:It's like when The Eagles started charging $200 for their concerts. The rest quickly followed suit. I'm neutral but leaning support on this, but only because the drug itself has been in the news lately and is a promising treatment for what was previously a life sentence. - '''[[User:Floydian|<font color="#5A5AC5">Floydian</font>]]''' <sup>[[User_talk:Floydian|<font color="#3AAA3A">τ</font>]]</sup> <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Floydian|<font color="#3AAA3A">¢</font>]]</sub> 19:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
:It's like when The Eagles started charging $200 for their concerts. The rest quickly followed suit. I'm neutral but leaning support on this, but only because the drug itself has been in the news lately and is a promising treatment for what was previously a life sentence. - '''[[User:Floydian|<font color="#5A5AC5">Floydian</font>]]''' <sup>[[User_talk:Floydian|<font color="#3AAA3A">τ</font>]]</sup> <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Floydian|<font color="#3AAA3A">¢</font>]]</sub> 19:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' low-level business news. If this is supposed to be about Hep C or something other than revenue, the blurb needs to be changed.[[Special:Contributions/84.250.106.213|84.250.106.213]] ([[User talk:84.250.106.213|talk]]) 18:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
The Ukrainian government says it's regained control of the city hall in the eastern port of Mariupol from pro-Russian separatists. Administrative buildings have been taken over in at least a dozen towns in Eastern Ukraine. (BBC News)
Washington accuses Moscow of fomenting unrest in the east, with Obama threatening the possibility of applying additional sanctions on Russia. (Reuters)
A battle between pro-Russian separatists and Ukrainian troops in Sloviansk, Ukraine, leaves 5 pro-Russian militants dead. (Reuters via Yahoo! News)
A policeman shoots dead three American medical staff in the Afghan capital of Kabul. The policeman is reported to have shot himself after the attack. (BBC News)
In Nevada the Bundy standoff continues; politicians who had voiced support for Bundy began to distance themselves after the rancher controversially suggested that African Americans might be better off picking cotton as slaves than "under government subsidy". (Fox News)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose not clear to me how he meets the RD criteria, but like you, I know nothing about baseball. As for being the oldest living, someone has to be.... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The "oldest living..." is always going to be one of the most likely to die. Otherwise, obviously a good baseballer, but not outstanding in the league. HiLo48 (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unremarkable baseball player, played 4 mostly unremarkable years in the Major Leagues, and some good years in a Cuban league. Someone's got to be the oldest at some point, and that person also has to die at some point. Neither is particularly remarkable. --Jayron3209:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Being the oldest isn't by itself enough to meet the RD criteria, unless that fact alone somehow makes them very important in their field, which it doesn't here. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient article at this time. I would expect a minimum of three well developed paragraphs before it is featured. I may work on it in the morning if no one gets to it first. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Headline UK news, the Duchess of Cornwall's brother, wrote a BBC documentary, fairly high up in his field from what I can gather. Matty.00718:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but this nom clearly doesn't meet the RD criteria and I see no justification for a blurb either. Pro-Monarchy British news sources do not change this. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Does not meet the death criteria. "Brother of a royal" doesn't count, and his career doesn't seem to make him "top of his field". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: As far as state (or whatever you want to call it) politics go, this was a pretty notable rift that seems resolved after years and a war. And the talks for notability. Lihaas (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support in concept, awaiting article to judge before actual support. The event is surely ITN worthy, we just need an article and update which is likewise. --Jayron3215:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because I don't see where the article was updated. It's notable and important, but the article does not reflect any recent developments. Mvblair (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is not the first 'agreement' to heal this rift that has been announced. Similar agreements came out of conferences in Cairo and Doha over the past few years; this seems just another in the same line. What will be significant is if the deal actually comes off; I think the right time for posting this will be when the unity government is formed, which is supposed to be within the next six weeks. GoldenRing (talk) 09:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A total of 113 people are known to have died, with 190 more passengers missing and presumed trapped inside the vessel. Seven crew members are detained for their failure to evacuate Sewol ferry. The reason for sinking is not yet clear. (BBC News)
