*'''Oppose''' Domestic political grandstanding and negotiations. If something is passed, maybe that would be notable. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 13:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Domestic political grandstanding and negotiations. If something is passed, maybe that would be notable. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 13:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
*'''Weak Oppose''' Ending the parts that allowed for unwarranted surveillance is probably a major step but this was a deadline that was coming and after the last few years with various bits, we knew it didn't have has much legs than before. The fact they allowed it to expire (or failed to put up enough support to end Rand Paul's filibuster) is not really that interesting. And as others have pointed out this is all pre-election year positioning limited to the US. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 14:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
*'''Weak Oppose''' Ending the parts that allowed for unwarranted surveillance is probably a major step but this was a deadline that was coming and after the last few years with various bits, we knew it didn't have has much legs than before. The fact they allowed it to expire (or failed to put up enough support to end Rand Paul's filibuster) is not really that interesting. And as others have pointed out this is all pre-election year positioning limited to the US. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 14:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Local politics. --[[Special:Contributions/86.176.41.42|86.176.41.42]] ([[User talk:86.176.41.42|talk]]) 19:03, 1 June 2015 (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).
Parts of the Patriot Act expire at 12:01 a.m. due to Congressional failure to reform the USA Freedom Act, temporarily making new surveillance of telephone records by the NSA illegal. (New York Times)
Former German chancellor, "architect of German reunification" and one of the authors of the European single currency Helmut Kohl is reported to be in a "critical condition" after surgery at a Heidelberg hospital. (Guardian)
Nominator's comments: This will need updating as info comes in, since the news is at midnight Washington time. μηδείς (talk) 05:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it's hard to update this right now since it only happened an hour ago. Even were the program restarted a new bill would have to be passed and it would take over a day to reboot the servers which are off line. A better target article might be found. Angela Merkel and all the US's friends it's been spying on should be interested as well. μηδείς (talk) 05:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your main point, that there are many stories and different possible targets, but "amid calls" is vague to the point of falseness. Rand Paul alone blocked the law's renewal. μηδείς (talk) 05:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We didn't post the May 7 development that a second circuit court deeming the metadata program to be outside the scope of what Congress authorized. The democrats want the USA Freedom Act, the republicans want the old system - Rand Paul is one of many voices for change, and there will be more votes on these bills. -- Aronzak (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a forever wait. Negotiations could go on indefinitely. This is the first time a senator has shut down a spying program single handedly, and the first time the effect has been to curtail a federal spying agency since the Democrats did to the CIA after watergate. We need an update, but not more than that. Past bedtime for me. μηδείς (talk) 05:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Politicians campaigning for the next election cycle through legislative games. Not worthy of mentioning. --Jayron3213:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait This is clearly an ITN worthy story but it is still going on. Paul is serving as a one man stop sign with respect to the more intrusive spying but Congress is almost certain to pass something. When they do we can report it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Domestic political grandstanding and negotiations. If something is passed, maybe that would be notable. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Ending the parts that allowed for unwarranted surveillance is probably a major step but this was a deadline that was coming and after the last few years with various bits, we knew it didn't have has much legs than before. The fact they allowed it to expire (or failed to put up enough support to end Rand Paul's filibuster) is not really that interesting. And as others have pointed out this is all pre-election year positioning limited to the US. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Egyptian security officials report that militants have blown up a natural gas pipeline leading to Israel outside El-Arish, the provincial capital of North Sinai. That pipeline was attacked at least 20 times in the last 5 years. (AP via KFox)
Thousands of schools open in Nepal after the devastating earthquake of April 2015 which destroyed more than 25,000 classrooms and killed more than 8,000 people. (BBC)
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: Despite a poor article (which may not be much expandable, not finding any biographical sources apart from her career) this British costume designer won an Oscar and a BAFTA award; more importantly, she worked on cultural-touchstone material including the Beatles and James Bond films. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003!17:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support on notability, however, as the nominator has already mentioned the article is way below the standards we'd like to see on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support We need the article improved significantly to establish if she was a true leader in the field. I'm trying to scan through lists of great costume designs, and this name is not coming up compared to someone like Edith Head, in any shape or form, begging her importance. --MASEM (t) 17:29, 1 June 2015 (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.
