*'''Comment''' complete agreement, the article is in terrible shape, poor to non-existent referencing is the least of the articles issues. I have done some cleanup, but not nearly enough. I won't have time to get to it today (or probably tomorrow), but I have reached out to WP:CANADA for some assistance. If nothing else the article will get some copyediting. Best, --[[User:kelapstick|kelapstick]]<sup>([[User talk:Kelapstick#top|bainuu]]) </sup> 02:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' complete agreement, the article is in terrible shape, poor to non-existent referencing is the least of the articles issues. I have done some cleanup, but not nearly enough. I won't have time to get to it today (or probably tomorrow), but I have reached out to WP:CANADA for some assistance. If nothing else the article will get some copyediting. Best, --[[User:kelapstick|kelapstick]]<sup>([[User talk:Kelapstick#top|bainuu]]) </sup> 02:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually - a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
Pro-Russian militants recapture the city hall of the southern Ukrainian city of Mariupol hours after the Ukrainian government forces took control of the building from the militants. (BBC News)
Five pro-Russian militants are killed and fifteen more are captured during clashes with the Ukrainian military in the outskirts of the southern city of Mariupol. (CNN)
Russian President Vladimir Putin says that Ukraine's presidential election on May 25 is a step "in the right direction", calling on anti-Kyiv protesters to postpone a May 11 federalization referendum. Putin also added qualifying conditions.(BBC News)
An alleged American FBI agent is arrested in Pakistan for carrying ammunition while trying to board a flight, which is in violation of their anti-terror laws. (BBC News)
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: Highly acclaimed Canadian Author. The article has an orange tag on it in the literary career section, hopefully that can be remedied. --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like he meets the notability criteria, but article will need considerable work (almost all of it has poor referencing) before it can be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this if and when the article is cleaned up so it meets minimum standards. Clearly worthwhile on the merits, we just need an article worthy of highlighting. --Jayron3218:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment agree with ThaddeusB above, there appears to be sufficient notability for this individual to qualify for RD, but the article is really sub-standard and needs serious work before it's suitable for the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, along with Mordecai Richler, the most famous Canadian author. That is, there might be authors from Canada who are more famous, but their readers wouldn't even know that they were from Canada, if you get what I mean. Mowat and Richler help differentiate Canada from Britain and the US. Abductive (reasoning) 01:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment complete agreement, the article is in terrible shape, poor to non-existent referencing is the least of the articles issues. I have done some cleanup, but not nearly enough. I won't have time to get to it today (or probably tomorrow), but I have reached out to WP:CANADA for some assistance. If nothing else the article will get some copyediting. Best, --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Its in teh news and the latest of teh Syrian civil war. Sicne we dont have a target article for the ongoing, this should fit. First phase already occurring. Aftyer a spate of recent advances its clear the tide is turning and i dont beleive we posted many of those battlefield success which were as notable due to startegy but this is notable as the "birthplace of the uposiring". nip it in the bud. Lihaas (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm...this is not the MAIN space. no one is seeing it. we are deciding on its worth for ITN. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is here, and especially as its on talk pages. Considering we have a MAIN spave article entitled Fall of Constantinople...just because something is not to western proclivities doesn't make it wrong.Lihaas (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is not "begin withdrawal" in the sense that they seem to be losing a battle and so are pulling back from a front line. According to the BBC ([1]) the UN and Iran have negotiated a truce to allow rebels to leave Homs, which they are doing in an organised way. It is not a surrender; the deal allows each person leaving one backpack of kit and a rifle to go with them ([2]). This is the significant thing we're waiting for, as far as the civil war in Homs goes. GoldenRing (talk) 08:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: The latest reports are that 200 people have been killed by Boko Haram. I think this conflict and violence is worthy enough for the Ongoing line. Andise1 (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Linked article has multiple issues (orange tags) and is not updated. I would support if a blurb is suggested instead and a suitable article is linked (or this one fixed). Mohamed CJ(talk)15:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mild support certainly been headlining news outlets in my jurisdiction for the past 24 hours, and while Thailand isn't exactly known for stability in this regard, this is a significant occurrence. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per TRM; heads of government removed against their will due to malfeasance in office is usually notable. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I added an altblurb which makes it clear which of the parties is abusing power and highlights that the Prime Minister is a woman. Belle (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per TRM. I think something like the altblurb is preferable because, particarlarly in such a politically controversial matter, we don't want to give the impression of taking sides by appearing to assert that there has in fact been abuse of power. That is the Court's opinion, and we should report it as such rather than giving the impression of adopting it ourselves. Neljack (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - article has a couple yellow tags for excessive detail. While not serious enough to prevent posting, it would be nice if someone attemtped to address them before posting. Update looks adequate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - with her image, i'm seriously tired of seeing snooker players on the main page... there was one before the current picture..--Stemoc (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
easy support ALT blurb came here to nominate it myself. Not only is it an ouster in a major country with a recent conflict, but it pertains to that ongoing conflict from the election. (one could acall it another coup int he world...)Lihaas (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Impeachment of a sitting head of government by a court should always be ITN-worthy, especially in this case where it may have massive implications on the country's political landscape, and future development is completely open. Maybe the yellow tag issues cannot be solved before posting. The need for improvement is not that massive and readers know that our articles (especially on current events) are always in a developing process. Perhaps posting it on the main page will even invite other users to volunteer and improve the article. --RJFF (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posted, albeit with tags, as they are more of the positive kind; too much information rather than too little or unreferenced. Stephen01:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov rules out any fresh talks in Geneva to defuse the crisis unless pro-Russian groups are also involved. (BBC News)
Thirty young men join the ranks of the Swiss Guards today, taking an oath of allegiance to Pope Francis and promising to serve the Church by protecting him and his successors. Present at the guards' swearing-in are a number of Vatican dignitaries, the new Swiss ambassador to the Holy See, Pierre-Yves Fux, and Archbishop Giovanni Angelo Becciu, who is the Substitute for General Affairs of the Secretariat of State. (Catholic News Agency)
