Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion in Template:In the news (ITN), a protected Main Page template, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.

Rita Jeptoo

Recent deaths: Rubin "Hurricane" Carter

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC.
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process. Remember, we use UTC dates.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
  • Please consider adding the blurb to Portal:Current events (the green box at the top of the date section) at the same time.

Purge this page to update the cache

There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template.


  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with [Posted] or [Pulled] in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as [Ready] when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked [Ready] you should remove the header.

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

  • Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a brief (or detailed!) rationale for your choice. Comments and other objections are welcome, but this is the basic form.
  • Be aware that RD refers to "recent deaths", a subsection of the news box which lists only the names of the recent notable deceased. Blurb refers to the full sentences that occupy most of the news box. Most eligible deaths will be listed in the recent deaths section of the ITN template. However, some deaths may be given a full listing if there is sufficient consensus to do so.

Please do not...[edit]

  • ... add simple "support" or "oppose" !votes. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  • ... complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.
  • ... accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due a to personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  • ... comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  • ... oppose an item because it is not on WP:ITN/R.


April 23[edit]

April 22[edit]

Boko Haram kidnapping[edit]

Article to update: Boko Haram
Blurb: At least 230 teenage females are kidnapped by Boko Haram.
News source(s): Fox
Nominator: The Rambling Man (give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Breaking news, massive number of females abducted. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment - As these are presumably female humans, can we call the women, or girls, or something, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Like...and pretty much what were discussing in talk about RDLihaas (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Thought about nominating this last night, but the kidnapping actually took place on April 14. Evidentally, original reports said 80ish victims were taken but all recovered quickly so the story didn't make it out of Nigeria. Some parents are now claiming a bunch of people are missing and that the gov't is covering it up (or possibly that the gov't just had bad info). Tough to call the story "stale" since very few people knew about it before yesterday, but also tough to call it "fresh" considering the kidnapping happened a week ago... I'd like to here some more opinions on how to handle this, as I am utterly undecided. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. If this only just broke in the English press it is not stale. Same as if we discovered a poem by a greek poetess published 2500 years ago. μηδείς (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
It broke several days ago (nearly a wek), the numbder just got updatedLihaas (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose—stale. First entered English media as early as 18 April 2014 from CNN with information regarding the 234 kidnapped girls. This is not breaking news; this is coming very late into the scene. (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    You'll notice the CNN story is "last update April 22". Most likely, it originally said "80 girls". (The piece isn't really about the kidnapping but Boko Haram in general, which is consistent with the original story barely being noticed.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

WISE 0855–0714[edit]

Updated article: WISE 0855–0714
Blurb: Kevin Luhman discovers WISE 0855–0714 the nearest free floating planetary mass object 7 light years away.
News source(s):
Nominator: Nestrs (give credit)

Article updated

 --Nestrs (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose not really seeing this in the news anywhere, and the article is nowhere near the quality/length required to meet the minimum standards for ITN inclusion. Snappy name for the "planetary mass object" mind you...The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The article now uses the shorter title instead of WISE J085510.83–071442.5. Nestrs (talk) 09:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this is In The News, not In The Primary Literature. Abductive (reasoning) 08:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose since this isn't showing up in regular news. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd support this if/when the item does hit the news, and if we can add a bit more detail to the article. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose In astronomical terms, not especially impressive. Closer brown dwarfs have been discovered (although in a binary system, rather than alone: Luhman 16). There are (according to theory) lots of brown dwarfs floating around in space - so far the WISE data has revealed over one hundred in our neighbourhood. The problem is that they are cold, dark and don't weigh much (in a relative sense!), which makes them very difficult to pick up against the background. Smurrayinchester 14:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

April 21[edit]

Riyadh compound bombings convinctions[edit]

Article to update: Riyadh compound bombings
Blurb: Five people are sentenced to death and 37 others given prison time for their roles in the 2003 bombings in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
News source(s): [ BBC
Nominator: ThaddeusB (give credit)

Both articles need updating

Nominator's comments: A resolution the one of the more famous terrorist attacks of the last 15 years. ThaddeusB (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

US drone attacks on Al Qaeda in Yemen[edit]

Updated article: Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and article to update: Unmanned combat air vehicle
Blurb: Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula hit by 'unprecedented' wave of US drone strikes, training camp 'completely destroyed'.
Alternative blurb: A large number of US drone strikes on Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula kill dozens of militants and destroy a training camp.
News source(s): abc, Guardian, BBC, CNN, Reuters, Guardian, Reuters, WP
Nominator and updater: Balaenoptera musculus (give credit)

Article updated

Note: Al-Qaeda_in_the_Arabian_Peninsula#U.S._drone_attacks needs updating to reflect this latest wave of drone attacks. done

Nominator's comments: Large wave of drone attacks on AQAP over the past 3 days, some sources say 'unprecedented'. Number of deaths is not confirmed but seems to be around 60-70 people including at least 3 civilians. Follows a recent video released by AQAP. One analysis hereBalaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose as the article does not seem to have been updated at all. Otherwise I'd support this. I've added an altblurb that at least adds some verbs to the sentence. GoldenRing (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose on reliability and notability. As we don't actually know the extent of drone operations in the world, it's impossible for us to determine whether or not a particular event is "large" or "unprecendented". And without those qualifiers, this article becomes "drones attack target", which no one thinks is notable. (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Main article updated, drone article doesn't need update. "Massive and unprecedented" is quote from Yemeni government via CNN, make of it what you will... This is definitely a series of attacks over multiple days on multiple targets, with casualties somewhere between 40 and 70. Image provided is the Black flag of jihad which we use on the AQAP page but may want to think twice about using on the Main Page. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
NYT says "the largest barrage of airstrikes carried out in Yemen this year ... and one of the largest strikes carried out since President Obama outlined a new strategy last May for targeting Qaeda militants in battlefields outside Afghanistan" Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Definitely no that flag to front page, it has only tangential relation to the event, at best. Since even the nominator seems to question it, I have commented the image off. --hydrox (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 Boston Marathon[edit]

Updated article: 2014 Boston Marathon
Blurb: Meb Keflezighi of the United States and Rita Jeptoo of Kenya win the 2014 Boston Marathon.
Alternative blurb: In athletics, Meb Keflezighi wins the men's Boston Marathon and Rita Jeptoo wins the women's race.
News source(s): CNN
Nominator: Kelapstick (give credit)

Article updated

Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.