Nominator's comments: Son of U.S. Vice President Joe Biden and former attorney general of Delaware. Hugely surprising death; he was only 46 and was expected to run for governor of Delaware next year. Kudzu1 (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Former attorney general of a U.S. state" doesn't meet our notability standards, irrespective of whether the deceased individual was related to a high-ranking politician. —David Levy05:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the death was not unexpected, the relation of a VP has no precedent of being posted in other countries, and a minor politcal dynasty in a small state where the son rode on his father's coat tails neither qualifies him as influential or in the top of his field. μηδείς (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the death was not unexpected. It wasn't public knowledge that Beau Biden was suffering from brain cancer until his death was announced. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regretfully oppose - Doesn't meet RD criteria per David above. A bit surprising for me, but that shouldn't rally factor into this. Connormah (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2015 (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.
Support this is the place I would come for information on both the animal itself, which is fascinating, and the outbreak. Given the event is ongoing, but only hitting the popular press now, I think it's safe to post as of the date of nomination. μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support but the "2015 pandemia" subsection needs a bit of expansion. (Also "this month" needs to be changed to "May" as we're entering June tomorrow). 117.192.184.172 (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article is in good nick, notable story, I've added an alt blurb which I believe is in slightly more accurate terms, the image there has been protected for immediate use if we move this to the main page, would be interested to hear if the alt blurb is any better, and happy to hear suggestions. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb also if the image is used would prefer an image that highlights the uniqueness of the facial features, eg this one or a cropped photo that shows the animal's head more. -- Aronzak (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Posted with the current image. I agree it would be nice to have another image which is of high quality which focuses more on the facial feature, but right now I'm just happy that I've (hopefully) updated the news section along with keeping the image at the top without breaking anything. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest change the blurb a little, to About half the world's Saiga, a critically endangered species... The way it is written now implies that while half of the critically endangered Saiga died, the rest are okay. μηδείς (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How could some saiga antelopes have a different conservation status than others? Your suggested wording strikes me as strained. —David Levy00:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read the whole sentence. It is a misplaced modifier. "Almost half of the world's critically endangered saiga antelopes (example pictured) die in May from suspected pasteurellosis." This could easily and logically be followed by "The world's unendangered Saiga, however, are fine." That is a normal circumstance where animals are endangered in one area of the world, but not another. The problem can be solved with any of a few easy changes. "Almost half of the world's saiga antelopes, already critically endangered, (example pictured) die in May from suspected pasteurellosis."μηδείς (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Misplaced modifiers of this nature are only a problem for people who have the mental defect of being unable to understand simple context clues most humans understand naturally and without effort. We don't need to cater to linguistic pedants when the sentence is perfectly understandable as it is, and where the proposed changed actually, while being grammatically pure, obfuscate the meaning of the statement more than the current phrasing. --Jayron3201:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I clarified my point only because David did not see it. It's not like I am going to rage up and down at people as incompetent admins and such over this. Name calling is not necessary, Jayron32. You could simply of said "I understand your point, but I think it's fine as is." μηδείς (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the future, if you're not calling me a pedant, please don't post directly after me, indent under me indicating a direct response, and refer to my linguistic specialty. It is easy to keep a collegial tone. μηδείς (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understood your concern's syntactical basis. I didn't (and don't) understand why such a misunderstanding would occur in real life.
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.
Dozens of people are rescued in the US state of Texas. The death toll from floods in Texas and Oklahoma has reached 24 dead with 13 missing with another 15 people dead from tornadoes in northern Mexico and Texas. (NBC News)
Thailand will allow the United States to fly surveillance planes through their airspace, allowing the United States to identify boats carrying refugees. (ITV)
Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht is given a life sentence after being convicted for narcotics trafficking. (The Verge)
American television actor Dustin Diamond is convicted of two misdemeanor charges stemming from a stabbing at a Wisconsin bar last year but acquitted on felony charges. (AP)
Sepp Blatter is elected to a fifth term as president of FIFA after Prince Ali bin Hussein withdraws his candidacy before a second round of voting could take place. The first round of voting had ended with Blatter falling seven votes short of the 2/3 majority needed to win. (ESPN), (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.
