Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/April 2016

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

April 30

[edit]
April 30, 2016 (2016-04-30) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents
  • A heatwave in India has claimed 300 lives in April with daytime cooking banned in some parts of the country to prevent fires which have claimed an additional 80 lives. (AP)
  • 2016 Kenya floods
  • A three-storey building collapses in the Indian city of Mumbai, resulting in six deaths and trapping many others. (Times of India)
  • At least five people are killed by floods in the U.S. state of Texas. (FOX News)
  • A mosque under refurbishment in Mogadishu, Somalia, collapses, killing at least 15 people and injuring around 40. Hundreds more are thought to be buried under the rubble. (BBC)
  • European migrant crisis
    • According to survivors, at least 70 migrants are missing after their dinghy sank off the coast of Libya. 26 people were rescued by the Italian coast guard. (BBC)
  • Five people are killed in a military plane crash in Sudan. (Reuters)

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Posted] RD: Harry Kroto

[edit]
Article: Harry Kroto (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): El Pais Royal Society of Chemistry
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the discovery of fullerenes, an allotrope of carbon.

Are you saying that someone fooled the Royal Society of Chemistry? You'd have to ask the media why they aren't reporting this- it may be an indication of his importance(or lack thereof). 331dot (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The news first broke yesterday as far as I can tell [1]. shoy (reactions) 17:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's been a public holiday in the UK, hence delay in reporting. The Guardian has it now. Sapient (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Daily Telegraph now too. Sapient (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The death is now in the mainstream news. I've gone through and tidied up some of the citations; there's no more red text for now. Sufficient? Sapient (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I reviewed the changes from nom time to now and the articles seems sufficiently improved and sufficiently sourced for posting. Importance as Nobel-winning chemist is clear. (The fact he won the Nobel is the point of importance, not that his death being reported in mainstream, though that factor's been remedied with coverage in the Guardian and Popular Science). --MASEM (t) 22:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted - Per Masem's assessment. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Daniel Berrigan

[edit]
Article: Daniel Berrigan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times, Guardian, AP
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: He was a notable pacifist who won the War Resisters League Peace Award, among several others. EternalNomad (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on importance. A pivotal figure for his era. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose no evidence that his writing letters against the Vietnam War was of any especial influence. μηδείς (talk) 04:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support after improvements – Notability seems to be there, but not until the article is better sourced. At any rate, according to the NY Times, Berrigan has been a pivotal figure in social & political protest, and one of the US's leading peace activists, for half a century. Furthermore, his militancy included a spiritual & moral dimension (as both a priest and as a poet/essayist) that was unique. The NY Times says he "shaped the tactics of opposition" to the Vietnam War which, at the time, put him on the FBI's "most-wanted list," and landed him on the cover of Time magazine. And as an intellectual figure he received many awards for his writings over a lifetime, including one of the most prestigious awards that "The Academy of American Poets" can give; published 50+ books during his lifetime. Also was a university instructor for many decades, and poet-in-residence at Fordham University; honored w/ the Pacem in Terris Award...the list could go on. Christian Roess (talk) 04:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on article quality - uncited claims, some copyediting to do e.g. capitalisation of university degrees, and overall the article doesn't demonstrate notability. The claims which Chrsitan Roess makes above are not included in the article, for example. MurielMary (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Valid points, so I altered the lead to include some more of these "claims" (not my claims, but what The New York Times is claiming). I'm also tracking down other secondary sources to cite, some of which I've already included in the article. Christian Roess (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - yes those things need to be cleared up before it can be posted. I'm working on it. Will check in again tomorrow w/ an update to my progress. Or maybe another editor will get to it, and we can reevaluate for inclusion on the main page ITN/RD section. Christian Roess (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - cleared up many of the issues that TRM and MurielMary pointed to. The bibliography has been excised down to a real 'selected', while the other publications were moved to a newly created bibliography page for Berrigan. Also, still CN tags in the Awards section. But I can't finish editing until tomorrow. But please look over the article because there may be other issues, too. And that probably means this article is not ready to post yet. Christian Roess (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ready - In my opinion, the quality of the article is now sufficient (barely--or minimally--sufficient, I might add). And I believe it's ready to be posted to RD. But I think the vote, currently, is deadlocked: tied 3 to 3 (Support= 3 — Oppose = 3). Tiebreaker anyone? Is it ready, or does it need improvement? Can we get a consensus? Christian Roess (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted after another good cleanup. Stephen 02:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support sorry I missed voting on this one but thank you to those who worked on it and got it posted. He was indeed a pivotal figure in the anti-Vietnam movement and a household name. TheBlinkster (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Iraq bombings and aftermath

[edit]
No consensus. Stephen 23:10, 2 May 2016 (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: April 2016 Baghdad bombing (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 21 people are killed in a bombing in Baghdad leading to the storming of parliament. (Post)
News source(s): DNA MD Samaa
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Bombings here are, by precedent, ITN worthy with much larger fatalities but the consequences of the breaking events in Baghdad here are bigger. Parliament stormed, people blocking the road to the airport to stop politicians fleeing...this is a much bigger reaction. Heck, is tooearly yet, but maybe a revolution of sorts? Lihaas (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many a sources citing both.Lihaas (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Linking bombing by ISIS to reform protests against government is Wikipedia:SYNTH. Topics completely separate, share in common the same date. Baking Soda (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As is your "most likely" SYNTH or downright POV.Lihaas (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sources provided do not link bombing with protests, which have been going on for weeks, classic SYNTH. See Talk:April_2016_Baghdad_bombing#WP:SYNTH_Bombing_did_not_provoke_protests for sources stating otherwise. Baking Soda (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Also feel free to suggest better blurbs". Lihaas (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point. The events by themselves are not notable and the coincidence itself is not worth reporting.--WaltCip (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2016 (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] Ivory burning

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Destruction of ivory (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Kenya burn largest pile of ivory ever in a manifestation to combat illegal ivory trade. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Kenya burn largest pile of ivory ever in a manifestation to combat illegal ivory trade.
News source(s): BBC News, CNN
Credits:

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: Biggest manifestation so far with wide coverage of a worthy cause to combat illegal ivory trade and poaching of elephants and rhinos. w.carter-Talk 15:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment without prejudice the aticle is not updated beyond 2 sentences, and I don't know how that article can be enough for the topic and include this one=-off incident.Lihaas (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree with both BabbaQ that this is a notable event that is getting news coverage, but also with Lihaas that the article barely mentions it. If the article was GA or higher then I'd certainly support it, but as it stands I really can't decide. Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support I think the article and the news story are of sufficient interest globally to warrant this being posted. Having said that, the update is relatively small, but once you've covered main points (biggest ivory destruction in history, tonnage, number of animals) there's no much more to say. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose what ITN criterion does this meet? μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are no formal ITN criteria, only a statement of purpose that ITN "serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest.".
      1. This is unquestionably a recent event.
      2. That it is of wide interest can be seen by the extent of news coverage.
      3. That it is an encyclopaedic topic can be seen by our article on ivory destruction, and the biggest ever event is certainly worthy of inclusion in that article.
      4. That it has been substantially updated is less clear, but I'm convinced by The Rambling Man's comments that what we have is sufficient. 'Support. Thryduulf (talk) 08:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The criteria for size of updated content says "... a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient". The 'main' article is now updated with 15 20 sentences and 6 8 refs. The second article is not updated, but does every 'help' article linked to in a blurb have to be updated? Like Bergen in the nom below? Plus adding alt blurb to emphasize the burning and not just large pile. w.carter-Talk 08:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only the main linked article is required to be updated, although other linked articles being updated is obviously a good thing for Wikipedia in general as well as ITN specifically. As long as those other linked articles are not contradicting the main article and not nominated for deletion or flagged as BLP vios they're essentially irrelevant to the nomination process (and even then it would almost always just be a case of tweaking the blurb to avoid linking to them). Thryduulf (talk) 09:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's pretty obvious that this meets the criteria for ITN, if anyone needs help in understanding how to find those criteria, please see WP:ITN where the information is clearly explained. I think Thryduulf summarised it nicely, so hopefully that clears up any "confusion". The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not ask what the ITN criteria are, I asked how this meets them. Record contraband seizures are announced all the time. This is rather below the fold. μηδείς (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not one contraband seizure, this is a government making an unprecedented manifestation attended by two African presidents and several wildlife conservation organisations. The burning contains years of seized contraband, in fact the amount almost equals the total amount of destroyed ivory in the whole world ever before this event, and the event is covered by virtually every major news agency in the world (just Google it). I'd say that makes it an ITN candidate. Even without the ITN, the article is receiving a rapid increase in views, so the readers are curious to learn more. w.carter-Talk 20:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Medeis: I've explained above how this meets all the criteria for ITN: It's a recent event of wide interest related to an encyclopaedic topic with a sufficiently updated Wikipedia article. If you think this is just another contraband seizure then you need to reread the article. Thryduulf (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think there's more confusion here. This is in no way related to heroin seizures (P.S. thanks for the fascinating link to the "biggest heroin seizure in Salem County" (where?) when this is the biggest destruction of ivory in the history of planet Earth. I guess that's indicative of the systemic bias we all suffer from around here). This is the destruction of ivory which has been previously reclaimed from criminals. It's in the news, it's of interest to our readers, it's had a quality update, if the application of the ITN criteria to this article need further explanation, please feel free to ask. Otherwise I would suggest this is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is manufactured news – a staged PR event. But, on the other hand, it's the biggest such event and has duly attracted lots of coverage – much more than other items currently in ITN. So, it should get the benefit of the doubt. Andrew D. (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose a noble but misguided attempt at fixing a problem. I would prefer wikipedia not to endorse such an economically-idiotic attempt that will only lead to skyrocketing prices of ivory on the black market. Nergaal (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That standpoint is also covered in the article. I would prefer the Wikipedia to remain neutral and just write the facts about what is going on in the world. w.carter-Talk 21:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • And the opposition is absurd and purely a personal POV which has no bearing in reality to ITN's raison d'etre. As already explained, it's in the news, it's of interest to our readers, it's updated, there's no complaints here. Unless of course we want to stagnate ITN with days-old news and ignore things that are actually making notable global news. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this does fit the ITN criteria, and the article has been updated sufficiently. Reading through all these remarks, it seems to me that those in "support" ultimately made their case, although some of the opposition's points were valid and credible. But those in support were more convincing, answering nearly every valid charge against. Christian Roess (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 00:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We don't count votes. 331dot (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, 331., counting is possible, now that WP:NOTAVOTE is no longer a guideline but a downgraded essay. George Ho (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is possible doesn't mean it should be done, or that it is a substitute for consensus. 331dot (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, if we were to actually "count", the vote stood at 5 to 2 at the time of posting. It's not absurd!! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 29

[edit]
April 29, 2016 (2016-04-29) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economics
  • According to Eurostat, the Eurozone's economy grew by 0.6% in the first three months of 2016, faster than what was originally expected, with unemployment falling to 10.2%. This growth suggest that the eurozone's economy is now bigger than it was before the start of the financial crisis of 2007–08. (BBC)

Disasters and accidents

Health

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Posted] 2016 Turøy helicopter crash

[edit]
Article: 2016 Turøy helicopter crash (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ . Thirteen people are killed when a Supa Puma helicopter crashes near Bergen, Norway. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ All Super Puma helicopters in Norway and the United Kingdom are grounded following a fatal crash near Bergen, Norway.
Alternative blurb II: ​ All Super Puma helicopters in Norway and the United Kingdom are grounded after 13 people are killed in a crash near Bergen, Norway.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

 The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 • Interesting to note that, although all three suggested blurbs above include the word helicopter, the posted blurb does not. Sca (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Equatorial Guinean presidential election

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Equatorial Guinean presidential election, 2016 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo (pictured) is re-elected as President of Equatorial Guinea. (Post)
News source(s): Africanews, BBC News, Deutsche Welle
Credits:

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: Africa's longest serving leader remains in power. Results came out yesterday. Reaction from the African Union should come out soon. As a side note, you may recognise the background in the image from more recent African leader pics - all taken during the 2014 United States–Africa Leaders Summit). Fuebaey (talk) 11:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose This is not going to appear on the front pages of any newspapers with a remotely global circulation, anywhere. I would be surprised even it even made it to the front page in Nigeria. It only makes it to the top of ITN on Wikipedia due to some arbitrary notion that state sovereignty itself confers notability to all of its political elections. Colipon+(Talk) 13:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Numerous attempts at somehow limiting which countries' elections are posted have been made and failed many times, largely because any limit would be arbitrary and systemic bias would be worse. Learning about other countries' elections is a good thing for Wikipedia's readers. 331dot (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Notability is pre-established by ITN/R. Article quality is good enough to post, but could use more sourcing for the results if someone has the time. Mamyles (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at this time until the article looks a bit better; for instance, it could use additional sources, a reaction from the A.U., and why is the opposing candidate neither pictured nor has an article?--WaltCip (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing there is no picture of the opposition candidate because they only got about 4500 votes as that candidate's party had no seats in parliament. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even your source states that this election is "official", which meets my definition of genuine. Governments in this area are all at least somewhat corrupt. Are we never to post any elections in Africa, then? Mamyles (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson: It is not our job to determine what is a "genuine" election. The article can(and should) contain all information about how the election is viewed. 331dot (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's our policy that: "Wikipedia is not a ... vehicle for propaganda". We should not present such staged PR events as if they were equivalent to what happens in proper Western democracies. It would be like presenting cosmetic advertising as science just because they have a guy in a white coat with some techo-babble about liposomes. Andrew D. (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're not, the article makes that clear. Now, if you believe what you say, that "ITN is dead", please stop these pointy opposes, please work on either improving the system by suggesting on the talk page improvements to, for example, ITNR, or please do something else. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What we're discussing here is whether to have a blurb in ITN on the main page or not. The state of the linked articles is a secondary consideration because many readers won't look past the blurb. In any case, the bold linked article does not make the dubious nature of the election clear. The lead simply presents the result as a fact and doesn't even mention that the election was boycotted by the opposition parties. Again, many readers who get that far won't look past the lead. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 08:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No-one is arguing whether your vote stands or not. You yourself have declared that ITN is dead (and you prefer the more tabloid WP:TOP25 as an indicator of what our readers need from an encyclopedia) yet you do nothing practical in any sense whatsoever to fix the root causes besides making pointed votes. We all acknowledge your position, WP:DEADHORSE applies. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What TRM seems to be referring to is this comment. My observation was that it's the WMF that's moving away from ITN. Today, their app is highlighting the following 5 articles as the top read:
  1. Hertha Marks Ayrton
  2. Muzdalifah
  3. Prince (musician)
  4. Captain America: Civil War
  5. Hillsborough disaster
But we digress... Andrew D. (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are more than welcome to propose a blurb mentioning a boycott; we have done that before I believe. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson: the point of ITN is not to highlight the most read articles, but to highlight articles about subjects that are currently in the news. While there may be some overlap they are different things, with different purposes and different methodologies. If you want to replace ITN's slot on the main page with a list of the most read articles, feel free to propose that. Until such time as that proposal gets consensus though, then ITN functions as a place to highlight articles that are in the news, regardless of how many people read those articles. Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF has already taken that decision for their new iPhone app. Presumably that's because they understand that readership numbers actually matter. There are many media outlets going out of business because they are failing to keep up with such trends – libraries, newspapers, Friends United, &c. ITN should be highlighting topics with a readership of 100,000+ If ITN is full of trivia instead then readers won't bother with it. For example, Hertha Marks Ayrton was top topic above because it was featured as a Google Doodle. It got a readership of about 1.1 million as a result. ITN only drives about 10K readers to a topic – about 1% of the Google effect. The WMF understand that they need to keep up or they (and us) will become increasingly irrelevant. Andrew D. (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to help Wikipedia, and to make up statistics as you go along without any basis in fact. In the meantime, please see WP:DEADHORSE. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 28

[edit]
April 28, 2016 (2016-04-28) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sport

[Closed] RD: Conrad Burns

[edit]
Consensus against. BencherliteTalk 13:35, 29 April 2016 (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: Conrad Burns (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): LA Times
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Served in the US Senate for 18 years, described by LA Times as "one of the most influential people in Washington". Article quality is decent. EternalNomad (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Senator Burns was an influential and longest serving GOP senator in Montana. Had huge influence in Washington. Article in good shape. News just broke so waiting on the NYT to publish their obit to update the death section of the article, but overall I give my support. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this amounts to a huge lowering of the bar. We very rarely post the deaths of governors and congressman unless they had some great impact. Most of the recent US House Speakers who've been nominated have not been posted. If we have a link that shows how and why burns was so influential it could be considered. μηδείς (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, huge influence on Washington? I suspect that anybody who reads the article on this filthy racist shitsack would beg to differ. Is this some sort of POINTY nomination? Abductive (reasoning) 05:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose no evidence of significance at a national or international level; state influence is not sufficient for a RD listing. MurielMary (talk) 09:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree that being notable to politics in Montana isn't a broad enough field. Many Senators have served far longer than 18 years. Occasionally US Senators get through, such as Daniel Inouye but in that case he had several awards and a distinguished military career. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 29 April 2016 (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] RD: Renato Corona

[edit]
Article: Renato Corona (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Gmanetwork.com
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Top Filipino law official. Was the Chief Justice of the highest court of the land and in 2011 was impeached and left office in 2012 after being found guilty. Death was sudden and article in good enough shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: It doesn't have to. As stated above, "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." 331dot (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I'm doing is evaluating the level of news coverage, which is poor. The cited news source of gmanetwork.com doesn't seem to be a serious news organisation. Where is the BBC coverage of the death, for example? They covered the impeachment so they are aware that the guy exists, but since he was found to be corrupt and disgraced, his death doesn't make the cut. Andrew D. (talk) 04:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"How much the death is covered" is actually a valid measure of notability. Previous discussions here have opposed the posting of deaths of people whose passing was not mentioned in mainstream media, despite their being prominent figures and having an article in good shape. If media coverage of a death is no longer a criteria, this will introduce some very interesting nominations. MurielMary (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bare URLs gone... Not gone but reformatted. Also, I moved sources and then added others. George Ho (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] S/2015 (136472) 1

[edit]
NOT POSTED TO ITN
No chance of this being posted at this point, so I'm closing this. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:05, 2 May 2016 (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.

Proposed image
Articles: S/2015 (136472) 1 (talk · history · tag) and Makemake (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Astronomers discover a moon orbiting the dwarf planet Makemake. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ S/2015 (136472) 1, a moon orbiting the dwarf planet Makemake, is discovered.
News source(s): New York Times
Credits:

Article updated
 Found5dollar (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have absolutely no understanding of the scientific process if you can say that with a straight face. However, you can say with absolute certainity that in 10 years from now nobody will remember what happened with the elections in the Equatorial Guineea. Keep fighting this honorable fight! Nergaal (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really interested in your opinion, I am. Honestly. I'm also fascinated that you attack me, but not the others who oppose your personal opinion. If I were you, I'd spend more time working on improving articles and not wasting the community's time. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2016 (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.