Russian political activist Alexei Navalny is ordered to pay 300,000 rubles (US$8,400) in a libel suit by a municipal deputy who Navalny called a drug addict. (AP via Yahoo! News)
Nominator's comments: In addition to being a record breaking figure, the high sales of this (super expensive) drug have industry wide implications. If a company can get away with a $1000 price tag for a innovative new drug, then surely others will try. Thus, this is a good chance to post some underrepresented business news. Article(s) will need updated, which I will take care of this evening most likely. ThaddeusB (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's like when The Eagles started charging $200 for their concerts. The rest quickly followed suit. I'm neutral but leaning support on this, but only because the drug itself has been in the news lately and is a promising treatment for what was previously a life sentence. - Floydianτ¢19:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thought about nominating this last night, but the kidnapping actually took place on April 14. Evidentally, original reports said 80ish victims were taken but all recovered quickly so the story didn't make it out of Nigeria. Some parents are now claiming a bunch of people are missing and that the gov't is covering it up (or possibly that the gov't just had bad info). Tough to call the story "stale" since very few people knew about it before yesterday, but also tough to call it "fresh" considering the kidnapping happened a week ago... I'd like to here some more opinions on how to handle this, as I am utterly undecided. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle. If this only just broke in the English press it is not stale. Same as if we discovered a poem by a greek poetess published 2500 years ago. μηδείς (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—stale. First entered English media as early as 18 April 2014 from CNN with information regarding the 234 kidnapped girls. This is not breaking news; this is coming very late into the scene. 184.146.107.202 (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You'll notice the CNN story is "last update April 22". Most likely, it originally said "80 girls". (The piece isn't really about the kidnapping but Boko Haram in general, which is consistent with the original story barely being noticed.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support with rewrite Something along the lines of "230 female students are declared missing following a kidnapping by Boko Haram in Borno State, Nigeria." (Using The Guardian's numbers) That way, we can cover the latest update the story, without pretending the kidnap is recent. The article also needs to be rewritten to reflect this, of course. Smurrayinchester07:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This broke in English media a while ago (they were saying 100 girls). I thought about nominating it at the time but it was just after the previous Boko Haram story, and some people were of the opinion that we should cover the conflict as a whole rather than each individual incident. That said, if we have good a good article or section on this specific incident then I'd probably supportBalaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand this story is stale, but that's not because the story was simply "missed" or initially ignored by Western Media: It's just been developing a little slowly. Read into that what you will, but is the "staleness" of this story justification enough for it to not be posted? --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After some thought, support and use an blurb similar to that suggested by User:Smurrayinchester. It isn't our fault it took a while for the news to get out/story to develop. I have no problem posting this as a April 21 item. An article now exists and several editors (Ashishlohorung, Gareth E Kegg, and myself) are now working on it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This incident is the worst thing that we can imagine that could happen in any society whether it is east or west. What I was trying to explain from the first is that this story has not been covered properly by mainstream medias. I am not sure the reason behind that but I know this needs to be a hot topic for discussion and media coverage. For that reason I created the article. It deserves top attention. Ashish Lohorung (talk) 09:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Media do seem wrong to have given it so little coverage. That it came so soon after the bombing in the capital may be the reason for that; but it doesn't make this event any less notable in itself. We now have a solid article on this so I propose we post it ASAP. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not really seeing this in the news anywhere, and the article is nowhere near the quality/length required to meet the minimum standards for ITN inclusion. Snappy name for the "planetary mass object" mind you...The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The UN condemns the "Targeted Killings" and wounding of hundreds of civilians based on their ethnic origins in the town of Bentiu after South Sudanese rebels seized the oil hub last week. (Al Jazeera)