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: Dont know much about wrestling boxing (whoops, silly me! That's the last time I assume that "heavyweight" must be a wrestling title.) so i'll let someone who does decide whether a WBA heavyweight title is important enough for RD. Also, I was wondering why everyone is suddenly using level 3 headers rather than level 4 ones as indicated by this page's editnotice. --Jinkinsontalk to me01:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the headers - I wondered why things looked a bit different... most likely someone used one by accident or due to inexperience and then others kept copying it without thinking about what was normal. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support To clarify, this is about boxing, not pro wrestling. I certainly wouldn't support the latter. Jimmy Ellis fought in the time when it was clearer who the top heavyweights were. He won a tournament against serious opposition to win his world title. He once beat Muhammad Ali. He was good. HiLo48 (talk) 05:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose won a world title and defended it once, controversially being awarded the win. Otherwise unremarkable. And article is a mess. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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: One of the complaints we get about ITN occasionally is systematic bias in recent death postings. To fix that, I am going to make an effort to nominate people from non-English speaking countries... Although her death has not (yet) been picked up by English language media, I believe Maria Lassnig qualifies as "top of her field". She was awarded the Grand Austrian State Prize in 1988 and the Austrian Decoration for Science and Art in 2005. The later award is the highest honor in Austria and can only be held by 18 living Austrians (across all the fields of science and art) at one time. She won the Golden Lion lifetime achievement award in 2013. She has over 50 works in the Museum of Modern Art. Die Welt refers to her as the "Grand Dame of Austrian painting". --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Venice Biennale is the most prestigious contemporary art event in the world, so winning the Golden Lion for Lifetime Achievement there certainly indicates that she's a very important figure in her field. The art website Gallerist describes her as a "giant of postwar painting" and says that her "paintings affected generations of artists over the course of her 70-plus-year career".[3] I imagine this will get picked up by the English-language media - it seems the news only broke hours ago - but of course English-language coverage is not a requirement. Neljack (talk) 02:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose absolutely no evidence of her importance outside the very incestuous and awrd-heavy art world. If there were one popular work showing her influence like the influence of Magritte, Dali, Michaelangelo, or even Munch outside her field of galleries, academia and bureaucrats this would be supportworthy. μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The death criteria instruct us to consider whether the person "was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field", not outside of it. The idea that we should ignore what other artists and people involved with art say about her is very odd. If a sportsperson died, would we ignore what others involved in that sport had to say about their significance? Or what actors, directors and film critics had to say if an actor died? Or what other physicists had to say if a physicist died? Frankly, μηδείς, your personal opinion about the merits of the art world is not relevant. Neljack (talk) 03:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Widely? Like New Jersey, which is bigger than Austria, and had the good sense to do away with it's poet laureate position? I'll grant Vienna's a heck of a lot nicer than Trenton. 04:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Medeis: 1) Sign your comments (the above was a Pointless Medies CommentTM), 2) Stop being obnoxious. Yes, a sovereign nation holds more weight in this case than a single sub-national entity. As for the nom, don't know anything about art, so can't comment. Fgf10 (talk) 07:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
μηδείς, it's the Venice Biennale, not the Vienna Biennale. It ain't limited to Austrians. Her reputation was worldwide - she was regarded as a very important figure in art generally, not just Austrian art. See also the link in my initial "Support" comment to a New York-based art magazine calling her a "giant of postwar painting". Neljack (talk) 07:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down, User:Fgf10, and User:Neljack. I said nothing about the 'Vienna Biennale', did I? I merely admitted that although Austria is far less important on the world stage than New Jersey, nowadays, it does have a far nicer capital. Your use of a straw man and a personal attack in response to this is obvious rage, if hard to understand. The fact remains that this artist is the recipient of esoteric awards given by institutions that ... exist to give awards. Had this woman actually had any real cultural importance her works would be known by the public and alluded to in popular works, like artists such as Keith Haring, Roy Lichtenstein, Georgia O'Keefe, or any of the Wyeths. But that doesn't seem to be the case. μηδείς (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
μηδείς, I did not mean to imply that you had referred to the "Vienna Biennale" or to personally attack you. I apologise if it came across in that way. It was just intended to be a jocular illustration of my point about her reputation being international not just Austrian. The perils of attempts at humour on the internet, I guess. Neljack (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think you need to be a Michaelangelo to appear in RD. She's not famous outside Austria and the German speaking areas, sure, but Die Welt calls her "one of Austria's greatest contemporary artists", and the Austrian national broadcaster has news of her death on the front page. Seems to be the top of her field in her area. Smurrayinchester07:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could you further elaborate why you think this story is significant? (e.g. Does this mark a shift in China's attitude toward pro-democracy protests?) Thanks. Mohamed CJ(talk)17:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not ready to formally weigh in yet but I second what Mohamed has asked; on its face China jailing those who supported or currently discuss the Tiananmen protests seems par for the course for them. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mohamed CJ:, thanks for the question. I guess I find it particularly notable because its so similar to what's happened at previous anniversaries. To me it seems to belie the notion that China's society is becoming less repressive as it interacts more with the West, in economic terms. Which I find a bit surprising. I'm guessing this is why it's getting attention in the business press, as well as those sources which see it purely as a human rights issue.
Also of course there is the human rights issue in itself, affecting 1.35bn people. But I'm not sure if lack of change can be news...
Nominator's comments: These are both ongoing conflicts, in the news and of high notablity due to its precarious situation. Nom for ongoing, not blurb. --Lihaas (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a difficult nom at best without something concrete to tie these together. As for the specific suggestion of ongoing status I don't believe that to be appropriate - where you have a series of related events nominated that all tie into the same ongoing situation ongoing status is appropriate. It seems of late the status has been handed out like candy in the absence of events that would even be nominated - "Oh, this is a notable situation even though it does not have notable events". That starts to make the section look increasingly tickerish. 3142 (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support to "ongoing" (per nom?). I was actually thinking of nominating these myself. Central African Republic almost constantly in the real news (if not on ITN) and ditto, although to a lesser extent, South Sudan. Plus I believe that only having the Ukraine crisis as a major conflict listed implies that others are not...Brigade Piron (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't the ongoing line for blurbs that are removed while still being in the news? (I didn't participated in the discussion) I feel that we are treating it like a sticky. I prefer nominating significant developments in both countries when/if they occur. Mohamed CJ(talk)17:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what it was originally intended for. When the trial ends, one of the points that will need decided is if it should also link to other ongoing events... At the very least, any target article needs to be receiving regular updates, or there is no point to linking it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neighbouring Ukraine and breakaway Transnistria, Moldova places its borders on alert as the unrest continues. (AP)
Arts and culture
Russian media reveals that President Vladimir Putin secretly signed a decree (No. 279) honoring more than 300 journalists for their "objective coverage" of Crimea's seizure from Ukraine. (Reuters)
Support - very notable attack. Article almost meets minimum standards; preferably it will be expanded a bit more before posting (background, reaction). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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: One of the complaints we get about ITN occasionally is systematic bias in recent death postings. To fix that, I am going to make an effort to nominate people from non-English speaking countries... In 1958 Samoilova was the lead actress in The Cranes Are Flying, the only Russian film ever to win the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival. (She was also individually recognized at Cannes). After a few more led roles, she largely disappeared form the public sphere. Even so, she remained one of the most popular actresses in Russia. In 1993, she was named People's Artist of Russia, one of the country's top honors. In 2007, she was given a lifetime achievement award at the Moscow Film festival. Her 80th birthday was commemorated on national TV.