[Closed] Ongoing: 2015–16 protests in Brazil

[edit]
This isn't going anywhere productive. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2016 (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: 2015–16 protests in Brazil (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Ongoing nomination; blurb not applicable (Post)
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: There is no single "post now" event, but the entire sequence of events has been big local news with some international coverage as well. Further developments are almost assured too. Banedon (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose My understanding is that ongoing is for articles receiving current updates. This article isn't being edited all that heavily right now. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. The article is not being frequently updated with the daily developments. If you wish to make yourself the caretaker of the article, and make all of the recent updates, and keep it going for a few days, renominate it, and I'd support it. --Jayron32 18:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A few things - one, I don't own the article (or this nomination for that matter, so e.g. if someone says "this should point to Petrobras scandal or Impeachment process against Dilma Rousseff", I won't object to the different page. Two, I don't see ITN as a platform to advertise my work. Everything featured should be featured because of merit, not because I or anyone in particular authored it. Three, individual day-to-day updates such as "Judge questions Brazil impeachment process" (just searched via Google) may not be encyclopedic enough to enter into the article. To some people, such 'updates' may not even be interesting. Banedon (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ITN is not a platform to highlight your work. Wikipedia's main page, however, is a platform to highlight quality Wikipedia work, and each bit of it has requirements to meet. In the case of the "ongoing" part of ITN it is to highlight quality work about an ongoing story, where the work is ongoing as well. The articles you are asking to be put on ongoing do not themselves have any ongoing information being added to merit inclusion in this section. The first, last, and only criteria you should look for in a nomination is the quality of the work. All else is of secondary importance, at least insofar as substandard articles should not ever be posted to the main page. --Jayron32 00:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should not say "if you wish to make yourself the caretaker of the article ..." - your reason for opposing has nothing to do with something I (key word being "I") should or should not do to the article. Banedon (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You should really look into how conditional statements work in English. I never compelled you to do anything. Also, someone else could do the same. It doesn't have to be you. The article, however, does need to be up to standard, and this one is not. You have the ability, but not the requirement, to fix that. --Jayron32 11:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you did not wish to finger me, you could have invoked the passive voice with "if all the recent updates are made and kept going for a few days ..." instead of "if you wish to make yourself the caretaker of the article, and make all of the recent updates, and keep it going for a few days ..." (my emphasis). By using the active voice you empahasize the agent not the patient, and make it seem like it is my responsibility to update the article. If that is not your intention, conscious or not - your English needs work. Banedon (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My English teachers always taught me to avoid the passive voice. Jayron said "if you wish", not "you'd better". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My English teachers taught me that there is a time and place for passive voice. When the priority is to update the article, not who is updating it, the passive voice is preferable. And even if active voice is really essential, terms such as "anyone" or "someone" could have been used instead of "you". Don't tell me that if Jayron32 had said "if Muboshgu wishes to make himself the caretaker of the article, and make all of the recent updates, and keep it going for a few days ..." you won't think he's fingered you as responsible for it. After all, everything he's said applies to you, too. Banedon (talk) 06:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that I, nor anyone else, am not stopping you from making the requisite changes. This is a volunteer project, and I am not more important than you in that regard. You have the full freedom to choose to improve articles or not. However, substandard articles still cannot be posted to the main page, even if you don't feel like fixing it yourself. --Jayron32 03:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then oppose posting it to the main page, and don't word your oppose to make it seem like I am responsible for updating the article. Is it that hard? Banedon (talk) 06:13, 30 April 2016 (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.

[Closed] Ongoing: 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal

[edit]
No consensus. Stephen 12:13, 30 April 2016 (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: 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Ongoing nomination; blurb not applicable (Post)
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: There is no single "post now" event, but the entire sequence of events is big local news with some international coverage as well. Further developments are almost assured too. Banedon (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2016 (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.

[Closed] Indian GPS

[edit]
NOT POSTED TO ITN
No consensus to post to ITN. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Articles: Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System (talk · history · tag) and IRNSS-1G (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ ISRO successfully launches the seventh and last satellite IRNSS-1G of the Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System. (Post)
News source(s): The Hindu
Credits:

Both articles updated
 §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updater's Comments - This launch marks a historic point in the Space Research of India where India will formally join a select group of nations owning their own Navigational Satellite system . Yohannvt (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's the sixth satellite navigation system, so not that inherently remarkable, and only cover the Indian subcontinent. It isn't confirmed as operational until June, so might be worth waiting until then. Stephen 12:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Isnt it 5th? (out of 200+ countires; if we are to do math). Also it would be stale by June. It wont be available to all in one go. It would start in phases, maybe military first then government works and then for civilians. It won't be in news much at that time. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5th by most sensible measures. GPS (USA) and GLONASS (Soviet, now operated by Russia) are global, BDS (China) and Galileo (primarily EU) are partially operational and will be global, but are not finished. Japan has QZSS, which only has one satellite launched so far. France has a system called DORIS, which for some reason we include in Template:Satellite navigation systems, which isn't meant for sat-nav (it works the wrong way round) but has been used for the purposes. But given that GLONASS and Galileo are (or were) projects of international unions, it makes India only the ~50th country to be involved in a successful sat-nav system. Smurrayinchester 10:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so- it's not a manned orbital spaceflight, a launch failure, the first/last launch of a rocket type, India's first orbital launch, the launch of a space station, or the arrival of a probe at its destination. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm OK ... I originally interpreted this as ITNR since it is after all the launch of the last satellite for this system. Banedon (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Colipon This launch is not just a routine satellite launch. With this launch, India has successfully put up its complete constellation of Navigational Satellite which till date only a few countries have successfully done.Yohannvt (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IRNSS is getting more page hits multiple times than the President who routinely gets elected that we posted earlier. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per user below, I agree that had this been a launch by the EU or Russia, it would certainly not be posted on ITN. Probably would never be nominated. We should use consistent criteriaColipon+(Talk) 12:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Indophobia? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose So are we going to post the 6th, 7th, 8th such satellite networks completed as well? This appears to be the smallest, least complete system of its kind and is limited to a single region as opposed to global networks already in place. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 12:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the 6th , 7th & 8th such satellite networks when completed are put up by Developing countries without any help from an outside country, then maybe it might be worth mentioningYohannvt (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Zwerg Nase: I did not accuse other editors or even the one IP before of xenophobia because they elaborated their rationale very well. This IP's rationale was not as per our Please do not... section calling it "only regional". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Spencer: Added some generic importance of the system. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:48, 2 May 2016 (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.

April 27

[edit]
April 27, 2016 (2016-04-27) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and medicine

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Closed] RD: Liu Lianman

[edit]
No consensus. Stephen 12:11, 30 April 2016 (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: Liu Lianman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sina
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: He climbed four mountains, including the tallest Mount Everest. Very significant mountain climber apparently. George Ho (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose no evidence of significance in the field of mountain climbing - was he a guide or a teacher or a leader or mentor of any kind? Also article is very brief, lacks detail and needs to be proofread for non-native English expressions such as "first ascent of Chinese" - does that mean "first ascent by a Chinese climber"? MurielMary (talk) 09:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The first ascent of the 8ks was in mid-50s. He was part of the first team that scaled the north face of Everest, but didn't make it to the top. His other achievements in the field, the first to climb a 7.5k and one of the first Chinese to climb a 5.5k and 7.5k doesn't strike me as entirely significant in the field of mountain climbing. Fuebaey (talk) 11:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not notable. Colipon+(Talk) 12:59, 29 April 2016 (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.

[Closed] Dennis Hastert sentenced to 15 months in prison

[edit]
Consensus will not develop to post this. Stephen 12:04, 28 April 2016 (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: Dennis Hastert (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Dennis Hastert is sentenced to 15 months in prison for illegally structuring financial transactions to cover up his previous sexual abuse of children on a wrestling team he once coached. (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post New York Times BBC News
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Hastert used to be the 3rd most important person in U.S. politics, and this was a serious crime (not to mention the fact that it has been getting a lot of news coverage over a long period of time). Everymorning (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - As you say he used to be the third most important person in US politics, key words being "third most". Plenty of more locally-important people have been embroiled in scandals before, e.g. Dilma Rousseff in Brazil who is currently in danger of getting impeached, Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson of Iceland who resigned over the Panama papers, and Najib Razak in Malaysia who's come under severe pressure as a result of the 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal. All these cases dominate local news sometimes for years, they've garnered more international coverage than Dennis Hastert's case, and they have more impact on their respective countries as well. I don't see this as worth posting. Banedon (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • We posted Gunnlaugsson, agreed to wait to post Rousseff for when impeachment happens, and Razak, I assume will be nominated and posted if there's sufficient development. I was leaning oppose but I had to shoot down your false comparisons, since they have no relation to Hastert's situation beyond being in the news. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it comes to a judgement call. However Rousseff's case has literally captured the attention of the Brazilian media for months. It has placed many prominent Brazilian politicians under investigation, brought millions of protesters into the streets demanding the President's resignation, and caused the President's approval ratings to tumble into historically low points. Najib has done things like replace his auditor-general, shut down The Malaysian Insider (a newspaper), and replace his deputy prime minister Muhyiddin Yassin. The scandal continues to dominate Malaysian media, not to mention the media of neighbouring countries like Singapore. Compared to these upheavals in Brazil and Malaysia (leaving out Iceland for now) I think Hastert's case only has the advantage of there being a sudden, dramatic and natural "posting point" - on overall merit it is not worth posting. Banedon (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2016 (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.

April 26

[edit]
April 26, 2016 (2016-04-26) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Posted] RD: Harry Wu

[edit]
Article: Harry Wu (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, ABC News
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Chinese human rights advocate, founded the Laogai Research Foundation – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] National Museum of Natural History, New Delhi

[edit]
Article: National Museum of Natural History, New Delhi (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ India's National Museum of Natural History, in New Delhi, and its entire collection, are destroyed by fire. (Post)
News source(s): http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/26/massive-fire-guts-delhis-natural-history-museum
Credits:

 Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Amanullah Khan

[edit]
No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2016 (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: Amanullah Khan (JKLF) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Times of India
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Founded the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front, a major Kashmir independence organization. EternalNomad (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Significance isn't clear to me, article quality is poor. To wit: "According to him he is not an enemy of the people or the state of India or Pakistan (except Kashmir) but only of the governmental machinery which has kept his motherland under subjugation and of those politicians who deny to Kashmiris their inherent and pledged right of self-determination." – Muboshgu (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mainly on article quality, prose is poor, had no sources at all until today (even now the only two sources are obituaries). Notability-wise he was important at one point in history, but unsure if he rises to RD status. Laura Jamieson (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on both article quality and significance. MurielMary (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2016 (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] Hillsborough disaster

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Hillsborough disaster (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Following a second inquest, the jury reaches a verdict of unlawful killing in respect of the 96 victims of the Hillsborough disaster (memorial pictured) in 1989 (Post)
News source(s): (BBC) (CNN) (ABC) (CBC)
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A landmark in this long-running case. There'll probably be more controversy whatever the verdict. Mjroots (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - By all means this should be posted. This is a legal case of earth-shattering proportions within the U.K. and goes beyond the scope of a mere sports disaster. The article is quite an interesting read.--WaltCip (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as Walt puts it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppport - a comprehensive and well-written article and a subject which is going to make the headlines tomorrow. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support pending update, wait until its made public. Brandmeistertalk 20:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support pending update and improvements I found several unsourced quotes in the Controversies section, specifically under "The Sun" part. These must be fixed before posting, but the rest of the article looks fine. --MASEM (t) 22:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative oppose - I don't see how this is "a legal case of earth-shattering proportions within the U.K.". Neither the linked source nor the article explains the case's legal significance; it only appears to be the latest (final?) twist in a well-known event. Further the disaster itself is something that happened more than 25 years, i.e. a very long time, ago. Undoubtedly some of the involved people will have died in this intervening period, and much forgotten into the mists of time. A brief search for "Hillsborough disaster" on Google actually turns up items dated two weeks ago, commemorating the anniversary of the event, as opposed to this case itself. I'm also barely seeing coverage in non-UK outlets as well. Willing to change my opinion if someone can explain why this will have lasting significance, but otherwise I don't see this as worth posting. Banedon (talk) 02:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Banedon: for a start, it's the longest inquest in British legal history (BBC TV this morning). If there was an article on the inquest, then I would have nominated that article, failing that, the article on the disaster is the appropriate one to nominate. Mjroots (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I don't find that a very impressive thing; something is always going to be the longest inquest in British legal history after all (and every other country in the world has a corresponding "longest inquest"). It's like, if I started selling burgers at the top of the Burj Khalifa, I could legitimately advertise my burgers as the "highest burgers in the world" ... except who cares? It's not something to really be proud of. If being the longest inquest is the only distinguishing factor about this case, I think it's not ITN-worthy, and at best DYK. Banedon (talk) 09:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) @Banedon: I would not expect to see international coverage of this before the verdict is released (which is still an hour away), but anyway international coverage is not relevant to ITN. The Hillsborough Disaster is a major cultural issue in the UK and certainly those who were involved in any way (directly or indirectly, even as fans) have never forgotten it - in the UK support for a football team is passed down through families* along with the associated traditions of the club making for very strong institutional memories. Over 25 years after the event, sales of The Sun in Liverpool are still significantly below other parts of the country. (*I can't immediately find it, but there is a map somewhere of supporters of London football clubs that shows a pocket of support for Arsenal in the Woolwich area of south east London, despite the team moving to north London over 100 years ago in 1913). Even to someone like me, who is not a football supporter and was only 8 at the time it happened, the Hillsborough Disaster is a big thing, and news about it on this scale will be massively featured by the media. Support. Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support when updated with the verdict today especially given the unlawful killing verdict. I was going to write more in support of this but Thryduulf did it it for me above. Laura Jamieson (talk) 09:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlawful killing verdict, blurb updated. BencherliteTalk 10:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, reasons have been provided above Sherenk1 (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support actual interesting news of large importance to a notable English-speaking part of the world, and an unusual subject for ITN. Nergaal (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Tweaked the blurb to link to Hillsborough disaster#Second hearing which contains the updated information. This is a huge article and readers could easily miss it if not linked to directly. --Jayron32 15:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would have supported this because I myself find the subject matter interesting, but I am not sure I buy the arguments in favour here. It unfortunately gives the perception, prima facie, that Wikipedia to some degree still suffers from systemic bias, as an event of similar scale in other countries (let's say, a second investigation into the sinking of the Cheonan) might never get any coverage. Colipon+(Talk) 00:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing here that suggests that other investigations wouldn't be posted. Nothing at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That was not my argument. My argument was about the perception it gives to readers, and also that other stories in non-English speaking countries would (likely) never even be written about, let alone posted on ITN. In any case, it's very obvious that this case seems like a "huge deal" in the UK but really nowhere else; again this is not a reason to not post it, it's just an interesting observation. For instance this did not make it onto the headlines of the New York Times (one would have to try to locate the story or "search" for it), something of a reliable "test" for notability. Whereas Obergefell v Hodges was certainly the top story on The Guardian the day the ruling came down. Colipon+(Talk) 12:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I guess you're aware that we have numerous foreign-language Wikipedias who are almost certainly better placed to cover specific cases should that problem arise. The story is global, just because the NYT didn't carry it, that's hardly a suggestion that it's a big deal "really nowhere else". Anyway, we have the ITN rules to cover that mis-complaint. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose post-posting. Probably futile, but here goes anyway: The bulk of the impact and encyclopedic content of the this nomination relies on events from over 27 years ago. The events that have transpired recently, that gave rise to this nomination, are less so. It's not clear what an "unlawful death" ruling means in this case (something for insurance?). If new charges were brought in this case, that would be more impactful than what this nomination is about, which amounts to "we kind of reserve the right to maybe charge someone." The bringing of a second inquiry seems, based on my reading of the article, to have been arbitrary and on the whim of Attorney General. As such, what closes the possibility of having a third inquiry, and the potential nullification of this one? There's a tradition of only posting top-level judicial actions here at ITN, and it's not clear that this event is either the top level or even the last action in this case. I appreciate that the event is a cultural issue, but the nomination is not for the disaster itself, but for (what appears to me) a minor ripple in its wake.128.214.163.204 (talk) 10:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, hardly a minor ripple. It's been headline news in the UK for a couple of days now. The ruling now means that criminal action can be sought against those who were respsonsible for the unlawful killings. For 27 years, the families of 96 people have been told that it was down to the bad behaviour of drunken fans that the disaster took place. Yesterday that was completely and utterly rejected in law. This is arguably one of the most newsworthy UK legal decisions for decades, far more so than the issuing of Lucan's death certificate which we posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support. I too have got fed up of seeing this in the (UK) news almost continuously for the last ~5 years, but it's undoubtedly of major public interest. The event itself was important, albeit a long time ago, and the subsequent cover-up hugely undermined public trust in the police, which continues to be of relevance today. This verdict is a milestone in the affair and will surely lead to prosecutions. It's the best time to post the story we're going to get, so posting was a good move. Now I hope the media will let me stop hearing about it... Modest Genius talk 12:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 25

[edit]
April 25, 2016 (2016-04-25) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economics
Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

April 24

[edit]
April 24, 2016 (2016-04-24) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Posted to RD] Tommy Kono

[edit]
Article: Tommy Kono (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Hawaii News Now
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: He was one of the greatest weightlifters ever; he won 2 gold medals, was world champion for 6 years, and set 26 world records. EternalNomad (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are his records unbroken? I suggest you read Stephen J. Gould's essay on why there are no more .400 hitters in baseball. Or watch him here on the subject. Pioneers in a field tend to set all sorts of "records" that result from the statistical fact that they are first, not best. If any of his records stand, I'll change my vote. μηδείς (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't seem very fair to me. Records improve all the time, so this would imply that Usain Bolt is the only 100m sprinter worth featuring after death. 100m sprints don't have many new techniques also. Banedon (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Billy Paul

[edit]
No consensus. Stephen 23:05, 26 April 2016 (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: Billy Paul (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC News
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
 §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:20, 25 April 2016 (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] RD: Inge King

[edit]
Article: Inge King (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sydney Morning Herald
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Well Accomplished Australian Sculptor. Created well praised sculptors. Was a member of the Order of Australia. Article in good condition. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2016 London Marathon

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2016 London Marathon (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Kenyans Eliud Kipchoge (pictured) and Jemima Sumgong win the men's and women's London Marathon (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, BBC
Credits:

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: The men's race was won in a course record (and just shy of the world record), the women's race was eventful with the winner falling at about 23 miles and hitting her head - these could be reflected in the blurb if anyone can do so succinctly. I've chosen to picture the men's winner solely because that's a much better than the one we have of Sumgong (and I didn't manage to take a better one today). Thryduulf (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted to RD] Papa Wemba

[edit]
Article: Papa Wemba (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, CNN, France24
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 If Prince is given a blurb, Papa Wemba at least should be included in RD. 84.161.244.15 (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support after improvements - Notability is there, but this article is poorly referenced and entire sections are not even sourced; also too many "red links." Of course, these things would need to be fixed before I will give my unqualified support: obviously a world music star and fashion icon ("sapeur” youth culture & their adherence to La Sape). Christian Roess (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on improvements - Serious lack of sourcing through the article, absolutely needs to be fixed before posted RD. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality. Could reconsider if it's improved, but it needs a lot of work. Also, I don't see what Prince has to do with this, or why he was brought up by the nominator at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 23