 Blurb will have to be revised to normal format for a dual gender competition, I am not sure what that is. I am also updating the article. There are pictures available for both winners if desired.--kelapstick(bainuu) 16:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Question would we normally post both men and women's results? Or is it considered one race? --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    We normally post both winners, see altblurb. The article will need more prose on the race. See 2014 London Marathon as an example of what we are looking for. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    Excellent, thanks. I wasn't sure how it went, I have been (slowly) expanding the race section. --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Notable per ITN/R & good articles. I've edited 2014 Boston Marathon into the past tense. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted ITNR and article of adequate quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    Would it be appropriate to put a cropped pic from one of the articles (maybe Rita Jeptoo, since we usually run male pics. A female pic would be nice). It should be pretty easy to take one like File:Rita jeptoo 2013 boston marathon.jpg and crop it to show her face better. I've done this before, but I always mess something up, and David Levy has to have words with me over it... --Jayron32 18:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    I'm sorry if my messages have come across as rude. My intent was only to inform you of the issues. —David Levy 20:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    Oh, not at all. It's a statement of my own inability to do it correct. If I do something wrong, you're always invited to fix it. --Jayron32 20:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    If you crop and upload a picture to File:Rita Jeptoo (cropped).jpg (on Wikipedia not Commons), I'll do the rest. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    I have uploded a local cropped version to File:Rita Jeptoo (cropped).jpg. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    I have updated it as a crop from File:Rita Jeptoo in 2014 Boston Marathon.jpg which is actually from the 2014 Marathon, and she is looking towards the page, more MOS complaint-like. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    I've updated ITN's image. —David Levy 20:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Hes Eritrean...traeachery! give up the Hhabeshas...never mind that im not residing where I was born ;)Lihaas (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

April 20[edit]

[posted to RD] Rubin Carter[edit]

Updated article: Rubin Carter
Blurb: Rubin "Hurricane" Carter dies at the age of 76.
News source(s): Globe and mail NBC Sports
Nominator: Kelapstick (give credit)

Article updated

 I don't know if this would qualify for a full blurb, but he was quite well known, in particular for his wrongful conviction, to the point of having a significant movie made about him. --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support RD - subject has had multiple songs, books, and movies made about him. There are a few unreferenced paragraphs in the article - hopefully those can be fixed before posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I assume the criteria being asserted is DC2 (very important figure in his or her field) but in this case is it being claimed they are important in the boxing field or the legal field(for being wrongly convicted and his work afterwards), or a combination? 331dot (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I would say more significant as someone wrongly convicted, and his work thereafter. He is probably more well know for that (at least these days), although my knowledge of boxing is not significant, in particular boxing in the 1960s. --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The person doesn't seem to have achieved fame in his field. Maybe he was more famous for being wrongfully convicted and imprisoned, but thus he didn't contribute to advance anything or make any impact in the global society.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • That's like opposing Rosa Parks because she didn't do any significant secretarial work. The fact that he was a boxer is just a sidebar. Like Rosa Parks, Rubin Carter was a major lightning rod in the American Civil Rights movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support in principle as fascinating, encyclopedic subject with high reader interest, subject influential in two fields. Article needs tenses changed and could use better referencing. μηδείς (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I just went over it and I think all the tenses are updated, although the referencing does need work. --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support pending further update. "Maybe he was more famous for being wrongfully convicted and imprisoned, but thus he didn't contribute to advance anything or make any impact in the global society." Really now? I'm so glad that promoting awareness of wrongful convictions does absolutely nothing to advance anything. Maybe I'll go act in some two-bit musical TV show instead. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This is the death of the Hurricane.... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD. Interesting crossover between sports and crime/law topics in additional to someone with a biographical film. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. Well known figure. No opposition to this being a full blurb, if there is consensus to do so. Calidum 17:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Support for RD Weak because famous primarily for what was done to him rather than for what he did. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. --Jayron32 20:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting commentHurricane (Bob Dylan song) was one of Bob's best:
To see him obviously framed
Couldn’t help but make me feel ashamed
To live in a land where justice is a game...
Sca (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
R.I.P. Rubin, ride on where the trout streams flow and the air is nice.. --hydrox (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Id say Blowin in the wing, but yes his was one of the first awakening to the police state that we are now in (or approaching) Mind you we should always keep our standards FAR higher than N. Korea et al instead of approaching itLihaas (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


Article to update: 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine
Blurb: Unrest in Ukraine turns deadly despite an interim agreement.
News source(s): Al Jaz
Nominator: Lihaas (give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Well the lat blurb dropped off the page after a recent psate of activity in the news, but this is still in the nes. We could possibly have a sticky? --Lihaas (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Support - same issue re Korean Ferry, discussion below. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose blurb acting as sticky. Neutral on a two word "Ukrainian unrest" sticky next to "more news". --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