Weak support, again upon improvement, I'm not seeing too much beyond her contribution to the Palme d'Or win, but the odd Russian award seems to be notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I concur with The Rambling Man's comments. One major award and perhaps considerable notoriety but only perhaps. A borderline case for me with leanings to post. Rhodesisland (talk) 10:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Substantial death toll, which is quite likely to rise. Perhaps the blurb should mention that they were migrants, since this is one of a number of such tragedies. Neljack (talk) 07:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The impact is relatively low. The incident is "in the news" insofar as it is in the media, but it's position is something less than "featured". More like "(far) below the fold". The encyclopedic quality is questionable; while users could navigate from the updated article to other articles that are encyclopedic (for example the Aegaen Sea or Greece articles), but the updated article itself is somewhat pigeonholed. It is an article about a very specific transient event that will not get much traffic and will probably not have any views after it falls off ITN. It would perhaps be better to update List of maritime disasters instead. Lastly, and knowing that this is outside of ITN criteria, I've noticed that there's been a large number of "ship disaster" articles nominated lately. While that's not a good reason to oppose, I think it does highlight a "bandwagon" effect that's been going on since the Korea disaster happened.128.214.185.233 (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support once the article has more detail, because:
Quite a high death toll, over the ~20 that's our rule-of-thumbthe rule of thumb which some of us sometimes use but everybody should feel free to completely ignore at all times. jeez
AP saysone of the deadliest migrant boat accidents in Greek waters in recent years.
68 people in yacht+dinghy is obvious and severe overloading, which has bearing on...
International public policy implications - the passengers were economic migrants from Turkey into the EU (Greece specifically). The pressures which cause people to risk death in order to migrate are themselves not unimportant (Merchant marine minister says"Modern-day slave traders are making a fortune by place placing thousands of people's lives at risk, putting them on small and unsuitable boats at night in the Aegean,").
There is no specific "rule of thumb" or guideline on death tolls; each event should be weighed on its own merits and news coverage. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The unsupported statement of one person does not a consensus make. If you want a consensus to codify such a rule, start a discussion on the talk page, and see where it leads. --Jayron3211:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As Jayron suggests, that might be the opinion that some hold, possibly even an unwritten guideline, but it is not written down anywhere (I would oppose efforts to do so on WP:CREEP grounds) or enforced as a policy. Sometimes an event might have a lower death toll but get more news coverage or otherwise be more notable than an event with a slightly higher death toll. 331dot (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has suggested that it is formally written down - Thaddeus and BM were simply making an observation about our practice. Nor has anyone suggested that it should be an inflexible rule - a rule of thumb is nothing more than a general guideline. Obviously all the relevant circumstances of the particular disaster should be taken into account. I think the empirical observation is indeed roughly correct, though you could certainly argue about the exact number. For what it's worth, 20 is the rule of thumb that I apply. Neljack (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That's why I used
The approximation symbol ~ (A tilde is also used to indicate "approximately equal to" (e.g. 1.902 ~= 2)) and,
The term rule of thumb (a principle with broad application that is not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable for every situation).
If I had thought it was a policy or if I was requesting a consensus to propose it as a policy then I would have said so.
If you don't think it's a good "rule of thumb" then don't use it.
Can we get back to discussing the merits of the nominated news story now?
There is a difference between "our" rule of thumb(as you said above) and "your" rule of thumb or that of any user. You can use whatever criteria you wish to weigh nominations, but that doesn't mean it is a criteria everyone here uses. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you taking the time to find news sources, but this event is still not a top news story drawing wide interest(especially given the modest scale of this event). It's buried in the sites given(it isn't on TG&M's front page or even their World page) from what I can see. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose As noted, these will filled with migrants, attempting to enter the country illegally; they were overloaded. It's hard to work up how this is a major ITN event on this notion. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that this is on ITN/R. Look fine to be, though I'm sure there will be the usual calls for more prose. Fgf10 (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the "Tournament summary" should be converted to prose. There is no valid reason to use bulleted lists instead of proper paragraphs. We are an encyclopedia, not a collection of box scores. If that is done, the article should be OK on quality. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed to me that the prose itself was just fine, so I've removed the bullet points and combined a few into paragraphs. GoldenRing (talk) 08:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Someone undid it. We always seem to have this problem almost exclusively with snooker. I don't know why snooker editors think "thier" article should be different than the entire rest of the encyclopedia, but they are wrong. See WP:PROSE. Oppose promoting an article that people are going to edit war to maintain bad style. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, what's surprising is that an editor with 200000 edits would not understand that nothing (other than a few core policies) is "required", and that "preferred" is another way of saying "recommended", "guideline", etc. - the same as all style guides. Even more surpising is that said editor would edit war to maintain his bad style. We have style guides for a reason and they should be followed, not arbitrarily tossed aside because you personally like bullet point lists. (BTW, PROSE is pretty clear on this point - "Articles are intended to consist primarily of prose" and later "Do not use lists if a passage is read easily as plain paragraphs.") --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROSEWP:REVERT also says, "For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse," and, "Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit." So on what grounds did you revert? GoldenRing (talk) 10:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks much better to me now, fixed several references, moved some stuff around, corrected some linking, and prosified. Hopefully meets the expectations of an ITN update for ITN/R by now. If not, do let me know. Also added snappier alt blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment article say "no comment yet on whether the element can be