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).
British Chancellor Philip Hammond reports that the British economy grew in the last quarter immediately before Brexit, though economists warn that the economy is probably shrinking. (The Guardian)
Prime Minister Najib Razak gets emergency powers amid a widening scandal about corruption. (The Guardian)
Science and technology
Scientists have discovered that the region directly above the Great Red Spot on the planet Jupiter is about 700° F (370° C) warmer than the surrounding upper atmosphere. (Space)
Al-Shabaab claim responsibility for a double suicide car bombing attack in Mogadishu near an African Union base at the city's airport. At least 13 people are killed, including seven UN guards. (AP)(Al-Jazeera)
Two men armed with knives take a priest, two nuns and two parishioners hostage in a church near Rouen in the French region of Normandy. French police kill the hostage-takers after the 86-year-old priest, Jacques Hamel, was killed by slitting his throat. (NBC News)(BBC), (Haaretz)
Following the murder of the Catholic priest, French President François Hollande vows to wage war against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant "by every means". The organization released a video showing the attackers pledging allegiance to ISIL during the attack. (Local)
Two nearby boats, responding to a Coast Guard emergency broadcast, rescue 46 people from the sinking 220-foot Alaska Juris fishing boat in the Bering Sea off Alaska's Aleutian Islands. There are no reports of injuries; all on board were wearing survival suits. (AP)
Landslides from torrential rain that pounded North Korea's North Pyongan Province this weekend kills 10 people and injures 55 with four others missing. (UPI)
At least 19 people are killed and 26 others are injured in a knife attack at a care centre for disabled people in the city of Sagamihara, Kanagawa Prefecture, Japan. A man has handed himself in to the police, according to local media. (BBC)
New York City Police CommissionerBill Bratton announces the arraignment of three suspects in the theft of more than $5 million in cash and valuables, including jewelry and baseball cards, from banks in Brooklyn and Queens, in April and May of this year. (Reuters)
Former president Bill Clinton, husband of Hillary Clinton, describes Hillary as a fighter who works relentlessly to make the world better. (The Sacramento Bee), (Time)(NPR)
Oppose - Compared to several more recent attacks in the world, this is rather small, and given we rejected the recent suicide bombing in Germany, doesn't make sense to support this. It has a tenacious link to ISIS which is what a lot of reports seemed to have jump on, but instead simply looks like domestic violence. --MASEM (t) 23:26, 26 July 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.
comment the referencing looks good now, however I don't think that a section called "early life and career" should begin with something that happened when the subject was already in their mid 30s. If she did absolutely nothing of interest at all (or if it isn't sourceable) before 1996 then the article should not pretend to cover that period of her life. I can't decide whether this is worth opposing over or not (hence "comment"). Thryduulf (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From scanning some sources, I don't think she did anything particularly noteworthy in her early life (there was so little known about it that it was hard to prove she wasn't Jamaican) so I'll rename the section. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does it have to say 16 months? That makes it sound much slower than it is. It was supposed to take 5 months (~4 months of waiting for weather) but repairing a stupid flaw made it wait for spring because it can't fly all night in winter. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nice info but I'm sure some misled person(s) are going to think "16 months! God, warmists suck!" and never read the article. If they clicked the link the first time they'd see is 25 days (plan A). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a first and so seems a reasonably novel achievement. As we have other contenders for circumnavigation news (see the balloon item below), note that there's a good explanation of the technical requirements at What is a World Circumnavigation?. Andrew D. (talk) 07:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, and I'm sure you already know this because you actually read the article you linked, it is at least nine years old and may very well not reflect current thinking. It's also steeped in POV in an attempt to nay-say the attempts of another explorer. Certainly not the kind of source I'd expect to see used in Wikipedia. But I guess that's the problem with blindly following Google search results without applying any kind of quality control before posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A suicide car bomb kills at least 21 people and wounds more than 32 at the entrance to Al Khalis, northeast of Baghdad. Most died inside their vehicles while waiting to enter the town. (Al Jazeera)
At least two people are killed after as many as 17 people are injured during a mass shooting at Club Blu, a nightclub in Fort Myers, Florida, with most of the victims reportedly minors. Two suspects and a person of interest have been detained in connection with the shooting. (BBC), (News-Press)
Turkey orders the detention of 42 journalists including well-known writer Nazli Ilicak. Earlier, Turkish satirical magazine LeMan [tr] was prevented from publishing its post-coup edition—a cartoon on the cover showed Turkish soldiers facing off against anti-coup protesters, both pushed toward each other by giant hands. (Reuters)(CNN)
Amnesty International reports detainees in Turkey are being subjected to beatings and torture, including rape, in official and unofficial detention centres in the country. (NPR)(AI)
The story about the coup in Turkey is about to fall off the bottom of ITN, while there are still important developments. ("Retired U.S. General Dismisses Allegations He Masterminded Turkey Coup," WSJ, July 25, 2016 [6]) Propose adding 2016 Turkish purges to "Ongoing" to keep it visible. -- Fuzheado | Talk02:55, 26 July 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: A heavily controversial figure, one who I personally disliked, but I think the article is good enough to be posted. EternalNomad (talk) 23:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despicable person (but we don't discriminate here, we posted Fred Phelps when he died), but what matters for our purposes is that the article quality seems minimally sufficient for the front page. Improvements can be made overall, but there's nothing wrong with it as it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support including him. A great guy who worshipped a great, good, loving, perfect and just God, and more importantly, for Wikipedia, someone who clearly was notable, with obituaries of him in major newspapers. Clearly controversial, clearly notable for inclusion. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The recent deaths criteria changed earlier this month following an RfC. Now everybody who has a Wikipedia article is notable for an RD entry, subject to their article being of sufficient quality. In this case the consensus is that there are not enough references in the article for it be regarded as being of sufficient quality. Thryduulf (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So just to get this straight, the only ways to get an article listed here is for the article to have a high quality. I can sort of understand that, but love him or hate him, I think it would be accurate to say that he is just as notable, possibly even more notable, as the people already listed there. It would be unusual, to say the least, to include certain people there which omitting others who are just as or even more notable. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is a yes/no thing, there are no gradations. Some are more well known than others, but notable is notable. This article will be posted if there's consensus that the quality of the article is sufficient, as that consensus was reached for the articles presently posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose an awful person to give main page space to, but if we posted Fred Phelps, we have to post this on notability grounds. That said, this badly needs updating in terms of quality.--WaltCip (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia had been up and running in 1945, we absolutely would've posted Hitler, assuming his article was up to a sufficient quality. (Sorry for going full Godwin.) – Muboshgu (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's of sufficient quality. I think this "high quality" thing is being taken too far. Why not just say that have to be a GA or FA then? BTW, the RFC said "of sufficent quality", not high quality. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support on current state of text. There are a few unreferenced bits, but nothing that couldn't just be excised if references can't be found. Otherwise, it's in decent if not perfect shape. Either reference or excise the few paragraphs that are unreferenced, and this would be main page worthy. --Jayron3217:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on state of sourcing. The vast majority of the sourcing is either primary, from sources that are associated with the subject, sympathetic to the subject, or opposed to him (i.e. the SPLC). There are very few mainstream independent news sources. A number of sections are either unsourced or cited from sources that would not be reliable wrt the subject on their own (and there are a few dead links too). Blogs, opinion pieces and even IMDB appear at various places. Black Kite (talk)20:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - the story is still developing (The New York Times is reporting 'at least 15 deaths', not 19) and the story is still something of a 'stub'. But I am leaning towards support after a "wait" period based on the nominator's comments & reasoning (ie., this is unusual and notable under the circumstances, in Japan, etc.). – Christian Roess (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: worldwide coverage of this story and the number of deaths/injuries. It is interesting to note, however, that knife stabbings seem to be the "usual" method of mass killings in Japan (1999, 2001, 2008), whereas the more "usual" method in the U.S. and Western nations is guns. Latchem (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NeutralOppose - We have to ask ourselves what is the public interest value in this story on the front page? A disturbed and disgruntled individual goes on a rampage. If it has no greater significance beyond the personal tragedy for the victims, I'm not sure how we can in good conscience highlight the story. -- Fuzheado | Talk00:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested, as well as many of the voters are, in the fact that this is the "biggest attack in Japan since WWII." When is the last time we posted any sort of attack in a low-crime country like Japan, compared to frequent attacks in the United States, on ITN? I see the Akihabara massacre was posted in ITN on 9 June 2008, and even though it was tragic, the casualty count for that attack was lower than the Sagamihara knife attacks. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 03:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Normally this should go up since it is a high causality incident in a very stable country. However this seems nothing more than a random attack without any obvious repercussions. Nergaal (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait attack is obviously notable enough, but the article could easily be editted down to 1/3 of its current size; i.e., most of it is redundant. Can't we get an editor who reads Japanese to add better explanations of why the perpetrator was dismissed, what his motives were (lunacy or an expresed philosophy) and why the response took so long, and the prognosis of the remaining critical victims. If we just want to go ahead with "19!", then fine, but I think Aum Shinrikyo is a much more important story than incompetent defence force allows lunatic to pick off easy victims. μηδείς (talk) 04:47, 26 July 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: Among the greatest Turkish historians, one of the most respected scholars in Turkey. Highly influential in the historiography of the Ottoman Empire. GGT (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Supportbut only after some minor clean-up duties are accomplished (ie., does the style sheet approve of a citation placed immediately after the birth date & year in the lead section?). The article also needs citations added fo corroborate various unsubstantiated claims (ie., that his PhD thesis "constituted one of the first socioeconomic approaches in Turkish historiography.") Also, since some of the sources are in a Turkish language/dialect (unfamiliar to me -and many of our readers-), I'm not sure if those particular citations "backup" the information presented in the article (ie., perhaps we should find some additional 'English' media resources before posting to RD?). Otherwise this a short but pretty good article about an important intellectual who seems to have gained a certain canonical status in Turkey. – Christian Roess (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Double-checked the reference mentioned above and although the source is in Turkish, I could still tell that it had all of the info mentioned in that paragraph. SpencerT♦C07:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Verizon and Yahoo!