Nominator's comments: Described by her NY Times obit as "one of the world’s best tennis players in the decade after World War II" and as "one of only three women to have won singles, doubles and mixed doubles titles in each of the four Grand Slam tournaments." This seems to indicate that she was important in the field of tennis. Everymorningtalk01:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on article quality, would support on significance, but the article is dreadful. Almost nothing is referenced. We can't tell the world "This is the best Wikipedia has to offer" by putting such a substandard article on the main page. Take the existing text, add references for every paragraph or fact, and you'll have something postable. The current article is not main page ready, however. If anyone makes the requisite fixes before I comment again, consider my oppose to have already been changed before asking me again. But please fix it before posting. --Jayron3201:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should lower the bar enough to keep three people, not just one, on the RD ticker at all times. But I am leery of posting old athletes. Back then tennis was a leisure-class sport and the pool of players was nothing like it is now. As the variation in players has increased, the record extremes in competitions has shrunk.
I respect Mr. Gould as both an evolutionary biologist and a philosopher of science. That he was a sports fan, and made his opinions on sports known, is pretty much irrelevant to the current discussion. If Mike Greenberg or Frank Deford had statements to make on evolutionary biology, I'd find them no more relevant to discussions on THAT topic than Stephen J. Gould's opinions on batting averages and tennis skill. Being famous in one field does not mean that one's statements are automatically relevant to all fields. --Jayron3202:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll simplify. Gould's not making a biological, but a statistical argument, which certainly applies to sports. When a sport is young and new and has but a few competitors who've been brought up by dedicated parents, coaches, and other professionals, and been tutored on skills learned over a great number of player hours, it is easy for one or a few exceptional players in that small field to stand out. But when a sport has matured and millions or billions of dollars are spent and there is a large crop of exceptional players well skilled at both offense and defense, then exceptional records become rarer, because the opponents are better matched. The opponents of today may be greatly superior to the record-holding players of a century ago, when there were a few thousand well-heeled tennis players, rather than tens of thousands picked by skill and supported even if they were poor or black or from the wrong country or not university schooled. Perhaps Doris Hart's quite notable, especially if she developed new techniques that revolutionized the sport. That's not mentioned in her article or her obit. But the mere fact that she held a string of records in the 40's doesn't mean she'd even qualify in today's much wider field. This is not an oppose, it's a caution. μηδείς (talk) 05:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability but as the tag suggests, we need to improve the quality of the article a shade. You can only beat what's put in front of you. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hart was one of only three people in the history of tennis who won the singles, doubles and mixed doubles titles at each of the four grand slam events. This is a profoundly difficult achievement and was so in an age when tennis was just as popular as it is now. We presently have a minor basketball hall of famer on the main page, his achievements in his field don't come close to Hart's in hers. The "it happened ages ago" argument is bunk. One plays the players of your era, not the present day. We need more women featured in the recent deaths section, and Hart should be an easy pick. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: We posted when he was convicted in February. Thus, this case has already been determined to be notable enough for ITN, and this development is clearly a significant one that has received international coverage. [1][2]Everymorningtalk22:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It clearly wasn't going to be the difference between a prison term and a death sentence, but to how much a degree his prison term would be at the time of conviction (plus any monetary damage, etc.) So there's no reason to repost the actual sentence here. --MASEM (t) 22:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose already posted, investigators in the case were themselves arrested, attempted murder charges were dropped, that makes this a basic trafficking case an not worthy of posting twice. μηδείς (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, consensus was followed and the conviction posted. Doubtless there will be a book and a movie coming out on the whole story for those that want more detail. Abductive (reasoning) 05:43, 31 May 2015 (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: The New York Times has called this action "a crucial step in normalizing ties between Washington and Havana." [3] Seems significant in the context of Cuba-US relations. Everymorningtalk17:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We posted this previously here, and as noted there and in these sources, Obama's action started a 45 day timer for Congress to oppose the remove. Today (read: this story) is after that 45 day deadline expired, and Congress did not raise anything, so the action goes through by default. --MASEM (t) 17:54, 29 May 2015 (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: After the corruption scandal of FIFA earlier this week, with several people being arrested, this congress is certainly in world focus. Amid controversy that Sepp Blatter would still run, he did and he won the election after other candidate Prince Ali bin Al-Hussein withdrew. Lucky102 (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think we would have run this even if the corruption scandal hadn't come up and it had been the boring election predicted before Wednesday. I do suggest we combine it with the other FIFA story if possible. Nil Einne (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose new blurb but would support update to existing blurb if possible to word it properly. The election itself would have been unnotable except for the arrests a few days before. It is only in relation to the arrests and the controversy that the election is in the news. --Jayron3217:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support in re-updating existing blurb - The fact the elections went forward despite the controversy (and when FIFA was cautioned against having the elections now), it's part of the same story. --MASEM (t) 17:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, unless we've posted Blatter's other election cakewalks. Not a national election, and a process that is essentially fraudulent by many accounts. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no proof at present that the election is a sham and the results were falsified. The runner up stood down so Blatter won by default. He did not reach a majority. The article is being fixed by myself and Nil at the moment into a better state. The event is made more notable after the recent arrests of FIFA members.Lucky102 (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to bribes. Considering how rampant corruption is within FIFA one can really not exclude bribes being involved in this 200+ voters gathering. Nergaal (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Incremental update, which happens with most of the stories we post. Not important enough to add to the existing blurb, either. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sufficiently important and it is a sub story of the FIFA arrests, which posting IMO violated long standing precedents against posting arrest stories. This has already garnered more attention on ITN than it should have until there are notable convictions. Let's not compound the mistake. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support modifying the blurb to add just a few words like "prior to Sepp Blatter's fifth election to FIFA president". This is still global news, whether people here like it or not. It even features the Feds so that should really excite people... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it should be kept in mind that the arrests were made at the hotel where they were gathering for this election, so this approach makes sense. --MASEM (t) 19:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support TRM's proposal. Adding a few words to the blurb is justified - the fact that Blatter has been reelected despite the scandal is pretty significant news. Neljack (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support proposal by TRM. This is notable in the context of the wider scandal, and the existing blurb should reflect that. 331dot (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both new blurb and amended blurb. Widely expected result of a non-governmental election that was probably heavily influenced by underhanded dealings and has the effect of changing nothing. If the outcome wasn't obvious in advance, it certainly was when two of four candidates withdrew in protest even before voting started. For the foreseeable future the real story is and will be the criminal prosecutions, and I see no need to elevate the election sideshow by including in on ITN. If UEFA makes good on their threat to possibly withdraw from FIFA, that would also be appropriate for ITN, but I would skip the election. Dragons flight (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The "election" result was about as predictable and as interesting as Barcelona or Real Madrid winning La Liga for the 50th time. Let's leave some room for some non-soccer stories every once and a while. --Tocino08:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nom per Ad Orientem we don't post the selection of the commissioners of other sports and this doesn't need twice posting within a month. μηδείς (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Ongoing news from multiple countries within the past few weeks about this group, which is enjoying something of a spring renaissance right now. This much activity and coverage merits ongoing status, which ISIL had for a while up until a period of relative inactivity a few months ago. If we don't post ongoing, we're just going to continue seeing a deluge of ISIL-related ITN items, I'm afraid. Kudzu1 (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not that article: No statement one way or the other whether or not the concept should be put in ongoing. However, Ongoing is for highlighting articles that are changing rapidly along with the news developments. That one has no major activity in the past week or more, and no edits at all for over 48 hours. If you have another article in mind which is keeping track of the recent developments, please put that one forward for us to assess, but the ISIL article itself is not appropriate for an ongoing link, given its lack of major ongoing changes. --Jayron3216:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. That list has one new entry in the past week. Hardly an "ongoing" series of updates, n'est ce pas? Ongoing means "very active recently, now, and likely in the immediate future". It's easy to spot eligible ongoing candidates by clicking the article history. Major content was added on the 27th, previously on the 22nd. That level of activity is not what ongoing is for: ongoing is for highlighting articles where we would nearly constantly be posting new blurbs or updating them. The last event which was blurb worthy was the May 21 capture of Palmyra, which we already did a blurb for. The May 27th capture of a phosphate mine (the only recent update to the article) is fantastically engaging to learn about, I'm sure, but really, that isn't the article to highlight. Pick a new one, and let us look at that. --Jayron3217:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's the same problem. If it was only edited with a new event 2 days ago, and that was the phosphate mine capture (a turning point without equal, I'm sure) and there's nothing else before that for a week, that isn't ongoing. Find an article which has stuff being added all the time. otherwise, we don't have an appropriate link for ongoing. --Jayron3217:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I previously removed this because the article linked was not being consistently updated. As Jayron's saying above, if we can find a good article that's going to be updated, it can be posted, but I'm just worried the same thing as before is going to happen again. SpencerT♦C20:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The death toll from the recent storms in the American states of Texas and Oklahoma rises to 21 with 11 people missing. Fourteen more people have been killed in northern Mexico. (AP via ABC News)