recognized as discovered.", so article requires updating. Regards, Sun Creator(talk)15:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Err...In 2014, the GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research in Germany also claimed to have succesfully repeated the original experiment. However, the IUPAC/IUPAP Joint Working Party (JWP), which is in charge of examining claims of discovery of superheavy elements, has made no comment yet on whether the element can be recognized as discovered - this is basically not confirmed, right? --Somchai Sun (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On a minor point, this is a May 3 story. More importantly, I believe in the past we have posted the initial discovery and the naming of new elements, but not the confirmation of the initial discovery. Of the three stages, confirmation does seem to be the least important, but I am open to arguments taht it should be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least "and will be added" is incorrect - that decision has not been made (that is essentially what the naming announcement captures). --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Every few years scientists fuse some elements and for 1 billionth of a second they create a new element. Then they go through the rigorous and most creative/thought provoking process of naming it "Unun[what I assume is Latin for 17)". Does this have any possible use? Has it advanced science any further? Even if we could stabilize these atoms, would they be of any use given the rate of decay? Now if we synthesize Omega particles... - Floydianτ¢17:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And the comment about 1 billionth of a second is wrong too. See Ununseptium#Nuclear stability and isotopes. The more recently discovered elements are displaying longer half lives, which some scientist believe could be leading to quite practical applications. This oppose is based on ignorance and a choice to not even read our own linked articles on this. HiLo48 (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was making generalizations and souring at the fact that half the last line of my periodic table consists of Ununsomethium, as it has since I went to grade school 20 years ago. They last for fractions of a second generally, and while theories of more stable isotopes abound, none have been created that could last. I did read the article, and I could find nothing in terms of significance to this element, or what use it could hold. Could you enlighten me? - Floydianτ¢16:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question. This reminds me of a Big Bang Theory episode. Is there a confirmed, permanent, new element or will we realize in a few weeks that Sheldon made a mistake in his maths and have to retract it? Rhodesisland (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't oppose posting this (new elements are notable) but I wonder if we should wait until the JWP makes an official determination; right now we just have a repeated experiment, if I read the article right. 331dot (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The blurb is factually incorrect. Per New Scientist: "Even with this new sighting, element 117 does not yet have an official seat at the periodic table." The discovery of a new element is WP:ITN/R, but it's not really clear what we actually mean by "publication of the discovery in a peer-reviewed scientific journal". I assume this is when IUPAC/IUPAP officially make their review of the data, which won't be for at least a couple of years. Smurrayinchester07:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(The IUPAC decision isn't simply rubberstamping, incidentally - they often do reject claims of discovery. In 2011, they rejected ununtrium, ununpentium and ununoctium. While it's unlikely that an element with two independent discoveries will be rejected, it may be that they discover some flaw in the experimental method - ununtrium was "discovered" by both American and Japanese groups, while the other two were discovered by a Russian-American collaboration, but all three were too uncertain to be officially put in the table.) Smurrayinchester08:00, 6 May 2014 (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.
Keep it in ongoing, as this is the kind of thing the line was made for. An admission is not a big enough to get a blurb, but it keeps the story in the news. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is difficult to weigh the merits of a nomination without an article; if something is not notable enough to yet have an article, it won't make it to ITN. There may be exceptions to that (significant events involving large numbers of people) but I don't think this is one. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the recent spate of nominations and we're getting a rather nice throughput on the main page, but I echo 331dot's comment, you might as well write an article to capture the essence of the news item so there's something we can base our opinions on. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I find it difficult to guage notability of news articles, so find it easier to establish notability before creating the article. I assume from the comments that this is article worthy? Thanks, Matty.00712:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on process I have no problem with any editor asking whether, if a particular article were to be created, it would likely be considered notable enough for ITN. Seems sensible enough to me. If other editors prefer not to comment until an article exists then they don't have to do so, it seems to me. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - subject is certainly notable enough for an article. However, there are at least 6 larger losses of life in 2014 from shipwrecks (including one just nominated above). Clearly, accidents of this scale are not rare. I would need to see more explanation of merits other than 11 probable deaths to support (i.e. indication this is more than a routine accident); neutral for now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm in agreement with Thaddeus; while tragic this doesn't seem that unusual an event, nor does it seem to have widespread news coverage. Count me as a neutral as well for the moment. 331dot (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided. Same comments as with above boating accident--is this encyclopedic enough and the death toll is even less here. If this were a car accident, we wouldn't post it would we? Rhodesisland (talk) 10:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any loss of of life would be about 2/month on average - maybe more as there are probably incidents not listed in that article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that is a significant underestimate. Fishing is the most dangerous occupation by a looong way[4] Deep sea fishing in particular - I can't track down a reference right now but recall reading a statistic a few years back that if you start in deep sea fishing at age 16 you have a 90% chance of being killed on the job before you reach retirement age. It doesn't make headline news - for the most part is is in relatively small numbers - half a dozen or so - and occurs in communities that are all too aware that small boats are very vulnerable in rough seas. 3142 (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pro-Russian activists attack the police headquarters in Odesa, forcing the release of several people held over deadly violence two days before. (BBC News)
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.