Articles:Verizon (talk·history·tag) and Yahoo! (talk·history·tag) Blurb: The American broadband telecommunications company Verizon announced its intent to acquire the American multinational technology company Yahoo for 4.8 billion USD. (Post) Alternative blurb: Telecommunications company Verizon announces its intention to acquire the core internet operations of technology company Yahoo! for 4.8 billion USD. Alternative blurb II: Verizon announces its intention deal to buy Yahoo!'s core internet operations and land holdings for US $4.8 billion. News source(s):http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/business/yahoo-sale.html Credits:
Weak support From a standpoint of the industry this is a major acquisition and certainly will have some shakeup, but the value is (relatively speaking) dirt cheap, considering that MS bought LinkedIn a bit ago for $26B. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional fact I learned: this is about a year after Verizon bought out AOL for about $4.4B, which we did post [7]. So to not post this while we posted that deal (barring article quality) would be very inconsistent. --MASEM (t) 01:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Need to go beyond the $ amount of the deal, as Yahoo is one of the top five most popular web sites. The story here is that for such a large and influential site, it cannot get more than $5 billion dollars among $10 billion to $100 billion companies. In short, the relatively small dollar amount is news in itself. -- Fuzheado | Talk14:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Fuzheado. However the blurb is incorrect: Yahoo isn't being bought in its entirety, only a part of it is ("core internet operations and land holdings", as in the source); in fact the part of Yahoo that's not being bought is bigger than the part that is. Adding Altblurb 2 for that. Banedon (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting and emphasizing the ludicrously small value Yahoo has at this point after they brought Marissa Mayers 4 years ago and gave her more than $270M to save the ship. The remaining stuff is strictly pertaining to Asia. Nergaal (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb2. Yahoo is one the the giants of the Internet, in terms of page views, ranking higher than Amazon, Twitter, and even our beloved Wikipedia. Both target articles are in good shape. --Tocino16:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I was going to nominate this myself but forgot. This is a major deal between two major companies and as mentioned above Yahoo is one of the top companies on the internet. Andise1 (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment sorry, but "announces its intention"? Really? Like Manchester United have "announced their intention" to buy Paul Pogba? This sounds seriously like we need to wait. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Almost every corporate finance transaction (merger, acquisition etc.) occurs several months after the announcement of an agreement to enter into a transaction. This is no different to many other transactions covered by ITN in recent months, such as Microsoft's intention to buy LinkedIn. Stockst (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Latchem if you read the PR, it clearly states "The deal is subject to customary closing conditions, approval by Yahoo’s shareholders, and regulatory approvals, and is expected to close in Q1 of 2017." The deal has not occurred. Having said that, it is customary for ITN to post these types of acquisitions when they announced, and not when they occur. Stockst (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment Of the three blurbs posted above, one has already been crossed out. However the original blurb "The American broadband telecommunications company Verizon announced its intent to acquire the American multinational technology company Yahoo for 4.8 billion USD." is also incorrect because it is only some of Yahoo's assets that Verizon plans to acquire. Of the three blurbs proposed, the only accurate one is altblurb2.
Comment/edit - Altblurb2 changed to "deal" rather than "its intention" to buy Yahoo. Feelings mixed about Yahoo! vs Yahoo, as most every news headline has omitted the exclamation point. -- Fuzheado | Talk21:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suspect the vast majority of our readers would be more interested in the fact that this deal includes Flickr and Tumblr, which probably accounts for the majority of the value; Yahoo's web presence is effectively worthless. Black Kite (talk)21:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt 2 Even if you consider a laughing stock, Yahoo is still one of the three major U.S. web searches along with Google and Bing. Plus, as Black Kite pointed out, the deal also includes sites such as Flickr and Tumblr. Furthermore, as others have said, we posted Microsoft acquiring LinkedIn, which isn't as significant by itself as Yahoo, Flickr, Tumblr, etc. combined. - Presidentmantalk · contribs (Talkback) 21:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt 2. While the monetary value is not particularly high, Yahoo! is a historically significant company and a household name, so this is very significant. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose Verizon has wanted Yahoo as an email portal since Verizon was incorporated. Back when we had free Yahoo with Verizon DSL and Yahoo frisbees at Verizon sales meetings, it was a joke. That was well over a decade ago that people just didn't care about a company that had blossomed and died in the 90's. Before Verizon's failed "synergy" with DishTV. BTW, how many hotmail, netscape, and cs users are still around? μηδείς (talk) 04:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your oppose rationale. Are you saying the deal is not likely to go through (first part) and that even if it does, no one cares (second part)? Banedon (talk) 05:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I understand the support rationales, I understand that Tumblr and Flickr fall under the umbrella of Yahoo, I even understand Yahoo's history in the formation of the Internet as we know it. But I just don't feel like this story works for ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe it is not possible to add a 3rd altblurb. I deleted the old inaccurate altblurb (which incorrectly suggested Verizon was acquiring all of Yahoo!) and wrote an alternative blurb, which describes what Verizon and Yahoo! are. Although many people outside the US may have heard of Yahoo!, Verizon is not a well-known company outside that country. I also added strikeout format to the original blurb, which incorrectly suggests that Verizon is acquiring all of Yahoo! Stockst (talk) 16:26, 26 July 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.
Oppose Shooting in the US is now a cliché..no longer news worthy..unless someone important gets killed and he gets and RD or a blurb...--Stemoc10:42, 25 July 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.
