*'''Oppose''' paradoxical nomination, I don't see why we should add something that's barely updated to the Ongoing section of ITN. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 05:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' paradoxical nomination, I don't see why we should add something that's barely updated to the Ongoing section of ITN. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 05:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose/???''' I don't know what's intended here, but I am impressed that "Barely updated" could be a punchline that gets a smile. - [[User:OldManNeptune|OldManNeptune]] [[User_talk:OldManNeptune|⚓]] 07:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose/???''' I don't know what's intended here, but I am impressed that "Barely updated" could be a punchline that gets a smile. - [[User:OldManNeptune|OldManNeptune]] [[User_talk:OldManNeptune|⚓]] 07:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - here on Wikipedia we are sticklers for the rules, so even if something makes eminent sense we'd rather go by the rules. Following rules is easier for our editors, most of which are rather limited in their intellectual capacity. [[Special:Contributions/84.161.247.158|84.161.247.158]] ([[User talk:84.161.247.158|talk]]) 09:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
**So instead of lodging an argument to match your actual thoughts, a sarcastic, snide commentary on the state of editors is more appropriate? Thanks for your contributions. ~ [[User:Cyclonebiskit|Cyclonebiskit]] ([[User talk:Cyclonebiskit|chat]]) 09:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
**So instead of lodging an argument to match your actual thoughts, a sarcastic, snide commentary on the state of editors is more appropriate? Thanks for your contributions. ~ [[User:Cyclonebiskit|Cyclonebiskit]] ([[User talk:Cyclonebiskit|chat]]) 09:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - We have ''[[European migrant crisis]]'' (mostly Syrian refugees) but not ''[[Syrian civil war]]''? Not quite logical. [[User:STSC|STSC]] ([[User talk:STSC|talk]]) 10:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - We have ''[[European migrant crisis]]'' (mostly Syrian refugees) but not ''[[Syrian civil war]]''? Not quite logical. [[User:STSC|STSC]] ([[User talk:STSC|talk]]) 10:31, 11 March 2016 (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).
The Algerian Army kills three suspected Islamist militants near the eastern city of El Oued and seizes a large quantity of weapons, including six anti-aircraft missiles. (Reuters)
American veterans’ nonprofit charity The Wounded Warrior Project board of directors removes chief executive officer Steven Nardizzi and chief operation officer Al Giordano after an independent investigation confirms earlier news reports about lavish spending on employee perks, high overhead, and other perceived malfeasance. (The New York Times)
The delegation from Saudi Arabia departed from the meeting of the Arab League, offended by remarks of the Foreign Minister of Iraq, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, an indication of increasing tension among Arab states. (Reuters)
AstronautScott Kelly announces his retirement from NASA effective April 1. Kelly holds the record for the American who has spent the most time in space. (NASA)
Oppose for the same reason I did last time: this article is atrociously cumbersome. It's far too large to be of use to readers and presently has over 800 references more than 125 kB of prose. It needs to be reduced in size and split into reasonable sub-articles concerning either phases or specific years. There are articles such as Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (May–December 2013) floating around haphazardly, but they're clearly not being used to their full potential. The main Syrian Civil War article has to be a summary one and not cover minute details of every individual conflict, there's far too much going on for that. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (January–April 2016) would be most relevant to readers, but it hasn't been touched in four days and the quality is less than stellar. It also has fewer than 50 edits in the past 2.5 weeks, far below the activity you'd expect with an ongoing event. There's no background context and only minimal information regarding what happens to pop up in the news day-by-day is present as opposed to event-based groupings that would be more useful. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if it's "barely updated", why should this be re-featured on Ongoing? The last major event was the US-Russian brokered ceasefire at the end of Feb, so it's also somewhat stale. I'd like to reiterate that Ongoing isn't for stuff that just has tons of media coverage. Fuebaey (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - here on Wikipedia we are sticklers for the rules, so even if something makes eminent sense we'd rather go by the rules. Following rules is easier for our editors, most of which are rather limited in their intellectual capacity. 84.161.247.158 (talk) 09:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So instead of lodging an argument to match your actual thoughts, a sarcastic, snide commentary on the state of editors is more appropriate? Thanks for your contributions. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Two days of heavy rain in the American state of Louisiana has caused at least three deaths and caused more than a thousand people to evacuate their homes. (Fox News)
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 Multiple Academy and BAFTA awards for non-Bond films, but arguably his Bond film designs were even more influential on generations of visual arts designers. dmmaus (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Importance there, and I sourced one section I found weak (his donation of his body of work to that museum) so the article should be in good shape to post RD. --MASEM (t) 23:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment slightly concerned about the reliability of some of those refs (a tabloid, a blog, IMDB, etc). Am working on this but wouldn't mind if others chip in. Fuebaey (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've nixed the blog and IMDB with a few book sources. Plus caught a few statements that should be sourced too. --MASEM (t) 00:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the awards could still do with citations, especially the lifetime achievement award from ADG which isn't in the article and doesn't seem to be at the website. The BAFTAs seem to be in the relevant article but are unreferenced there; I can't readily find them on the BAFTA website. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Tillikum is widely known for the documentary Blackfish. His condition seems to be serious and SeaWorld have expressed that he is is unlikely to recover. LoudLizard (📞
Oppose I'm kind of mixed on this one, as there is notability in some ways, but I don't think it would be something that would qualify a mention on the front page of Wikipedia. Maybe his death would be enough, but I don't see just becoming ill worth a mention. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at the moment; the orca's death (whether directly from this or if a manner done in a humane fashion) would be the right ITN point. I can't necessarily say that at that point it would be appropriate to post, just that the announcement that the orca has a fatal condition is not something we'd post for any human in a similar case. --MASEM (t) 17:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait I doubt we'd post a blurb about a human contracting a fatal lung infection either, we'd wait until the person's death. I will gladly support RD for this orca upon his death, and consider a blurb when that time comes (though to be fair, Tilikum is ~34 years old, exceeding the usual life expectancy for captive orcas). - OldManNeptune⚓20:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there may be a just cause for posting a blurb when Tilikum dies if the reaction to it and SeaWorld's barbarism comes to an end, otherwise this is not ITN stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Seems like a big deal because cataracts are a common condition. The page is new and so needs expansion but it seems good to get it started. Andrew D. (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much more long-term significant than a random terror attack, sport event, or plane crash. This will have huge consequences for many thousands of people. More ITN candidates like this, please :). Thue (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose More on quality, less so on notability, though I think that's borderline as well. The article is basically a stub, with only one source, not even citing the actual papers in question. Fgf10 (talk) 10:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting development, but article is very brief - no background to the field or the research, reads like a press release on the result of this one trial. MurielMary (talk) 10:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the article is an orphaned stub and is of insufficient quality. The story is neat, it's already come and gone in the news, perhaps it's a good DYK candidate? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC put the story up just 19 hours ago so it's still quite fresh. Compare this with the current top story on ITN - the Samoa general election. If you try searching for that on the BBC website, their top story is Super Tuesday! Going by the numbers: population of Samoa = ~200K. Number of cataract operations each year = ~20 million. That's two orders of magnitude more significant. I'm quite busy today but thought this story was so important that I took time to get a stub started. Espresso Addict did a good thing by adding a link to the paper in Nature. That's our general editing policy,
Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting, or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article, and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content.
ITN looks for "quality content" before posting. This is not quality. And you already know and have been told countless times why the Samoan election is on the ITN section of the page, there's no need to continually flog that dead horse. My !vote stands. (P.S. It's not really "in the news" unless you consider sixth story on the BBC "science and environment" page [behind old pine, snake slithering and rhino slaughter, to name but three] to be "in the news". The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The 306 million native speakers of English in the U.S. constitute 77 percent of the 340 million native speakers of English worldwide.
• This isn't British Wikipedia, either. It's the English-language Wikipedia.
• My (naive?) assumption is, those responsible for English (-language) Wikipedia seek to serve all their readers. Or to put it another way, to serve the greatest number with the greatest good – the latter including readily understood, unequivocal language and syntax.
