Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/February 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.

February 29

[edit]
February 29, 2016 (2016-02-29) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy
  • China says it expects to lay off 1.8 million state workers in the coal and steel sectors, or about 15 percent of the industries' workforce, as part of efforts to reduce industrial overcapacity. (Reuters)

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime
Politics and elections

[Closed] RD:Louise Rennison

[edit]
No consensus. Stephen 21:59, 6 March 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: Louise Rennison (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Telegraph The Independent The Guardian BBC NY 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: Award winning author of young adult fiction; article being updated MurielMary (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the awards weren't all trivial; the Nestle Prize for example was "one of the most respected and prestigious prizes for children's literature". MurielMary (talk) 10:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She won the bronze right? So third place. In a discontinued award. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. I guess so. MurielMary (talk) 10:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MurielMary, you're agreeing with The Rambling Man. So, with all due respect, shouldn't you either withdraw your nomination, or alternatively give us reasons why you still think your nomination should remain despite your above agreement? Tlhslobus (talk) 05:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I left the nom open for others to add their opinions. One person's view doesn't equal consensus, and different people see different things when evaluating an article. MurielMary (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your helpful clarification, MurielMary. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:12, 6 March 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]: George Kennedy

[edit]
Article: George Kennedy (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hollywood Reporter, includes link of grandson breaking the 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.

Nominator's comments: Renowned actor that has won an Academy Award, nominated for two Golden Globe Awards and appeared in many notable movies that are seen as cult classics to this day. Had a distinguished career. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ref'd them all, apart from the last one. Any help with that would be appreciated. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 28

[edit]
February 28, 2016 (2016-02-28) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sport

[Posted] Vorkuta coal mine explosion

[edit]
Article: Vorkuta mine explosion (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Thirty-six people are killed in a coal mine near Vorkuta, Russia, following explosions caused by a methane gas leak and the collapse of the mine (Post)
News source(s): BBC, NBC News
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Per BBC " one of the worst Russian mining disasters in recent times"; there was an explosion on Feb 25 that trapped 26 miners, but this second set of explosions this morning killed those as well as 5 rescue workers trying to save them. MASEM (t) 17:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only 2 supports?
Anyways, I would support too as outside china's woeful industrial safety record, these are rare. Cmparable to Chile a few years ago (2010?).Lihaas (talk) 07:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Thane stabbing

[edit]
No consensus to post. --Tone 18:40, 28 February 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: Thane stabbing (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A man fatally stabs 14 family members before taking his own life in the Indian city of Thane. (Post)
News source(s): [1]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Very unusual incident in India. EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 07:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An incident without any deaths there, only injuries. Please add another example- EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 09:58, 28 February 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] 88th Academy Awards

[edit]
Article: 88th Academy Awards (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Spotlight wins the Best Picture at the 88th Academy Awards. (Post)
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.

 Lihaas (talk) 03:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if The Revenant wins, Iñárritu should be pictured - he'd be the first person to direct back-to-back Best Picture winners. Neljack (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How is the premise incorrect? He was specifically nominated for an award that he did not win. None of the awards Mad Max won were a) major or b) for directing. It's a moot point now because the picture has been changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.148.250 (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 27

[edit]
February 27, 2016 (2016-02-27) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Closed] Iranian legislative election, 2016

[edit]
Closing for now. This can be re-opened after the second round of voting, as indicated at the end of discussion below. -- Tlhslobus (talk) 05:50, 3 March 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: Iranian legislative election, 2016 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Moderates and reformists led by Mohammad Reza Aref win the Iranian legislative election (Post)
News source(s): (New York Times), (BBC News)
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.
 bender235 (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nom. Obviously still ongoing. Just wanted to start a nomination discussion. --bender235 (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

note the lower house election is more impoertant ...granted this has both at the same time as a rarity but still that's the more important body with day-to-day committee and law decisions.Lihaas (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if this is ITNR, your note is noted but it's just the quality of the update that's important, notability having been established already. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Given Iran's pivotal role in the Middle East, this landslide for 'reformers' seems very significant. But obviously, results need to be in the lede. Sca (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - your suggested blurb stated that the "reformist" wins, but the attached sources merely claim that they gained seats, not exactly winning (The sources also say they win the seats in Tehran, which isn't the same as winning nationally, I think). Does this mean the non-reformists still have the majority of the national seats? Our article isn't very clear about this. I suggest the article should clarify what it means by "Reformists", what exactly was their gains in this election, and what is the election result overall. HaEr48 (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct. So far there have only been preliminary results, so whether they won majority or "just" gained seats is still unclear. --bender235 (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What makes this different from the 2014 US legislative elections, which was heavily opposed since the head of government wasn't at stake? AFAIK, neither the President nor the Supreme Leader's seats are up for election. –HTD 02:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on 2 counts 1) The article does not have the final results, and has no prose describing the final results. 2) There's an orange-level "multiple issues" tag which indicates fixes that need to be made before this is appropriate for the main page, even on top of the fact that the article is not yet sufficiently updated. Please fix all of that before we can assess if the quality is good enough for the main page. It certainly isn't yet. --Jayron32 02:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The blurb is almost certainly wrong. Last I heard (Ireland's RTE yesterday) the reformists, despite winning a landslide in the capital Tehran, were only headed for about 30% nationally, hardliners about 50% (too early to say whether above or below 50%), independents about 20%. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It seems to be described in good faith but mistakenly as ITN/R. The head of state is not at stake, so to be ITN/R it has to be a general election, which ITN/R implicitly defines by linking to our article, which currently states: "In presidential systems, the term refers to a regularly scheduled election where both the president, and either "a class" of or all members of the national legislature are elected at the same time but sometimes refers to special elections held to fill prematurely vacated positions. A general election day may also include elections for local officials." As Iran is a presidential system, according to this definition the President has to be up for election for it to count as a general election, so this one doesn't count. So I've removed the ITN/R flag. If you think I'm mistaken you can always try putting it back. However I'm currently neutral on whether it should be posted once the article and blurb are fixed. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the ITNR tag, as the same definition page also states "The term is usually used to refer to elections held for a nation's primary legislative body, as distinguished from by-elections and local elections." Various definitions also indicate that it can refer to just a parliamentary/legislative election. 331dot (talk) 11:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I second that. A general election is one that all, if not most, members of a national legislative body are elected. It may have a different definition in the US, but it never was about whether a head of state/government was at stake. The 2014 US midterms had consensus and was posted to ITN, albeit not via ITN/R or without opposition. Fuebaey (talk) 17:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with two previous posts. This might be a turning point for Iran. Sca (talk) 18:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that this is considered a general election in ITN/R. The article still has one unsourced section, "Incumbents not seeking re-election." This section must either be removed or sourced before posting. Mamyles (talk) 18:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Should this be closed now and re-opened after the second round (as would happen per ITN/R if it were an election for head of government), especially as we can't know who won until then? Tlhslobus (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, only the final round should be posted. 331dot (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, it looks like it should be closed and re-opened after the second round. I guess anybody can close it right now, and if nobody has objected by tomorrow and it's still unclosed, I plan to then close it myself.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:42, 2 March 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.

February 26

[edit]
February 26, 2016 (2016-02-26) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economics
  • Dow Chemical agrees to pay $835 million to settle a decade-long, price-fixing, class-action dispute. Dow states that the uncertainty about the U.S. Supreme Court makeup following Justice Antonin Scalia's death means there is an "increased likelihood for unfavorable outcomes for business involved in class action suits." The urethane chemicals case, from 2005, was against a number of companies; Dow had been the only defendant not to settle. (Reuters) (Reuters via Winnipeg Sun)
  • A federal appeals court rules in favor of Samsung on several issues arising out of that company's long-running patent dispute with Apple, overturning a $120 million jury verdict in Apple's favor in 2014. (Reuters)

Disasters and accidents

Health and medicine

International Relations

Law and crime

Politics and election

Science and technology

Sport

[Closed] RD: Don Getty

[edit]
Consensus against. BencherliteTalk 10:49, 4 March 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: Don Getty (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC
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: Ok I know this maybe late, but I assumed it was already nominated and did not pass. Renowned Canadian politician. Article in good shape and had an impressive career in the football part. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:26, 29 February 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] Kosovan presidential election

[edit]
Supported in principle but article quality too poor to post. BencherliteTalk 10:48, 4 March 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: Kosovan presidential election, 2016 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Hashim Thaçi is elected as President of Kosovo. (Post)
News source(s): ABC
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Appears to satisfy WP:ITN/R, as Kosovo appears on List of sovereign states, although its status is somewhat disputed. EternalNomad (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until an article about the election is created and can be assessed for suitability. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure this is ITNR, as its status is disputed(though recognized by 108 UN member states) and it is listed under "other states" on the sovereign states list. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 331dot is right about this not being ITN/R - the listing for elections says: "Disputed states and dependent territories should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits." Having said that, I would support posting this if we get a satisfactory article. Whatever its de jure status, Kosovo is de facto independent. Its election will be just as important as one in an undisputed state of similar size and influence. Neljack (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NOT ITNR, removed the tag. In this case the merits/ITNC constituties post-worthyniess. Plus its indirect...but if there was more context about thaci coming back on the page THEN it could be more notable. Its certainly not across the news media.Lihaas (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is an incredibly Eurocentric comment. Why is recognition by Western countries any more significant than recognition by other countries? And what on Earth are "fringe states" and how do most of the countries recognising Taiwan fall into that category? Neljack (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Um, because Western countries exert more power on the world stage, they have bigger economies, they have seats on the UN Security Council, etc. Banedon (talk) 00:55, 3 March 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] Irish elections

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Irish general election, 2016 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Fine Gael, led by Enda Kenny (pictured), gains the most seats in the Irish Dáil. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the Irish general election, Fine Gael, led by Prime Minister Enda Kenny (pictured), loses nearly a third of its votes but narrowly remains the largest party in the Irish Dáil.
Alternative blurb II: ​ In the Irish general election, the ruling coalition of Fine Gael and Labour loses its parliamentary majority and over a third of its vote, but Fine Gael narrowly remains the largest party in the Irish Dáil.
News source(s): FT, The Guardian, The Irish Times
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: Prematurely based on exit polls. Fuebaey (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the government remains the same, this may be a case where we do not post the re-election of an incumbent, depending on other factors(news coverage, if we get a great update, etc.) 331dot (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we not post the re-election of an incumbent? I do not see why that is any less significant than the incumbent being defeated. Does anyone really think the 2012 US Presidential election was less significant because Barack Obama rather than Mitt Romney won? Neljack (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, this seems to be moot, since it is fairly clear that in light of the massive collapse in Labour Party support the Fine Gael/Labour coalition will not be able to continue in office. Fine Gael may still lead the next government, but they will need to find a new coalition partner. Neljack (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed moot- I would say that it's been my understanding that while general elections in general are notable, there may be specific instances where they do not warrant posting, such as a rigged election(though we do post them occasionally) or one where there are no choices(North Korea) or elections in countries where an incumbent remains in power; the latter of which likely depends on the country and its political situation. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 331dot, You got our ITNR rules backwards. According to ITNR, the results of a general election should always be posted (assuming article quality is OK). Whether or not the incumbent wins is completely irrelevant for the notability of a general election. A change of Prime Minister (whether after a general election or otherwise) is a separate event not covered by ITNR, that has to be discussed based on its merits if it happens. LoveToLondon (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have nothing backwards. ITNR is not and never has been a guarantee of posting any item; as stated at WP:ITNR: "Listing here is not an automatic guarantee that an item will be posted.". There may be specific exceptions if the community judges a particular election not worthy of posting due to its particular circumstances- which since this issue is moot here I won't go into. I was only referring to the PM to indicate that the majority party has remained the same. 331dot (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The government staying the same is a pretty normal result of a general election, it might even happen in the majority of all general elections (for people in the US: there were 50 general elections in the US in the 20th century, and the majority in the United States House of Representatives changed in only 8 of these 50 general elections). Your attempts to claim that the common result the government remains the same could be a specific exception is simply wrong. If you are not happy with the status quo that all general elections get posted assuming sufficient article quality, then discuss that at ITNR. (There is also the obvious problem that whether or not there will be the non-ITNR event of a new Prime Minister is usually only decided weeks or months after a general election - whether Enda Kenny will stay Prime Minister or whether his party will have to go into opposition is not clear today after the ITNR general election.) LoveToLondon (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus is to post all general elections, no matter whether anything changes, and no matter whether they were fair or fraudulent. So please stop implying there might be notability reasons for not posting a general election. LoveToLondon (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
post the results upon update of FG plurality and we can post the ogovt formation later as a possible grand coalition. We did it for CAN/UK/AUS last time. (and Peple' Before Profit got in too...amazing. they were all over when I was in Dublin).Lihaas (talk) 03:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added in the word narrowly to both altblurbs, as FG is just barely ahead of FF.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed references and added a summary. Two seats have yet to be declared in an ongoing recount but won't change the outcome of the election. I'd compromise on the altblurb; second one seems a bit cumbersome. Can take out prime minister as well if still too long - the nom is mainly about the election result, not who is/was in government. Fuebaey (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support article is more than good enough for me. Banedon (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for same reason as Banedon above, plus it's fairly urgent as time is running out. Use altblurb as suggested by Fuebaey above. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Support. As of 08:30 today, counting of all results has now been completed. Recommend altblurb. --Kwekubo (talk) 12:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as mentioned the count is now finished in the final constituency. I think altblurb 2 better explains the result. --Boreas74 You'll catch more flies with honey 12:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb 2. Full results are now out and the article now is in sufficiently good shape. Marking [ready]. Modest Genius talk 13:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Post ASAP as there is clear consensus for posting, and there's just 27 hours left before this nomination gets lost thru being archived. Either altblurb will do, or, if necessary, a shortened version of either. Like the last 2 posters, I actually prefer altblurb 2, tho I earlier agreed with altblurb 1 (or a shortened version thereof) at a time when it seemed like a sensible compromise that offered the quickest way to get this posted. But the important thing is to get it posted with some kind of blurb, and any dispute over the blurb (which quite likely there won't be, almost certainly not from me anyway) can then be carried on at WP:ERRORS (where consensus is not needed, so any supposed lack of consensus over the blurb here should not be used as an excuse for delaying posting, especially when time is running out.)Tlhslobus (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. I dated it 3 March as that's when the result was finalised. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Espresso Addict. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] 2016 FIFA presidential election

[edit]
While consensus on notability was established, the state of both articles means that this news couldn't be posted. BencherliteTalk 10:46, 4 March 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: 2016 FIFA Extraordinary Congress (talk · history · tag) and Gianni Infantino (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Gianni Infantino is elected the President of FIFA. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Gianni Infantino is elected the President of FIFA during an extraordinary congress calling for reform in the wake of a corruption scandal.
News source(s): AP, The Guardian
Credits:
 SounderBruce 17:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "in the wake of" is a clichéd idiom and we should try to avoid having those in ITN blurbs if at all possible.--WaltCip (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as the Infantino's article has an orange tag, it should not be the bolded link. The election article needs some more prose, as noted above. --Tone 18:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The scandal that shook up FIFA was news, that a new president of FIFA would then be elected was a natural result of the fallout of the scandal. --MASEM (t) 18:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • FIFA is not a country, it's a sporting organization. (Yes, the largest in the word, but that's inconsequential). While its "news", it's not really the type of coverage we give to a sporting event, and the FIFA scandal has been well documented to ITN already; this is simple a necessary fallout from it. --MASEM (t) 01:12, 27 February 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.

February 25

[edit]
February 25, 2016 (2016-02-25) (Thursday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Posted] Jamaican elections

[edit]
Article: Jamaican general election, 2016 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Jamaica Labour Party, led by Andrew Holness (pictured), wins a narrow majority in the Jamaican general election. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, BBC, The Gleaner
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: A change in government. Fuebaey (talk) 07:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DNFTT. BencherliteTalk 09:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
General elections of all sovereign states have already been determined to be notable, as they are on the recurring items list. Your statement that "nobody cares" is both incorrect and irrelevant. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Marlonja: That's why general elections are on the recurring items list, though in order to be posted we still need an adequate article. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An incumbent PM was not reelected; the current PM is Portia Simpson-Miller whose party lost its majority. Holness was PM before but was not the incumbent. Leaving that aside, with regards to ITNR I understand and accept that there is some wiggle room in posting(or not) re-elections of incumbents, but a "small nation" is not relevant as numerous proposals to exclude small nations from posting have failed. You are welcome to attempt to do so again, but as long as this is in the news and gets an update(which admittedly has not happened) it should be posted. Every nation's government affects the world in some way(as a user pointed out above). 331dot (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excluding small nations could be seen as systemic bias, as well. 331dot (talk) 02:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction on the switch of party, I misunderstood what I read, and I have withdrawn my opposition. But I still oppose automatically posting elections in small countries. Jamaica has a population of 2.9 million. There are 91 world cities (not urban areas, but incorporated cities) List_of_cities_proper_by_population with a greater population than Jamaica. μηδείς (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've visited this discussion numerous times. Ranking by election significance by population is illogical, attempting to create a "cut-off" mark has no consensus. Ireland wouldn't rank in the top 50 of the list you link, but you're not opposing that candidate on the same grounds, where's your cut-off point? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't understand the reluctance to support things like this- aside from the systemic bias issue of favoring large countries- it's like people are afraid to actually learn something about another country. As TRM states, arbitrary cut-offs have been discussed to death as one will never be agreed to. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit more prose. As of this timestamp, it's roughly the same size as the previous election (2011) article and the last nomination that was posted to the ITN template. There's also a recount underway that might sway the seats 32-31, but blurb should still be okay. Fuebaey (talk) 01:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, that's all I wanted to see :) Posting. --Tone 08:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] 2016 Hesston shooting

[edit]
Thanks for the nomination, but closing as no consensus and seeming unlikely to obtain it given the event's nature. 331dot (talk) 13:10, 26 February 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 Hesston shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ 3 people are killed in a shooting incident in Hesston, Kansas. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, The New York Times
Credits:
 Skr15081997 (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With 14 injured, "minor" is probably the wrong word. I'd be less opposed if there was some sort of unusual/notable motive, but this just looks like some nutjob. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:39, 26 February 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.