Regretful oppose a notable individual but really only in a local sense, while the best female British tennis player for a while, hardly a claim to being one of the top in her field. Terrible early death, but not suitable for ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both. AEGON Awards are only for British tennis. The only world-class British tennis player in recent years is Andy Murray, so there is not much competition. Baltacha did not win any major tournaments. Having intermittently been the British number one female tennis player does not mean much in an era when there were no world-class British female tennis players. Jim Michael (talk) 10:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb and RD Truly tragic, but I agree with others that she doesn't meet the death criteria, considering that she never won a Grand Slam or got higher than 49 in the world. This is not to diminish her remarkable achievement in competing at the elite level despite her debilitating liver disorder. Neljack (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Weak oppose. There are many developments in Ukraine currently such as "Odessa detainees freed as police HQ attacked"[5]. We ought to only post the most significant ones. Mohamed CJ(talk)08:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We don't need to post every police or military movement in Ukraine; we have the ongoing line to draw attention to it. Only a significant change in the situation or escalation (i.e. Russian troops crossing the border) should be posted. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we have a blurb about Ukraine in the main box, we don't need an additional listing in the Ongoing. At least that was the general idea when the Ongoing was introduced. --Tone14:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tone is correct - there is no need for an "ongoing" & a blurb. If no new blurb is approved by the time the current one cycles off, Ukraine will go back to ongoing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ThaddeusB, and how will that sticky get back on there? Will need to go through a nom process or has it been approved previously and therefore comes and goes as needed? Just trying to get a better understanding. Rhodesisland (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When any item is cyclign off, the admin may move it to ongoing at their discretion - a full discussion is not necessary. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Every back and forth of army gains or losses doesn't need to posted. The one posted is more encyclopedic and suffices for now. When it falls off, we can go back to the sticky. Rhodesisland (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support the article is definitely in need of expansion before it can be posted, but it's a major terrorist incident, despite the scant casualties, this is rare and we have run similar scant casualty articles in the US (for example) in the past. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Come of it, thats not related. There is NOTHING to indicate any realtions excapet a mbunch of sensational (Pak) media trying to drwaw connections of "Anti-Muslim" activity.Lihaas (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BBC saysThe incident comes in the middle of India's ongoing general election, and Muslim groups believe their community has come under attack because the rebels feel that it did not support Bodo candidates. / Rakibul Islam of All Bodoland Muslim Students Union said local Muslims had been threatened by Bodo groups "because they thought Muslims had voted for non-Bodo candidates" during elections in Assam on 24 April. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Lihaas: All the international news sources have reported the 33 victims as members of the Muslim community. Note that I used the term "33 people" while many news articles used the term 'Muslim' in their headlines point blank. The events are specifically described as anti-Muslim in nature and are discussed in detail in the reports. To brush off the incident as Pakistani media sensationalism, I'm afraid, would be denialism. Mar4d (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters saysmore than 30 Muslims were gunned down in three days of what police said were attacks by Bodo tribal militants ... / ... with Bodo tribesmen attacking Muslim settlers as punishment for not supporting their parliamentary candidate in the election.Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Im not brushing off the incident, im saying its not RELATED to the election. please re-read. If BBC says (and this wasnt there before when i comment originally) its "amidst the election", that does not mean the attack was perpetrated for that reason. If one-side speculates how does it mean that is the reason? Incidentally , Bodo attakcs have taken place on non-Bodos many tinmes before. thats the definition of an ethnic conflict, otherwise it would be one-offLihaas (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support the item is not really featuring heavily in my news jurisdiction but the article is sufficient and significant. What it's speculatively related to, or not, shouldn't be part of the blurb or the article, and is irrelevant without RS. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are inconsistencies within the article. Lead says 32 are killed, infobox says 33 and the description below sums upto only 22 and there are other figures on net (34 over here). Also, it would make sense to somewhere clarify what religion Bodos belong to. Bodo people seem to follow Bathouism, Christianity or other religions too. It is confusing to readers when Muslims vs Bodos is stated. Its comparing different thing; fruits with mobiles. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Support. He was definitely very important in his field. NYT stated that he "was widely regarded as a towering figure in his field". Other sources also make note of his various contributions to economics. Mohamed CJ(talk)23:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nobel and Presidential Medal, pretty much strong signs of top of field. Article seems in good shape. --MASEM (t) 23:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - much of his life's work is unreferened (two orange tagged sections plus poor referencing in "Discrimination"). That will need fixed before this can be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as it stands, the article has two orange maintenance tags, a yellow one, two [ciation needed] tags, some inline external links, and some bare URLs; in other words the article quality is way below what is required for main page inclusion. 09:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Rambling Man (talk • contribs)
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.
Oppose: When I saw this a day or so ago, I considered nominating him, but he would be far from top of the field to consider for RD. --MASEM (t) 04:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I can see we're going to have to fight the recent perspective of the youngies on this one. This guy was big, very BIG, when I was young. Was definitely a household name, and moved on to a long career. HiLo48 (talk) 04:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Aside from the article issues mentioned already, what exactly is the evidence this man was "very important" in his field? He had an extensive career, but I'm not seeing awards nominated/won, actors who say he influenced them, etc. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support storied stage, film, TV and voice acting career, There will be high reader interest, the article is updated and in good shape, no other person will be pushed off the ticker by a listing, and if you really want to worry about systematic bias, most wikipedians are too young to remember this guy--which is their fault for being born late--not his for being born early. μηδείς (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Q Is there a risk that we're confusing 'was in a lot of different TV programs' with 'was a leading actor of his generation'? (question is genuine, I have no idea). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose just because he'd been around a bit, no indication from a neutral perspective that he'd been close to top of his field, so not quite getting why he's being considered for RD, let alone the issues with the article itself. Also seems odd his Golden Globe award (Golden Globe Award for New Star Of The Year – Actor) is linked to him alone, and no-one else, was it a one-off? There's no doubt he's "in the news" but how does he meet the RD criteria? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Zimbalist starred in the leading role of two top rated shows from 1958 to 1974, 77 Sunset Strip and F.B.I. obit. He was a recognized name in theater, film, television, and voice acting during the 1940's, '50's, '60's, '70's, '80's, '90's, '00's, and '10's. There used to be a death criterion that one was qualified if important in more than two fields--he fits that bill--although I don't know who edited out that criterion and with what justification. Yes, non-American editors under 50 may not recognize the name. But our readers will be better served by his article being listed in the RD than they will be by a blank space. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Google News listed sources mentioning his death: People Magazine, NPR, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, New York Daily News, Indian Express, Kingsport Times, Belfast Telegraph, Malta Independent, UPI, The Daily Mail, NBC, International Business Times (US & UK editions), US News & World Report, Detroit Free Press, Washington Post, Bangor Daily News, BBC News, The National Enquirer, The Malay Mail as well as Telegraaf.nl, Radio Pero, La Prensa, Huffington Post, Cineartistes, NY Post, LA Times, Variety. The Guardian....