"At least" three killed near Sloviansk early Easter Sunday, despite "truce." [1] [2] I don't see how we can ignore this. Sca (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we should use one of the ITN bullet-points for 'ongoing' news items, in a combined blurb ? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Not a bad idea. Perhaps suggest on talk adding a "other ongoing news: X, Y, Z" line akin to the RD line? Certainly not something we can decide without discussion as it would be a rather significant change. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support sticky This is an ongoing situation with lots of news, and lots of interest. We've done this in the past (Syria most recently) and this certainly seems to merit one. --Jayron32 02:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I thought we tried to avoid stickies these days? The 'ongoing ticker' could be of use, mind... doktorb wordsdeeds 02:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
The ongoing ticker idea is now being discussed on talk. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

April 19[edit]

Iran nuclear deal[edit]

Article to update: Geneva interim agreement on Iranian nuclear program
Blurb: Iran announced a deal has been struck to "redesign" the Arak nuclear plant
News source(s): Al Jaz
Nominator: Lihaas (give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Well a breakthrough has been ,ade and its not just a delay. Seems notable after eyars of bickering. Probably more, when netanyahu hears about makes som e rambling statement/. --Lihaas (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Wait So far, media are reporting this as "Iran state TV says", "Iran Vice President says", "Iranian official says", and similar. I think we should wait until statements from the other side in the negotiations confirm what the Iranian side is saying. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Meh Iran agrees to deals it plans to ignore entirely every so often just to keep the international community off its back for a little while. There's nothing to suppose this is anything more than "Iran says 'sure, we'll agree to stop doing that' while it keeps on doing it anyways". --Jayron32 19:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Jayron32, unless you have evidence that the Iranian government has entered into this agreement in bad faith, that's really just speculation. We shouldn't be basing our decisions on our personal views of the Iranian regime. If there is an agreement, then clearly the US, the UK, France, Russia, China and Germany think that there is a prospect that Iran will actually carry it out, or else they wouldn't agree to it. It's also worth noting that there has been a change in government since most of the previous negotiations - the new President is significantly more moderate. Neljack (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. Point taken. --Jayron32 01:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support - Per Neljack, it is not up to us to decide if Iran will follow through, and thus it looks like a significant agreement. However, the level of coverage I'm seeing is not that great so I can only weakly support. The article is not updated, so my support is conditional on an update. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

April 18[edit]

[Closed] 2014 Guerrero earthquake[edit]

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 06:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Article to update: 2014 Guerrero earthquake
Blurb: A 7.2 magnitude earthquake hits Guerrero, Mexico.
Alternative blurb: A 7.5 magnitude earthquake hits Guerrero, Mexico.
News source(s): Reuters, BBC, TIME, The Guardian, CNN
Nominator: (give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Major earthquake affecting tourist areas like Acapulco and major hubs such as Mexico City. Not quite clear yet the magnitude of the earthquake. -- (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Tentative Oppose Initial reports are stating there's no known fatalities or major damage, but that's it. Mind you, the reports from Mexico City, far from the quakes epicenter, are light, and it will likely take some time for those near the epicenter to report in, but we're also talking about more rural Mexico there, so would not expect much there as well. --MASEM (t) 22:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as of six hours ago, the BBC reported "There are no reports of casualties or significant damage". The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose if existing reports of no deaths and no serious damage turn out to be accurate. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, 7.0 is the usual lower limit for an article, not for posting to ITN. There seems to be ongoing earthquake activity on the planet right now, perhaps one will come along that kills a lot of people so it can be posted to ITN. Abductive (reasoning) 15:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Balaenoptera musculus. Rhodesisland (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

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] LADEE crashes into the Moon[edit]

Proposed image
Updated article: Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer

Blurb: The LADEE spacecraft ends its mission by intentionally crashing into the Moon
Alternative blurb: NASA ends the LADEE spacecraft mission by intentionally crashing it into the Moon
News source(s): Guardian
Nominator and updater: Modest Genius (give credit)

Article updated

Note: We did post the launch back in September. The article is pretty good, but does need updating Edit: I've now updated the article.

Nominator's comments: It's not every day that NASA deliberately crashes something into the Moon. I'll start work on the article in a moment. --Modest Genius talk 20:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support for RD. Sad day indeed. *cough* I mean, LADEE does seem to be a prominent enough spacecraft. Weak support I guess. --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – doesn't really seem like science "news", so much as a procedural fact about a particular mission reaching a particular phase. IMO it would be more newsworthy if NASA publishes some interesting findings from the mission. It Is Me Here t / c 21:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Question - did it do or discover anything particularly novel or important? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes: it was the first mission to use long-distance laser communication and made major discoveries about the thin atmosphere of the Moon. Because it was a short mission, little has been published yet and lots of analysis is still to be done, but it was clearly a success in both scientific and technological senses. Modest Genius talk 22:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the crash landing was not intended to kick up material for study, so it is just a routine event. Abductive (reasoning) 15:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Deliberately destroying $280m space probes is not a 'routine event'. You can argue the significance if you like, but not that it's routine! Modest Genius talk 22:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Change the title of this section to "LADEE space mission successfully ends as planned on the surface of the moon". Emphasise the mission, not the crash. Making it positive might elicit more positive responses. 22:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure the spacecraft didn't intentionally crash into the moon. A suicidal spacecraft would be news. Bellemora (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Do read the source. HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Second paragraph of lead... "The mission ended on April 18, 2014, when LADEE was intentionally crashed into the far side of the Moon." The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
      • "was intentionally crashed" not "intentionally crashed". The intention was NASA's not the spacecraft's. Bellemora (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC) (That's why I added the altblurb.) Bellemora (talk) 08:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb per Modest Genius' and Bellemora's reasonings, but change the "it" to "the spacecraft". Rhodesisland (talk) 11:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD as well, as LADEE Spacecraft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talkcontribs)
  • Marked Ready well supported, well updated, suggest RD is okay instead of blurb, but the item should be posted either way as the admin determines. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose RD posting Adding this to RD seems a little "jokey" to me. It might even seem a little derogatory to the people listed in RD. This is the end of a mission by NASA not a death and should be posted as we would/have other mission endings. Still Support posting ITN. Rhodesisland (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted - the consensus is a bit hard to read since three options were offered (blurb, RD, no post), but there seems to be enough support for some kind of post to justify posting. Among those who supported, a full blurb is preferred, so that is what I did. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
According to the Aug 2012 RfC that established RD, User:ThaddeusB, three-way votes were to be viewed as an oppose consensus if total opposes outweighed total supports of any type, RD or blurb. And supports for a full blurb were to be counted as supports for, RD if full blurb did not gain consensus outright. I am not disagreeing with your decision, just pointing out that posting of some sort was indeed called for here. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
True on RDs in general (thanks for reminding me). This was kind of a unique situation though, as some posters (per talk) are clearly opposed to non-human RDs. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] South Sudan UN base stormed[edit]