Comment This feels like a very odd article as it basically is just resting on the result of one paper, eg it almost fails WP:RECENTISM. Normally, I would have expected this to be put into, say, Cataract#Treatment, instead of creating a separate article. Has there been prior work in lens regeneration for other creatures besides humans? If we can't expand this further, I feel this fails the basic aspects for supporting an article and so can't be ITN. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As well as starting the stub, I put a bunch of relevant templates onto the talk page to assist editors in finding sources and to alert the Opthalmology taskforce who are no doubt racing here with blue lights flashing. If you browse the search links, you soon see that the topic is notable. For example, Google Scholar has over 2000 papers. Andrew D. (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We can have both. The bold link could be to cataract or cataract surgery while the new page about lens regeneration would be an ordinary blue link. I considered this option when creating the nomination but didn't have time to explore all the alternatives. There's a lot of history about this general topic; for example, I recently came across the horrific history of Chevalier John Taylor. Per WP:ASTONISH, I felt it best to take the reader to a page which is primarily focussed on the new technique. If they then want to browse the general background, then they could follow links within that. Andrew D. (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The cataract article has 62 inline citations plus external links, a bibliography and lots of blue links and navigational templates. It seems to have no clean-up tags and is graded B-class/top importance by the Ophthalmology task force. Perhaps my own eyes are at fault but I'm not seeing the problem. Andrew D. (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are around 10-odd paragraphs presented without inline sourcing, including much of the "Surgery" section where this topic would seem to fall. It's fixable if this is chosen as the highlighted link. (Just sheer reference count or lack of tags does not mean the article is in good shape). --MASEM (t) 17:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, B-class isn't good enough, eh? As I suspected, that's the problem linking to a big page with lots of content – too much scope to nitpick irrelevant aspects. Better then to focus on the narrow topic, rather than the broad one. Andrew D. (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's the type of sourcing that a knowledgable editor in that field can likely fix within an hour or so, likely borrowing sources from other articles to simplify it. I would not expect the sourcing to be perfect, but to have sections or several consecutive paragraphs in a row without an inline source, while okay for a B-class, is not sufficient for front page inclusion. But its definitely not a lost cause, as to me it just needs a once-over to fill in more inlines; we'd ask the same for every other topic to be posted here. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't have any knowledgeable editors here, eh? All these !votes are from editors who know next-to-nothing about the topic, right? Note that all the main articles currently posted at ITN have project ratings by one or more projects who presumably know something about those topics. None of them are better than C-class or mid-importance and several are graded start-class/low importance. Why is it that ratings by knowledgeable editors are given less weight than ratings by editors who lack knowledge. Simply counting citation density in a mechanical way without any regard to whether those citations are accurate, comprehensive or reliable not does not seem as good as a project rating by a subject-matter expert. The projects are saying that the cataract article is of better quality than anything we currently have posted. Perhaps we just need to consult a project representative to confirm that their rating is up-to-date. Andrew D. (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking at the article from a standpoint of "we want to use this as a highlighted link from ITN now", so I'm reviewing it's present state, which is somewhat lacking in sourcing that we'd except for front page posting. I have no idea when it was assigned a B, could have been yesterday, could have been years ago, but relative the quality of front page material, it's not sufficient. Wikiproject ratings are unrelated to front page requirements. And I'm not looking at density, per se, I am looking at the fact it has many unsourced paragraphs which means it fails WP:V because it doesn't provide where to find where to verify this information. Hence, for myself, I like to see each paragraph have a single source, even if it is a repeated source that provides that information. As Mjroots points out below, once at front page, improvement in sourcing will likely happen, but we want that sourcing to be at a minimum level so that new editors that are interested in helping know how to add and source properly. --MASEM (t) 20:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Masem doesn't seem to be conducting a proper review; merely looking for citations in a facile way, regardless of whether the text makes any sense or not. This approach is all you can do if you're not familiar with the topic but it's largely worthless. This is not what is required by WP:V, which only requires citations for quotes and controversial statements. What really matters in our articles is that they are right; that someone is checking that the main text is coherent and correct. As a fresh example of how easy it is to have garbled meaning regardless of citations, please consider the current top story in ITN – Solar eclipse of March 9, 2016. This is a pretty poor article – an obvious violation of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK – and it has lots of data dumps and paras without clear citations. But it's worse than that. A recent edit garbled the lead. The next editor didn't notice and the editor after that made a faux correction which embedded the garbling more deeply so that it takes some study to figure out why the lead now makes no sense. I just figured all that out and the citations were quite irrelevant to this process – you actually have to read, parse and understand the main text. If people don't understand what's written and merely check superficial appearance, you end up with junk like this. Andrew D. (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not reviewing for GA or FA quality, but making sure that the article starts as a good template for editors that might be drawn in by the ITN posting on the front page. The current section Cataract#Treatment has three large paragraphs that are unsourced. The information appears to be true, and it certainly doesn't seem contentious so it doesn't need removal, but it does fail verifability, because I have no idea where to go to find information on those procedures, even if this is just a summary from a medical textbook or the like. And per WP:V, it potentially can be removed, just not with the immediacy of a BLP or unsourced quote. These large swathes of unsourced but apparently factual sections lead new editors to come in and add material they "know" is true without sources, which may or may not be a good thing. When we have sufficient sourcing, it does help to stop new editors from throwing in material without sources to prevent massive reliability problems. --MASEM (t) 01:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT - the nomination of an article at ITN/C can lead to massive improvements in the article, whether or not it ultimately gets posted. Therefore it is more helpful for constructive criticism to be given that negative criticism. That way, Wikipedia as a whole benefits. Mjroots (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Scientists used social media to push the world’s largest journal by number of papers published to act on their demands in just one day. Sk741~enwiki (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see no real angle for notability even if this wasn't long-stale news, and even if the language in the nomination and blurb didn't carry a distinct whiff of bias. - OldManNeptune⚓02:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Retractions are not uncommon in science, and I don't see anything particularly special about this one. According to the article there were "67 post-publication reader comments and 129 responses on PLOS ONE site", which is by no means large either. Banedon (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
U.S. special forces, landing in two helicopters, stage an overnight raid on the al-Shabaab-controlled town of Awdhegele in Somalia's Lower Shebelle region. Al-Shabaab spokesman, Sheik Abduasiz Abu Musab, confirmed the raid saying "The helicopters landed outside town and the ground forces entered, there was heavy fighting and they were forced to flee"."They were masked and spoke foreign languages which our fighters could not understand," Abu Musab told Reuters. "We do not know who they were but we foiled them." (AFP via Yahoo! News)(Reuters)
Macedonia says it will no longer let any migrants through its southern border with Greece, effectively blocking the Balkan route for migrants. The decision came after Slovenia barred access to migrants transiting the country. There are around 13,000 migrants now stranded at the Macedonia-Greece border. (BBC)
The Parliament of Egypt drafts a law which will ban women from wearing full-face veils such as the niqāb and burqa in public places and government institutions. The move comes after Cairo University recently banned nurses and doctors from wearing veils in medical schools and in teaching hospitals, arguing the ban would "protect patients' rights and interests". (The Independent)
Peru's electoral court bans two leading candidates – Julio Guzman and César Acuña Peralta – from participating in next month's election due to breaches of electoral law. (BBC)
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.
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.
