*'''Support''' - international effects, with Iran's reciprocation and more. Media coverage is everywhere. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[majestic titan]]]</sup> 02:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - international effects, with Iran's reciprocation and more. Media coverage is everywhere. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[majestic titan]]]</sup> 02:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support with updated blurb''' to reflect ongoing protests at U.S. airports. Article is developing nicely and should be presentable soon. '''[[User:SounderBruce|<span style="background:#5d9731; color:white; padding:2px;">Sounder</span>]][[User talk:SounderBruce|<span style="background:#1047AB; color:white; padding:2px;">Bruce</span>]]''' 03:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support with updated blurb''' to reflect ongoing protests at U.S. airports. Article is developing nicely and should be presentable soon. '''[[User:SounderBruce|<span style="background:#5d9731; color:white; padding:2px;">Sounder</span>]][[User talk:SounderBruce|<span style="background:#1047AB; color:white; padding:2px;">Bruce</span>]]''' 03:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
*We should just accept the inevitable and give this asshole his own fucking "ongoing" section for the next 4 years. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 03:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
A U.S. military raid takes place in Yemen's southern Al Bayda Governorate. According to medics on the scene as reported by Reuters, "around 30" were killed, among which were at least three senior Al-Qaeda members, at least one U.S. service member, and 10 women and children. (Reuters)(The Guardian)
A gunman opens fire at a mosque in Quebec City, Canada, during evening prayers. At least five people were killed. Two suspects were apprehended; one was later released. (CBC News)(Reuters)
U.S. federal judges in the states of Massachusetts, Virginia, and Washington sign orders halting implementation of parts of the executive order. (New York Daily News)(Reuters via News.com.au)
In the largest protest since the 1989 Revolution, more than 90,000 people march through Romania's capital and other cities against a government proposal to pardon thousands of prisoners. (Business Review)(Digi24)
The World Food Programme cuts food aid to over 1.4 million displaced Iraqis by 50%, citing payment delays from donor states. (Al Jazeera)
Disasters and accidents
A boat with 31 people on board, including more than 20 Chinese tourists, goes missing after sailing from the eastern Malaysian port of Kota Kinabalu to visit the island of Pulau Mengalum. (AP)
Iran says it will take reciprocal action after U.S. President Donald Trump signed the executive order which limits immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries, including Iran. (CNN)
U.S. District Judge Ann Donnelly in New York grants a stay of the executive order that allows people with valid visas who landed in the U.S. to temporarily remain in the country. (Reuters)(CNBC)(AP)
An Italian court orders former Prime MinisterSilvio Berlusconi to stand trial on April 4 on charges of allegedly bribing witnesses with €10 million (US$11 million) in order to silence them over accusations he paid for sex with young women. (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.
B-list connected upperclass sinecure holder with a long-standing interest in the cultivation of wine? I'd like to see that this is in the news outside the industry where he worked. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see plenty of coverage of him when he was part of BT in other sources (like NYTimes), pre-death. There probably does need to be much more added about his business acumen here, but certainly that exists. --MASEM (t) 02:01, 29 January 2017 (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.
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: The article is being continuously updated with many fairly important news stories (the sources given above are related to vetting for terrorism, but many others could have been added related to many other topics) , but there seems little prospect of consensus for posting these stories individually, judging by the fate of the TPP nom (where Jehochman suggested Ongoing might be useful, and I agreed, but said I'd wait - I've now waited). I leave it to others to suggest what quality improvements might be needed, if any. Trump's 1st 100 days was originally suggested as the shortest wording to add to Ongoing (due to what the article is actually called), but Trump's 1st days or Trump's 1st days in office now seems much better for the wording in Ongoing (we can remove it from Ongoing long before the artificial 100 days are up if it stops dominating the news). It seems unnecessarily rather damaging to Wikipedia's credibility among its readers that our In The News section is managing to systematically ignore any mention of the current main Ongoing news story in most quality news sources (with the lone exception of the anti-Trump Woman's March story, which thus also makes us appear thoroughly WP:POV in our choice of stories, in violation of one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia (even though I supported that posting and worked quite hard on its articles) - by contrast this suggested Ongoing item, covering all Trump's actions for better or worse, seems thoroughly WP:NPOV and consistent with our 5 Pillars). Tlhslobus (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First 100 is just the name of the relevant article (and First 100 has conventionally been seen as important for every new president for a very long time). But we don't have to keep it in Ongoing for 100 days if we don't want to - if accepted, anybody can later nominate it for removal at any stage for whatever reasons seem sufficient to them. And I have no problem with the short name shown in Ongoing being changed to Trump's 1st days or Trump's 1st days in office if people prefer that. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Absolutely not. The emphasis on this first 100 days is still the lingering problem with the media reacting to Trump, and featuring it in ongoing is problematic. If there are any actions he takes that have a significant and immediate impact, that single story could be nominated. --MASEM (t) 06:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - whether or not you agree with them, Trump's actions are unarguably having a serious and worldwide impact. Furthermore, they're all over the news. This is what this template is supposed to be about. Ed[talk][majestic titan]06:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's "news" and then there's what the media is doing in covering Trump, which is over-sensationalist because the bulk of the media (which lean left) still are acting like sore losers from the election. There are some things Trump is doing that are making stirs in the international community (eg the Mexican president cancelling his visit after Trump signed the immigration-related executive orders), but the media's pulling at any thread they can here. And at WP and particularly at ITN, we have to avoid that rhetoric. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Journalists may "lean left", but media doesn't. Media leans corporate and click bait, not left. "Sore losers", huh. I rather think banning refugees and Muslims is unconstitutional. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. 1) He has not been president for 100 days yet. 2) "First 100 days" is not news in itself. 3) We've already posted two items relating to him becoming president. --Tataral (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree with Jayron, a bit ambitious. The "first 100 days" is a media creation to give its current reporting on Trump an integrity and gravitas that it would otherwise lack. But we all know that "first 100 days" is an assessment that should responsibly occur after the events of the "first 100 days," not during. At least, that's the perspective that a credible encyclopedia should operate from. The nominator's proposal was obviously made in good faith, but the target article's updates will become too unwieldy and unmanageable over time. Also, there will be continuous debate and controversy among Wikipedia editors over what items should and should not be listed in the first 100 days. Not to mention that Trump's own advisors and strategists (Kellyanne Conway et. al.) continue to provide the public with "alternative facts" that the mainstream media is not considering in its own reporting. Christian Roess (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On that basis we would never have any article in Ongoing, since we couldn't assess it properly until after it was no longer Ongoing.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Although he's been making some "yuge" waves with policy changes and such, I don't see a need to highlight coverage of his administration. Yes, it's inherently newsworthy but nothing has happened as of yet that would be worth posting as a blurb by itself (the only one close would be withdrawal from TPP but even that is contentious ITN-wise). He's angered people, made several executive orders, and set up plans to make more changes as would be expected from a controversial new president. I wouldn't even say this is an article worth postponing posting. This would be a case of either we post it or we don't. The first 100 days is "ongoing", but the concept of it is meant to be covered after the fact by which point it will be likely be far too vast to effectively cover in a blurb (but now I'm going into crystal ball territory) .I'm rather tired at the moment and not sure if I'm being clear enough, but hopefully I am. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree with you that there will be no point in posting this in ITN after 100 days, and I have not suggested anything of the kind. Meanwhile what he is doing seems far more newsworthy (judging by coverage in reliable sources) than what we currently have in Ongoing (the battle for Mosul), so our readers may find it strange that we have no mention of it. They may also find it rather POV that, apart from his election, we have not seen fit to say anything about all the many Trump news stories except post the anti-trump Women's March story. Obviously we should not post the proposed article unless it currently meets our quality standards, and if and when the article deteriorates below our quality standards it can then be removed, but it seems to make little sense to fail to post it now because its quality might eventually drop - on that basis no article could ever be posted to Ongoing.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose while it's amusing to see this trainwreck gathering pace, there's no such thing as "Trump's 1st 100 days" or similar. This is synthesis and contrived. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support this makes news around the world. Bias is overstated: "when the US sneezes, the world catches a cold". It's sensible to feature something that will have major impact on the US's health. Banedon (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Every tweet Trump sends makes the news. Should we have a permanent "Presidency of Donald Trump" link on Ongoing for the next four years? 