[edit]
April 23, 2016 (2016-04-23) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and Technology

[Closed] Chinese censorship of Apple's iTunes, Ten Years

[edit]
No consensus. Stephen 23:14, 25 April 2016 (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: Ten Years (2015 film) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In an effort to censor the movie release of Ten Years, Chinese authorities shut down Apple's iTunes Store. (Post)
News source(s): (South China Morning Post), (The Guardian), (Sydney Morning Herald), (Bloomberg)
Credits:
 bender235 (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just the subject matter of the film? Again, it doesn't seem unusual for the Chinese government to censor materials that criticize it. 331dot (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They shut down the entire business operations in China of the largest company in the world, a service that started only a couple of months ago. The sheer proportion of measures taken to prevent this low-budget independent movie from being distributed is remarkable, almost comical. --bender235 (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I get that they are so to speak using an atom bomb to kill a fly but does it really shock anyone that they did? 331dot (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it did make news around the world (see sources above), even though I have to agree it wasn't surprising. --bender235 (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Chadian election wasn't surprising, and business as usual, but was posted. Apples and oranges, some might say. All bananas to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@InedibleHulk: Elections for head of state are ITNR. Censorship in China is not. 331dot (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
^^ This. What is ITN/Recurring should be a protracted discussion, not conducted here. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@CaradhrasAiguo: I wasn't seeking a protracted discussion nor do I seek a change in anything; just stating a fact. 331dot (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Has made the news around the world. Shutting down iTunes for an entire nation of over a billion people is major.
Depends on the nation. Censorship is China is unsurprising- and I doubt all 1 billion+ people in China were using iTunes. 331dot (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose iTunes isn't the ultimate source to get this film. Since the film from 2015, I bet it's available somewhere online at least. When Russian authorities blocked some websites which allegedly infringed copyright, multiple bypasses were made, including URL changes. Brandmeistertalk 16:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - As noted by others, censorship of Western media in China is nothing new. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Business as usual when it comes to Chinese censorship. Also the blurb is not entirely true - none of the sources explicitly link the film to the shutdown and it doesn't say iTunes is completely down, only that book and film services are unavailable. Fuebaey (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Read SCMP source above. --bender235 (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you and I have different definitions of the term "explicit". I read it and the SMH article, both of which mention the film. What it doesn't do is synthesise:
Chinese authorities block access to Apple's iBooks and iTunes movies, shortly before film is released onto platform.
into what is written in the blurb. We don't ascribe speculation as motive without a reliable source stating so. Neither news source states: authorities censor Apple due to film. Fuebaey (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2016 (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] RD: Banharn Silpa-archa

[edit]
Article: Banharn Silpa-archa (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Bangkok Post
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Former PM, leader of Thai Nation Party. EternalNomad (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 22

[edit]
April 22, 2016 (2016-04-22) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economics

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology
Sport

[Posted] Discovery of Amazon reef

[edit]
Article: Amazon Reef (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Oceanographers discover an extensive reef system near the Amazon River, estimated to span an area of 3,600 square miles (9,300 km2). (Post)
News source(s): The Atlantic, The Guardian, Los Angeles Times, Phys.org, CNN
Credits:

Nominator's comments: A significant find in the oceanographic and ecological community; one of the largest coral/sponge reef systems in the the world, larger than the Belize Barrier Reef, recently discovered near the mouth of the Amazon River, where it was unexpected that such a reef would even exist, let alone thrive. Philip Terry Graham 22:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Withdrawn] Quantum tunneling of water

[edit]
WITHDRAWN...:

...by nominator. --George Ho (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

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: Quantum tunneling of water (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Scientists discover the quantum tunneling of water molecules. (Post)
News source(s): Phys. Rev. Letters, Phys.org
Credits:
Nominator's comments: According to one researcher, "This discovery represents a new fundamental understanding of the behavior of water and the way water utilizes energy". We haven't had science news for a while. Brandmeistertalk 16:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose It is good science news, but it's very difficult to tell what this result will lead to immediately (understanding that carbon nanotubes and water flow within them is a very potent area for tech improvements). It is not like, say, the Higgs-Bosen discovery where there was already a theory this would exist and the results were to confirm it. --MASEM (t) 17:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a comment on that - Higgs discovery has no practical applications either, and the theory governing quantum tunneling (i.e. quantum mechanics) is better grounded than the theory governing the Higgs Boson (which admittedly is very well grounded as well). In fact the Standard Model is built on Quantum Mechanics. With that said, I personally find this discovery to be rather dull as far as discoveries go, and the sources linked in both this nomination and the target article don't do anything to change my mind. Banedon (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Interesting but doesn't seem to be in the news. Andrew D. (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2016 (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.

[Closed] Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2016

[edit]
Consensus against posting. Feel free to renom in three weeks for ITN/R. Fuebaey (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2016 (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: Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2016 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Romania is expelled from Eurovision Song Contest 2016 after its national broadcaster, Romanian Television failed to pay outstanding debts. (Post)
News source(s): BBC Telegraph Sky News
Credits:
Nominator's comments: It is an unprecedented decision in the history of Eurovision. EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 06:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. How this contest chooses its competitors isn't ITN worthy; as I understand it while some countries participate all the time it is not unusual for a country to not do so one year. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is a rare happening. And has had major implications. A suggestion could be to change the blurb to reflect that Romania was expelled from the EBU.BabbaQ (talk) 12:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reporting, though, seems to be focused on the contest. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2016 (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] Chadian presidential election

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Chadian presidential election, 2016 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Idriss Déby (pictured) is elected to a fifth term as President of Chad. (Post)
News source(s): BBC News, NYT, Reuters
Credits:

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: 25-year incumbent remains in power. Results came out last Thursday. Fuebaey (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The landslide seems to have been a foregone conclusion. Business continues as usual there. He's beaten the same guy three times now. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think despite the predictable outcome this should still be posted; this has gotten some degree of news coverage, perhaps due to the alleged irregularities and the fact he is viewed by the West as "a bulwark against Islamist militants in central Africa" according to the BBC. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • support - a presidential election is notable.BabbaQ (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While this is almost at the point where this specific ITNR is small and unexpected, the questions around the election make it significant enough to post still. Article seems ready. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What questions? If they're significant, they should be made clear in the article first. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They are there - under the Conduct section. What's there explains why this wasn't simply a run-of-the-mill election with well-predicted results. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the implied significant question is "What didn't the government want the media to see?", that might be good to note in the blurb (and flesh out in the article). Otherwise, I'm not sure the average reader is going to recognize that as the point. Mainly appears to have been a fair contest with relatively low viewership ending in a clean sweep for an incumbent who will carry on as usual. Andrey Koreshkov also gets some degree of news coverage for that (or Jon Jones, at an AP level). It may seem odd to hold a president and champion to the same standard, but it's also a bit odd to paint this president with the same "inherently notable" brush we use for G20 leaders. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 21

[edit]
April 21, 2016 (2016-04-21) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents
  • More than 100 are feared dead in an early summer heatwave in India which has forced the closure of schools. (Reuters)
  • At least 24 people are killed, 136 others injured, and eight workers still missing from yesterday's blast at the major Clorados 3 petrochemical plant of Petroquimica Mexicana de Vinilo. Nineteen people remain hospitalized, with 13 in serious condition. The plant is run by Mexichem under agreement with Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex), the national petrochemical company, in Coatzacoalcos, Veracruz, Mexico, on the country's southern Gulf of Mexico coast. Pemex had an earlier fire at the same facility in February 2016 that killed one worker; also that month, an offshore Pemex Gulf platform fire killed two and injured eight. (Reuters) (AP)
  • At least two people are killed after an oceanfront stretch of an elevated bike lane in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, collapses when it was hit by a strong wave. Two other people were rescued alive, while another may be missing. The bike lane was among the projects built in preparation for the 2016 Summer Olympics. No Olympic event will be held on the path. (AP) (AP² via CBS News) (Hindustan Times)

International relations

Law and crime
  • Crime in El Salvador
    • The government of El Salvador unveils and deploys a new heavily armed special forces unit to fight criminal gangs in rural areas of the country. Officials say it will target gang leaders who left the cities because of a government crackdown. (BBC)
  • Six high ranking Pakistan Army officers, including a lieutenant-general and major-general, are sacked by Chief of Army Staff Raheel Sharif amid corruption allegations within the army. Sharif said corruption had to be uprooted to fight terrorism. (BBC)

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sport

[Posted to RD]: Lonnie Mack

[edit]
Article: Lonnie Mack (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: RD has been busy for the past couple days, but the article seems to make a strong case for his importance as a guitarist and in Americana music. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Ferenc Paragi

[edit]
No consensus. Stephen 23:05, 25 April 2016 (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: Ferenc Paragi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): IAAF
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: One of the best javelin throwers in the world in the late 1970s and early 1980s; he held the world record for 3 years, and won the national championship 5 times, although his results in the Olympics were somewhat disappointing. EternalNomad (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - Part of it is the article quality, but that leads to being unsure how important this athlete is just from what we cover about him. The lack of news of his death beyond the IAAF that I can presently find is a bit worrisome. --MASEM (t) 01:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
support pending improvements. Clearly top of his field...and no mean featLihaas (talk) 06:28, 22 April 2016 (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] Prince

[edit]
Article: Prince (musician) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  American singer, songwriter, and producer Prince is found dead at the age of 57 (Post)
News source(s): Telegraph, Billboard, TMZ, Daily Mail, Entertainment Weekly, BBC
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Major singer, with multiple hits over the years Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

support RD social media is going mad too
as for his page, watch out that we don't link to a page that's got "Sorry, the servers are overloaded at the moment. / Too many users are trying to view this page. Please wait a while before you try to access this page again. / Pool queue is full"Lihaas (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious support. - one of the all time icons. Sceptre (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb - in this instance I feel this goes beyond just RD; the article is good and detailed and the impact is significant given his relative early age and that he was still working in his field. Pedro :  Chat  17:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment I'm fixing a few CNs now as time permits, but they don't seem bad enough to justify pulling the article in this particular case as the vast majority of the article is in good shape. TheBlinkster (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Chyna

[edit]
Article: Chyna (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Post
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Pioneer in wrestling. First female to participate in various matches, former champion at various levels. Well known in and out of the wrestling world. Thechased (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not because she's famous, it's because she's a woman. Piper was damn famous. That's my guess, anyway. And no, I'm not complaining. About time wrestlers got some promptness! InedibleHulk (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, reviewing the RDs in question, it appears more that this article at the ITN nomination point, was in good shape , while all the other mentioned examples had dubious article qualities that took time to work through or were never sufficiently improved upon. This reflects that ITN is meant to highlight quality rather than straight-up importance. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could be. But Prince just made this posting look relatively plodding, and that article is fairly unsourced, as of now. He also wasn't your traditional woman. Certainly tabloid famous. It's probably a complex mix of things, as most things are. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Scorpion0422: See Apophenia for the explanation for your problem. To wit: You're attempt to assign agency (and thus blame) for a result you didn't like, when the real reason is random, unconnected events which have nothing to do with each other. There is no grand plan for ITN, and no set of standards beyond "whoever shows up that day to nominate and/or vote on and/or promote an article". The fact that one particular article gets posted in a timely manner and another does not has nothing at all to do with anything you are saying it does. There is no reason why Roddy Piper took a long time to post and this one got posted quickly. You're brain is seeking out patterns in the randomness. Those patterns don't exist. There is no reason, and thus, nothing broken we need to fix. --Jayron32 19:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I suppose this has nothing at all to do with your hatred of rock? All part of the same system, man. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Seriously though, randomania is running fairly wild, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't remove your text, sometimes the system glitches and when two people post near simultaneously, instead of generating an edit conflict, it removes the text from the slightly earlier post. If this happens again, tell me, and I'll fix it myself. The second poster has no awareness of the glitch even happening, so cannot be blamed. If this happens again, either fix it yourself, or directly ask the person whom you conflicted with, and they can fix it for you. Help:Edit conflict notes that sometimes the system misses the edit conflict warning. There are lots of known bugs in the system; if you wish you can report this one, but this is common enough that I'm sure the devs are aware. More importantly, when you have a problem with something I do, don't leave hidden messages at random places around Wikipedia hoping I'll trip over them. Come to my talk page, speak in plain language, tell me of the problem, and I'll fix it. There was no need to involve anyone else in this technical glitch. --Jayron32 19:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Already fixed. I've done it before, too. Just figured it odd enough for a small note. Sorry for wasting your time. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed the point Jayron. It's quite simple: Chyna was a somewhat famous wrestler at a time when wrestling was very mainstream and her name was kept in the news thanks to various tabloid-esque exploits. This got posted quickly based on name recognition alone and not any of the notability criteria. The three names I mentioned are considerably more influential and none were posted because they lacked the tabloid presence of Chyna. One user even opposed one of the nominations because they had never heard of the individual. This goes beyond wrestling: notable individuals who have been retired or inactive for decades get ignored because their deaths don't get much coverage. Chyna gets posted immediately because she gets twitter coverage. Dusty Rhodes was an exception: his was torpedoed because of the tried and true "I don't want this posted so I'll waste time with quality complaints then ignore the responses until too much time has passed" method. -- Scorpion0422 20:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this despite having never heard of Chyna before today. I simply saw a nomination that was marked as ready, and had a clear consensus support for both notability and article quality. I had a look at the article and saw no reason there not to post, and so I updated the ITN template. There is no hidden agenda - I would have acted the same had it been anyone else's nomination I happened to be the first to see.
The only thing you can do to make the sort of people you think ought to be on ITN have a smoother, quicker ride here is to spend time making sure their articles are of good quality before they get nominated. Thryduulf (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. The words "pioneer", "trailblazer" and "opened the door" are getting thrown around a lot, but it's been fifteen years since she "made it known that women can compete and defeat men in wrestling" amd "inspired a generation of women to do the same", and nobody's come close since. WWE doesn't even let women wrestle men in video games today.
She was exceptional and extraordinary, but that's about it, as far as my voting agenda went. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Scorpion0422: It's quite telling that, instead of listening to what others actually say, you ascribe motive (and nefarious motives at that) to people whom you've barely met, and who's inner thoughts you have no way of reading. I'm not sure that doing so is a proper way to conduct business here, and when you do so, it makes others not want to listen to you. --Jayron32 10:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this straight: Scripted-wrestling woman, not really known (other than tabloid fodder and a porn-mag appearance) outside of wrestling fan base, gets an RD - while Doris Roberts, an actress that entertained millions over several decades is (in the same week) slowly deliberated down to an RD no-go? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.184.203.229 (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She's lucky. Choppers, the last surviving member of the chimp family that made PG Tips the best goddamn tea in Britain, couldn't even catch a mere Deaths in 2016 nod. But Felix Simoneaux Jr. lives for 110 American years and they're all over him. Mysterious ways. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 20

[edit]
April 20, 2016 (2016-04-20) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economics

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Posted to RD]: Leonie Kramer

[edit]
Article: Leonie Kramer (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sydney Morning Herald‎
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Dame of the Order of the British Empire and Companion of the Order of Australia. First woman chancellor of University of Sydney and as per our article first female professor of English in Australia. Also voted in the Australian National Living Treasures. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf and Masem: I have cleaned up the article. Please have a look. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep that is much better. If I was reviewing for GA though I'd prefer fewer than the current 9 uses of "she was", but that's not a barrier to an RD listing. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree these improvements are sufficient for ITN posting. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Harriet Tubman to appear on the US $20 bill

[edit]
Consensus against. BencherliteTalk 23:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Articles: Harriet Tubman (talk · history · tag) and United States twenty-dollar bill (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The US Treasury announces that Harriet Tubman will be the first woman to appear on US currency. (Post)
News source(s): https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/20/u-s-to-keep-hamilton-on-front-of-10-bill-put-portrait-of-harriet-tubman-on-20-bill/ http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-04-20/treasury-picks-tubman-for-20-bill-hamilton-to-stay-on-10
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Tubman will be the first real woman to appear on US currency, i.e. not Lady Liberty. I believe this is notable because many other large nations have had women on their currency and therefore this is notable. Plus there's the fact that US currency is accepted/used many places outside the US. Dismas
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] RD: Victoria Wood

[edit]
Article: Victoria Wood (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: One of the biggest names in British comedy and won buckets of awards - one sign of her notability was that almost everything she starred in had her name in the title. Smurrayinchester 14:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 19

[edit]
April 19, 2016 (2016-04-19) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Close] RD:Walter Kohn

[edit]
Stale. Stephen 02:13, 23 April 2016 (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.