February 24

[edit]
February 24, 2016 (2016-02-24) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sport

[Posted] Tara Air Flight 193

[edit]
Article: Tara Air Flight 193 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Tara Air Flight 193 crashes in Nepal, killing all 23 people on board. (Post)
News source(s): Guardian, Aviation Herald
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Relatively high number of fatalities. Article is developing. Brandmeistertalk 10:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 23

[edit]
February 23, 2016 (2016-02-23) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents
Health

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Closed] Dalfsen train crash

[edit]
A rare event, but lacks significance. Stephen 22:43, 23 February 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: Dalfsen train crash (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least one person dies when a train hits a crane at a level crossing in Dalfsen, Netherlands (Post)
News source(s): BBC Dutch News
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Deadly rail accidents in the Netherlands are rare, and trains hitting cranes at level crossings are rarer still. That said there has only been one death (and news articles are not giving the impression this is likely to rise) and according to the BBC 13 people lost their lives at Dutch level crossings last year - none made international news though, and this is the only Dutch rail accident we have an article on since the 2012 Sloterdijk train collision. All in all I think this is worthy of a slot at ITN on a slow news day - I've seen criticism of ITN recently for being stale and nominations are the best way to fix that. Thryduulf (talk) 13:47, 23 February 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.

February 22

[edit]
February 22, 2016 (2016-02-22) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economics

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Posted] RD: Douglas Slocombe

[edit]
Article: Douglas Slocombe (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, citing statement from family
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: Eminent cinematographer, three-time BAFTA winner, three-time Oscar nominee. Probably best-known for the Indiana Jones films, but also shot many other classics. One of the last of his generation of filmmakers, dying at age 103. Blythwood (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 21

[edit]
February 21, 2016 (2016-02-21) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

[Closed] 2016 Women's Bandy World Championship

[edit]
Consensus against posting. --Tone 20:47, 22 February 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 Women's Bandy World Championship (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​  Sweden defeats  Russia to win its 7th workd championship title, in Roseville, Minnesota, USA. (Post)
Credits:
  • Nominated by [[User:Skogsvandraren (talk)|Skogsvandraren (talk)]] ([[User talk:Skogsvandraren (talk)|talk]] · [{{fullurl:User talk:Skogsvandraren (talk)|action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/preload_credit&preloadtitle=ITN+recognition+for+%5B%5B2016+Women%27s+Bandy+World+Championship%5D%5D&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=2016+Women%27s+Bandy+World+Championship&preloadparams%5b%5d=nominated}} give credit])
Or as a certain Teletype operator was wont to say to certain AP writers, "What is dis shit?" Sca (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to some people, prose had no place in an article like this. I don't agree myself, so I like the fact that I have found someone who agrees with me in that regard. As for the low quality of the article, please suggest improvements. Skogsvandraren (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Look at some other articles on annual international sports championships and notice what is included e.g. 2015 Rugby World Cup. MurielMary (talk) 17:12, 22 February 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 Daytona 500

[edit]
Articles: 2016 Daytona 500 (talk · history · tag) and Denny Hamlin (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Denny Hamlin wins the 2016 Daytona 500 by 0.01 seconds, making it the closest margin in the race's history. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In motorsport, Denny Hamlin wins the Daytona 500.
News source(s): ESPN Sports Illustrated
Credits:

Nominator's comments: The biggest and most prestigious event in the Sprint Cup Series. Andise1 (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support with final updates - I note Daytona is not an ITNR within Motorsport, and there was discussion last year to add it to ITNR (see [4]). That said, the race article is in good shape, all that it needs is the full result table and a few sources to add to the existing description of the race, which will come within a few hours from RSes. On the other hand, Hamlin's article is far from good sourcing and really needs work. As long as the race article is the only one highlighted, that should be okay, but really the poor quality of Hamlin's could limit this nom. --MASEM (t) 22:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the "Super Bowl of Stock Car Racing" is a notable recurring sporting event that should be on the main page every year. Dough4872 00:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as last year's Daytona 500 ITN nominator, though I'd suggest possible change of the blurb to something simpler, perhaps: "In motorsport, Denny Hamlin wins NASCAR's [2016] Daytona 500" or something like that. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Stock car racing's biggest event of the year. The page just needs some finishing up on the standings and we should be good to go. Zappa24Mati 03:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until all of the race section is referenced correctly. Otherwise it's a good article and can be considered a decent candidate for the main page. Traditional alt-blurb added. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We already have 7 annual motorsport items at ITNR. If this is truly the Super Bowl of Stock Car Racing as claimed, we should remove the lesser NASCAR Sprint Cup Series (Drivers champion) from ITNR and replace it with the Daytona 500. Two blurbs in a year for Stock Car Racing (which is a US-only event completely unknown outside of the US) would be too many. LoveToLondon (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Who said anything about ITNR? This is not in ITNR, and this is not a proposal to add it to ITNR. --Jayron32 14:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And not only that, but a discussion to add it to ITNR did not result in consensus to do so, so that isn't even an issue. Do you have any comment on the merits of this normal nomination? 331dot (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I would further note that single-country objections("US only event, completely unknown outside of US") are not valid, as stated on this page. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and furthermore, "completely unknown outside of the US" is a farcical statement when even TRM himself has said he will support this item once the race section is properly referenced, to say nothing of the fact that NASCAR has 23 international broadcast partners.--WaltCip (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 23 international broadcast partners are various (often fringe) sports channels that show all kinds of sports from Darts to whatever else they can get the rights without paying much.
  • This is a proposal to post a second blurb for an US-only motorsport series. Even for Formula 1, known worldwide and with races on all continents, the consensus was two months ago to post only one blurb per year. Is the most important title of the Sprint Cup Series the drivers champion or the Daytona 500? The most important one should be ITNR, and the lesser one not posted.
LoveToLondon (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's still hardly "completely unknown". The subject you raise about which is important would seem to have been resolved in the discussion last year(see above), but that does not preclude regular nominations. Objections to posting something because it is not ITNR are also not valid, as stated on this page. 331dot (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except for really fanatic motorsport fans you won't find anyone outside the US who knows what Daytona 500 is. The average person does not have the slightest clue, and the casual motorsport fan who follows Formula 1 will assume it is an IndyCar race like Indy 500.
  • An objection to post two blurbs per year for a lesser-known series when consensus was to post only one blurb for the best-known series worldwide is a valid objection.
  • I would not object changing which Sprint Cup Series item is listed at ITNR, but two blurbs per year is too much.
LoveToLondon (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please link to the consensus where a general policy was established to post "one blurb for the best-known series". We consider each item on its own merits here. You are saying that you object because there should be only be one ITNR item in NASCAR and this isn't the one you believe it should be, so it shouldn't be posted. I don't see any other way to interpret that other than you objecting because this item is not ITNR. An ITNR listing does not preclude other traditional ITNC nominations. Do you have any comments about the merits of this specific nomination? 331dot (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again you are continuing to argue on the wavelength of this being a "single country event".--WaltCip (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except for really fanatic motorsport fans you won't find anyone outside the US who knows what Daytona 500 is wrong, I'm far from a "fanatic" but I know what the Daytona 500 is. An objection to post two blurbs per year for a lesser-known series when consensus was to post only one blurb for the best-known series worldwide is a valid objection. wrong, there's no numerical limitation of blurbs relating to the same topic. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are saying that you object because there should be only be one ITNR item in NASCAR and this isn't the one you believe it should be, so it shouldn't be posted. No, this is not what I am saying. Perhaps you understand if I repeat bolded what I wrote directly above your incorrect claim: I would not object changing which Sprint Cup Series item is listed at ITNR, but two blurbs per year is too much.
  • Again you are continuing to argue on the wavelength of this being a "single country event". Also wrong. I am arguing that we already have seven motorsport ITNR items, which is pretty huge compared to other sports. Consensus was not to post two Formula 1 blurbs every year, and the Sprint Cup Series has even less recognition worldwide for deserving two blurbs in one year.
  • there's no numerical limitation of blurbs relating to the same topic There is the general question whether we want 7 or 15 or 70 motorsport blurbs every year. 7 are already listed at ITNR, and when Sprint Cup Series gets two blurbs more well-known series can't reasonably be denied more than one blurb per year.
LoveToLondon (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is the general question whether we want 7 or 15 or 70 motorsport blurbs every year. Nonsense. If 70 articles gain consensus, and are of sufficient quality, 70 we post. We don't arbitrarily define a cut-off for how many we're posting, not if we're being sensible. This particular edition of NASCAR has made it into international news for being won by the smallest margin ever, so there's good grounds for considering it despite what you may be suggesting. Besides all that, as evidenced by the recent Grammys article, ITNR is no guarantee of posting, quality has to be there too, so even your numerical cut-off is rendered somewhat meaningless. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@LoveToLondon: I understand that you wouldn't object to this being ITNR in place of the other one, but that only supports what I said, given the prior discussion on that issue. I did poorly word my post and I apologize. 331dot (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding ITNR, NASCAR should only be featured twice a year: the Daytona 500 winner in February and the Sprint Cup Champion in November. For other motorsports, the most prestigious race and the champion are also worth mentioning. For IndyCar, this would be the Indianapolis 500 and the champion and for F1 this would be the Grand Prix of Monaco and the champion. Dough4872 16:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Two months ago the consensus was to remove Monaco from ITNR, so your suggestion of doubling the number of Sprint Cup blurbs to two is not justified. The policy you suggest would also increase the amount of annual motorsport ITNR items from 7 to 13. LoveToLondon (talk) 06:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, that's really not at all pertinent to this discussion as there's no cap on types of story we run, so let's focus on this candidate. It's clear that LoveToLondon has opposed, there's nothing more that needs to be added I believe. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how this is not notable. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would require nothing of the sort. Each nomination is evaluated on its own merits. If other races similar to this one got decent articles and news coverage, I would support those too. If they don't get decent updates, then they shouldn't. There are no arbitrary limits on any category of posts, nor should their be. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that each nomination should be evaluated on its own merits but we cannot post everything that appears in the media. If this one gets posted, then others will come with recurrent events of similar importance, thus artificially inflating the number of posted blurbs and leaving no room for incidental events. Daytona 500 takes place on annual basis but scientific discoveries, natural disasters, presidential changes and economic news occur only once. That said, incidental events are much more valuable than recurrent and should always be given priority.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I will just say that it is one thing to say "we post too many NASCAR races" but another to say "we should only post one NASCAR story". What we post should be determined as I indicated and not be an arbitrary limit. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion is just yours and please keep it with no indication. We do not have clear guidelines about what to post as we do not have a numerical cut-off for how many blurbs should be posted every year.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Read your own statement again. How are you opposed? Your opinion is just yours and there is no limit.Correctron (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot turn down opinion that is not on the same line with yours. If the nomination is not on the top in the media, there is no way it be considered for inclusion, no matter how quality the article is. The two criteria for posting are: 1) breaking popularity in the media worldwide and 2) sufficient quality and update. What you seem to do is bypassing the first criterion and arguing that the second one has been met. Also, I am strongly against growing the number of nominations posted on the main page at a faster pace. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and what we need is paying more attention to several breaking news rather than growing on quantity and making the ITN a news ticker. If you do not like my criteria or think they are elitist, it is your own problem. Please show due respect to what others think. Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Eric "Winkle" Brown

[edit]
Article: Eric Brown (pilot) (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: Notable test pilot, long and distinguished military and civil career. Mjroots (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this is currently on the front page of the BBC News website. Most RDs don't get that. Guy (Help!) 00:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is on the front page of the BBC News website - only if you trawl down through international/UK/England/Sussex. Which means it's on the front page of the regional website. Not the national or international. MurielMary (talk) 08:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's on the main UK page of the international website. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
UK and international sites, actually. I have no possible reason to look at the Sussex page. The BBC News website is, however, highly dynamic, and this may have changed since. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Try reading the article and also his death was on the front page - just the day before you read the article. Is your comment an oppose or just a pointy comment?--86.135.159.20 (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My point is the one that is clearly stated in the ITN criteria page - "Caution should be taken when assessing news sources for prominence, because most major news outlets provide individualized experiences for each user, based on geography and browsing history. What one user sees as a top headline may be buried for others, and vice versa. Do not assess whether a story is "prominent" or not based on where you see it reported on major news websites for this reason." I.e. what one person sees as "top" isn't necessarily what others see as "top". MurielMary (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But your claim was incorrect, it was on the main page of the UK section of the international BBC website, you did not have to go down to the Sussex page at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Clearly meets RD; given what I can read in his article, much like Guy above I'm wondering if he would merit a blurb. He seems like one of the top people in his field, not just 'very important'. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD (only). Certainly a top pilot, holding a string of records and aviation firsts. Modest Genius talk 12:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not ready yet; large sections remain largely uncited. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to RD — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Recommend pulling RD The article quality is still lacking from what others have pointed out. We have unsourced direct quotes in the article in the first main section, to start, which is a major no-no. I normally wouldn't challenge an RD posted like this if the quality was just a bit lacking, but this is a failure of having to follow proper sourcing requirements, period, and should not be on the front page yet until met. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support pulling, per my comment above. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose pulling, the fact is that the article is RD and not ITN. BabbaQ (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • While an RD does not need as strong sourcing as an ITN blurb, there are outright failures of required sourcing policy going on here. This should not be linked to from the front page until fixed because it is far from our best work. --MASEM (t) 17:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A remarkable and unrecognised hero of aviation. Deserves wider recognition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demictetus123 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - while the article is not well sourced, huge chunks of his autobiography are on Google Books. While I don't have time myself tonight, the article is probably quickly fixable if people want to try. Blythwood (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ever widening chasm between those who vote and those who improve, alas. He might be there by next week, maybe. 217.38.160.27 (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • It doesn't much matter because readers don't need ITN's permission to read an article. Currently the daily peak score is Eric Brown (pilot) 37,421 – Ugandan general election 4,490. Anyway, I've sorted out sourcing for the quotes which were bothering Masem above. Andrew D. (talk) 08:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Kind of makes all this "readers should not be directed to low quality articles" a bit redundant. They just decide what to look at what's "in the news" (care of Google) and don't even bother with the niceties of the main page. If somebody dies their article should just be improved regardless? But thanks to User:Blythwood for their efforts. 217.38.135.36 (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually yes, if the person died is actually important. An important person's death will nearly always be accompanied by detailed obituaries and "in memorandum" pieces that are great sources of information to fill out lacking BLPs. So we want to make sure that if posting as RD or blurb, that the article is in sufficiently good shape that editors that want to add with these obits know what to do properly. At least to me, the general purpose of TFA, DYK, and ITN is to highlight articles that can still be improved but are well past the initial stub/start class state that anyone that wants to improve knows where to add details. --MASEM (t) 19:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • We should not delay in posting recent deaths because the obituaries in mainstream media often draw directly from Wikipedia – I noticed some of that in this case. But the main page makes little difference to the general readership as they go straight to articles from search engines and other direct links. The main benefit of having something on the main page is that it will attract the attention of Wikipedian editors – the people who are mostly likely to be able to improve the article. So, waiting for a quality threshold is counter-productive. We should post immediately in order to drive the quality-improvements which will then feed directly into the mainstream media. Andrew D. (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • For one, the sources we expect as reliable for news for ITNC are not going to be using WP for their information, or if they do, they do cite it. But in considering the front page, based on statistics for DYK and FAC, it's clearly a portal unregistered users use and jump through for articles highlighted on that page. There may be some WPian editors that use it too, but the numbers most articles that are featured at the main page at some point are being driven by new or unregistered editors. Thus quality of articles is extremely important, we do not want to be linking to articles that violate fundamental policy like WP:V for quotes. (If this needs to be discussed more I suggest going to the talk page as this is getting off topic for this now-posted RD). --MASEM (t) 20:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • Also, RDs need to be thoroughly scrutinised for BLP violations. That's a fundamental requirement, so using a gung-ho "publish and be damned" approach is simply not going to happen, regardless of any "quality drive" clamour. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                  • That's nonsense because such articles already exist, ITN does not prevent people reading them and, of course, BLP is largely irrelevant for dead people. Andrew D. (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                    • WP:BLP policy is very clear that BLP still applies to the recently deceased, roughly 6 months to 2 years after death. That absolutely applies to ITN. And ITN's purpose is to help highlight WP's quality work, in this case with topics that happen to also be in the news. If its not at quality, we can't feature it at ITN, but it might still appear at the current events portal links and of course it remains searchable. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Andrew, please read what Masem has written, perhaps a couple of times, it will help you understand why you're so wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - an amazing figure. I've cleared the remaining CNs and added six extra citations. Blythwood (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • While there's a few paragraphs without sourcing, I feel these are far less contentious statements that can be cleaned up in the future (more facts of his test flights), and all quotes are now reasonably sourced, so this should be ready to go to repost. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] UK EU Referendum

[edit]
snow close, by longstanding tradition this will be posted when official results are reported μηδείς (talk) 05:41, 22 February 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: United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A referendum to decide on the United Kingdom's membership of the EU is announced (Post)
News source(s): BBC,Telegraph, Washington Post
Credits:
Nominator's comments: I expect that this will be voted down as premature and to wait until the result in June. However this is the first time in 40 years that a referendum on the UK's membership has been announced and the impact of this decision is huge, regardless of the outcome. Clearly of international interest. 86.182.7.2 (talk) 16:58, 21 February 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] Cyclone Winston

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Cyclone Winston (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Cyclone Winston (satellite image pictured), the strongest tropical cyclone on record to strike Fiji, causes extensive damage and prompts a nationwide curfew. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Category 5 Cyclone Winston (satellite image pictured) becomes the strongest tropical cyclone on record to strike Fiji.
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: First Category 5 (on both Australian and Saffir-Simpson hurricane scales) to hit the main islands—Viti Levu and Vanua Levu—of Fiji on record. Contact has been lost with at least six islands and known damage is extensive. Landfall in Viti Levu is occurring as I type this. A nationwide curfew is also in place. Specifics on destruction will be slow to come due to severe disruption to communications. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 20

[edit]
February 20, 2016 (2016-02-20) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Berlin International Film Festival

[edit]
Article: 66th Berlin International Film Festival (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Italian documentary Fire at Sea wins the Golden Bear at the Berlin International Film Festival. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Variety, The Japan Times
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: Needs more prose. As a quality comparison, last year's article was posted but is still quite thin. Fuebaey (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded Fire at Sea a little. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 19