Thanks for the link, I've adjusted Zimbalist's article accordingly. I still oppose the nomination based on significant shortcomings in the overall quality of the article, which I'm certain the supporters of this will act swiftly to address rather than simply apply a blind support. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know if any of the Opposes above come from editors who are under 40 and who had never heard of this guy before this nomination. If that's the case, I don't respect their position. It's one built on ignorance. That can be cured, but one has to work on it. HiLo48 (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm over 40, recognize the name from Maverick and other works, but cannot consider him "top of his field" as defined here at ITN. We, for example, didn't post Andy Griffith's death, despite that being a much more recognizable name and face. --MASEM (t) 21:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2012, so yeah, I don't think RD existed ([7]), so you're right that might not be a fair comparison (would Griffith have been posted if RD existed? I can't tell for sure from that past archive). Still, my oppose stands irregardless of that - it's hard to call Zimbalist's contribution to the field major or singificant to merit an RD. --MASEM (t) 22:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RD had been approved in an RfC when Griffith died, and I tried to get it actually instituted with his listing, but there was admin lethargy and opposes from people who called him an old guy who was just famous in America forsome TV shows and hadn't been in a movie since the 50's. Jack Klugman, however was posted, and his claim to fame was the same as Zimbalist, stage and film work and lead in two TV shows. μηδείς (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm under 40, but I can read and form an opinion based on what I read. I find the calling of my opinion "ignorant" offensive. 331dot (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in that case, User:331dot, you should apologize for putting the word ignorant in quotes and indenting your comment under my statement as if I ever said what you are quoting. Having someone attribute to you a supposed insult you never said is a heck of a lot more offensive than actually having someone call you ignorant. μηδείς (talk) 05:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do apologize for any implication I gave; I thought it was clear who I was replying to and that this was the proper way to indent in(once for each person replying to a comment). 331dot (talk) 10:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Almost 50 y.o. here. Know him best from his guest appearances on his daughter's show, but also know his other work. But still oppose per Masem and Neljack. Rhodesisland (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could any of those who so ardently support this nomination please spend some time actually making the article fit for inclusion on the main page rather than bang the drum about ignorance and being too young to know why this person so easily meets the RD criteria? It doesn't matter if it gets 100 supports, right now the article needs serious work in verifying the many unverified claims. Just because one news outlet publishes an obit for someone, it doesn't mean they meet Wikipedia's RD criteria. Obviously. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So predictable and such a shame that not one of those in support of this nomination (and those flinging mud) have made precisely zero effort to improve the article to the minimum standard required. Never mind, it'll be stale soon and we can close yet another heavily supported yet utterly ignored article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: ITN/R horse race. The article will be ready very shortly (meets criteria now, but work is ongoing). --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This bombing occurred near the location of the April bombing. It is unknown who the perpetrators were, but some sources allege that Boko Haram are behind the bombing. Andise1 (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nigeria is really unstable right now with deadly Boko Harem attacks almost every week. This one is relatively minor compared to other recent events. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Strong support
If culturally prominent to the level stated.
The oscars are just the american film industry awards. bollywood is bigger than hollywood in many ways (films produced, ww revenues, tickets sold and annual growth rate) and india is a bigger country in population. If Oscars are featured, then lets feature this. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support if culturally prominent as stated, based on 77.101.41.108's reasoning. Suggest amending blurb by removing the words 'will be', and waiting to post it until the prize has been awarded. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indian cinema is a pretty big thing, and all sources name this as the most prominent award in Indian cinema. The biography article has sufficient sourcing and a minimum three-sentence update. --hydrox (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question - blurb says "will be" - does that mean he officially gets the award at a later date? If so, we should wait for that date. If not, the blurb should be in present tense. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he will be awarded later but news will be stale by then. Not much media coverage will be there. Last year when Pran awarded, it was posted earlier for the same reason. -Nizil (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, we can probably get away with the simple "is awarded" despite the technicality. Otherwise, it would have to be "is announced as the recipient of" - either way it needs to be in present tense. --ThaddeusB (talk)
Article will need work - referencing is fairly weak, and their are many WEASEL words. The article also makes some strange choices on what to cover - I very much doubt examples of his poetry (in Urdu) should be included in the article, for example. Otherwise, I could support this on merits. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
support firstly I dint know hes still alive. But yes notable lyricist, but then ai maybe biased...on this note its mehfil time for me...saki ne phir se mere jaam bhar diya...Lihaas (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending article improvements and present tense rewriting of the blurb, per Thaddeaus' suggestion. With India's large population and the enduring prominence of its cinema, I would even support adding the Dadasaheb Phalke Award to ITN/R because of its cultural significance. AgneCheese/Wine00:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Improved I have improved the article. Added references. Copyedited text. Reorganised content. Added inline citations except for award and filmography lists. Can someone check grammar as I may have made mistakes? Does inline citation for filmography and awards neccessary as the most of articles dont have them?
Article looks good now. Unfortunately, we've had a lot of news in the last few days and this story is now stale. Please renominate it when Gulzar officially receives the award and I'll be happy to post it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I know its late.. I am the only one who was working on the article and i dont have computer. So its tough to do it from mobile. Award ceremony is on May 3. Should I renominate on the same day? Regards -Nizil (talk)
Renominated Gulzar recieved the award. Blurb changed. -Nizil (talk)
Support Really strong article, major improvements made since last nomination. Well referenced, major award, nothing to be said in the negative for this one. --Jayron3217:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, whatever, but what I'm saying is that instead of just saying "Gulzar wins award" it's worth introducing who Gulzar is, if it can be done succinctly, to provide context to our international audience. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose My position is the complete opposite to that of ThaddeusB in the previous nom - if it was to go up it should have gone up then. Now it is stale - the determination of the winner is the more notable of the two elements compared to the mere formality of handing over the award. That is how we do the other events - the Nobel prizes, sporting championships etc. For example we will always post the winner of the Formula 1 championships after the race when the winner has an unassailable lead, not when it is formally conferred at a swanky dinner long after the season is over. This nom strikes me as a second bite of the cherry on very dubious grounds. 3142 (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the news is a bit stale. But staleness is not really that big issue. We, after all, until 19th April kept "A total lunar eclipse is visible across the Pacific Ocean and the Americas" at ITN about the eclipse that happened on 15th; and that too with the wording "is visible". And the news is not that stale either with it resurfacing as the award is now actually presented by the President of India. It wasn't promoted then only for our procedural norms of not promoting bold link with seemingly low standards. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 20:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article seems to have gone through some major expansion, this is how you ITN. I don't think it matters all that much whether we post at the initial announcement or the award ceremony. Last time out, people pointed out some problems with the article, so it was not possible to post then. This is rarely the case with Nobel Prize or F1 articles, so it's not a fair comparison. Now the article alright, so why not post it now. --hydrox (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2014 (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.