Proposed image
Article: Walter Kohn (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): RSC Obituary The Nation
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Nobel prize-winning chemist who was one of the founders of density functional theory (DFT). He died on the 19th but the news only emerged on the 22nd. Modest Genius talk 13:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with improvements The only major problem is an entire unsourced section labelled "Scientist with a great following" which is clearly subjective (not necessary false) and needs sourcing. There's some areas of weaker sourcing elsewhere in it but far from a major problem. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with this assessment and I will Support too, but only after improvements, specifically the citations and sourcing. Just went throughout the article and I will make improvements during the next day, if possible. (Ie., the obituary at legacy.com no longer links to Kohn). I'll also be checking for an obituary from a mainstream media outlet. Christian Roess (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure Seems to have been a fairly big deal in theoretical physics, but that's a small pond. Have density functional theory or the many-body problem had any practical ramifications affecting the Average Joe? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hugely. DFT is a workhorse technique used throughout physical chemistry and biochemistry. Applications include drug design, semiconductors, novel materials, spectroscopy, protein folding etc. That might not sound like much, but those techniques underlie everything from medicines to computers to aircraft materials. Modest Genius talk 14:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Besides what Modest Genius says, we should not be trying to second-guess the practicality of research that earned one a Nobel prize; the key is that that prize represents importance in the field of chemistry (in this case) so that's the line we need to judge, not how much they touch everyday life (unless we were asking for a blurb, that would be different). --MASEM (t) 14:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, Support. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2016 (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 to RD] RD: Estelle Balet

[edit]
Article: Estelle Balet (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: World champion snowboarder killed at the age of 21. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually you're right. I now realize that she was the youngest Freeride World Tour champion, and the article has been expanded a bit. Changing my vote to Support, once the citation tags are fixed. -Zanhe (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Twice world champion, youngest ever world champion. Article taking shape nicely now. Mjroots (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a quick check on Google News sees this individual's death being reported prominently in the UK, the US, Canada, Spain, Poland, France, Switzerland, Italy, Germany, Romania, Sweden, Peru, Norway and Macedonia, to name a few. I think the newsworthiness and notability is thus asserted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – I agree with Muboshgu's take on this issue (above): why wasn't there a Wikipedia article for this skier before her death? If her accomplishment(s) in this sport were noteworthy, there would've been an article (or a stub at least) before her death. IMO (this is only my opinion) this woman was stunning in every detail: stunning in her daring, her talent, her moxie, stunning in her physical appearance and beauty. And now stunning, too, is the manner of her horrific death. The media is grasping at every stunning and sensational detail for the sake of spectacle and to sell copy (or "click bait" as it's called now). When it comes to a RD, spectacle and sensation should not be the over-riding detail that makes their recent death noteworthy and newsworthy. If it is the over-riding detail for why the death is being reported then it isn't ITN-worthy.– Christian Roess (talk)
    It's not. The reason for the death being reported globally is that she was a double-world-champion and was killed skiing aged 21. Your personal analysis is fascinating, but the objective answer is obvious, hence why it is making headlines around the world, with or without "stunning and sensational detail" (which I haven't seen anywhere). And if you agree with Muboshgu's take, then you should be supporting. How odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    TRM is right, she was known for her achievements in sports, her death is sad but has not been sensationalized at all. Christian Roess seems to have strong opinions about her, but that is POV and not guideline based. I also do not see any relevance to Estelle being beautiful and her article not being ITN worthy. That I created her article today after her death is purely coincidental, had I known more about her before that I would have created her article earlier. So that is no indicator for ITN either, a person can be notable and have their article created the same day as the ITN nom. BabbaQ (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's be clear, Christian Roess: it gave me pause, but didn't prevent me from supporting the nom. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    ok TRM and BabbaQ, and Muboshgu (so noted, thanks): you all make valid points, and if there's more input later making a strong case for support, I'd be willing to drop my "oppose" (but at this point I can't see changing it to "support"). But once again I did stress the point above:"IMO (this only my opinion)" because obviously my own opinion is not a criteria for judging whether or not an RD is ITN-worthy. I won't support for two reasons: (1) her fame is in a niche sport; and (2) there was no Estelle Balet wikipedia article before her death. Christian Roess (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    After considering the issue, I have to agree with Mamyles' opinion below that the lack of an article is more a sign of how Wikipedia is incomplete, than that she's not notable or RD material. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Given that snowboarding is a well-known sport (at least in the US), and she is at the top of the field for snowboarding, she meets the RD criteria. The lack of an article only goes to show how incomplete our encyclopedia is, and itself has no bearing on notability. Mamyles (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional "oppose" given that I have classified the article as a stub with only a few lines of text. Have seem articles with more information than hers knocked back on quality grounds. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your classification is wrong as it is not a stub anymore. The stub template was removed.BabbaQ (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. It's 992 B of prose. If it's not long enough for DYK (which has a 1500 minimum), how can we think of it as anything other than a stub? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My general rule of thumb is that there must be roughly a page of text not including lists, refs etc. I will have a look at it again and further discussion should be on her talk page. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've marked it as start class. There is an infobox, an image and the article has structure. It is clearly not a stub, and wasn't a stub when you marked it as one, Captialistroadster. Mjroots (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even if there had been an article, it would never have been a full blurb. Never.Correctron (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Patricio Aylwin

[edit]
Stale. Stephen 02:11, 23 April 2016 (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: Patricio Aylwin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: First democratically elected president of Chile after Pinochet. Brandmeistertalk 16:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a Chilean who was never his supporter, I think he is a most remarkable figure in local (and maybe Latin American) history. He is one of the few politicians who remained active all the way from the sixties to the begining of this century, playing a leading, conciliatory role all the time (in several difficult episodes of our history). I think that role raises him above all of his successors as President of Chile. Even his change of mind about the coup d'etat, which I consider one of his biggest faults (among others I disagree with) -at first a supporter, then denying even having supported, there are videos of that on YouTube-, in some way reflects a massive cultural change in society.
I really, really regret not having time for proper research, as well as being so young not to remember more. (I was 12 at the end of his term, and most I know I have learnt afterwards) 200.9.73.104 (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2016 (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] 2016 Kabul attack

[edit]
Article: 2016 Kabul attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 28 people are killed and more than 320 injured in an attack in Kabul, Afghanistan. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

 The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made the article actually. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 09:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Ongoing: Mediterranean refugee drowning

[edit]
No article or update, and no consensus for ongoing. Stephen 01:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Articles: European migrant crisis (talk · history · tag) and List of migrant vessel incidents on the Mediterranean Sea (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 400 refugees die due to drowning in Mediterranean Sea. (Post)
News source(s): Multiple
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Number of deaths are high and is an international news of an on going issue. -The Herald (Benison) • the joy of the LORDmy strength 06:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose we should have an article on this, there are many similar ones which can be used as a starting point, e.g. 2013 Lampedusa migrant shipwreck. We also have List of migrant vessel incidents on the Mediterranean Sea as opposed to the one you have redlinked. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose an nominated. Neither of the articles in the nom are updated, and while 400 feared dead is a lot, it is not unprecedented: see AP report of 15.04.2015 for example. I don't know why on going is bolded in the nomination, but if it's the nomintor's intention to re-introduce the EU migrant crisis to Ongoing, then the nomination should be changed to reflect that. As it is, there's no way forward for this as a stand alone ITN entry.128.214.53.18 (talk) 10:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for ongoing - ongoing is for developing stories that change over the course of weeks, not multiple discrete events in a larger narrative. As a comparison - there are about a dozen major ongoing wars at the moment, and sometimes we post battles and massacres from these. However, we don't add all these wars to ongoing. Can't weigh in on anything else until there's an article, but would certainly be newsworthy. Smurrayinchester 11:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ongoing but Support if nominated as a stand-alone – Ongoing is primary used for when events fall off the main ticker but retain substantial notability. The ship incidents specifically are haphazard in nature and occur at random; events that are continuous close-to are much preferred. The migrant crisis was removed from ongoing by consensus on March 29 for reference. However, the stand-alone disaster is most certainly notable if hundreds did indeed drown. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 12:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ongoing (just because the migrant crisis is not listed doesn't mean its not still news), but would support this specific incident should there be an article on it. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait – Ditto. Details haven't been confirmed. The BBC's Arabic service on Monday reported 400 drowned, and this was picked up by other media, but a spokesman for the International Organization for Migration, Flavio Di Giacomo, Tuesday was quoted as saying, "It's really a mystery. We can neither confirm nor deny that [such an] accident occurred." Sca (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Sca. Ignoring the fact that there is no update, and while horrific if confirmed, there are no reliable sources for the number in the blurb. That is a basic tenant for inclusion, even for ITN. We don't post speculation. Fuebaey (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait per Sca. Details are too scarce at the moment. -Zanhe (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update – On Wednesday, two sources, AP and NYT, said up to 500 "were feared dead" or "may have died" in this still unconfirmed disaster. Seems we should continue to wait for confirmation. Sca (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering past stories like the Malaysian Airlines flight or the upturned ship in the Chinese river, that we posted on the assurance that something very bad had happened but unsure on the fate of all aboard, I think this is a reasonable point to say something has happened. That a boat with 500+ immigrants on it sunk seems to be story coming from 41 survivors, and the problem is that if this was an illegal immigration move, its unlikely anyone is going to step up to help the investigation. The reports from authorities all seem to be working on the side of caution, that there is a sunken boat, but they just haven't been able to find it or necessarily what to look for. So this might be a reasonable point to post. --MASEM (t) 00:49, 21 April 2016 (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.

[Closed] Historic flooding in Chile and Texas

[edit]
No consensus. Stephen 01:51, 23 April 2016 (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: ? (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Severe flooding kills 8 people and prompts more than 1,800 high-water rescues across the Houston Metropolitan Area in Texas (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Credits:
Nominator's comments: 4 million people are without tap water in the capital of Chile due to flooding and the capital's entire 7+ million population is under "red alert" for dirty water. The world's biggest copper mine is shut down. Also, Mother Nature sends a freak thunderstorm to cripple Houston with flood at the same time just because it can. With its 2nd rainiest day in history happening in half a day despite the frequent hurricanes and lack of any tropical weather this time. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Impact section in the target article could definitely use some more expansion. SpencerT♦C 04:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sort of historic, in the context of a normally-drier-in-April region (which was wetter in June 1989). Pretty mundane, as far as disasters in general go. Eight people die of other related events in Houston every day, and 744 houses is under 1% of those in the area. Schools suspend classes for two days every Friday. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still opposed. The Houston Flooding article wasn't expanded, it was merged into Mid-April 2016 United States storm complex, which still contains basically one line of usable text on the Houston floods, which still means the content we're directing readers to is functionally identical to the blurb we'd be posting. It's nicer than the original stub article, since it provides meteorological background, but the Houston floods have been a major news story for a while now, there's plenty of source text out there that needs to be incorporated regarding the impact, which this article is lacking. --Jayron32 15:48, 22 April 2016 (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.

April 18

[edit]
April 18, 2016 (2016-04-18) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economics

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

[Closed] RD: Doris Roberts

[edit]
No consensus. Stephen 23:18, 19 April 2016 (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: Doris Roberts (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): news is only breaking Emmyvinnaren Doris Roberts, 90, är död 2016 Superbowl
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Quintessential NYC character actress, international press re reath, multiple awards from 1950's to present, five Emmy and Screen Actors Guild μηδείς (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - She won five awards for just two roles, most four of them for Everybody Loves Raymond. She was just an actress with major supporting roles. Also, as for SAG Awards, she didn't win individual entities; she won as part of the cast ensemble of the well-known sitcom. Also, article is poor, but the point is her significance in her field. She doesn't meet the standards. George Ho (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as nom. Well, let's agree here, I too hated "Everyone loves Raymond" but Robert's career spans 1951 to the present, and even in such films as 1971's A New Leaf she played a pivotal role. I'd really hold off on the, I didn't like her most recent show opposes, and do some real research, like looking at her 1970's roles. If you are not American, it is very likely she is one of the key personas to have formed your idea of what it is like to be an American. 00:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
This was Medeis editing, but not signing properly, just so that everybody keeps track of things. Fgf10 (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest you read her article, as she has 35 roles in blue-linked Hollywood movies, not to mention her 1980 Remington Steele and 2000's Everyone Loves Raymond TV episodes. But most Americans knew her from the early 70's, long before these roles. μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I read it. She had a long career, but that in and of itself isn't sufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2016 (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] Boston Marathon

[edit]
Article: 2016 Boston Marathon (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Ethiopians Lemi Berhanu Hayle and Atsede Baysa win the Boston Marathon. (Post)
News source(s): CNN, ESPN, NYT
Credits:

Article needs updating
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: Is a stub, needs a race summary. Fuebaey (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The male winner is? The female winner is? Did they come #1 and #2?Correctron (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe that it's common sense that how the current blurb is worded is standard form for this result, implicitly stating that the first name is the winning male runner, and the second the winning female runner. I don't think clarification is needed on this given the expect result from the sport, but it also can't hurt to add "..win the men's and women's Boston Marathon, respectively." --MASEM (t) 23:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it "common sense" that the male winner would be listed first? For that matter, why do we almost invariably list the male winner before the female one in events featuring both? There does not seem to be any good reason for this practice, which could be regarded as reflecting systemic bias. Neljack (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a universal system bias, across sports and other accolades too (Oscars, Emmys, Grammys). And arguable for the marathon, the men's winning time was better than the women's. By all means, let's identify who was who, but I don't think this is necessary a systematic bias that WP readily can fix - one of the two needs to be stated first and its near universe that the men's result is the highlighted one. --MASEM (t) 01:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, you've just summed up the problem nicely: "the men's result is the highlighted one." That fact that the systemic bias exists elsewhere is not a reason for us, in exercising our editorial judgement on blurbs here, to perpetuate it. Now none of this says that the women's winner must be listed first here, but we should not automatically assume that we should always list the men's winner first. Perhaps, as you suggest, there is good reason for listing the men's winner first here on the basis of winning time (though I have some doubts about this), but there are other events where you could give reasons for listing the women's event first (e.g. women's finals occur first in tennis grand slams). Neljack (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Polio vaccine

[edit]
An interim technical step on the road to complete eradication. Stephen 23:16, 19 April 2016 (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: Poliomyelitis_eradication#2016 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ As a result of eradication of type 2 Poliovirus, the World Health Organization switches to a new Polio vaccine. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ After eradicating the type 2 Poliovirus, the World Health Organization moves to the next stage with a new Polio vaccine.
News source(s): BBC, PGEI
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Type 2 was reported eradicated in Sept 2015, and the WHO removed one of the 3 strands to decrease the vaccine-derived infections. I am guessing polio will not be declared eradicated for another 2 years so posting this intermediate development should be ok. Feel free to propose a better blurb. Nergaal (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think it's the eradication of polio 2 back in 2015 that was postable (don't remember whether it was posted). The transition to a new vaccine looks like a technical formality after that, like election and inauguration (aside from giving an impression of vaccine advertisement on WP). Brandmeistertalk 19:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Suggesting an alt blurb, the first blurb sounds as if the first vaccine failed and they are trying another. (Let's just hope I understood the nom's comment correctly, the blurb was a bit fuzzy.) w.carter-Talk 19:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I like sciency news. Even a partial victory against polio seems very important to me, much more so than various inconsequential elections and sport events. Thue (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment whether this is in the news or not, neither blurb really gives our readers a clear indication as to the significance of "switching to a new vaccine" or "moving to the next stage" (whatever that is). Why is this actually important to our readers? Is the new vaccine better but less potent? Is it cheaper? What is the actual story? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Read my comment for the description. Feel free to propose an adequate blurb. Nergaal (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did, the point is our readers won't have the luxury of your magnificent prose to assist them in understanding the significance of this. Feel free to propose a blurb which helps them understand. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Roughly would belike us noting each new flavour of flu vaccine, alas. Collect (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For one thing, the entirety of the update is "Because cVDPV2 strains continue to arise from the trivalent oral vaccine that includes attenuated WPV2, between 17 April and 1 May 2016 this vaccine will be replaced with a bivalent version lacking WPV2 as well as trivalent injected inactivated vaccine that cannot lead to cVDPV cases. This is expected to prevent new strains of cVDPV2 and allow eventual cessation of WPV2 vaccination." To the general reader, this is just gibberish. To be worthy of posting on the front page, there needs to be at least some explanation of this actually means. Smurrayinchester 08:23, 19 April 2016 (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.

[Closed] Democracy Spring arrests

[edit]
No consensus. Stephen 23:14, 19 April 2016 (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: Democracy Spring (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ 900+ arrests are reported in the past week during the Democracy Spring protests at the United States Capitol (Post)
News source(s): USA Today, Democracy Now!
Credits:

Article updated
 Nominator's comments: Since today (Monday 18 April) is the final day scheduled for protests, there may be more arrests reported. Also of note, but perhaps not very reliable because it's not reported in the mainstream media→(Ie., here Vice.com), is that the organizers of the event are stating that the 85 arrests made on April 12 is "an all-time record for a mass arrest at the Capitol Building." Although the latter is not especially ITN-worthy in itself (and it is hard to verify at this point), it's worth mentioning because, IMO, it highlights that this story is worth keeping an eye on in the coming day(s) as a future ITN candidate. Christian Roess (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong on the second count and nothing more than WP:OR. What criteria the infotainment U.S. MSM uses to select breaking stories (or to even report on them at all) is both meaningless to anyone with a critical eye and irrelevant to this discussion. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respectfully, the notability of this item as judged by ITN criteria is entirely subjective. I am putting in my opinion that this bunch of arrests does not meet the notability criterion. Mamyles (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent point as they did indeed plan on getting arrested as a signature they quite purposefully (and overtly) wanted to place on this event; except that I would hardly characterize 900 people (and the Capitol police are verifying numbers close to this) as only just a "bunch" of people, whether they wanted to get arrested, or not. – Christian Roess (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose per Mamyles; this is exactly what was intended, and news coverage seems minimal. It's unlikely this will influence any policies. If things change I would be willing to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A mere indication of a ripple of disquiet and nothing more. Thousands of people are arrested every day for protesting against things, this just happens to be in America, the only surprise is that none of them have been shot yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2016 (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.

[Closed] Mehmet Kaplan resigns

[edit]
No consensus. Stephen 00:33, 19 April 2016 (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: Mehmet Kaplan (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Minister for Housing and Urban Development in Sweden Mehmet Kaplan resigns after making comments about Israel, and association with Turkish extremists. (Post)
News source(s): [8], [9]
Credits:

Article updated
 --BabbaQ (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I oppose the posting, there is no need to get rude. It is newsworthy in Sweden since Kaplan was the first Muslim minister in Sweden, also in charge of housing. With over 160,000 refugees (most Muslims) seeking asylum in Sweden last year, any story involving the words "Muslims", "housing" and "government official" is incendiary here. w.carter-Talk 21:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TRM post these kind of comments to get attention.. you just gave him that attention..BabbaQ (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's on the house. :) I'll be here all week, remember to tip your waiter on the way out. w.carter-Talk 21:40, 18 April 2016 (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.

April 17

[edit]
April 17, 2016 (2016-04-17) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations
Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Closed] Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff

[edit]
Consensus is to wait until the Senate vote in early May. Stephen 00:31, 19 April 2016 (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.

Proposed image
Article: Impeachment process against Dilma Rousseff (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Brazilian Chamber of Deputies votes to impeach President Dilma Rousseff (pictured). (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Brazilian Chamber of Deputies votes to open the impeachment process against President Dilma Rousseff (pictured).
News source(s): BBC News, CNN, NYT
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: This has been simmering for a while. Protests over political corruption in Brazil have led to the lower house voting on whether to remove the head of state/gov. If this passes, Rousseff could be suspended for up to six months, missing the entirety of the Summer Olympic/Paralympic Games in Rio. The article is poorly translated and formatted, but I'm working on addressing that over the next few hours. Any help in copyediting is appreciated. Fuebaey (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was pretty fast. Banedon (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of notes: the article is still pretty terrible right now (the first half has been copyedited, but the second still reads badly). That said, I'm of opinion this should be posted even if she were not impeached. Banedon (talk) 06:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon my bias; the Senate also needs to vote on holding a trial. We should wait until that occurs. 331dot (talk) 08:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've stripped the "[ready]" tag off. As it stands, this blurb is misleading as several commenters have said above. Rousseff has not yet been impeached - one of two houses has voted for impeachment, but until the Senate votes nothing happens. Smurrayinchester 09:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question/Comment I would just like to point out that under wikipedia's article on impeachment it says Dilma has been impeached, and it says impeachment is only the process of removing someone from office and not necessarily the outcome. Brian Everlasting (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Impeachment proceedings don't begin until the Senate votes, as far as I can tell. Smurrayinchester 12:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. As NYT says in second paragraph, the Senate will vote on whether to hold an impreachment trial of Rousseff, and "that vote is expected to take place next month." See you in May. Sca (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "to impeach" is analogous to "indict" when applied to a sitting head of state, and upon conviction (using US terms) she'd be removed. It's absurd to think we would not have posted Bill Clinton's or Alexander Johnson's impeachments, or Richard Nixon's, had the last occurred. Not to post Rousseff's is like saying, "Well this sort of thing is expected in banana republics." I'd prefer we respect the importance of Brazil on the world stage. μηδείς (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But she hasn't been indicted yet - Senate needs to confirm. Smurrayinchester 14:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Sca (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Sca (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support iff the article is expanded with a section describing what are the following steps. This development is notable enough but the article does not explain the next steps very well. Nergaal (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2016 (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] Ecuador earthquake

[edit]
Posted, won't be merged. Stephen 23:43, 17 April 2016 (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: 2016 Ecuador earthquake (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A magnitude 7.8 earthquake hits Ecuador, killing at least 77. (Post)
News source(s): ABCCNN
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: It is still early, but pretty sure this is going to be important. Dragons flight (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
propose merge link the two under the Ring of Fire area.Lihaas (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose merging blurbs. The two events may be connected by the ring of fire, but the ring of fire is not in the news and the mainstream media are focusing on these quakes as separate events. Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merging blurbs – Completely separate events on opposite sides of the Pacific Ocean that have no connection aside from both being earthquake events. Merging them doesn't help readers at all. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 13:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge of unconected events. Mjroots (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article is gross and with 2 sectional orange tags (and they aint mine either).Lihaas (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2016 (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.