[edit]
February 19, 2016 (2016-02-19) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Closed] RD: Samuel Willenberg

[edit]
No consensus. Stephen 02:51, 25 February 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: Samuel Willenberg (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [5]
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: former prisoner of Treblinka extermination camp and the last surviving member of its perilous prisoner revolt, a participant of the Warsaw Uprising. --
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 10:52, 20 February 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] Umberto Eco

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Umberto Eco (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [6]
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: Well-known academic and novelist who I feel was at the top of his field and is thus suitable as a recent death. Canadian Paul 00:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should ctrl+f "award" again. Nergaal (talk) 09:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The awards should be in prose, not in only navigational templates. George Ho (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb Eco was very popular worldwide and will surely remain remembered as one of the classics of 20th and 21st century world literature. Elaborating medieval philosophical topics combined with semiotic elements in his works, he established a new style of presenting events and personalities from the Middle Ages. I think he definitely merits a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb (support RD of course). He was a bestselling novelist and an important academic. RD is a no brainer of but certainly less worthy of a blurb than Lee below. Poeple have cited his global popularity--net's not confuse commercial popularity with influence. Definitely less significant than Harper Lee.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Blurb hugely influential author and literary scholar, a must read for literary majors regardless of language, adapted for film, and basically the literary equal of James Joyce or Jose Luis Borges. Before RD existed, he would have been doubtlessly blurbworthy. μηδείς (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, oppose blurb. We've had two borderline cases recently (Antonin Scalia and Harper Lee), and I fail to see how he is more blurb-worthy. Yes, he is more globally known, but then again both Scalia and Lee were more significant to the United States than Eco was to the world IMO, so in the end it's a wash. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb
  • An associate justice of a Supreme Court is definitely not more than RD, chances are that for every other country in the world many from the US-centric crowd here would even oppose an RD for a Chief justice of the Supreme Court - if an associate justice was borderline between RD and blurb, then a Chief Justice would be a clear case for a blurb.
  • Harper Lee was borderline between RD and blurb, that makes Umberto Eco a clear blurb. Harper Lee had one famous (and until recently her only) book that was turned into a famous movie. Umberto Eco had one famous book that was turned into a famous movie. He also wrote several well-known books afterwards.
  • In addition to his novels, the scientific work of Umberto Eco alone would already without a doubt be enough for RD.
  • He got more than 30 honorary doctorates, which is a remarkable achievement itself and shows the huge amount of respect he had in the scientific com,munity. If anyone finds an RS (this link to his page unfortunately isn't, and the page also doesn't list the ones he got after 2008) please add that to the article.
LoveToLondon (talk) 08:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Honorary doctorates aren't on the same level with medals or lifetime awards. Bill Cosby lost his honorary doctorates due to... well, you get the idea. --George Ho (talk) 08:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please name some medals or lifetime awards that would make you support a blurb. LoveToLondon (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how Austrian State Prize for European Literature would help. The awards page doesn't explain how prestigious it is. I know that he didn't win other lifetime achievements. George Ho (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you think of him only as a novelist. He was also a leading academic in his field, and a well-known public voice (at least in Europe). LoveToLondon (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If he were merely a Semiotician and not a best-selling novelist then I don't think he would come up here.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about around the level of the Nobel Prize for Literature? Stephen 10:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the Nobel Prize for Literature is not awarded for research in the field of Semiotics. LoveToLondon (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is unfortunate. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would and of the other semioticians listed in the sidebar be remotely notable enough for a blurb? Come on.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting strong support RD, oppose blurb. Now here's a truly influential author - and one who had a world-leading academic career as well. However this is still nowhere near my bar for a blurb, because his death has no major repercussions on current events. Perfect subject for RD. Modest Genius talk 11:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support RD, consider blurb Top-level semiotist, well-known writer and cultural icon. WP article well-written and fairly comprehensive. I really do not understand how anybody can compare an associate judge (Scalia, that is) with someone like Eco. WP belongs to the world, not to the USA. RD necessary, but blurb might be better for such a man. Jose Mathew (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] [Posted to RD] Harper Lee

[edit]
Posted to RD, no consensus for a full blurb. --Tone 10:37, 21 February 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: Harper Lee (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Harper Lee, author of To Kill a Mockingbird, dies at 89.
News source(s): NYT, Telegraph, 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.
 Smurrayinchester 15:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it matter that she was American and "not Pakistani"... -- Ashish-g55 16:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please justify that comment, which is either very unclear or highly offensive. Modest Genius talk 17:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's obviously a dig at some of the recent RDs (e.g. the rapid posting then pulling of Abe Vigoda). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Have put up an RD for now while people discuss whether or not to have a blurb) Smurrayinchester 16:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Posted to RD; will leave this open for discussion about a blurb. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Looks like we both posted at the same time! Yours is the one that appears in the history though) Smurrayinchester 16:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is her name Miley Cyrus, who gets a bloated 8,500 words on Wiki – more than twice as many as Harper Lee – but Harper is far more influential culturally. Sca (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Floq, fair enough. This is not sarcastic. It's hard to even see her as at the top of her field, with one book published (alright, two, but the second was a rehash of the first draft of the first book and I'm not sure it counts). Yes, it's a very influential book, but can someone be at the top of their field with only one performance in it? GoldenRing (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb - was known only for one book, but that book was very well known indeed. Besides, the last item on ITN right now (Bad Aibling rail accident) is over a week old. Banedon (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment Please don't be sarcastic; it will help the admin who decides on whether there's consensus for a blurb or not to do their job. I see one comment above I'm fairly sure is sarcastic, and two more that may or may not be. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think blurbs should be reserved for when the death is a major news story itself because of the how, why, and reactions (think Michael Jackson, Margaret Thatcher, Antonin Scalia, etc.) This doesn't appear to be having the same news effect so I oppose blurb, RD is just fine. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, weak oppose blurb RD is no question and the article is in good shape (even though already posted, just making that clear). The issue for me for the blurb is that she only had one major work, even though it was one of the most groundbreaking works in modern literature, and was not a prolific writer. I recognize she's been decorated with appropriate literary prizes for it, and that's why I consider my oppose weak, but I don't think we're talking about a creative person as prolific as David Bowie or Christopher Lee. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) • True, she wasn't prolific as a writer, but she was very influential with regard not only to Am. lit. (and film) but also, more importantly, to racism/civil rights, the elephant in the U.S. room for generations. Sca (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While she was an important figure due to TKaM for civil rights, I'm not seeing significant participation there as, say, Rosa Parks after her refusal to give up the bus seat. Arguably, the book is more notable than the author here (but her death clearly remains RD worthy). --MASEM (t) 16:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 • "Harper Lee’s great book, To Kill a Mockingbird, was arguably the defining American novel of the 20th century." — Matthew Teague, Guardian.
– Sca (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Blurb Hugely significant author, mandatory reading for all Americans (really, other countries ignore her as part of English literature?), beloved, respected, and adapted for cinema. Mentioning To Kill a Mockingbird in the blurb is much more informative than the name alone. μηδείς (talk) 00:36, 21 February 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.

February 18

[edit]
February 18, 2016 (2016-02-18) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents
  • At least 71 people are killed in a head-on collision between a bus and a truck in Ghana. (Sky News) (BBC)

Health

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Posted] Ugandan presidential election

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Ugandan general election, 2016 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Yoweri Museveni (pictured) is elected to a fifth term as President of Uganda. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Following a social media blackout, arrests of the country's opposition politicians and international condemnation Uganda's ruler for the past 30 years, Yoweri Museveni, claims victory in the country's Presidential elections.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Yoweri Museveni (pictured) claims a fifth term as President of Uganda, in an election some international observers have criticised as flawed.
News source(s): CNN, Al Jazeera, The Independent
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: Thirty year incumbent remains in power. Article needs work - results section, with allegations of vote rigging/fraud, could be expanded. Parliamentary election results have yet to be announced but should not be a barrier to posting since both are on ITN/R. Fuebaey (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think several words beginning with 'f' all apply quite well, but some of them are more main-pageable than others... Espresso Addict (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Panicum effusum

[edit]
Pretty clear where this is going ... this would be worth a shot on April 1 but that's still far. --Tone 16:05, 18 February 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: Panicum effusum (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The town of Wangaratta, Victoria, Australia is invaded by Hairy Panic (pictured). (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
 Mjroots (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And one can learn that panic can be hairy. Just like great tits... Brandmeistertalk 15:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a pre-existing article, it's going to need a bit of expansion to meet DYK. Mjroots (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, but it's a stub so it's altogether possible. Just an idea. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wish we had something a bit like what the German Wikipedia has, where as well as blurbs for big news stories they also put a few links to smaller things that probably aren't blurb-worthy but are still in the news. This would be a good fit there. Smurrayinchester 09:10, 19 February 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.

February 17

[edit]
February 17, 2016 (2016-02-17) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

[Closed] World indoor mile record broken

[edit]
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 22:18, 18 February 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: Genzebe Dibaba (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In athletics, Genzebe Dibaba breaks the women's world record for the indoor mile (Post)
News source(s): Google gives plenty, viz. [7], [8], [9]
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: There is currently no sports item on ITN. Also the previous record was 26 years old, set in 1990; the margin by which it was beaten, 4 seconds, is also pretty big as far as athletics world records for this distance go. Notably though, only the indoor record was broken. Banedon (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is only the indoor record, and the non-Olympic mile is not a frequently run distance - it is only 100m longer than the Olympic 1500m competition. And Dibaba already improved the 2 mile record by 6 seconds in 2014. LoveToLondon (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose inadequate referencing for a main page quality BLP.--Jayron32 04:45, 18 February 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 Ankara bombing

[edit]
Article: 2016 Ankara bombing (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 28 people are killed and 61 injured following a bombing in Ankara, Turkey. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Another terror attack on Turkey. Death and injury toll inevitably climbing every hour. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

oppose considering such incidents in Syria are dismissed as a byproduct of being part of a civil war, this country has been slipping into a civil war for a good couple of months now. Shelling on Kurds in Syria started 2-3 days ago, madman is saying that will continue despite an unanimous UNSC resolution ( 1-2 days ago) saying otherwise. Hence clear false flag.Lihaas (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lihaas: False flag or not, this is a relevant news event. We should rather write an article about the Turkish shelling of Northern Syria, given that it has even been the topic of a Security Council meeting (don't know if there was a resolution though). --PanchoS (talk) 12:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment NOT updated with barely a few sentences on the bombing or alleged perpetrator. (of which there are currently two and radically change the reaction (although its clear which one the regime is goin with))Lihaas (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the mythical update? Do yall bother to READ the article? Cause beyond the background there is barely a few sentences in the main sectionsLihaas (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't have to be exhaustive to be posted. There's enough content at present for it to be posted. It only just happened as well so expecting paragraphs upon paragraphs of information is a bit much. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lihaas: As stated in WP:ITN, "a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient." Mamyles (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, the whole article is the update. It wouldn't exist without the event having taken place. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 16

[edit]
February 16, 2016 (2016-02-16) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Closed] Per la ricuperata salute di Ofelia is discovered in Prague

[edit]
Stale, having taken place three months ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:00, 22 February 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: Per la ricuperata salute di Ofelia (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Mozart's and Salieri's lost cantata Per la ricuperata salute di Ofelia is discovered in Prague. (Post)
News source(s): (Reuters), (The Independent), (BBC)
Credits:
 Jenda H. (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as unfortunately, the discovery was in Nov 2015, today it was played for the first time in a public performance. However, please consider WP:DYK as this article was just created today, so easily qualifies there. --MASEM (t) 22:03, 17 February 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] Boutros Boutros-Ghali

[edit]
Article: Boutros Boutros-Ghali (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): (BBC), (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: Former Secretary-General of the United Nations (of which there have been just eight) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And those were the times when blue UN helmets were a real force... Brandmeistertalk 17:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Support - but is he not worth a blurb? Mjroots (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really. While he was a key figure in many situations during his time as UNSecGen, he wasn't as instrumental to resolution of those situations. Add to the fact that this article's quality is a far cry to even supporting an RD. If we had a well-developed feature article here, I might tend to agree a possible blurb, but that's going to take far too much effort. --MASEM (t) 19:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to RD. Blurb discussion may continue, although consensus appears against it so far. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • RD yes, Blurb No he was not in office when he died unexpectedly=, he was not the longest serving Secretary, he was not credited for changing the direction of the UN, he failed to curtail the Rwandan genocide or broker a peaceful breakup of Yugoslavia.... μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 15

[edit]
February 15, 2016 (2016-02-15) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

2016 Grammy Awards

[edit]
Article: 58th Annual Grammy Awards (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ "Uptown Funk" is record of the year and 1989 is album of the year at the 58th Annual Grammy Awards. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Mark Ronson wins record of the year and Taylor Swift wins album of the year at the 58th Annual Grammy Awards.
News source(s): CNN, Guardian, Reuters
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.

 Fuebaey (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose virtually no prose, the stuff that's there is out of date, there's hardly any referencing (couldn't see a single inline reference for the winners and nominees section). The Rambling Man (talk) 09:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. There hasn't even been a change of tense in the lead yet... Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support pending article improvements - The prose and sourcing issued identified above need to be fixed. I notice the past Grammy articles have been in similarly poor shape given more recent expectations we ask of ITNR competitions (sports/awards), so there definitely needs to be more prose about the broadcast/etc. (eg I understood this was the first one to have been live-streamed and there were issues with that). --MASEM (t) 15:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This is not up to our usual quality of articles, even for ITNR.--WaltCip (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • On ITNR, so there's no point in support or oppose !votes - just assess the article quality. Much like the BAFTAs did below, this needs some proper referenced prose, including reaction / analysis. A massive list isn't good enough to feature on the Main Page. Modest Genius talk 11:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, no actually. Several of the opposes above all cited specific issues that needed to be resolved before the opposer would be happy to support, as a minimum. Perfectly reasonable. It's an indication of each editor's idea of whether the article is ready for posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes indeed, and that's very valuable. But it doesn't help to put a big bold 'oppose' at the start of what is in fact a request for article improvement, not actual opposition to the item in principle. Modest Genius talk 12:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's silly. You don't just read the stuff in bold, do you? How bizarre. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What TRM said. Any doubt and confusion regarding the !vote can be cleared up simply by reading the ancillary material, which admins are expected to do anyway when judging consensus. Or are you suggesting that admins don't read past what's in bold? Either way I oppose posting an article to the main page that makes even our stubs look bad.--WaltCip (talk) 13:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't accuse anyone of anything, just remarked upon a practice which I find unhelpful as it conflates two different issues (significance and article quality). But yes, this continues to be short of our minimum requirements. Modest Genius talk 14:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all, no conflating took place. In fact I comment on both quality and notability, and in this case the notability is covered by ITNR, so my comment clearly applies to the quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A specific ITNR item can be rejected if there is no consensus to post that specific instance (which does not invalidate the repeating ITNR item otherwise), even if the article quality is there. The discussion should though be focused on that instance and why it should not be posted this time, not the presence of the ITNR repeating item (and if that's in question, that's discussion for WT:ITNR). ITNR is not an automatic pass, it is merit to avoid repetitive discussion about the broad nature of a recurring event if it should be included or not. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The template for ITNR also states "generally considered important", not "always considered important".--WaltCip (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I'm not convinced that this is Main page headline news material. I'd rather see something else more serious in it's place on the main page that is actually news.  — Calvin999 12:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted above, the Grammys are on ITNR, so this is a discussion on article quality, not newsworthiness. (And for what it's worth, these are the biggest awards in music- their notability is unquestionable- and the Main Page does not have a "seriousness" threshold.) -- Mike (Kicking222) 14:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not the point here- something on ITN/R has been deemed sufficiently notable by default; if you want to argue that distinction, that's fine, but this isn't the place to do it. (You'd also lose that argument for the Grammys, but that's totally irrelevant to this discussion.) -- Mike (Kicking222) 23:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose only on inadequacy of prose. If anyone wants to clean this up, the recently posted BAFTA article would be a good model. --Jayron32 16:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on article quality. Checking the page diff from the time that the lone "support pending updates" vote was made and now shows that very little prose has been added since. The formatting and copyedit on the page is awful as well. I'm not used to opposing articles for these reasons, but I'm also not used to seeing articles on high-profile and prestigious events get so little editor attention.128.214.53.18 (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Heat > Light. BencherliteTalk 09:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

February 14

[edit]
February 14, 2016 (2016-02-14) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

Sports

[Posted] 69th British Academy Film Awards

[edit]
Article: 69th British Academy Film Awards (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Revenant wins five awards, including Best Film, at the British Academy Film Awards. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
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.