Comment The only death that I see being reported presently is the bomber themselves, with 12 others injured (3 critical condition). Blurb updated. --MASEM (t) 01:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose SupportNo major injuries and seems to be relatively minor compared to the Munich attack and the current suicide bombing featured in ITN. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 02:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although there weren't many major injuries (four were serious injuries), it seems that this being the first suicide bombing in recent German history seems to be quite notable. The last suicide bombing was in 1980 in Munich, Germany, according to Terrorism in Germany. Sources don't specify when the last suicide bombing was other than saying "in recent memory" or "in years". —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the attack headlines on many newspapers and it is being called the fourth violent attack in Germany in a week by various WP:RS, including Reuters. Also, one should point out that measuring an article's newsworthiness strictly by body count is fairly grisly and one is appalled by this sort of criteria. Instead, it should be noted that the string of attacks is likely to have deep repercussions in Germany, and consequently in EU policy.XavierItzm (talk)
Weak oppose Given the multitude of terrorist attacks around the world there should be some editorial judgement. In that sense, this is run-of-the-mill fortunately, as no one died. Brandmeistertalk08:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fortunately, nothing too serious happened. I feel like media attention is already coming back to Munich again even here in Germany. It's dark times... Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak oppose - not because of the low bodycount but because this does not seem to be terrorism or connected at all to any of the other recent violent events in Germany, rather just one desperate individual. If this had been the gas explosion it was first thought to be it wouldn't even be nominated here. If I'm wrong about this, or there are wider implications than there appear to be at present, then I'll likely change my mind. Thryduulf (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Perhaps we could put all these terror attacks into one blurb? For example, "Three terrorist attacks strike Germany, [item 1], [item 2], [item 3]." Or "At least ___ people die in three attacks in [place 1], [place 2], [place 3], Germany." Banedon (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support because although in the context of things, one failed suicide bomber isn't particlarly newsworthy, a disgruntled asylum seeker gearing up for and conducting a terror attack is news, particularly as Germany has agreed to process so many of these individuals, this is probably the tip of a nasty-looking iceberg. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose this, strong oppose any merged blurb. The recent attacks in Germany seem to have little to do with one another beyond happening to take place in the same country. Smurrayinchester11:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
oppose Saidly not newsworthy enough for an internationally-geared news-selection. However cynical it may sound, but the absence of multiple deaths and what has been seen in the region is the reason for that, and the asylum-seeker circumstance doesn't make that different. L.tak (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If this leads to a change in German or European policy, then that would be worthy of inclusion. Even then, this would hardly be the only incident that would have contributed to the rough atmosphere these days. MikeLynch (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite a fair comparison. European and particularly German (public) attitudes towards the handling of refugees (the main point of contention) have been evolving rapidly in a short span of time, and a change in policy would be a surer sign of changing attitudes.
Besides, that was not my only point. Certainly, if the attack was more serious (in its intensity and the amount of victims, an unfortunate statistic), this would probably have merited to go up IMO. MikeLynch (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a perfectly fair comparison. American gun laws will not change for the foreseeable future so your argument that a change of policy is required to post such items means we shouldn't post any more mass shootings in the US. The fact that the attitudes in Germany have been changing means this is more newsworthy, not less. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My contention is that the change in attitude (a political demonstration of it) is worthy of posting. If this incident led to that, then surely it would be worth posting in association with such a change. As a single incident I wouldn't think it so because it looks minor in itself. And I don't mean "change in policy is required" as a general principle; just that I would wait to see if there were further repercussions of this particular incident, failing which it seems not siginificant enough for ITN. MikeLynch (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We don't post "changes in attitude" at ITN, we post verifiable news stories. This is a watershed moment, Germany has gone to massive lengths to accept inordinate numbers of refugees and migrants, and yet this is the first ISIL suicide attack in that country. It's been headline news all day on the BBC international site, more than eclipsing the daily mass shooting in the US (today, Florida), and has been generally accepted as highly significant in the current climate. I won't expect you to change your vote, but you should understand that your position is peculiar, demanding a change in policy for this to be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually in support of this. we've had a defacto policy against posting these stories in the US with people lining up to label it "run of the mill gun murder in America", so yeah, until Europe implements some gun, bomb, machete, truck and immigrant control, this is just run of the mill European terrorism. --107.77.232.40 (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added an alt blurb that describes the attack as the first of its kind if recent German history. This statement, however, is disputed. Please discuss the statement here. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 20:57, 25 July 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.
At least 21 are killed and more than 35 people injured in a suicide attack at one of the residential entrances to district Kadhimiyah, in northern Baghdad, Iraq. ISIL claims responsibility, as published in its official media. (CNN) (Iraqi News)
The leader of the Australian delegation says the country's athletes would not be checking in at the athletes' village because it's unsafe for human habitation. Australian athletes have been staying at nearby Rio de Janeiro hotels. (The New York Times)
Nepal's Prime MinisterKhadga Prasad Oli resigns minutes before parliament was to vote on a no confidence motion he was likely to lose, after allies of his multi-party coalition leave the government accusing him of not honoring power sharing deals that helped him assume office in October 2015. (The Hindu)(Reuters)
The International Olympic Committee states it considers all Russian athletes tainted by the country’s state-run doping scheme but individual athletes can compete in 2016 Games if they are able to convince individual sports federations of their innocence. A daunting task for these organizations to handle hundreds of appeals just 12 days before the start of the Rio Games on 5 August. (The New York Times)(AP & NBC News)(rt.com)
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.
(edit conflict) Not in my opinion. If the article is not of GA or higher quality (iirc this article is assessed as "start" class) then I really think that the requirement for a consensus that there are no problems with the article quality needs to be taken more seriously. Nom+1 after less than an hour is not a consensus. @The Rambling Man: Please remember that the the criteria for RD explicitly says that the quality is judged based on a consensus, not just on the posting admin's opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I judged article quality and that was sufficient for me. Article classifications e.g. "Start" are bullshit and worthless unless it's GA, FA or FL so I'm afraid that cuts no mustard with me at all. We had three supports in total, as by posting I supported its inclusion. If that's a problem, I'll stop doing ITN right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that one support + nom + admin supervote in 24 minutes = consensus, then perhaps it would be better to stop doing ITN. What I'm saying is that there was not a consensus when it was posted. The fact that the article is in good enough condition to be posted (and is probably C class) is neither here nor there. Mjroots (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the ping last night. FYI, I will not be told to make an administrative edit (i.e. one that requires admin privileges to do). If I make an administrative edit, I will do so of my own free will. Mjroots (talk) 05:17, 26 July 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: Basically hits not two but three birds with one stone: DNC email leak, DNC chairwoman resigning, 2016 DNC in Philadelphia ongoing; all newsworthy by itself. bender235 (talk) 00:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Internal American politics (even considering Wasserman's resignation), while likely will be discussion all this week, is not yet significant at the larger scale. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose: Fairly specific to internal American politics at this point. Increased scrutiny of Russian involvement could change my mind, but for now, doesn't seem to rise to the level on ITN. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:26, 25 July 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 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.
Oppose with regret. Looking at last year's article, we had a great "race overview" section which covered, in prose, the race. I'm not seeing that here, so despite British cyclists being indisputably the best in the known universe, I can't currently support. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yea got to agree with you it it's not complete enough. I'd planned to get it all sorted like last year, but unfortunately didn't have the time. There's always next year! BaldBoris23:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is a flurry of major news stories you will likely have 4-5 days although the oldest blurb on the template currently is 8 days old. Thryduulf (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind you only need now two or so good paras (likely broken at the same place the two legs pages are broken apart at), and you can readily borrow from those pages to fill in the major points. It should be easily doable as it looks like its all there, just a matter of summarizing what's there. --MASEM (t) 00:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support obviously - We had it last year. This is the premier professional bicycle race in the world. Featuring the article on the front page may be the exact thing to find that cycling enthusiast to help improve it. "In the news" should not need this high a quality bar. -- Fuzheado | Talk10:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's on WP:ITN/R so there is already consensus that it is significant and should be posted when there is a sufficient update. The consensus for sporting events is, and has been for as long as I've been contributing to ITN/C, that a prose summary of the event is a minimum requirement before posting. This relates to the function of ITN to showcase encyclopaedia articles related to current events, rather than just tables of facts that people can find on any sports ticket (which we are not). Thryduulf (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support We have enough detail to be posting the item and should strike while the iron is hot. Myself, I'd like to see details of the bicycles used – Froome used a Pinarello Dogma again – but there's no mention of this in either this year's or last year's report. But such additions are nice-to-have and not a reason to hold up posting. Andrew D. (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe we will add anything along those lines though... It would be hard to include information that is actually informative and not drift into WP:PROMO. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the page tells us that Froome was part of Team Sky. Sky is a commercial sponsor who does this to give their name publicity and we seem happy to oblige. Putting in details of the bicycles being ridden seems more relevant. Zwerg Nase also works on pages about F1 such as 2016 British Grand Prix. These are likewise full of reference to Mercedes, Ferrari, Renault and other car marques which also participate as a form of advertising. Andrew D. (talk) 11:39, 25 July 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.