Comment I'd like to see refs for those Grammys first. Looking through the Grammy archives gives no results, yet there is one in 2011 for a Latin Grammy. Are there any other Grammys out there or is that obit wrong? Fuebaey (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've done a bit of work on the article, and while it needs more, I will support an RD listing on the basis of his honors and formidable discography. Jusdafax05:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE Nothing really suggests his importance. Long career doesn't mean good. It also doesn't mean top of his field. It also says ( Grammys but doesn't say for what or even when. There is nothing special in this short article.Correctron (talk) 05:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The article quality is badly lacking - there is precious little information there, aside from a lengthy bullet list discography. Challenger l (talk) 05:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose he has made a lot of records, and not much more. There's no evidence from the Grammy database that he won even a single regular Grammy, let alone the eight claimed in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no evidence of being "top of his field". Also article is only a brief section of prose followed by a long list of recordings; needs more prose and detail. MurielMary (talk) 10:31, 10 March 2016 (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: Major Australian name in singing, songwriting, theatre, TV; won several awards. Well-referenced article in good shape. dmmaus (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose doesn't reach the level of notability for RD; don't agree that he was "an icon of Australian music" - he is listed as one of around 20 popular acts for the late 1970s section in the Australian rock article, which indicates a brief period of popularity only. Of his hits the highest in the charts was number 5, others around the teens and twenties; and he received only one Logie award, for new talent at the beginning of his career. Article may be thorough, but if subject isn't "top of their field" then it's not suitable for RD. MurielMary (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Mo Awards are the pre-eminent live entertainment industry awards in Australia, and he won "Entertainer of the Year" three times in a row, and a fourth award for best male vocal performer as well. His field encompassed both recorded music and live entertainment, ad he was at the top in the latter. dmmaus (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. His most notable and long-lasting contributions in Australa were arguably his stage and theatrical works, including long runs in leading roles for Jesus Christ Superstar ('72-75 and '79 and The Pirates of Penzance ('84-86 and '94). Therefore notability does not rest with Australian rock contribtions, but with light/comic opera and other stage/opera works. Also note major news in Australia and UK: The Guardian, ABC, Daily Mail and more. Klbrain (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Long-running career" does not equate to "top of his field", which is the RD criteria. He won one award for his stage work, and that was a local Melbourne-only award. MurielMary (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose along the same lines as MurielMary. English is not "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field" (per WP:ITN/DC), unless "Australian live music of the 1970s and 1980s" is a field we're going to concern ourselves with. This is demonstrated by the fact that he won only minor or obscure awards, and apparently had very few of his albums even chart in Australia. IgnorantArmies(talk)06:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if the story is about the first match, then there's basically no prose at all about that individual game. The article is pretty much a stub. Why not wait to see how the series pans out and then we can add reactions etc if AlphaGo actually wins overall? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the first series of Deep Blue vs. Kasparov, Kasparov won. That did by no means diminish the fact that, at that time, a computer had won a single game against a human opponent within that series. This is the same thing.--WaltCip (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I reread the post and see that you aren't dismissing the item on the basis of it being a single game, but rather of the article not being up to snuff.--WaltCip (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's true, but on further thought, we've already posted a computer beating a human at Go, this is just a better computer beating a better human at Go. I'm not sure why we'd need two blurbs in two months to cover what is principally the same thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on significance, wait on article. I supported our new AI overlord when it won against a lower-ranked player previously, and it would behove me to do the same again lest it go full Manila on us all. GRAPPLEX10:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait The win in this game alone means I support posting the full match. But let us wait for the full match result. Thue (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is receiving so much media attention – 1.5 million views of the YouTube video in a day – that I'm switching to post now, continuously update (so e.g. "AlphaGo wins game 2 of its ongoing match with Lee Sedol", and then "___ wins game 3", etc). Banedon (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia, and ITN by extension, is not based on popularity, and in fact we should avoid systematic bias that is created by popular stories. (Otherwise, we'd be looking like a TMZ headline list). Broad coverage is important (and there's no question this has it), but massive pageviews on a YouTube video is not something we should consider. --MASEM (t) 01:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITN explicitly states that one of the four purposes of ITN is "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news". Therefore if something is popular that is an argument to feature it. Massive pageviews on a YouTube video is a statistic that argues in favour of the item's popularity - similar to, e.g., pageviews of the article. Banedon (talk) 01:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If Lee loses tomorrow (c. 8:00 UTC) then he loses the match. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be posted then and the blurb updated as needed (the rules sound like the match continues to 5 games, there's a $20K/win prize and it sounds like he gets $150,000 for completing 5 games). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We just posted about AlphaGo in January [2]. The distinction being between handicapped or not seems unnecessary to warrant a new article. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that discussion people were opposing because he's several ranks below the highest and now people are saying that the de facto world champion is not impressive enough. Computers have beaten the highest rank with as little as 4 free moves before the human starts but never a fair game. They did those kinds of games a lot in computer go before October 2015 (even failing to defeat humans with 25-30 free moves as late as 1998). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that we don't really want to see this become a Go ticker. Wouldn't it be better to post a winning series? I would imagine that if the series was won by AlphaGo, you'd be asking for a blurb to be updated in any case? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the harm in posting this win, and then bumping if AlphaGo wins the whole series. One bump does not a go ticker make. Thue (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the story that is ITN is that "humans created an AI to successfully beat one of the best players in one of the most difficult + strategic board games developed by mankind", a remarkable feat of programming and computer science. Which was met in January. That this is the best player is a minor footnote. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, go is a really big deal in Asia. Given how much western sports is posted on ITN, why would it be controversial to post the world go champion being beaten in a remarkable way (with scientific ramifications). Thue (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because this seems just as another test of the software, and not so much a competition or ranked match but a showcasing event. Now, if there was a Go World Championship Event, and AlphaGo, entered and tested as any other competitor, won that, I would completely agree with posting that story even if we already posted the January event. --MASEM (t) 17:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deep Blue vs. Kasparov was not a ranked match either. So you would also have been opposed to posting that if it happened today? Being a ranked match is not the end-all important criterium for a sport event to be important. Thue (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Probably yes; the ITN element there was humans developing an AI good enough to best a recognized world chess master, but not necessarily the world chess master. That is, in both cases, the impact is on the "science" aspect, not the "sports/competition" aspect. --MASEM (t) 17:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit that I am baffled by your reasoning. Go is from the 4th century BC. A computer beating the Go world champion for the first time is a one-in-2500-years event, which is surely more important than a hundred Go yearly world championships. This is a milestone event for Go as a sport. This is history. And that is ignoring the significance of the event in pure AI research. Thue (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Historic, absolutely. Sport, bah! Computers are still the inferior creatures till a robot beats our best at pankration. I imagine it would happen quickly, but probably not soon. Support. InedibleHulk(talk) 18:53, March 9, 2016 (UTC)
Oppose, if the previous item would have been nominated with the clarification of being handicapped win, it would not have been posted and this would have been posted instead. Since that has been posted, there is no need to post this incremental upgrade. Nergaal (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) That's not the context of the previous nomination, which was the first AI to beat a professional Go player without handicaps. This is a massive upgrade over the previous achievement, as the defeated European champion was only ranked 2/9 Dan and this player is ranked 9/9 Dan and one of the best Go players in the history of the game. The difference would be posting the first match soccer robots beat any old professional team and the first time soccer robots beat say Manchester United. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions17:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support and update when it's over - The one win against one of the best Go players in the world is significant in itself, but winning the series would be more impressive. So regardless if Alpha Go wins or loses the series, this one win means it should be posted and then updated when the series ends. Or at the very least posted at the end regardless of outcome, since this one win is so important. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions17:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, though I'm leaning toward oppose, since we just posted about this same computer weeks ago. This is the first of five matches, and winning the series is more meaningful. Mamyles (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support either posting now, or posting at the end of the series, whichever wins. I admit myself baffled by the opposes on notability here. This is a real milestone for both Go and AI, and even three Go posts in a few months does not seem OTT to me. I agree more prose on the match would be good. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2016 (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.
Nominator's comments: Article good shape, certainly top of his field and very notable. Attributed to the Beatles's fame. Very renowned. Help on blurb. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support either. Yours is more concise, though "contributor of" is a bit awkward. I'd say "producer of" instead. Jusdafax06:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, Oppose blurb Few producers will accomplish as much as Martin has. However, the large majority of his hits were Beatles songs. The Beatles, as the primary artists and performers, helped Martin vastly in his career by catapulting him to fame very early on. As another example, musicians credit Butch Vig as a great producer, but no one seriously believes that he is primarily responsible for the success of Nirvana, among others. Without his early success with the Beatles, Martin would have had a respectable, professional career as a producer but would otherwise have been non-notable.128.214.53.18 (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD but Oppose Blurb. I'll be blunt and say that I don't think the death of a record producer at age 90, whose main accomplishments are decades in the past (and undeniably tied to the extraordinary fame of a single band, evidenced by the very choice of blurbs presented), meets the minimum threshold for a blurb. This is a textbook RD case, in my opinion - very high notability, but death is nowhere near blurb-level impact. - OldManNeptune⚓08:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD and blurb - the article is a good article and a number of improvements have been made today on top of that by numerous editors. Martin is notable without the Beatles as head of Parlophone and having produced other charting artists, but his status of "the fifth Beatle" and having produced the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed group of all time, it doesn't surprise anyone that his death has hit the top news headlines on both sides of the Atlantic [3], [4], [5], [6], which does qualify it as worldwide news. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb This is a great candidate for RD, but not important enough and not discussed enough in his passing for a blurb. The death itself isn't a notable event. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb. This is a highly notable and influential person at the end of long years, departing due to old age, not sudden illness or misfortune or worse. I take David Bowie or Robin Williams as exemplars in this - Robin was extremely well-known and died very suddenly and unexpectedly. David Bowie's illness was kept from the public, so his departure seemed to most no less abrupt and shocking. My two cents. Challenger l (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2016 (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.
Comment. There are a couple of unreferenced sections and some bare urls. I tried to fix but they seem to be bundled in templates or perhaps at wikidata. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would have posted this, but sections of the article are still in future tense and refer to weather forecasts rather than what actually eventuated. Stephen05:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A Pew Research Center survey of Jewish and non-Jewish Israelis, via face-to-face interviews from October 2014 through May 2015, finds deep divisions in Israeli society – not only between Israeli Jews and the country’s Arab citizen minority, but also among the religious subgroups that make up Israeli Jewry. An overwhelming majority (98%) of Israeli Jews agree all Jews should have the right to move to Israel and receive immediate citizenship. Close to half (48 percent) support the expulsion or transfer of Arabs from Israel, yet most secular Jews disagree (58%) with this, as do 54 percent of those in the center politically (more so from the left). Meanwhile, Israeli Arabs, currently about one-in-five of the country's adults, generally do not think Israel can be a Jewish state and a democracy at the same time. Fewer Arabs (down 24 points) think a peaceful, two-state solution is possible, from 74% in 2013 to 50% now. Both groups are skeptical of the peace process: Israeli Arabs question the sincerity of the Israeli government in seeking a peace agreement, while Israeli Jews are equally skeptical about the sincerity of Palestinian leaders. (Pew is a non-partisan American think tank based in Washington, D.C.) (Pew Research Center)
An Istanbul court places the Cihan News Agency under state control. The seizure of the Fethullah Gülen-linked news agency comes just days after the Turkish government seized control of the opposition Zaman newspaper. (Reuters)
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.