 JuneGloom07 Talk 21:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Stemoc: Since this is ITNR, support on the merits has already been established and is not needed for posting. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article isn't ready yet. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine to go up per WP:ITNR, but only once the article is suitable - and it's not ready yet. It needs some properly-referenced prose and reaction to the awards. Tons of sources are available for anyone who wants to work on it. Modest Genius talk 14:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Lead updated now. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article seems updated now. Nergaal (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely improved. I would still like to see some reaction or (sourced) commentary, rather than just restating who won what in prose form. Modest Genius talk 15:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improved, but I still oppose. It's got flowery prose calling The Revenant the "big winner", rather than just saying how many awards it won. It's currently at 1,774 characters of prose. For comparisons sake, 88th Academy Awards is at 8,597 characters, and those awards aren't for two weeks. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and that's called systemic bias. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're not trying to claim there's a systemic bias against the U.K., are you? (FYI I'm not saying the BAFTA page needs to be the same length as the Oscar page, just more than it is.) – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm saying there's a bias in favour of American awards and against any other kind of awards, simply due to the volume of editors. And I happen to know that the Academy Awards page will be nominated at FLC probably within 4 hours of the conclusion of the event. It's really simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is that the BAFTA ceremonies proper (not the awards) are far less of an event compared to the Oscars broadcast in which we have tons of coverage of red carpet arrivals, wardrobe choices, live acts, etc. But there is still a ceremony, it was broadcasted, and there's something to discuss about it; just that previous BAFTA pages don't seem to have this discussed much either. There should be a short section about the ceremony in the BAFTA pages, it doesn't need to be perfect or as detailed as the Oscars coverage, but it should be discussed to a degree here. That's not a systematic bias, that's just being appropriately comprehensive. --MASEM (t) 17:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm in opposition to all film and entertainment award events, period.--WaltCip (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Not enough murder and mayhem? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Masem, that's nonsense really. If someone is keen on a particular annual event, it will get bloated, even pre-event. Just look at The Boat Races 2016 to prove the point. It has nothing really to do with "appropriate comprehensiveness" as all articles should be "appropriately comprehensive", since this is an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    But we're looking to the same thing we'd ask of a sporting event regardless how much there is to talk about before the event. Just putting in box scores for those doesn't cut it, we expect a summary of the event/game. Here, some type of summary of the ceremonies would be needed and that doesn't seem excessively demanding; I'd certainly not expect at this point the same amount of text as the Oscars page, just a paragraph or so. --MASEM (t) 19:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The point you miss is that all articles should be appropriately comprehensive. Most of the Academy Awards coverage is tabloid bullshit, yet for some reason (systemic bias?) we tolerate it in our encyclopedia. How curious. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at our Oscar articles, it actually looks like editors have done a good job trimming the fat away from the meat. The most salient elements of the presentation ceremony are focused on : the when, where, who, the critical reception to it (since itself is treated as a potential show for an award by the Emmys), and other notable events while avoiding the nature of gossip and star gazing that floods the media otherwise. I can't readily tell if the BAFTA presentation itself has anywhere close to the coverage we get for the Oscars, but what I do see for the BAFTA presentation is sufficient information and coverage that would match what we have for the Oscars presentation (the when, where, who aspects I list above); there is much less fat to trim off compared to doing the same for the Oscars. --MASEM (t) 23:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 13

[edit]
February 13, 2016 (2016-02-13) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

Law and crime

[Closed][Posted] RD: Antonin Scalia

[edit]
Posted to RD, there does not seem to be a consensus for a full blurb. --Tone 15:17, 14 February 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.

Tone 15:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)--Tone 15:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Article: Antonin Scalia (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Antonin Scalia dies at the age of 79. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: First Justice to die since Rehnquist; inherently notable enough, as a SCOTUS justice, for a full blurb. Sceptre (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support RD, neutral on blurb - Article is in good shape, the question of a blurb is that while no one expected him to die (he was still a sitting SCOTUS member) he was also nearly 80, and really isn't a major mover/shaker in terms of politics on his own. --MASEM (t) 22:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article is a FA so OK from a article quality perspective. Is the death of an US supreme judge ITN worthy? I think so but this is my first foray in ITN. I don't think there is much source coverage yet but there will surely be soon.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is going to get a heck of a lot of coverage because 1) its US politicis, and 2) this means a lot on the current election cycle from the standpoint that Obama will get to nominate an appointee here before he is out of office, so this is now a huge power play for both parties. --MASEM (t) 22:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, oppose blurb, important but essentially local political figure, not really a surprising death. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD only; reaching the Supreme Court is the height of the US legal field, but he doesn't warrant a blurb as he was not a world-transforming figure(like Mandela or Margaret Thatcher). Death is being reported as natural causes so that doesn't warrant a blurb either. 331dot (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • His death actually has world-changing consequences. Take Obama's climate actoin on CO2 emissions. The Supreme Court with Scalia would have blocked it, but now without Scalia it can't. Now that Obama's CO2 action survives, other countries will probably not drop out of the CO2 reduction agreement. And that is just one point where the disappearance of the Republican majority on the court has huge effect. So even if the man himself was not consequential enough for a blurb, the consequences of his death certainly are. Thue (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD only blurb would be three bridges too far. A notable individual and an excellent article, well worthy two words on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, weak oppose blurb – Definitely meets RD criteria but not convinced Scalia warrants a blurb. Media seems to be honing in on the position he's left open rather than Scalia himself as well (indirect notability). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - even the chief justice would be borderline for RD, but he was an associate justice. Certainly an important person in the legal system of his country, but the same can be said about hundreds of other supreme court justices around the world. 93.215.72.24 (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to nominate those other justices; the relevant RD criteria is "very important" to their field, which you seem to concede. 331dot (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's assuming the Senate will even take up a nomination; Ted Cruz is already calling for waiting until the next Pres(but I digress). 331dot (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True enough. There's no rule I'm aware of that says they have to seat a justice in a reasonable time frame, but Obama's not going to let this vacancy go for 11 months without nominating someone. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • There is no end to punditry and crystal-ballery, but the fact remains that nothing has actually happened except "he died" and was 79 years old. We have no article to point to for the future nomination battle. Abductive (reasoning) 02:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support of blurb. This is a major moment in U.S. political history. Some sources are stating that his death may "lead to a constitutional crisis" and some have called his death "A Death That Reshapes U.S. Politics". -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • post-posting support RD - a supreme court justice is clearly in the top <1% of their field, oppose blurb. He was a big figure on the supreme court, but any "constitutional crisis" (I'll only believe that if it happens) is not down to him - it would happen for any justice who died at this point. If anything does happen then that should be nominated for a blurb of it's own. Thryduulf (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb per 331dot and Thryduulf. An obvious RD, but I very much doubt a judge in any country would even be considered for a blurb. This is big news in American politics, and I am very interested in it, but it is important not to lose a sense of perspective. Neljack (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb - while I do consider his death to be far more consequential to the world than the winner of Super Bowl 50, I cannot say he passes the "Michael Jackson test". Perusing through websites all over the world, one might this a top story in Britain, Canada, and maybe even Australia, but certainly not in Russia, China or even Germany. Should this item be posted as a blurb, it will be a fine example of systemic bias at work. Colipon+(Talk) 03:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a blurb is worth considering. Regarding his global importance: his death is currently a headline on the main pages of Le Monde, Al Jazeera, Haaretz, El País, Corriere della Sera, Spiegel, ... Anecdotal/personal: As someone who consumes a lot of non-English-language-media, I'd bet a lot on Scalia being the most recognizable sitting SC Justice in any outside-the-US poll conducted during the past 20 years. Moreover (though not mentioned in the blurb) the (US) media are full of comments how his passing may have an influence on the upcoming presidential election (via the already debated question whether Obama should/may/can appoint Scalia's successor, or whether the appointment should wait until after the election, in which case it will inevitably become an election topic, see e.g. SCOTUSblog). Thanks for posting the RD, but I'd even support a blurb, not least because his is a featured article, as mentioned several times above. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb - a major force in Conservative US politics, intellectual leader of the conservatives not only in the Supreme Court, but also an intellectual leader beyond that because of his position in the Supreme Court. Also, since within hours of his death major political fault lines are being drawn and sides being taken. His death is impactful. Hires an editor (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This reasoning is exactly why we should avoid a blurb. Most of the coverage about his death is what his absence creates in an election year in the US. It ultimately might have some play on the world stage but this is all now about the political power play in one country, and that's something we distinctly avoid at ITN. His passing as a notable person needs to be marked but not the fallout that is less about him and more about the void. --MASEM (t) 03:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb per Colipon. 'Weak support RD, notable in US politics but not a world leader. Coverage practically only in the US. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonny Nixon: Sluzzelin demonstrates clearly above that this is not just covered in the US, and even if it was, that is not germane to the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Scalia's international influence was not particularly great. His approach to constitutional and statutory interpretation won little support in other countries. He tended to be viewed as an extreme conservative. Neljack (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Blurb Then notability here is not merely Scalia himself, but the implications on national (not local) politics. Supreme Court Justices are lifetime appointees, SCOTUS wields significant power (arguably co-equal with the other two branches of govt), and the balance of that power in a two-party system is a big deal in general - not just for party fortunes but for the future direction of US law. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 09:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD now and not opposed to a blurb, as soon as further developments indicate his replacement. --PanchoS (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No blurb - RD is obvious here, but in the end he was 'just' a judge in one country. Important? Of course. Blurb material? No. Most of the coverage is of course due to the timing and partisan issues. Surely we're better than that? Fgf10 (talk) 12:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are of course entitled to your opinion, but a Justice is not the same as a judge (the differences are numerous, but in summary, a Supreme Court Justice interprets law passed by the legislature and can overturn and forever invalidate said laws; this gives them an indirect lawmaking role as opposed to a more traditional judiciary role). SCOTUS judgements have implications as far reaching as racial desegregation or nationwide recognition of same-sex marriage, or nationwide legalization of abortion, etc - in short, what many consider among the most important advancements in civil rights law in the US have been handed down directly by such Justices, and while it would be silly to claim the US is "the" benchmark for international law, it certainly can be counted among the most influential in how westernized nations interpret their own laws. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 13:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • However, a SCOTUS justice can't do this alone,its one voice among 9. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Truth, but very little can be done in US gov't by oneself, and indeed "one of nine" is much the point. Compare either house of congress; a single Justice has a 1/9th vote, vs a 1/100th vote in the Senate, and many SCOTUS decisions hinge on a single vote. Also unlike other offices, Justices may hold office for decades. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 15:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am perfectly aware of their role, thank you. The condescending explanation was much appreciated nonetheless... Fgf10 (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if you read condescension in that, but I assure you none was intended. Did I say anything incivil? Your characterization of a Justice as "a judge" led me to believe you did not fully appreciate the duties and influence of the office, as no equivalent office is found in many (most?) governments. I certainly don't know what every government official does in every EU nation and would take no offense at being set straight on one I mistook for more or less important than it really is. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 14:51, 14 February 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] South Sudan civil war over

[edit]
No consensus to post. Stephen 02:21, 17 February 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: South Sudan civil war (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In implementing the conclusion agreement of the South Sudan civil war, Riek Machar is re-appointed First Vice President by President Salva Kiir. (Post)
News source(s): via Bing
Credits:
Nominator's comments: End of a civil war is notable...in this case, just power politics that ended as it began 2 (2.5) years ago with needless deaths. (btw- the article I created, Woo ;)) Lihaas (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This will be notable, but I fear we're being a bit premature. According to the Guardian, "analysts fear former allies turned enemies are not yet ready to cooperate to end fighting". If this leads to a ceasefire or peace agreement, then definitely post. Smurrayinchester 11:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This IS the result of an agreement signed in Ethiopia under the auspices of IGAD. That's the reason he has been officially nominated to the position. the Guardian may fear its going to be undone, but reality on the ground means he wouldn't have been re-appointed.
Note- I didn't nomninate this when the agreement was signed as there had been breakdowns, but in this cse he has been nominated already (and even affirmed).Lihaas (talk) 08:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle but there is a lot of work to be done. --Jenda H. (talk) 17:44, 13 February 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.

February 12

[edit]
February 12, 2016 (2016-02-12) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents
  • 2016 Taiwan earthquake
    • The death toll from the earthquake rises to 94 with 550 people injured, and at least 30 more missing and believed buried in the apartment complex rubble in Tainan. (CNN)

Health and medicine

International relations

Law and crime
Politics and elections

[Posted] Meeting of Pope Francis and Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill

[edit]

Articles: Pope Francis (talk · history · tag) and Patriarch Kirill of Moscow (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill meet in Havana, Cuba, the first such meeting between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches since the East–West Schism in 1054. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill meet in Havana, Cuba, the first such meeting between the Roman Catholic and Russian Orthodox churches.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill, meeting in Havana, Cuba, call jointly for an end to persecution of Christians in the Middle East and to wars in the region.
Alternative blurb III: ​ Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill, in a historic meeting, call jointly for an end to persecution of Christians in the Middle East and to wars in the region.
Alternative blurb IV: Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill meet in Havana, Cuba.
Alternative blurb V: Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill, meeting in Havana, Cuba, sign a thirty-point joint declaration that addresses global issues.
Alternative blurb VI: The Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill is issued following the first ever meeting between the leaders of their churches.

Alternative blurb VII: Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill sign an Ecumenical Declaration in the first such meeting since the East–West Schism in 1054.
News source(s): Unity call as Pope Francis holds historic talks with Russian Orthodox Patriarch (BBC) plus other news media reporting this extensively as well [10], ([11], [12], [13])
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Historic meeting that makes a change from the usual items nominated at ITN. I have briefly updated all three articles I linked in the blurb. All look to be in reasonable condition. Carcharoth (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure if this means anything. The schism hasn't really been a major social or political issue for a long time.--WaltCip (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, but it is getting a fair amount of attention. I'll add a few more news articles to the sources bit of the nomination. Have also now updated the articles, but only with a sentence in each. Though thinking on this some more, the claim that this is the first such meeting in centuries is a bit suspect, see here: "more significant and more substantive meetings between Roman pontiffs and Orthodox patriarchs have occurred for over half a century. The groundbreaking 1964 meeting between Pope Paul IV and Athenagoras I, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, led to the joint lifting of mutual 900-year-old anathemas.". Am a bit ambivalent on this now. Carcharoth (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cautious support, when fully updated. Purely symbolic but is being reported widely. Both bios look ok on a very quick scan, though parts of Kirill seem underreferenced. Also we have one really stale news slot. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support upon update; this meeting seems notable for the mere fact that it occurred, even though disagreement between the two sides isn't a large issue nowadays. 331dot (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional notes - for anyone writing alternative blurbs (I'll do one now). Patriarch Kirill is not the 'leader' of the Eastern Orthodox Church (that would be the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople), but the Russian Orthodox Church (which Patriarch Kirill leads) is the largest of the Orthodox churches. A blurb could focus more on the joint declaration they made, sidestepping the issue of the somewhat overhyped 'first such meeting since 1054' angle that some news media appear to be using (I am not sure about that any more). See also Athenagoras I of Constantinople#Ecumenical relations, Pope Paul VI and Ecumenism and Catholic–Orthodox Joint Declaration of 1965. Maybe there should be Catholic–Orthodox Joint Declaration of 2016? See Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill and compare with the 1965 joint declaration. Carcharoth (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose First the blurb is misleading. This is not exactly "the first such meeting between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches since the East–West Schism in 1054.". "Eastern Orthodox churches" should be changed to "Russian Orthodox Church". Other Patriarchs have met the Pope again and again since the schism. This is the first time the Patriarch of Moscow met the Pope one on one (and not since the schism, it is since ever, but perhaps this does not matter). So it is nothing exactly new outside of the Russian Church. I oppose the posting because it does not really change anything. They have been in constant contact, this meeting is essentially only symbolic. If anything very substantial is made in the joint statment then perhaps I will change my view. But I do not believe it will be anything special or great.75.73.150.255 (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added alt blurb to address this (I agree with you, and got the first blurb wrong and have struck part of it). A lot of this was covered in 2013 in one of the other "landmark" moments (one of many). See here. The impression I get is that the big breakthrough was in 1964, leading to the Catholic–Orthodox Joint Declaration of 1965 (which I have been unable to work into a blurb as sources aren't explicitly linking the two), and that the thawing of relations has been happening very slowly ever since, with this being another important step, but maybe being a bit overhyped. Carcharoth (talk) 02:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Some much better-written sources explaining this better than the mainstream news are [14], [15], [16]. Carcharoth (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this needs some sort of article like Catholic-Orthodox relations. Also, all Orthodox churches are autocephalic so (excluding the Constantinople) they are linked together as much as the Anglican church is linked to Rome. I suggest having a link along the lines of East–West_Schism#Recent_efforts_at_reconciliation. Nergaal (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. I have read through much more of the East–West Schism article, and (unsurprisingly for something with a nearly 1000-year history) it is complicated and the article is rather long and I am unsure how good it is. This really needs someone who knows a lot more about all this to do some proper updates, as despite having read up on lots of this, I am not confident I am able to give this topic the updates it deserves. Hopefully someone can. Carcharoth (talk) 10:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was surprised to not already see this blurb included in the "In the News" section. I don't understand the requirement of already having coverage in Wikipedia in order to be included. Isn't encouraging contributions the whole point of this feature? Include a red link and people will write a nice article. This is a wiki! (cc: iridescent) --MZMcBride (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MZMcBride Redlinks probably shouldn't ever be on the main page, even when the event obviously justifies an article, as there's too much risk of someone writing something seriously incorrect which (by virtue of being on the main page) is seen by the public as being said in Wikipedia's voice. Sure, anyone can dump garbage into any article, but any other bolded link on the MP will pretty much be definition be on peoples' watchlists. ‑ Iridescent 11:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The make a joint declaration to stop persecution of Christians in Middle East. Short meting end on Friday.--Jenda H. (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah – in that case — Sca (talk)
It's a significant symbolic act. Sca (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would you call the first meeting between the Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands and the President of Togo a historic act worth posting? Banedon (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're comparing apples to oranges. Unlike Prime Minister or President, the Pope and the Patriarch both lead the Churches with hundreds of millions followers. Also, the relations between the previous Popes and the Patriarch have been chill, with Patriarch Alexy II calling the planned visit of John Paul II "an invasion to Rus". Brandmeistertalk 12:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In view of Russia's involvement in the Syrian war, it's significant also that it's the Russian patriarch/primate calling, with the pope, for peace, etc. Sca (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we start distinguishing because of the hundreds of millions of followers, then things like the release of Windows 10 would be worth posting since there are so many PCs in the world. Religious drama is not more worthy of posting than e.g. North Korea's constant threats to wipe South Korea off the map. I am unconvinced. Something concrete needs to actually happen for me to reconsider. Banedon (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Altblurb3 also offered with a nod to the "historic" angle. Sca (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting my support for Sca's alt2 and alt3 blurbs over the original one that I posted, and noting also that the East–West Schism article has been updated and also tidied up (even if it is not mentioned in a blurb). If there is room, I would suggest a slight tweaking of alt3 to "Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill, in a historic first meeting between the leaders of their churches, call jointly for an end to persecution of Christians in the Middle East and to wars in the region." (or some shortened version of that?). Ideally, we would have more in an appropriate article on the 30-point declaration and responses to the declaration, but we don't have that yet. I may start that today and/or contact PanchoS who made a similar offer. Could those familiar with ITN say how long we have before this item goes stale, and whether there is enough support (reading back over the discussion, I am not hopeful). Carcharoth (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, 38 words is too long for an ITN blurb, particularly for an event that's several days old. My thought is that readers who want to pursue the "historic" angle can do so via the article. Sca (talk) 14:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I appear to have written an article on this now: Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill. Not quite sure what to do here. Should I try and use that in this ITN nomination (just adding the article in somehow), or start a new nomination? Could get quite confusing especially with 6 burbs already proposed before/as I wrote the article. I will ping those who have taken part in the debate to get their views, hopefully that will make things clearer. (PS. Click through to the Russian version of the article - several Slavic languages have articles on this - for an image that may be usable, I am not sure what license it is under). Pinging: User:WaltCip, User:Espresso Addict, User:331dot, User:Nergaal, User:MZMcBride, User:Iridescent, User:PanchoS, User:OldManNeptune, User:Sca, User:Jenda H., User:Jayron32, User:Banedon, User:Brandmeister, and User:George Ho who has just marked it as 'ready'... :-) Sadly, I can't ping the IP who commented, but maybe they are still around. Carcharoth (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks so much for the great article you wrote! I added yet another blurb which I think is a bit more concise while giving more background info. The image you referred to was uploaded to Commons but isn't properly tagged with a free licence so will be gone there within the next hours. I propose reuploading it here on en.wikipedia as a non-free image under the Fair use policy which it clearly qualifies for. Regards, --PanchoS (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The background of that article is missing the visits in Romania and Ukraine. Nergaal (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -2 men from 2 useless (cult) organisation which doesn't do anything except raping kids and creating wars ...this is a news item fit for Wikinews, NOT for wikipedia--Stemoc 23:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal opinion about the Catholic Church or any religious sect is not relevant to this nomination. 331dot (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Personal attack removed) --Stemoc 23:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nergaal and Stemoc, please refrain from attacking other users (specifically each other). You're both long-time editors and should know better than this. Such discourse is not tolerated here and I advise both of you to step out of this discussion if you can't separate your personal views from constructive talking. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Ignorant" is a PA? Nergaal (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb VII. Article seems written well; thanks to Carcharoth for their work. 331dot (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I am wary, though, of blurbs using the 1054 date, as the Russian Orthodox Church didn't really exist at that point (it was not a Patriarchate until 1589). It is simpler to just state it is the first ever meeting between leaders of the two churches (blurb VI). Apologies to the poor admin who has to sort through all this. Carcharoth (talk)
 • Re blurbs IV through VII, we can't see the forest for the trees. Sca (talk) 02:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted the blurb VII. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion on the nomination or posting itself, but how in God's name did we end up with 8 potential blurbs?--WaltCip (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting comment – The 'ecumenical declaration' phrase tells most readers nothing, and for some may connote an ecumenism theme, which would be misleading. As the article notes, "issues raised included the persecution of Christians in the Middle East and North Africa; the impact of civil war, chaos and terrorist violence; the exodus of Christians from Syria and Iraq...." These were the themes primarily covered in the news. Sca (talk)
(Please don't tell me to address this at WP:ERRORS. It's not an error per se, it's an editorial judgment call.) Sca (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, but you, by now, should be aware that most of us ignore items that have been [Posted] or [Closed], in particular we don't come here to discuss changes to blurbs in general. [Clue: no response to your question for over six hours, while ERRORS is serviced far more frequently]. That's the whole point of ERRORS. Oops. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not an error. — IMO, a poor choice of the blurbs available, discussion of which has taken place here. Sca (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless – [17]. – Sca (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea! Especially considering no-one had responded to your query here in the past 24 hours. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should have a subsection of ITNC where improvements to posted blurbs could be suggested & discussed. (Or would that be too bureaucratic?)
Failing that, perhaps 'Errors in In the news ' could be re-titled to 'Errors in and Improvements to In the news.' Sca (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That really is bureaucratic. Just take it ERRORS. It has more traffic, more admins, more interest, and more likely that you'll get a result. As I suggested some 30+ hours ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you're not a -watcher? Sca (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was simply to point out that posting complaints here after items are posted is generally a waste of time, in particular if it's just about the wording used. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see someone finally changed the blurb, so that's something positive. Sca (talk)

