January 1, 2015 (2015-01-01) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
International relations
Law and crime
- Vietnam’s new marriage law goes into effect, abolishing regulations that “prohibit marriage between people of the same sex.” (Bloomberg)
Politics and elections
|
|
December 31, 2014 (2014-12-31) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
RD: Edward Herrmann
--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Shanghai New Year crush
The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - In a time of year that's intended for leisure and festivities, this seems like an awfully grim story to post onto en.wiki's front page. Perhaps some discretion should be used?--WaltCip (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, it's grim. But it's news. Are we now looking to censor the front page to avoid upsetting people at Christmas? How odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is there any support for the article & blurb to be renamed to stampede (as used in the NY Times article I just linked)? 'Crush' used in this context is unique to British English, while 'stampede' is more well-understood. (honestly, as an american, I didn't even know exactly what 'crush' meant at first). Mamyles (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, it's not really that important what it's called, the issue at hand is whether the item itself is significant enough for ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The quality of the updated content is a criteria for posting. While I think this event is significant enough to post, the article still needs a lot of work before I would give my support. Mamyles (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there's any doubt that we won't post a stub to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've moved the page to 2014 Shanghai stampede, to conform with other recent articles like 2014 Mumbai stampede. Mamyles (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Mamyles, "crush" sounds horribly disrespectful. --AmaryllisGardener talk 22:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's complete nonsense, as evidenced by dozens of RS, but if it makes you personally feel happier to see "stampede" rather than "crush" then all good. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a stampede, not a "crush". I cringed when I saw "Shanghai crush", and it isn't used most of the time. --AmaryllisGardener talk 22:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but the people weren't killed by "stampeding", they were killed by being "crushed". That's what many RS have said. In any case, it matters not a jot. The article has been moved so let's focus on deciding whether it should go onto ITN or not. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but nope. --AmaryllisGardener talk 22:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, Fox News is the answer to all things. Listen, get over it (e.g. this report uses "crush" eight times). As I said before, time to work out if it's worth posting to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If you refuse to call FN a RS: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. BBC doesn't trump everything, just sayin'. --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, congrats, you've found some other sources that don't use "crush". The original point, that you suggested a "crush" was "horribly disrespectful" remains utterly untrue. Now move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Eg.: New Yorker article on crowd crushes from 2011. It's not a disrespectful term and seems more appropriate here than a stampede as it doesn't suggest there was running or panicking associated with the latter. --MASEM (t) 23:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- See Talk:2014 Shanghai crush#"Stampede" vs, "crush". --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The sadness of a story is no reason to overlook it, even during the festive season. The Boxing Day tsunami was extremely sad, but I don't think we would have served our readers well by declining to feature it for the that reason. Neljack (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, getting back to the suitability for ITN this has, this is a very sad incident with many deaths, probably to be reported on much more. --AmaryllisGardener talk 22:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - once in a sufficient condition to meet ITN requirements: Despite the number of such gatherings at this time of year and the numbers of people attending, such accidents are quite rare. Mjroots (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. --MASEM (t) 23:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. Miyagawa (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - clearly notable stampede. Post.--BabbaQ (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose this is a stampede, not a "crush" and not particularly notable for a stampede, however horrible for the victims and their families. Unless it leads to some legal consequence it has no encyclopedic importance. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[Post€d] Lithuania adopts the euro
Formerip (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- AFAICT, that's at 10 pm UTC. Formerip (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] New Year's Honours
-- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 12:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy New Year to them too (oppose). As far as I know, we don't post knightings, just like many other recognitions. Brandmeistertalk 16:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What a shame they never cast Hurt and Collins as Avon and Servalan in a Blake's Seven movie. μηδείς (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - There are dozens of these, on two occasions each year. Far too commonplace, I'm afraid. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncertain oppose - wasn't that Mary the real founder of Quantum mechanics? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Certain oppose dozens, if not hundreds are honoured every year. Not notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Plenty of countries award similar honors; we don't post them. -- Calidum 19:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per all of the above comments. Thank you for the nomination though - we often don't get enough here. Mamyles (talk) 22:05, 31 December 2014 (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.