Oppose. One dead body, while unfortunate, is hardly grounds to post something to ITN; otherwise we would be a dead body ticker. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sadly, these fires are a fairly regular occurrence and unless there is a larger impact, it doesn't rise to being front page, global, material. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk11:58, 25 July 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.
We are definitely not going off the Daily Mail as the only source. If this actually happens, yes, it's big news, but all indicators suggest it's limited to track and field. --MASEM (t) 03:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, there's nothing about it on ESPN.com or CNN.com or BBC (international) .com. If the story were true, it would be a huge headline. Certainly it's being talked about behind the scenes, but there's no indication of a decision yet. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 06:33, 24 July 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.
Post-closing FYI spec: It turns out the rules set for Athletics will be applied (maybe even in more stringent form) to all athletes. That will probably mean the Russian team will be very, very small (only 1 in athletics...). Sources here and here, and an update at here. L.tak (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BBC article explains it well in "plainspeak" - Each sport's oversight committee (20-some in all) will have 12 days now to review each Russian athlete that has applied to participate at Rio 2016 to make a determination if they should be allowed or not; only the track & field team is already outright banned. In twelve days, this might be a worthwhile ITN story if the #s are > 50% or so of Russia's planned team. --MASEM (t) 18:19, 24 July 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.
Munich Police Chief Hubertus Andrae identifies the attacker as a dual national, 18-year-old Iranian-German who apparently acted alone. He was found dead of a suspected self-inflicted gunshot wound to his head. (Reuters)
Chief Andrae reports there are "no indications" the teenage gunman, who killed nine people and apparently himself, had links to ISIL or any other terror group. The attack injured 27. (NBC News)
Floods kill at least 154 in China and 300,000 people are being evacuated in Hebei province. Villagers have accused local officials of covering up the extent of the damage. (AP via The Daily Mail)
Hawaii GovernorDavid Ige declares a state of emergency as Tropical Storm Darby is on track to reach the U.S. state's Big Island today with maximum sustained winds approaching 50 mph (80 kph). The storm, which previously was a Category 3 hurricane, could produce up to 15 inches (40 cm) of rain. (Reuters)(NHC)
A bus from Wales carrying 50 people, including 41 teenagers, tips over in eastern France, injuring 13, two seriously. (Reuters)
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: We posted Stephen Sutton, a similarly selfless person who helped others when he himself was in the direst condition. This article is well-sourced and the now relaxed notability criteria as it has been on Wikipedia since February 2015 '''tAD''' (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article in good shape. (It should be noted that as long as the person has a reasonable standalone article, we don't have to worry about justifying importance anymore for RD). --MASEM (t) 23:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, I am aware of this, but I know that things can't be posted if there's a general notability dispute or nomination for deletion. When "non-celebrity" people like Granger are put on Wikipedia, there is often a nomination for deletion. If a reviewer didn't look in the history and how long this page has been on Wikipedia, they may have debated the notability of the entire article '''tAD''' (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting - came here to nominate the article for RD and found it already posted! Have tidied the article up a little. MurielMary (talk) 07:48, 25 July 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: Swedish politician. First non-socialist PM in over 40 years. Legendary involvement in the U-137 crises. Next to Olof Palme, only Swedish genuine statesman in modern political history; they both dominated Swedish political life during a decade. Article not in perfect shape (yet)... Bruzaholm (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tagged this earlier and the article still has five left. Could tenuously argue that the first 30 and last 30 years of his life have not been mentioned, but I'm happy enough if those cn tags on his political career (the basis of his notability) are addressed. Detailed sources are in Swedish, so I'm not much help here. Fuebaey (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: The blurb is kind of awkward, happy for it to be changed if someone can make it more concise. Currently updating the article. ¡Bozzio!06:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support but only after Fyodor's article is significantly improved. This is a long-standing world record and global circumnavigation attempts are few and far between (as opposed to, say, premier athletics events which take place monthly), and the record was not broken by 0.1%, it was broken by 20%. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The circumference of the earth is about 40K km but this Australia-based route is only about 34K km because they stick to much the same latitude and so it's not a full circumnavigation As the craft is quite passive, just being carried by the wind, the speed doesn't seem a significant achievement as that will mostly depend on the vagaries of the weather. Andrew D. (talk) 08:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the chosen latitude, technically that's still a valid circumnavigation. To my knowledge, there's no formal requirement mandating a longer equatorial route, it's just the harder and more admirable way to do it. Compare this to various ascension routes to Everest. Regardless of the chosen route, an experienced alpinist would still ascend the summit. However, previous attempts might be incomparable due to different routes chosen. Brandmeistertalk11:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a good explanation of the technical issues at What is a World Circumnavigation?. The Vendee Globe route does indeed make a tight circumnavigation around Antartica and that's why they have to cross the equator too, to make it a decent journey. Note also that that page exists because that group seems to be in a bitter dispute with others about their route and record. Andrew D. (talk) 07:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Al-Jaz says the route this man took was longer than Fossett. This is being reported as having broken the record. I don't know if we need to wait for the Air Sports Federation to confirm anything(Al-Jaz says they couldn't reach them for comment) but I think posting now is OK. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well there was near unanimous support for the hurdles record, and that wasn't (and still isn't) ratified, so I think we should maintain some level of consistency on this, based on the reporting of reliable sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on article improvements - the "Awards" section needs a citation and the "Art" section is completely uncited and atrociously written. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - The BBC story says, "If his record is confirmed by the World Air Sports Federation..." and "There has been no immediate comment by the World Air Sports Federation." The lead sentence indicates the record is only according to "his support crew." In terms of WP:V, we should wait. If confirmed, then it should be a front page story. -- Fuzheado | Talk12:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More There's another circumnavigation story up at the BBC: Solar Impulse completes historic round-the-world trip. That one seems more recognised by the FAI, which does not seem to have ratified the balloon trip as it hasn't added it to its long list of balloon records. I reckon that circumnavigations are too commonplace for us to report them all and so we should only be picking out the most exceptional ones. Perhaps this solar circumnavigation qualifies as a first. Andrew D. (talk) 07:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article:July 2016 Kabul bombing (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Two Islamic State suicide bombers blow themselves during a peaceful protest in Kabul killing at least 61 and wounded 200 others. (Post) Alternative blurb: A peaceful protest in Kabulis disrupted by two Islamic State suicide bombers, killing at least 61 and injuring 200. Alternative blurb II: Two ISIS suicide bombers blew themselves during a peaceful protest in Kabul killing at least 80 and wounded 260 others. News source(s):BBCAljazeera Credits:
Support, with a bit more time for stability - I've added an altblurb. Significant event, just would give this a few more hours to let details firm up to improve the article. --MASEM (t) 13:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - One thing wiki is good at is acknowledging terror attacks in the third world equally with the first world. This is something the MSM has allegedly failed to do. (I don't watch them, so don't know)--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support story as this stands out from recent mass death events with the exception of Nice.