But I see someone else was told that his style critque – IMO valid – was "not an error." Sigh. Sca (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 11

[edit]
February 11, 2016 (2016-02-11) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economics

Disasters and accidents

Health

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science

Sports

[Added to ongoing] Zika and Microcephaly [Update?]

[edit]

Not a new ITN entry, just a potential update to the existing entry, such that

The rapid spread of Zika fever, associated with microcephaly in newborns, in Latin America leads to the World Health Organization issuing a Public Health Emergency of International Concern.

From two studies reported now in NEJM and MMWR. --bender235 (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Zika blurb has fallen off of the template, so I think that this can be closed. Mamyles (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or should it be made ongoing? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support for ongoing. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how ongoing works. And people are capable of typing Z-i-k-a if they want information. Abductive (reasoning) 18:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] LIGO announces detection of gravitational waves round 2

[edit]
Articles: Gravitational wave detection, February 2016 (talk · history · tag) and Gravitational wave (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The LIGO experiment announces the first direct observation of gravitational waves. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The LIGO experiment announces the direct observation of gravitational waves caused by black holes merging.
News source(s): (Nature), (Guardian), (New York Times)
Credits:

 Smurrayinchester 15:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] LIGO announces detection of gravitational waves

[edit]
posted on nomination above
We don't need to start posting advanced news, let's wait for it to happen. And can we try to tone down the use of bold which isn't helpful in any situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 9 February 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: Gravitational wave (talk · history · tag) and LIGO (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The LIGO project announces the detection of gravitational waves generated as a result of the merger of two black holes. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The LIGO project announces the apparent direct detection of gravitational waves; these were generated as a result of the merger of two black holes.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The LIGO project announces the apparent direct detection of Einstein-predicted gravitational waves; these were generated as a result of the merger of two black holes.
News source(s): LIGO (on 11th of February), Science
Credits:

Both articles need updating
Nominator's comments: This is to be announced on Thursday, but the news has leaked out (there were already rumors many months ago). Count Iblis (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. Probably obvious post after the official news release. Nergaal (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with Nergaal. Banedon (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can't post on a rumour. If this is true, then it's just about the most obvious post in years, but not now. Guess close this now and open a new one on any genuine announcement. Fgf10 (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for the official announcement. Rumours based on a leaked e-mail circulating on twitter seem to define unreliable, even when published in Science. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with others about waiting. Then almost certain post, subject to article quality and to blurb quality, as this is an area where cautious wording is probably called for: These waves have been searched for ever since Einstein predicted them, so their discovery would be hugely important, but I understand there have been claimed discoveries before, including recently, which have not stood the test of time, and in the past ITN has seemingly been unduly incautious with some sensational claimed scientific discoveries, such as Dua's Layer. Appropriately cautious wording would probably also be required in the text of the articles. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • My above-mentioned 'understanding' regarding recent claims was correct: Primordial gravitational waves are gravitational waves observed in the cosmic microwave background. They were allegedly detected by the BICEP2 instrument, an announcement made on 17 March 2014, which was withdrawn on 30 January 2015 ("the signal can be entirely attributed to dust in the Milky Way"[34]).Tlhslobus (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • With such caution in mind I've added an altblurb with the extra word possible.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If preferred, some alternative words or expressions such as apparent or (not yet independently confirmed) might also do the job of expressing suitable caution.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the other hand, I've also added an altblurb2 with Einstein-predicted to give the ordinary reader an indication of the possible importance of the discovery. (I've added a comma after waves, since I don't know whether Einstein's prediction was in the context of black holes, let alone merging black holes.) Tlhslobus (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm also adding the comma to my first altblurb, as such a comma after waves is probably wanted even without Einstein predicted, as the important item is that it's (allegedly) the discovery of gravitational waves, whereas the merging black holes seems relatively trivial. (After expected publication on Thursday, we will need to phrase the blurb to try to ensure that the reader doesn't get the misleading impression that gravitational waves may have been discovered before in contexts other than merging black holes).Tlhslobus (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • With that in mind, I'm replacing the comma with ; these were in both my altblurbs. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • On reflection, apparent will probably be better than possible, unless the authors themselves say 'possible', so I've amended my 2 altblurbs accordingly.Tlhslobus (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, obviously we must wait until it is announced, but since this is likely to be a massive breaking news event (according to the rumors it's a solid more than 5 sigma's observation involving two independent detectors that both detected the characteristic features of such a signal and with the time lag between the two detected signals ruling out some freak terrestrial artifact), one can already look into both Wiki articles and make an assessment if the news can be edited in on Thursday, and there may be other possible problems that may need to be fixed. Count Iblis (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough regarding assessing the articles. But regarding the alleged news itself, the last incorrect claim was similarly not the result of any freak terrestrial artefact; the fact that it has taken so many decades to detect waves which are supposed to be occurring all the time, is itself grounds for caution, even without the past mistaken claim(s).Tlhslobus (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidentally, at first perusal the articles both look great to me, but I don't think I'm qualified to judge (and some may object that there's two much maths in the Gravitational Wave article - again I don't feel qualified to judge that).Tlhslobus (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gravitational Waves article not looking quite so great on closer inspection, tho again I'm probably far too poorly qualified to judge.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
  • At the moment there is just rumours.
  • The LIGO project announces would be a primary source statement, which is not a RS. Everyone still remembers another recent case of a huge announcement that turned out to be nothing after the result was reviewed.
  • This should be closed, and only when there is an actual announcement with either a peer-reviewed paper or RS reporting by scientists (not just journalists repeating an announcement) there is a basis for any kind of discussion.
LoveToLondon (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Close: We're all agreed that nothing is going ahead until if and when it's official. But some of us think that in the meantime preliminary discussion of various issues here and now may usefully speed up the process of getting the item ready for posting if and when it's needed later.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's WP:CRYSTAL. What exactly will be getting on Thursday? A press conference alone would not be sufficient for obvious reasons - it is not even an RS for updating the article. A peer-reviewed paper is pretty much the minimum requirement for taking any scientific results seriously. announces the apparent like in the altblurbs would be a clear indication that it must not be posted to ITN - it is either confirmed or a publicity stunt. LoveToLondon (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding direct detection to altblurbs - they have arguably already been indirectly detected long ago, with a Nobel prize handed out in 1993 for showing the energy loss of binary neutron stars to be consistent with the emission of gravity waves.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:16, 9 February 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.

February 11

[edit]
February 11, 2016 (2016-02-11) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economics

Disasters and accidents

Health

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science

Sports

[Added to ongoing] Zika and Microcephaly [Update?]

[edit]

Not a new ITN entry, just a potential update to the existing entry, such that

The rapid spread of Zika fever, associated with microcephaly in newborns, in Latin America leads to the World Health Organization issuing a Public Health Emergency of International Concern.

From two studies reported now in NEJM and MMWR. --bender235 (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Zika blurb has fallen off of the template, so I think that this can be closed. Mamyles (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or should it be made ongoing? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support for ongoing. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how ongoing works. And people are capable of typing Z-i-k-a if they want information. Abductive (reasoning) 18:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] LIGO announces detection of gravitational waves round 2

[edit]
Articles: Gravitational wave detection, February 2016 (talk · history · tag) and Gravitational wave (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The LIGO experiment announces the first direct observation of gravitational waves. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The LIGO experiment announces the direct observation of gravitational waves caused by black holes merging.
News source(s): (Nature), (Guardian), (New York Times)
Credits:

 Smurrayinchester 15:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] LIGO announces detection of gravitational waves

[edit]
posted on nomination above
We don't need to start posting advanced news, let's wait for it to happen. And can we try to tone down the use of bold which isn't helpful in any situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 9 February 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: Gravitational wave (talk · history · tag) and LIGO (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The LIGO project announces the detection of gravitational waves generated as a result of the merger of two black holes. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The LIGO project announces the apparent direct detection of gravitational waves; these were generated as a result of the merger of two black holes.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The LIGO project announces the apparent direct detection of Einstein-predicted gravitational waves; these were generated as a result of the merger of two black holes.
News source(s): LIGO (on 11th of February), Science
Credits:

Both articles need updating
Nominator's comments: This is to be announced on Thursday, but the news has leaked out (there were already rumors many months ago). Count Iblis (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. Probably obvious post after the official news release. Nergaal (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with Nergaal. Banedon (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can't post on a rumour. If this is true, then it's just about the most obvious post in years, but not now. Guess close this now and open a new one on any genuine announcement. Fgf10 (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for the official announcement. Rumours based on a leaked e-mail circulating on twitter seem to define unreliable, even when published in Science. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with others about waiting. Then almost certain post, subject to article quality and to blurb quality, as this is an area where cautious wording is probably called for: These waves have been searched for ever since Einstein predicted them, so their discovery would be hugely important, but I understand there have been claimed discoveries before, including recently, which have not stood the test of time, and in the past ITN has seemingly been unduly incautious with some sensational claimed scientific discoveries, such as Dua's Layer. Appropriately cautious wording would probably also be required in the text of the articles. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • My above-mentioned 'understanding' regarding recent claims was correct: Primordial gravitational waves are gravitational waves observed in the cosmic microwave background. They were allegedly detected by the BICEP2 instrument, an announcement made on 17 March 2014, which was withdrawn on 30 January 2015 ("the signal can be entirely attributed to dust in the Milky Way"[34]).Tlhslobus (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • With such caution in mind I've added an altblurb with the extra word possible.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If preferred, some alternative words or expressions such as apparent or (not yet independently confirmed) might also do the job of expressing suitable caution.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the other hand, I've also added an altblurb2 with Einstein-predicted to give the ordinary reader an indication of the possible importance of the discovery. (I've added a comma after waves, since I don't know whether Einstein's prediction was in the context of black holes, let alone merging black holes.) Tlhslobus (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm also adding the comma to my first altblurb, as such a comma after waves is probably wanted even without Einstein predicted, as the important item is that it's (allegedly) the discovery of gravitational waves, whereas the merging black holes seems relatively trivial. (After expected publication on Thursday, we will need to phrase the blurb to try to ensure that the reader doesn't get the misleading impression that gravitational waves may have been discovered before in contexts other than merging black holes).Tlhslobus (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • With that in mind, I'm replacing the comma with ; these were in both my altblurbs. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • On reflection, apparent will probably be better than possible, unless the authors themselves say 'possible', so I've amended my 2 altblurbs accordingly.Tlhslobus (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, obviously we must wait until it is announced, but since this is likely to be a massive breaking news event (according to the rumors it's a solid more than 5 sigma's observation involving two independent detectors that both detected the characteristic features of such a signal and with the time lag between the two detected signals ruling out some freak terrestrial artifact), one can already look into both Wiki articles and make an assessment if the news can be edited in on Thursday, and there may be other possible problems that may need to be fixed. Count Iblis (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough regarding assessing the articles. But regarding the alleged news itself, the last incorrect claim was similarly not the result of any freak terrestrial artefact; the fact that it has taken so many decades to detect waves which are supposed to be occurring all the time, is itself grounds for caution, even without the past mistaken claim(s).Tlhslobus (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidentally, at first perusal the articles both look great to me, but I don't think I'm qualified to judge (and some may object that there's two much maths in the Gravitational Wave article - again I don't feel qualified to judge that).Tlhslobus (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gravitational Waves article not looking quite so great on closer inspection, tho again I'm probably far too poorly qualified to judge.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
  • At the moment there is just rumours.
  • The LIGO project announces would be a primary source statement, which is not a RS. Everyone still remembers another recent case of a huge announcement that turned out to be nothing after the result was reviewed.
  • This should be closed, and only when there is an actual announcement with either a peer-reviewed paper or RS reporting by scientists (not just journalists repeating an announcement) there is a basis for any kind of discussion.
LoveToLondon (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Close: We're all agreed that nothing is going ahead until if and when it's official. But some of us think that in the meantime preliminary discussion of various issues here and now may usefully speed up the process of getting the item ready for posting if and when it's needed later.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's WP:CRYSTAL. What exactly will be getting on Thursday? A press conference alone would not be sufficient for obvious reasons - it is not even an RS for updating the article. A peer-reviewed paper is pretty much the minimum requirement for taking any scientific results seriously. announces the apparent like in the altblurbs would be a clear indication that it must not be posted to ITN - it is either confirmed or a publicity stunt. LoveToLondon (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding direct detection to altblurbs - they have arguably already been indirectly detected long ago, with a Nobel prize handed out in 1993 for showing the energy loss of binary neutron stars to be consistent with the emission of gravity waves.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:16, 9 February 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.

February 10

[edit]
February 10, 2016 (2016-02-10) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health

International relations
Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

[Closed] Successful recovery of a cryogenically frozen mammal brain

[edit]
I think it's clear this isn't going anywhere close to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 11 February 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: Cryonics (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Scientists have successfully frozen and recovered for the first time the brain of a mammal. (Post)
News source(s): Brain Preservation Foundation, research article, DailyMail, Newsweek
Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Kinda weird but potentially really important development. I remember this was a big topic in the 90s until people realized that freezing brains damages them too much. Now a team has managed to recover an essentially undamaged rabbit brain, the first time done for a mammal. Seems the research was published a few months ago but it is getting picked up by news sites now. Nergaal (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the Newsweek article's addendum: "Correction | The article originally stated that the brain had been recovered. It has been updated to clarify that the rabbit brain has so far only been preserved, not recovered." Therefore, oppose blurb on principle of an inaccurate claim.--WaltCip (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. The claim isn't "a team has managed to recover an essentially undamaged rabbit brain", it's that the team has managed to freeze a rabbit brain without causing visible structural damage; unsurprisingly for those familiar with that organ, the Daily Mail has got the wrong end of the stick; the original source even makes it clear that this isn't scalable to larger animals and they're now going to try to freeze a pig brain. Total non-story. ‑ Iridescent 19:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose if we didn't read the articles we'd be duped by this. The blurb is actually completely incorrect. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. With an accurate blurb this might actually be interesting. The news is that a prize instituted in 2010 by the Brain Preservation Federation has been won by a new technique, aldehyde-stabilised cryopreservation. It's hard to tell how notable either the prize or the development is, given that the article on cryonics hasn't been updated and we don't have an article on the foundation. It might be suited to DYK, if the prize were deemed notable enough to support a new article being created on the technique. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Complete and utter nonsense. Sorry for the strong words, but that is one of the most misleading blurbs and press statements I've ever seen. It would be good if people actually bothered going to the actual paper, which doesn't make any of these claims. For starters, the brain is fixed in gluteraldedyhe.... For anyone who know even the slightest bit about biochemistry, that already makes it completely obvious there is never going to be any recovery. Structural preservation? Sure. Functional recovery? After hell freezes over. Fgf10 (talk) 08:11, 11 February 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] Dikwa bombing

[edit]
Okay, enough now. I think the posting editor should realise we need an article to assess. Other, more experienced Wikpiedians have fallen into the same trap, waiting to assess notability before being bothered to create an article. It just doesn't work here. Article first, assessment follows. In this case, no article, no likey. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 10 February 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: No article specified
Blurb: ​ Two female suicide bombers kill more than 60 people at a camp for displaced people in Dikwa, Nigeria. (Post)
News source(s): (Al Jazeera) (Reuters) (ABC News)
Credits:
 Spirit Ethanol (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - Ignoring the fact there is no article, this seems part of the continued Boko Haram situation in Nigeria, and thus not an isolated even (50,000 + ppl have died in the Boko Haram uprising since according to one of the linked articles). --MASEM (t) 19:20, 10 February 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.