Updated articles: United_Nations_Mission_in_South_Sudan#2014 and South_Sudanese_conflict_(2013–14)
Blurb: UN base in Bor, South Sudan attacked in violence between Nuer and Dinka peoples, 58 people killed including 48 civilians.
Alternative blurb: UN base in Bor attacked in South Sudanese conflict, 58 die including 48 civilians.
News source(s): abc, BBC, Guardian, Guardian
Nominator and updater: Balaenoptera musculus (give credit)
Other updaters: Shudde (give credit)

Both articles updated

Note: Article needs more work.

Nominator's comments: 58 civilian refugees shot dead within UN base. UN secretary-general calls it a war crime. (correction: 48 civilians + 10 attackers) --Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

More notable is the take over of the oilfields than this. This particular event has already lef to increased security there and isnot as unstable. Also there is a nother article out there that we posted in December,.
I support the posting of something to do with S. Sudan, but not the blurb proposed. The take over of the oil fields and that Aguer silly commentary/stupidity) is more indicative of instabilityLihaas (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
What was the Aguer silly commentary/stupidity ? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • 'Support given the scale of the casualties. Neljack (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)'
  • 'Support This was a major attack on civilians working with the United Nations, i.e. neutral folks, not participants in the civil war. High death toll. HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per HiLo; attacks on UN facilities/missions are notable, along with the significant casualties. 331dot (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per the reasons above. The article could use a lot more bulk, but it is interesting enough for me to click on a couple of links that brings a lot more information. Mvblair (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment orange maintenance tag still exists in target article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not certain that all 58 of those killed were civilians, it seems that most of them were but a few of them may have been among the attackers, which would make them sort-of not civilians. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    Newer reports indicate 58 deaths of which 48 were civilians and 10 attackers. Further detail in the article. UN security council has issued a statement calling the attack a war crime. I'm amending the blurb to correct erroneous '58 civilians'. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
comment UNMISS is a broader scope, the directly relevant article is South Sudanese conflict (2013–14) which really ought to be South Sudanese civil war, as sources are increasingly referring to it.Lihaas (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
We could use both - I've put this as the altblurb: "UN base in Bor attacked in South Sudanese conflict, 58 die including 48 civilians". I've added South_Sudanese_conflict_(2013–14) to the template above pro tem, as article2, needing updating. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
In that cse take my [mild] objection as a support. Resolvedit all and its unanimous. Someone pleas emark ready if the requisite 2-3 sentences updateS are there.Lihaas (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
TRM has noted the existance of problems that do not yet seem to be resolved. --Jayron32 23:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The second article was since added...? Post with that and then bold the other when its done?Lihaas (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Why is the "blurb" in headlinese? This isn't normal practice, is it? 58 people, including 48 civilians, die in an attack on the UN base in Bor, South Sudan. Bellemora (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • 'Support adding support for when the articles are ready. Rhodesisland (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've done a minimal update on the second article (South sudanese conflict) but really this set of related articles needs substantial revision/re-organising/merging/something (South Sudanese conflict (2013–14), Ethnic violence in South Sudan (2011–present), Sudanese nomadic conflicts) - so we might want to stick to the original blurb and just use the UNMISS article for ITN. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - Update? — BBC quotes UN report saying "hundreds" killed at Bentiu last week.[3] Sca (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted a version of the attack on the UN base. If a different/more up-to-date blurb is desired, I would suggest making a new nomination --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Algerian president[edit]

Updated article: Algerian presidential election, 2014
Blurb: President Abdelaziz Bouteflika is re-elected in Algeria.
Alternative blurb: Abdelaziz Bouteflika is re-elected as President of Algeria.
Nominator and updater: Lihaas (give credit)

Article updated

Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.

 Lihaas (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Support Notable per ITN/R, article is OK. Blurb: suggest we wikilink Algeria. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • It would be better to link the more directly relevant President of Algeria if we are going down that road. See altblurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Marking ready. On ITNR, and the article has been updated and is decent enough quality to post. Modest Genius talk 22:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted (having fixed all the bare references). The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 Mount Everest avalanche[edit]