April 16

[edit]
April 16, 2016 (2016-04-16) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents
International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Posted to RD] RD: Bill Gray

[edit]
Article: William M. Gray (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Eulogy from CSU, Obituary, WaPost
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: A giant in the field of meteorology, especially with tropical cyclones, Dr. Gray had a tremendous career spanning over 60 years during which he created the framework for how we study and forecast tropical cyclones to this day. He pioneered seasonal hurricane forecasts, and issued these for over 30 years. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your question belongs on the errors page or at Step's door. There is no way we would have posted John Ronald Reuel Tolkien in full. μηδείς (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I Mean Tolkien's article's not called that. I asked at errors before and didn't get a real answer, so I just want to know the status on what version of a name goes up on the ticker. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We'd go for the common name. If the article needs to be moved, that's a subject for WP:RM. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 15

[edit]
April 15, 2016 (2016-04-15) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents
International relations

Law and crime
  • Authorities in Rwanda jail former politician Léon Mugesera for life. Mugesera was known for describing Tutsis as "cockroaches" and called for their extermination in a speech in 1992 and is said to be a precursor to the Rwandan genocide. (BBC)
  • Two firefighters are shot, one fatally and the other is in critical condition, during a welfare check in Temple Hills, Maryland. (AP)
Politics and elections

[Posted to RD] RD: Malick Sidibé

[edit]
Article: Malick Sidibé (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: "Pioneering" and award-winning photographer. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Czech Republic renames itself

[edit]
consensus to wait til event occurs. μηδείς (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2016 (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: Czech Republic (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Czech Republic renames to Czechia. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Czech Republic adopts Czechia as a short name.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The Czech Republic adopts the name "Czechia".
Alternative blurb III: ​ The Czech Republic moves to adopt Czechia as its official short-form name.
News source(s): Guardian, BBC, AP. Google finds a lot more
Credits:

Article updated
 Banedon (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the source to a more recent one. New source says "The choice, agreed on Thursday evening by the president, prime minister, heads of parliament and foreign and defence ministers, must still win cabinet approval before the foreign ministry can lodge the name with the United Nations and it becomes the country’s official short name." - effectively the question then is whether to post this now or wait for cabinet approval (which admittedly might not happen). Banedon (talk) 11:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A little surprised you've not nominated an alt blurb. I've gone ahead and done so. 12:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Which is also incorrect. Suggest you withdraw this until something actually happens. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, ALL blurbs are incorrect, as the country has not been renamed. It merely added an alternative name. Fgf10 (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(As for the "short name" thing, this is in everyday use the official name - Czech[ia/o/ Republic]'s southern neighbour is officially the Slovak Republic, but Slovakia is the name that it is known by in all circumstances except legal documents. Ditto French Republic, Swiss Confederation, Hellenic Republic... For all intents and purposes, this is the real name that we're talking about) Smurrayinchester 12:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Denali, the name actually was changed. It is not yet certain that this change will happen. Further, the name of Denali is just Denali, both officially and otherwise; this proposal is for a 'short name' of the country, not the official name. 331dot (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is certain that Czech government will ask the UN to rewrite papers in near future. My point is: Denali and Czechia are both geographical names which were relatively recently changed. So is a mountain more important than a country? --Jenda H. (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is certain they will ask- not that it will happen. When it does, we will see. 331dot (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen, since 1993 Czechia hasn't been in general English-language use, either written or spoken. (The same is true of Tschechien and la Tchéquie, the German and French equivalents, respectively.) This move would provide an official impetus to broaden use of the short forms. That would be a change. Sca (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2016 (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] 2016 Kumamoto earthquakes

[edit]
Article: 2016 Kumamoto earthquakes (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A magnitude 6.2 earthquake hits Japan, killing nine. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Eleven aftershocks after the magnitude 6.2 earthquake hit Japan, killing nine and injuring 700+.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Two earthquakes kill at least 12 people and injure more than 1,000 others across Kyushu, Japan.
News source(s): CNN; "the update is the article"
Credits:

Article updated

 Banedon (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot Sherenk1. George Ho (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So it would seem that the earthquake actually nominated was a foreshock. I'll reserve judgement until more info comes in. 331dot (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The region was just hit by a magnitude 7.0 earthquake (~10 km from the prior epicenter). I assume we can expect additional damage and casualties. Also, on the general theory that more ITN posts are better, I don't think the threshold for death and destruction needs to be all that high to justify posting an earthquake story. Dragons flight (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Article has been expanded with new quake information. Timely story and the damage is considerable. Death toll is notable and Japan is a leader in earthquake resistant structures so death toll is less than it would be in many countries. Capitalistroadster (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Widespread disruption, damage, and numerous casualties. Added ALT2 to reflect that there are two major earthquakes involved in this story. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed it for you. George Ho (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 14

[edit]
April 14, 2016 (2016-04-14) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

New hormone

[edit]
Article: Asprosin (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Scientists discover a new hormone in humans, asprosin. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Scientists discover a new hormone in humans, asprosin, which controls blood sugar.
News source(s): Cell, The Scientist
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Discoveries of such biological stuff in humans are almost always newsworthy, it seems. Putting it under the date of Cell publication. Article is open to further expansion. Brandmeistertalk 11:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support I don't think hormones are like elements in that there are a finite number (though there likely are a finite number that would appear naturally), but the linkage to various medical conditions in humans can lead to treatments and cures. It is a shame that I can't find anything more mainstream than New Scientist talking about it, sorta failing the "ITN" part, but science news can be useful to include. --MASEM (t) 03:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - The article is currently very technical, but I suppose there hasn't been much popular science coverage yet. Still, some of the information from the New Scientist article might be useful for making this more accessible to the general reader. Smurrayinchester 08:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest DYK The article is such that only field specialists can appreciate it. That's a product of the press that it has gotten so far (that is, subject journals and a few pop-sci write ups), so I won't hold that against the nomination. But I also note a general lack of news coverage on this item, and the impact that this discovery has is not apparent, and will probably remain that way for many years to come.128.214.163.138 (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Volodymyr Groysman

[edit]
Proposed image
Articles: Volodymyr Groysman (talk · history · tag) and Arseniy Yatsenyuk (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Volodymyr Groysman (pictured) is appointed Prime Minister of Ukraine following the resignation of Arseniy Yatsenyuk. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Both articles updated

 Smurrayinchester 09:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 13

[edit]
April 13, 2016 (2016-04-13) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economics

                
Disasters and accidents






                
Health






                
International relations






                
Law and crime






                
Politics and elections






                
Sport








[Posted to RD]: Nera White
[edit]




Article: Nera White (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Tennessean
Credits: 




Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: If we believe her article, this basketball player " was considered one of the most outstanding female players in history" The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]



[Closed] NBA best record
[edit]






Cleary no consensus to post. --Tone 13:20, 14 April 2016 (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: Golden State Warriors (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ After defeating the Memphis Grizzlies, the Golden State Warriors end the regular season 73-9, making it the best record in NBA history.  (Post)
News source(s): Wall Street Journal CNN BBC
Credits: 




Article updated
Nominator's comments: No idea how "notable" this truly is in the eyes of Wikipedia, but I thought to nominate it just to see. Andise1 (talk) 06:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • But a double maiden over probably isn't? This is the winningest team ever in a major North American sports league (besides the National Football League but I wonder if their 16-0 was just luck. They lost to the weaker Giants only 1 month later after all). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]




  • Support.  Breaks a 20-year-old record that is unlikely to be bested again soon, and establishes the current Warriors team as one of the greatest of all time (though they still have to win the playoffs to complete their dominance of the season).   Dragons flight (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support - I very rarely support sports articles, but all-time-greatest is obviously in the news, and highly notable. Jusdafax  06:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose - I don't see how Americans care about this; I don't see how the world does either. Even as a Californian, it's a great, exciting feeling to have one of the teams to win the best; however, this is just as significant as Kobe's last day, which consensus oppose. Perhaps we should post the same to other sports? George Ho (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Kobe's last day, while sad, is ultimately insignificant in terms of anything being notable. This is a big record broken that will probably not be broken for a while. Even if it is broken sometime soon, the fact that the record was broken after so long makes this significant. Andise1 (talk) 07:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But this means if it's broken next year, we post it again.  And again and again.  It's really not significant.  We have sports leagues all across the world where records are broken every year.  This is no different. (As an example, PSG won the French league in "record time" this year, see this report – it's interesting, but ultimately nothing more than sports trivia).  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily support posting this now, but it seems unlikely to be broken anytime soon; it took 20 years and they only broke it by a game. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose article contains a single unreferenced sentence on this update, which just reiterates the blurb. Have they won the NBA or what? Surely that is more important? Jolly Ω Janner
    • 

  • Oppose - Poorly referenced sports trivia. Take it DYK. Fgf10 (talk) 07:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Regretful oppose - The problem is that, right now, two of the five blurbs on ITN are sports-related. For a new sports-related blurb to be featured then I would require higher-than-normal significance, and I can't consider this record to be that. It's only going to be interesting to followers of NBA, and while basketball is by no means an obscure sport, it's also by no means a sport that captures the imagination of most people (there are only a few that does that - the 100m sprint for example, perhaps the FIFA world cup). On another day when ITN is having trouble with new blurbs and / or when there isn't as much sports-related news, I'd probably have supported this. Banedon (talk) 07:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


We have no control over the timing of events; we nominate them as they come. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose. This is the kind of factoid I'd have no trouble including as an aside if the team won the NBA this year ("X wins the 2016 NBA finals, with a record winning record of 73-9") but not if it's just its own item. It's perfectly possible that any sport or league sees a record set in a given season that's separate from the actual winning result and I don't think we want to open the door to posting all of them (and we all know that if we post one, it'll be seen as precedent). GRAPPLE X 07:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support The potential to break the record has been one of the biggest sports stories of the past several months, given the sustained nature of the coverage.  Article is of sufficient quality for the main page.  --Jayron32 08:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose This is a trivial record with very limited notability that can easily turn irrelevant if they don't win the title. Yet, this could be still posted as a DYK item.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    DYK only allows articles that are either newly created, expanded by at least 5-fold in last week, or promoted to GA status in the last week.  I can't see how this would be eligible for DYK.  Dragons flight (talk) 09:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The article could be expanded or improved to GA status.  After all, we're here to improve the encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    It's 60,000 characters already.  I'd say a 5-fold expansion would be unreasonable.  As for improving the encyclopedia, I'd say the 160+ people who have worked on documenting the current season have been doing that.  If someone doesn't believe this item deserves to be on ITN, then fine.  But we shouldn't pretend that this information belongs on a different part of the main page if that other section is even less likely to post it than ITN.  Dragons flight (talk) 09:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    If it's such an incredible documentation effort by so many great people, GA should be simple.  Then it can be featured at DYK.  It's newsworthiness is really irrelevant, as to whether it's posted today or in a week or month.  The "wow" factor is simply that they have a slightly better record than the previous best, but they haven't actually won anything for it yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Wait to see if they get to and win the NBA Finals, where this record could be mentioned if they do. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @331dot: I don't think that someone would still give a damn about this record after the finals, no matter if they win it or not. The point is that the regular season and the playoffs are two different things, where the former is a sort of qualification for the latter. Put it this way, if the team with the best score after the regular season were the champions, it would definitely make the record score worth including in the blurb. But since the season continues in a different format with fewer teams to go and this record only secures home advantage in the seventh game in each match they will play until the end, it doesn't make much sense to squeeze notability from something that simply doesn't earn it. Perhaps it would be a better option to combine the blurb with records in the playoffs if such happen (e.g. least games played).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • DYK yes. ITN. No. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose the first ever 82-0 I'd consider as that couldn't be beaten, but this seems entirely arbitrary. By all means mention it if we post the conclusion of the season but not on its own. Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed, this could be a footnote to the ITNR blurb if they win the finals, if they don't then the record is really meaningless. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed; as it was with the 2007 New England Patriots who did not win the Super Bowl. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    

    Maybe it is the statistician in me, but personally, the record for most dominant team in the history of a sport is rather more interesting than who wins the title in any given year.  There will be a new title holder every year. but performances like this are much rarer.  Stephen Curry and the Warriors are "Breaking The NBA" [14] and showing us a style of play that most people didn't think possible.  Stephen Curry has 402 three point baskets this season, which breaks the previous single season record (also held by him) by more than 100 baskets [15].  Their surprising style of play and its undeniable success is likely to change how other teams approach the game for years to come.  Whatever happens in the finals, their record setting performance this season is far from "meaningless".  Dragons flight (talk) 09:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm afraid it is, certainly to 99% of our readership.  If they went undefeated (like The Invincibles (football)) then I'd be more interested, particularly as their invincibility resulted in more than just an update in stats books, it resulted in a trophy.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose - Yes, it's true we have posted record-breaking events like Lionel Messi breaking the single season scoring record, but widespread consensus usually opposes posting events like this. The significance is purely internal.--WaltCip (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2016 (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.




[Closed] Kobe's last game
[edit]






Consensus is clearly against posting this. Thryduulf (talk) 09:29, 14 April 2016 (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: Kobe Bryant (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Kobe Bryant scored 60 points in his last game in the NBA  (Post)
News source(s): (LA Times)
Credits: 




Article updated
Nominator's comments: Making headlines. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose If 60 pts was a record (it's not) that might be a reason to post, but the retirement of a player is not really an ITN worthy piece. --MASEM (t) 05:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose the article needs to be updated with far more than just a single sentences for ITN. On second thoughts, this would probably give undue weight in the article. This makes a good news headline, but I don't see how it could work on Wikipedia. Probably best to show more than one news source to show how much coverage it is receiving anyway. Even the LA Times don't give a particularly in depth coverage of the event. Jolly Ω Janner 05:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose sporting statistical trivia. He himself has done better before. And retirement was announced in November 2015. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • The retirement itself is the real story here, isn't it? I'm not outright opposed to posting sports retirements, but they'd have to be ridiculously notable for me to support, like Gretzky/Pelé/Jordan notable, or those among the top two or three players to ever play their respective sport. If we post the retirements of players who were merely excellent, that's a lot of retirements. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose sports trivia, soon to be forgotten and will have zero long-term impact on anything or anyone anywhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose as is (cut out the points score, just cut it down to "Kobe Bryant plays his last game in the NBA and resigns"), but not totally opposed if someone more knowledgeable about basketball can weigh in. The only sports resignation that we've posted as far as I recall is Sachin Tendulkar, who is without a doubt the greatest cricketer of the era (and an idol to a nation of one billion). I don't know enough about basketball to know whether Bryant is the greatest of his generation - is he? He is the only basketball player I've heard of because of his basketball playing (as opposed to acting or whatever). Smurrayinchester 08:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Smurrayinchester, in answer to your question - well, maybe. He'd be a strong contender - but then you have to consider the likes of LeBron James, Tim Duncan and Shaquille O'Neal. Having said that, I would dispute the suggestion that Tendulkar was "without a doubt" the greatest cricketer of his time - there are plenty of cricket fans who would argue for, say, Muralitharan or Warne instead. So I don't think that the fact that Bryant isn't indisputably the greatest of his generation distinguishes him from Tendulkar. Neljack (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose. As stated, posting retirements is very rare here, and I don't think Bryant(though close) rises to the high level needed.  The aforementioned cricket player was generally seen as the best ever in his sport, which I don't think is the case here. Perhaps if this was the 90s Michael Jordan's final retirement would make it,(or even further back, Wilt Chamberlain) but I don't believe Bryant should. It's also been known he was going to retire for a year now, I believe. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2016 (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.




[Closed]Peabody Bankruptcy
[edit]






No consensus to post..-The Herald (Benison) • the joy of the LORDmy strength 12:57, 17 April 2016 (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: Peabody Energy (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Peabody Energy, the largest privately-owned producer of coal in the world, files for bankruptcy court protection but plans to continue mining operations as usual.  (Post)
News source(s): (Reuters) (ABC News Australia)
Credits: 




Article updated
Nominator's comments: Thanks to portal:current events for this story. My question is: since this was a publicly traded company should this be "publicly owned producer of coal" instead of "privately owned producer of coal?" Brian Everlasting (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose As the articles states, they will continue to operate their mines and assets are protected, this is simply an accounting step as to be able to handle debts they currently cannot pay. --MASEM (t) 01:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Good point. I changed the original blurb to addresses your concerns. Brian Everlasting (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose.  An overly indebted company got bit by a fall in prices of their core product?  Not exactly a huge shock, and the $11B restructuring is not particularly large in the history of all bankruptcies.  There might be an interesting side story related to global warming, natural gas expansion, energy policy, and other side topics on the fall in coal prices, but that's at least two steps removed from the bankruptcy itself, and I don't think that is enough to justify including this.   Dragons flight (talk) 08:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Weak oppose – Symptomatic of the U.S. coal industry; Ch. 11 filing not particularly surprising. Sca (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose the difference between a restructuring and a liquidation is an essential one. We don't post robberies and infamous murders under the rubric of "crimes". μηδείς (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2016 (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] South Korean election
[edit]




Article: South Korean legislative election, 2016 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In an upset result, the liberal opposition Minjoo Party of Korea wins a plurality of one seat in the South Korean National Assembly.  (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Minjoo Party of Korea wins the most seats in the South Korean National Assembly. 
Alternative blurb II: ​ The Minjoo Party wins one seat more than the ruling Saenuri Party in the South Korean National Assembly. 
News source(s): Wide coverage of the election, but shock result is very fresh. Reuters, Washington Post, Daily Mail, Vice, etc.
Credits: 




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: National election, additionally notable for a range of reasons: the upset win that defied all previous opinion polling including the exit poll, the party system upheaval with a new third party, and the problems this poses for President Park. —Nizolan (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]



ITNR probably applies (there's some conceptual subtlety about whether it's a "general" election since the ROK is a presidential system, but the term is widely applied to it in reliable sources (Google "South Korea" "general election")). Anyway, it's odd to claim it's not very significant around the globe when it has received international media coverage for going on a week now (Nikkei, AFP, Economist, all from before the election). —Nizolan (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rescinding my !vote due to ITN/R listing of general elections and mass coverage. I still don't believe it can change a thing. After all, the president is the daughter of the assassinated dictator, and she might do some influence in the future. --George Ho (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's significant for the same reason different parties controlling Congress and the presidency is significant in the U.S. (divided government). Her legislative agenda is now impossible, and she's a lame-duck president. Have a look at the Nikkei article I posted above, which talks about the significance of the election. —Nizolan (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]