331dot (talk) 09:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support regardless if you like the man, or if you are from the US, he has proven to do quite a lot of things in a very short amount of time that no other person in recent memory has. The amount of impactful events is larger than say the Syrian civil war at its peak or the Olympics. This is the definition of ongoing, regardless of your political preferences. And this can be taken down once his executive orders slow down. Nergaal (talk) 09:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Liking Trump or not liking him is not the issue. Ongoing is not an American politics ticker.(I say that as an American) It is very standard for a new President to start implementing their agenda- since that's what they were sent there to do. Donald Trump has pledged to 'drain the swamp' so everything he does will get news coverage. '100 days' is an artificial and arbitrary measure(created by FDR if I'm not mistaken). Unless we are prepared to have a permanent link for Trump on Ongoing, we shouldn't put it now. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dude I've already said this should stay until his stuff slows down. If he manages to do this for 100 days keep it up, if not take it down. The stuff he is doing now is more relevant than the protests we posted. Nergaal (talk) 12:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man:, actually I've already said in the TPP discussion that I think we should probably also have Brexit in Ongoing, but it currently seems much less important than the Trump issue (admittedly not helped by the unfortunate '100 days' bit). But that would properly be discussed in a separate Brexit nom (which I doubt if I will bother to attempt unless and until the current far more important nom (or a possible renom as Trump's 1st days in office, see my comment below) succeeds, which currently seems pretty unlikely). Tlhslobus (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as "first days". Here's how the NYT puts it, " If other new occupants of the White House wanted to be judged by their first 100 days in office, President Trump seems intent to be judged by his first 100 hours. No president in modern times, if ever, has started with such a flurry of initiatives on so many fronts in such short order." The BBC has Trump's first week: Well, that was intense, "The BBC website has published more than 200 stories and videos about or relating to President Trump since inauguration day. It's been a busy week." Andrew D. (talk) 10:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support coverage of ongoing disaster. Topic is constantly in the worldwide news for outrageous executive actions that defy legal and social norms. JehochmanTalk12:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per Jay and those voicing similar views. It's an artificial construct. Future DT acts may be notable individually. Suggest close. Sca (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To answer the above, the opposes smell of whitewashing. Feh, this sort of argument is meaningless. There are two bases to evaluate: (1) Is it in the news? Answer: very, very much, all around the world. (2) Is the article good enough quality? Nobody has asserted that it isn't. JehochmanTalk14:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just being "in the news" is not sufficient, as we do consider the type of news too. Worldwide media commonly post stories that gain a lot of coverage but that we do not consider for a number of reasons. Repeatedly we have to remind editors that ITN is not a news ticker. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose mostly per Tataral. There are significant news on individual stories relating Donald Trump's presidency but definitely not such thing like 'first 100 days' (albeit significant from a historical perspective to merit a Wikipedia article). Hence, we should judge the newsworthiness of individual stories on their own merits instead of an umbrella term compiling information that will have to come in from the future.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Would reflect the substantial (and probably unique) worldwide media coverage given to the early days of his presidency. There are obviously a large number of people seeking detailed information on the Trump presidency, but "First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency" is probably not an immediately intuitive article title or search term (unlike, e.g., Inauguration of Donald Trump). Having a link from the main page would allow our readers to directly navigate to that article, rather than having to stumble on a link to it elsewhere. IgnorantArmies(talk)15:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is seriously not that hard to search "donald trump" and within one link get to his presidency and aspects to that. ITN should not be a page to help with shortcuts. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Navigational assistance is ITN's primary purpose: "The In the news (ITN) section on the main page serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest." Andrew D. (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Directing readers to featured content is not navigation assistance. If anything, Portal:Current Events is the closest thing to navigational assistance on the front page and even then that is still curated. --MASEM (t) 19:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Because so much of the opposition has understandably focused on the problems with 100 days, I am now considering closing this nom and reopening it as Trump's 1st days in office, which could be shortened to Trump's 1st days for its short name in Ongoing. If nothing else, I still think we are doing quite a lot of unnecessary damage to Wikipedia's credibility by omitting any mention of the main Ongoing news story in most quality news sources (as well as appearing thoroughly POV by having only included the anti-Trump Women's March in ITN). However, given that we would presumably still be stuck with '100 days' in the target article's title, such a renomination may prove to be a waste of time, so I think I would probably prefer to have one or two indications of support here for such a renomination before attempting it. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The first 100 days of any (not just Trump) political leader's term is an artificial construct. If there are individual developments of Trump's presidency that are notable - then they should be nominated. However, In the News is not an American news ticker, and it's silly to suggest that the day-to-day actions of the American executive branch are worthy of an ongoing item. Gfcvoice (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that the '100 days' bit is an artificial construct with which we unfortunately seem stuck (at least in the target article's title, though it doesn't have to be mentioned in the short wording in Ongoing). But I don't agree that 'it's silly to suggest that the day-to-day actions of the American executive branch are worthy of an ongoing item" when those items are dominating most reliable news sources to the extent that they currently are. On the contrary, I think it rather 'silly' (or at least unnecessarily rather damaging to Wikipedia's credibility among its readers) that our In The News section is managing to systematically ignore any mention of the current main Ongoing news story in most quality news sources (with the lone exception of the anti-Trump Woman's March story, which thus also makes us appear thoroughly POV in our choice of stories, in violation of one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia - by contrast the suggested Ongoing item, covering all Trump's actions for better or worse, seems thoroughly NPOV and consistent with our 5 Pillars).Tlhslobus (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also 3 to 5 unchanging words is Ongoing is NOT a "news ticker". And it would potentially save us plenty of unnecessary arguments over which individual items were or were not worth posting. Those 2 arguments are presumably partly why we have Ongoing in the first place.Tlhslobus (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ongoing the first 100 days seems like a little too much for me, but there is newsworthy stuff happening. Maybe a blurb about the refugee/Muslim ban and/or Mexican Wall would pass muster. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, Muboshgu. I've now withdrawn '100 days' from the suggested wording for Ongoing ('100 days' were only ever there because that's what the relevant article is called, a name with which we are probably unfortunately stuck). The trouble with Muslim ban/ Mexican Wall items is that they are potentially an endless source of POV disputes which Ongoing is presumably partly intended to prevent, and meanwhile we are unnecessarily damaging Wikipedia's credibility by omitting any mention of the Ongoing story which is currently dominating most quality news sources.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (and remaining with opposition to posting this item) I am confused about the name change of this nomination from "Trump's 1st 100 days" to "Trump's 1st days in office". I doubt anyone's opinion on the nomination would change given the minor change. Also, does this invalidate any comment from editors (both in support and in opposition) made before the name change of the nomination? For what it's worth, I still oppose the posting of this item. If the nominator wants to move away from the concept of "100 days", then why is this still the target article of the nomination? There are perfectly good alternative articles at Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump and Presidency of Donald Trump. Gfcvoice (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your very useful comment, Gfcvoice. I'd be absolutely delighted to change the target article to either of the two you suggest. Which would you prefer, and do you think this should be done in this nom, or as a new nom (if as a new nom, I'd be happy to let you make the nom yourself, and take the credit, but I think you may also be still opposed to these noms)? Tlhslobus (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A GF nom., but there will be so many DT-related events drawing coverage that a shotgun approach, time-limited or not, seems impractical. Individual articles, or perhaps multiple related articles, would be more workable as targets. Leave the big picture to wonkdom. Sca (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2017 (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 clothing retailer Wet Seal announces the closing of all 148 of its brick-and-mortar stores after filing for bankruptcy in 2015. The news comes on the heels of recent announcements of the closings of other major clothing chains, such as The Limited. (WHIO-TV)
Israeli authorities approve 153 construction permits for settlement homes in East Jerusalem, and plan to approve another 11,000 in the coming months. (Al Jazeera)
Protests take place in Cameroon following the arrest of several opposition leaders and internet services being cut off in the nation's English-speaking areas. (Al Jazeera)