Updated article: 2014 Mount Everest avalanche
Blurb: At least twelve Sherpas are killed in an avalanche on Mount Everest.
Alternative blurb: At least twelve Nepalese guides are killed in an avalanche on Mount Everest.
News source(s): BBC CNN
Nominator: The Rambling Man (give credit)
Updater: ThaddeusB (give credit)
Other updaters: Ashishlohorung (give credit) and The Rambling Man (give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A terrible loss of the workhorses who get rich Westerners to the summit, and the worst loss-of-life in a single event on the world's highest mountain. Stub article needs work. Not sure we've posted a mountaineering ITN ever... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - per TRMs reasoning. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support on the basis that using the last major Everest climbing loss (1996?) article as an example, this short article will likely grow as investigators determine what went wrong in time. --MASEM (t) 15:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
lean oppose, but weakly article needs improvement. And the loss of life on its own is not notable, per precedent, but if its a famous first then i would support it as a minority topicLihaas (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Which Everest/avalanche precedent? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Being a "famous first" isn't an ITN requirement. Probably 90% of what we post is not a first. That said this is "famous" (being widely reported around the world) and a "first" (most deaths ever on Everest). --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Very sad event. I like mountaineering, but there are many similar sad events around the world almost every week where 10 - 20 people lose their lives. I don't see this story as being particularly widely reported or prominent compared to other items currently in the news. On the plus side, this is the worst mountaineering disaster on Everest, but there have been worse accidents on other mountains, such as 43 dead on Mt. Lenin.[4] Jehochman Talk 16:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    • It's more about the victims really, and for diversity here at ITN that we're always looking for. We posted a plane crash in which three people died... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Not sure what you are looking at, but the sources in the article alone show this is being covered in depth by some of the best newspapers in the world. See NY Times for example. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support People lose their lives accidentally in traffic collisions, airplane crashes or bomb blasts fairly frequent, but it's not so often when climbing Mount Everest. The death toll is also high for one such accident, albeit not if compared to accidents of different kind, and the news receives attention worldwide.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
"... but it's not so often when climbing Mount Everest" I'd say one in ten attempts resulting in death is quite common. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Difference being these guys were preparing the mountain for tourists, earning next-to-nothing for doing so. And this is the worst death toll in a single day, would you suggest that we wouldn't have posted the 1996 Mount Everest disaster if ITN had been around? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, deaths on Everest are commonplace. More people are climbing nowadays, meaning that the number of dead is consistent with the risk. Abductive (reasoning) 17:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    • It's the multiple deaths associated with a single natural "disaster" (the avalache), while they were in the middle of a job they were doing. Yes, people die attempting to climb Everett on their own violation, one could argue that's Darwin's law in play, but this is far different from that. --MASEM (t) 18:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I withdraw my oppose. I heard an in-depth story on NPR about how these guys don't have sufficient life insurance for the task. That costs as interesting secondary analysis for me. Abductive (reasoning) 01:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - This seems clearly notable as the largest number of people to ever die in one event on Mount Everest. While people die every year on Everest, more than 2 or 3 people dying in a single event is very unusual. Calathan (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per TRM. Neljack (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If this was any other mountain, would we even think about posting it? People die on Everest all the time (sadly). So many in one incident is unusual, but twelve is still a small number in the grand scheme of things. We can't post every avalanche that kills a dozen people, and I don't see why being on Everest makes this any more significant. Modest Genius talk 22:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support It's precisely because it's on Everest, and that it involves the locals, that makes this significant. They were only there to pave the way for rich bastards from first world countries, who I hope will now find a way to support their families forever. HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per the reasons given; Everest is more notable than other mountains being the tallest in the world, so disasters there are more notable than if they occurred elsewhere. 331dot (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is borderline, and of interest in a record book sort of way. But the article, even though it has been stretched into three "paragraphs" is really only one, and it seems doubtful anything more than an entry in a list is really warranted here notabilitiwise. Prior events on Everest have involved the deliberate abandonment of climbers. Here there was simply a natural event, no evidence of human malfeasance. 01:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talkcontribs)
    The article has already been expanded and no doubt there will be much more on this over the coming days. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Deadliest accident ever on the world's highest mountain. Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - some of the arguments above are quite strange. Of course it is more notable because it happened on Everest (and 12-16 dead in any avalanche is already significant). Additionally, this is drawing attention to the plight of the Sherpa people, something few tourist climbers ever consider, and even fewer regular people are even aware of. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    BTW, I am not sure "Sherpas" is technically correct. It is correct in the sense that the term is often used as a synonym for climbing guide, but not all guides are ethnically Sherpa (most Everest guides are, but some are members of other ethnic groups). Its unclear to me if all of the 12+ killed here were Sherpa. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Marked ready, consensus is clear and update sufficient. μηδείς (talk) 05:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support because although the immediate cause was a natural disaster, the indirect cause was exploitative tourism. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Attention Needed as an oppose, I feel safe in saying that with an 11-4 support, this should be posted ven by the nominator or updater at this point, unless there's some technical problem I missed with the article. μηδείς (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted as clear consensus exists. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I feel as though the blurb should be changed to:
"At least twelve Sherpas are killed in an avalanche on Mount Everest."
i.e. The word avalanche should be bolded and linked instead of killed. It just seems more consistent with the other news stories. Thoughts? (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
support, because 'avalanche' more specific. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Changed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Half thought about that when I posted it but thought that someone may have considered suggesting something different during the voluminous nomination process. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
comment## Im not saying this was under dispute to post as there was a majority in support, but theres at least a COI in the nominator posting it. Theres plenty of admins who can psot.Lihaas (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
To be fair, consensus was pretty strong (against me), and one opposer had already said they wouldn't object to the nominator posting it themsevles. I think we've fallen into a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS trap here - many of the arguments above were essentially 'they're poor an exploited, so of course we should post it'. I disagree with that reasoning, but not with the mechanics of judging consensus and actually posting it. Modest Genius talk 22:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I can speak only for myself, but my support had nothing to do with the plight of the Sherpas, but actually the fact that the avalanche was drawing attention to that plight. That is, having a secondary effect beyond the body count. Ideally that is what we look for in any disaster. (I would have also supported it if 12 western climbers died in a single event on Everest, and I'm sure others would have too.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
My oppose as well had nothing to do with the victims being Sherpas. Given the overwhelming consensus and the fact that even opposes like myself could se it, and the dearth of active admins here, there was no reason an involved party should act after this rather decent interval. Had the poster reverted his own vote, or whatever its called, just for the sake of appearances, there'd still have been overeffingwhelming support. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Well I'd have posted it if I wasn't on a phone at the weekend. That The Rambling Man got to it first therefore makes no difference to the end result, and no harm was done. Stephen 02:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Quite, I waited 11 hours from when this was marked Ready to posting it. "Theres plenty of admins who can psot" doesn't seem to be true in this instance. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