Weak oppose. Saw a story about this, but I don't think we would have heard much about it had Biden not been in town. Attacks in Israel are far too frequent- and this particular attack was not targeting Biden. 331dot (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Sad but small tragedy. Happens very frequently. No clear connection to Biden (it might make a difference if there was; then again it might not) - meanwhile there's almost always some big fish visiting Israel, and a Vice-president who'll be gone in less than a year is not even all that big a fish. In fairness I should perhaps also be honest enough to admit that my case is somewhat weakened by the fact that there's probably at least an element of WP:I don't like it in my attitude - if at all avoidable (it isn't always), I don't like giving killers "the oxygen of publicity" that seems to motivate so many of them, and getting yourself onto Wikipedia Main Page must be pretty satisfying to many such killers, and pretty encouraging to many of those thinking about becoming killers.Tlhslobus (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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:Maria Sharapova (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Former world number one tennis player Maria Sharapova reveals she failed a drugs test at the Australian Open. (Post) News source(s):BBC Credits:
Strong oppose She has admitted that she's been taking a drug for medical purposes, so there's an ongoing investigation, and they are temporarily suspending her while fully investigating it. Far far too soon to post alongside BLP issues. --MASEM (t) 04:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She has failed the drug test and there's nothing to investigate. She's just waiting for the decision on any ban imposed on her. STSC (talk) 04:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to the BBC article, yes there is. Yes, she failed the test, but that opened up investigation if she willfully broke the ITF's anti-doping regulations or not. No final decision has been made. --MASEM (t) 04:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ambivalent - I was thinking of nominating this myself. On the one hand, this is unlikely to be an item of lasting significance. What happens to one athlete in one sport that will not produce lasting consequences (other than possible ban on her) seems rather minor as well. On the other hand, it's been generating multiple news stories. I've seen follow-up stories in mainstream media about sponsors dropping Sharapova, about what the drug actually does to the body, and opinion pieces about whether she was at fault or not. All this strongly indicates that the general public are interested in the story. I have no strong opinion either way, just putting this out there. Banedon (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An athlete takes a medication that gets put on a banned list, now faces a suspension. Not noteworthy for ITN purposes. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait could be an appropriate item depending on the outcome of the investigation e.g. if she receives an hefty punishment, or if she reveals other athletes were in on it as well etc. But right now, too early, oppose. MurielMary (talk) 07:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose hardly on the Lance Armstrong level, she's admitted to doing something wrong and taking something that has only been banned since the turn of the year. Big headlines because it's Sharapova and she makes for good stories, but it's somewhat trivial in the big scheme of things. If she is banned for life, we can possibly re-visit this, otherwise it's business as usual. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The EU plans to boost aid to Greece and declare the route north through the Balkans closed. Presently, about 13,000 people are stranded at the Greece-Macedonia border. (BBC)(Kathimerini)
Amnesty International takes on the EU for using Turkey as a buffer to police Europe’s borders. Deputy Director Gauri van Gulik says Europe has an absolute duty to protect refugees and must fast-track significant, unconditional resettlement. (AP via The Washington Post)
Israeli reports indicate Mr. Netanyahu cancelled because he had not been offered a meeting with Mr. Obama. The White House, which states it had not been directly informed of this change of plans, insists Mr. Netanyahu had turned down a chance to meet with the president. (The New York Times)
Former mayor of the Pitcairn IslandsMike Warren is found guilty of downloading more than 1000 images and videos of child abuse and child pornography while working in child protection and is sentenced to 20 months in prison. (The Guardian)
American sportscaster Erin Andrews is awarded $55 million damages after a stranger, in 2008, secretly recorded her in the nude through a hotel door peephole, and posted the video on the Internet. (New York Daily News)
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 upon update. I'm not sure I would equate him to Scalia(who wasn't posted merely because he died in office), but he does seem important to the Irish legal field. No death information added to article yet. 331dot (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality. What little biography is in the article is unreferenced, mostly. If the article were expanded and fully referenced, this could be posted. --Jayron3202:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perhaps the most well-known Irish judge of recent times, at least internationally. Article will need quite a bit of work though. Neljack (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on improvements based on my read as being a highly influential justice in Ireland (not just any highest court member). Referencing can be improved and there seems to be a load of potential expansion on his influence. --MASEM (t) 03:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support when article is ready. I know little of the Irish judiciary but what is in the article is convincing of his importance. - OldManNeptune⚓05:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posted, and I've left four RDs listed on the template for now because the two oldest listings were only posted about 12 hours ago. I trust that this will not cause anyone any undue hardship. I'm thinking we can drop it back down to three listings about 12 hours from now, so at least one of them will have a full day on the template. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Iranian billionaire Babak Zanjani is sentenced to death for corruption. Zanjani was arrested in December 2013 after accusations that he withheld billions in oil revenue channelled through his companies. He denies the allegations. (BBC)
Voters in Benin go to the polls for the first round of voting in a presidential election with 33 candidates vying to replace current PresidentThomas Yayi Boni. (Bloomberg)
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 is not the kind of event gets wide coverage, but TBH I don't think there are many other TV shows that does something so similar to what Wikipedia does. So I think WP giving it a nod would be actually appropriate. Nergaal (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't view the program so, even from reading the article, not sure how Wikipedia and Mythbusters are similar. Besides, ITN doesn't exist to pay homage to or give free publicity. On a more serious note, I'm failing to see a cited update or this being in the news. Cancellations occur all the time, not seeing anything special with this one. Fuebaey (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose TV shows end all the time. This isn't any more special than any of the others. Call me when The Simpsons is cancelled. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's only a few shows I would consider so much of an institute as to merit ITN posting, and that's a bare minimum to start (something akin to 60 Minutes or Meet the Press). --MASEM (t) 00:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 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.
Support - Certainly one of the most beloved and influential First Ladies of the nation. - TDKR Chicago 101
Weak support RD, oppose blurb I am a bit hesitant, as she was mainly known for being the wife of a famous person, and relatives do not automatically gain notability, but I think she was influential enough to be included, such as with the "Just Say No" drug awareness campaign, and starring in several films as an actress. However, I don't think she was a major world leader to merit a blurb. EternalNomad (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD for certain. Article is featured and still appears to be in good shape. I would propose that because she was generally one of the few First Ladies, similar to Ladybird Johnson, that are well recognized for championing humanitarian causes (in her case, the Just Say No anti-drug campaign), that a blurb may be appropriate, particularly in light that we also have a featured article here to post at ITN. --MASEM (t) 17:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added one, but that's only if there's clear support for it. I definitely can see where the line is drawn between RD and blurb being an issue here, but I think it's worth proposing given this is an FA. --MASEM (t) 17:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose/pull. Would we post the death of the wife of a former Polish, German, French or Italian President? I think not. She doesn't seem to be independently notable for anything, and notability is not inherited from one's spouse. --Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please name a wife of a "former Polish, German, French or Italian President" as well known or influential as Nancy Reagan. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would also suggest you give the article another read, as she is notable on her own for her advocacy on drugs and stem cell research(the latter of which occurred after she was first lady). 331dot (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb. Don't disagree with posting, but posting within the hour? Bit fast... Anyhow, influential for sure, but 'simply' death from old age, and not influential enough to still qualify for a blurb. Fgf10 (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support Well known and influential First Lady, advocate for "Just Say No" and stem cell research. RD is appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD Many first ladies would not qualify, but Mrs. Reagan was active and influential in her own right, and quite well known for that. A blurb might be an overreach but RD is entirely justified. - OldManNeptune⚓19:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD. Not every first lady would merit RD, but most sources describe Nancy Reagan as "one of the most high-profile and influential first ladies of the 20th century"[7] so she would seem to be very important among US first ladies. If someone could demonstrate that a first lady of another nation was equivalent to Nancy Reagan, I would support that too. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure Pat Nixon indeed would not. Barbara and Laura Bush probably shouldn't. Betty Ford might've, Hillary obviously should. Michelle Obama, too soon to know. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
Wait and I'm not sure it would merit posting then; "rich person committing a crime and being punished" doesn't seem notable, unless it was a sham, but that's not clear in the article if that's the case. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Closed] Remove "European migrant crisis" from Main Page?
