***Its back at Hanoi Hannah. Taken with the above comment from DHN - If someone genuinely thinks the vast majority of English language sources per [[WP:COMMONNAME]] which directly refer to her as Hanoi Hannah should be ignored, they are free to request a move at [[WP:RM]]. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 09:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
***Its back at Hanoi Hannah. Taken with the above comment from DHN - If someone genuinely thinks the vast majority of English language sources per [[WP:COMMONNAME]] which directly refer to her as Hanoi Hannah should be ignored, they are free to request a move at [[WP:RM]]. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 09:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
::::I have left a note on your talk page regarding this action {{u|Only in death}} - suggest you revert changes and open a discussion so that editors can discuss fully (rather than taking action and *then* telling anyone who disagrees to open a discussion!) [[User:MurielMary|MurielMary]] ([[User talk:MurielMary|talk]]) 10:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
::::I have left a note on your talk page regarding this action {{u|Only in death}} - suggest you revert changes and open a discussion so that editors can discuss fully (rather than taking action and *then* telling anyone who disagrees to open a discussion!) [[User:MurielMary|MurielMary]] ([[User talk:MurielMary|talk]]) 10:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
:::::The onus is on those who wish to move it to do so. The page was already at Hanoi Hannah. Perhaps I was less clear above when I said 'any move would be reverted'. When perhaps I should have said 'If you move to this the vietnamese name in spite of the COMMONNAME guidelines I will revert it'. If you want to request a move, do so on the article talkpage or at [[WP:RM]]. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 10:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
==== Discovery of largest Iron Age Earthwork in Britain ====
==== Discovery of largest Iron Age Earthwork in Britain ====
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually - a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
The pound sterling sustains a flash crash, dropping from an exchange rate of $1.23 per pound to $1.13 in a few minutes of trading today, then gaining much of it back. Observers blame this development on algorithmic trading. (MIT Technology Review)
The Obama administration lifts U.S. sanctions on Myanmar by terminating an emergency order that deemed the policies of the former military government a threat to U.S. national security. (Reuters)
Mylan pays US$465 million to settle its underpayment to U.S. government healthcare programs by misclassifying its epinephrine autoinjector emergency allergy treatment. (Reuters)
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.
Pakistan's government removes a loophole allowing those behind so-called honor killings to go free with the new legislation instead requiring a mandatory life sentence. (BBC)
Nominator's comments: This was the main news story yesterday in the UK, and made worldwide headlines. Until two days ago, most Wikipedians probably didn't know Woolfe from a hole in a ground; now they do and the article has been suitably beefed up Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose posting (if I understand it correctly) an assault between two members of the same party in a private meeting. It wasn't on the floor of the EP or a physical altercation between different parties. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 7 October 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: Wrote important books about the lifes of e.g. empress Elisabeth of Austria, Adolf Hitler, and Winifred Wagner. Wwikix (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I've done some general tidying of the article but there is too much unsourced material to be posted in its current state. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in current state due to uncited claims. (I actually looked at this a couple of days ago but felt it needed too much work to ready for RD!) MurielMary (talk) 08:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the ideal. But at a minimum anything that does not link to its own Wikipedia article including the red links needs a cite. I would think that there must be a source somewhere that lists all of his compositions. That could probably be used as an omnibus cite for the entire section. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discogs source, given both as a global source and as an External link, covers all his songs. The redlinks have also been sourced separately. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was sure I'd seen discogs used in one of two other musician articles around here. I can revert all those additions if you think that would improve the article. There are two other sources there too. Meanwhile I see that User:Ghmyrtle has added this source to External links. Perhaps that could be used instead? (I guess maybe better to continue this discussion at the article Talk Page). Or does the nomination just fail anyway since we have no exact date of death? It may have been about two weeks ago already. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mexicantequila producer Jose Cuervo will delay its IPO until after the U.S. presidential election due to concern over potential market volatility. (Reuters)
An Israeli Air ForceF-16 crashes while attempting to land at Ramon Airbase in southern Israel, killing the pilot. A navigator who was also in the aircraft successfully ejects and escapes the incident unharmed. (Haaretz)