April 17[edit]

[Posted] Human clone[edit]

Updated article: Human cloning
Blurb: Scientist announce the first human embryonic clone derived from adult cells.
Alternative blurb: Human embryonic clone cells are created by replacing the nucleus of an unfertilised egg cell with one from an adult cell.
al2: Adult human DNA is cloned for the first time within an unfertilized egg.
News source(s): TIME, WSJ, The Telegraph

Nominator and updater: ThaddeusB (give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Either a great or terrible breakthrough depending on one's POV, but clearly highly significant either way. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't say "human clone", readers will think there is a baby. They created some stem cells. Given the embarrassing incident with posting the last stem cell thing, and the South Korean fraud incident, would it not be preferable to Wait for confirmation by another lab? Abductive (reasoning) 01:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    I changed it to "human embryonic clone" - please suggest better wording if you can. As to timing, the story is in the news now, and is being covered by the cream of the crop news sources. There will barely be a blip when it is confirmed (which due to the legal situation of cloning might not be anytime soon either). I feel now is the best time to post; using language like "announce" implies it hasn't been confirmed yet. (Incidentally, I am not sure what you are referencing when you say South Korean fraud.)--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    Have a look at Hwang Woo-suk, particularly the Controversies section. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment As a note given this is a scientific item, this is a story that comes from publication of the research in a peer-reversed journal (per the Telegraph's article), as opposed to a lab making the jump before scrutiny has been applied. --MASEM (t) 01:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    Good point. Peer review implies a certain (but not perfect) level of review has taken place. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd like the blurb to be more precise. These guys didn't simply create an embryo from adult cells. They used a normal human egg as the basis of their work. The Telegraph article says: "The technique works by removing the nucleus from an unfertilised egg and replacing it with the nucleus of a skin cell. An electric shock causes the cells to begin dividing until they form a ‘blastocyst’ – a small ball of a few hundred cells." It's important to say that that this process still involves a normal human egg. How about the blurb saying: "Scientists announce a human embryonic clone from adult tissue by replacing the nucleus of a normal unfertilised egg with the nucleus of an adult skin cell."? HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    Sounds good - I shortened/tweaked it a bit and put it as the alt blurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    I have trimmed even more. Also, I made it clear that there is no baby. Abductive (reasoning) 05:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support (with altblurb) major technical achievement, and links are a gateway to many nice articles. I will point out that "cloning" has both a rather dry technical meaning, and a very sensational popular meaning, and could confuse readers. I have changed the altblurb to more precisely reflect what's going on here, and to be more succinct. BR128.214.214.31 (talk) 07:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support revised blurbs. As said above, cloning has a different meaning in popular usage than in scientific (that is, when I see "cloning," I automatically think scientists created a t-rex or something). The revised blurbs do not reflect that popular connotation and are good in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvblair (talkcontribs)
  • Support - cloning,, hmm interesting.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I will work on the article in a few hours - it is not ready for posting at current. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support alt2 - because it's the clearest explanation of what this particular breakthrough is, to my mind. Agree with User:Mvblair that we want to avoid implying the 'boba fett' kind of cloning. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support alt2 after the article is updated. Mohamed CJ (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Updated and marked ready --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted]: Gabriel García Márquez died[edit]

Proposed image
Updated article: Gabriel García Márquez

Blurb: Colombian writer Gabriel García Márquez (pictured) dies at the age of 87.
News source(s): [5]
Nominator: Nergaal (give credit)
Updater: JayJasper (give credit)
Other updaters: Cambalachero (give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I think this should get a full blurb Nergaal (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support per death criterion 2, 'widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field'. Nobel Prize for Literature, world figure in his field. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support for full blurb — One of the Spanish literature giants. I think his death should be posted as a full blurb. He is widely regarded as the most popular writer in Spanish since Miguel de Cervantes in the 17th century. [6] ComputerJA () 20:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Posting to RD for now, probably a full blurb is in place when there's a bit more update. --Tone 20:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @Tone: Thanks for the speedy posting. Good call on your part. ComputerJA () 20:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb was a key member of the Latin American Boom and won a Nobel Prize; one of the most important authors in the past century. SpencerT♦C 21:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb I have updated the article to a 5-lines paragraph. It is already tagged as a good article. Cambalachero (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb common sense, one of the great figures of Spanish literature. Secret account 21:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb per Computer JA.
  • Not Updated a shoe-in for a full blurb, but the article is still in the present tense. μηδείς (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb Márquez was definitely one of the most sound names in both Spanish-language and modern literature and definitely one of the greatest and most popular writers of our generation.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Ready The article now appears to stand in a good shape and the death section is sufficiently updated to go on the main page. Marking ready.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support blurb I have very high standards for a blurb, but I think Marquez meets them. Undoubtedly one of the most important writers of the last half-century. Many people would say he was the most important Spanish-language writer since Cervantes. Neljack (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Seeing the news coverage and reading about him, I do think a blurb is warranted. 331dot (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Nobel laureate, most important Latin American writer ever, and who hasn't read One Hundred Years of Solitude on the subway? Daniel Case (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb, the passing of a literary giant. Nsk92 (talk) 23:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support blurb The overwhelming consensus here for a full blurb is pretty convincing. Let's get it up asap. Redverton (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted per overwhelming consensus here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    Yes check.svg Done --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    Good call and good response. Mohamed CJ (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Kepler-186f[edit]