Syrian Air Force air strikes in Aleppo, Syria, killing dozens of people; 14 others are killed by barrel bombing in the neighborhood of Baeedeen. (Reuters)
According to pro-Russian militants, the bodies of two pro-Russian militants are pulled from the Seversky Donets River in Sloviansk, Ukraine, with both having multiple stab wounds. The claim could not be independently verified. (The Sun)
Thirty suspected al-Qaeda militants and six civilians are killed in a drone strike by the United States in Yemen. (CNN)
South Korean President Park Geun-hye condemns the action of crew members as tantamount to murder. 87 people are known to have died and 238 are missing and presumed dead in the sinking of Sewol ferry on 16 April. (Reuters)
Four more crew members from the ferry are arrested for deserting the vessel as it was sinking. (KDVR)
Thirty-eight-year-old American Meb Keflezighi wins the Boston Marathon men's competition, making him the first American in 31 years to do so. (USA Today)
Nominator's comments: Large wave of drone attacks on AQAP over the past 3 days, some sources say 'unprecedented'. Number of deaths is not confirmed but seems to be around 60-70 people including at least 3 civilians. Follows a recent video released by AQAP. One analysis here. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as the article does not seem to have been updated at all. Otherwise I'd support this. I've added an altblurb that at least adds some verbs to the sentence. GoldenRing (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on reliability and notability. As we don't actually know the extent of drone operations in the world, it's impossible for us to determine whether or not a particular event is "large" or "unprecendented". And without those qualifiers, this article becomes "drones attack target", which no one thinks is notable.128.214.172.232 (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Main article updated, drone article doesn't need update. "Massive and unprecedented" is quote from Yemeni government via CNN, make of it what you will... This is definitely a series of attacks over multiple days on multiple targets, with casualties somewhere between 40 and 70. Image provided is the Black flag of jihad which we use on the AQAP page but may want to think twice about using on the Main Page. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply] NYT says "the largest barrage of airstrikes carried out in Yemen this year ... and one of the largest strikes carried out since President Obama outlined a new strategy last May for targeting Qaeda militants in battlefields outside Afghanistan" Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely no that flag to front page, it has only tangential relation to the event, at best. Since even the nominator seems to question it, I have commented the image off. --hydrox (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Blurb will have to be revised to normal format for a dual gender competition, I am not sure what that is. I am also updating the article. There are pictures available for both winners if desired.--kelapstick(bainuu) 16:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be appropriate to put a cropped pic from one of the articles (maybe Rita Jeptoo, since we usually run male pics. A female pic would be nice). It should be pretty easy to take one like File:Rita jeptoo 2013 boston marathon.jpg and crop it to show her face better. I've done this before, but I always mess something up, and David Levy has to have words with me over it... --Jayron3218:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, not at all. It's a statement of my own inability to do it correct. If I do something wrong, you're always invited to fix it. --Jayron3220:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The death toll rises to 58 as Navy and Coast Guard divers comb the ferry to retrieve victims from the Sewol. Five routes into the ferry have been established, and operations are expected to pick up pace. (Yonhap)
In game two of a Stanley Cup Playoff series, the San Jose Sharks defeat the Los Angeles Kings 7-2. During the game the Sharks scored a franchise record seven consecutive goals in a playoff game, also breaking the franchise record for most goals in a playoff game. The team also tied the franchise record for most goals in a period, with three, and the largest margin of victory (five goals). (Toronto Sun)
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.
