The article needs some improvements, but that shouldn't stop her from an inclusion. --Clibenfoart (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. One of the last people from the Golden Age of Hollywood. Capitalistroadster (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Her filmography turned into a separate page. I need help on reinserting it to parent article. George Ho (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong or unusual about having the filmography at its own article, given its size. You might want to pick out a few works and list her first and last movies briefly below the redirect to the separate article. I'll be busy for the next several hours, or I'd do it myself now. μηδείς (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a comment, while we would not worry about the state of linked articles that stem from the bolded one for ITN, having that many unsourced quotes on the filmography page is a bad thing and should be remedied, though that would not hold up her main article. --MASEM (t) 19:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support article has a couple of tags need addressing, but her career and recognition obviously merit posting. μηδείς (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on importance; household name. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Clearly RD-worthy. Agree with George Ho that the filmography should be restored to the article, instead of another click away. Jusdafax 19:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I have referenced every tagged item. I don't oppose restoring the filmography per se, but doing so would be highly problematic since there are quite a few editorial statements about the works that have no references. Simply adding a selected works list with bluelinked works in which she's credited would be fine, if someone wants to do that. I see no reason not to mark this ready. μηδείς (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While this clears the CNs, there's several whole paragraphs unsourced that are more than just listing film credits (that is, contain claims that needs statements). --MASEM (t) 22:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please tag a few items then. Most of the "she appeared in" stuff does not need a ref if there's a bluelink to a work she's been credited in. It is a lot easier to look for refs for tagged items than to read peoples' minds as to what they would like reffed but haven't specified. PS< I will only be on line a few minutes at a time for the next 3 1/2 hours, so the nominator is invited to help with the article. μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At minimum each paragraph needs an inline source, period. (And if there were unsourced quotes on the page, they would need those). I've also found that editors get very upset when you orange tag or CN tag an article that's been nominated at ITN, because they seen it as a malicious action, so it becomes counter productive. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I CN tag such nominees all the time, but if no one wants more than at least one ref per paragraph that's fine with me. μηδείς (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A minimum of one inline per paragraph helps to make sure that readers have a good expectation where to find a source to back up material, and gives potential editors a sign that material should be sourced when they add. More sources are always appreciated and a few places (in general, not here) where sources are required like on quotes, but a minimum of one inline per paragraph is a good rule of thumb. (I'm adding this comment after its been posted and the diff Medeis links below and it's fine now). --MASEM (t) 03:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

W'll, jeez, Masem, barnstars is . . . thataway. μηδείς (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ready the article is updated by well over 2KB with more than some two dozen sources, at worst one per paragraph, although usually well better. This should go up ASAP. μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Spencer^T♦C 03:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Spencer:, that was quick! μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Murphy Anderson

Nominator's comments: Major comic book artist, forty year career. In several comic book halls of fame. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Article is in pretty good shape, needs a few refs but not much overall. I won't vote on this since it is not a field I am intimate with, but the guy seems storied enough that I suggest editors here have a look. μηδείς (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose: Don't really see how this gentleman was more significant than the average comic book artist. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Thomas G. Stemberg