Article: Kepler-186f
Blurb: NASA announces the discovery of Kepler-186f, the first habitable earth-sized exoplanet.
Alternative blurb: NASA announces the discovery of Kepler-186f, the first Earth-sized exoplanet orbiting in its habitable zone.
News source(s): (Globe and Mail), (Science Magazine)
Nominator: Bender235 (give credit)

  • Nom. --bender235 (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Major news, article already looking good. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Nergaal (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support—significant scientific discovery pertaining to space exploration and finding life outside of Earth. (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Astredita (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Dammit, I was about to nominate this! Oh well... Anyway, this is clearly a significant discovery (like Enceladus' ocean). Jinkinson talk to me 20:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Blurb is incorrect - there is no way to know if a planet is habitable or not. Being in the habitable zone just means it might be habitable. Please don't equate the two on the home page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    I concur, it should say habitable zone. Abductive (reasoning) 01:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The article says "near" its habitable zone. Does that mean it lies just outside the zone? Abductive (reasoning) 01:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Before that point in the article, the article says it is in the HZ. Where is it in the HZ? Near the outer edge. Astredita (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
      • This detail definitely needs cleared up (in the article) before the story is posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
        • The word "near" has been replaced with "so although it is within the habitable zone it is near the outer edge of the zone Astredita (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Issues seem to be resolved in the article, posting. --Tone 09:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

April 16[edit]

[Closed] [RD] Karpal Singh[edit]

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 06:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Updated article: Karpal Singh
Blurb: No blurb specified
News source(s):
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (give credit)

Article updated

 --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Which of the Recent Deaths criteria does this person meet? Note; If this is an RD nomination, a proposed blurb is unnecessary. 331dot (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm going for RD nomination. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
      • As 331dot asks, which of the RD criteria does this gentleman meet? In any case, the article needs to be updated to reflect the fact he has died, tense changes etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Karpal Singh gained some fame in Australia and New Zealand for defending citizens of those countries accused of frug trafficking. It's mentioned in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
          • Say no to frugs. Stephen 07:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
            • Are we saying he is very important to the legal field, then? He was also twice charged with sedition which seems (from reading the article) to be a unique situation. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD Seems to have been a significant figure in Malaysian politics, as well as being known internationally for his criminal law work. GoldenRing (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose No rationale, neither the death itself or the career itself meets ITN criteria. μηδείς (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose; I too do not see a satisfactory rationale at this time. 331dot (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per those concerned over how this nomination meets the RD criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose ditto The Rambling Man. Rhodesisland (talk) 11:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

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.

Juno protein[edit]

Updated article: Juno (protein)
Blurb: Scientists discover Juno, an egg membrane protein that facilitates fertilisation in mammals.
News source(s): Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Nature, Telegraph, The Independent
Nominator and updater: Brandmeister (give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Looks important. --Brandmeistertalk 20:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I have tried to improve the blurb. Abductive (reasoning) 00:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - interesting and important discovery. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have some concerns: the researchers say that the gene is named Folr4 and propose renaming it Juno. I am unsure if they have the authority to do such a rename. Quite unusually, there is no Wikipedia article for Folr4. The stub at Juno (protein) is missing the Template:Infobox protein that would go a long way towards rounding out the article. Abductive (reasoning) 00:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    Yah, perhaps move the article to Folr4 for now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    That was my thinking. When whatever committee gets around to renaming it Juno the article can always be moved back. Abductive (reasoning) 00:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - this looks interesting, but I wouldn't say it looks important; the discovery is important for our understanding of the mechanics of mammalian reproduction but it's not really going to change anything, is it? If it is going to change something, I'd like to see some indication of what in the article. GoldenRing (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    • According to findings, female mice without that protein (and, most likely, humans as well) become infertile, so I'd say it's a milestone discovery. Brandmeistertalk 08:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
      • How much of a milestone surely depends on what proportion of infetility cases are caused by the lack of the protien. If it's only the cause of infertility for a tiny fraction of those affected, then this isn't that practically important. MChesterMC (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Saying that female mice without the protein become infertile is not the same thing as saying it is a cause of infertility unless you also show that there are naturally-occurring individuals who lack that protein. If the headline is actually 'Scientists discover major cause of infertility' then my vote changes to support - but that's not what I'm seeing here. GoldenRing (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Interesting, and this paper has certainly gone towards the top of my to-read list, but until it's been shown to be strongly involved in human infertility etc I don't see what the wider appeal is. Regarding the above comment of "and, most likely, humans as well", that is for the moment completely and utterly unfounded, until shown otherwise. Fgf10 (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support Discovery is interesting if not world-shattering, article is good if a bit technical for the lay reader. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support historically a much more important development than the Everest fall, may explain many case of infertility. μηδείς (talk) 05:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Korean ferry sinking[edit]