Nominator's comments: Executive order with severe repercussions to tens of thousands of people (if not more), and reactions from world leaders. The article has decent length and sourcing. HaEr48 (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is why an ongoing section might make sense, since there will be lots of news like this. Not that I would come here for such news myself. μηδείς (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do note that there is foreign commentary on this issue, but it is crystal-balling at this stage to state there are implications to post this. --MASEM (t) 01:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On day one, sources already reported hundreds of people being stranded and/or detained. It's certainly not "crystal-balling" to state that there are implications. HaEr48 (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: Reading from the content (not just title) of that link, it seems the court decision only affect those currently detained, not exactly nullifying the executive order. HaEr48 (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support with updated blurb to reflect ongoing protests at U.S. airports. Article is developing nicely and should be presentable soon. SounderBruce03:02, 29 January 2017 (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 highly regarded physicist and public servant called the "Godfather of Energy Efficiency". Unfortunately, his article is barely more than a stub at the moment. I am going to try to find some time to work on it myself later today. Dragons flight (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So we've more than doubled the length of the page and it is looking a lot better. I need to take a break for a while, but will come back to add more later. I think we will have it in a good state for posting before too long. Dragons flight (talk) 10:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Article is in good shape. It's not every day that a highly-respected energy physicist did more than just talk about global warming, and saved us a $billion while doing it. --Light show (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2017 (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 opposeSupport - until a few things get more attention so that article is at a minimum quality standard. Ie., the section "Early life" needs a citation(s), and the list of her books under the "Works" section needs a citation(s), or at least ISBN's. But I do have a question about the "References" section: why is it included here? I ask because none of the "references" listed is used or cited in the article itself. I'm guessing this section needs to be renamed "Secondary literature." But then the question remains: why are these works listed and not others? Why are these particular "secondary" sources considered authoritative, and not others? - Christian Roess (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I glanced at this before but hadn't commented but saw sourcing issues. But at this point the sourcing is now fixed and looks ready to go (Only oddity, not critical, is that in the list of articles he wrote, only one has an article title, the rest just give the publication. If the articles are untitled, that's okay, but those titles should be provided). --MASEM (t) 14:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support: Notable, but most importantly article is properly sources (but I will take care of sourcing for needed areas) and article is being updated to reflect his recent death. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are gaps in the filmography - fortunately most is sourced to TCM, but there's still a lot of appearances w/o sources and I did catch a few cn's in the body. --MASEM (t) 03:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Article is in very good shape. It's a sad irony that the more an actor has done, the less likely they make it ITN. All the blue-linked films are good enough, and the few unlinked films or tv roles are unimportant and can be ignored. Had he only been in a few major films and tv shows, instead of 200-plus, the article would be near perfect, IMO, with its 64 cites. --Light show (talk) 06:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Trump calls for a 20% tariff on Mexican imports to pay for the cost of a wall on the U.S–Mexican border. White House Press SecretarySean Spicer says that this is one of the ideas that the administration is considering to make Mexico pay for the wall. (NBC 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.
Nominator's comments: Metallic hydrogen is predicted to be metastable at atmospheric pressure (e.g. compare this to diamond; under normal pressure graphite is the stable form, but diamond at ordinary pressures takes an astronomically long time to change into graphite) It may also be a superconductor at room temperature. Count Iblis (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose They key is the metastable nature- right now the sample they made is sitting between two diamonds to keep the high pressure on it; if they release that pressure and the material remains solid, that's the breakthrough. It doesn't seem to have really been a question of making metallic hydrogen, but how stable they could make it to observe it long enough to validate that it is metallic hydrogen. I do note that the article could probably explain more about this paper's result since it doesn't catch this subtly (that's its not yet proven metastable). --MASEM (t) 23:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support. Really tough one this. I can't find any fault in anything either Masem or Banedon say. For balance the very same article Banedon quotes goes on to state "But the prospect of this bright future could be at risk if the scientists’ next step – to establish whether the metal is stable at normal pressures and temperatures – fails to go as hoped.." But what leans me towards supporting is on the grounds that this is a long sought-after scientific feat in its own right, and that this would be true even if it's ultimately found that the material's practical potential is non-existent or not as hoped-for. Scientists had been looking to demonstrate metallic hydrogen for a good 80 years or so. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, and metallic form has only been theorized. This is highly relevant for example to the core of Jupiter and other gas giants, and may be relevant to star cores also. Nergaal (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb on the merits as a notable discovery in chemistry/physics; Masem is correct that the article could do a better job of explaining this. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Strictly speaking, the experiment with deuterium last year actually did this first (as it is an isotope of hydrogen), but the common parlance of these things and the trouble in conveying this distinction in a blurb, and the impact of this finding on normal hydrogen, as opposed to rarely-occurring deuterium, makes me want to overlook that very slight inaccuracy.128.214.53.104 (talk) 11:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a good science story and I see a strong support here. I will wait until the cn tags are fixed, then ready to post. --Tone12:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have a conflict of interest here, so won't !vote, but I will say that it's very odd to name the authors' institution in the blurb. That's not really information that a general Wikipedia reader needs to know, and the space could be better used to highlight other good articles. I've added an alt2 blurb. Modest Geniustalk13:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To not name the institution is sweeping the contributions of the real researchers/scientists under the rug. We have tons of acknowledgements for success for sports, politics, entertainment, etc. but this aversion to including the institution, at minimum, for a major scientific breakthrough is counter to all that. There can be issues of space problems if there are multiple institutions involved in a discovery, at which point we do need brevity, but here, work done from one specific school, there's no reason to not give some acknowledgement, given how infrequent scientific breakthroughs are posted here. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, there's usually one or two professors that are the centerpoint of knowledge for these discoveries and whom in the scientific literature, get credit for it, but within the way these stories are reported, the media and even works like Science and Nature nearly always start with the research institution. My impression is that it is not just one or two people that are involved but the students/grad/post-docs/assistants that work with those professors, the supporting functions (like analysis laboratories, machine shops, etc.) that help with the experiments, and the admin side to make sure things are funded or distribute funding. Further, the institution's name (like Harvard here) carries weight that the work done is of good quality, hence why it is featured over the actual researcher. This is a situation tied with the whole issue of notability of academics, in that few actual researchers are ever notable. Since we can't really change that, it still makes sense to follow how discoveries are credited in the reporting media. --MASEM (t) 19:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb. Seems like the experiment has resulted in an important scientific discovery, which itself is of high encyclopedic relevance and a fine ITN material.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"peer review" even in a top-ranked journal like Science does not equal "truth". (and that only means 3 people reviewed it, not the scientific community as a whole) From the Nature article, it is not that they disagree with the methods, but that they are judging the formation of metallic hydrogen by an appearance factor rather than a chemical factor, meaning that other things with similar appearance could have been made instead (eg like aluminum used to make the anvil apparatus). --MASEM (t) 14:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing equates "truth". I can't even prove you exist. However, for the purposes of scientific journalism, this passes the highest tests for reliability. There have never been, are not, and will never be any proof of anything ever. However, in terms of reliable science, this is pretty damned good. --Jayron3215:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Peer-review, even at Science or Nature, is only as good as the peer-review process, which is not infallible, and the fact that there is some vocal questions to the validity of the claim by other scientists at the same peer level is important. The updated blurb (to include "claim") at least addresses this point. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that absolute perfection and certainty in anything is an unsustainable standard in anything, and science is no exception "but it isn't perfect and immutably true" is a completely ridiculous standard. All we can do is maintain what the best journals do. That even the best is not absolute perfection is not a reasonable objection, as your apparent standards here would make, quite literally, absolutely nothing knowable. That's just silly. If the best journals report it, that's the best we've got. That the literal best is not perfect is unreasonable, because if the best isn't perfect, nothing will ever be perfect, and thus perfection is not attainable. It's quite good enough. --Jayron3205:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just posted at ERRORS before checking here. Needless to say, I agree with Masem above. I am not familiar with ITN but I think an acceptable compromise would be to keep it in the news but with a "Scientists claim" rather than "Scientists have" - for instance, the alt blurb #1 is good. TigraanClick here to contact me15:15, 27 January 2017 (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: long-serving politician who was known for his formulation of what came to be known as the "West Lothian question", relating to political devolution and for his questioning of Margaret Thatcher over the sinking of the General Belgrano during the Falklands War.