I see no strong consensus to remove this item at this time. It is certainly in the news, and since this discussion has been open there have been considerable updates to the article. Arguments that this gives a Euro-centric view of the crisis would be better solved by nominating other articles for the ongoing section. Stephen01:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The latest prose update is March 1 key event in "Greece" section. Even when the ongoing crisis is newsworthy, must I use this article as a precedent to other proposals, like the Syrian Civil War, which was featured for just one month due to this precedent? --George Ho (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
remove the point of ITN has always been on an update not to cherry pick. Whether it is in the news or not WP/ITN precedence is (for ongoing) the necessity of an update.Lihaas (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remove No recent updates - and by "update" I mean major developments, not some random politician making a sound bite. It's been up on the ITN template for six months now and, while undoubtedly still ongoing like the Syrian Civil War, there have been no significant events since January. I would expect Ongoing to be for articles that have frequent blurbable updates, not just constant media coverage. Fuebaey (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wasn't there something on a couple of days ago about some issue between Greece and Macedonia over a fence erected by the latter? Miyagawa (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Major changes to the article are going on a week stale. Article is not being updated regularly with new information. --Jayron3202:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If they actually close down the "Balkan migrant route", that may qualify for a full blurb (and then we could leave it roll out). --Tone08:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the government actually does that, Tone, a consensus for a full blurb is required. If not required, it should be recommended. We can't do as we please. Also, even the Balkan route closure seems to make no significant difference as there have been other border closures to EU territories. George Ho (talk) 08:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This time, it seems that there are several countries along the route agreeing on something, apart from previous unilateral border closures. So this is a bigger story. Anyway, it's up for discussion, as always. --Tone08:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But we must add substantial updates in prose. I searched events of February 2016. So far, the 26 February one at "Slovenia" section doesn't look significant enough to strongly keep the link featured in the Main Page. Even the emergency funds proposal this month... How does that help? Same for NATO's comments this month. George Ho (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia's readers should really have this on the Main Page. As for updates, I will try to make some later today, once I am home. Instead of complaining about lack of updates, some of you might be bold and do the same... Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd only opt for a blurb if the current summit would agree on something really substantial. If the Balkan route is actually closed, that might be worth a blurb, but to be honest, who believes that that will actually work? Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - This is a very news-worthy event, but the article hasn't received substantial updates lately. As soon as updates to the article pick up again, I would definitely be in favour of adding again. Kiwi128 (talk) 09:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - Not primarily for lack of updates, but on quality grounds, broadly construed. This article shows Wikipedia at its Eurocentric/West-centric worst. In its brief section on the global refugee crisis, it briefly tells us there's a global crisis involving about 60 million refugees, and also gives us 'See also Syrian refugee crisis'; there then follows a very long article about the situation in Europe (unsurprisingly, given the title of the article). The net effect is that the intelligent reader is likely to get the impression (quite likely correctly) that about 75% of Wikipedia's refugee coverage is about 1 million refugees in Europe, about 24% is about 5 million other Syrian refugees, and about 1% is about the remaining 54 million refugees. Of course arguably all this is grounds for Keep, on the basis that the intelligent reader will be well-served, not by getting a balanced picture of the refugee crisis, but by learning something unflattering but true about the nature of Wikipedia. Tlhslobus (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Tlhslobus has it right. When the migrants first started to come to Europe, that was international news and brought attention to the civil war in Syria, but while there are still issues with the migrants in Europe, its so much of a narrow cut of the larger picture (That being the Syrian civil war which encompasses all 60 million refugees). To focus too much on the Euro-centric issues relating to the refugees is a problem. Further, this is not what Ongoing was meant for; we knew on posting this would be a high interest story for a few weeks, but this is now going on months, and is not serving the purpose here. The arguments being proposed to keep, that it's still in the news, I would argue means we should clearly post all the US election coverage too, since that dominates most news headlines too. Clearly, I do not propose this at all but the comparison is there. If there is a major change in the European side of this story, that can be ITN, but the ongoing has well served its time here. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, MASEM. Though one minor quibble: it is not correct to say the Syrian civil war encompasses all 60 million refugees. It encompasses about 6 million of them, or 10% of the total, and they get perhaps 24% of our coverage, presumably mainly because they are the ones most likely to move into Europe next. The remaining 90% at least seem to get almost completely ignored by us - or at least that's the impression one gets from looking at our article (and the linked Syrian one). (Minor technicality: the 6 million figure for Syria perhaps omits a few million more internally displaced within Syria; and presumably 1 million of the 6 million are already in Europe; but such details don't change the substantive point about our absurd Eurocentric coverage). Tlhslobus (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just plans. Just plans. All over the changes you made. I've yet to see the EU pass the proposal. Also, the article didn't have to be very big to collect news headlines or last year's troubles in Europe. Although I didn't want to address it here, Masem and Tlhslobus here addressed Wikipedia's Eurocentrism better than I could or could not. --George Ho (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So has the Syrian Civil War, but we haven't kept that. That was done correctly, per our rules. But by the same logic our rules should make us get rid of this item too, on grounds of lack of enough updates, and lack of quality(broadly construed) - unless of course you agree, per WP:IAR, that we do a service to our readers by showing them how absurdly Eurocentric we are, though the trouble with that argument is that intelligent readers mostly already know this, and the others probably mostly won't even notice.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we could put the Syrian Civil War back up there, if alleged Eurocentrism is your main concern... I find that argument ridiculous. The section is called In the News. If what is actually in the news is centred in Europe, we will not be the ones who change that injustice. We have a duty to provide our readers with information about what they are interested in, which the Migrant Crisis certainly applies to. Even if I am repeating myself: Stop complaining, do something. Update the article. I started and I will add more again today. Everyone can feel free to join in, instead of waisting their time here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't agree with the opposition based on this being a European story, neither do I agree with an update of old/not news (France/empty Turkish summit) to keep this up indefinitely. Expecting someone else not to disagree and to simply "update the article" is dismissive and doesn't bolster an argument. Fuebaey (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly is not "not news" as evidenced by being the top story on the BBC News homepage. Expecting others to do all the grunt work while heckling from the sidelines is all too easy and doesn't improve Wikipedia for our readers which, after all, should be the primary reason we are all here. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have different definitions of news then. I personally wouldn't want to post everything BBC News puts on their main page onto ITN. If merely stating an opposing opinion is "heckling from the sidelines" then perhaps you should consider making a proposal on WT:ITN to change the structure of how we address candidates here. Fuebaey (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The point of "Ongoing" was to highlight a news story or two that had a longer burst of news (compared to a typical news story) that was coming in with frequent updates both in story and article updates. This was anticipated to be a week to a month or so. It was not meant to drop in a enduring piece of news (eg like the US election period which started mid-last year and would run to Nov of this year). The migrant situation has become that. It's a problem, its not going away in a long time. As such, while it might be highlighted as a top story regularly on RSes, does not make it an appropriate story anymore for "Ongoing". If there is a massive change in the future (like, say, a passage of bills that would affect a majority of the migrants in a major way) that would be ITN/C then. At this point, though, it has far served its purpose to highlight the large wave of migrants that happened late last year. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Purpose of the ITN section, bullet 1: "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news." Simple as that. Your opinions are both interesting, but the item is in the news, and its inclusion meets the primary purpose of this section. But it's clear we won't agree so I'll leave it there, I suggest you both do too, and actually crack on with improving some articles from which our readers can benefit. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What about bullet 2 and 4, respectively: "To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events" and "To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource"? The article itself seems to lack enough quality due to insufficient substantial changes within the major subject. Also, featuring the article itself on the Main Page doesn't make Wikipedia "dynamic" more than it makes Wikipedia... Euro-emphasized and Euro-exceptional. Check the dictionary and thesaurus of "dynamic". --George Ho (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As for bullet 1, that would be insufficient reason to keep it on the Main Page anymore. Anyone watching the news would search for the article, frankly. George Ho (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How does the UN help much? By sending peacekeepers or peace troopers? If neither, how do their resolutions and wordings work for all five permanent Security Council members and more than one hundred UN members? Also, EU is more relevant than the UN nowadays. George Ho (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC) (Pinging Sheriff. George Ho (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Remove This item has been on the main page for months now, and could stay there for months or even years more before the number of arrivals slows down. The article is already too long, and can’t be continuously updated with every little news or announcement reported by the media. Actually, what it needs is rewriting the part about the events since last summer, which is chaotic and doesn’t properly summarize the main events. I also agree that giving too much prominence for too long, on Wikipedia’s main page, to the consequences of the global refugee crisis in Europe, is rather Eurocentric. Nykterinos (talk) 12:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As an Italian and a European, maybe I'm a bit influenced but I think that the migrant crisis is a major current event and we should keep it on the Main Page. -- Nick.mon (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Closed] Remove "Zika virus outbreak" from Main Page?