I don't know if this would qualify for a full blurb, but he was quite well known, in particular for his wrongful conviction, to the point of having a significant movie made about him. --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD - subject has had multiple songs, books, and movies made about him. There are a few unreferenced paragraphs in the article - hopefully those can be fixed before posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the criteria being asserted is DC2 (very important figure in his or her field) but in this case is it being claimed they are important in the boxing field or the legal field(for being wrongly convicted and his work afterwards), or a combination? 331dot (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would say more significant as someone wrongly convicted, and his work thereafter. He is probably more well know for that (at least these days), although my knowledge of boxing is not significant, in particular boxing in the 1960s. --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The person doesn't seem to have achieved fame in his field. Maybe he was more famous for being wrongfully convicted and imprisoned, but thus he didn't contribute to advance anything or make any impact in the global society.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's like opposing Rosa Parks because she didn't do any significant secretarial work. The fact that he was a boxer is just a sidebar. Like Rosa Parks, Rubin Carter was a major lightning rod in the American Civil Rights movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.223 (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle as fascinating, encyclopedic subject with high reader interest, subject influential in two fields. Article needs tenses changed and could use better referencing. μηδείς (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending further update. "Maybe he was more famous for being wrongfully convicted and imprisoned, but thus he didn't contribute to advance anything or make any impact in the global society." Really now? I'm so glad that promoting awareness of wrongful convictions does absolutely nothing to advance anything. Maybe I'll go act in some two-bit musical TV show instead. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD. Interesting crossover between sports and crime/law topics in additional to someone with a biographical film. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Well the lat blurb dropped off the page after a recent psate of activity in the news, but this is still in the nes. We could possibly have a sticky? --Lihaas (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea. Perhaps suggest on talk adding a "other ongoing news: X, Y, Z" line akin to the RD line? Certainly not something we can decide without discussion as it would be a rather significant change. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support sticky This is an ongoing situation with lots of news, and lots of interest. We've done this in the past (Syria most recently) and this certainly seems to merit one. --Jayron3202:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The death toll of the accident rises to 32 as two bodies are found in the sea and three in a cabin of the ferry, which became fully submerged yesterday. (Yonhap)
The South Korean government considers declaring a special disaster zone in Ansan. (Yonhap)
Nominator's comments: Well a breakthrough has been ,ade and its not just a delay. Seems notable after eyars of bickering. Probably more, when netanyahu hears about makes som e rambling statement/. --Lihaas (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Meh Iran agrees to deals it plans to ignore entirely every so often just to keep the international community off its back for a little while. There's nothing to suppose this is anything more than "Iran says 'sure, we'll agree to stop doing that' while it keeps on doing it anyways". --Jayron3219:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron32, unless you have evidence that the Iranian government has entered into this agreement in bad faith, that's really just speculation. We shouldn't be basing our decisions on our personal views of the Iranian regime. If there is an agreement, then clearly the US, the UK, France, Russia, China and Germany think that there is a prospect that Iran will actually carry it out, or else they wouldn't agree to it. It's also worth noting that there has been a change in government since most of the previous negotiations - the new President is significantly more moderate. Neljack (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - Per Neljack, it is not up to us to decide if Iran will follow through, and thus it looks like a significant agreement. However, the level of coverage I'm seeing is not that great so I can only weakly support. The article is not updated, so my support is conditional on an update. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pro-Russian separatists in Donetsk say they will not leave the government buildings, defying the Kyiv authorities and threatening a new international deal on Ukraine. (BBC News)
A police officer is killed and another is wounded after a bomb detonates in a busy square in Cairo's Mohandessin district. (The Guardian)
Business and economy
Arts and crafts retailer Michaels announces that 3 million customers were affected by the 8-month long security breach that resulted in the theft of their customers' personal information. (CNN)
The death toll of the accident rises to 28. (Yonhap)
South Korean prosecutors have issued an arrest warrant for the captain, Lee Joon-seok, and are seeking the arrest of two other crew members of the Sewol in the wake of the ferry capsizing. (CNN)