@The Rambling Man: Fair point- I haven't posted at ITN before. I have gone through the article and added several relevant sources and removed a few that were a bit questionable. I think I've now addressed the concerns you raised. Drchriswilliams (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2017 (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:Doomsday Clock (talk·history·tag) Blurb: The Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announces the advancement of the Doomsday Clock by 1/2 minute to 21/2 minutes to midnight. (Post) Alternative blurb: The Doomsday Clock advances by a 1/2 minute to 21/2 minutes to midnight, the second closest approach to midnight ever. Alternative blurb II: For the first time in two years, the Doomsday Clock moves, advancing by a 1/2 minute to 21/2 minutes to midnight. Alternative blurb III: Citing the rise of nationalism, climate change, and the increase of nuclear tension, the Doomsday Clock advances by a 1/2 minute to 21/2 minutes to midnight. News source(s):Official website listing, Official statement, Washington Post, NYT, & NPR Credits:
Oppose The NYTimes frames this well by quoting "...the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is marking the 70th anniversary of its Doomsday Clock on Thursday by moving it 30 seconds closer to midnight." My opinion is that this action is simply an attempt to attract publicity on its anniversary, and does not have impact or significance. Mamyles (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm a bit torn on this. Obviously the Clock is an important issue, but given the reasoning for why they moved it "We’re so concerned about the rhetoric, and the lack of respect for expertise, that we moved it 30 seconds ... Rather than create panic, we’re hoping that this drives action." (from the linked NYTimes non-op-ed), it feels less like a scientifically-backed decision and one specifically targeting President Trump's policies. I know it has nearly always been a subjective matter when the clock is moved, but this feels more politically driven than scientifically. --MASEM (t) 18:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support funnily enough I was having a conversation about this at work just yesterday, with Trump so keen on nuclear proliferation, torture, building walls, ignoring climate change, I'm not surprised by this. Having said that, of course what Walt says is probably true too, this is a device used to beat the world up. Could be right though... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Like Masem I'm torn. My main concern is noteworthiness. They change it relatively often and the news coverage I've seen has been relatively minimal. I'm not concerned about motive (it's always political because it's in response to politics). If I see coverage gain or lose more steam, I may lean toward one side. Until then... neutral. EvergreenFir(talk)19:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Since it was inspired by Trump's recent comments, as their spokespersons stated, it seems a bit early and too reactionary. Agree with Masem, it implies a political aspect. --Light show (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Forget about whether or not this is politically motivated, and forget about whether it's 30 seconds or 5 minutes. The move is only worthy of consideration because of how close to midnight it takes us.
However it is as close as it is because the boffins behind it considered the 2007–2012 period to pose a more immediate risk to the future of civilisation than most of the Cold War and the immediate aftermath of 9/11, greatly diminishing the clock's significance and credibility. Come back when the radio stations are introducing this story with Iron Maiden, and I might consider supporting despite my reservations due to the long-standing and high-profile nature of the clock. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That weakens both the historical significance argument, and the implication that it is a scientifically-based predictor of the relative likelihood of rapid global catastrophe. Tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes and tornadoes are all potential mass casualty, devastating events, and a rising sea level will reduce the ability of a steadily rising population to live off the planet. All serious stuff, all worthy of the scientific, media, business and politicial circles to put it as a very high priority. But none of it rises to the level of an immediate threat to the survival of humanity as a race, in the same way as nuclear war (indeed, the very outbreak of open, conventional war between nuclear powers), a global pandemic, or an object the size of Majorca hitting the planet. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb III. The report also said "new global realities emerged, as trusted sources of information came under attack, fake news was on the rise, and words were used in cavalier and often reckless ways" and "Today’s complex global environment is in need of deliberate and considered policy responses. It is ever more important that senior leaders across the globe calm rather than stoke tensions that could lead to war, either by accident or miscalculation" - not sure if that should also be reflected in the blurb. --Fixuture (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - if there were any reason to believe the clock had some predictive value, maybe. Otherwise it's WP:CRYSTAL in a non-WP forum. Banedon (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm no fan of Trump but this sounds like Orwellian 'War is Peace' (or in this case 'Peace is War') - the Inauguration of a US president who is accused of being too friendly to Russia is being used to say the world has just got more dangerous. One might have expected these scientists to at least have the common sense to try to protect their credibility by waiting until there was some evidence of a breakdown in the Trump-Putin love-in. Maybe somebody should tell them the story of the boy who cried 'Wolf'. Even the usually fiercely anti-Trump New York Times seems to regard it as a 70th anniversary publicity stunt, so it seems implausible to claim that most quality sources are treating this 'news' seriously. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Actually I personally am a bit worried about Trump's possible effect in the Baltics, as I mentioned at the time of his election in the Talk page of International Reactions to Trump's election, but the Baltics are seemingly not mentioned by the scientists, so I couldn't support the nomination on the basis of nothing except what is seemingly just my 'WP:OR') Tlhslobus (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2017 (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 until this team is awarded the trophy they are seeking or the record is otherwise certified. I've also suggested a less awkward blurb(no offense intended to the nominator). 331dot (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per 331dot. Never heard of this trophy but definitely seems a top achievement in sailing. It would be best to wait for the Trophy to be actually awarded and certifying the time. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The suggested blurb said they made an "attempt" to win the trophy but didn't say that it had been determined that they had met the criteria for the trophy- which it seems that they have now. I wasn't suggesting we should wait until they take possession of the trophy, only for the determination that they won it. However, the article on the trophy needs much improvement before this is posted. 331dot (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think we can discard mention of the Jules Verne Trophy altogether. The story here is breaking the around the world sailing record, which I support posting in principle. However it's unclear to me whether this still requires validation by the relevant body or not. There also needs to be a proper update somewhere, though I'm not sure what the best place is. Joyon's article is a bit of a mess and has an orange-level tag. Modest Geniustalk17:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - although the word is worded pretty strangely (an "attempt" to win the trophy would imply the record's not been broken yet). Why not just say they broke the record? Banedon (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2017 (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: An unusual nomination for sure, but I think it's very interesting. After all, this is a double-blind randomized control trial, the best kind of experiment for establishing causality. The distinguishing aspect here is that the drugs are acting on people who are not fatigued or sleep-deprived, but rather people operating at their peak. Chess acts here as a proxy for higher mental functions. If these drugs improve higher mental functions, then there might come a time when everyone is taking these drugs because, why not? Caffeine is already the world's most widely-used stimulant. Having said that, there are caveats to the research (see the latter part of the Chessbase article) and there is a surprising (?) lack of media coverage. Banedon (talk) 08:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's just a single study and so doesn't pass WP:MEDRS. And a lack of media coverage means that it's not actually "in the news". The result is not very surprising either. It's no coincidence that people like Benjamin Franklin were playing chess in coffee houses like Old Slaughter's centuries ago. And it's now time for my first cup of tea of the day. Ah, the pause that truly refreshes... Andrew D. (talk) 08:49, 26 January 2017 (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.