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. Still in the BBC news on an almost daily basis, highlighted article has been edited 50 times in March already, and there are at least five related articles, all being updated actively. If there are events that you believe should be added, feel free to add them, or ask for them to be added on the talk page, which is being actively patrolled by the medical wikiproject. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, InedibleHulk. And if a story isn't boring to somebody or other, it clearly can't possibly be encyclopedic, so let's shut down ITN altogether, and boring old Wikipedia too :) Tlhslobus (talk) 05:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
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 from reading the obit, it looks like he achieved at state level only?? Not national or international level. I know we shouldn't compare noms with noms, but I'm going to anyway - an Olympic medal winner was just considered unworthy of an RD so why should a state level athlete be judged worthy? MurielMary (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree, not top of his field (which we'd have to take as all of American football), more of a local legend. --MASEM (t) 02:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not sure where this "state level" stuff is coming from. He had a very successful career in the National Football League, which is a top-level professional league, but apparently not successful enough to be elected into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He was elected to the College Football Hall of Fame, but I don't think that's enough. Good player, but one that falls just short for our purposes - it's hard to justify posting a non-HOFer when being in a hall of fame is no guarantee of an RD listing anyway. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Echoing Bongwarrior, there is clearly some mistake about the level of football he played - he was certainly competing at the highest possible level for his sport. He was evidently good enough for his jersey to be retired, but not to be elected to the Hall of Fame; HOF isn't the one true dividing line but I agree that he falls short of RD notability. - OldManNeptune⚓05:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Close - This should be closed per WP:SNOW. I'd close it myself, except that having just posted my oppose, I think I should perhaps wait longer before doing so myself, but I don't think others need wait if they agree that it appears to be WP:SNOW.Tlhslobus (talk) 06:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article needs updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: According to exit polls. Not much in the article - could do with expanding once results are confirmed by the end of the day. Fuebaey (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is unquestionably WP:ITN/R (as the President of Slovakia is a largely ceremonial office, so it's not a 'presidential system', where there's some room for debate over the meaning of 'General election', and it's also a single round of voting), so it should definitely be posted if and when quality standards are satisfied.Tlhslobus (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this, Fuebaey. I think it still needs some citations for stats and the results source needs to be made into a proper reference. It would be useful to have more discussion of the results, which seem rather unexpected, with a selection of references to different sources not just a single one. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time. I've added a bit more info and refs. I'm not sure which stats you're referring to, but everything seems to be cited. I'm reluctant to add result analysis this early because of the lack of reliable sources (lots of speculation on why 'a' lost/won). The prior campaign background and the proceeding government formation could be expanded in the near future but I don't think either are a barrier to posting since the article is still larger than two of the previous three elections that have appeared on ITN.
Support, subject to quality, as it seems a significant and unfortunate development for democracy in the Muslim world. But see my Comment below.Tlhslobus (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm afraid you've basically got the wrong article, the English edition instead of the mass-selling Turkish one at Zaman (newspaper) (incidentally a much better article, tho I'm not a good judge of how good is good enough). I won't bother with an altblurb, as you have to correct the main blurb. (Incidentally I'm afraid I probably won't be helping with the editing, as I'm thinking of going on a kind of protest ITN private strike to remind myself that Wikipedia is not compulsory and in protest at things I don't want to risk saying about a third party due WP:NPA, so I probably won't be doing any more editing of ITN articles for quite some time - my previous one lasted about a year, triggered by the same third party).Tlhslobus (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is important news on a global level, given the broader implications of a seemingly overt setback to freedom of the press in a regional power. - OldManNeptune⚓09:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst obviously not itself a BLP, there are claims against individuals within the article that are unreferenced. If more citations are added this could be posted. Stephen22:27, 10 March 2016 (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.
Comment While he does seem to be at the top of his field (even won a Grammy), and the article prose appears sufficient, some things in the article lack references. Once those are added, I give my support. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on article improvements. Importance seems appropriate. There's a few unsourced statements, and in the awards, any no-link or red-link award line I would expect a source to confirm. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose on quality alone. Article needs a few more cites (first paragraph in personal life section, most of the awards section). If that were done, this could be posted. --Jayron3219:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A leading figure in historically informed performance, probably the most important movement in classical music in the past half-century. A 2010 BBC Music Magazine poll of 100 leading conductors ranked him as the fifth greatest conductor of the recorded era[8] (I am usually wary of "greatest ever" polls, but this does show the extremely high esteem in which he was held by his peers). Neljack (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability; he was one of the founders of the authentic performance movement for Baroque music and some of his recordings have been very influential. The referencing has improved since I last reviewed it, but some more citations are still required. This discussion should probably be moved to his date of death (5 March). Espresso Addict (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now fully sourced + Support. I have sourced the Awards section completely, and I think everything that needed to be done to get this ITN ready has been done. I fully support addition to RD, one of the few truly important classical directors. Fram (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is very unlikely to develop in favour of posting. Stephen
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: I know some Wikipedians are against posting UFC on ITN for whatever reason, but this was a pretty hyped up fight and was one McGregor (and Holm) were expected to win. However, both got upset, which was a shock, especially for McGregor. Andise1 (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe One record was already broken when McGregor made a million dollars in disclosed purse. Beat Anderson Silva's record by $200k. At the post-fight press conference, Dana White said it was set to break other sales records, without elaborating. If it turns out to be the biggest PPV draw, it's worth a mention. But Robbie Lawler is the Welterweight Champion. InedibleHulk(talk) 11:58, March 6, 2016 (UTC)
Oppose The men's fight wasn't even a title fight as noted above. Even if it was, it would be the equivalent of posting every boxing weight championship fight, and we don't do that. Laura Jamieson (talk)17:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Highly anticipated card featuring not one but two upsets; unfortunately I don't know if either has enough impact on the sport to merit posting, as McGregor's fight was non-title and Holm's fight was her first defense of the title. I also don't especially love the idea of posting back-to-back McGregor fights (especially as his previous was, to my knowledge, the first and only MMA fight we've posted and kept up). - OldManNeptune⚓19:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Holly Holm and UFC 193 had a few hours. During the 194 debate, there was some concern about a pattern of acknowledging these highly-covered extra-mainstream sport events. I said then that I'd probably not endorse another till UFC 200, and I'll probably stick with that now. That's not to say it isn't still "in the news" today, just that Wikipedia is also well-served by shedding light on more "highbrow" competitions that the typical reader hadn't already heard about. Rowing, decathlon and stuff. InedibleHulk(talk) 01:26, March 7, 2016 (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.