I think that this should be posted after formally elected/acclaimed by the General Assembly, which should be sometime today. He is technically not even nominated yet.Mamyles (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What's the rush to close a good-faith nomination? Being the former president of a country would have made him eligible even under the old system where "extra" notability was required for listing in RD. All it will take is one bilingual person to add some references and it will be good to go. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] Hurricane Matthew
Article:Hurricane Matthew (talk·history·tag) Blurb: At least 142 deaths have occurred in the Caribbean as Hurricane Matthew moves north towards the southeastern United States. (Post) Alternative blurb: "After killing at least XXX in the Caribbean, Hurricane Matthew makes landfall in the United States near City, State. News source(s):Reuters, USA TodayCNN (10/6) Credits:
Support I was thinking of nominating this for ongoing because it's already a major event and likely to continue to be one for at least the next several days. But IMO it deserves a blurb. The article is well written and decently sourced (one CN tag and the table of warnings needs a cite). It is also being updated regularly. One observation is that if/when this is posted we will likely have to update the blurb from time to time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - It's about to make landfall again in the Southeastern U.S. and there might be some additional damages. When that happens, the death figures in the Caribbean might be more solid and there will also be an opportunity to report on damages in the U.S. as well, particularly if there are any deaths as a result of this C4 hurricane.--WaltCip (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per updated death toll below, as that was something that was not known at the time this was initially nominated. Lugnuts, don't bloody misrepresent what I said.--WaltCip (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not !voting because I'd like to post when the time comes, but I would suggest posting on landfall with the US with a blurb similar to "After killing at least XXX in the Caribbean, Hurricane Matthew makes landfall in the United States near City, State", if consensus ends up supporting posting. I have added this format as an alt blurb; feel free to tweak as necessary. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)17:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – There shouldn't be any need to wait for posting this given the devastating effects in Haiti. If need be, the blurb can be updated in a day or two anyways. I'd boldly post it, but I'm too involved with the article. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The 100+ in Haiti makes this something we should post sooner, not later. It is near assured it will landfall in Florida somewhere and there will likely be damage, but we're already past a threshold where the death toll and the damage is significant before considering what might happen in the US. We can readily update once the landfall happens. --MASEM (t) 17:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posted per User:Lugnuts. I combined the blurb and the alt blurb to more closely match previous wording of other storm blurbs (based on my memory, not research, so please fix if I'm wrong). Per User:Cyclonebiskit, this will need substantial rewording of the blurb over the next few days. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The news here is the damage and the high death toll that the hurricane has caused in the Caribbean so far but not the fact that it is approaching southeastern United States. The blurb should be accordingly modified to document just that part of the story, whereas we can add the United States at any time once the hurricane results in similar casualties there.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything is about casualties. While "Cyclone X approaches Y" probably wouldn't be posted on ITN by itself, that doesn't mean that predicted future impacts are an unimportant part of the story. About 3 million people live in the declared evacuation zones. In general, I support including predicted paths for major cyclones approaching populated areas. Dragons flight (talk) 09:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Sauvage's article is a tad short but reasonable sourced; the other two have actually articles in seemingly good shape. The molecular machines target is a bit weak in sources but its also not a target article. MASEM (t) 14:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think it would probably be better if it was one page that lists all the winners of the 2016 round instead of having an entry for each of them though. I also think that somewhere on Wikipedia - not sure in which article/s (probably the persons' ones or a new one) - their findings should be elucidated. --Fixuture (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Grouped Nobel laureates are difficult. We do have lists of laureates for each prize (eg List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry) and I note that the Nobel Prize in Chemistry now features these three as the current winners. But very often, when a group of researchers are given the prize, it is for their separate advances in that specific field as infrequently the work was done in any coordinated manner. Consider this prize, the work is award for discoordinated research efforts over a 16 year period [1]; the committee instead recognizes how the advancement from Sauvage's work to Stoddart's to Feringa's collectively brought significant impact to the area of molecular machines. Hence why ITNR for Nobel is the person(s) winning the prize. --MASEM (t) 00:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I do not have an opinion on if we should post the winners at one time or individually. I know however that this one should be posted, clearly notable.BabbaQ (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An apparent sectarian attack by two motorcyclists who open fire on a bus traveling to Hazara Town, Quetta, Pakistan, kills four women from Pakistan's ShiaHazara and injures two other people. (The Daily Mail), (Dawn), (Firstpost)