February 9

[edit]
February 9, 2016 (2016-02-09) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Posted] Bad Aibling rail accident

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Bad Aibling rail accident (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Nine people are killed in a head-on collision (train involved pictured) between two passenger trains near Bad Aibling, Germany. (Post)
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Breaking news, appears a significant accident. Article needs bashing into shape but expect it will be as info becomes available is being bashed into shape. Currently eight deaths, possibly more to be confirmed. Mjroots (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well the name seems in line with standing practice. Looking at Category:Railway accidents in Germany, normally not the Bundesland, but the village is named, even if they are largely unknown outside the region... L.tak (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@L.tak: - this is not the place to discuss the issue. Go to talk:Bad Aibling rail accident. Mjroots (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's immediately recognizable, at least to many US readers. Mamyles (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posting today with the help of this seemingly misleading argument reinforces my initial gut feeling that this item should be pulled due insufficient notability, but I'd prefer to hear more views on this before voting to pull.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMHO, that comment after the oppose vote shows a mature editor who knows the consensus is against him/her and accepts the fact without continually harping on about it. Mjroots (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe I'm miscounting, but I think there were 9 opposes (10 originally but 1 switched) of whom I think 2 said they would support in another week and 1 said they might support in a different week, so it looks to me like no hope of consensus to post even in a different week. So to me it looks like a kindly editor commendably going out of her way to avoid hurting the nominator's feelings, and who has seemingly also changed her own mind as to the precise reason why she's still opposing the nomination. But it's now academic as there's no support for pulling today.Tlhslobus (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • AFAIK, it's not a simple !vote count. Mjroots (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • True, it's not a vote, you need a consensus to post, and with that many opposed there was clearly going to be no consensus. But this is now a pointless academic discussion, so provided anything you care to say is not unduly provocative (and perhaps even if it is) please feel free to have the last word here before some admin sensibly closes the item to avoid further unproductive discussion.Tlhslobus (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support Precedent is not binding here. Postability is completely subjective, beyond guidelines set at WP:ITN and WP:ITNR. Borderline items can miss out because of a busy week, for example. Personally, my opinion is that this particular event is notable enough to post. Mamyles (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Sushil Koirala

[edit]
Article: Sushil Koirala (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Incumbent president of Nepali Congress and former Prime Minister Sushil Koirala dies at 76. (Post)
News source(s): The Kathmandu Post Zee News
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: Former PM, incumbent president of Congress (died in office). Seems to be very important in his country. EternalNomad (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support article is sparse, and probably could use a ref or two more for a few mostly uncontentious statements, but nothing that would lead me to block this from appearing on the main page. --Jayron32 01:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Generally hesitant about opposing any former world leader (for reference PM in Nepal is the seat of power, the President is a ceremonial position), however, we're also talking a rather short term (under 2 years) and a position that has high rotation (see List of Prime Ministers of Nepal). I feel there's more importance that can be established based on what is little in the article now, though I do note the article is otherwise is seemingly good shape to post. --MASEM (t) 01:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
  • Blurb president of Nepali Congress and nominator comment incumbent president of Congress are misleading - Nepali Congress is not a parliament (like US Congress), it is a political party.
  • Seems to be very important in his country. - he was head of government and leader of the biggest party, which should be enough notability for RD.
  • Article is poor, even basic information like why he lost his position as Prime Minister to someone of a different party is completely missing.
LoveToLondon (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 8

[edit]
February 8, 2016 (2016-02-08) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and medicine

International relations

Law and crime
Sport

[Posted] RD: Violette Verdy

[edit]
Article: Violette Verdy (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times Telegraph 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.

Nominator's comments: Described in sources as a "leading ballerina of the 20th century", received many awards for her dancing and directing, lead for NY Ballet fo 20 years. MurielMary (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article in good shape and well-sourced (if not as charming as her New York Times obituary). One of the last great Balanchine dancers, independently notable for her prominent artistic directorships. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support once updated Importance clear, article is in good shape, outside of the lack of mention of her death in the prose which should be easy to fix. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Some journalist at AP writing in an obituary A leading ballerina of the 20th century is very blurry and obituaries tend to describe the achievements of the deceased too positive (ABC just has a verbatim copy from AP). The awards section lists the lowest ranks of two French medals as her highest achievements (France's highest decoration has 5 ranks), and there is nothing in the article that makes it clear whether she was generally considered the leading ballerina in the world. LoveToLondon (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is sufficient length and sufficiently well written and referenced. I added a few cn tags to a few statements that may need them, so that should probably be fixed, but the article is of sufficient quality to appear on the main page. --Jayron32 15:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support once fully updated. She succeeded internationally, inspired leading choreographers, and was a leading teacher and ballet director. The article looks mostly ok, though there are a couple of citations requested and some obituary trivia needs pruning. It needs the past tense applying. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most concerns have now been addressed. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Nida Fazli

[edit]
Article: Nida Fazli (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Indian Express The 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: An important lyricist, poet and dialogue writer. Honoured with Padma Shri, 4th highest civilian award in India. Skr15081997 (talk) 08:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm having a hard time assessing Fazli's notability. If I recall aright, we have not previously considered the Padma Shri alone as sufficient evidence of importance? How does he compare with the recent nomination, Intizar Hussain (who wasn't posted, mainly for having stub article)? In any case, the article is not yet of postable quality. It needs updating to the past tense. Some parts need work on the tone, which is rather peacocky. More references would be ideal; several long paragraphs only have a single reference. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose seems to be a marginal call for RD notability. Article is very poor. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Article is short, but the prose is fully referenced, and I can't find anything contentious that is lacking a reference. It'd be nice if it were longer, but it's enough for me. --Jayron32 15:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Margaret Forster

[edit]
Posted, further debate over definitions or the purpose of RD can be taken elsewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 10 February 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: Margaret Forster (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Telegraph BBC 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: Award-winning biographer and writer MurielMary (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I was contemplating nominating this. Georgy Girl (book & film) is an influential 1960s film, her biography of Daphne du Maurier is very well known, and Forster gained several awards for various biographies and memoirs. I've found references for most of the statements in the article. I note an IP has changed the date of death to 7th, though 8th is stated by the BBC and other sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I conformed footnotes. Is it true she turned down Queen's honours? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The vague term Award-winning shows the notability problem - if there is any proof that she was generally considered to be among the top 3 or top 5 authors in the UK that is missing in the article. LoveToLondon (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The term Award-winning is a summary of her achievements, not an indication of an notability problem. Also the subject doesn't need to be among the top 3 or top 5 authors in the UK - the field is "biographers" rather than "authors in general". MurielMary (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Every person is leading in some field when you define the field narrow enough. And I don't see proof in the article for your claim that she was the leading biographer in the UK - even the sources emphasize her novels in the headlines and summaries. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Biographer" is a sufficiently broad category; there's a reason we distinguish between "programmer" and "video game designer", after all. It's not like we're saying "Foremost biographer of Daphne du Maurier", which is a considerably more narrow field. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources are emphasizing her novels, which makes the nominator claim that she was the leading biographer questionable. Are there any sources for the claim that she was in the (already relatively small) field "biographers in the UK" the leading person, or is that nominator claim not true? LoveToLondon (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several sources go into her non-fiction in depth, though most are headlining Georgy Girl because it's so iconic. Reputable obituaries don't usually rate people in that way, and even were they to do so it would only be the personal opinion of the author. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LoveToLondon, you are putting words into my mouth, so to speak. I have made no such claim that Forster is the leading biographer in the UK. I have used information from the article to summarise her status into the one adjective "award-winning". The adjective "award-winning" is used with the noun "biographer" because, as stated in the article, she won awards for her biographies. MurielMary (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MurielMary as nominator wrote: the field is "biographers" rather than "authors in general". MurielMary has so far failed to provide proof that she was one of the leading biographers in the world, or at least the leading biographer in the UK. LoveToLondon (talk) 10:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The focus of discussions here is "does the article meet the criteria" not "did the nominator do xyz". Kindly bear this in mind; discussing editors in this way is not recommended by WP as it can lead to accusations of personal attacks. MurielMary (talk) 20:52, 10 February 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: Amelia Bence

[edit]
Article: Amelia Bence (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Lanacion
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: Highly profilic actress, covers multiple areas of under-represented areas of coverage on WP: women, Argentina, etc, article is in great shape and there's only one name on the RD ticker at the moment. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Super Bowl 50

[edit]
Posted, further discussion cannot possibly be productive. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 14:18, 8 February 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: Super Bowl 50 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In American football, the Denver Broncos defeat the Carolina Panthers in Super Bowl 50 to win the NFL Championship. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In American football, the Denver Broncos defeat the Carolina Panthers to win Super Bowl 50.
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: ITNR, one of the most-watched sporting events in the world MASEM (t) 03:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why? I can't recall us ever posting any blurb in a large-font format. 331dot (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was sarcasm, 331dot. Jolly Ω Janner 03:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We didn't include the MVP last year(not saying we shouldn't). 331dot (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do want to stress that the game summary is rather important to get into the article ; it was a messy game with lots of turnovers, and wasn't a simple rout. --MASEM (t) 03:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per 331dot, altblurb (or another altblurb). Winning the Super Bowl to win the NFL Championship is redundant. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 04:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Administrator note - Let me save all of you a lot of time that are thinking about posting here: The altblurb will be posted, no matter what, once the article's game summary section is updated. So unless you (1) have something to post here that's completely game changing (no pun intended), or (2) are going to tell us that you've kindly updated the section... Don't waste your time making a comment here. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:52, 8 February 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.

February 7

[edit]
February 7, 2016 (2016-02-07) (Sunday)
Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sport

[Closed] Ouarzazate solar power station

[edit]
good faith nom, but no consensus to post μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 13 February 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: Ouarzazate solar power station (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Noor 1 solar power plant is commissioned in Morocco (Post)
News source(s): Gizmodo, The Verge
Credits:
Nominator's comments: First phase of the largest solar power plant in the world, commissioning of Noor 1 is a major landmark in it's development. yorkshiresky (talk) 15:13, 7 February 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.

February 6

[edit]
February 6, 2016 (2016-02-06) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

[Closed] RD: Dan Gerson

[edit]
stale, given three posted listings and one pending above it. μηδείς (talk) 01:15, 13 February 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: Dan Gerson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Los Angeles Times
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: Writer of Monsters, Inc., Monsters University and Big Hero 6: three of the most successful animated films of the last fifteen years. Big Hero 6 won the Oscar for best animated film, for which Monsters, Inc. was also nominated; he also won a BAFTA. His films grossed (according to figures on Wikipedia) around $2 billion at the box office. Also an unexpectedly and sadly young death, aged 49.
I think the article is now in pretty good shape and ready to post: Gerson just doesn't seem to have done many interviews himself, but there are two good ones I've added transcriptions from. There are a lot of comments on his input by his collaborators (he always collaborated on screenplays, as is normal on animated films) and I've added a fair use image; a screengrab of a video interview. Blythwood (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral but leaning support Credit to Blythwood for improving the article for RD, that should not be an issue. It's hard to immediately dismiss this given his bg with a few big movies, but this is also a relatively minor part of the whole process and didn't win any awards directly. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support a little like Masem. The article isn't really forthcoming as to why this individual is significant in his field, it's barely above stub quality, but at closer inspection his work seems to be nearly unparalleled. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, now expanded significantly and more logical section dividers added. It's annoying: he really doesn't seem to have been the self-promoting type, so he just doesn't seem to have got the attention other Pixar people did! No Twitter page, for example. But now it looks much cleaner. Blythwood (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose his work on the big movies was all as part of a team; his role appears to be one of many, not of a leader or a major talent; also he didn't receive any awards or formal recognition for his work. Could he really be described as "top of his field"?? MurielMary (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say yes, certainly: all his films were hugely successful and popular. And what people have always praised about Pixar is their willingness to work together and endlessly try to improve scripts, so I don't see that the fact that he emphasised that he didn't write alone counts against his eminence. At the end of the day, it was his name on the screenplay, so one can assume the scripts were written with him signing off on everything. Blythwood (talk) 12:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are still working on this, Blythwood, you mght like to post on the talk page to try to gain consensus for including it either as a 4th RD or in place of one of the others, otherwise it is unlikely ever to be posted given the three RDs that post-date it. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:37, 11 February 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] Kaohsiung earthquake

[edit]
Posted, with clear support consensus. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:47, 8 February 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 Kaohsiung earthquake (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ An earthquake strikes in southern Taiwan. (Post)
News source(s): BBC ABC CBC Los Angeles Times
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Not the most deadly earthquake to report on, but it has received widespread coverage and it is somewhat in depth (certainly not stubby reports). Article has recently been expanded from a stub. Jolly Ω Janner 03:06, 6 February 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.

February 5

[edit]
February 5, 2016 (2016-02-05) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Duplicate Closed, see Feb 3 for original] RD: Joe Alaskey

[edit]
Duplicate, already suggested at the correct date LoveToLondon (talk) 01:45, 5 February 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: Joe Alaskey (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-35491123
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: Voice actor for Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and Sylvester the Cat among many, many others. Guy (Help!) 01:32, 5 February 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.

February 4

[edit]
February 4, 2016 (2016-02-04) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health

International relations

Law and crime

Politics

RD: Edgar Mitchell

[edit]
Article: Edgar Mitchell (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [18]
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: Apollo astronaut and the sixth person to walk upon the surface of Earth's moon like a boss. In my opinion, walking on the moon is about as accomplished as you can be for an astronaut (so far). --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not very many people claim to have been healed of kidney cancer by a teenager over the phone, either. This class of people who walked on the moon is special, but I am not sure he was special within that class. μηδείς (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not getting into his parapsychology interests here. He was at the top of his field of science to be able to walk on the moon, and received all sorts of tangible accolades for his career. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you list these accolades? As far as I can tell he was in the program, and met the physical and mental aptitudes for the voyage. He did not design it, or do anything notable as part of it, besides aver the existence of UFO's after he retired. Are we seriously arguing that having walked on the moon is a qualification for itnr? Because if not, I see no reason to post this item. 05:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
So you want him to not only walk on the moon, but design and build the rocket also? --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like that guy who single-handedly built the rocket and flew to the moon. What was his name? Apollo Creed? GRAPPLE X 20:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks, Grapple, since a laugh when you've broken a digit is a nice thing. There was a 70's TV series about a guy building a rocket out back. But in both cases these were American, hence my surprise at the lack of opposition. For Goshsakes, everyone, this guy was a Merickan!. μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear to me to be an acknowledgement that a field that has changed as much in a human lifetime as aerospace has may have multiple peaks. I doubt they are arguing that any more than you are arguing that Gagarin was a more accomplished astronaut than Neil Armstrong. Regardless of that, being one of a dozen men to set foot on a celestial body that is not the earth you and I stand on goes beyond merely "top of the field", but is arguably "top of any field". Much is made of being first, but in space exploration who is first is often as not a matter of chance; but there are few clubs as exclusive, and few feats as staggering, as the one in question. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 16:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support To Put it into context - while Gagarin and Glenn will always be unique, at the moment out of the 536 people who have been to space, only 12 have stepped foot on the moon. Eventually (I hope), in my lifetime it'll be the case that both these numbers become so common that it'll render them useless for ITN purposes, but these first 12 should be listed for being the pinnacle of achievement during that period of the space race. Miyagawa (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support obvious RD candidate, possibly worth a blurb. Mjroots (talk) 09:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment clear consensus to post, but article is not in a suitable state by any means. Far too many [citation needed] tags for a start. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Dave Mirra

[edit]
Article: Dave Mirra (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): LA Times
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: BMX and X-Games star, dead at 41 of an apparent suicide – Muboshgu (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] French orthographic reform

[edit]
Clear consensus against posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 5 February 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: Reforms_of_French_orthography#Rectifications_of_1990 (talk · history · tag) and Use of the circumflex in French (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Protests at plans to reform French orthography in education including abolition of the circumflex. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
 Andrew D. (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close - Trivial. Language is constantly changing.--WaltCip (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The fact that the French language is beset by needless regulation is not news. And the blurb is misleading. Not all circumflexes are going. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The circumflex has not been abolished. These spelling changes were proposed by the Académie Française in 1990. And hardly protests, just fashionable to be outraged on social media. Lemonade51 (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as not really a big deal. Also, the blurb is inaccurate. As far as I can tell from reading the sources, the circumflex is being removed ONLY from situations where it serves no linguistic purpose, that is where it neither indicates a change in pronunciation or distinguishes between homographs. Otherwise, it is still going to be used. So, it's a minor bit of spelling reform, and not an abolition of the diacritic. Meh. --Jayron32 13:17, 5 February 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: Maurice White

[edit]
Article: Maurice White (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC News
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: Founded a renowned band known worldwide and had a significant career by winning Grammy Award and inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest hiding them rather than deleting them so that they are easy to restore if reliable sourcing is found. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-posted – Only will be listed for a day or two at most, but better late than never. Improvements to the article by Twofingered Typist, Lutzv, and Blythwood have brought the article to sufficient quality for posting. Only two {{cn}} tags remain as of this comment, but the information is not particularly contentious and the remainder of the article appears well-sourced. Nice work everyone. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Syrian Army break siege of Nubl and Al-Zahraa