@Fuebaey: I can see the concern with the "victory" phrasing, but the proposed blurb also removes most of the context. Specifically: removing "liberal" is unhelpfully decontextualising, since "Minjoo" will mean nothing to most people, and the upset of previous opinion polls and wider expectations needs to be mentioned. I also think the margin of one seat should be mentioned either way. I've edited my blurb to remove the "victory", let me know what you think. —Nizolan (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support but I think the article would be helped to explain - outside of the lede - why the surprise and the projected impact of the Minjoo's upset victory, if that is going to be part of the blurb.  (If was just that the result defied the last public opinion polls, eh, not so much). AltBlurb seems fine otherwise. It's otherwise in good shape from what I can tell.  --MASEM (t) 23:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


@Masem: I added a brief analysis in the Results section of the article touching on and citing these points. There are a wide range of sources using phrases like "surprise", "upset", "crushing" etc. It's difficult to find sources discussing specific impact precisely because nobody expected it until it actually happened, but the general significance is now there and cited. —Nizolan (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's probably going to take a few days for any impact analysis to come into line. (I have no knowledge of how this would affect NK/SK relations and subsequently the rest of the world but I could see that being one of those points analyzed). I would be fine with the first blurb now with the explanation this being a surprise result. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]



I think the blurb as it stands is ok because it says plurality which should be clear enough that no majority was won. Brian Everlasting (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


[Posted] End of Argentine default
[edit]




Article: Argentine debt restructuring (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Argentina reaches an agreement to pay the holdouts, ending a 15 year sovereign default.  (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Argentina reaches an agreement to issue bonds and pay its creditors, ending a 15 year sovereign default. 
Alternative blurb II: ​ The Argentine government reaches an agreement to issue bonds and pay its creditors, ending a 15 year sovereign default. 
News source(s): Financial Times, Bloomberg, Reuters
Credits: 




Article updated
Nominator's comments: As said, it is the end of a sovereign default that lasted for more than a decade (and 5 presidents since then). Clearly newsworthy. Cambalachero (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Noting that there are a couple CNs in the lede and a few paragraphs in the latter half that are unsourced, overall this looks like a fairly comprehensive article on this debt situation, and once those CNs are fixed, should be ready to go. Topic is definitely of interest and appropriate for ITN. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Weak support I found the updated information in the article, but it would be nice if it were added to the lead and/or made more prominent (such as a section header) so that readers could find the update easier.  But it's there, and the article is in good shape, I see a few CNs in the lead, but the article is essentially completely referenced in the body.  Ideally, the CNs would be resolved, and the update made a bit more prominent, but it's not in bad shape right now.  --Jayron32 18:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]






  • Comment: Sorry for the mistake, but the default was declared in 2001, not 2002 (December 23, 2001, to be precise), so it was 15 years ago. The article was mistaken in that detail, and I confused it with the end of the convertibility law, which was also part of the crisis of the time but a completely different issue. Cambalachero (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]



[Closed] Singapore rape ruling
[edit]






Clearly not happening. Banedon (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2016 (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: Penal Code (Singapore) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The High Court of Singapore rules that women cannot be guilty of rape  (Post)
News source(s): e.g. [16], [17]; Google turns up a lot more
Credits: 




Article needs updating
 Banedon (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It turns out the decision was made because the accused rapist is transgender (biologically female but had lived as a man since she was 16, and had even "married" two women). Don't know the exact wording of the court ruling, but I think the blurb should clarify that. Brandmeistertalk   07:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose a backward-thinking set of policies just got tweaked.  That they do not even acknowledge the concept of male rape (...rape is narrowly defined under S375, Penal Code as the penile penetration of a vagina...) underscores a failure to get with the program.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Neutral - It's... bizarre. But I'm not sure whether or not that in itself is newsworthy.--WaltCip (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose – This such an anomalous case that it doesn't pose wider significance. Rather a straw in the wind. Sca (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose, this is an instance of a court telling a legislature to update some laws. Abductive (reasoning) 16:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose I'm not seeing a substantive update in the highlighted article that makes the blurb stand out.  --Jayron32 16:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose Please note that rape is defined differently around the world, even in the US. Rape used to be narrowly defined as coercive sexual intercourse committed by a man on a woman in several jurisdictions, and still does in some. As the West became more sexually liberal, laws were introduced to address the complex issue of sexual assaults. In some places, a term that was used to describe a specific crime began to encompass an entire spectrum of sexual assaults. Others went a step further and got rid of the phrase "rape" altogether.


This case did not involve legal rape in Singapore, let alone the High Court deciding on whether it did or did not occur. The accused was charged with sexual penetration of a minor, i.e. sexual assault on a person under the age of consent, and seems to have been acquitted on a technicality - a legal loophole. The suggested article does not mention the case or even list the section of the law involved - s. 376A Fuebaey (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2016 (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.




April 12
[edit]



















    

        
April 12, 2016 (2016-04-12) (Tuesday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
Arts and culture






                
Business and economics






                
Disasters and accidents






                
International relations






                
Law and crime






                
Politics and elections






                
Science and technology






                
Sport








[Closed]RD: Balls Mahoney
[edit]






Not happening here...-The Herald (Benison) • the joy of the LORDmy strength 12:59, 17 April 2016 (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: Balls Mahoney (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WWE
Credits: 




Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Multiple title-winning sports entertainer The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Yes. In my opinion, a professional wrestling championship is more analogous to an employee of the month award than an actual competition to determine skill and proficiency, and this is something we ought not to waste a great deal of time on unless it can be demonstrated that he had any sort of impact either inside or outside of professional wrestling other than "winning" some kayfabe "championships". Any impact whatsoever. Even a Slim Jim commercial will do.  --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not required, but thanks for your input.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2016 (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.




[Closed] RD: Arnold Wesker
[edit]






Consensus and article quality will not develop. Stephen 04:48, 14 April 2016 (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: Arnold Wesker (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits: 




Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Sir Arnold Wesker. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Have added more awards in the article. Michael Billington (critic) says that he couldn't bring out the success of his early 1960s success, but "the radical bard of working Britain" has got plenty good reviews of his plays. As typical with old gen stars, this article also lacks attention because of probably uninterested editors. The article though created in 2004 has had little over 200 edits only so far. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 14:23, 13 April 2016 (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.




[Closed] RD: David Gest
[edit]






Consensus will not develop to post. Stephen 23:38, 12 April 2016 (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: David Gest (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits: 




Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Unexpected death of prominent television celebrity and producer, per our article "Gest produced the highest rated musical television special in history"... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Major referencing issues, large blocks of text have no references, and a giant orange tag at the top warns of that.  If this were cleaned up, I'd have no objection to posting this.  --Jayron32 16:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Weak oppose Referencing is obviously an issue, but looking past that, it's hard to argue for importance, where really the only claim that can be made is being the producer of a music television special that featured, at the time, the biggest pop music star (Michael Jackson), which was bound to draw viewers. Ratings are different from quality for television, and I would not weigh too much on simply the ratings for it. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Weak oppose based on the work required for the article to be improved before it could feature on front page. I'd put him up there based on the production work. I did once own a copy of his autobiography - the guy was nuts, he used to go into bookshops in London and sign copies that were just sitting on the shelf so they couldn't be sent back to the publishers. If the article was fully cited, then I'd switch to a weak support. Miyagawa (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose even if the quality is good. He was a well-known figure, but that doesn't qualify him for RD. His "producer" career which has been cited twice already was about as thin as a sheet of paper; 3 TV specials? big deal. All the obits I see mostly just tie him into Liza Minelli. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose I'm not seeing how he meets meets the RD criteria. That he had a high profile marriage and was a well known UK reality TV star over the last decade doesn't strike me as top and/or important in his field. BLP facts in the lead and his career section are virtually unsourced. Fuebaey (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose – Per Masem, Nohomersryan. – Sca (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2016 (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.




April 11
[edit]



















    

        
April 11, 2016 (2016-04-11) (Monday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
Business and economics






                
Disasters and accidents






                
International relations






                
Law and crime






                
Politics and elections









[Closed] US, UK, French foreign ministers to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum
[edit]






No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2016 (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: List of visitors to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ U.S. John Kerry, British Philip Hammond and French Jean-Marc Ayrault become first foreign ministers from countries possessing nuclear weapons to visit to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.  (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
 61.245.25.5 (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Highlighted article has not been updated (indeed, it looks like it has not been updated since 2009) and contains very little prose.  We don't normally feature mere lists at ITN, generally some moderately extensive prose explaining the event and its context is needed.  --Jayron32 13:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose not a sufficiently significant diplomatic event to merit posting. --LukeSurl t c 17:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose per above. An interesting "first" but not groundbreaking. --MASEM (t) 23:10, 11 April 2016 (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.




[Withdrawn] 2016 Stavropol bombings
[edit]






withdrawn as nothing but a suicide op at a cop outpost. Feel free to open if others want.Lihaas (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2016 (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: 2016 Stavropol bombings (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Multiple suicide bombings occur in Stavropol, Russia.  (Post)
News source(s): Sputnik (JUST breaking so more to come)
Credits: 




Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Keep an eye for notability as it just happened. but it should pass notability for page creaton on WP. Lihaas (talk) 08:44, 11 April 2016 (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 to RD] RD: Howard Marks
[edit]




Article: Howard Marks (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits: 




Both articles need updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
 The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

question Why do you , as nom, suggest hes top of his field?Lihaas (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't. I said he was important. That is self evident. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well RD is not "imoportant" cause if theyre notable enough they have pages and not all those with pages get posted to ITN. So there has to be more as that's not "self evident".Lihaas (talk) 09:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field"  Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, why do you think hes top of his field? "Just a punt" is not a reason.Lihaas (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


RAAD just had 2 controversial deaths in the last couple of months that had FAR bigger implications and the northern Ireland change of government (direcrly related) was not posted here. oppose meanwhile. (but changeable)Lihaas (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know what you're on about. Marks' death is featured on BBC News' global homepage.  Your points are not relevant to this nomination, thanks though. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]



In any case, whereas this has been posted on the front page of BBC, support for inherent notability and the detailed article, which although requiring improvement, goes into sufficient depth to assert notability. I'm also surprised we did not nominate, let alone post, the death of Henry Hill in June 2012; if posted, that would have served as a good basis for comparison.--WaltCip (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Per WaltCip, the standards at Wikipedia are not based on "stuff I have heard about and/or care about".  In all levels, and at all places, in Wikipedia, coverage in reliable sources is the measure of all things.  When major, highly respected, news organizations devote considerable resources to covering a subject, it is not for us to say that the story isn't notable, based on our own personal criteria.  --Jayron32 18:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like such persons are on the brink of criteria. Not everyone would agree that weed smuggling is one of the RD virtues. Brandmeistertalk   18:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is loaded language.--WaltCip (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


There are no virtues.  There is only 1) extensive coverage in reliable sources and 2) quality of the article.  Nothing else enters into the decision making here.  --Jayron32 14:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support - Noted smuggler, author and media figure. The article is of interest, and despite the unusual nature of this subject for ITN, this is a good nomination which has my whole hearted support. Jusdafax  22:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support - A rather interesting life, having been in the news both for negative and positive aspects of what he did. The coverage I see in other sources seems to give weight that this is not just a B-list celebrity or small-time crook but someone of some reputation, and support on that as well as being an interesting, well-sourced read. --MASEM (t) 23:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment - Just a couple of sections below this one there was a discussion about how Fuzheado posted an article with orange tags, and how it's clearly stated in the policy that articles with orange tags are not to be posted. This article also contains a big orange tag at the top, which would imply that it should be automatically rejected or at most support pending improvements regardless of significance, and yet even editors who are particularly fastidious about article quality are supporting? If we post this, ITN officially makes no sense. Banedon (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • No, it's a bit more complex than that. It's pointed out that many of the sources are based on autobiographic works, which itself is not bad for a BLP which has clearly demonstrated notability beyond that. This should be fixable in time but importantly, there are no really unsourced statements on a BLP (though one can contest if the autobiographical ones are true, we have to assume they are until proven otherwise). It is an orange tag but one that for ITN I would overlook for posting since this is something that can be fixed with more eyes on it. On the other hand, when the orange tags are about lack of sources, which is a no-no for BLP, that's a reason to not post. --MASEM (t) 01:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


See, that's why some people (especially those with scientific backgrounds) think ITN makes no sense. It's clearly stated in the policy that articles with orange tags are not to be posted. No exceptions are listed. This ought to make supporting the posting of such an article as nonsensical as opposing an ITNR item on merit, and yet it doesn't!? To say that this orange tag can be fixed by having more eyes on it does not make sense either, since all articles can be fixed by having more eyes on it. Meanwhile orange tags that say "this section requires expanding" are effectively attach-able to any article except possibly GAs and FAs. Certainly for example currently Pfizer is featured and yet sections like its history during the 19th and 20th century can be tagged as such. The only reason the orange tag is not there is because nobody has tagged it. Orange tags about lack of sources can be fixed by hiding / deleting the relevant text, which immediately makes the article "presentable", and the only reason the orange tag is still there is because nobody has deleted the material. And so on ... the more I think about it, the less sense ITN makes. Banedon (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The key word at WP:ITN's guidance on orange tags is that articles with serious orange tag issues may not be posted. That means we have some discretion in the first place, but that also means that not all orange tags are equal. A "lack of sourcing" orange tag on a BLP is a much more serious problem than a "source to autobiographical works" orange tag, for example. It's not the case that having an orange tag is a bright line. --MASEM (t) 02:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Fuzheado not only posted an inadequately sourced article, he posted it without any clear sign of consensus.  And for the sake of accuracy, Banedon, there was no orange maintenance tag on the version he posted.  Also, while you claim "it's clearly stated in the policy that articles with orange tags are not to be posted", you should be aware that the ITN instructions are not a policy, nor do they state what you claim.  For reference, the instructions currently say:  Usually, orange and red level tags are generally considered major enough to block posting to ITN.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]



[Closed] Ukraine PM resigns
[edit]






Actions speak louder than words. Feel free to reopen if he does actually resign, and this should probably be moved to the date on which he does so.Stephen 04:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]






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









Articles: Prime Minister of Ukraine (talk · history · tag) and Arseniy Yatsenyuk (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Ukraine Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk resigns  (Post)
News source(s): e.g. Guardian; Google turns up a lot more.
Credits: 




Both articles need updating
 Banedon (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on the general bit of news - a world leader resigning is as important as their election. Perhaps the target article could be Second_Yatsenyuk_Government (if I understand the situation correctly) as that focuses on how this point came to be. The given articles at first glance all seem all reasonably sourced but we should re-check once an appropriate blurb is given. --MASEM (t) 02:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


oppose run of the mill politicking and no election either. head of state's boy coming in tomorrow. Nothing eolutionary here.Lihaas (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support per Masem. Neljack (talk) 06:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support -- strongly -- however the article to reference, I suggest, would be Arseniy Yatsenyuk (which ends with a brief-but-informative coverage of the unraveling and end of his tenure in office), rather than the articles about his title or the Second Yatsenyuk Government (which is not current on this news).  This resignation is, most specifically, about him.  Also, the blurb should be longer, as with the less-important Icelandic leader's resignation a few days ago (27 words).


This event, involving the Prime Minister of one of the largest countries in Europe, coming at a sensitive time, during a shaky wartime truce with the world's second-most-powerful nation (Russia), while votes are being taken against Ukraine's attempt to join the European Union, a factor shaking the core of the EU.


I suggest this blurb (all details validaated in the referenced article, and its references):

| blurb         = Ukraine Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk 10 April, says he will resign 12 April, following allegations of corruption, President's call for his resignation, and parliament's vote of dissatisfaction with his Cabinet.


Penlite (talk) 06:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]



Do you know anything about notability? Judging from the three comments at ITN, the answer is a clear no. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of "notable" stuff (as you cite) that's not posted here. No need to harangue him for his opinion.Lihaas (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]



PS: Although we could take the route taken by German Wiki and make it: "Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk announces his forthcoming resignation" – then delete "forthcoming" when it becomes fact. Sca (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as of 14:30 Tuesday (5:30 p.m. in Kiev) unfind mainstream reports of resignation becoming official or being formally accepted. Hmmm.  Sca (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]



Agreed. The he's-gonna-resign story largely faded from the news Tuesday. Sca (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2016 (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.




April 10
[edit]



















    

        
April 10, 2016 (2016-04-10) (Sunday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
Business and economics






                
Disasters and accidents






                
International relations






                
Law and crime






                
Politics and elections






                
Science and technology






                
Sport








[Closed] RD: Duane Clarridge
[edit]






Consensus not to post. BencherliteTalk 13:45, 11 April 2016 (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: Duane Clarridge (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times
Credits: 




Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: He served in the CIA for more than 35 years, and was a chief of the Latin American division. EternalNomad (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose mostly unreferenced. Not sure on his notability though. He's a key figure in the Iran–Contra affair, but is that a broad enough topic to be considered "top of his field". Jolly Ω Janner 01:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose GHWB was the CIA director, and we would neither have listed him, nor his successor, even though his successor died under suspicious circumstances.  The natural death of a regional director?  Nope. μηδείς (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose on importance. He doesn't seem to have as significant impact in the Iran-Contra affair, compared to someone like Oliver North. --MASEM (t) 01:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Strong oppose He's clearly not a notable person in whatever field. The length of his career and his personal achievements simply doesn't earn him notability for inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose - Not notable Sherenk1 (talk) 09:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose As others have said I am not even sure about his being a "key figure" in the Iran-Contra affair. The source supporting the "key figure" statement in the article actually calls him an "instrumental figure" (which to me is a lesser degree than "key") and indicates that he was heavily involved, but so were a bunch of other CIA operatives and he was not a figure on the level of North, Fawn Hall, Lawrence Walsh, etc. Plus as said above, he was just a regional director, not the head of the CIA. TheBlinkster (talk) 10:36, 11 April 2016 (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] Masters
[edit]








Proposed image


Article: 2016 Masters Tournament (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In golf, Danny Willett (pictured) wins the Masters Tournament.  (Post)
News source(s): Bleacher Report, CBS Sports, Golf Channel
Credits: 




Article needs updating
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: Fourth round needs a summary. Existing prose could do with some additional references. Fuebaey (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]



See the ITN now that has a few sports articles there for precedence.Lihaas (talk) 04:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]



Out of all the major golf tournaments, I would say The Masters is the most notable and prestigious of them all, so I fail to see how it is "not quite notable". Care to explain Sherenk1? Andise1 (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]



[Closed] Sweden becomes the first country in the world with its own phone number
[edit]






ITN doesn't do anniversaries like this. BencherliteTalk 20:23, 10 April 2016 (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: Sweden (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Sweden celebrates becoming the first country introducing a constitutional law to abolish censorship 250 years ago by becoming the first country in the world with its own phone number  (Post)
News source(s): Swedish Tourist Association
Credits: 




Article needs updating
 Count Iblis (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2016 (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.