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: Major earthquake affecting tourist areas like Acapulco and major hubs such as Mexico City. Not quite clear yet the magnitude of the earthquake. --70.26.175.165 (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Oppose Initial reports are stating there's no known fatalities or major damage, but that's it. Mind you, the reports from Mexico City, far from the quakes epicenter, are light, and it will likely take some time for those near the epicenter to report in, but we're also talking about more rural Mexico there, so would not expect much there as well. --MASEM (t) 22:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, 7.0 is the usual lower limit for an article, not for posting to ITN. There seems to be ongoing earthquake activity on the planet right now, perhaps one will come along that kills a lot of people so it can be posted to ITN. Abductive (reasoning) 15:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: It's not every day that NASA deliberately crashes something into the Moon. I'll start work on the article in a moment. --Modest Geniustalk20:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – doesn't really seem like science "news", so much as a procedural fact about a particular mission reaching a particular phase. IMO it would be more newsworthy if NASA publishes some interesting findings from the mission. It Is Me Heret / c21:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: it was the first mission to use long-distance laser communication and made major discoveries about the thin atmosphere of the Moon. Because it was a short mission, little has been published yet and lots of analysis is still to be done, but it was clearly a success in both scientific and technological senses. Modest Geniustalk22:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Change the title of this section to "LADEE space mission successfully ends as planned on the surface of the moon". Emphasise the mission, not the crash. Making it positive might elicit more positive responses. 22:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
"was intentionally crashed" not "intentionally crashed". The intention was NASA's not the spacecraft's. Bellemora (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC) (That's why I added the altblurb.) Bellemora (talk) 08:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marked Ready well supported, well updated, suggest RD is okay instead of blurb, but the item should be posted either way as the admin determines. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose RD posting Adding this to RD seems a little "jokey" to me. It might even seem a little derogatory to the people listed in RD. This is the end of a mission by NASA not a death and should be posted as we would/have other mission endings. Still Support posting ITN. Rhodesisland (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posted - the consensus is a bit hard to read since three options were offered (blurb, RD, no post), but there seems to be enough support for some kind of post to justify posting. Among those who supported, a full blurb is preferred, so that is what I did. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Aug 2012 RfC that established RD, User:ThaddeusB, three-way votes were to be viewed as an oppose consensus if total opposes outweighed total supports of any type, RD or blurb. And supports for a full blurb were to be counted as supports for, RD if full blurb did not gain consensus outright. I am not disagreeing with your decision, just pointing out that posting of some sort was indeed called for here. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True on RDs in general (thanks for reminding me). This was kind of a unique situation though, as some posters (per talk) are clearly opposed to non-human RDs. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Opposition based on such literal-mindedness seem more pathological than logical. There's a reason unique craft are referred to as she, and such notable animals and craft that meet their demise certainly deserve more attention than little old ladies who never did anything except die at 116 y/o. μηδείς (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More notable is the take over of the oilfields than this. This particular event has already lef to increased security there and isnot as unstable. Also there is a nother article out there that we posted in December,.
I support the posting of something to do with S. Sudan, but not the blurb proposed. The take over of the oil fields and that Aguer silly commentary/stupidity) is more indicative of instabilityLihaas (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Support This was a major attack on civilians working with the United Nations, i.e. neutral folks, not participants in the civil war. High death toll. HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the reasons above. The article could use a lot more bulk, but it is interesting enough for me to click on a couple of links that brings a lot more information. Mvblair (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not certain that all 58 of those killed were civilians, it seems that most of them were but a few of them may have been among the attackers, which would make them sort-of not civilians. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Newer reports indicate 58 deaths of which 48 were civilians and 10 attackers. Further detail in the article. UN security council has issued a statement calling the attack a war crime. I'm amending the blurb to correct erroneous '58 civilians'. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that cse take my [mild] objection as a support. Resolvedit all and its unanimous. Someone pleas emark ready if the requisite 2-3 sentences updateS are there.Lihaas (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the "blurb" in headlinese? This isn't normal practice, is it? 58 people, including 48 civilians, die in an attack on the UN base in Bor, South Sudan. Bellemora (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posted a version of the attack on the UN base. If a different/more up-to-date blurb is desired, I would suggest making a new nomination --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: A terrible loss of the workhorses who get rich Westerners to the summit, and the worst loss-of-life in a single event on the world's highest mountain. Stub article needs work. Not sure we've posted a mountaineering ITN ever... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the basis that using the last major Everest climbing loss (1996?) article as an example, this short article will likely grow as investigators determine what went wrong in time. --MASEM (t) 15:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