[edit]
Withdrawn per nominator. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 7 February 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: Siege of Nubl and Al-Zahraa (talk · history · tag) and Northern Aleppo offensive (2016) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Syrian Army and its allies break a three-year rebel siege of towns Nubl and Al-Zahraa and cutting main supply line for opposition forces in Aleppo. (Post)
News source(s): (Al Jazeera), (The Independent), (CNN)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Significant loss for Syrian opposition in this area, threatening their position in biggest Syrian city Aleppo. There will be also direct aftermath in European refugee crisis. Jenda H. (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Really not. Look at map. This is clearly most significant military move north of Aleppo (which is biggest Syrian city) since start of war in 2012. --Jenda H. (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, every week there is some battle that is clearly most significant military move in some part of Syria. Cutting one of the supply lines to Aleppo is also not very spectacular in a civil war where people dying of starvation in cities without any supply lines left is normal - and Aleppo still has supply lines. One side getting control of all of Aleppo might be worth an ITN blurb - smaller battles leading to it are not. LoveToLondon (talk) 20:33, 4 February 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] UN rules Julian Assange under arbitrary detention

[edit]
No chance of gaining consensus to post. Stephen 02:28, 5 February 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: Julian Assange (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The UN rules that Julian Assange is being arbitrarily detained. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ UN rules Julian Assange has been arbitrarily detained since 2012.
Alternative blurb II: ​ UN rules in favour of Julian Assange that his detainment has been "arbitrary".
News source(s): BBC Reuters
Credits:
 prat (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for impact, but strongly suggest a future re-nomination. It is not clear what impact, if any, this ruling will have on the case. The most likely scenario is that the UK and Sweden maintain his arrest warrants, in which case the impact is none (other than exposing the UN's impotence). If the situation resolves in some other way (Assange to France or S America, warrants dropped, etc.), then the impact is obvious and this should be re-nominated then.128.214.53.18 (talk) 11:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The impact is the ruling itself; it is not the effect it has on the case. The UN has ruled against US, UK and Swedish actions and in favour of Assange's human rights. This is rare and globally politically significant. It will only happen once, we have been waiting four years - how can it be re-nominated at a later date? prat (talk) 12:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. I'm not seeing the significance of this, as the UN can determine whatever it wants, but such determinations usually have little impact- and the BBC states this is not legally binding. If the UN sends UN troops into London to escort Assange out of the country, then that would be notable, but I'm not sure this is. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The impact is the ruling itself; it is not the effect it has on the case. The UN has ruled against US, UK and Swedish actions and in favour of Assange's human rights. This is rare and globally politically significant. Furthermore, your comments about UN troops betray a complete misunderstanding of the reality of the situation. prat (talk) 12:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • My comment about UN troops was to make a point; I am well aware of the situation. The point is that this determination is meaningless without action. If the UN had decided against Assange and he submitted to arrest as he stated he would, then that would be notable; if this ruling meant that they would let him leave, that would also be notable; but the status quo is unchanged as the UK has a legally valid warrant for his arrest and they will not let him leave. I disagree that this ruling has any impact worth noting here. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose most of what the UN dictates is summarily ignored. There's little evidence to suggest this case will be any different. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This argument might as well be, "The UN isn't notable." - Darouet (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The UN is notable, but not effective until it can enforce its determinations in matters like this. 331dot (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Assange is one of the two most prominent leakers in recent history and his case has been all over the news for years: the conclusion of the United Nations is also being reported throughout the news and highly relevant. Oppose arguments spuriously maintain the largest international governing body is "irrelevant..." inescapably ironic from a series of wikipedia editors. -Darouet (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; the strawman arguments of the supporters notwithstanding, this is an insignificant and non-binding decision which will have no impact on anything. Nobody is claiming the UN isn't notable, we're saying that not everything they do is notable (the Security Council—which is a considerably more significant body than the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention—adopted 10 resolutions last December alone). ‑ Iridescent 21:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BabbaQ: My opinion on the subject in regards to ITN/C is covered by the opposing arguments already listed and I don't feel the need to restate them. I would appreciate if you tone down the harassment of those who have a differing opinion from yours as well. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose It doesn't appear that this will influence any country involved, or even have much impact on Mr. Assange himself, much less anyone else in the world. My view in short is that Assange enjoys a systemic bias not merely on Wikipedia but on the internet in general, and that were it another locally divisive fugitive, particularly from another part of the world and with a different antagonist, we'd likely not even be discussing such a toothless headline. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 23:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I said nothing pro- or anti-Assange, only that there exists a demographic bias in favor of him; the fact that you read this as "for us or against us" is as good as an admission that I am correct. I can't say that I appreciate your dismissal of my opinion (or your demeaning of my language); it suggests that you actually have no rebuttal, but instead wish to discredit me as a source, the very definition of an ad hominem argument. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 00:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a position of a ""Working Group on Arbitrary Detention"" of which decisions have no legal standing (as far as I can see). It is not endorsed by an international court, the UNGA or UN security council. So as an Assange-based news fact it is a bit meagre. that all may change of course if this makes him come outside and get him arrested (or not); but that's for a later nomination.... L.tak (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per 331dot, TRM, etc. – SchroCat (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not helpful to this discussion. 331dot (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Just because someone disagrees with you there no reason to try and smear their vote. As a long-standing and productive editor who has commented in good faith, my opinion is as valid as anyone else's, including yours. You do not own or run ITN, and there is no bar on editors commenting. I suspect that if I'd have supported you, you wouldn't have tried to squash my comment, would you. – SchroCat (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all do not censor my comments. Secondly, your comment above is a clear indication that you can not handle an opinion. A drive-by !vote is a drive-by !vote, and is no indication of your work in general as you are fully aware of. Move on. BabbaQ (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I rarely ever drop by here anymore, but I must oppose a nomination that is so shockingly sensationalist, with the significance of the event so incredibly overstated. This is not what this project is about. None of the news articles suggest an impact remotely comparable to what the nominator claims. In fact, they specify what little impact this will have. Reuters even includes a quote opining that "A decision that effective confinement in the Ecuadorian embassy constitutes arbitrary detention – it doesn’t necessarily lead to the conclusion that the underlying arrest warrants and extradition requests are unlawful." In other words, it's not even necessarily a repudiation of the underlying criminal case and as such can't be spun as a ruling against the governments involved. The panel's ruling is not legally binding and has been explicitly rejected by both Sweden and the UK. Swarm ♠ 00:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Rather than "UN", the correct link would be Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, an unreferenced stub, which is not a good start. However, that is a minor issue in the grand scheme of things. At the time of writing, the Working Group has not issued its Opinion (see its website where the last story is from January). So, perhaps inevitably given the subject matter, we are talking about a leak of what the outcome is apparently going to be. Does ITN post leaks of what news is expected to be? I don't think so. We do not know, for example, what category of arbitrariness this will be given - see the possibilities at this link - let alone the reasons. Note that "Opinion" is the Working Group's own term, not "ruling" - courts issue rulings, and this is not a court. Saying "UN rulings are notable" rather misses the important point that this is not a UN "ruling" even in the UN's own terminology. But let us assume for present purposes that the Working Group's Opinion when issued reaches a conclusion that Assange's detention is arbitrary. Would that merit posting? No. It will make absolutely no different to the legal situation in which Assange finds himself. Furthermore there is nothing to support the claim that this Working Group's Opinion is of any international political significance in this or indeed any other case, apart from the claims of Assange and his supporters - be honest, had anyone here actually heard of the Working Group before today? And OldManNeptune has an excellent point about the over-reporting of Assange-related issues in the media generally. ITN is not a newswire service but reports updated stories in the news of encyclopaedic merit. In the grand scheme of things, this story is over-hyped and not suitable ITN material. (Edit conflict with Swarm, with whom I also agree). BencherliteTalk 00:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I think most people will react "so what" when reading this in the front page of Wikipedia. HaEr48 (talk) 01:52, 5 February 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] TPP signed in New Zealand

[edit]
No chance of gaining consensus to post. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:19, 9 February 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: Trans-Pacific Partnership (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Twelve signatories, including the U.S., ratify the Trans-Pacific Partnership in Auckland, New Zealand. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Twelve nations sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership in Auckland, New Zealand.
News source(s): UPI Voice of America CNN BBC
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: This is happening. The TPP now becomes official. George Ho (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support pending update of the main article. It's a huge deal. SounderBruce 07:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until the orange maintenance tag which requires an article re-write. After this it can be assessed for quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Although expansion of signatories has been evidently made since 2006, the significance is still questionable because of the exclusion of Russia and China. It is, of course, not a precondition to include these two countries but eluding them from discussing regional economic matters makes this far less important.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This critically effects a significant proportion of the world's population, and is a big win for US interest. It's happening at the same time as the UN ruling in favour of Assange (effectively against the US), which is arguably just as significant and these two developments even more so when presented in parallel. prat (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The section Ratification says On 4 February 2016, the twelve nations, including the United States, signed the deal. - which is not ratification and the topic ratification is completely missing in this section. The nominator claim The TPP now becomes official. is also not true. Signing is not the same as ratification - signatures are non-binding and no country has so far ratified the agreement. Signing is just a formal step between the agreement in October (that was posted to ITN) and the ratification. The (non)importance of the event also becomes clear when you consider that these were only ministers signing, not the heads of government. LoveToLondon (talk) 12:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The next important moment is entry into force, which will take some time. Further, agreed with LoveToLondonhis is not ratification, it is signature, which is a commitment to abide by the treaty in the future, and nothing more (or less) than that. L.tak (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose The fact that this is not legally binding in any manner by any of the signed countries is a primary reason that this is not the point to post, but I would think the fact that despite heavy opposition from a large number of bodies against TPP and that this signals they are going forward is potentially noteworthy. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A big deal, pun intended, with major international implications. Widely in the news globally. Good ITN-worthy blurb. Jusdafax 17:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, pending article quality. It's a big deal (and a controversial one), that's been a long time in the works. @Masem: It has an ISDS provision, so yes it is enforceable against signatories. This is of course signature rather than ratification, which will now happen country-by-country, but even Techdirt must know that's pretty inevitable now. Jheald (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your claim yes it is enforceable against signatories is complete nonsense. This signature by the trade minister alone (could you name the US Trade Representative?) does not have any direct implications. A country that signs but does not ratify will simply not take part in TPP, and no provision will be enforcable against such a country. LoveToLondon (talk) 18:10, 4 February 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] Apple overtakes Alphabet

[edit]
Consensus against. BencherliteTalk 09:27, 4 February 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: Apple Inc. (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Apple overtakes Alphabet to become the world's most valuable company by market capitalization (Post)
News source(s): http://www.investors.com/news/technology/apple-steals-biggest-stock-crown-as-alphabet-loses-search-chief/
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: As at Wednesday's close, Apple now has a market capitalization of 534 billion, compared to 515 billion for Alphabet Poppapartypop (talk) 06:50, 4 February 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.

February 3

[edit]
February 3, 2016 (2016-02-03) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Joe Alaskey

[edit]
Article: Joe Alaskey (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NBC News, The Guardian, CBC
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: Prolific voice actor and impressionist best known for voicing Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck. Also voiced multiple other characters in Looney Tunes, among other roles, and earned a Daytime Emmy for his role in Duck Dodgers. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak weak support on article improvements The bulk of the article is presently sourced to IMDB, and that is not going to fly. Now on importance, as an animation fan, the name's instantly recognizable but we're also not talking someone with an impression a resume in the field as Mel Blanc or June Foray. We've got a lot of RD's in the queue right now, but if there was space without knocking someone else out more important, I would support inclusion, but I feel there's other more culturally significant people that should be posted first, and this RD would be taking up space. --MASEM (t) 01:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak weak weak support - I dunno. To a non-animation fan, this just looks like the guy who took over for the more famous guy. But if he was particularly notable or well-regarded within the industry or among its fans, I wouldn't have any real objection to this going up. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakest of weak supports, right on the edge of oppose - Sure he does famous voices, but the article is sub-par and there really is not a whole lot to go on.--WaltCip (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose sure he did some voices, but "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field."? The article doesn't convince me that he was (this is the criteria for RD inclusion) HaEr48 (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Most notable as taking over the job left by Mel Blanc. He has one daytime Emmy - for me, he seems right on the border for influence and notability. Challenger l (talk) 11:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Late Oppose. He was one of many actors who voiced Bugs Bunny after the death of Mel Blanc. He only did the role from 2000-2008, alternating with Billy West. Nowhere near the top of his field, as evidenced by his lone Daytime Emmy.

[Closed] 2016 Australian school bomb threats

[edit]
Consensus against posting. BencherliteTalk 16:12, 4 February 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 Australian school bomb threats (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Schools across Australia are receiving bomb threats from a supposed overseas hacker. (Post)
News source(s): Sydney Morning Herald SBS ABC News
Credits:

Article updated
 Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:19, 4 February 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.

[Pulled] Lord Lucan

[edit]
Closing this as an ongoing waste of resource. As predicted this featured article has been deemed of little interest to our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 8 February 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: John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A death certificate is issued for British peer Lord Lucan, who disappeared in 1974. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, NYT, CNN
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: British peer. He was formally declared dead today, even though he has been missing for the past four decades, and we usually post when announced. The article is a FA and the news has had quite a bit of coverage. I'm leaning more towards reader accessibility, those who might want to learn about who he is from a decent article, over his general significance on this nom. Fuebaey (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose What's his field? Peerage? Suspected murderers? It's a well written article but he doesn't meet the RD criteria any more than Abe Vigoda. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't an RD nomination. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, it was at the time Muboshgu made this comment. It was changed to a blurb nomination later. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What, did TRM jump to a conclusion? I'll strike my now irrelevant comment. It does seem to be in the news, but I'm ambivalent on if it's significant enough to support. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he was discovered alive, that would be a big news story (or if his corpse was found and verified). But he was in fact declared dead for probate purposes in 1999, so the only development today is that a death certificate has been issued. For RD purposes, I don't think that he's widely regarded as very important in his field, unless you take the field to be hiding (dead or alive) for 40 years (which isn't a field for RD purposes). The news is the declaration of death, not the death itself, which is still a matter of speculation even with the issuing of a death certificate. If this is to be anything for ITN purposes, it would be a blurb along the lines of "British peer Lord Lucan, who disappeared in 1974 after the murder of his children's nanny, is declared by the High Court to be dead." - but I'm not sure about that. Which I think boils down to oppose RD, neutral on blurb at present. BencherliteTalk 18:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose as stale' - Lucan was declared as "dead for all legal purposes since 1981", some 20 years before Wikipedia ever had its first main page. This cannot be, by any stretch of the imagination, a "recent death". Mjroots (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's a featured article. Given that a common criticism of ITN is that we try to put sub-par quality articles on the main page, I think we should jump at the opportunity to get an FA on there.--WaltCip (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have converted this nom into a blurb based on the above comments. I'd like to invite @Muboshgu and Mjroots: to reassess this nom. Suggestions for additional alt blurbs are welcome. Fuebaey (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed to support blurb/oppose RD. Mjroots (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as interesting story widely reported in the media. MurielMary (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Lucan is infamous for his disappearance, the story has historical and encyclopedic value (unlike the death of an average American actor whose claim to fame was not being dead and nothing else), the article is of tip-top quality (unlike that of an average American actor whose claim to fame was not being dead and nothing else), this is a really good shout for ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose RD weak oppose blrub Neutral to blurb – Only claim to fame is his perplexing disappearance, though it did garner international attention at the time and has been in the background for conspiracies for a while. Despite notability of the case, this is just a procedural process brought about by the 2013 Presumption of Death Act. Nothing really substantial—i.e. discovery of a body or additional evidence—has happened aside from this being his third formal death announcement (legally dead in 1981, declared dead by the High Court in 1999, and now a death certificate in 2016). According to The Guardian, this was also pushed by his son so he could formally inherent the title "Earl of Lucan". Quality of the article lends toward the "weak" aspect of my oppose. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The fact that American sources are covering this shows its got some worldwide interest. I would compare this to, say, if they found Amelia Earhart's body - the bulk of the story doesn't change and doesn't have a significant impact on the world at large, but it does close the book on it. More importantly, it is an FA, and that weighs in favor of posting. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it really comparable to if they found Earhart's body? In this case, there is no new evidence or discovery, just a formality that the case is closed. This is comparable to an official declaring Earhart officially dead, but according to Amelia Earhart page they did that already. HaEr48 (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. The argument against posting is that nothing physical actually happened recently; the current news is of a particular official granting legal recognition to the death, decades after the likely actual death and decades after other officials recognized the death, and that an heir succeeds to the title (which no longer confers a peerage but is still a longstanding and well-known title). The argument for posting combines that the story is actually "in the news" due to the bizarre facts, coupled with the superior article quality. The bottom line is that if I were in charge of the postings I might not pick this one, but if those more familiar with the subject-matter find it worthy I don't object. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nitpick - It does confer the peerage, but the peerage doesn't confer a seat in the House of Lords, although the 8th Earl will now be eligible for election to that House in the event of a vacancy among the 92 hereditary peers still sitting. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support If this wasn't an FA I'd oppose, but this is in the news, and it's an opportunity to showcase quality content, and the article has been updated, so support a blurb. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted, no strong opposition, and a chance to showcase our best content. Stephen
  • Post-posting oppose. For a story of claimed encyclopedic interest it is just too regional. Lucan may be infamous for his disappearance, but only in the UK. Some coverage in the NYT doesn't change the fact that it's not something that captures the public imagination, and therefore will not be covered much if at all after today. Furthermore nothing actually happened: it's just the granting of a death certificate. The event itself (which might be postable) is long over. If governments decided to recognize MH370 passengers as legally dead, would we post that? If they then decided to issue death certificates, would we post that? I can see only two reasons to post this, which are 1) the article is a featured article and 2) there's been a recent dearth of stories on ITN. I don't find the first reason convincing. The second is valid, but even then I think posting this story is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Banedon (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an exceptional case for ITN. We have a well-developed article (FA even) which is a prime point for ITN posting. We have a topic that while very much localized to the UK, has received world-wide attention (per supplied sources above), also a necessary element for ITN. Yes, it's not really a change in the status quo (it simply formalizes that this person died), but that said, we have a story in the news that we have a high quality article for. This is exactly the type of place we want ITN to work at, to showcase our best work. I don't think this sets a precedence for "closure" on any longstanding cases, because to me, half the reason to post this is the FA stamp on the article. The MH370, presently a GA, would not necessarily merit the same understanding, but I'm not necessarily saying it wouldn't be posted either. (Arguably, I would love to see a front page section for cases like this where there is a significant current update in a topic that has achieved FA status that is not "interesting trivia" DYK-level but not quite "this is important to know now" ITN-level either, but that's a separate discussion and in lieu of that I see no issue using ITN for these isolated cases). --MASEM (t) 01:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • FAs will eventually get their day of glory as TFA. ITN is not the place to feature trivial development like this. -Zanhe (talk) 06:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree with above. ITN is not just about featuring quality content; in fact I'd say its main aim isn't to feature quality content, but to feature content on items that are currently in the news. That's why I don't think the article being FA class is much of a factor. Banedon (talk) 06:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • An interesting story which doesn't really qualify for ITN, but it's sort of a "human interest" story with a pretty good article to back it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull - Interesting story? Yes. ITN significance? No way. This is not even real news, as he was already and declared dead in 1999! What's his impact on the world? None, except for increased tabloid sales. -Zanhe (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral on the posting, but please can the blurb be shortened to some and remove the nanny part? It reads like a tabloid posting. Nergaal (talk) 05:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with removing the nanny part, or better, the entire posting, which is a tabloid posting even without the nanny part. -Zanhe (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Arguments about changing an already posted blurb don't belong here, but at WP:ERRORS, where they conveniently don't require consensus. Just in case anybody wants to know, if forced to choose, I'd pull the item, but if it's not pulled I'd keep the nanny murder in the blurb, but I'm not forced to choose, so I choose not to choose, due to being insufficiently interested, so please don't count this as any kind of vote.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For those keeping score, the blurb was posted without mention of the nanny, amended (at my suggestion at WP:ERRORS) to include this, amended (at someone else's suggestion there) to remove this, amended (at yet another person's suggestion and after various other people commented) to re-add this, and currently the request is to re-remove mention of the nanny. A few extra words gives more context to those (probably mainly outside the UK) who don't know why we might be posting a news item about a missing person. BencherliteTalk 16:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did not oppose because it was 'UK-centric', as that is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Just to make that clear. Fgf10 (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say you did; that was a separate sentence - now flagged with And:. Sca (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"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."--WaltCip (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the incisive rationale. Sca (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the concise demurrer.--WaltCip (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb (moved from "oppose RD, neutral on blurb", above) Lord Lucan's story has been an ongoing news item for, what, 40 years now in the UK and while nothing so far as the wider world may be changed by this news it is, on reflection, an important milestone in the case, one that is in the news and fit for posting. BencherliteTalk 16:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb. This is probably the end of this long-running saga and it's generated international news coverage (A LexisNexis news search for the last day or so shows multiple coverage in a range of news publications from tabloid to reputable broadsheet). Yes, the main focus of the news is on the UK, but the interest in the story goes much, Much further than that. - SchroCat (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm still looking for that most excellent lexicographer, Ambrose Bierce. – Sca (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting oppose: Having written about a great many missing-persons cases here I do not see this as an ITN-level development in the case. Yes, it's s fascinating narrative, and the article is deservedly featured. Yes, it's preoccupied the British public for years. But the issuance of a death certificate for someone missing and declared legally dead years ago is not a new development in the case at all, merely a bureaucratic formality that has happened in many other missing-person cases.