Maybe I'm being a bit nit-picky here, but I feel both blurbs are a bit loaded. We didn't feel the need to mention that the crowds at Bastille Day were peaceful, despite the origins of Bastille Day and the fact that France has had a turbulent couple of years (Charlie Hebdo, the November bombings, Nice, the trouble at Euro 2016, widespread and quite significant protests at the labour laws, large scale trouble at Calais and so on). It reads to me as though we are conveying surprise that people in Kabul were behaving peacefully before being attacked. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning that the attackers in either case attacked where there was a mass gathering is a significant part. In the Kabul case, they were gathering to protest, but obviously not in a violent manner, so it is necessary here to make that distinction that it wasn't like hundreds gathered with guns and were fighting. --MASEM (t) 18:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My preference would be not to use something that requires a qualifier. I think using what our article is called makes sense. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but change blurb "blow themselves" is a double entrendre, "disrupt" is a bit of an understatement. Perhaps say Suicide bomb attack in Kabul kills at least 80 and wound 260 others. 108.12.164.219 (talk) 01:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Use first alternative blurb, but change the number of supposed casualties to 80, and the number of injured to 260. -Ano-User (talk) 05:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] Tim Kaine picked as Clinton's running mate
ITN doesn't give the results of the US presidential nominations race for the two major parties, so the name of a running mate isn't the stuff of ITN either. BencherliteTalk10:09, 23 July 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: Surprised not to find it here. The vice presidential pick is generally assumed (although there is contrary evidence) to have a significant impact on the race. In this particular case, the selection of Pence has a significant impact on the ability of Clinton to either unify the party or reach out to those outside it. His selection will likely dominate the news for the next few days and will be referred to in any significantly detailed analysis of the election. Chris vLS (talk) 07:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is not a breaking news ticker; this is not the sort of event that is typically posted(the selection of lower-ranked officials); they all have to choose someone and this choice isn't groundbreaking or unusual. We didn't post Pence. If Clinton/Kaine wins the election, it will be posted then. Posting the selection of the ticket would be a slippery slope. 331dot (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As surprised (and added rationale above). Vice president is often considered useless, but not minor. In the U.S. system, there's no slippery slope danger, I wouldn't think. That said, if it wasn't done for Pence, probably shouldn't do it for Kaine -- unless we have done it four years ago . . . Thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The slippery slope I refer to is that of posting the selection of lower-ranked officials(vice presidents, cabinet officials); if it's done for the US, it will need to be done for other countries, which turns this into a political news ticker. 331dot (talk) 08:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I still think that it's distinguishable from a cabinet post. Fortunately for non-U.S. politicians, there aren't a lot of offices like it. But fair enough. Cheers.Chris vLS (talk) 08:35, 23 July 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.
Thousands gather in Istanbul's Taksim Square in a show of support for the new powers that President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has received in order to crackdown on dissent following the attempted coup. (The Telegraph)
China begins demolishing buildings and evicting residents at Larung Gar in Tibet, one of the largest religious institutes in the world. Officials put forward overpopulation and security as the leading reasons for the planned action. (BBC)(AP via ABC 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.
Please offer news sources indicating this is in the news, and an article to evaluate for its quality. Typically, the template given at the top of the infobox is copied with the appropriate information filled in. 331dot (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The previous record stood for 28 years. The Olympics is a special cluster of sports news and so will presumably go into Ongoing. Andrew D. (talk) 10:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment, we do regularly post breaking of 100m and marathon records. And perhaps some other long-standing records in athletics, I don't remember, was it the pole vault? --Tone10:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did we post the London Marathon record? The 100m records haven't been broken since 2009 and 1988 respectively so when did we post them? In any case, for a more professional blurb, we should be including Women's 100 metres hurdles world record progression as a link and state the record has been 28 years in the breaking, not some pointy flimflam about not being selected for the Olympics. Oh, and the time hasn't been ratified, but that's not a major hurdle... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we have posted some previously (based on a search for world record in the candidates archives so not necessarily complete):
solo around-the-world sailing record in 2008 (I think because of poor article update and/or disagreement about the word "fortnight" in the blurb)
world record in men's 10 m Air Rifle in 2008 (because it didn't meet "the ITN sports criteria for a WR?: "that is broken either: by an unusually large margin, after a very long time period, or in a highly publicized event" ")
800 metres world record in 2010 (mainly because it was his own record from a matter of weeks previously)
@Thryduulf: Yes, we did post all the records listed above but none of them have ever stood for almost 28 years. The women's 4x100 relay world record was broken at the London Olympics after 27 years and was posted with a separate blurb because of its rarity and greatness of achievement. I'd have definitely not supported this had its progression been on a year-after-year basis.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiril Simeonovski: I'm unsure what your point is here my post was just a factual listing of what was and was not posted in response to a question asking what had been posted previously, I have expressed no opinion either way on whether this should be posted or not (and currently have no plan to express such an opinion). Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Well, sorry for that. I've apparently made a misunderstanding of your comment while reading the whole discussion. It's fine having that listing in a chronological order. :)--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Breaking a world record that stood for nearly 28 years is a big and notable accomplishment. I'd still prefer a clearer blurb without mentioning other results from her recent career (see altblurb).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, that was a new record long overdue. Support also the -news-y- proposed blurb as that is part of what makes it all the more interesting. L.tak (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support for alt 2. It is the long-standing nature of the record which tips the balance for me, and oppose any posting which doesn't mention this for fear of setting too easy a precident. Would recommend bolding the athlete's article ahead of the event's, as the former is in better condition and is the one which actually has a text update. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb2. Outdoor athletics World records in Olympic events are some of the most notable World records in sports. This is the first one since August 2015, and it broke one of the infamous records by Eastern European women during communism (widely believed to have been systematically doped). PrimeHunter (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb2 and bold the athlete article, which is in much better shape and more or less ready. Breaking a nearly three decade long record in a track event seems to be enough for posting. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions19:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I maximized the resolution and uploaded a 4:5 crop. The result is far from ideal, but it makes for an adequate 100x125px thumbnail. —David Levy03:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noticed. If you sincerely believe that this looks bad enough to justify leaving up the six-day-old image corresponding to the oldest blurb, so be it. If the next addition (likely pushing off the golf item) lacks a suitable image, I'll leave it to you to decide whether this is better than nothing. —David Levy04:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb is awkwardly worded, it reads like it's a record for 28-year olds, not a record which is 28 years old. Not sure how it could be changed though. Maybe In athletics, American sprinter Kendra Harrison breaks the world record 100 metres hurdles world, which stood for 28-years. That may not be much better...--kelapstick(bainuu) 04:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] Imbrium Basin formed as a result of an impact with a proto-planet
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: In the period between 4.1 and 3.8 billion years ago, the so-called Late Heavy Bombardment occurred during which the inner solar system was blasted by asteroids. But we don't know a lot about the nature of these asteroids, whether they were comets, if water was brought to the Earth via these impacts. The newly determined size of the Imbrium impactor being so much larger than the previous estimates will lead to a different pciture about the late heavy bombardment. The breakup of a large impactor when it collides with the Moon or other planet causes large chunks of it to escape back into space, these will then impact planets later. So, some considerable fraction of the smaller impacts due to kilometer sized asteroids were in fact due to chunks blasted off the larger impactors. Count Iblis (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you don't get the significance. Why don't you just go back to tmz/gawker, to see whether they have anything you can nominate. 79.193.104.97 (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, still not getting it. tmz? gawker? Sorry, I prefer the BBC, CNN, Reuters etc. Perhaps you misunderstand the purpose of ITN, my anonymous buddy! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As in 'Ahem there has been a BBC article since the 20th July, two days before this was posted' ahem. (I dont expect you to go searching for it, I would have expected the person posting to have used a BBC source if one was available). Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so this is listed under the wrong date? Should be moved down to 20 July. I'm still failing to see this as a major landmark moment, the BBC article concludes that the estimate of the size of the item hitting the moon was three times larger than previously estimated. And...? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If I could state the significance in another way - this early period in the formation of our solar system had a huge impact (pun intended) on the development of the chemistries, atmospheres, and life formation processes of our planets (and their moons), but there are so many things about this period that we still don't know. The discovery suggests that this period was very different than we thought, with huge, planet-like objects, no longer present today, flying around and colliding with other planets and moons. That's a big deal, and that's why the topic has gotten so much coverage in the press in the last 48 hours. -Darouet (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: this is an important discovery and there has been substantial coverage in the media over the last two days. The notion that planet-sized objects were flying around our solar system and colliding with existing planets and their moons, just when life and associated chemistries and atmospheres are beginning to form, is surprising and interesting. The discovery would also go a long way towards explaining why the moon still looks the way it does to us today. -Darouet (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The interest factor here is the sheer size of the colliding object, and – given the probability of fragments re-colliding – speculation as to its composition. That is significant and (provided the speculation is of a scientific rather than media-led nature) encyclopaedic. But given that it was already known that celestial objects collided during this period, and therefore, logically, this impact crater would have been caused by one of the larger ones, I struggle to see how the upgraded estimate of the object's size falls into the bracket of news. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to think about importance, but on the blurb, can we make sure to reflect that this is a proposed, peer-reviewed theory? (eg instead of "formed", use "is postulated to have formed..." or the like). --MASEM (t) 22:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - it's been a while since we've posted a science-related item. This item however I am not sure about. It seems pretty dull. That the basin was formed by a collision is obvious. The LHB period is also well-established. Significance here seems to be about the size of the impacting object, which is fine and all but is interesting only to specialists (hence the narrow nature of the sources cited). As an evolutionary bit of science I am not convinced it is worthy of posting. Banedon (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Covered by the BBC. I will say the BBC article does make it sound quite a bit more interesting than the more science-specific coverage. Probably out of necessity. Personally I found the explanation for why the man in the moon has an eye at all a bit interesting. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, completely incoherent. The news media can barely describe what the difference is between the previous state of knowledge and the "improvement" brought by the finding. I suspect there is no substantive difference, and this is simply a case of academic boosterism. Abductive (reasoning) 16:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a huge difference, it explains where your great great great......great grandparents came from. The cross section of the Earth is about 13 times larger than that of the Moon, so it implies that the Earth was hit during the late Heavy Bombardment (LHB) period by more and larger pro-planets (objects like 4 Vesta or Ceres (dwarf planet)), which means that life could not exist, or would have been wiped out after it first emerged. But we do know that right after the LHB, life flourished, so this makes it pretty much impossible for life to have evolved on Earth, it had to be brought to Earth by these impacts in some way. Life could have evolved inside water-rich proto-planets, and as the research article points out, after a collision, huge parts break off and veer back into space. Life inside these parts can survive being in space for a long time as has been demonstrated in other research articles. These parts will eventually be scooped up by the inner planets, so life could have made it to Earth via this route. Such a scenario, which was considered to be one of the many possible scenario of how life arose on Earth, now pretty much become the only possible scenario. Count Iblis (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The large impacts of objects substantially larger than about 100 km in diameter were thought to have stopped long before that time. It was already a bit difficult to explain how life could have arisen and survived around 4 billion years ago, with impact that are much larger than thought possible during that time, the picture changes completely. Count Iblis (talk) 21:42, 24 July 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] MH370 Pilot Zaharie Ahmad Shah practiced beforehand
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:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (talk·history·tag) Blurb: MH370 Pilot Zaharie Ahmad Shah practiced suicide routes deep into the remote southern Indian Ocean on his home flight simulator. (Post) News source(s):NYMAG Credits:
Nominator's comments: "The document presents the findings of the Malaysian police’s investigation into Zaharie. It reveals that after the plane disappeared in March of 2014, Malaysia turned over to the FBI hard drives that Zaharie used to record sessions on an elaborate home-built flight simulator. The FBI was able to recover six deleted data points that had been stored by Microsoft Flight Simulator X program in the weeks before MH370 disappeared, according to the document. Each point records the airplane’s altitude, speed, direction of flight, and other key parameters at a given moment. The document reads, in part:
"Based on the Forensics Analysis conducted on the 5 HDDs obtained from the Flight Simulator from MH370 Pilot’s house, we found a flight path, that lead to the Southern Indian Ocean, among the numerous other flight paths charted on the Flight Simulator, that could be of interest, as contained in Table 2."
Taken together, these points show a flight that departs Kuala Lumpur, heads northwest over the Malacca Strait, then turns left and heads south over the Indian Ocean, continuing until fuel exhaustion over an empty stretch of sea." Count Iblis (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Speculation by correlation. (Especially as it seems NY Magazine is breaking this ... NYMag is not the National Inquirer or the Daily Mail, but they're not the NYTimes or BBC either...) --MASEM (t) 20:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Single source information, and not of the highest caliber. Needs other news agencies pick it up and have more firm proof and response from officials/investigators. -- Fuzheado | Talk20:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Posted] 2016 Munich shootings
Article:2016 Munich shootings (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Police hunt attackers after shootings in Munich (Post) Alternative blurb: Police hunt attackers after at least six people are killed in shootings at a shopping centre in Munich. Alternative blurb II: At least eight people are killed in shootings at a shopping centre in Munich. News source(s):BBC Credits:
Lean support but wait on details There is word people have been killed, which would be easily a support, but its not confirmed when I just checked the BBC. I would lean oppose if it is just shots with no injuries. --MASEM (t) 18:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's an accurate observation of previously prematurely posted articles. There was no spirit of comity or collaboration when those were made, this is not a personal attack, it's serious and hard-hitting advice to any admin who wants to post this item before it's mature and before there's a consensus to do so. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place for further pot shots, if you're unable to communicate behavioral concerns civilly and in the appropriate forum you should refrain from commenting at all; you discussed this issue at length at AN were advised by the closing admin to "learn to let it go"; I will reiterate the advice that per WP:NPA you should not be derogatively commenting on other contributors, and this is doubly unacceptable from an administrator. Please continue conducting yourself according to the standard that is expected of you and leave the dire "advice" to be given by users with a less emotional involvement. Swarm♠20:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is precisely the place to warn people to stop behaving like other admins (and WMF employees) and an explicitly important message to all of those with an itchy trigger finger. Your attempt to berate me is pointless and is insulting to those who actually actively work hard as admins with the trust of the community, who act in line with the community consensus. You're a poor apologist for a rogue admin who should be de-sysopped. My post here is intended to remind other possible rogue admins that such actions will not be tolerated. Not one personal attack has taken place here, it's all pure fact. If you don't understand that, perhaps you should do something else instead. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait but I don't think we'll need to wait long. See the 19:53 update at [10] which cites "local media" saying the police are describing it as an "acute terror threat". Media is also coalescing around a figure of 6 deaths, I've added an altblurb with this. Thryduulf (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The hatnote on a breaking news article already provides a clear warning to any reader. "This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable." We've had this back and forth before - the value of a news box is that we highlight... news! That we would intentionally not inform front page visitors that we have an active article about the topic is reducing our relevance and usefulness. (And as in previous conversations, let's not debate WP:NOTNEWS) -- Fuzheado | Talk19:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, this isn't a ticker, there are problems with the article, we need to get a consensus to post and that the consensus agrees the quality is sufficient. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. The event is almost certainly significant, but the facts are very confused and our article is poorly developed with few details yet and very scrappy writing and structure. I would help improve it but don't have time right now. Fences&Windows19:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, since just saying wait seems not to care anyone. Please everyone remember that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Just have some patience. --bender235 (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NOTNEWS carefully and you'll discover that it's about original research, notability and reliable sourcing. It is not an argument against timeliness. -- Fuzheado | Talk19:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And please recall that recent events just here have seen rogue and subsequently admonished admins making rash and hurried decisions against consensus and without due care and attention. There is no need to rush into this, so stop harassing those who think a pause is a good idea here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to and quoting policy is "harassing someone?" That's a very warped definition of harassing, which I think explains a lot. -- Fuzheado | Talk20:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to and misusing policy is harassing people. Now I'd advise you to stop that please, after all we'd hate to see another admin lost to the four corners for lack of competence. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information We aren't going to post breaking events if WP:V and general base quality standards can't be met by the articl. --MASEM (t) 20:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for now. The article is in a terrible shape, and it currently has an unacceptable title ("2016 Munich terrorist shooting attacks", seriously? we don't use "terrorist" in most titles even when it's a known terrorist attack, partly because of WP:TERRORIST, and here we go ahead and use it in the title even though we hadn't know anything at all about the events or their motives at this point?). It might be of limited worldwide interest, too, depending on the direction it develops in. LjL (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another alt blurb added. We need to ensure the article is reflective of this, but otherwise I see no reason to delay now, eight people in a Western European city have been killed by gunmen, that's rare as, regardless of the perps. Get the article up to snuff and it's good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You complained about early posting against consensus, but to be honest, I almost only see "wait"s and some "opposes" here, followed by your "to me it's ready to post" and shortly followed by your posting it. I'm just saying... LjL (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I checked the article, made a few edits, checked the reliable sources, made a few changes, checked the votes, assessed that eight people shot to death in a European city was news, and posted it. So I respected all parts of the process. Next question? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All the parts except the one called WP:CONSENSUS (which is not just "checking the votes", but you know, respecting them), which IIRC was the thing that you most accused the aforementioned "bad admin" of breaking. LjL (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you being deliberately funny? The ed17 posted the previous story inside SEVEN MINUTES. Get a grip. We have a known number of victims, we have established, verifiable sources, we have a number of the community saying "wait" until something concrete (well, eight dead in Munich is concrete). If you wish to continue this debate, take it to my talk page, or ANI or Arbcom or somewhere, because this is becoming a little tiresome. Learn the difference between rogue playmaking with the main page, and respect for Wikipedians' opinions and how ITN works, then get back to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support TRM's WP:BOLD admin decision. There are stories that ITN runs regardless of what the hard vote count says. This is one of them. If he believes that the article referencing is up to snuff, I trust his judgment.--WaltCip (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support TRM's WP:BOLD admin decision. As one of the people voting "wait" I intended my vote to mean "I support the significance of the story, but do not post until there is enough concrete information for a reliable blurb and the article is in good shape. If those criteria are met before my next visit to the page there is not need to wait for my return before posting." In this case TRM spent 20 minutes assessing and improving the article a couple of hours after a very major news story first broke before posting, after explicit support for the significance of the event. This is very significantly different to what Ed did. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was obvious this was going to be posted. Not a terrible call to post when TRM did, though I was also following the article at the time and personally would have waited a bit longer. At the time, the number of shooters, number of locations, and other details were still in flux. The amount of material based on weak sources (e.g. twitter and speculative reporting) was still higher than I would generally like. As it happens, another 90 minutes or so did a lot to clarify what happened. Dragons flight (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[Removed] Remove Pokemon Go from ongoing
It's been there for about a week. The main news now is that it is becoming available in more countries, which are not updates strong enough to make it still relevant for ITN ongoing. We posted it as ongoing as we could not agree on a blurb, a blurb would roll off the Main page by now. Suggesting to do the same now. --Tone17:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral – Still circulating the news quite a bit and it remains a huge sensation; the article is still getting hundreds of thousands of views daily. However, things do appear to be calming down and editing is getting less frequent. Most of what I have done is small statistical updates, the biggest news appears to have passed. I do have a personal bias toward keeping the article (huge Pokémon fan and I've invested a lot of time improving the article) but objectively it's getting close to that time for taking it down. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It ran its course. If a particularly crushing news story comes up claiming it's the most widely used mobile app in the world, we can maybe consider reposting it.--WaltCip (talk) 18:16, 22 July 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: Indian Air Force plane gone missing, article is only a paragraph right now but I am sure will be updated more as more information is added. Andise1 (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Even if mostly military personal , still a significant aviation incident. I just would give this a few hours to make sure details stablize or if more can come out, as the article is a tad short. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would point out that AIRCRASH is only describes cases where there is reasonably clear presumption for a standalone article, not when there should not be an article. While there is no case in this story that meets AIRCRASH, it still appears to be getting sufficient coverage to pass NEVENT even if there are no notable persons aboard. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would point out that I'm not sure I understand your point beyond the fact that this "article" should be a one-line update in the standard list of military aircraft crashes for 2016, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article is not nominated for deletion, isn't in too bad a shape, and this is in the news. WP:AIRCRASH has never been a particularly good predictor of AfD outcomes. Thryduulf (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is very much still a stub. If formatted properly, it might be a paragraph long - no where near the three decently sized paragraphs ITN update guide for new articles. It should detail the ongoing search operation, but no prose has been added to article since the second comment on this nom. Fuebaey (talk) 14:42, 24 July 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.
Nominator's comments: Time to report the death of another historic figure, the VCR . Leaving jokes aside, it is a very notable technology of the past that I think is worthwhile pointing out. Nergaal (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even with a proper blurb, this is only in Japan, not worldwide. And with physical-based distribution, there will be a huge tail before it "dies". --MASEM (t) 15:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it's not Japan that stops producing, but rather the last existing producer of VCRs (who happens to be Japanese). Obviously notable, a once a groundbreaking and gamechanging technology dies. 79.193.104.97 (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since this has been re-opened. I expect it to be re-closed in the next hour or so. This is tech-trivia, not ITN in any way, shape or form. Regardless of the malformed nomination and the subsequent actions. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 22 July 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.
Oppose ... and? This are findings that allow them to initiate full-on investigation towards the athletes in question (as per the IOC statement), which will likely end up with various bans, medal stripping, etc. (since a lot of these were medal winners). This also appears to be something they plan to keep ongoing (the 3rd and 4th waves mentioned) through Rio 2016. The final results will be of note (as in the case of the Russia doping, the announcement they were barred from an international event). --MASEM (t) 14:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That they will be (most likely) barred or stripped off medals is rather an expected and natural consequence based on findings. Tomorrow or the day after IOC also plans to decide what to do with Russian team anyway. Brandmeistertalk14:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But they are being given the nature of a trial, so innocent until proven guilty and all that. At the point they are banned/stripped is when we should post. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not every athlete in this current finding is Russian, though. I saw across the board of nationalities represented. From what I read, the doping by the Russian track + field team is a separate investigation (across all track & field competitions) while this IOC is specifically looking at the 2008 + 2012 Summer Games. There might be overlap, but we should be careful to conflate. --MASEM (t) 16:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support. On top of the previous finds, almost 10% of the selected samples for reanalysis points to doping. That number is huge, but this is not very obviously covered in the news, nor it is well covered here (in the linked article). Nergaal (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support but wait - Agree this is huge in terms of scope and profile, but as @Masem: points out, we need to know the fallout and not just the findings before it's a headline story. -- Fuzheado | Talk16:07, 22 July 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.
Following the Nampala attack, the government of Mali declares a three-day mourning period for the 17 soldiers killed in the attack, as well as a state of emergency for three months across the country. (Reuters)
Breitbart tech editor and outspoken conservative gay activist Milo Yiannopoulos with more than 338,000 registered followers is "permanently" banned from Twitter. (Guardian)
A Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) ship rescues 209 people, including 50 children, from two dinghies in distress in the Mediterranean Sea but finds 22 dead bodies, 21 women and a child, lying in a pool of fuel in the bottom of one of the boats. The dinghies were 17 miles east of Tripoli, Libya. Cause of death is unknown, though an MSF official says it could be that fumes from mixed fuel and water rendered the people unconscious. The MSF ship is expected to arrive in the Sicilian port of Trapani on Friday.(Reuters)
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.
I couldn't find any claim online and in English that supported the sentence, so I took the liberty of removing it. It can always be put there again if it turns out it was true. Yakikaki (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article 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.