|
|
December 30, 2014 (2014-12-30) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
RD: Christine Cavanaugh
Nominator's comments: Voice actress who voiced Babe, Chuckie Finster in Rugrats, and Dexter in Dexter's Laboratory among numerous other roles. Andise1 (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Palestinian draft resolution fails in U.N. council
Nominator's comments: UN votes down statehood for Palestine. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It was a Jordanian resolution, not a Palestinian one. And I think we should talk in terms of it "failing" rather than being "rejected" or "voted against" - these expression may not be technically wrong, but they are a bit misleading given that more members voted in favour than against. Since no-one at all expected this to pass, I'm not sure it's really significant enough, in itself, for ITN (although I'm not quite unsure enough to vote oppose). Formerip (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. This is approximately the 42nd time in roughly forty years that the US has vetoed a resolution dealing with the Palestinians. There is no surprise here, including the fact that US told everyone that they were going to veto this one as well. If the US had actually agreed to pass something, then that might have been news, but the failure to pass anything just perpetuates the status quo and I don't really see how the failure to change is at the level of significance required for ITN. Dragons flight (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. An unsurprising result of pure political theater, as the US was certain to veto it. 331dot (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Dragons flight. -- Calidum 01:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose anything against Israel will be rejected by the US etc, and even if it isn't, Israel pay no heed to UN mandates. Disappointingly, this is a non-starter. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support any support for rights-respecting classically liberal countries instead of fascist/leftist resolutions is so rare nowadays as to be worth noting as encyclopedic and simply amazing. μηδείς (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] RD: Luise Rainer
--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support highly notable, article is in quite good shape. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Certainly the most famous death of the month, after Joe Cocker.--The Theosophist (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think could be in Template:In the news. ArionEstar (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support notable actress, article in decent shape. --AmaryllisGardener talk 14:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Would have actually nominated her myself - definitely notable, article is in good shape. Challenger l (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for RD and article is in fine shape for posting. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - notable enough for RD. post.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Typically blurbs are only posted for deaths where the death itself is an event, usually (but not always) a surprising death, or when the person was essentially at the tip-top of their field. I don't think either applies in this case. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
December 29, 2014 (2014-12-29) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Politics and elections
December 2014 Cameroon clashes
Nominator's comments: An escalation of Boko Haram incursions into Cameroon, threatening to further destabilize the region. --Catlemur (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. This is an clear escalation.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've un-marked this as ready for the time being. I think more discussion is needed. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- One more support since you unmarked it. Just to re-mark ;).--BabbaQ (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
December 28, 2014 (2014-12-28) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Politics and elections
Large expansion to Beijing Subway
Nominator's comments: 48 new metro stations opened on a single day is extremely rare anywhere in the world. We normally do not cover infrastructure articles, particularly positive ones that do not have to do with disasters, so this would be a welcome change to ITN. We posted a similar story about the Beijing Subway in December 2009 (or was it 2010) so there is precedent. --Colipon+(Talk) 21:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose we posted the BS story some time ago. "Large expansion" doesn't warrant an ITN blurb. Nergaal (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose. Existing public infrastructure is quite often expanded; even more so with this subway which has been constantly expanded for the last 10-12 years and will be for many more. I'm not seeing a great deal of news coverage of this which might persuade me to weak support it. 331dot (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support 48 metro stations in a day. That needs to be mentioned in the blurb. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - when mentioned properly in the blurb.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I agree with Nergaal and 311dot's reasoning - infrastructure expansion is a routine event. We have posted about train lines opening before, but we focused on their groundbreaking high-speed train technolog,y which is not the case here. Mamyles (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I love trains, but this is just not notable enough for ITN. Legaleagle86 (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Hasn't generated enough coverage to be on ITN. -- Calidum 01:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Ready] NATO ends ISAF
--Jenda H. (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
-