Nominator's comments: This might be a bit premature, but anyway according to Reuters this "would mark a significant and symbolic military advance by forces loyal to Bashar al-Assad" in a city once known as "capital of the revolution". --Mohamed CJ(talk)09:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this was one of the deadliest and longest-running battles in the war, and an end to this is certainly notable. So I will support, even if a ticker will be added. However, I think the blurb should be more descriptive than that. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its hardly and end. theyve withdrawn to the suburbs...to think they wount regroup is silly. Also id support some form of a ongoing blurb instead...and since thsi is ongoing/updated we can link to this as part of the civil war
Also replaced POV for fact. (a la that blurb). When we posted the withdrawan from iraq we neever said obama's forces even though he is commander in chiefLihaas (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A 24-hour ceasefire deal is reached in Syria's city of Homs allowing rebels to withdraw from their last stronghold in the central city. (BBC News)(Reuters)
Attacks by suicide bombers on a security checkpoint and a civilian bus in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula as well as a separate bombing near a courthouse in Cairo killed at least four people. (The Washington Post)
The Armed Forces of Ukraine launch a military operation against separatists in the city of Sloviansk with claims of many deaths and two Ukrainian Army helicopters downed. In the port city of Odesa, violent clashes kill at least 42 people, as pro-Ukrainians set the pro-Russian headquarters on fire. (CNN)(BBC News)(Express)
Disasters and accidents
A landslide strikes the town of Hobo Barik in Afghanistan's Badakhshan province with at least 350 people dead and over 2000 people missing. (USA Today)(AP)
Helen, the eldest daughter of Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) murder victim Jean McConville, is prepared to name the people responsible for her mother's death, saying she no longer fears reprisals by republicans. (RTÉ News)
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.
Oppose - Why is the first case in America, compared to any other country, important? If it were an outbreak, that would be different. --MASEM (t) 21:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better to post about MERS when there is a significant development, such as being announced as an epidemic. Oppose the current nomination. Mohamed CJ(talk)06:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's the proper course of action. What I'm concerned is this might get resolved without this being declared as an "epidemic" and we could've missed on an important story. This has affected larger countries than the Chikungunya outbreak below, but certainly far fewer cases (I dunno about deaths). –HTD07:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be relieved if it ends before becoming an epidemic; we get tens of thousands of Saudis every weekend and many people here visit Saudi Arabia regularly. According to our article on the topic there's been some 131 deaths out of 424 cases, the vast majority of them in Saudi Arabia. But that's since 2012. If there is any significant development (not necessarily the one I mentioned above), I'd glad to support, if not nominate the story myself. Mohamed CJ(talk)08:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article has to be renamed; most of the information presented about cases outside the Middle East are post-2012. –HTD08:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Major player in Formula 1 "Spygate" scandal. Death at relatively young age and unexpected. --Mjroots (talk) 10:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Prior to December 2013, there had never been a locally-transmitted case of chikungunya in the Americas. Now there are 4000+ probable cases and 31000+ suspected cases across 14 Caribbean nations. CARPHA has just declared the disease epidemic across the entire Caribbean region. Article has been whipped into good shape, but of course more work is welcome. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stale/Oppose. Cases of Chikungunya were reported spreading in the Caribbean a while ago. Nobody seems to have died. I'm not even sure this declaration is legit; [8]Abductive (reasoning) 16:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, the first case was reported in December, but I hardly think that means the story is "stale". I doubt multiple RS would get a "epidemic" declaration wrong and now is as good of a time as any to post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support If a similarly dehabilitating but rarely fatal disease like dengue fever were to suddenly become endemic in the British Isles you can be sure we;d be posting it. μηδείς (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marked ready, article is well-sourced and updated, story (all but one source) broke within the last two days in the English press, so not stale. μηδείς (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as a new article, the lead is very weak, needs a bit more. I've made a few minor changes, but all-in-all it's in good shape, just would hate to push an article with a couple of sentences as a lead to the main page. We have WP:LEAD for a reason. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Personally, I think that if this is being posted now (as still relevant), the section about events occurring this month - in May - should have a little more expansion than it currently does. SpencerT♦C21:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph of the "spread" section starts "At the end of April", which means it is the situation as of May 1 (the date of this nomination). The third paragraph is about the epidemic declaration. I honestly don't know what more can be updated, so please let me know what you would like to see and I will try to find it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Supportpending article. Can;t remember if we posted the Washington landslide, but this appears to be 100 times worse in terms of missing and possible dead. - Floydianτ¢18:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unquestionably what ITN is. Might suggest - depending on following coverage - this might be a topic for the ongoing tracker as they try to recover bodies (in a similar manner that it took the Oso mudslide to be resolved) --MASEM (t) 19:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, as this is one of my first ITN noms, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by an "ongoing tracker"? Thanks, Matty.00719:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The ongoing line is brand new - see WT:ITN... I don't see any point discussing whether an item might on on ongoing when its blurb run is done ahead of time. Whether the story moves to "ongoing" will depend on if the story is still in the news at that time, something we can hardly know in advance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just throwing the idea out there. Obviously far too early to add now and may not be needed in a few days when this story will likely scroll off the main list, but hopefully we'll remember that this could go on there and review the situation then. --MASEM (t) 23:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In case the ongoing proposal was not clear, assessing whether a dropping item fits into "ongoing" is what admins should be doing every time they update the template. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obviously far more notable than the ridiculously frequent nominations we see for tornadoes in the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo, that comment is not necessary or helpful. There are a wide variety of levels of notability that make ITN. (And for the record, mud slides/avalanches in Afghanistan are roughly as common as tornadoes in the US). --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So why do we see so many more tornado nominations, all of them described as serious, major events, than Afghan mudslides? And a serious question, how can we judge which tornado nominations really ARE worth posting? They are all supported with the same level of hyperbole and weasel language. HiLo48 (talk) 03:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said in the tornado nomination, the consensus is that any natural disaster with >~20 deaths is worth posting. The frequency of the disaster type in the home country is not normally considered. If people have foolishly used hyperbole on some nominations, calling it "worst ever" or whatever when it wasn't then shame on them, but it almost certainly didn't matter to the nomination's success. The death toll alone is usually (always as far as I can remember) enough to post when it hits ~20. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have now run into the exact problem with posting so early. The death toll has been sgnificantly revised down by 75%! thats massive and thte blurb needs to thchange.Lihaas (talk) 09:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Surely it is time to mention Ukraine ITN again. I think this is the first time the confrontation with the protesters can be characterized as straight-up war. Thue (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Already covered within the Ukrainian unrest in the Ongoing ticker. I'd say at this stage of the unrest such events are expectable. Brandmeistertalk17:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support this seems to be a significant escalation, with Putin calling for all Ukrania troops to stand down in the south and east, and the downing of two helicopters. This is what's called a hot war, folks. It can always be put back on the ticker later. μηδείς (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb — Reuters reports "at least 42 killed" in Odessa on May 2. [9] See also Kyiv Post, "dozens killed." [10] Should be in ITN soonest. Sca (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posted a version of the altblurb without the second bolding since it is orange tagged and there is active discussion on the article's talk page about neutrality issues. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will bold Odessa now. I personally don't see the release as all that significant... changing the blurb to reflect it would require a new discussion in any case. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[RD] Win Tin (Burmese freedom campaigner / political prisoner)
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.