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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: He was a very highly influential figure in Sudan; as described in the article, he heavily influenced the religion in Northern Sudan by institutionalizing Sharia law, and served in several high-ranking positions in his country. EternalNomad (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative support on significance for RD, not as a blurb. He seems influential enough to Sudanese politics, with the BBC saying he was 'the de facto leader of the country' during the 1990s, even though he is not a name I would know of without having to look up. I'll need a bit more time to assess quality, but on first glance it seems a bit bloated - excessive quotations and a massive lead section that could both do with trimming. Also, there has been no update other than the addition of his date of death in the lead/infobox. Fuebaey (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on article improvements There are a few cn and other tags but not too many. Importance seems high here for RD. --MASEM (t) 02:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
full blurb more than arguably responsible for the civil war that led to the break up of the country (that in itself is notable). Reponsible for turning Numeiri from secularism to Islamism and the consequent rift with the south. Just power mad plitcs that claims hes in opposition Bashar.Lihaas (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose clearly notable, but the article, a BLP, has numerous uncited claims which will need to be addressed before this is highlighted on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article seems sufficient quality for the main page. A few cn tags could probably be resolved, but I don't see anything keeping this off the main page. --Jayron3202:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Turabi is a very important figure in contemporary Sudanese politics, for better or for worse. He is significant enough for his own blurb. Kurtis(talk)17:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 when updated. Invented system for e-mail between different computers and use of "@" for addressing. The article requires referencing. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support with improvements, per TRM and Espresso Addict. (Also to be clear, he invited the means to send messages across different parts of ARPANET, as intra-organization messaging had been in place; he deviced the @example.com aspect that we all know and love, which is still critically important for RD). --MASEM (t) 17:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fixuture: If you wanted added ASAP, it is incumbent upon YOU that YOU fix the problems with the article so it can be added. Literally one second after you fix all of the problems, I or any admin can post it. The article is currently ineligible for highlighting on the main page because of quality issues that YOU could fix if YOU wanted it posted. --Jayron3222:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayron32: So first of all I don't think important recent deaths just be excluded from the main page for quality issues (if they're not totally disastrous; saying not just incomplete and badly written but full of errors and vandalism). Then I don't think that the article is in such a bad state. Also I previously edited the article - not much of an effort, but as of right now I can't see how I can improve it further...also as of today I sadly don't have anymore time (if one could abandon sleep I'd do so). I'm kinda frustrated with the lack of people doing the relatively easy but significant major tasks as well. I also think that this could be solved if one would implement the appropriate technological changes to Wikipedia (e.g. somehow notifying the right people about the edit-task of improving / adding references to this article). --Fixuture (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I received an email today form a Nigerian Prince wanting help to fly to his funeral, all he needs is his visa fee paid up front... Guy (Help!) 22:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
I gather this is a perennial issue there and so some new angle would be needed. Perhaps nations in Category:Small Island Developing States shouldn't get automatic acceptance but have to demonstrate significant news coverage? I'll give it some thought but have other things on my to-do list too. Andrew D. (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't "not run A because B wasn't run". Consensus can change. Voting should be made on the individual merits of the nomination, not on some perceived logic. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sca, we only closed the Iran elections while awaiting the second round of voting. Whenever that happens it can be re-opened and there seems to be a clear consensus that it is ITN/R and should be posted provided it meets quality standards.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – This seems to be a matter more about the fact that it is Samoa. Had it been Germany or whatever country do you honestly think we would have had the same discussion. Doubt it. This is a General Election, results are in. post.BabbaQ (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about Samoa per se, it's about a country of fewer than 200,000 people vis-vis countries of 81 million (Germany), 78 million (Iran), etc., etc. Sca (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which is explicitly against our stated goals and purpose. It would appear that posting the Iranian election blurb was postponed due to an expected second round of the election; if a similar circumstance exists in Samoa then that may be taken into account, but what you've said here is entirely at odds with established policy. - OldManNeptune⚓18:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Policy and previous practice are not prima facie evidence of logic, or of sound editorial judgment with respect to news. Sca (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does this really strike you as a useful venue to bring forth an argument on the fundamental value of neutrality or policy by consensus on Wikipedia? The logic has been settled, repeatedly, hence its inclusion in ITN/R. You're comparing apples to oranges with the Iran blurb, for reasons I've explained already, and I'm certainly not getting sucked into an argument about whether we should intentionally introduce new bias to the project. - OldManNeptune⚓22:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - I'm aware this is ITN/R, but posting this item when we failed to post the Iranian election is somewhat of an idiosyncrasy.--WaltCip (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was my understanding that the Iranian election was not posted because there will be another round(and we typically only post the last round); is that not the case? 331dot (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article appears to have a reasonable update and citations given the usual difficulty of finding sources for elections in nations of similar size. - OldManNeptune⚓18:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is a reasonable length and election results are ITN/R (not "election results of large countries" or "election results of the countries which people personally have connections to" because either of these criteria would lead to systemic bias). MurielMary (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The oppose votes citing the Iranian election are irrelevant - we didn't decide that the Iranian election was insufficiently important for ITN, we just decided to wait for the second round. Similarly, with regard to Super Tuesday, we aren't going to post all the different stages of the US Presidential election process, but nobody is suggesting that the US Presidential election is not important enough to be posted. This is ITN/R and the position of elections in small states has been discussed at great length, always with the conclusion that they should continue to be ITN/R. So we should not be relitigating that on this nomination. The only relevant question is whether the article is sufficiently updated, which it seems to be. Neljack (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stats Here's some peak viewing stats for some of the articles currently in question. These are a good measure of relative importance and relative newsiness, in my view:
All those stats aren't really relevant. You are welcome to attempt to somehow limit the nations that have their elections posted, but it has been tried and failed numerous times. Any limit is arbitrary- assuming one could be agreed to, which has never occurred, let alone a limit itself. Until such a limit is made, there is little reason to not post this. I actually learned quite a bit- which is the goal of this whole place. Excluding small nations would also be an example of systemic bias; every nation deserves a place here. 331dot (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - let's not be biased towards the larger countries. Article is short, but well referenced. No reason not to post it. Mjroots (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From a journalistic point of view, gauging importance or significance on the basis of the number of people affected has nothing whatever to do with bias or discrimination based on inherent or purported characteristics of the populations affected; it has to do with logic. One person killed in a train wreck is of little note unless the person is very eminent or circumstances of the accident are highly unusual. It doesn't matter whether said train wreck is in Samoa, Germany, Iran or anywhere else. Fifty people killed in a train wreck is news. Sca (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Espresso Addict, we don't usually wait for final results. To take an example I am particularly familiar with, New Zealand elections have preliminary results on election night and final results about two weeks later, but we never wait for two weeks to post the results (even though the number of seats won often changes slightly). Neljack (talk) 06:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A Libyan spokesperson says two Italianhostages are freed by local fighters from Islamic State custody in Sabratha, Libya. He also confirms that two other Italian hostages were recently killed during local forces clashes with IS militants. (AP via ABC News)
Gunmen storm a retirement home in Yemen, run by a charity established by Mother Teresa, killing 16 people, including four Catholic nuns. (The New York Times)
The British Chambers of Commerce suspends Director-General John Longworth for announcing his personal views on Brexit. The BCC, whose members are split on this issue, will not campaign for either side. (BBC)
[Posted] Repercussions of Berta Caceres' assassination
Nominator's comments: Nominated as news item blurb following discussion on an RD nom for Caceres. Her death and its repercussions are perhaps more significant and notable than her work during her lifetime. MurielMary (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until an article exists for the unrest. If it's that big a deal, it shouldn't be too much to expect to see a fully referenced standalone article covering the riots. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this framing blows the violence out of proportion. Student protests often end in violence in Honduras. However, as suggested below, a blurb about the international reactions from the OAS, UNCHR, and so many others, would be appropriate. -- Irn (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So is that support for the alt blurb then? The alt blurb in this nom is taken from your suggestion on the RD nom discussion thread. MurielMary (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter, and it was a perfectly understandable mistake that anyone could easily make, but just for the record, that altblurb was actually from my suggestion, Irn merely supported 'a blurb'. In the event, Bongwarrior's better altblurb2 is the one that got used. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Altblurb or something like it seems wiser to me, since the above objection could not apply to it, and it emphasizes international reaction. I would find it acceptable to have Cáceres and the aftermath that we are here writing about in the same article, as it is now; even if it is argued that the murder and reaction supersedes the person in importance, a title change would be more appropriate than an article fork given how inextricable the two subjects are (the background of the murders would be her bio, the Death section of her article would be a link to that article and a summary thereof, etc). But that's a matter to be settled in that article's discussion, no? - OldManNeptune⚓19:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my earlier comments. I've added another altblurb because I think the main focus should be the murder itself - it's the larger event, and a much more ITN-worthy event. The violence and calls for investigation are secondary stories. The article has been much improved over the past two days or so, and it looks ready. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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: Pat Conroy wrote the books The Great Santini and The Prince of Tides, both of these books were made into movies that were nominated for Best Oscar. Don't think he deserves a full blurb, but Recent Death definitely. 2601:2C7:2:6141:280E:FEC:1EA5:5E1E (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose for now on quality only. There's some referencing issues in the article, and the writing needs to be cleaned up a bit. As soon as someone takes some care to improve the article, this would be an easy posting. --Jayron3205:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor article and no real claim of personal notability, the movies nominated for Oscars were not his nominations, and he seems to have very few awards, indicating that he's not important to the field. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No awards, books made into Oscar nominations, but not for the writing. Article's not in the best shape either. Someone who definitely has his fans, but doesn't quite meet the bar IMO. Challenger l (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose "farthest observed" for now - Hubble and other telescopes will continue to scan and find even more distant objects. Now, recognizing that there is a correlation between distance and the time it took for the light to reach Earth, if this discovery led to a fundamental shift in understanding the age of the universe or the rate of its expansion, that would be interesting but this just seems to be saying "we found this". It's a metric that should easily be broken in time. --MASEM (t) 16:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's been less than a year since EGSY8p7 took the record for most distant galaxy; one expects that this record will be broken again and again, especially once new telescopes are in place. It would appear to be less than 2% more distant than the previous most distant known, and therefore does not change our conception of the universe. - OldManNeptune⚓17:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