- Whether you or anyone take him seriously is irrelevant; it is what it is. Most RS are phrasing this as the war being over. The troops remaining are not there to conduct a war. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Also, wait until orange-tagged missing references are resolved on both bolded articles. Mamyles (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the ISAF article is more accurate. --Jenda H. (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't complaining about the blurb, but about the non-story. The Taliban is strong and resurgent, with the recent attack on the Pakistani school, Posting this would be like posting a superbowl headline, in overtime, loosing team takes ball and goes home. Of course that would probably be more newsworthy than an "end" of operations in Afghanistan. There's also the fact that other than here I haven't even seen the headline. Then look at our end of operations in Iraq. This is a policy announcement, not an historical event. μηδείς (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] MS Norman Atlantic
--Mjroots (talk) 11:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Latest is that one person died, ferry under tow to an Albanian port. Mjroots (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- BBC News is reporting the rescue effort is complete, but 7 people have died. Bob talk 16:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated to 8 as per BBC News. Bob talk 17:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Official death toll has now risen to 10, but still some discrepancy between passenger manifest and survivor count. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does it need to be a "major disaster"? Surely the successful rescue of around 480 people is just as newsworthy? Mjroots (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In a more just world, it would be. Sadly the reality is that this is out of the headlines pretty much already, whereas if it had sunk with mass loss of life it would dominate the news for weeks as did the Costa Concordia, for example. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose interesting, but not ITN-worthy, as usual it's a good candidate for DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. While it's good many people were rescued, that also means it dropped out of the news. 331dot (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The last major ferry disaster, the one in Korea, appeared benign in the first few hours but soon turned very deadly as they could not mount an effective rescue effort. Here, while the numbers of affected people are about the same, the rescue efforts are much more organized/larger in scale, and so far out from the initial event, only one affirmed death, and it doesn't seem likely that the death toll will go much higher. --MASEM (t) 02:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. At least in the UK, this was quite heavily featured in the news, and rescuing 480 people from a burning ship in very bad weather seems quite an achievement. Not sure why only events causing x amount of deaths would only be considered of interest to Wikipedia readers. After all, ITN included the Chilean miners. Bob talk 09:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Might have been a major fire, but at the end of the day, one person died after jumping off, while others are said to be safe. Unless the rescue efforts had some daredevil stunts, I'd say this is as non-newsworthy as last weeks Sydney incident. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The fact that almost all the passengers have been rescued makes it rather trivial. And as Rsrikanth05 points out, can be posted if the rescuers perform some Rajini style stunts.. Cheers, ƬheStrikeΣagle 13:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This is a well-edited article about an interesting (though admittedly not groundbreaking) recent event. Mamyles (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This is receiving coverage in the US and seems noteworthy enough for someone to want to come here to check on it. Dismas|(talk) 18:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose – Minor news, no WP:LASTING historical or encyclopaedic impact. RGloucester — ☎ 21:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:LASTING seems to be more relevant to the existence of the article, which isn't what is being discussed here. People can also have good faith differences about what constitutes "encyclopedic impact"; obviously the nominator feels it does. 331dot (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If we shouldn't have an article on a news story per NOTNEWS, LASTING, whatever, ITN should not be including that stor just because it is otherwise in the news. (Please note: I'm not saying this necessarily applies to the article here in this case - as most major mass transit/transportation accidents with death tolls get articles on WP). --MASEM (t) 22:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- IMHO, it is far too early to know if WP:LASTING will apply. What we have here is a five year old ship destroyed by fire, ten deaths and 450+ rescued. Mjroots (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec)I agree with that, but the existence of the article is not at issue on this page. RGloucester should nominate the article for deletion, which would then be an issue to consider here. That said RGloucester does not have a crystal ball to know what impact this will have in the future or how it will be considered historically or encyclopedically(whatever that means). 331dot (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't need a crystal ball. Ships sink. What else is new? RGloucester — ☎ 22:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, ships sink. Of many kinds. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and unless the manner of sinking is significant, or the people onboard are significant, or the ship itself is significant, the sinking is not significant. None of those apply here. Fire breaks out on run-of-the-mill ferry in rough seas. Again, what else is new? RGloucester — ☎ 22:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is why I oppose posting it to ITN, but I think the article has merit. As I said, you are free to nominate it for deletion if you feel it does not merit an article. As Mjroots said it is far too early to know if LASTING applies here. Neither one of us knows. 331dot (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know why you are talking about deletion. I never used the word "deletion". I merely took advantage of one of the event criteria, as a way of demonstrating my reasons for opposing posting it to ITN. It isn't too early at all. RGloucester — ☎ 22:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I am talking about deletion because WP:LASTING or any other notability issues are issues to be dealt with in a deletion discussion discussing the existence of the article. If a deletion discussion is open, that is certainly an issue here. 331dot (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is very likely to survive an AfD nomination. Mjroots (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, no one even suggested an AfD nomination, so I don't understand why this is being discussed. RGloucester — ☎ 23:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I am saying you should suggest one as the proper venue for your views. 