lean oppose, but weakly article needs improvement. And the loss of life on its own is not notable, per precedent, but if its a famous first then i would support it as a minority topicLihaas (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being a "famous first" isn't an ITN requirement. Probably 90% of what we post is not a first. That said this is "famous" (being widely reported around the world) and a "first" (most deaths ever on Everest). --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very sad event. I like mountaineering, but there are many similar sad events around the world almost every week where 10 - 20 people lose their lives. I don't see this story as being particularly widely reported or prominent compared to other items currently in the news. On the plus side, this is the worst mountaineering disaster on Everest, but there have been worse accidents on other mountains, such as 43 dead on Mt. Lenin.[5]JehochmanTalk16:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's more about the victims really, and for diversity here at ITN that we're always looking for. We posted a plane crash in which three people died... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you are looking at, but the sources in the article alone show this is being covered in depth by some of the best newspapers in the world. See NY Times for example. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support People lose their lives accidentally in traffic collisions, airplane crashes or bomb blasts fairly frequent, but it's not so often when climbing Mount Everest. The death toll is also high for one such accident, albeit not if compared to accidents of different kind, and the news receives attention worldwide.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Difference being these guys were preparing the mountain for tourists, earning next-to-nothing for doing so. And this is the worst death toll in a single day, would you suggest that we wouldn't have posted the 1996 Mount Everest disaster if ITN had been around? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's the multiple deaths associated with a single natural "disaster" (the avalache), while they were in the middle of a job they were doing. Yes, people die attempting to climb Everett on their own violation, one could argue that's Darwin's law in play, but this is far different from that. --MASEM (t) 18:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my oppose. I heard an in-depth story on NPR about how these guys don't have sufficient life insurance for the task. That costs as interesting secondary analysis for me. Abductive (reasoning) 01:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This seems clearly notable as the largest number of people to ever die in one event on Mount Everest. While people die every year on Everest, more than 2 or 3 people dying in a single event is very unusual. Calathan (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If this was any other mountain, would we even think about posting it? People die on Everest all the time (sadly). So many in one incident is unusual, but twelve is still a small number in the grand scheme of things. We can't post every avalanche that kills a dozen people, and I don't see why being on Everest makes this any more significant. Modest Geniustalk22:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's precisely because it's on Everest, and that it involves the locals, that makes this significant. They were only there to pave the way for rich bastards from first world countries, who I hope will now find a way to support their families forever. HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the reasons given; Everest is more notable than other mountains being the tallest in the world, so disasters there are more notable than if they occurred elsewhere. 331dot (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is borderline, and of interest in a record book sort of way. But the article, even though it has been stretched into three "paragraphs" is really only one, and it seems doubtful anything more than an entry in a list is really warranted here notabilitiwise. Prior events on Everest have involved the deliberate abandonment of climbers. Here there was simply a natural event, no evidence of human malfeasance. 01:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs)
Support - some of the arguments above are quite strange. Of course it is more notable because it happened on Everest (and 12-16 dead in any avalanche is already significant). Additionally, this is drawing attention to the plight of the Sherpa people, something few tourist climbers ever consider, and even fewer regular people are even aware of. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I am not sure "Sherpas" is technically correct. It is correct in the sense that the term is often used as a synonym for climbing guide, but not all guides are ethnically Sherpa (most Everest guides are, but some are members of other ethnic groups). Its unclear to me if all of the 12+ killed here were Sherpa. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Attention Needed as an oppose, I feel safe in saying that with an 11-4 support, this should be posted ven by the nominator or updater at this point, unless there's some technical problem I missed with the article. μηδείς (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
i.e. The word avalanche should be bolded and linked instead of killed. It just seems more consistent with the other news stories. Thoughts? 66.249.84.233 (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Half thought about that when I posted it but thought that someone may have considered suggesting something different during the voluminous nomination process. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment## Im not saying this was under dispute to post as there was a majority in support, but theres at least a COI in the nominator posting it. Theres plenty of admins who can psot.Lihaas (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, consensus was pretty strong (against me), and one opposer had already said they wouldn't object to the nominator posting it themsevles. I think we've fallen into a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS trap here - many of the arguments above were essentially 'they're poor an exploited, so of course we should post it'. I disagree with that reasoning, but not with the mechanics of judging consensus and actually posting it. Modest Geniustalk22:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can speak only for myself, but my support had nothing to do with the plight of the Sherpas, but actually the fact that the avalanche was drawing attention to that plight. That is, having a secondary effect beyond the body count. Ideally that is what we look for in any disaster. (I would have also supported it if 12 western climbers died in a single event on Everest, and I'm sure others would have too.