I do. On a side note the Dow is probably the least important of the various US indices and the least accurate as an overall measure of the financial markets. The S&P 500 is probably the better one to pay attention to. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It was bound to pass 20,000 at some point, and it will be bound to pass 25k, 30k, etc. As noted, these are arbitrary metrics. If anything we focus more on rapid declines and demands (crashes or near-crashes) which have much more of an impact on immediate situations than the gradual rise past specific marks. --MASEM (t) 02:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment on that, long-term investors actually don't care about rapid declines and demands, as long as the overall uptrend is preserved. Banedon (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But CEOs, stock market analysts, politicians, and the like do worry about hose, and those are the newsmakers. --MASEM (t) 02:52, 26 January 2017 (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.
Twenty-eight people are killed in a coordinated attack on the Dayah Hotel in central Mogadishu. The terrorist group Al-Shabaab claims responsibility. (Yahoo!)(Al Jazeera)
Over 800 homes are destroyed or flooded in Tahiti, French Polynesia, following severe storms over the weekend, with at least 4,000 people affected. (Radio New Zealand)
The RussianDuma backs a law decriminalizing a first instance of domestic violence that does "not seriously injure" the person, making it an administrative offense. The bill also includes violence against children. (CNN)
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 Sourcing a clear issuer per TRM and Ad Orientem. Fortunately, most of it appears to be filmography-related listings which should be relatively easy to source, but that still needs to be done to post this. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The quality issues have been addressed and there are no longer any orange-level cleanup tags or citation needed tags. AHeneen (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I think during the discussion of Carrie Fisher, while you are right that long filmographies are often a separate article, moving that out of an ITN RD to avoid having to deal with a sourcing issue (in this case, excessive weight on user-wiki IMDB) is not really appropriate as that is just sweeping the problem under the carpet. I am not suggesting pulling this RD at this point, but I need to stress that this is not a good way of handling poorly sourced filmographies, because someone in time still needs to remove all those IMDB refs with more reliable ones. --MASEM (t) 19:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Comment First three para in body are unsourced, but it looks like the type of info that the obits will be able to fill in. --MASEM (t) 21:07, 25 January 2017 (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 death toll from the avalanche which buried the four-star luxury resort Hotel Rigopiano on 18 January rises to seventeen, with twelve others still missing. (ABC News)
An Italian rescue helicopter, carrying an injured skier from Gran Sasso d'Italia, crashes amid thick fog, killing six people. (BBC)
Police discover US$20 million in a bed frame under a mattress at a Massachusetts home. The cash is believed to be linked to Telexfree, a pyramid scheme disguised as a company that claimed to provide internet phone services. A Brazilian man that police were following was charged in connection to the money. (BBC)
The second day of peace negotiations in Astana, Kazakhstan, end with the sponsors of the talks, Russia, Turkey and Iran, agreeing to set up commission between the three to monitor and enforce the fragile ceasefire to the Syrian Civil War. (The Guardian)
Support - Sumo is a highly underrepresented sport on ITN, and we have posted yokozuna promotions before. That the 72nd yokozuna is Japanese is exceptionally notable as well, and I'd be in favor of having that mentioned in the blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Severally undersourced article and one section is a wall of text of one paragraph. This is ITNR so no question on importance, but the sourcing needs to be fixed. --MASEM (t) 04:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing is definitely improved and the few lingering bits tagged to be fixed, so that's less an issue, I'm still just seeing a huge paragraph that is trying to summarize stats here, and I feel that needs trimming or splitting or rewording. However, I'd consider that less a barrier to posting compared to the sourcing. --MASEM (t) 15:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until the article (a BLP) is sourced adequately. As it's ITNR, no need for debate over notability. Blurb should include that he's Japanese too, as that's what's making the headlines. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2017 (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: A defeat for the government, and one which complicates the plans for leaving the EU. (Note that although some newspapers had announced that the governments plans to have a vote on the Brexit deal made this moot, this is not the case - the vote that the Government wanted would come after Article 50 notification). Smurrayinchester09:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There will be editors who, preferring to post train derailments, will come to this discussion to say that this is but a mere step or hurdle in the Brexit process which ITN should not highlight. They will be wrong. It is a significant step in an ongoing international event. We may well end up posting again if/when Parliament passes the legislation and again if/when the exit is formalised. I have no problems with such multiple postings in a case like this. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support As Mkativerata says, this is significant in the brexit process. However, hasn't parliament already voted on this, while the case was ongoing? Or does it need to be primary legislation and not just a motion? Since the motion passed 448-75, is there much doubt that legislation will also pass? GoldenRing (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be legislation, not a resolution. It will almost certainly pass in one form or another, but this opens the law up to amendments and conditions, allowing parliament to set exit terms rather than the government. Smurrayinchester10:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Switch to Oppose. This is a non-story. If there was any chance that this would actually change the outcome, I might support it. As it is, it's a waste of time GoldenRing (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this just means the government will get approval from parliament. I don't see this as anything other than a speed bump. If parliament withholds approval, then we can post. Banedon (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Largely expected, what is also guranteed is this at best adds a few weeks to the roadmap. (The Tories have a majority that can push through any bill in the Commons and thats before the Labour brexiters, including the leader, are counted). The Lords might throw up a speed-bump, but it would be political suicide for them to do so. Save this for when May actually triggers 50. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on importance, oppose on quality This is a major constitutional/political decision. If it wasn't important, the Government wouldn't have spent all this effort arguing for using prerogative powers, nor would the Supreme Court have sat with every available justice (unprecedented, and not something that its predecessor the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords ever did). But the article needs a major rewrite - lots of it is out of date, and trimming some of the sections to the key details wouldn't go amiss. Shorter alt blurb added - we don't need the name of the case, for instance. BencherliteTalk11:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending article improvement. Aside from the complication of the Brexit issue, this seems to be a notable legal decision. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support with a couple points: The "Facts" section is unreferenced (but likely an easy fix), and from an NFC standpoint, the montage of the four paper headlines is not appropriate. One image to show how they reacted to the judges (probably the Daily Mail one here, as it makes the judges look like criminals, tying with the theme of the section) is sufficient here, but not all four. --MASEM (t) 14:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've sourced that section. You're right that the Mail page is the most appropriate - "ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE" was by far the most quoted headline. If no-one else uploads the pic, I'll do it tonight. Smurrayinchester15:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ALT2 - The blurb is long and I don't think the case name is necessary; Act of Parliament has an orange cleanup tag, so I changed the link to a piped link to Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom. I added ALT2 as a combination of ALT1, which contains side-by-side links that (even though "rules" is bold) doesn't look good, and the proposed blurb. AHeneen (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The single bolded word in this posted blurb seems to be lost among the other sea of blue in the blurb. Is there anything we can do about that? --MASEM (t) 23:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the term is perfectly precise in a British context. In British English, the word "government" means roughly what "administration" means in the American context. Also, the contexts of "separation of powers" and co-equal "branches of government" as typically expressed based on the American system does not make contextual sense in Britain. To make it short, the current wording is accurate and unambiguous for a British context. --Jayron3215:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pull Is there going to be a post when Parliament (inevitably, as the press is portraying it) passes the necessary bill, when it is filed with the EU, and for every single step along the way? This is quite a bit of overkill, and I'd hate to see every court decision and legislative and executive manoeuvre dealing with Obamacare posted here. μηδείς (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No one has proposed every such court decision posted. Someone nominated THIS ONE decision because THIS ONE decision was in the news and, based on the evidence of reliable source coverage of THIS ONE decision, THIS ONE decision was posted. When another court decision gets nominated, we'll consider THAT decision based on the merits of THAT nomination without reference to this unrelated decision. --Jayron3217:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support: Probably the most important royal prerogative ruling in a century, since DeKeyser. If there was a SCOTUS case on, say, Trump's executive orders re: the Muslim ban or the the border wall, we would expect to see that on ITN too. Sceptre (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2017 (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.