Turkish authorities suspend nearly 12,800 police officers from duty over their suspected links with U.S.-based cleric Fethullah Gulen. (Reuters)
Turkish security forces raid the headquarters of IMC TV in Istanbul, cutting its transmissions while it was live on air, for allegedly broadcasting "terror propaganda". (Gulf News)
Nominator's comments: Blurb's overstated right now. It should say there are no more real obstacles until the Paris Agreement comes into effect. Don't know how to word it better though. Banedon (talk) 06:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article currently says "The agreement will only enter into force provided that 55 countries that produce at least 55% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions ratify, accept, approve or accede to the agreement; although the minimum number of ratifications has been reached, the ratifying states do not produce the requisite percentage of greenhouse gases for the agreement to enter into force". The infobox also says "Not in effect", so probably it's too early right now. Brandmeistertalk07:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's waiting on the 55 countries rather than the 55%. Between these 4 that's about 2 dozen countries so we're still short by half. I suspect how Russia votes will be important, but as per the BBC article, this is a step towards global ratification but it is not fully ratified. --MASEM (t) 16:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support when article properly updated in the body. The UN now states that the threshold was met on 5 Oct.[5] I'm not sure the EU signing is critical, as not all the individual countries have yet ratified. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: This nomination is bordering on wishful thinking, as none of the articles are remotely ready right now, but I'm hoping that by putting it up here it might help attract the attention needed to improve the articles before this grows stale. Dragons flight (talk) 11:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now - per nom. I am seeing some efforts at improving the article on Dr. Haldane. The other two need significant work before they could be linked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Typhoon Chaba, now a super typhoon with winds of 145 knots (165 mph), heads for Japan's southern islands with storm warnings of torrential rain followed by mudslides and flooding. (AAP via SBS), (Weather.com)
The Obama administration through the U.S. State Department announces the suspension of bilateral talks with Russia about the cessation of hostilities in Syria, as Russia and the Syrian government continue to pursue a military course despite the ceasefire accord. (CNN), (UPI)
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.
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: Article is centred on her role in the war, not much about her previous life, but doesn't seem to be anything else to add to that period of her life. MurielMary (talk) 08:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support – though the article is clearly start-class, its sourcing looks fine and the topic is fascinating. I think it's definitely worth listing at RD now, though I wish the sourcing was a bit better. The lack of early/late life information doesn't bother me too much, though I wish we could have some information about her own political beliefs during the war. ~Mable (chat) 11:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the below discussion, I would prefer it to be posted under her legal name rather than her American common name. ~Mable (chat) 13:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Biographies may correctly be titled using a pseudonym if that is how the person is most widely discussed in reliable sources. See WP:STAGENAME. As for which name to use at RD, I'm actually rather conflicted. If this is a valid application of STAGENAME (and never having heard of her before today, I don't know if it is), then presumably Hanoi Hannah is the better known name and would be more recognizable to our readers. To give a more modern analogy, I imagine that if Katy Perry dropped dead, it would be more useful to readers to list her stage name than to post her legal name, Katheryn Hudson, at RD. Is there precedent for the question of pseudonyms at RD? I notice the Newsweek source uses her pseudonym in its title but introduces and uses her real name in the body of its text. Dragons flight (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the same way. Has Trinh ever stated anything about her 'stagename'? Did she identify herself under that name, or was it a name given to her literally by her "enemies"? ~Mable (chat) 12:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, apparently "Hanoi Hannah" was an invention of the Americans, and not a name she knew about originally. On air she actually used a different pseudonym, "Thu Huong", during the war. [6] I don't know how she felt about the name Hanoi Hannah. Dragons flight (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's safe to assume that if she did not explicitly acknowledge that pseudonym, that it's not how she prefers to be remembered, thus not making it a "stage name". Referring to her using a demeaning Americanism is practically the strongest form of systemic bias you can get, falling just shy of actual full-blown racism.--WaltCip (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree with this: unless we know for sure she heard of and accepted the American nickname, her article should be at her given name, not the nick name (though obviously the redirect there is fine). It's a flat out BLP violation. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I want to note that if it's her common name, the article itself shouldn't be renamed. I can imagine this having influence on the RD, though. ~Mable (chat) 12:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per commonname the vast majority of the English-language sources (both historical and contemporary) refer to her as Hanoi Hannah. The article is currently named correctly and any rename is likely to be instantly reverted. As far as I can tell there was no derogatory aspect to the name, (see Pyongyang Sally etc) other than the inability of the troops to accurately pronounce an asian name. Should she be listed at RD, I would expect the HH name to be blue linked and her actual name included. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am reading a consensus here to move the article, which I have just done, to Trịnh Thị Ngọ (diacritics and all per MOS:FOREIGN. The Rambling Man's COMMONNAME argument is refuted by some, but Masem's BLP comment is well taken, as are Maplestrip and WaltCip's arguments about being named by an enemy and racism. Drmies (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for moving the article. I agree that it is appropriate here to use her real name as "HH" was a name given to her by the American GIs. So far the nom has one support vote - any more votes? MurielMary (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support after move. The referencing is otherwise there (though I believe there is more that could be added content-wise such as the actual origin of the nickname which I couldn't find easily on a quick google search, but that's not a reason to post RD). --MASEM (t)
Post posting note - although "HH" is a name that she did not give herself, she did embrace it and consider it a stage name. Her notability is among English-speaking audiences, not among the Vietnamese (she's not very well-known in VIetnam). I think we're being hyper-PC in calling her by her birth name, which is rather obscure both in Vietnam and elsewhere. She is much more well-known as HH. Consider the Vietnamese language article, which uses the HH moniker, and this news story in the state-run radio station Voice of Vietnam (her former employer). In it, they clearly refer to "HH" as her "stage name" (nghệ danh). The story also made many approving references to the name "HH". DHN (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Its back at Hanoi Hannah. Taken with the above comment from DHN - If someone genuinely thinks the vast majority of English language sources per WP:COMMONNAME which directly refer to her as Hanoi Hannah should be ignored, they are free to request a move at WP:RM. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have left a note on your talk page regarding this action Only in death - suggest you revert changes and open a discussion so that editors can discuss fully (rather than taking action and *then* telling anyone who disagrees to open a discussion!) MurielMary (talk) 10:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is on those who wish to move it to do so. The page was already at Hanoi Hannah. Perhaps I was less clear above when I said 'any move would be reverted'. When perhaps I should have said 'If you move to this the vietnamese name in spite of the COMMONNAME guidelines I will revert it'. If you want to request a move, do so on the article talkpage or at WP:RM. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discovery of largest Iron Age Earthwork in Britain
Oppose for now. I'm underwhelmed by the two sentence update over the recent discovery. If the recent archaeology could be expanded upon (how was the new determination made? What new work has been done? Etc.) then I would support this. --Jayron3203:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
I disagree that linking to autophagy as a main article is suitable. The Nobel Prize is specifically for Ohsumi's discoveries related to autophagy mechanisms. At present the autophagy article does not explain his specific contributions to this field of study. (Prior to the Nobel win his name didn't even appear in the body of the article.) I don't believe an article merely providing a general overview of autophagy is sufficiently connected to the Nobel prize to work as the main link. We often have difficulty with Nobel Laurettes, but nonetheless I believe the best approach is to improve his article to explain why he won the prize and add the missing citations. Dragons flight (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - why hasn't it been featured yet? The only problem I see here is that there are many Nobel prize entries - it would be better if it was one page that lists the winners of the 2016 round instead of having an entry for each of them. I also think that somewhere on Wikipedia - not sure in which article (probably the person's one or a new one) - his findings should be elucidated. --Fixuture (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricane Matthew, at Category 4 strength with maximum sustained winds of 150 mph (240 km/h), temporarily stalls as it heads towards Jamaica and Haiti. Weather forecasters expect tropical storm conditions today with landfall tomorrow. Further, they expect rainfall of 20 inches, with up to 40 inches in some parts of southern Haiti. (BBC), (NBC News), (The National Hurricane Center)
Voters in Hungary go to the polls for a referendum on whether to accept mandatory European Union quotas on relocating migrants. While an overwhelming majority of voters reject the EU's migrant quotas, turnout was too low to make the poll valid. (BBC), (Reuters)
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.
Conditional Support Overall the article is not in bad shape and just needs some minor fixes. I've added a few CN tags and the tables aren't clear where their data is coming from. Fix those and we should be good to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could we clarify the blurb a little bit? For example by adding "Australian" to "rugby league", or expanding NRL to [Australian] National Rugby League? I'm sure many visitors (like me) have not heard of "rugby league", "Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks" or "NRL" before, so this blurb is a bit hard to understand. HaEr48 (talk) 21:21, 5 October 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: Significant news from Hungary showing very strong opposition to EU quotas requiring member states to accept certain numbers of migrant refugees. Although it is likely to be declared invalid due to low turnout the over 90% oppose vote is certain to add fuel to the debate over Europe's immigration crisis. The article has been updated, looks well written and decently sourced. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Right-wing nationalism on the march. Whether enforceable or not, the article is solid (at a quick glance, at least) and this is noteworthy in the migrant crisis. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I cannot see why we would post a referendum that is invalid because of low turnout and therefore is not going to have any effect. Neljack (talk) 05:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would agree. But when you have upwards of 90% of the vote going against the EU quotas, legal validity is pretty much irrelevant. The referendum is sending shock waves through the EU. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not really; it was predictable the vote would go this way. The majority of Hungarians are anti-immigration, and remember the vote was not "should Hungary accept a certain quota of immigrants?" but effectively "Should the EU be able to force Hungary to accept a certain quota of immigrants". Given that, the only surprising thing is that the turnout was so low. Black Kite (talk)09:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is sufficient reason. Celebrities getting divorced can be reported in those countries too, but doesn't mean it's worth being ITN. HaEr48 (talk) 03:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on impact. The plebiscite failed on turnout, and so nothing will change. And the thing sending shockwaves through Europe is the migrant crisis itself, not a failed plebiscite.128.214.53.104 (talk) 07:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Unfortunately, my English grammar is quite poor, so I guess the article requires a susbtantial copyedit. In this light, I'd rather not support the candidacy. --Norden1990 (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the reasons above. For a start, yes, the turnout is too low for it to be valid. Also, this was more an opinion poll than an actual plebiscite, the question was loaded very much with emotive language. Hungary will not be able to legitimately deal with the EU's rules while it remains an EU member - in the mother of all ironies, it remains very much in favour of the EU for the benefit of its own migrants in BritainValentina Cardoso (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that the blurb is terribly misleading. Those who opposed the ruling party in this question were encouraged to boycott the referendum (which was widely considered illegitimate and pointless; the Constitution of Hungary itself states that "No national referendum may be held on ... any obligation arising from an international agreement" [7]) I would love to see the referendum mentioned on the main page, because it shows that the majority of people definitely refused to be part of Orbán's hate campaign, but the blurb should reflect this, and not the opposite. Thank you. HungaryNews (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose because the turnout is too low. Can still be posted if we run into a serious lack of new blurbs, which was the case a week ago but we have several new nominations now. Banedon (talk) 01:02, 4 October 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.
Wait Yes, this is big news and almost certainly ITN worthy. However, it is quite literally breaking. We have very little information and no idea of what this means. Also the articles have not been updated (as of my writing this). They will need to have this put in along with some RS sourced analysis. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait I think the article needs to have enough of "what happens now" (do they go back to renegotiate? do they try to pass without a vote, etc?) to know the implications of this. --MASEM (t) 23:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on impact. If the referendum failed, then nothing changes. The story here is people's disappointed expectations, not a change in law nor (as someone above pointed out) day-to-day life.128.214.53.104 (talk) 07:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. The failure to approve a notable peace deal merits posting; though I'm not sure if we should do so now, or if/when the war resumes. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Altblurb 2 – Due in part to extended, high-profile coverage of the FARC deal. Alt2 contains more information. (Vote needs more than one source, though. Two added above.) Sca (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uusally its just a referendum but this was a major surprise with massive ramification akin to Brexit. I imagine its more in the news in the Spanish language media. Anyways support ALT as it links to the details..Lihaas (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Needs more prose reactions: FARC, Santos, Cuba, (Venezuela?), and troublemaker uribe. Also more analysis on the fact that the troubled areas approved it while the central areas less affected rejected it (was on bbxC tv).Lihaas (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally? Prose. Colombian peace agreement referendum, 2016 seems to be the best choice for a target article, but only a single sentence of prose has been added since the vote result became known. [8]. Having a map and vote tally is nice, but there is literally more discussion of what this result means on this page than there is within the referendum article right now. I understand that the consequences might be uncertain, but even then the article could at least cite some sources saying that. Dragons flight (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Colombian peace process is a ridiculously bloated 19,143 words, while the last section reporting the referendum result is a mere 27. However, Colombian peace agreement referendum, 2016 is a respectable 1,000 words, plus two charts, and seems just barely adequate. True, it would be better to have what in the news business we used to call "instant depth," but the referendum result alone seems very significant. Time's a' wastin'. Sca (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Post Posting Comment There appears to have been very little consideration given to the quality of what we have now linked on the front page. While the primary target is not bad, the other two linked articles are really not in good shape, especially with referencing. IMO this is represents a regrettable lapse in our usual standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that only the bolded target article(s) must be at "postable on Front Page" standards; any non-bolded links should be clear of patently clear problems but do not need the same rigor. --MASEM (t) 21:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Conditional Weak Support There are two relatively short sections near the top that need a reference and some of the tables are not very clear on where their data is coming from. And honestly, though I tagged it, I'm not sweating the TV coverage as that is not a claim likely to be controversial. Otherwise it looks good and reasonably well sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose This sounds like something we should have on ITN. Unfortunately there are currently only three sentences on the subject in the linked article. Those three sentences are not only short on details, but seem unsure of the ones they are providing. It's not clear exactly when this happened. Rocks were thrown, or they weren't. Fifty-two were killed, or three hundred. And there is only one source cited. While the BBC is indisputably an RS source, I'd like to have more than one news source if we are posting something to "In the News." It doesn't need its own article but if we could expand this beyond three sentences and add another reliable news source (or two) I think we could post this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:12, 2 October 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.
Weak Oppose The article is really short and needs expansion. In particular it needs more on his personal life (which currently there is virtually nothing) and it does not even mention his death! I have added a few CN tags, which can probably be covered from the obits. Add some meat to the bones and fill in a few refs and I think we will be good to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is growing quickly, with more references, as the obits appear. I've added a personal life section, and started an article on his first wife. Edwardx (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've expanded the article and I believe everything there is now cited (I had to remove some material I could not source). A list of notable recordings would be useful but I don't have time to look into compiling one now. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A car bomb at a Mogadishu restaurant near the Jilaow detention center kills four people and injures another five. Al-Shabaab claims responsibility for the attack. (CNN), (Reuters)
A Somalian regional government demands an explanation from the United States after an airstrike kills 22 civilians and other soldiers instead of the targeted Al-Shabaab militants in Galmudug. (BBC)
Volkswagen agrees to pay its U.S. dealers up to US$1.2 billion to compensate them for their losses resulting from the company's emissions cheating scandal. (The Los Angeles Times)
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.
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.
It's a rather regional event, and therefore not usually of global interest. The phrase "first time since 1977" is making me curious, though. Is this event significant? ~Mable (chat) 20:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "retain" in the blurb is unclear. Do you mean that Dublin had the cup, and kept it as a result of the finals match, and that this is the first time that's happened since 1977 - so presumably they have had the cup before but always lost it/not been able to keep it for a consecutive period? Or do you mean that Dublin won the cup for the first time? MurielMary (talk) 08:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks sufficient for an ITNR event to me. I appreciate we're going to have three sports events at the top soon (the below, and the Ryder Cup) but that's what happens occasionally. Black Kite (talk)17:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Inclined to support given that this is the club's first premiership win for 62 years and only its second ever, as well as being the first time any team has won from seventh position on the ladder. Gatoclass (talk) 10:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although I note that the match itself isn't covered in the article, and I think that would have to be rectified before this could be posted. Gatoclass (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC) I now support this nomination as a match summary has been added. Gatoclass (talk) 08:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support as ITN/R. The article isn't perfect, but the quality is certainly adequate enough for ITN standards (long enough, referencing is fine, no other tags). It makes sense to mention the Bulldogs' premiership drought in the blurb, and I've added ALT1 accordingly. (Note: "defeat" rather than "beat" is standard for blurbs, and I've used "title" rather than "premiership" as the latter is an Australianism that might not be understood by all). IgnorantArmies(talk)11:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've taken the year out of each blurb, but please, let's try to avoid the usual ENGVAR debate here by selecting a blurb that is English-variant-agnostic. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support Overall article quality is not bad though it needs a little expansion per TRM's observation above. Referencing actually looks pretty respectable which is a pleasant change from the norm around here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ten thousand pro-government troops, mostly Iranian-led Shiite militants, amass near Aleppo in preparation of a final assault on rebel-held parts of the city. (CNN)
President Rodrigo Duterte likens himself to Adolf Hitler saying he would "be happy" to kill 3 million drug users and dealers in the country. United Nations adviser Adama Dieng cautions Duterte that his use of language could lead to "crimes against humanity". (GMA News Online)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support Now that it's happened. Not 100% sure "controlled crash" is the right term - it actually descended slower than the lander did, collecting data all the way - and most sources seem to be using "descend" or "land" (although some do use "crash"). Smurrayinchester11:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a unique event and a milestone of planetary science. I've added an altblurb, including switching to the 'controlled descent' terminology used by ESA. I've also added an image which would work at Main Page scale. Modest Geniustalk12:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly "all along". There was no plan for what do at the end of the mission - they originally considered putting it back to sleep for five years until the next orbit. It looks the decision to land it on the comet was made some time in 2014 or so. Smurrayinchester14:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article says it "ended its mission by landing on the comet near a pit called Deir el-Medina." I haven't read a lot about this topic, but it's not entirely clear to me whether the vehicle achieved a soft landing or was destroyed. Sca (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now purely on article quality. I'm fine with the rational for the nomination. But there are just too many gaps in referencing in the Rosetta article. These need to corrected before this can be posted. The article on the comet has a couple of spots that could use a cite but overall I think it's good enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support There has been a clear improvement in referencing. There might be a few spots still in need of a cite, but overall I think it's good enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting something related to this event, which imo is far more relevant to an encyclopedia than much of what we post here. I agree with Ad Orientem that the comet article is more comprehensively sourced. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, using the word "descend" rather than "crash". The event is global news and of high interest as it marks the end of a very major mission and because of the data that may have been collected during this event. ~Mable (chat) 20:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Descend" seems inaccurate. Friday's BBC story said: "Europe's Rosetta probe has ended its mission to Comet 67P by crash-landing on ... the icy object's surface. Mission control in Darmstadt, Germany, was able to confirm the impact had occurred when radio contact to the ageing spacecraft was lost abruptly. The assumption is that the probe would have been damaged beyond use." Sca (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support if the local Philly news radio sees fit to describe this as a crash landing, I think it is both newsworthy and accurate. Under the RD criteria this would be up already. μηδείς (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Marking as Ready I believe there is a consensus in favor of posting this and there are no longer any objections based on article quality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:00, 1 October 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 We don't usually do opening of sports events (the Olympics being an exception). Assuming article quality is up to scratch we will post the winner. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed (which is why I opposed myself), but I bet we wouldn't have posted the U-21 version either (which I would have supported) for the same reason ... consistency is something we need to look at on sporting events. Black Kite (talk)17:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am less than enthusiastic about posting college level sporting events. But it's not a hill I feel the need to assault and plant the flag on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But as noted, WP:IAR is a policy (!!) no less so whether former consensus or not established that we should not post junior events (just as it established we no longer judge "super notability" of RDs), it is still perfectly acceptable to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. But I take a somewhat conservative approach to IAR. My view is that (with apologies to one of our former presidents) invoking IAR should be safe, legal and rare. I have done it a few times myself. But only in unusual situations where I really thought that an exception to an existing guideline was warranted but that circumstances did not justify changing the guideline itself. Here I have doubts about the guideline. If I was going to go down this path, I'd just propose removing most of the college/university level sports events from ITNR. And if someone made that proposal, I'd probably support it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, but for consistency, with the RD entry below where IAR is quoted as a way of getting out of posting an RD even if it meets the quality threshold, it only seems reasonable to quote it here to note to others that IAR doesn't just apply as and when they feel appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 2 October 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