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My oppose as well had nothing to do with the victims being Sherpas. Given the overwhelming consensus and the fact that even opposes like myself could se it, and the dearth of active admins here, there was no reason an involved party should act after this rather decent interval. Had the poster reverted his own vote, or whatever its called, just for the sake of appearances, there'd still have been overeffingwhelming support. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quite, I waited 11 hours from when this was marked Ready to posting it. "Theres plenty of admins who can psot" doesn't seem to be true in this instance. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Russia and Ukraine together with the United States and the European Union sit down for emergency talks in Geneva. All four agree that "illegal military formations in Ukraine" must be dissolved, and that everyone occupying buildings must be disarmed and leave them. There would be an amnesty for all anti-government protesters under the agreement. (The Guardian)(Sky News Australia)
A skirmish on the Ukrainian military base in Mariupol by pro-Russian militants results in the deaths of 3 of the militants, the wounding of another 13, and the capture of 63 others. (BBC News)
The Ukrainian Army unit whose armoured vehicles were seized by pro-Russian forces is disbanded and its members charged with crimes. (Ukrainian News Agency)
Jews in Donetsk are ordered to register with the government of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic via leaflets dropped by an unknown party. The Jewish community in Donetsk dismissed it as a "provocation". (USA Today)(CNN)
Law and crime
Two former Anglo Irish Bank chiefs, Pat Whelan and William McAteer, are found guilty of making loans designed to illegally prop up the bank's share price. (BBC News)
Bankruptcy judge Steven W. Rhodes says that the court may maintain supervision over the finances of the city of Detroit, Michigan, even after the city emerges from bankruptcy protection. (Reuters)
Nominator's comments: Either a great or terrible breakthrough depending on one's POV, but clearly highly significant either way. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say "human clone", readers will think there is a baby. They created some stem cells. Given the embarrassing incident with posting the last stem cell thing, and the South Korean fraud incident, would it not be preferable to Wait for confirmation by another lab? Abductive (reasoning) 01:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to "human embryonic clone" - please suggest better wording if you can. As to timing, the story is in the news now, and is being covered by the cream of the crop news sources. There will barely be a blip when it is confirmed (which due to the legal situation of cloning might not be anytime soon either). I feel now is the best time to post; using language like "announce" implies it hasn't been confirmed yet. (Incidentally, I am not sure what you are referencing when you say South Korean fraud.)--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a note given this is a scientific item, this is a story that comes from publication of the research in a peer-reversed journal (per the Telegraph's article), as opposed to a lab making the jump before scrutiny has been applied. --MASEM (t) 01:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like the blurb to be more precise. These guys didn't simply create an embryo from adult cells. They used a normal human egg as the basis of their work. The Telegraph article says: "The technique works by removing the nucleus from an unfertilised egg and replacing it with the nucleus of a skin cell. An electric shock causes the cells to begin dividing until they form a ‘blastocyst’ – a small ball of a few hundred cells." It's important to say that that this process still involves a normal human egg. How about the blurb saying: "Scientists announce a human embryonic clone from adult tissue by replacing the nucleus of a normal unfertilised egg with the nucleus of an adult skin cell."? HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support (with altblurb) major technical achievement, and links are a gateway to many nice articles. I will point out that "cloning" has both a rather dry technical meaning, and a very sensational popular meaning, and could confuse readers. I have changed the altblurb to more precisely reflect what's going on here, and to be more succinct. BR128.214.214.31 (talk) 07:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support revised blurbs. As said above, cloning has a different meaning in popular usage than in scientific (that is, when I see "cloning," I automatically think scientists created a t-rex or something). The revised blurbs do not reflect that popular connotation and are good in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvblair (talk • contribs)
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.
Strong support for full blurb — One of the Spanish literature giants. I think his death should be posted as a full blurb. He is widely regarded as the most popular writer in Spanish since Miguel de Cervantes in the 17th century. [7]ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 20:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blurb Márquez was definitely one of the most sound names in both Spanish-language and modern literature and definitely one of the greatest and most popular writers of our generation.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb I have very high standards for a blurb, but I think Marquez meets them. Undoubtedly one of the most important writers of the last half-century. Many people would say he was the most important Spanish-language writer since Cervantes. Neljack (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb is incorrect - there is no way to know if a planet is habitable or not. Being in the habitable zone just means it might be habitable. Please don't equate the two on the home page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2014 (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){kind=link}