According to an advisor to Gambian PresidentAdama Barrow, more than 500 million dalasi, equivalent to US$11.3 million, are reported missing from state coffers after former President Yahya Jammeh left the country in exile. (BBC)
Following a joint police operation by Europol and Interpol last October and November across much of Europe, dubbed "Operation Pandora", more than 3,500 stolen artwork and artifacts are recovered, with 75 people arrested and 48,588 more being investigated. (BBC)
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.
Regardless of consensus, article is not in a fit condition to post despite requests for improvement made at WP level. It's no big deal that I don't add to my total of ITNs. Mjroots (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2017 (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.
Weak support per nom. Weakly because I want to see some kind of new policy his successor will implement, but I acknowledge it'll be hard to post those new policies. Banedon (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - lack of notability for ITN concerning its a long-time-coming resignation, of all events; On a side-note, the comparison with Sir Alex Ferguson is, frankly, laughable. What has Bernie Ecclestone achieved on a personal level compared to AF - not much I would argue, outside of business and large-scale management in a huge corporation. Skycycle (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, I find the comparison with Alex Ferguson laughable in the other direction. Alex Ferguson was one of many managers, and there are many of them. Even within the EPL itself there are twenty of them. F1 brings in more revenue than Manchester United's market capitalization every year. Comparing someone who built a company that does that to someone who doesn't even manage the smaller company (only its team) is, if I may say so, ridiculous. Banedon (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The comparison to Alex Ferguson is not a good one. Ferguson was only in charge of a team in a country's leage. Ecclestone was in charge globally. So we need to be looking to compare him against people that were in charge of global organizations for a period of four decades. There are very few that would fit that bill, which is why I think this is a significant story which should be posted. Mjroots (talk) 07:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. And we shouldn't have posted the deaths of minor Hollywood actors either. Sports administration, like Hollywood, matters little at the end of the day, especially when it concerns no more than a matter of personnel. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This doesn't fit into any of the categories that we would normally post, but I think this is exceptional. There are not many major organisations in the world that have had the same head for 40 years. F1 is unusually large and global as a sport - I would guess only football exceeds its global appeal. Unusually, this item fits two normally-contradictory points of the purpose of ITN: To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news (for the motorheads) and To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them (for everyone else). GoldenRing (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support If this was just a resignation I would probably oppose. He has (he claims) been forced out of control due to the buyout which edges it over. Its also undeniable that (for good or ill, by whatever method) he turned F1 into a massively popular world-wide sport. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle as said above, comparing this with e.g. Alex Ferguson misses the point. Ecclestone dominated the entire F1 industry for decades, which is a sport with worldwide interest. However, oppose on quality. The article is inadequately referenced in places, and inadequately updated (I see one sentence in the lead). BencherliteTalk11:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, alright, the point on Ferguson was to show a precedent of a prominent sports "administrator" coming to the end of his "career in the sport". I'm now officially fed up of being told that it "misses the point", "frankly, laughable", etc. Of course, if said things like this, I'd be up in front of the beak for yet another block. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mea culpa - I assumed that because it was in the lead, it was in the body too. I've added that info and asked at WT:F1 for assistance with the reference issues. Mjroots (talk) 13:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support We had Jochen Rindt as FA yesterday so why wouldn't we have his manager, Ecclestone, at ITN when he is actually in the news? ITN scrolls too slowly compared to other parts of the main page, which usually change daily, and so it often seems neglected. "Nothing is so stale as yesterday's newspaper..." Andrew D. (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on merits, oppose on quality. I don't have a strong opinion either way on whether his departure is worthy of a blurb. However, if his significance is strongly linked to his role as F1 executive, then I find it rather bothersome that the seven paragraph section on his time as an executive contains all of two citations. The preceding section on his career at Brabham is also in need of references. Dragons flight (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Recognizing we are talking about a 40 year career here, I would be looking to see how much of an influence he was to it (beyond just being the top person in charge) to concider posting something about his retirement, and that seems lacking here to make this ITN. His career seems to be a mix of positive and negative (note the number of controversies here), but there doesn't seem to be any discussion of lasting influence to the sport because of him. Thus, posting his retirement (one that is not under the influence of any ongoing controversy or lawsuit or whatever) seems weak. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reading that BBC article and the five points that follow the quote you pulled, it doesn't read as a necessarily positive portrayal of him (esp. point #5 of the BBC article). It's snarky praise at times. Even with that, our article does not show how F1 was revolutionized by him. If it can be expanded to show that, great, but I don't see much about that presently. --MASEM (t) 16:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What the BBC refers to obliquely (and I above) is that while he built the F1 up, he didnt necessarily always do it in the most positive manner. Even his 'negative' actions contributed to its success. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which, at least to me, is something more to highlight were this a RD blurb. His retirement, however, doesn't appear to be causing a massive change in the sport, and simply makes this, at this point, passing of the guard. --MASEM (t) 18:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that's a verystrange way of looking at the last 40 years of a single person running the largest sporting contest on the globe outside the Olympics and the World Cup. But I can see this is fruitless so no point in continuing this discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support contingent on more sourcing in Formula One Group. A CEO stepping down is not significant enough for ITN by itself, but with the purchase of a large sports organization I believe this meets the significance criteria of ITN. I recommend Alt Blurb 1 with the primary, bolded article as Formula One Group. Mamyles (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately there are great swathes of Ecclestone's BLP that are unreferenced. It's not fit for posting even as a secondary link. Stephen23:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A more relevant comparison than Alex Ferguson might be Sepp Blatter's June 2015 "resignation" which we posted (see discussion here), only to find he later unresigned. We didn't post his suspension in October 2015, as being just another stage in his demise. Of course the comparisons are imperfect - Ecclestone is not involved in a current corruption scandal, and F1 is smaller than soccer, but Ecclestone has been in charge twice as long as Blatter. I'm vaguely inclined to support posting in principle. But I guess article quality will probably doom this, and I certainly can't support posting in its present state (and I won't be trying any fixing myself, having already done more work on Women's March than my semi-retirement should normally allow).Tlhslobus (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2017 (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] United States withdraws from Trans-Pacific Partnership
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: Decision of "huge", "tremendous" trade ramifications, given the scope of the TPP and the fact that this kills it. It is a story of genuine international significance. Note that this isn't just one nation pulling out; the pull-out kills the agreement for all the countries it was intended to cover. It could only be revived by renegotiation. Mkativerata (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since this hypothetical treaty never came to fruition. The negotiations are over, but it's not like a treaty has been repealed.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It had come to fruition: it was a treaty signed by each and every one of its member states. It is only the stage of ratification that had not been complete. A deal not being fully concluded is just as significant news as a concluded deal being reversed. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the added info. I still disagree though. It was a project that was never implemented--that's what I meant by "came to fruition". Nothing happened, so there's no news to speak of.