::Sorry, OldManNeptune, but with redshift up from 8.7 to 11.1 it seems more like 25% than 2%, or from 25 billion to 32 billion light years (though the 25 billion is my possibly mistaken calculation derived from the 32 billion and the 2 redshifts, as the EGSY8p7 article doesn't tell us how far away that galaxy is.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I have misrepresented facts; I based my (casual and inexact) figure on light travel distance. That may be in error; I chose it as we are comparing observation to observation, and in my thinking, estimated actual physical distance in the present day is a matter of scientific trivia. We certainly are not observing light originated 25 billion+ LY away or years old, though if this is an improper way of thinking of it then disregard my comments. - OldManNeptune⚓19:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt Blurb 2 it's redshift 11, compared to redshift 8. That's quite a large increase. Alt blurb 2 because it illustrates what is significant about the discovery. Banedon (talk) 09:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: These records for the oldest and most distant galaxy/object are not expected to be superseded anytime soon, as part of this breakthrough is that astronomers literally do not believe the Hubble can go an iota deeper with exploration. Beyond that, the redshift makes for a significant increase in both age and distance from the previous record-holder, so I believe this merits a mention for ITN. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont10:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hubble is an aging telescope; the James Webb Space Telescope is scheduled to launch in 2018, and to quote our article, "One particular goal involves observing some of the most distant objects in the Universe, beyond the reach of current ground and space based instruments." Hence we might fully expect this record to be superseded in the predictable future, nevermind what Hubble might do in the meantime (as mentioned, it's been less than a year since the last time this record was broken). - OldManNeptune⚓20:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know; that leaves at least two years until the James Webb Telescope is put into space, meaning that it won't even begin to attempt to discover more primordial objects until then. As the astronomers said, the Hubble's at the edge of its limit, indicating there's not much likelihood for it being capable of finding something beyond over the next two years. Hence, the nearly-yearly records should be at an end for a while. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont21:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you think so, perhaps you can add that to the article. To answer your first question, "pretty often" I would say. I clicked the top six links on that list and all had pretty clear dates in the lead, if you're looking for specifics. - OldManNeptune⚓22:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Large Hadron Collider began taking data in 2009, but it took till 2012 to discover the Higgs. I doubt this record will be broken for a couple of years more at least. Furthermore, I quote from the article, " The fact that a galaxy so massive existed, so soon after the first stars started to form, is a challenge for some current theoretical models on the origin of galaxies". If this record is broken again, especially if it's broken by a wide margin, there'd be more issues. Banedon (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this is a galaxy, not object. Galaxies take time to form after the Big Bang. That means there will be a "most distant" galaxy simply because one further away does not exist (but there may be plenty of more distant objects!). Banedon (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support we would certainly announce a new planetary body in the solar system. Can someone who opposes list the last furthest galaxy we posted? It would be easier to switch to oppose if the difference were a minor one. Medeis (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I already did exactly that in my comment above. Additionally, the list of most distant known astronomical objects (most distant galaxies) will provide a more comprehensive overview. - OldManNeptune⚓20:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But your above comment appears to be partly mistaken or misleading, through ignoring redshift, a 25% difference of about 7 billion light years is not a minor one, unlike your claimed 2%.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Adding altblurb saying it's about 32 billion light years away. That may interest, shock, and educate, a lot of readers who mistakenly think nothing can be more than 13.8 billion light years away because the Big Bang occurred 13.8 billion years ago and nothing can travel faster than light (the 32 billion is something to do with the expansion of the universe). I'd like to be able to say 'up from about 25 billion' in an altblurb2, but that will need a reliable source, as 25 billion is currently just my possibly mistaken calculation.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: My calculated 25% is also far too high, as this calculator here gives it up from 30.466 billion light years to 32.227 billion light years, or about 5.8%. Sorry about that. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are thinking about this in the wrong way ... the key variable here is not how far the galaxy is from us now; it is rather how soon the galaxy formed rather the Big Bang. Yes, these two variables are connected and one can be derived from the other, but the impact of this observation on astrophysics is based on the latter variable. Think about it this way. What emerged from the Big Bang was a hot "soup" of particles. No galaxies, no stars, just particles. At some point the particles coalesced into stars and galaxies. This, however, takes time. A theory of galaxy formation from the primordial soup must be able to account for how long it takes for inhomogeneities to form galaxies. If galaxies were able to form earlier, they'll be further away now, but we are still concerned mostly about the time, not the distance.
Based on the calculator you gave then, a galaxy at redshift 11 formed 420 million years after the Big Bang, while a galaxy at redshift 8 formed 650 million years after the Big Bang. That's a difference of some 30%, not 5.8%. Banedon (talk) 12:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, Banedon, though our blurb (and perhaps the article) arguably then needs re-wording to reflect this, as its talking about most distant from here, not nearest in time to the Big Bang (of course they're "both the same thing", but ...). An argument could also be made for 10 to 15%, based on distance from the beginning of the Cosmic Microwave Background, seemingly given in various places on Wikipedia as z=1089 and about 46.5 billion light years. All these figures (5.8%, 10-15%, 30%) are 3 to 15 times greater than OldManNeptune's 2%, and I may have been over-reacting a bit due to my embarassment at being so far out with my 25%.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I fear those opposing because it is only an "incremental increase", or a record "soon to be superceded", are mistaken. Firstly, whereas previous records can be considered fairly insignificant increases, this one is significant: It is the first observation of a galaxy that has formed at the start of the reionization period (thought to be around ~z=10 or 11), an important discovery which adds to our understanding of the early universe, and provides some surprises regarding luminosity and star-formation rate. The fact that GN-z11 is am early reionization object wasn't mentioned in the article until yesterday. Secondly, as others have noted, the scientists involved all say that this discovery is at the limit of what is detectable with current equipment; the record probably won't be broken until at 2019 at the earliest. --Hillbillyholidaytalk14:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Adding 2 new alblurbs (one shorter, one longer) that mention the point made by Hillbillyholiday that the discovery (allegedly) challenges some current theory, as indicated in the article, backed by a RS (it'd be nice to have more on which theories are challenged, but I guess we can't have everything) - most importantly, this contradicts some of the Oppose claims that the record doesn't change our understanding of the Universe. I'd like to mention the beginning of the Reionization era too, but we currently seem to have a problem with sources and definitions on that - currently our wikilink goes to something which gives "This occurred between 150 million and one billion years after the Big Bang (at a redshift 6 < z < 20).[citation needed]". This covers both the current and previous records, neither of them at the beginning of that era, and those sources for our GN-z11 article that I've checked so far (including the one that was used as the RS for 'at the beginning of the reionization era', until I replaced it with a Citation Needed) don't mention that era except arguably implicitly with one scientist quoted (NOT in the RS that I replaced with a CN) as saying "very close to the end of the so-called Dark Ages of the universe". A Reliable Source for Hillbillyholiday's z=10 or 11 might help, but it would be hard to know whether that was representative given the z=6 to 20. I'm thinking of switching back from Neutral to Support based on the recent arguments by Banedon and Hillbillyholiday, but I'd like to hear a bit more about some of the points I've raised first.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Switching back from neutral to support after finding a RS for 'very beginning of the Reionization era' in Astronomy Magazine (here), which I plan to add to the article ASAP.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Above citation now added, along with useful quotes from it regarding challenged theories from several different scientists (so it's no longer just one scientist saying this - all the more reason for Support).Tlhslobus (talk) 10:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've reduced my altblurbs to 2 to leave 1 spare, and the first one now reflects the more relevant fact that it's unexpectedly early.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments/Questions: 1) Can somebody with more experience of such matters than me please indicate whether the quality of the article is sufficient to deem it ready for posting, and if not, indicate what still needs doing?
2) Blurbs: I'm equally happy with either alblurb, so altblurb2, favoured above by Banedon, will do fine. But I'm happy to see this posted with any old blurb, and leave any possible arguments about blurbs to WP:ERRORS (where they doesn't need to be consensus, so any alleged or actual lack of consensus over blurbs should not be used as an excuse for not posting).
3) Does anybody agree with me that, despite 4 initial opposes (and my period as a neutral), we now appear to have consensus for posting - there have been 7 new supports since the last oppose was posted 3 days ago, and since then the objection that "this doesn't change our understanding of the universe" has been thoroughly refuted, leaving only the questionable views that "it's only a small increase" (depends on how you look at it, as pointed out above by Banedon, and to a lesser extent by me, and in any case, so what, given that it changes our understanding of the universe), and "it will happen again soon" which is WP:CRYSTAL, is contradicted by the statements of knowledgeable scientists, and ignores the more fundamental point that this does challenge our understanding of the universe (or at least of that part of the universe that leads to galaxies getting built), according to many scientists.
4) Please note that time is fast running out on this. So if nobody responds by tomorrow, I plan to mark it as Ready myself. (Note: Jayron, who seems to know a lot about our quality requirements, was already agreeing it had the requisite quality 4 days ago, and there have been several further improvements since then). Tlhslobus (talk) 09:06, 8 March 2016 (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.jpg)
.JPG)
.jpg)