331dot (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want the page deleted, so how is that my "view"? I merely don't want it posted to ITN. RGloucester — ☎ 23:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You cited notability issues like WP:LASTING with this subject and said it had no "encyclopedic impact", which I presume means that you don't think it's notable enough for Wikipedia. If that is wrong, I apologize. 331dot (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "People die. What else is new"? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I wouldn't exactly call this minor, but I understand the hesitation. It's not as significant as an airplane crash (which we normally post), but it's more significant than a bus crash (which we usually don't). Death toll in the (low) double-digits, plus a sizable and mostly successful rescue operation. I say post. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I say post. Per the sizable rescue efforts, media attention and still a few deaths.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It's been very much in the news, and it's a sizable rescue operation. We've btw posted a similar story (burning ship in that area) a few years ago, though that rescue operation had greater success. Narayanese (talk) 09:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm boldly marking this as ready. I think that there is enough support to override the objectors (reasons, not quantity). The article itself is in a good shape. Needs an independent review and a decision. Mjroots (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Good. This should be posted.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and it seems like they carried a high number of illegal immigrants that are still uncounted for. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Posted. I agree that the support overcomes the opposition by strength of argument even if not numerical superiority. I note that several of the opposes were made while the story was still breaking, and that the story has—possibly against expectations—continued to develop since then, which appears to be the reason that the majority of the more recent comments are in support of posting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Pull obviously no consensus, and 10 deaths in a ferry accident is rather small, considering their frequency and number of passengers. Very similar to the December 2013 Spuyten Duyvil derailment which was rightfully not posted. There's no indication of any log term effects beyond the deaths, like a criminal prosecution or bankruptcy. μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- While I did post support of this above, I agree with Medeis that (in the future) it is preferable to wait for stronger consensus, even if that means a blurb does not get posted. Mamyles (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There was a full two days of discussion, story development, and article development. I marked the story as "ready" to give indicate that it eas time for a decision to be made. Consensus is not merely a !vote count. The strength of the arguments for and against posting should be taken in to account. The first comment was "Wait", I had no problem with that. Waiting was the correct thing to do in this case. We waited, the situation became clearer, the article made it to the MP. Had HJ Mitchell said the the article was not to be posted, then I would have accepted his decision without whining about it. Editors must realise that there are some you win, some you lose; and move on whichever way the result goes. Mjroots (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501
--Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support after expansion, surprised I haven't heard about this yet here in the US. Very likely to be a big story, but wait for a bit of expansion before posting. --AmaryllisGardener talk 04:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support upon expansion. We don't need to rush to post this, but once we get enough information I think this merits posting. 331dot (talk) 04:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Moved page from AirAsia Flight 8501 to Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501. Updated blurb. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support when the article is better updated/expanded. Note I also proposed the altblurb, which states how many are aboard the plane. Also, the blurb proposed here says the destination was Malaysia, but the article and sources say Singapore. -- Calidum 04:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the alternative blurb. Article needs some working on. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the alt blurb ƬheStrikeΣagle 05:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the alternative blurb. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think we're waiting for the plane to be found, and the article looks ready to me. Anyone agree/disagree? --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Posted - Thanks to everyone for the quick improvements. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I presume this will be re-blurbed and bumped to the top when the plane is found. Hopefully this won't turn out to be another Flight 370 scenario. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Indonesia's search and rescue agency head has said they are 95% sure the debris is from the plane. [15] 331dot (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- [16]. Think we should update the blurb to state that "Wreckage of the missing Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 (pictured), carrying over 160 people, is found in the Java Sea in Indonesia." --MASEM (t) 17:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note that the blurb was updated today through a message on WP:ERRORS. Mamyles (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
December 27, 2014 (2014-12-27) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Politics and elections