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose The article is in decent shape and this is definitely major news. However, at the moment there are only two sentences in the target article dealing with the subject of the blurb. This needs expansion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. An international trade agreement entering into force would be ITN-worthy, but the withdrawal of a country from an agreement that never entered into force is not, in my opinion. Also, that he would withdraw from the planned trade agreement was announced back in november, so this isn't exactly breaking news. --Tataral (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thing about that is, if it had been nominated in November, it would probably have been opposed because it "hadn't happened yet". Banedon (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait This may be something that has financial implications, but that will be clear when the Asian markets open tomorrow. It doesn't seem to have that much yet by NA markets, but its still early in the news cycle. If the markets don't blink, I don't think this should be posted, per Tataral. --MASEM (t) 01:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - even though everyone else had signed the agreement, U.S. congress rejected it a long time ago, which I would argue was the real news item. Today was just a formality, it was widely known that ANY republican president would have done the same. I think there are more notable events to include as of right now. Skycycle (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The agreement was never ratified, and Trump pulling the US out was one of his primary campaign issues, so this was expected. 331dot (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As Banedon said above 'if it had been nominated in November [when Trump became President-elect], it would probably have been opposed because it "hadn't happened yet"'. You are excluding a whole class of extremely significant news from ITN. Thue (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Thune: I usually support posting the announcement of a business deal at the time of the announcement; this is different because the treaty was not in force and the Senate had not even scheduled a vote; it was one of Donald Trump's primary campaign issues, and Hillary Clinton announced opposition to it as well. This action is just a formality resulting in the status quo. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Huge trade deal which has been a point of contention and widely covered. That Trump's cancellation was promised does not make its cancellation any less significant. Expected important news is still important news. Thue (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is notable enough to include, but the TPP article is a behemoth with an orange tag (since July). Would support on fixing that section up (and maybe a bit of trimming of others as well). AIRcorn(talk)
Oppose. The strongest argument against is that the treaty had not entered into force before being withdrawn. "Things will be, as they were" is not news to anyone. It was not given that the treaty would be ratified, as it had strong opposition from labor groups, the far right and the far left, as well as a congress that is at odds with the treaty's principle patron. People who assume that the treaty would ever come into force are engaging in WP:CRYSTAL and support votes based on that even moreso.128.214.53.104 (talk) 07:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, an event with huge economic implications for the world trade. Btw, page views for the target article jumped to over 457,000 on Jan 23, from the usual 2-3K per day for this article. Nsk92 (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not significant enough, and not surprising at all. It's what's been advertised all along. Maybe we need an ongoing item for antics of the Trump Administration.JehochmanTalk15:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose current blurb The news is not that the US is withdrawing, it's that the TPP is now dead. I would support something like "The TPP becomes unratifiable because the United States withdraws from it". Isa (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until we know more about what will happen. There are chances that the Trans Pacific PArtnership will continue possibly with China replacing the United States. If that were to happen, it would be an historic moment, a big win for China and a big loss for the US. [5]Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reason as the Article 50 reasoning above. We simply can't post every reversal of course resulting from the recent US elections, and this was a foregone conclusion; even Hillary Clinton was against TPP after she was for it. μηδείς (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with Jehochman that we probably need an Ongoing item about what he calls "antics of the Trump Administration", though a less POV way of saying this would be to have Ongoing link to First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency (perhaps shortened to something like "Trump's 1st 100 days"). I may eventually try to nominate that myself, though not just yet (I'd probably prefer if somebody else nominated it, and the credit should probably go to Jehochman if he wants it). But meanwhile the possibilty needs to be mentioned here because it seems relevant to whether or not we should post this item. Incidentally we may also need an Ongoing item for Brexit. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support - the show was very popular in large parts of Europe throughout the 1990s and 2000s, and remains on reruns in many countries. Skycycle (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2017 (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.
Support on further sourcing Compared to when TRM !voted, sourcing has improved but I still see a couple unsourced statements. I do think the article begs for expansion in some areas but it's sufficiently long at this point for posting. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 24 January 2017 (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.
Support Except for two blue-linked films, this is appropriately sourced. As key song writer for those works, it should be relatively trivial to source those two films. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Article could use some expansion, but it's the deadliest tornado outbreak in the United States since April 2014. Event is still unfolding with numerous violent storms over Georgia and Florida and tornadoes on the ground at the time of nomination. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The description of the storms/damage in the tables should be sourced (though I suspect this is reuse of a source), and there likely should be some type of reaction/response in terms of first responders, estimated damage cost, etc. I do think that while torandos in the SE is nothing unusually, normally, this time of year is different and this is likely a notable system. --MASEM (t) 01:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True, thinking it was a bit more north (having lived in torando alley myself). The article seems in good shape now, and I still contend that the January nature of this event, much less location, is the unusual part that I Support this for posting. --MASEM (t) 00:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to my support as this same storm appears responsible for the massive nor'eastern in the mid-atlantic states, which, while not as lethal, is causing a mess. [6] I don't think the blurb needs to be updated, but this is not a small scale system. --MASEM (t) 02:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Bad weather happens around the world all the time. This doesn't seem to rise to the ITN level. (The article is also fairly short and with no interwikis, which also indicate that this isn't a very widely reported/significant event). --Tataral (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So do terrorist attacks and changes of government, yet they're posted The outbreak being the deadliest in the US in nearly 3 years indicates it's not a frequent occurrence. It's short due to how recent the event is, and information is limited as a lot of communities are in search and rescue mode rather than recovery. Not sure how lack of interwiki articles is relevant here. It's also one of the top stories on BBC, New York Times, Reuters, Sky News, etc. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ITN isn't about the United States. 20 weather-related casualties over a large area simply isn't very unusual or noteworthy. Far more people die around the world for weather-related reasons every day. --Tataral (talk) 04:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tataral: For the region it occurred in this is unusual, and the last solely US-weather related article to be posted on ITN—to my knowledge—was the June 2016 West Virginia flood with 23 fatalities. If you can make an article covering events that claim the number of lives you're purporting they do, by all means please do and nominate it for it. Additionally, please refer to WP:ITN/C#Please do not... regarding coverage of a topic. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The event isn't sufficiently noteworthy to be included on ITN and there is nothing particularly unsual about it. Also, please avoid making references to material that is not not relevant for the discussion; I have not done any of those things listed in the section you refer to. I'm not opposing this because it relates to one country, but because it is not significant and not noteworthy. I would have supported it if it was significant and noteworthy. --Tataral (talk) 05:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but a localized avalanche in Italy that struck a single building is notable enough? Double standards against United States-based events are rampant here, and a statement like ITN isn't about the United States, leads one to assume that reason for opposition is because it's only related to the United States. The reference to the West Virginia flood is to give you an understanding of how infrequently US-only weather events are brought to ITN/C. We're also talking about a region that largely avoids getting hit by violent tornadoes (the region in question has only seen a handful of E/F4 tornadoes since 1950), and has not seen a thunderstorm event of this magnitude since 1993. I'd say that qualifies as unusual. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did I support the avalanche event being posted? No. US-centrism has traditionally been rampant on ITN and more so in ITN discussions, but this is slowly improving due to more editors being conscious that ITN must be balanced, that ITN isn't solely about the United States, and due to the efforts by many editors to apply the same criteria to all countries. As it happens, we currently (as we frequently do) have a US item on the top of ITN, which I – for the record – supported. I'm more than happy to support US items when they are sufficiently significant and noteworthy. --Tataral (talk) 05:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - sure it's the deadliest outbreak in the US in nearly three years, but that's problematic because there are hundreds of countries in the world and so hundreds of deadliest outbreaks in nearly three years. I need to see some kind of objective measure of why this is worth posting even when one is comparing against the world to support the nomination, and right now, I am not seeing it. Banedon (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Banedon: The United States sees, on average, more than 1,000 tornadoes per year, by far the largest of any country. The next closest is Canada with an average of less than 100 tornadoes per year. The only time you'll see other countries having such deadly tornado events are generally from isolated violent events that happen infrequently. Remember that this doesn't have to match up to other countries anyways per WP:ITN/C#Please do not... (failing to relate to other countries). The last tornado event that was posted was back in June: 2016 Jiangsu tornado, an isolated violent event with mass casualties. Regardless of "deadliest since" statements, it is an unusually destructive and deadly event for the region and it is making headlines in international media. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not convinced I'm afraid - possibly it is just me but the fact that the US and Canada sees the most tornadoes a year is something I would regard as rather tangential. What is causing the deaths here are presumably strong winds, heavy rains and floods. These things clearly occur elsewhere in the world. The underlying cause may be different, but from the perspective of ITN, does it matter if the cause of the deaths were due to tornadoes or hurricanes, or La Nina, or even seasonal monsoon rains? A quick search through Wikipedia reveal events such as 2017 Southern Thailand floods, which "are the biggest floods in over 30 years" in the country and also killed twice as many people. Against that kind of comparison I still do not see this as worth posting. Banedon (talk) 06:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but for what it's worth the deaths from this event are all from the tornadoes as far as I can tell, not floods or straight-line winds. Regarding differentiation of the type of natural disaster, the last time I remember multiple major weather disasters occurring at the same time it turned into a mess of trying to figure out how to combine everything into one blurb. Long story short, differentiation or lack thereof depends on the commenter. I would jump on saying the floods should be whipped into shape and nominated, but it sadly seems to be slightly too old to be posted (oldest entry is January 18 and flooding was primarily in the first week or so of the month). Unless resumed flooding worsens the situation, that is. I'll try and keep tabs on it and work on improving it tomorrow. Thanks for letting me know about this one! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will note, however, that the confirmed death toll needs to be cleared up. The article and blurb say at least 20, but we have sources saying less (for instance, the AP article says 19). Neljack (talk) 04:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cyclonebiskit's explanation of the rarity plus the fact it's (as per the norm for these kind of articles) in very good shape. Would like the issue over the article title to be resolved before our readers have to wade through two "tags" (the "current" one is fine), otherwise good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 20-odd people dying in a weather event is not a significant story on a global scale. It might well be on par with other disasters posted on ITN. That is the problem. ITN has too many of these minor events and too few real news items. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are, of course, always welcome and in fact encouraged to propose new candidates at ITN. If you wish for it to really change, that's the only way to do it because complaining about it makes no difference whatsoever; I'm afraid that eventually your !votes will be ignored and you'll just be wasting your own time. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't figure out how to propose new candidates. The template is too difficult. Besides, I'm one of three opposing this nomination: hardly a peripheral operator whose !vote is going to be ignored. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like some help with the template, let me know. You don't have to fill in 75% of it for most cases, all you need is a target article, a blurb, a source and your signature. And I didn't suggest your vote was the only oppose vote, just that your continual opposition based on "ITN has too many of these minor events and too few real news items" will become like "crying wolf" if you fail to do anything about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a kind offer, TRM. Unfortunately, I rather doubt that nominating more 'real news' will fix Mkativerata's problem, and it may actually just end up disillusioning him/her with Wikipedia. Because if it were simply a matter of nominating more 'real news' then others would probably already be doing it.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, that is about number 245394857 on the list of things about wikipedia that disillusion me. Accepting TRM's point I will try to keep an eye out for things I think are nomination-worthy and give the template a go. (My template fails are not due to inexperience -- like TRM I'm a former admin -- but are rather due to my general lack of technological literacy.) --Mkativerata (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can't support posting an article where the content does not correspond with the sources. It was the dramatic language used to describe the tornado that peaked my suspicions on the one near Albany. On further investigation, I'd say that a mobile home park on the outskirts of Adel is some way away from the claim that "Several neighborhoods in eastern Albany were reportedly leveled." Even the comment from a woman living in said area in one of the sources does not correspond with a statement this strong. The overall article looks decent though, and without wishing to predict whether the event is ongoing or not, I don't think the full scale of what has happened has emerged yet. User talk:StillWaitingForConnection06:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Adel and Albany tornadoes are two separate events (they're about 60 miles apart), nothing is being mixed up here as far as I can tell. A mobile home park was largely destroyed near Adel, and Albany suffered a direct hit from a large tornado. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. So how does that become "Several neighborhoods in eastern Albany were reportedly leveled". Claiming that entire neighbourhoods were flattened in a place like Albany were flattened is a very strong claim to make. If it's true then please find a source that spells it out and source it inline, as it's by a long distance the strongest claim in the entire article. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@StillWaitingForConnection: Looks like I removed the source I initially got the information from by accident when updating the death toll. It was from WALB: "[Dougherty County EMA Director Ron] Rowe said they are in the preliminary stages of getting damage information. However, he did say that there is widespread destruction and the East Side has neighborhoods that are completely destroyed." ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support large and impactful meteorological event. More deaths than fingers and toes put together, official states of emergencies declared in multiple states and FEMA deployed across the Southeast. Article is nice, with contextualization and links out to other fine articles.128.214.53.104 (talk) 08:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I think any natural disaster with a deathcount of 20 and an article of reasonable quality deserves to be posted. ~Mable (chat) 12:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not exceptionally record-breaking, per Only in death's justification. Although, this does serve as a reminder that man-made global warming is real and having an impact on the planet even now.--WaltCip (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Only in death and WaltCip: there's a hefty wall for "deadliest since" in 2011 that I hope we'll never surpass. Anomalously violent and incessant tornado outbreaks in April and May of that year claimed over 500 lives in the United States (most notably the 2011 Super Outbreak and 2011 Joplin tornado). This outbreak took place farther southeast than is typically expected for these deadly events, but I don't see a need for something to be "exceptionally record breaking" for it to warrant posting on ITN. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, pending refs for two unreferenced tornadoes in table - This is a notably strong tornado outbreak. Article is in good shape. AHeneen (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This single outbreak killed more people than the entire 2016 season, and it is one of the strongest such events on record in January, certainly the deadliest in decades in the U.S. Skycycle (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose The article consists of lots of tables and weather information, which is nice. The deaths are mentioned in the tables and the lead, but if this is the newsworthy aspect of the tornados I would expect a bit more of a summary or even a section of prose. It was hard for me to find and collate this information in the body. Otherwise I would support. AIRcorn(talk)06:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think some of the opposes here are verging on anti-US bias. The article seems in decent enough shape - the aftermath is described in prose and all the tornadoes at least claim to be referenced now. I posting a deadly tornado outbreak in the US every few years really so undue? GoldenRing (talk) 10:47, 24 January 2017 (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: Seriously, two different Dominican baseball players died last night in separate car crashes where they're both suspected to be under the influence – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've found and added citations and amended the dates to reflect them and removed the related CN. However somebody might want to check whether those sources are sufficiently reliable before posting.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2017 (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.
Support - article is updated & there are sources. Is there any reason why this has not been posted in the 6 hours since the nomination was made? Elisfkc (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
.jpg)