[Reposted] Kollam temple accident
[edit]




Article: Kollam temple accident (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Over 80 people are killed after a fireworks mishap at a temple in Kollam, Kerala, India.  (Post)
News source(s): Various
Credits: 




Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: High death tooll and this stuff seems to be ITN worthy. Lihaas (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply] 



April 9
[edit]



















    

        
April 9, 2016 (2016-04-09) (Saturday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
Disasters and accidents






                
International relations






                
Law and crime






                
Politics and elections






                
Sport








[Closed] RD: Tony Conrad
[edit]






no consensus. Stephen 00:21, 12 April 2016 (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: Tony Conrad (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Yahoo News, NME Pitchfork ARTnews
Credits: 




Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Yahoo News calls him a "seminal musician" while NME  and Pitchfork call him "pioneering". ARTnews calls him a "wide-ranging innovator in music, film and art". Andise1 (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


See the comment I made on thos nomination and you will see that sources are calling him very important in his field. Andise1 (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the sources.  I noted that his NYT obit says that he's been "slowly emerging from obscurity" over the past few years and the last line quotes him as saying to the Guardian, “You don’t know who I am ... but somehow, indirectly, you’ve been affected by things I did.” In his Billboard obit with the same quote, he goes on to say "I don't mind being anonymous though. I hate celebrity." If he were widely recognized as important in his field, he would not be making a statement "You don't know who I am" because people would already know. This appears to be a case of somebody who is definitely notable and had some importance in his field and is recognized by some people in the know, but is not "widely recognized" - he says as much himself.TheBlinkster (talk) 10:25, 11 April 2016 (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] Grand National
[edit]




Article: 2016 Grand National (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In horse racing, Rule The World wins the Grand National.  (Post)
News source(s): BBC Sport, The Guardian, Sky News
Credits: 




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: Needs a race summary. Fuebaey (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]



April 8
[edit]






[Posted] SpaceX CRS-8
[edit]


Template:ITN candidate




[Removed] Remove Zika virus outbreak from ongoing
[edit]


I can't see any real "ongoing" info from about March. Does this still need to be on the frontpage? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]




[Closed] 175+ workers killed (Syrian Civil War)
[edit]


Template:Archive top
Template:ITN candidate
I don't know if there is an article about this story, but is the notability is high. Mirror RT- EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 09:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]



We need an article to evaluate, and a proposed blurb; this is not the forum to request the creation of an article. Ideally the ITN candidate syntax should be copied, pasted, and filled in. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]



Template:Archive bottom



April 7
[edit]


Template:Cot
Portal:Current events/2016 April 7
Template:Cob





[Closed] National Guard of Russia
[edit]


Template:Archive top
Template:ITN candidate




Template:Archive bottom



April 6
[edit]


Template:Cot
Portal:Current events/2016 April 6
Template:Cob





[Reposted] RD: Merle Haggard
[edit]


Template:Archive top
Template:ITN candidate



  • Support on article improvements - Importance as an influential country singer is there, but there's huge chunks of unsourced text throughout the article, and that absolutely needs fixing before posting. --MASEM (t) 17:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Conditional support Forty #1 hits on country radio. Huge sections of unreferenced prose in his article, though.. Teemu08 (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support if improved Definitely meets notability requirement, but article needs clean up, more paragraph breaks in certain places, sources, etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support I will pitch in where I can.  The article needs a lot of work so if you have time to spare, this definitely deserves to go up. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 18:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Conditional support I agree that the article should be at least minorly improved before this is added.  ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support He is one of the all-time greats of American country music as shown by Kennedy Center honors (very small subset of people get those), Grammy Awards, Country Music Hall of Fame etc. I will try and do my part by sticking in a few citations later and breaking up a couple walls o' text.TheBlinkster (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Hat*Support Obviously notable, and I would improve the article myself, but a certain editor (and admin no less, if you can believe that) has decreed that I don't do that sort of thing, and my vote can be discounted, so I won't bother and you can ignore this vote. (link). Laura Jamieson (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]





Template:Hab



  • Support - Article needs more sourcing especially in his career section and the legacy section is outdated. But he was significant and clearly meets the notability requirements. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support One of the biggest names in Country history, notable for being a part of the Outlaw Country genre. JanderVK (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support notability in no doubt, but several maintenance issues with the article which need to be addressed before this can be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support The only long stretches without citations are in the "Collaborations" and "Legacy" sections, and in an article that is otherwise this complete and in excellent shape I can't convince myself that there's a serious quality issue at this time.128.214.53.18 (talk) 06:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support The quality of the article is irrelevant because ITN has no significant role as a gatekeeper in such cases.  About 450,000 people already read the article yesterday and the topic is clearly in the news.  We should simply recognise reality and get on with it.  If a few Template:Tl bothers editors then they should fix or remove the content per Template:Tl.  It doesn't bother me because there are many, many eyes on the article and so any obvious errors would soon be spotted. Andrew D. (talk) 07:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Template:Ping Agreed, this aspect of RD (and ITN) has bothered me. Why does an article have to be of notably higher quality than an average Wikipedia article before it gets listed in RD or ITN? The value of news on the front page is its currency and immediacy. It doesn't serve the readers or the public well in delaying the posting of deaths and news happenings when people are actively seeking out WP's content on these matters. That's why I have err'ed on the side of being bold with faster posting of stories. Trust the wiki way and users to make the articles better. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      • Content highlighted one WP's front page (ITN, DYK, TFA, etc.) is meant to represent some of WP's best work. So asking for an ITN article that is sourced to policy requirements for a BLP is a minimum. We're not expecting GA/FA quality, and elements like MOS or other various style aspects are far less important, but making sure core content policy aspects are met is an absolute requirement. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

        • The purpose of ALL content on the main page is to direct readers to quality Wikipedia content.  ITN just covers quality Wikipedia content that recently happened in the real world.  DYK covers quality wikipedia content that was newly created.  OTD covers quality Wikipedia content on historical events.  TFA covers the best Wikipedia content.  --Jayron32 12:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support A notable musician, at top of his field (country music). Spirit Ethanol (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support - never heard of him but he is world famous in the U.S I guess. Anyway good article and musical career.BabbaQ (talk) 10:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Small §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support - clearly sufficiently notable, even to a non-US non-country-music-lover like me.  Article could be improved, but it's currently not so bad that it can't be posted.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Template:Done - Posted -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:U please either follow the instructions (Template:Xt) or seek to have them modified so we post items in such states.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you really think that in the 12 years the Merle Haggard article has been edited (since 2003) that we should hesitate now in putting a front page link to his bio? The values of ITN/RD have really gone off the rails if that's the case. See my earlier comment to Template:Ping on why this is a disturbing practice. The value of news is its currency and immediacy. It is a real betrayal of our revolutionary roots to sit and wait when we know Wikipedia is such a highly consulted reference. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, and see my concern, the rules and Masem's response to your comment.  If you want to change the way we do things, please start a discussion to do so.  In the meantime, please pull the item with three maintenance tags, one of which, disturbingly, indicates this BLP is out of date.  Do behave.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    

    Also, do note that those pageviews have occurred without the item being on the main page.  The main page is a place for us to emphasise quality.  If you disagree, please start a mature discussion about it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    

    Template:U listen, you obviously have a thing for these early postings, I note you posted Zaha Hadid far too soon which was pulled, improved to a basic quality standard, and then re-posted.  I think you should probably step back from posting things for a while, or at least appraise yourself of how things work here, or, as suggested, you start a discussion that allows you to post BLPs without paying any real attention to the quality of sourcing.  If you need some help with finding the instructions most admins follow here, let me know.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support but pull - Premature posting based on quality. Consensus was clearly against posting the article in this current state.--WaltCip (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • ITN shouldn't be posting articles with orange-level tags. That's the standard the instructions set. If anyone wants to change the instructions so that we can slap up substandard material on the basis of arguments such as it's in the news now / it's getting lots of hits now / he or she was popular / it doesn't matter / it can be improved once it's up then let's have that discussion at WT:ITN and we can then ignore forever all opposes based on article quality or supports conditional on article improvement.  Pull, improve, then repost. BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 15:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • The article should stay. It has gained a high number of supports and is not substandard. BabbaQ (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • 

  • Pulled it is clearly not of sufficient quality, per many of the notes above.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment TRM is right to pull this.  When I saw this went up I was pleasantly surprised that so much got done overnight, then disappointed that actually a lot of it was just swept under the rug.  To those who say quality doesn't matter: thanks, not only did you not help, you minimized the contribution of those who did. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 17:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • It's good that OldManNeptune is doing this work as all those readers are getting the benefit.  I read through the article myself on my commute and, not knowing much about the subject, found it to be a good read.  But having Merle Haggard's name on the front page as a RD should not turn on this issue.  As an example, I also read an interesting article published by The Guardian: the country music legend's 10 greatest hits.  That's a good read too but notice at the end that it says "Due to an editing error, Merle Haggard’s age was misstated as 86. He was 79."  So, we see that even professionals can make mistakes but they publish regardless.  We should not be trying to pretend that we're perfect.  The important thing at ITN is to be reflecting the major news items.  To be leaving out such obvious entries is a sin of omission which is an error too. Andrew D. (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]




  • ITN's rules are not policy whereas we have actual policies like WP:IAR, WP:NOTLAW and WP:BURO which tell us that formal rules are not as important as commonsense principles like logic and evidence.  Merle Haggard was posted, is still posted and the wheel-warring just shows that those rules don't command a consensus.  People seem to be trying to apply such rules in a rote way by, for example, demanding one citation per paragraph.  That is a poor measure of quality and is not what's wanted by our core policy, WP:V which is that "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."  So, in the case of Merle Haggard, what is it that we should be checking?  I would focus on key facts like:


  1. Basic biographical facts like age and date of birth which mainstream sources often get wrong
    2. 

  2. Controversial issues like Haggard's views on Okie from Muskogee.  Was this from the heart or a tongue-in-cheek parody or a commercial pandering to the redneck audience, or what?  Haggard seems to have changed his views or modified his story over the years and so getting the balance of this right isn't easy and would require good sources.
    3. 

  3. There are long lists of awards and hits in the article but still no inline citations for any of this.  Some editors like Kww are very insistent on the need for good citations in such cases.


  • Just in case this discussion goes any further, there IS an inline citation for his "hits"; I added one cite yesterday when we were working on the article to his artist page at song://database which is the most comprehensive online source for what records made chart positions.  If you go to his page there you can see every song he ever did that made the US charts in table form. As for his views on "Okie from Muskogee", I also added about 5 cites for that, to the best sources I could find which includes an article specifically focusing on all of his different views about "Okie" over the years and at least 1-2 books analyzing his position on the song, and I did some rewriting in the section as well to fit with the sources I found. While I don't think the article is GA level since it obviously had to be done in a hurry, when I work on these articles I do not just throw a cite in there every couple of lines to make it look like one is present. I do put thought into it. I don't really have a dog in this fight policy-argument-wise, but if you are going to make arguments about articles into which I put effort then please don't misrepresent them for the sake of your argument. As OldManNeptune said, that is not really fair to people who choose to make an effort to help the article. TheBlinkster (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Template:U your efforts are admirable and please don't take anything Template:U to heart, he doesn't really understand what we do here, nor does he make much of an effort to do so other than to sink every discussion in links to policy etc which suit his POV.  The good news is that we're managing very well without his input and actually, in a lot of cases, better.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Anyway, another 400,000 people read the article yesterday so it's still very busy.  The article is still being edited and there's plenty more to do as it has not passed a significant quality threshold like GA.  It's graded B-class by a couple of projects while the other RD, Cesare Maldini, is graded start class.  This indicates that we have weak and inconsistent measures of quality and so, if we're going to talk about quality, we need better measures. Andrew D. (talk) 08:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It got those hits before it was on ITN. We do have a clear definition of quality, read the rules. Just because some errant admins choose to ignore them, it doesn't make it right. Feel free to start a centralised discussion about posting articles with maintenance tags and obvious BLP violations, I look forward to seeing your proposal, instead of all the ad hoc criticisms of how ITN and its rules are implemented. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Today, I have been trying out the new mobile app created by the WMF for Wikipedia on the iPhone.  It's interesting to note that, unlike the Android app, this doesn't list the ITN entries.  Instead, it has a different section of Top read on English Wikipedia.  This currently lists:


  1. The Adventures of Tintin
    2. 

  2. Ravi Shankar
    3. 

  3. Rogue One
    4. 

  4. Merle Haggard
    5. 

  5. Panama Papers


That's a reasonable way of presenting hot topics, just like what's trending on Twitter or the top stories on BBC News, and Merle Haggard does well in this view.  ITN is becoming redundant... Andrew D. (talk) 10:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]






Template:Archive bottom



[Posted] Pfizer & Allergan merger called off
[edit]


Template:ITN candidate




PS — Altblurb2 offered above. (Although "inversion" is the correct term, I believe the word is generally understood in relation to weather phenomena.) Sca (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]



Please don't be so silly, TRM, we all know that it is you who suffers terminal hysteria, and I opposed this when it was nominated on the very rational grounds that regulators obviously would not approve it. If you want, we can go back to the IBAN I requested, and that I charitably withdrew at your request. μηδείς (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem here. We need to be cautious as TRM states but the cancellation was just as newsworthy as the announcement.  Not posting announcements was a defacto ban on most business stories here and it is good that we get some.  331dot (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Whatever Medeis, I don't recall being "disgusted" by stories like this, take it however you find it.  If you're feeling so inclined, get the IBAN reinstated as soon as you like, no skin off my nose, particularly given some recent contributions.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is you, not I, TRM, who use the word "disgusted", (twice), above.  I have no notion of how to respond to, nor any desire to respond to such insanity. μηδείς (talk) 00:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Get over it, and stop waving the IBAN in my face every time you read something you don't like that I've written.  By all means seek its reinstatement, as I've said there's very little need for us to interact in any shape or form as your contributions demonstrate. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


April 5
[edit]


Template:Cot
Portal:Current events/2016 April 5
Template:Cob





[Posted merged blurbs] Resignation of Iceland's Prime Minister
[edit]


Template:ITN candidate




Temporarily changed the blurb to "steps down" until situation is clearer.  Looks like some sources are saying he's having second thoughts, different sources are still saying "resigned". Hoefully it will all become clearer in the morning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heard right now on the BBC that he has handed his powers to his deputy indefinitely (or at least until next election). Popular demand may move said election sooner than planned. '''tAD''' (talk) 08:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Sources such as this say that he has already asked the president to dissolve parliament and call early elections.  I'm not exactly clear on Iceland's constitution, but I think from there the actual issuing of writs (or whatever it's called there) is a formality.Or maybe not, on further reading - his coalition partners are resisting calls for early elections, as are parts of his own party.  GoldenRing (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


The BBC says he's resigned.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]



April 4
[edit]


Template:Cot
Portal:Current events/2016 April 4
Template:Cob





[Closed] Erik Bauersfeld
[edit]


Template:Archive top
Template:ITN candidate




Template:Archive bottom



[Posted] NCAA basketball tournament
[edit]


Template:Archive top
Template:ITN candidate



P.S. The game itself was absolutely sensational.  It will almost certainly go down as one the greatest NCAA Tournament Finals in history. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose Linked article has not even been updated for tense.  Woefully in adequate at this time.  If there were a full game summary, this could go on the main page.  We can't post an article about a completed event written in the future tense with no summary of the event we're directing readers to.  --Jayron32 02:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]







    • 

  • Strong support when completed and updated. This is a major, major, major event in the United States every year. I strongly urge those who claim it's only an "amateur" tournament to look through past year debates and try to understand the importance of "March Madness". The tourney was not posted in 2012 or 2013, but was posted in 2014 and 2015. I don't think I can stress the importance of this event any better now than I or others did in these past years. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


It was also posted in 2010 & 2011, so 4/6 years since ITN took its current format, for the record. (Prior to 2010, people just suggested things and an admin posted/didn't post without any real discussion.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah very good, I didn't see the 2010 and 2011 discussions when I looked. I think that if we go 5-for-7 a new ITN/R proposal would be in order. (It failed when proposed in 2014.) – Muboshgu (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose sorry about this but oppose for the same reason as I opposed the Boat Race. Not top level competition, exclusive to certain subset of people only, etc. With that said I feel like there's something here that can be clarified, and mean to start a discussion on ITN's talk page. Banedon (talk) 02:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC) Neutral - on the one hand, I feel this should not be posted for the same reason The Boat Race should not be posted (not top level competition, exclusive to certain subset of competitors only, etc). On the other hand, if we're going to have The Boat Race on ITNR, then because the arguments for and against posting this are so similar to that for The Boat Race, it feels like opposing this is opposing an ITNR item on merit. For consistency's sake I favour a discussion on whether to include this on ITNR. If that turns out to be "no", I oppose this nomination; if it turns out "yes" instead then I support. Banedon (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


The Boat Race is on ITN/R and has twice been retained on the list following challenges, so there is clearly consensus that "top level" isn't a requirement.  The definition of what constitutes "top level" is also pretty arbitrary - something like Premier League is a "lower level" of football than the World Cup, but it would be absurd to leave it off ITN for that reason.   OTOH, the NCAA uses different rules than the NBA which itself uses different rules than European basketball.  These different rules lead to different styles of play, so in some sense each of the "top level" of its style of basketball.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the weird thing. If The Boat Race is on ITNR, why isn't this also on ITNR? The arguments for keeping The Boat Race on ITNR are eerily similar to the arguments for featuring this. Just consider them: both events are not top level. Both involve only students from certain universities. Both receive widespread national coverage. Both bring about an annual controversy on ITN. And so on ... the more I think about it, the more I feel that instead of starting a discussion on ITN's talk page, I'm simply going to nominate this for ITNR and see what happens. Banedon (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The two were actually proposed at the same time.  The level of support (roughly 2:1) was similar for both, but the NCAA was much more heated.  The closing admin decided Boat Race had just enough and NCAA basketball was a little short. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done [18]. I may have broken protocol a bit because I've after all nominated an item I don't believe in on a personal level. However I also value consistency: if we say A, we also ought to say B. Banedon (talk) 03:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose - Let's forget that this is an amateur collegiate event. Let's forget that this is a national sport that is not even the highest level of its kind. Let's forget its lack of tradition and historical significance as compared to other events with which it is frequently compared, such as the Boat Race. Now, with those points aside, we need to draw attention to the issue of systemic bias that pervades ITN, and as was discussed on the talk page. Equivalent events to this may go unnoticed in other countries if only due to the fact that this event is occurring in the United States. In order to fully mature as a truly global encyclopedia, we need to look past events like this when deciding which articles to showcase and improve for the ITN "ticker". Obviously it would be a gargantuan effort to attempt to showcase every collegiate sport worldwide, so it would be in our best interests to exercise discretion in this case. So although this has been posted for two years in a row, the current climate and consensus at ITN demands that this trend not continue.--WaltCip (talk) 02:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