Obituaries are coming out now though (which is where I saw it) - and he's still dead. This is RD so time isn't 'of the essence' IMO. We have the space and it's hard to overstate his importance - newspaper editors who go to prison for decades rather than compromise their editorial independence get bonus points with me. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Better late than never would be good if this wasn't called "in the news". Anyway, we've all three made our positions clear, let's see what other's think. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Latest event is suicide bombing with 18 killed including 11 children, and 50 injured (according to state media). Pro-opposition media reports 15 killed. Obviously this is one in a long series of actions by a range of belligerents, which shows no sign of coming to a conclusion any time soon. This nomination is for the new 'Ongoing' line at the bottom of ITN. --Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the agreed "ongoing" criteria is that the article should be receiving regular updates. That isn't (and shouldn't be) the case for the main article. The correct target, Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (January 2014–present), hasn't been created as whoever was doing the regular updates stopped in mid-December. Since a large part of the mission of ITN is to point to quality, updated content, and since "we aren't a news ticker", I must oppose unless someone creates and maintains a 2014 timeline article, or there is another appropriate target that is reguilarly updated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Alex. As for the regular updates point, by my count in the last two months the article has been updated to reflect 16 different events, two of them in the last week (not including this latest bombing, which has not yet been included). How regular do the updates have to be? Neljack (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support We've had far too many nominations fail, which normally would have been posted, on the basis of "not another Syrian story!" This will solve that. μηδείς (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would support posting this even without a current timeline article. The main article has one yellow tag (too long to read comfortably) but otherwise there are daily updates and the article has almost 500 watchers. There is no question about notability. The UN has called the war the worst humanitarian crisis since the end of Cold War. Situation remains extremely flux and there are momentous events almost every day. Though if we post this, how long are we going to keep it up? If things remain as they are now the war could still go on for years. --hydrox (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support I think the target article shouldn't be the far-too-hefty Syrian Civil War article. There's a tag at the top of that page recommending it be split down, and I agree, someone with a clue about relevant milestones in this area should carve the article up a little and we could have a newsworthy Ongoing article as a result. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support this. This seems like a fair compromise, and I certainly think that the Civil War should get some kind of representation as an Ongoing event. It Is Me Heret / c00:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider linking to portal a compromise - I would consider it the worst option. At least the main article is updated with big events; the portal is a way of organizing all the articles on the subject - there is no indication of where to find the most up-to-date info. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ford announces that their current chief executive officer, Alan Mulally, will be retiring in July, and that their chief operating officer Mark Fields will be taking his place. (BBC News)
Articles:KV40 (talk·history·tag) and [[KV62]] ([[Talk:KV62|talk]] · [{{fullurl:KV62|action=history}} history] · [{{fullurl:Talk:KV62|action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/note&preloadtitle=In+the+news+nomination§ion=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=%3Cstrike%3EKV62%3C%2Fstrike%3E}} tag]) Blurb: A replica of King Tutankhamun's (pictured) KV62 is inaugurated in the Valley of the Kings, while more than 50 royal mummies are discovered in the KV40 tomb. (Post) Alternative blurb: More than 50 royal mummies are discovered in Egypt's KV40 tomb. News source(s):For the tomb: The GuardianBloombergCNN. For the mummies: National GeographicReutersInternational Business Times Credits:
Nominator's comments: The 3D-printed replica tomb is all I see in the news when I simply Google search "Egypt", so it appears to be notable in this field. It also triggered the government to increase Egypt's visa costs by two thirds in response.[12] The 50+ mummies discovered 4 days ago also appear to be notable and I thought adding this with the other story might warrant enough notability to the whole blurb. --Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Combining these his highly misleading. I had to re-read the nomination a couple of times to work out that there was no material connection between the (genuinely ancient) mummies and the (brand spanking new) tomb. And we don't just pile vaguely-associated ideas together until their aggregate notability propels them into ITN. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well both are in the same location. I can propose an altblurd citing only one story if you insist that there's no link between them. It's just that I don't know which one to ignore. Note: Apparently, the replica wasn't entirely 3D-printed. The technology was just used in the process. Apologies if this was the case. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support new discoveries in KV40 (notable and interesting discovery at a UNESCO world heritage site), Oppose replica KV62 (just another tourist attraction - useful in so far as it keeps tourism from destroying the real KV62, but I don't see much interest otherwise) Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support just as Balaenoptera musculus says. Let's get an altblurb that focuses only on the new discoveries or a new nomination for just it.Rhodesisland (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I BOLDly struck the original blurb, which clearly does not have interest, so that we can ocus on teh story with potential. @AlexTiefling and HiLo48: please consider revising your !votes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
_2013-01-30_15.jpg){kind=link}