    Let's just put it this way: Natalee Holloway's disappearance was a fascinating story that got a lot of attention in the American media, and elsewhere in the world, for a while. Our article on the case is an FA that is (I think) about the only article on a disappearance to have run on the Main Page. She, too has been declared legally dead. It doesn't look like her family's gotten a death certificate yet. But when they do, I wouldn't support putting it on ITN. I fail to see what distinguishes these two cases. If her body or his were found, then yes. But not because their families got a death certificate. Daniel Case (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Post Posting Oppose. No lasting impact. In fact, the original story of a sordid murder would not be worthy of posting. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Abductive (reasoning) 03:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support. I agree with the people who opposed or want to pull this. For events appearing in ITN, it's hard to top this one for purely local interest and lack of cosmic significance. The chief -- apparently the only effect -- of this declaration is to allow his son to succeed to his title. On the other hand, it links to a quality article, the subject obviously belongs in an encyclopedia, and most importantly, it is an interesting story that I had never heard before. That's a factor that ought to be a much more important consideration for stories posted to the feed, in my opinion. Let's not forget that we're an encyclopedia, an online vademecum. There's nothing inherently wrong with a little clickbait. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a comment on that, if I'm looking for something interesting to read I usually check OTD (DYK is usually much too fringe; TFA is only one article that's often not interesting to me either). ITN on the other hand I only look at for news of international interest and impact. We may have different visions of what ITN is supposed to contain. Banedon (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak post-posting support - I wouldn't have nominated this myself, but it is in the international news, and it's a pretty noteworthy story. I think the current blurb (mentioning the context of the Earl's disappearance) should be kept, though. It's a fairly important fact in the case. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think an admin can close this now. The item has been posted and the consensus is unlikely to change.--WaltCip (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pulled as there is no support consensus; many pull/oppose votes after it was hastily posted. Fuzheado | Talk 22:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I originally closed this thread at the same time as pulling it, but at the request of some users I've made it open again for discussion. I still contend (and others have also noted) that the original blurb was hastily posted, followed by a nontrivial number of voices that challenged the support consensus. If another uninvolved admin sees it differently, I will take no offense. But the number of opposes and the requests to pull it were too numerous to ignore. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I still support posting, on balance. I was surprised both at the speed with which the item was posted, and the speed with which it was pulled and the discussion locked. In my non-specialist opinion, I think the discussion leans somewhat towards posting; certainly it merits further discussion if desired. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jesus, there are some people at Wikipedia who just are so full of themselves. They have to re-open discussions just to prove a major point within their own universe... I think some of you are "small in certain areas" if you get my point. I support posting. And Oppose "know-it-all" people.. :)BabbaQ (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh FFS. The main page is about showcasing content, so if we have a chance for a bold link to a featured article we should grab it with both hands. Sure, it's not the most monumental event to make the news, but ITN is not (supposed to be) just a news ticker. As for it being UK-centric, well, I hate to go there, but we posted the Superbowl, which is of very limited interest outside the United States. I'm not saying we shouldn't have posted the Superbowl, but it's hypocritical to oppose this for being of interest to only one country while another item of mostly single-nation importance (if moving a ball from one end of a field to another can be considered 'important'!) sits at the top of ITN. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, yes. Some people see themselves as the gatekeepers of culture, defining by their own nebulous criteria what major stories are "worthwhile" to tell other people about, and what stories must be obfuscated, lest we let the world know about it. The quality of Wikipedia content and the recentness of the story (the only things that should matter) are secondary concerns to "Fixing the great wrongs of the world by controlling what people read on the main page". It grows tiring. --Jayron32 15:22, 8 February 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.

February 2

[edit]
February 2, 2016 (2016-02-02) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economics

Health

Politics and elections

[Posted] Daallo Airlines Flight 159

[edit]
Article: Daallo Airlines Flight 159 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ An explosion aboard Daallo Airlines Flight 159 leaves one person killed and three injured. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Daallo Airlines Flight 159 makes a successful emergency landing after an explosion aboard kills one person and injures three.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Daallo Airlines Flight 159 makes a successful emergency landing after an explosion aboard kills one person and injures three; 80 passengers and crew survive.
News source(s): Aviation Herald CBS
Credits:

 EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 21:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • As a procedural comment, I think this should be sorted under Feb 2 when the plane incident happened. It's news today because the claim is that it was made by a small bomb, though that has not be confirmed 100% yet. As such, wait until we have better confirmation on whether it was really a bomb or if it was just some type of equipment failure (the small # of deaths/injuries making it not really significant for ITN were it just equipment failure). --MASEM (t) 21:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Only one fatality. While that shouldn't be the only marker of notability, it's unlikely that this isolated happening will have a large impact in airline safety processes or other noteworthy long-term effect. SpencerT♦C 05:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the significance of this event is that the aircraft survived the bombing and made a safe landing. Article has been bashed into shape and is in a fit state to be linked from MP. A lack of or few fatalities does not necessarily equal a lack of notability. Mjroots (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support per Mjroots, if the cause is confirmed. An airliner surviving a bomb that rips a hole in it is big news by itself. -Zanhe (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Mjroots. Banedon (talk) 07:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support per Mjroots and Zanhe if the cause is confirmed, and if the blurb is amended to indicate how many survived (and that the plane 'landed safely', if it did) given that we're arguing that what's notable is how few casualties there are. Otherwise low casualties could be due to a near empty plane or a crash landing that 'miraculously' killed almost nobody, etc...Tlhslobus (talk) 07:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, proposing alt blurb. Banedon (talk) 07:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Or alt blurb 2? Banedon (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Intizar Hussain

[edit]
Article: Intizar Hussain (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Telegraph, The Express Tribune, The Guardian
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: Renown Pakistani author in contemporary South Asian literature. Shortlisted for the Man Booker International Prize in 2013 and was awarded the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres in 2014. Quality wise - stubish, with a few peacock words. General copy editing wouldn't hurt. Fuebaey (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Article's a bit short but we're talking about someone in a country where English is not the primary language so it will take a bit of effort to flesh out but what's there seems sufficient. Would like to see a list of works, but that's not critical for RD posting. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if/when improved. Clearly important in his field. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
  • He is widely recognized as a legendary literary figure in Pakistan. is written in the introduction. There are two footnotes for English-language after this sentence. None contains the word legendary.
  • He received many awards in Pakistan, India and the Middle East The source after the sentence does not say this.
The article quality is pretty bad, and noone could seriously assess his importance based on the article. Please create a proper and properly sourced article before we start discussing notability. LoveToLondon (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may well be right, but in principle it would be more persuasive if you could find a reliable source describing him as 'iconic' (etc) that was published before he died - obituaries may exaggerate out of 'decency' (de mortuis nihil nisi bonum (of the dead (speak) nothing but good) is the traditional Latin expression, sometimes sarcastically changed to de mortuis nihil nisi bunkum (of the dead (speak) nothing but bunk).Tlhslobus (talk) 08:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not trying to be persuasive. If this individual (who has been called "iconic", "leading", "greatest fiction writer", "legendary" etc) is as significant as the many sources claim, his article doesn't really reflect that. That's all I said, but thanks for the Latin lesson. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, not a Latin lesson, but a weak attempt at a Pseudo-Latin (bunkum) witticism, shamelessly plagiarized by me from 2 long dead academics without proper attribution, but perhaps the Almighty has chosen you as the instrument of Her wrath to punish me for the wickedness of my plagiarism.Tlhslobus (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Alphabet

[edit]
WP:SNOW. There is no chance a positive consensus to post will develop before this becomes stale. Closing for the second time --Jayron32 19:10, 2 February 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: Alphabet Inc. (talk · history · tag) and List of public corporations by market capitalization (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Alphabet Inc. becomes the world's largest publicly traded company by market capitalization (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Alphabet Inc., the parent company of Google, overtakes Apple as the world's largest publicly traded company by market capitalization
Alternative blurb II: ​ Google's parent company Alphabet Inc. overtakes Apple as the world's most valuable publicly traded company by market capitalization.
News source(s): Easy to find, viz. [21], [22]
Credits:
 Banedon (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. See what happens when the markets open, and if we do run with this, I'd mention Google in the blurb. Something about the fact that Alphabet is a holding company, restructured from Google. -- Fuzheado | Talk 02:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose What's so special about Alphabet being the top compared to the previous top ones (beyond being Google's umbrella corp)? --MASEM (t) 03:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's been a kind of apostolic succession of largest tech companies - IBM, then Microsoft, (then briefly router makers Cisco, if I remember right), then Apple, now Google, which many see as of long-term significance to the history and trend of technology (tho no doubt others dispute the significance). As for Aramco, who knows what it's worth, given the unpredictable gyrations in the price of oil?Tlhslobus (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of note as well is that Google has not been top before either - it's not a name change 'gotcha' in that sense. Saudi Aramco hasn't gone public yet. If and when it does, I'd support posting that. Banedon (talk) 05:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt it, but it'd also probably wouldn't make the news. If I remember right when Apple first became the biggest company by market capitalization it was widely reported. A few days later though Exxon retook top spot, which wasn't reported at all. My memory might be off here though - the reporting I remember might be on Google's enterprise value overtaking Apple's enterprise value at one point. Banedon (talk) 05:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support altblurb: Seems like a notable occurrence in the business world, although I share others' concerns about this creating a standard by which we'd have to list Apple if it retakes the lead, as it were... -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the merits as well as the timing. In any given market segment, there will always be a largest player, and it is never the same player over a long enough period of time. So there's nothing inherently interesting about one company overtaking another, in and of itself. The impact on readers is also minimal. In what way does GOOG having a (theoretical, not usable and actually in the hands of disparate investors) larger market capital than AAPL affect their business? The margin of difference is also slim. It would take just a few percentage points to reverse the situation, this year has been a very volatile one.128.214.53.18 (talk) 06:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This will change fairly frequently, and isn't very significant Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I find the first part troubling, because historically this changes every few years. The winner of the Australian Open for example changes more often than that, and we post it. Second part is a judgement call. Banedon (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A few fluctuations in stock prices caused this temporary thing. This is ephemeral and not significant, IMHO. --Jayron32 13:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that goes down a dangerous slippery slope, since if one accepts that then we can't say Apple is larger than (say) McDonald's because of "few fluctuations in stock prices". One can argue that Alphabet is not the most profitable publicly traded company, however (which is still Apple). Alphabet simply overtook Apple because the market assigns it a higher price-to-earnings multiple, and it might not in the future. With that said, the media is still choosing this moment to report this. Banedon (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: as of market open, Alphabet is indeed larger than Apple by market capitalization (531.94B vs. 530.422B as of time of writing). Banedon (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not very notable news. Looking at the Guardian source given in the nomination, it is not even among the top three business news there. LoveToLondon (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopen as to early to close and support. This has not only been widely reported, it is also widely considered indicative of the technological trend. Propose altblurb2 though, as equating high market capitalization with size (" largest") is controversial and may be considered WP:SOAPy. Also, the company is still widely known as "Google's holding" so this should appear first. --PanchoS (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close it again! - This is more indicative of fluctuation in the stock market more than any sort of actual definitive business news. Besides, Apple still reigns king.--WaltCip (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Of no particular value unless you're a stockholder. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:56, 2 February 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.

February 1

[edit]
February 1, 2016 (2016-02-01) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health

Law and crime
  • Chinese authorities arrest 21 people involved in the Ezubao online finance scheme accused of allegedly defrauding 900,000 people of 50bn yuan ($7.6bn; £5.3bn) in a Ponzi scheme. (BBC)
  • Two men are sentenced to death for the murder of Tibetan religious leader Akong Rinpoche, his nephew and his driver in 2013. (Reuters)

Politics and elections

RD: Óscar Humberto Mejía Victores

[edit]
Article: Óscar Humberto Mejía Victores (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): VOA, Washington Post, New Zealand 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: Former leader of Guatemala (1983-86). Fuebaey (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support pending improvements General support on the importance as a former leader of a country. And while the article is sourced, it is only about his political involvement. I'd not expect pages of other bio information, but I'd think that at least one or two extra paragraphs to explain where he was born, and previous career elements are necessary. Further, the article is not updated to reflect his death (even if that is just a line to explain when and how he died.) --MASEM (t) 16:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support notability but the article seems to be less about him and more about a regime. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Article could use some more separation of sections in addition to some expansion. SpencerT♦C 05:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] WHO declares Zika virus emergency

[edit]
Articles: Zika_virus_outbreak_in_the_Americas_(2015–present) (talk · history · tag) and Zika_virus (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The World Health Organization declares the spread of the Zika virus in Latin America a global public health emergency requiring an urgent, united response (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The spread of the Zika virus in Latin America is a global public health emergency requiring an urgent, united response declares the World Health Organization
Alternative blurb II: ​ The rapid spread of the Zika virus in Latin America leads to the World Health Organization issuing a global public health emergency
News source(s): BBC, NY Times, WHO
Credits:

 Fuzheado | Talk 19:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu: The news update for today is that the WHO has officially declared an emergency, whereas previous mentions were simply about it spread. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I get that, which is why I think it's a no-brainer to post. I'm just surprised to see the initial Zika virus story is off the ticker with only four stories still up. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you – this should be "sticky" and stay on ITN for a while, since this is now a global issue with serious consequences. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: WHO has now put out a press release - [23] -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once its linked into the article with a few sentences of prose to summarize it, then this is ready (I have not had a chance to check the article beyond that though). --MASEM (t) 20:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not. It was a leftover from a copied over nomination. Fixed. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support first blurb, but without the sensationalist "requiring an urgent, united response" bit. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting I like the first blurb for being straightforward, but agree with Cyclonebiskit that the "requiring an urgent, united response" bit is unnecessary. Update to article is limited, but seems sufficient. Thue (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Posted The same article was already linked previously, so quality was not an issue. I went with Alt2, as that has less sensationalist language. I was thinking about adding it to Ongoing anyways, but there is clear support for a new blurb here as well. Post edit conflict note: I think Thue and I did this at the same time and tripped over each other. --Jayron32 20:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yup. I came first here, but you came first on the template :). I am fine with whatever you have chosen, my opinion is not particularly strong on which is better. Thue (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thue, you should be aware that "to come" can also be "to ejaculate, or "to orgasm" in English, hence your statement above is quite funny, and in certain contexts, quite inappropriate. μηδείς (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I did actually notice after posting, but though that surely ITN editors were mature enough to not care about the double entendre (which was not on purpose!) :). My formulation seems to be rooted in my native Danish, where it can still be misunderstood if you really want to, but is still more common and acceptable. Thue (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the sake of accuracy we can use the exact wording from the provided WHO website link: "an extraordinary event and a public health threat to other parts of the world". Brandmeistertalk 21:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • 👍 Fuzheado likes this. - Thanks folks for posting.

[Closed] February 2016 United States blizzard‎

[edit]
WP:SNOW close. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:19, 1 February 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: February 2016 United States blizzard (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A snow storm in the United States is affecting multiple regions in Colorado, California and elsewhere, with more than 70000 people in southern California losing power[1] (Post)
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.
  1. ^ http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/snowstorm-to-bury-denver-blast-high-winds-new-mexico-texas/55140705
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/February_2016&oldid=1087610970"