The counter to systematic bias is not to exclude notable content becomes it comes from a favored region, but rather to work to promote notable content from other areas (which I myself have often done in the past.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Something else to consider then is the "one-and-done" aspect of NCAA basketball. If it were not for restrictions set forth by the NCAA, basketball players from high school would jump directly from their graduating class into the NBA as a professional player. The arbitrary restriction requires that prospective players attend college for at least one year (hence "one-and-done") prior to their transition. So considering this, it's hard to argue that this is a "top-level" event, even in its own form of basketball, considering that it is an arbitrarily placed buffer.--WaltCip (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't necessary to argue that this is a "top-level" event. It's a major sporting event every single year, reaching the noteworthiness needed for ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Am I reading this right, Walt?  We may post a competition between two English universities renowned for being among the very stuffiest in the galaxy, but not a tournament of public universities in a much younger nation in a sport played (at this level) disproportionately by minorities, because to do otherwise would be biased?  To quote you yourself, I think your objection is "only due to the fact that this event is occurring in the United States" rather than on any well-reasoned foundation. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 04:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • We don't have to post "every collegiate event" because most collegiate events are not especially notable for various reasons (the US is, for instance, fairly unique in having university sports scholarships as a key part of the sporting system, which means that college sports teams are made up of professional-quality players). The only newspaper I can find that mentioned Hartpury College winning the 2015 BUSC National Championship - the highest UK university football trophy - is the uni's local paper. In fact, I can't even tell if the 2016 final has happened yet or not - that's how little the British media care about uni level sports. I don't think it's any kind of bias to recognize that the US sporting hierarchy is unique in this respect. Smurrayinchester 11:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • It's important that we recognize that it is not ITN's job to emulate news sources, and it has never been its job (as you can see by my facetious April 1st nomination, just because something is receiving news coverage, that does not mean it is newsworthy). That other university top-level sports are not receiving equitable coverage is a reflection on the media's "business decisions" in reporting more than it is a reflection on the event itself or whether it is fitting for recognition on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]



Come on, that's uncalled for. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And rather inaccurate too. According to wikt:ramble, he either lives on a  bed of shale over the seam of coal or a section of woodland. Jolly Ω Janner 05:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


FYI, The Rambling Man has been fine with its posting in previous years. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, folks.  Correctron is trolling you all.  As my mother would have said, if you have nothing good to say, say nothing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I do find it somewhat odd that TRM would reply in such a manner, it is nice to see he can take a jab and be a good sport.Correctron (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support article is in decent shape. While I do not know of the event myself, it is covered by reliable sources and I'm willing to believe the nominator when they describe its importance in the US. Opposing events because they are only important within one country is a rather unworkable arrangement. Jolly Ω Janner 05:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Weak support I was somewhat surprised to see that last year's article (according to this at least) only garnered a handful of pageviews (about the same as an above-average DYK) and far fewer than the much maligned Boat Race.  Still, it's somewhat popular amongst Wikipedia editors, the article is in very good condition and we could use a news update.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Just an FYI, the main tournament article (as opposed to the championship game one) is what garners most of the views (874k in the last 30 days), see [19]. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]



Does that mean college football will receive your support?Correctron (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If he's opposing for that reason, probably not. Banedon (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Or course it won't. Fgf10 (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support.  This is the highest level of college basketball, which receives a great amount of attention.  There is no requirement that we only post the "highest level" of something; often "lower" levels get more attention.  (This isn't even really "lower", just different)  Even if we don't post this every year, this particular year seems notable given the nature of the victory(win at the last second) and is already being called "the best title game ever" [20]  When the team the President of the United States picks to win makes the news, there is clearly some level of importance beyond other events. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support - This is one of the highest level competitions in the sport - let's not unduly privilege professional league play. And as the Boat Race reminds us, collegiate competitions can definitely be of outstanding significance, both within the sport itself and culturally. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support Even as someone outside North America who doesn't follow the American sports at all, I'm aware that college level is a big part of the US sporting culture, and this - plus the Rose Bowl Game - are worthy of posting. We should probably take this to ITN/R to avoid rehashing this debate every time it comes up. Smurrayinchester 11:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


(As an aside, I think some people complaining that this is not the highest level don't know how US sport leagues are arranged. There is no general system of promotion and relegation between divisions like there is in most European countries - the leagues are private companies who sell positions on a franchise basis to the highest bidder. Sometimes there is a clear monetary difference between leagues (such as between Major League Baseball and Minor League Baseball) which cements one as able to able to afford the best players, but in this case, the NCAA and NBA are pretty much parallel - they each draw the best players from their respective pools.) Smurrayinchester 11:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking in terms of, if a team of aliens lands in the US tomorrow and challenge the US population to a game of basketball, a team from which league is more likely to be chosen to play? The two leagues may each draw the best players from their respective pools, but that's not really relevant. If the best team from the NCAA plays against the best team from the NBA, it's pretty clear who will win. Banedon (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the answer there is clearly the Harlem Globetrotters. Either that, or mutant atomic supermen. Smurrayinchester 12:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or animated characters and Michael Jordan). --MASEM (t) 13:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]



No equivalent event from a country any other than the US would have had any chance in hell of being posted. Fgf10 (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of what we're trying to do here.  We don't expect the Norwegian wikipedia to give the results of the Superbowl in their version of ITN, even though they probably (I'm guessing here) have an item of the champion of their 1st division football league. That isn't systematic bias on their part, it's providing links to quality articles on current events that are of interest to their readers.  The mission statement of ITN.


Systematic bias is an actual problem; trying to use it to complain about the posting of the NCAA bball tournament does a disservice to the cause of reducing it, because people who are not already on board will tend to associate the idea of "systematic bias" with "weird thing I probably don't need to listen to", and are more likely to ignore it when it is actually applicable. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Plus the Boat Race has been posted for the past two or three years. That's not a US event. If you're going to complain, at least base it in fact. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Post-posting Oppose. Neither this nor the Boat Race should have been posted.  Neither are important outside their own countries, and neither are the top level of their sport. Laura Jamieson (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From above: "Please do not oppose an item because the event is 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." And the "top level" argument is not accurate as discussed above and in past years. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


And please accept that our readers and their opinions on what to read are far more important than your own view of how we do things.  In actuality, The Boat Race has millions of viewers outside its own country.  But why let a fact get in the way of a good old-fashioned whinging story?  P.S.  Where does it say that "top level of their sport" is one of the ITN criteria?  Perhaps I missed that in the last ten years of editing here.  Perhaps you "don't like it".  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Replyto I would be happy to support an "equivalent event" if it is truly demonstrated to be equivalent, in terms of cultural impact, viewership, etc. The way to fight systemic bias is to work to post stories from other places, not to artificially restrict stories from being posted. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear that users like Template:U and Template:U prefer to see stories in the ITN section that are seven, eight, nine days old and try to prevent stories which are in the news and which are popular with our readers being posted.   It's a curious point of view but not surprising from such users I suppose.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's the lazy way out of the problem of systemic bias.  The fact of systemic bias is real.  The ratio of articles posted from certain countries (mostly the largest anglophone countries) is higher than the ratio of stories coming from other countries.  There are two possible solutions to this problem, and BOTH raise the ratio of stories coming from underrepresented topics 1) is to improve articles on topics which are underrepresented and 2) is to tear down articles on topics which are overrepresented.  The desire to fight systemic bias is not a problem.  The problem is that the solution from Fgf10 et al. is that the primary way they want to achieve this is option 2) tearing down work (through denigration, belittlement, and scorn) rather than option 1), which would actually result in more articles in the encyclopedia getting better.  Just to pull a random, non-anglophone sport out of the air, we don't usually post the results of major badminton championships, but only because they are in the state of 2015 BWF World Championships, which is clearly not main page worthy.  If we posted badminton as well as basketball, the systemic bias would be negated by being more inclusive, and everybody wins.  The solution that involves tearing down the work of people who improve basketball articles is not desirable.  Instead, find other sports whose articles need improving, make those main page worthy, and we'll post those!  But no, that would be too much like right.  --Jayron32 20:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes,  users like Template:U and Template:U don't actually improve articles, they just criticise things they don't like.  That's a pretty easy gig, and perhaps it's now more obvious to them why their "votes" are discounted.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]



Template:Archive bottom



April 3
[edit]


Template:Cot
Portal:Current events/2016 April 3
Template:Cob





[Closed] RD: Lars Gustafsson
[edit]


Template:Archive top
Template:ITN candidate
Template:Archive bottom



[Reposted] RD: Joe Medicine Crow
[edit]


Template:ITN candidate



  • Support As nominator. Probably not a reliable source, but he's also a certified badass. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 23:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • PS - I'm actively updating this to source all the claims and update language, and expand where I learn something interesting - I think the claims already there are more than enough to support RD notability.  If you find fault in the article, please tell me what specifically you want to see done to make it RD worthy if you don't care to do it yourself. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 00:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support on the merits; seems important as a historian and as a leader of his tribe. 331dot (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support and article appears to be in good shape for posting. --MASEM (t) 00:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support Appears to be a vital historian and played a role in the importance of his tribe. Received the nation's highest civilian honor. Article in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose. Is "historian of minor Native American tribe" now a category that ITN concerns itself with? In the past we've had leaders of medium-sized countries not posted on notability grounds, I fail to see how "unofficial leader of 13,000 people" is notable enough for RD. So nowhere near meeting WP:ITN/DC IMHO, but could be taken up to GA status and posted to DYK. IgnorantArmies (talk) 05:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support I think the previous comments misses the fundamental point.  The man was awarded the Bronze Star Medal, the Legion of Honour and the Presidential Medal of Freedom.  If that doesn't confer notability, I don't know what does.  Article could use tidying up, particularly references, but otherwise this is ok.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support Article is just about good enough. I highlighted a couple of facts that ought to be cited, but even ITN gives a little bit of leeway. Easily passes recent death notability per coverage in multiple major news sources. Jolly Ω Janner 07:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support - Outstandingly notable in three fields - indigenous community leadership, native history, and warfare - and still at the top of the first two at the time of death. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Posting to RD. --Tone 09:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • pull temporarily. I was just about to mark this as not ready as there are still two explicitly marked statements requiring citations, the second of which (his thesis being the most widely cited about its subject) is a significant one. I fully support notability for RD but the posting is premature. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Right, I commented out those two sentences. Should be ok now, when refs appear, we just uncomment them. --Tone 10:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      • I appreciate your wanting to allow the article to stay on the mainpage, but if the two sentences are commented out, how will anyone (other than the handful of editors who read here) know that they are there and require referencing? Frankly, I'd rather have the sentences still visible with the c/n tags, so that people will continue sourcing them even as the article is mainpaged, in the absence of any genuine controversy or dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

        • The sentence that made the most fuss ("most widely cited") is a lost cause, I've been attempting to source it but it's now a recursive problem where other sites quoted our line so searches bring up copy/paste of this article prior to recent updates.  The current wording is good enough though. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 22:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Thank you To everyone who contributed.  I knew there was a little work to be done when I fell asleep last night, had hoped the article would not be crucified for it but I'm delighted that it was polished in my absence. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 14:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


[Closed] Olivier Awards
[edit]


Template:Archive top
Template:ITN candidate




Template:Archive bottom



[Posted] Panama Papers
[edit]


Template:ITN candidate




Why?  331dot (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I find your failure to understand the importance of this event amusing.--Catlemur (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that I didn't; Why is this event any more crucial than any other to post? "Crucial" suggests some special urgency to post. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Crucial means important, in my humble opinion this is a very important event.--Catlemur (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support Huge issue that will remain in the news for quite some time for its impact on a number of well-known personalities including government officials worldwide. Being discussed in German's No. 1 political talkshow right now, it's featured at BBC, Guardian, Washington Post, some Indian newspapers, amongst others. Article is still quite basic but based on reliable, and may be expected to quickly evolve. --PanchoS (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose article is a mess.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]




  • When I read it, it said crap like "Data processing  More.."  That's a mess and something we don't even consider posting to the main page.  I look forward to the article being properly formatted and then subjected to review before being posted hastily and erroneously to the main page.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose: Article seems like a BLP nightmare (at least as written currently, and probably by its very nature), which is not a good thing to link to on the main page, even if the BLP problems aren't actually mentioned on the main page.  Are all these people being "named" or "implicated" or in the "accusations were made" paragraph in the article actually shown to have specifically done something wrong?  Because that's what's strongly being implied. Article would need significant change in approach before I could support. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose this nomination is based on a rather strong POV, but an otherwise rather small story.  If there are significant convictions or people are removed from office we can revisit this. μηδείς (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


What POV? Do you expect a corrupt politician to jail himself and his associates?--Catlemur (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's moot at this point, but "thousands of rich people hid their wealth in tax havens" is missing only the word evil to show the editor's opinion explicitly.  The burb as posted is fine. μηδείς (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support Major lead and decent article. I wouldn't say "hid". That may be the case, but the more neutral would be "channeled". L.tak (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose - The blurbs are atrociously written, and the article has a lot of improvement yet to do.--WaltCip (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment – It's gonna take a while to thresh the wheat from the chaff. Sca (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose -  the article is messy because the story is still developing, it's a volatile issue, and it will take time to gain some perspective on this fluid situation. In my opinion (because for me this story involves issues of privacy & freedom, money & power and reputations are, potentially, at stake here) an important part of this story will not be the facts involved but rather the public's reaction to the story, ie., "who's side are you on?" Or "what's your opinion?"; by posting so soon on the main page, it's like we are more inclined toward making the news rather than just passing it along, and we are deciding prematurely that this is newsworthy before the public weighs in, via social media, etc.. It's not our job to "get out in front" of the story. But I must say the article is improving. If it continues to make improvements over the coming days, I will be inclined to change my vote to support. Christian Roess (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Hold. I think this is fine. Let's put the nomination on hold until the article is improved. Feel free to propose alternate blurbs, but I was just going off of the major news headlines. czar 22:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support: major news of worldwide relevance. Biggest document leak ever. The article is more than a stub, and while it names people, that's currently all it does: lists people who are named in the leaked documents, giving sources, without claiming anything about those people, at this point. LjL (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support: all over the news. plenty of reliable sources. BabbaQ (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • The article has a large list of people who are "named" in the report, yet we don't have any information on these people other than that. At best, the article is a sprawling list that has been poorly written and at worst is outright slander. There's no chance of it being on the Main Page until this is resolved. I raised the issue on the talk page of the article if anyone wishes to help. Jolly Ω Janner 23:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support once the article improves. It's a really important story, but the article needs work yet. -- Irn (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment No opinion on whether this should be on the front page, but alternative blurb II is the only option which is grammatically correct. Nick-D (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support The article is a bit sparse now but is not the "mess" described earlier.  Dismas|(talk) 01:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support Major news breaking on a Sunday night? Story is growing, the article is in decent shape; it needs work yes but its postable now. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support once the article is ready. Nergaal (talk) 04:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support - alt blurb 3. Banedon (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support - alt blurb 1, quite notable and would be in the news for some time Sherenk1 (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Posted. Article seemed to be well written at this point in time. I went with a mix of altblurb 2 and 3, but removing the "heads of state" angle since that seemed to me to place undue weight on that aspect of what is a very broad leak. Thue (talk) 09:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


[Closed] 2016 Amtrak derailment
[edit]


Template:Archive top
Template:ITN candidate




Template:Archive bottom



[Posted] RD: Cesare Maldini
[edit]


Template:ITN candidate




[Posted] Cricket World Twenty20
[edit]


Template:Anchor
Template:ITN candidate



  • Oppose First of all, I amended the header, cause I needed to look into the article to actually know what sport you're talking about. Also added an altblurb. As for the article: The tournament article is OK, but we are talking about the final here, and that article needs serious work. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


By the way, what kind of a sport is it where the West Indies win a World Cup and a joint team by them and England is allowed? Totally bogus in my opinion. The commomwealth is seriously messed up... Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Oh wait, now I get it, they didn't play yet. Oops. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Women's is done, and looks like Windies will take both. 2 wickets down in 2 overs and Roy out quacking...


We're one great nation in the commonwealth anyways...Sibling rivaly. ;)Lihaas (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]



Oooh, best put your pads on for the backlash. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a shame the Boat Race dropped off.  I may re-add it to balance the main page... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But T20 is not cricket! #Realcricket lasts for 5 days with possibility of no result! Plus that skullduggery IPl starts in a few days and in a month itll be back on ITN.Lihaas (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you constantly use ITN as a forum for your incomprehensible rants? WaltCip (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you lighten up?Lihaas (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Post-posting support and great to see both the men's and women's tournaments given equal treatment in the blurb. Is this a result of the discussion to consistently report the women's version of a tourny when a men's is posted? Whatever the reason, looks good for addressing gender bias. MurielMary (talk) 10:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


April 2
[edit]


Template:Cot
Portal:Current events/2016 April 2
Template:Cob





[Closed] RD: Amber Rayne
[edit]


Template:Archive top
Template:ITN candidate




Template:Archive bottom



[Posted] Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes
[edit]


Template:ITN candidate




comment Posted altblurb.Lihaas (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


[Closed] 2015-16 NBA Basketball Season
[edit]


Template:Archive top 
Template:ITN candidate



  • Oppose.  This is not a sports ticker; very rarely do we list anything other than championship games at ITN- and I don't think the end of a home winning streak qualifies(maybe if they had been totally undefeated, but not just at home). 331dot (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • True, but we have been known to put up information of a relevant nature in sports even if the relate to an ongoing season - a perfect game, for example. I accept that this is a long shot, so all I am asking is that people keep an open mind about the nomination. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      • As I indicated, if they had been totally undefeated all this time, I'd probably support. Home court advantage is strong in basketball. I would add that since it is largely about the Warriors' streak, the Spurs should not be mentioned if this is posted. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose - Erm no. Since when do we post individual games of domestic leagues? Also ENGVAR issues, 'snapping' means nothing to me here, though I can work it out from context. Fgf10 (talk) 09:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


To be fair, this is not so much about the result of the game, but the end of a home winning streak. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose Pure trivia. But this would actually make a nice DYK hook, maybe there is an opportunity there? Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Maybe, but I'll be honest and say I rarely do anything that relates to the main page becuase its become hideously complicated. That said, if you think its got a chance I suppose I could suffer the expert difficulty to move it over there. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      • I actually forgot that the DYK people want articles that have been created or expanded 5-7 fold (like 1,500 words or more) or have been recently promoted to GA status or better. Honestly, after a review of the articles in question, I seriously doubt that there will be a DYK hook here because if I am reading the requirements right these article(s) do not qualify for a DYK hook. That being said, if you're reading the instructions at DYK differently, lemme know and I will follow up on it. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Well, you read the rules correctly. But if the season article would be promoted to GA status, this could be the hook for a DYK. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Weak oppose. I agree with 331dot if it had been a total undefeated streak; a home winning streak sounds like a record just for the sake of a record (e.g. the "team A have now won 10 consecutive games where they scored in the last 10% of the game" kind of thing). Granted a home winning streak is still not at this level of trivia, but still. If we post this regardless, Alt blurb is far preferable to me. Banedon (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Though I admit that this story is probably not fit for ITN, as a sports aficionado I find this story highly interesting. It makes me wonder if Golden State are all they're cracked up to be, or if they're just calling it quits for the regular season in preparation for the playoffs. --WaltCip (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose per above. This isn't a sports ticker, the season is still ongoing. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Archive bottom



April 1
[edit]


Template:Cot
Portal:Current events/2016 April 1
Template:Cob





[Closed] Kim Kardashian pics
[edit]


Template:Archive top
Template:ITN candidate







But do you have a colander? Sca (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or some coriander?--WaltCip (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]



Lighten up.--WaltCip (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools Day is basically the stupidest fucking thing ever. I'm with Fgf10. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well then you "fucking" lighten up too. If you have nothing positive to say, say nothing at all. This isn't a venue for your emotional outbursts. The Rambling Man (talk)-

It shouldn't be a venue for stupidity either, but that ship has sailed. This is the last comment I make on this thread. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good job too. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]








Template:Archive bottom









Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/April_2016&oldid=1091454766"