Nominated RDs must still be shown to be In The News- that has never changed. I'm not necessarily saying that the sources you have given mean otherwise- just that some more mainstream ones would make me feel better about it. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per331dot, the requirement that nominations actually appearing in news sources has not been removed. What has been removed is people's personal likes or dislikes, awareness of or lack of awareness of, and other similar criteria based on people's opinions of "importance" or "merit" or "notability". --Jayron3216:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The person is already established as being notable as they have a WP article (non-notable = no article). The article is already cited to reliable sources. Not sure of the basis of the opposition vote? MurielMary (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response WaltCip. However, the place to discuss notability of a subject is in a "article for deletion" nomination. The new RD criteria only deal with quality of article. MurielMary (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment have added two further sources, from NY and the UK. Jayron and 331dot can you direct me to where the criteria of "mainstream sources" is recorded in the RD criteria? Thanks MurielMary (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article length and sourcing is good. While this death happens to be on the NY Times front page, I agree that even if the death is mentioned in a very smalltown newspaper's obituary section, as long as we have a quality article it must be posted under the new criteria. Mamyles (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose while I agree with the majority of the previous post, this is hardly a comprehensive article, it's just about avoiding having a stub tag. 36 years of her life are completely overlooked, presumably when she was most active as a socialite and making the most of life, so I can't support the article in its current, incomplete state. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except for her husband having an affair, what is missing from the article? It seems pretty much in line with the NY Times source. She was known primarily for hosting parties with a lot of powerful friends, and writing books about it. Mamyles (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Mamyles - how is the article incomplete? What is missing? Her whole adult life is covered. Well above stub status. MurielMary (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When I reviewed the article, there was no mention of anything that she had done (besides having three kids) between 1946 and 1982. That's what I considered incomplete. It's marginally better now. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose See, this is where the criteria fall down. Having a Wikipedia article = Notable. Why? What is she famous for? Holding parties, buying clothes, and being friends with some famous people? And people wonder why Wikipedia has a gender bias. This is not an important person. Laura Jamieson (talk)23:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Therefore all the bios of socialites and philanthropists should be deleted from WP? This simply raises the inherently subjective question of "important to whom" or "notable in whose eyes". If someone is reported on internationally, both while alive and on her death, how does that fall below notability? MurielMary (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't waste my time. This is an inherent failing of Wikipedia, not of ITN, that unimportant people who have achieved nothing apart from being friends with other "important people" can merit articles. They certainly shouldn't be given the dignity of an RD. But, for the sake of WP:GNG, the article still doesn't explain why we should care about her. Laura Jamieson (talk)23:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To sum up the article. Was born. Married someone. Bought clothes. Got fined for importing clothes with fake prices. Was in a bit of a scandal with her husband's mistress after he died. Threw parties. Was friends with a First Lady. Did a bit of charity. Died. Laura Jamieson (talk)23:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the location to question the existence of the article. One person's 'unimportant' is another's 'very important', hence the change in RD criteria. I've said what you can do if you feel this person does not merit an article- but you declined to do so. If you do not wish to suggest the page for deletion, please move on. 331dot (talk) 00:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Frankly, opposes about importance don't carry any weight now. If anyone wants to change the ITN/DC, there's another page for that. The article is of sufficient quality to post, marking [Ready]. Mamyles (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this point While well-sourced, the article is very poorly organized and not Main Page ready at present. Her "adult life" section is not organized uniformly chronologically or thematically, and could do well with some sub-sections delineating how the article should be organized. Additionally, the introduction of the article states that "[s]he was considered a fashion icon" without providing any description of what this means in the rest of the article besides "Bloomingdale began travelling to Paris regularly to view and purchase haute couture clothing. Over the coming decades she amassed a collection of over 100 gowns and outfits" and that there was an exhibit about her at a college. Finally, and perhaps a more minor concern compared to the other issues noted, is that she is noted as being a "philanthropist" in the article's opening sentence, but the article provides only sparse information about what she actually did as a philanthropist. Removing ready. SpencerT♦C15:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed analysis Spencer. I'm confused though by your comment that there is only sparse information on her charity work, as there is a complete paragraph describing this? Also the statement on "fashion icon" being unclear is odd, as the mention is followed by cited facts on appearing in best dressed lists, and supported in the article with a mention of the exhibition based on her fashion collection. MurielMary (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only information I'm seeing about her charity work in the article is a brief two sentences ("she was involved in fundraising projects for the Los Angeles Cathedral, and also contributed to the funding for the development of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. She was also a member of the elite charitable group The Colleagues, which funded homes for unmarried mothers and their children.")...quite a bit of a stretch to call that a "complete paragraph" IMO, especially when the first half of the paragraph has seemingly unrelated information about Nancy Reagan. What was her role in those fundraising projects? Is there nothing more to say about her work with The Colleagues besides simply being a member? Given that this is what she is notable for, I would be expecting a more information than what currently exists in the article.
I definitely don't have an issue with the citations, those are fine. It's just that she's listed as a "fashion icon" without any in-text explanation of what that means...how did she impact haute couture in the United States? I guess I'm looking for more detail of her impact on broader culture, more than simply being on a list or having an exhibition of her dresses (which certainly are good starting points). Hope that adds some more clarification on what I meant. Best, SpencerT♦C18:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Short article that really needs some work to match the proper tone - it reads like a series of bullet points, instead of a biography. Challenger l (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment perhaps editors would benefit from reviewing the new RD criteria. This nomination is at risk of becoming stale and un-postable as it has been derailed by discussions of irrelevant points such as the type of sources considered acceptable for the death announcement (no longer required - or at least, not described in the RD criteria) and the notability of the subject (no longer required, and the "articles for deletion" process exists if editors want to pursue that discusstion). MurielMary (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can we post an article describing someone as a "philanthropist" when the paragraph describing her activities there is two sentences long and only contains sources showing she supported one charity? I would expect someone who was a genuine philanthropist to have sources showing far more than that. Laura Jamieson (talk)12:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if there are reliable sources that describe her as a philanthropist (which there are in the article, although none of them are adjacent to where we use term that is something that can be fixed easily). Source 8 for example also gives details of a couple of other major charities she supported. I am not posting this at the moment, but that is because the observations by Spencer and Chalenger have largely not been addressed. The argument about this not appearing in mainstream general news media was not irrelevant - the new RD criteria explicitly did not change the requirement to be in the news, and as nothing is mentioned about how that is to be determined it is judged on the consensus of commentators, however ITN has historically given more weight to coverage in mainstream than in specialist publications; however as this has now appeared in mainstream sources the argument is moot. The argument about notability is irrelevant here, if the article exists and is not nominated for deletion then they are notable enough for RD. If you disagree they should have an article then you should nominate it for deletion, if you disagree with the GNG or how it is interpreted for specific fields then you need to gain consensus to change it at the relevant talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 23 July 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 needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Well-known Romanian theater actor, the oldest one alive in Romania and one of the oldest in the world. Andise1 (talk) 02:22, 21 July 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.
Weak support on improvement This is a tough call, because we normally don't place Congress members in RD, even incumbent ones (such as Alan Nunnelee). However, his election in 2014 was hotly contested, with Takai winning by 51–47, so his death might have a bigger impact. I think we could get this posted if we can get the article up to standard.Support based on new RD criteria; the article still has a couple of "citation needed" tags, but I don't see any glaring flaws. EternalNomad (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@EternalNomad: Remember that the RD criteria changed, so now we're back to posting articles as long as the quality is sufficient, regardless of our interpretation of their "super notability". – Muboshgu (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. His spouse and children were referenced in the infobox, I added a simple mention to the body of the article (using the same reference) and didn't see anything else in the way of posting. Thryduulf (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] Dollar Shave Club
With nothing particularly remarkable or groundbreaking about this deal, it seems unlikely it will gain consensus. SNOW close. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 20 July 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.
Question: I'm not too familiar with the shaving industry--is this a record-breaking deal? In the Dollar Shave Club article, it says that the company has 2 million subscribers, which doesn't seem that large in the grand scheme of things, but correct me if I'm wrong. This seems like a routine corporate acquisition. SpencerT♦C17:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose US$1 billion is fairly small in terms of business acquisitions. Unilever is a massive multinational company but I don't think purchasing a startup that has yet to turn a profit meets the bar for ITN. Also, each article only has single sentence updates. Fuebaey (talk) 18:30, 20 July 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.
Nominator's comments: Mohammed Shahid Indian hockey legend of the eighties, who was part of 1980 Moscow Olympics gold medalist team, died at the age of 56.
Oppose The article makes an uncited claim that he invented a novel hockey stroke. I played field hockey myself at school and am not convinced – it seems to have been a regular push pass with a good strong technique. Andrew D. (talk) 06:30, 21 July 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.
References
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
.svg)
_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