[Posted (Ongoing)] 2014 Southeast Asian floods
--Muffin Wizard 09:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I agree with that. :) ~ Muffin Wizard ;) 01:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the improvements, David Levy. I've added your name to the updater list above. Mamyles (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, and I apologize for not noticing those issues. I did see that the article was well referenced, and I was a little blinded by that. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks guys, and especially to David Levy for making copy-edit to the article. ~ Muffin Wizard ;) 00:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] RD: Tomaž Šalamun
--Tone 17:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As of now, there are no reports on the reason of death, I checked several sources. I don't think more information will appear. --Tone 16:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm satisfied with what is there now, especially if it seems unlikely more information will come out. 331dot (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Six-party agreement on budget (averted crisis and snap election)
--BabbaQ (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
December 26, 2014 (2014-12-26) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Sports
[Posted] RD: Leo Tindemans
--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] December 2014 Assam violence
Nominator's comments: More than 80 people selectively killed makes it a very significant event. Widely reported in India and internationally as well. Please note that the blurb can be modified if it seems badly written. Thanks, --ƬheStrikeΣagle 15:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Extremely significant event, with an unfortunate number of casualties. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Notable, The massacre got significant coverage. Both blurbs OK. Faizan 16:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as government of India intensified counterattack and large number of casualties. And please link the article in blurb, there is no link to December 2014 Assam violence article. -Nizil (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This meets the threshold for a newsworthy event. I'm leaning more toward the second blurb, but either is fine. I agree with Nizil Shah that the December 2014 Assam violence article should be linked. Mamyles (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe it is linked. Millitant attack in 1, and are killed by Bodo millitants in 2. --17:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Rsrikanth05 I've linked the article after they raised it! :) Cheers, ƬheStrikeΣagle 17:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, ok. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)`[reply]
|
|
December 25, 2014 (2014-12-25) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Businesses and economy
RD: David Ryall
doktorb wordsdeeds 08:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RD: Gleb Yakunin
--Bruzaholm (talk) 13:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Support major dissident, reformer and politician, but article needs more reference work. μηδείς (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support I believe that he is of great significance in Russia. However, after reading both his article and the cited news source, I am not confident that he has significant recognition abroad. Nonetheless, his achievements/contributions are interesting and could be interpreted as being on-par with other recent names in the RD space. Mamyles (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mamyles: Just FYI, though often helpful, there doesn't have to be recognition from abroad as long as the person meets the recent deaths criteria. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to criticize you, but just to make it clear, the guidelines above address this: "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..." Your statement was obviously in good faith, and you were not complaining, but the spirit of the guideline is clear — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs)
- Fair point, thank you. I will keep that in mind when considering future RD nominations. (As an aside, I'm surprised at the limited number of submissions for RD given the liberal criteria.) Mamyles (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support upon article work per Medeis. Seems important to Russia. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, 1. He may be of importance in Russia, but I doubt he has any elsewhere. 2. His death was not a surprise (the article states that he suffered from an illness for a while before his death at 80 years old). 3. The article is not in a very good state, it doesn't have enough inline citations for verifying things like his early life and his wife and children. All of this combined tells me he shouldn't have a place at RD. --AmaryllisGardener talk 19:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
- @331dot: I read your discussion, and I said he "may" be of importance in Russia, I'm not sure of that, even. The not-surprising death is not a big thing, it just adds to my list. The most important one is number three. The article needs a bit of expanding also, IMO. --AmaryllisGardener talk 04:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The not surprising death is why we have RD. Surprising deaths get full blurbs. Yakunin, a well known cleric, dissident, and reform politician certainly meets the prima facie requirements for an RD listing. μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, you're right. But like I just said above, not the biggest concern of mine. --AmaryllisGardener talk 04:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait a second. Per Medeis or by Medeis? JackofOz and Любослов Езыкин, among others, are fluent in proper Russian, I am not, and it is close to bedtime for me. I can look at English sources tomorrow if I am not busy in the real world. My Christmas guests are arriving Sunday. μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me emphasize that (1) I am at my parents' in the New Jersey Pine Barrens for the week, and the DSL has been off 80% of the time, and (2) I am babysitting three children under 10 years of age, so I am quite busy, too busy to get to this article myself before it will be stale. μηδείς (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the news toolbox,_pow%C3%B3d%C5%BA.jpg)
_(5).JPG)