Article to update: 2014 South Korean ferry capsizing
Blurb: A ferry carrying more than 470 people, including 350 students, capsizes off South Korea.
Alternative blurb: A ferry with more than 450 people aboard capsizes off South Korea, leaving at least 4 dead and 284 missing.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Lihaas (give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Developing story as it apparently just occurred with sunrise there now. Its reported as severly listing (saw a video of it at 90 degrees or thereabouts). Im off to sleep, but someone can keep an eye on it --Lihaas (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment Noting that there's more than just students on the ferry. --MASEM (t) 02:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Tentative Oppose From the reports, there is an orderly rescue process going on in place, no deaths reported as of yet. Sounds like there was time for them to warn passangers and alert coast guard units for rescue. If this turns more tragic, that might mean something. Changing to Tentative support due to lack of information incoming Full Support --MASEM (t) 02:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    • All the students and teachers have now been rescued. [7]. So yeah, still looking like this isn't going to be a significant ITN story. --MASEM (t) 03:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Conflicting reports. It looks like the Reuters story has been revised since you read it. "But it later described those figures as a miscalculation, turning what had at first appeared to be a largely successful rescue operation into potentially a major disaster." Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Yeah, definitely some initial sloppy reporting and/or attempts to downplay the incident. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    • [8] One confirmed death, and initial reports are saying the ship ran aground. I'll keep to tentative oppose but there's a possibility here. --MASEM (t) 03:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Now two confirmed dead, [9], in addition to confusion in the reports of whom rescued. --MASEM (t) 04:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, considering support if it turns out to be a deadly (+10) incident. Küñall (talk) 03:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment as of a few minutes ago, confirmation that at least 290 people were unaccounted for. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per the missing people part. If it does turn out that they all magically turn up unharmed, then consider this an oppose vote. Either way, the article does need to be cleaned up and expanded a lot before it can go live. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Why are 350 students worth mentioning in the blurb? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Because they were the bulk of the known passangers on the ship (it was a school trip to a nearby island), and this is being highlighted by most press sources. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Children in danger often considered more serious than adults in danger. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait until article can give a reasonable summary of the incident and casualty numbers are approximately known. --LukeSurl t c 11:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support 300+ missing children is a lot IMO. Suggest wikilink South Korea as that's a pretty good article. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    We don't normally link country names and other common terms. See WP:OVERLINK --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    Suggest we discuss at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Candidates#Wikify_country_names_in_news_blurbs?, to avoid derailing the Korean Ferry discussion here. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. Jehochman Talk 14:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Post now. Fun fact: If this was an Irish ship, someone would've cried "US biaz" 2 hours ago, leading to its imnmediate posting. –HTD 14:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
As was this..Lihaas (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — I don't mind mentioning the students, but I think we should avoid for the time being saying how many died, since it's a developing story. But it should be posted forthwith due to the large number on board. Sca (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Adding a second alt that gives a better geographic link for reference. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • If you include the headline with "students" why not make it "high-school students" or "schoolchildren" which will be more informative than the blanket term. Bellemora (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Support use of specific location, "children" rather than "students" (also more specific). Avoid bodycount because data may change. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  1. Support pending a little more cleanup on the article / sectional breakdown -- Tawker (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Confirmed casualties are low at the moment, but likely to rise. The 2014 Oso mudslide was posted when the confirmed number of dead was relatively low, this situation is no different imo. --Somchai Sun (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support it's true about the Oso mudslide, this should go up soon, especially now eight hours have passed and there are hundreds still "missing". This is an ITN story regardless of the number of deaths now. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 17:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Update? — Blurb says nine dead, 280 missing. Per Reuters, now 14 dead, 282 missing.[10] (As of 1400 UTC, BBC, NYT, Guardian still say nine dead). Sca (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    • It it probably better to wait until a full account of passangers (alive or dead) has been established, otherwise we will be updating each time the tally changes. We have the "at least" line to imply that the story is developing. --MASEM (t) 14:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Agreed, these numbers are in a high state of flux, let's just go with "at least" and be a little conservative, early reports were 100% wrong, so nothing to suggest that these won't be equally dubious. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
That's why I suggested yesterday that we leave the number of dead out for the time being. However, the blurb as posted is, predictably, now outdated. Of course, we could lapse into an extended series of fatality updates, but I still think a blurb without fatalities would be better until this episode comes to fruition. Sca (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
"At least 4" is not wrong nor outdated. This is SOP for how to handle developing news stories at ITN, as to use lower-bounds so that we don't have to stay up to the minute. A user looking for information on the ferry incident will likely be aware to click through to the article to learn more and find the more updated numbers here. And when there are known fatalities, injuries, or missing persons with a accident, not providing the number that are known looks very weird. "with a number dead and missing" reads wrong. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
It may be SOP at ITN, but that doesn't make it optimal for readers. (True, "at least" is widely used; nevertheless, it's a sort of weasel word phrase.) And BTW, at 1600 UTC the AP said 20 dead. [11] Sca (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Remember, ITN is not a news ticker, it is to highlight articles with stories that are in the news. As long as we're not presenting factually wrong info (and 20 is "at least 4" here, so we're good), we're fine. I do believe that we have had issues in the past when a story blurb was edited "on the spot" with some disastrous effects, hence why we wait and check on updates, and particularly in this story where the initial reports were "oh, the boat tipped but people were able to get out" and now have become much more disastrous, it's better to get all assured information. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
20 ≠ 4Sca (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
You're missing the point. "20" is "at least 4". I would be agreeing if we were off by a huge magnitude (if that was 200 dead, not just 20), but the difference between 20 and 4 is still small to not be a big issue. --MASEM (t) 16:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
No, not missing the pt. — "at least four" was technically true. I'm just saying that, from the pt. of view of readers, I don't think it was accurate info.
I see we're now updated to "at least 14." I suspect such incremental increases could go on for days. Sca (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
25 now. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Bump? Should we bump this up the page? It's fallen off the bottom of our list but it's still very much a current news story in the media - e.g. the rescue/salvage (and 8 sub-articles and videos) is top story on the BBC News website this evening. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I would say all the items on the template currently are very much still in the news, so I'm not sure what you would bump as "less fresh" --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Can we take up more space / bullet points or is the amount of space assigned to each section of the Main Page a matter of precarious wikipolitics? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
ITN is the section that is easiest to change the size of on the fly to balance the right- and left-hand columns on the mainpage, so we usually have to adjust to what others are doing. Part of the problem is DYK went from 7 to 6 hooks per update recently due to lack of available hooks (but mostly we've just had a lot of news). Maybe we could convince OTD to take up a bit less space since DYK is shorter now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Update: — "Body count reaches 113." [12] AP says 121. [13] Sca (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.

For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents: