| article2 = <!-- Do not wikilink - leave blank if nominating only one article -->
| article2 = <!-- Do not wikilink - leave blank if nominating only one article -->
| image = <!-- Name of image only; do not link. Please crop the image before adding, if necessary. -->
| image = <!-- Name of image only; do not link. Please crop the image before adding, if necessary. -->
| blurb = Adenslypopulated funeral in Yemen wasairstrokedwhichleftatleast155deadand525wounded.Theattackisstronglyissaid tobe carried out by Saudi Arabia.
| blurb = An air strike at a funeral in Yemen, suspected to be '''[[Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen|carried out by Saudi Arabia]]''', kills at least 155 and wounds 525.
| recent deaths = no <!-- (yes/no); instead of specifying a blurb the nomination can be for the "Recent deaths" line -->
| recent deaths = no <!-- (yes/no); instead of specifying a blurb the nomination can be for the "Recent deaths" line -->
| ongoing = no <!-- (add/rem/no); instead of specifying a blurb the nomination can be for the "Ongoing" line -->
| ongoing = no <!-- (add/rem/no); instead of specifying a blurb the nomination can be for the "Ongoing" line -->
Line 145:
Line 145:
}}
}}
*'''Oppose''' in current form. Hook needs to be re-written and neutral in tone without speculation. The story '''is''' newsworthy however. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 07:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' in current form. Hook needs to be re-written and neutral in tone without speculation. The story '''is''' newsworthy however. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 07:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' in principle but oppose as nominated, because the target article is not very related to the news item (which at present is one line of text in the article). I'm going to boldly edit the blurb as well since it contains several typos. [[User:Banedon|Banedon]] ([[User talk:Banedon|talk]]) 08:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Michel Barnier
Typhoon Yagi leaves more than 760 people dead across six Asian countries.
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).
Samsung recalls and suspends production of its reformulated-version of Galaxy Note 7 smartphone due to the same persistent problem with battery fires and explosions. (The Japan Times)
Matthew's death toll in Haiti rises to at least one thousand, with victims being buried in mass graves. An unknown number of people remain missing and authorities report that cholera is spreading in the hardest hit-areas in the country's southwest. (AP/Reuters via ABC News Australia)
A shooting takes place in Jerusalem that kills two people, including a police officer, injuring six others. The attack was carried out by a Palestinian gunman who opened fire from a vehicle on people waiting at a train station and then the nearby police headquarters in Jerusalem. Israeli police kill the gunman. (BBC)
The United States Navy's destroyerUSS Mason comes under missile attack in the Red Sea, off the coast of Yemen. The two missiles, fired from Yemeni territory controlled by Iranian-backed Houthis, impacted the water well before reaching the ship, according to Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis. (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.
Saudi-led coalition jets launch airstrikes on civilians at the funeral of the father of the Houthi government's Interior Minister in Sana'a, killing at least 140 people, and injuring over 500 more. One of the dead is the mayor of Sana'a, Abdul-Qader Hilal. (The Independent), (BBC), (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.
Comment. Three demerits for marking this as "ready" while the article incorrectly reported his date of death. I also added two citation needed tags for interesting but unsourced factoids. Dragons flight (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The citation in use at the time was dated 8 October and had no more information, the one that subsequently arrived clarified it in terms of time zones. Great spot, but demerits rejected. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Comment Not right now, as too soon, and the blurb might not even be correct, depending on the election result. Once the result is official, then I'll support this with the correct winning party. Joseph230210:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well it may be better to introduce them, e.g. "Center-left political party "Georgian Dream" wins..." to avoid the Europop/horse race analogy. But that's just me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Article is not updated but notifying that the IRNR occurrence happened. About 90% of votes counted. Lihaas (talk) 09:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, not any more! But anyone can adjust the blurb, I'm just saying it ought to be done before it's posted (if it gets posted of course) to avoid a trip to ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle but oppose as nominated, because the target article is not very related to the news item (which at present is one line of text in the article). I'm going to boldly edit the blurb as well since it contains several typos. Banedon (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)
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 alt blurb; the award was given for his efforts, not his success. We should just post that he was awarded the prize. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support (first blurb). Announcement with significant international interest over the next few days. [note: I am author of the '2016 Nobel Peace Prize' article] Wittylama10:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support and I added a more concise subject-verb-object altblurb 2. They're going to have to change the name of the award though: Arafat/Peres/Rubin for peace in the Middle East, Obama for nuclear non-proliferation, now Santos for a ceasefire that's already been rejected. Nobel Aspirational Prize?128.214.53.104 (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since the Colombian referendum is currently an 'In the news' topic, would there be any merit in merging the two stories as in altblurb 1? Otherwise, it might look like they're unrelated stories, which isn't quite the case. Neegzistuoja (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be really careful with combining though not against it. They are obviously connected, but there's nothing to indicate that the Nobel's selection was based on what happened in the referendum (they appear to have awarded to him for getting the peace talks to that point in the first place). We don't want the combined blurb to cast blame, etc. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the Committee's statement further [1] a combined statement may point out that the prize is for his previous and ongoing efforts in negotiating peace despite the referendum going against the first plan, as he is still spearheading the discussions to affect the deal to make it more amenable to all. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - looking at paragraph three in particular (of that press release) it seems that the award was given not only despite the referendum loss, but even because of it - "The Norwegian Nobel Committee emphasizes the importance of the fact that President Santos is now inviting all parties to participate in a broad-based national dialogue aimed at advancing the peace process. Even those who opposed the peace accord have welcomed such a dialogue. The Nobel Committee hopes that all parties will take their share of responsibility and participate constructively in the upcoming peace talks." Wittylama15:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Typically the target article for the Nobels is the person(s) awarded, not the prize. And Santos' article unfortunately has a section of disputed neutrality (though its otherwise reasonably sourced). --MASEM (t) 14:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I do say so myself (as the primary author of the page) the 2016 Nobel Peace Prize article is already more extensive and significantly more footnoted than the the preceding year's articles (e.g. 2015 = 6,000 bytes and 8 footnotes, 2016 = 12,000 bytes and 23 footnotes). Wittylama14:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The primary target article is fine. However, some of the other articles linked in the various blurbs cannot be linked on the main page in their current condition. While perfection is not required, any article linked on the main page must be in at least decent shape with no glaring gaps in referencing and no orange tags. On a related note, these blurbs look a bit over-linked. Most of the secondary articles are already linked within the target article.Ad Orientem (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb 4. I have added a plain bare essentials alternative blurb. It removes the problematic secondary links most of which can be found in the target article anyway. This should resolve the issues cited in my above oppose vote. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Colombian conflict has gaps in inline referencing, though the total number of references and referenced content is substantial. However, I disagree that the article's deficiencies rise to the level that would exclude it from being linked as a secondary article in an ITN item. Dragons flight (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully but strongly disagree. Linking an article on the main page is an endorsement of that article's quality by the community. Whether it's bolded or not is immaterial. The article in question does not meet the standards that I have understood to apply to articles being considered for that distinction. I would also note that the link is unnecessary as the problematic article is linked within the primary target article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry, but your assertion is incorrect. If we had to check the quality of all non-bolded article links on the main page, we'd be here all day. Perhaps you would like to propose some kind of amendment to the various main page projects? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 8 October 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.
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: This 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]
Oppose Woolfe is reported as conscious, lucid and not with any potentially serious long-term harm. This is mercifully not at the equivalent of the murder of Jo Cox Valentina Cardoso (talk) 12:58, 7 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.
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)
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.
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]
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.
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]
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]
Future events should be automatically dismissed as per WP:CRYSTALBALL. The evacuation itself is not worth a blurb regardless of how many people were relocated and there are multiple cases in the past that weren't posted on that basis. I don't like the idea to misuse the fact that more than 300 people were killed in the Caribbean to report about a future event in the southeastern United States.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As i assume you know, CRYSTALBALL allows for the inclusion of expected or predicted events that are widely discussed in reliable sources. For me, approaching cyclones fall in that category, at least when they are close enough that an impact is near certain. As I said, we probably wouldn't have posted solely based on an approaching cyclone, but given that we have already posted I support including the ongoing track in the blurb. Dragons flight (talk) 11:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the US should be removed from the blurb until we know what effects there have been there. There are also models that have this storm looping around and hitting the Bahamas and Florida again(though weaker if that happens). 331dot (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have modified the blurb per this discussion. The news focus appears to have moved away from potential effects on Florida to documenting the extent of the effects in Haiti. If there proves to be ITN-worthy damage in the US, the date can be incremented and the new information added. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't made the change to 1,000 because the sources currently available seem insufficiently reliable to me. Reliable sources I've seen are continuing to say either c. 900 or 877. On the Effects of Hurricane Matthew in Haiti, the article quality is inadequate to link; it is completely out of date for a start. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters says they came up with the number by adding up totals from reports, which is notoriously prone to double counting; I'd personally like to see someone reputable pick it up before we do. BBC doesn't update much at this time of night but has been stuck on c900 for more than 24 hours as I recall. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:08, 10 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 [3]; 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]
Posted. Alphabetized the laureates by last name. Although Sauvage's article is shorter, the others are well updated--I could unbold his, but it would look weird. If someone feels differently, please go ahead and do so. SpencerT♦C13:49, 8 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.[7] 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. [8] 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]
[Closed] Discovery of largest Iron Age Earthwork in Britain
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 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 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 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]
"why hasn't it been featured yet?" You answer your own question: "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." SpencerT♦C13:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.jpg)
.jpg)