Article could use some work, as noted, but definite support on notability. New hominins are always worthy of posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is doubt about it being distinct enough to be a new species. Accordingly, the article quality must be better than if this were a radically different hominim. The article should describe this doubt, for instance. Abductive (reasoning) 16:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support article needs expansion about diet of species based on the jaw, someone who specialises in this field should include that. -- Aronzak (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unready based on quality. Needs a proper lead and some full paragraphs rather than just a string of sentences. μηδείς (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support conditional on article improvement. I am unsure how much coverage this is getting but it does seem significant. The time frame for these developments is somewhat vague and needs to be clarified as part of an overall improvement in the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability - discovery of a new hominid species is major news - but oppose on article quality. It's not much more than a stub. Challenger l (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral since there's no scientific consensus this one jaw fragment is enough to declare a species. The article should not have been marked ready with no sections, an inadequate lead, and just a list of lone sentences. But I have rectified that, so if there's consensus to post it is actually now Readyμηδείς (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: It's a famous first in a country just about three decades from civil war. (akin to Funes in El Salvador and the FMLN continuing in the presidency, as well as Ortega in Nicaragua with the Sandanistas continuing there. It's real change/revolution at the ballot box in the region.) 120.62.19.234 (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending article improvements ITNR, but the article really needs more prose, such as describing the campaigning leading to the election, and reaction to the election results. --MASEM (t) 00:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Comment– Because Sunday's Polish election (see below) hasn't been posted. Why is this one more important?Sca (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ITN is not just about the topic being in the news but the article being of appropriate quality to be linked off the front page of WP, and currently the Polish results are far from quality. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per Masem, "importance" is of minor concern. If you want the Polish item to be posted then you are responsible for improving the article. The main reason why one article is not posted, where another may be, is quality of the article. If you feel that an article should be posted, then you are responsible for bring it up to quality standards. Complaining that others didn't do the work you're responsible for will not get you anywhere. --Jayron3214:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply – Jayron, I didn't participate in preparation of Polish presidential election, 2015 because that task should be performed by eds – hopefully some of them Polish-speakers – particularly versed in Polish politics, which I'm not. My perspective is one focused on European affairs generally.
Having said that, I find the present article adequately detailed; it's supplemented by three charts and two maps, in addition to (too many?) candidates' photos. Although parts aren't written in a style I would favor, the longish second paragraph provides decent context for the significance of the conservative-cum-populist-nationalist Law and Justice Party's victory.
Poland is the most populous country in what's commonly thought of as Eastern Europe, and a (somewhat outspoken) member of NATO, but has yet to adopt the euro. Since Law and Justice tends to be more euro-skeptical than the centrist Civic Platform party of Komorowski and Tusk (who's European Council president), the election result was broadly significant for the EU and therefore of interest internationally.
This story has been conspicuous by its absence from ITN, in my opinion, which I sought to express succinctly below. It would be inconsistent to post the May 25 Suriname election without first posting the May 24 Polish election. (Full disclosure: I once lived & worked in Poland for a time, hence my interest in Polish affairs.)
At least 12 people, associated with the Kangleyuan Rest Home in the Chinese city of Pingdingshan in Henan province which was destroyed by fire with the loss of 38 lives, are detained for questioning. (AP)
Nominator's comments: International case resulting in police action against the governing body of one of the most popular sports in the world. Seems to be top headline news right now. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on significance, though the text in the target article is a little light. Can we add any more context as to the background of what led up to the arrests? What actions by FIFA in more details led to this event? Clearly a big deal, but I'm not sure I know more from reading the Wikipedia article than the names of the arrested and that they were arrested for taking bribes, but there's no background as to what bribes they were taking and for what reasons they were supposedly taking them. If we could expand the article a bit before posting, so the article is more informative for the reader, that'd be ideal. --Jayron3210:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ordinarily (and I expect some people will appear shortly to object on these grounds) we don't post arrests - only convictions. However, a mass arrest of most of the board of what is arguably the world's largest international organization (more members than the UN!) by the police of two nations simultaneously, and a raid on its headquarters is ridiculously rare news. It's also worth noting that Chuck Blazer, who was effectively the most powerful person in American soccer (for many years the US's representative on the FIFA Executive Committee, executive vice president of United States Soccer Federation and General Secretary of CONCACAF) has already pleaded guilty. Smurrayinchester10:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support headline news across the globe, international involvement, article could use a little beefing up but will doubtless be enhanced as more news comes out. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am likely going to be pretty lonely on this one but oh well. It has been consistent policy to post only convictions, not arrests. Recently we rejected the Texas Mass Shooting that resulted in 170(!) arrests on organized crime charges that could carry life sentences. We need to at least make a passing effort to keep the double standards on ITN under control. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. I tend to agree with the "we only post convictions" argument in general, but this may be a special case. The very fact of the raid itself is highly notable and newsworthy. Much as this is crystal balling, it will have a huge impact on the most powerful sporting organization in the world, with or without convictions. Resolute13:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Noting that I would be in Ad Orientem's view here that we don't post arrests, the fact that the US got extradition rights with the Swiss gov't means there was likely clear evidence to allow the raid and arrests to happen, making this more unusual than typical cases. Add that this is a story that hits two major areas ITN tends to gravite towards: major crimes and sports, and for me, that puts this more as an exception than a rule. The corruption case article could do with more prose but as there seems to be little detail yet, this is probably about right. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: This news is getting massive play worldwide, and for good reason, considering its wide-reaching implications for the world's most popular sport. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, consensus is to post convictions. A few supports for this nomination should not violate this long-standing consensus, otherwise, what is the point of developing a consensus anyway? Also, information about what is really happening with these arrests is tenuous and tentative at best. Abductive (reasoning) 17:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is to post what generates consensus. All other "rules" are just statements on what has been done in the past, and there's no rule that we have to do what we did in the past merely because we can make random connections to prior events. Every single nomination is decided on of its own merits, and the decisions of the past cannot bind the present or the future in any way that prevents us from reaching any particular decision on any particular article for any particular reason we feel like. --Jayron3217:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To note, the article does need to be updated to reflect the press conference the US officials had this morning outlining all the specific charges, etc. [4]. But I will point out that while I normally am a "post on convictions only", the international scope and the impact on the world's larger sporting event after the Olmypics is pretty damn major to report this point. Convictions will likely take a year or so before that even happens (and the evidence suggests these will all be different trials since the involvement varies with each). --MASEM (t) 17:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose conducting a well-timed raid is exactly what prosecutors do, see perp walk. We should not be highlighting anything until there are convictions. μηδείς (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is one step in what is bound to be a long, slow, and vilifying investigation. We should wait while these allegations are investigated. The more significant (and postable) events would be convictions or a backtrack on world cup host decisions. Mamyles (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the "slow to be sure" brigade have some semblance of a reason not to post, but given the FBI have had Chuck Blazer feeding them information for two years and that we've already seen a number of individuals pleading guilty to money laundering, etc, this event is by far the most notable we'll have for quite some time. If we don't post it, we're doing our global audience (who FIFA represent, more so than the United Nations) a disservice. Of course it's difficult to explain to some of non-soccer loving audience the significance, but since we're now talking about the illegality of the 2010 World Cup, coupled with the recent Swiss intervention to investigate the illegitimate awarding of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups to Qatar and Russia, this is massive global news. To deny it is simply a demonstration of ignorance. Which is fine, many people are ignorant, and most times it's not their fault. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support obviously. Soccer is the most popular sport in the world! Also a story that originates in Europe for a change, instead of the usual "What's in America" section. --107.77.94.111 (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While probably not a large factor in your opinion, these arrest warrants were actually from the USA, and they will be extradited & tried there. So it both originates and will end in America. Mamyles (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that someone was arrested is not a "smear", it is a fact. They aren't being tried and convicted in the blurb, and should not be. This is also not a simple arrest, but an international case. 331dot (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please note that some of those involved in this case have already admitted guilt and have actively assisted the Feds in the pursuit of global justice against those currently charged. That changes the game. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Extremely high-profile incident, as Smurrayinchester correctly points out. Additionally, the fact that there have already been racketeering convictions in the case further increases the notability of the ITN candidacy. That said, the "Individual arrests" section of the article is largely uncited (especially if we consider that this falls under WP:BLP), so that would need to be fixed before this can be posted to the front page. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)21:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am usually very much in the camp of those who argue that we should wait for convictions, but we cannot shut our eyes to the reality that this is massive global news and will have a big impact on FIFA and soccer. I don't think BLP prevents us from featuring this on the Main Page, especially considering that none of the defendants are actually named in the blurb. Nobody can dispute that having an article covering the arrests is permissible, and we are simply linking to it from the Main Page so that the many interested readers can look at it. I don't see any BLP problem with that. Neljack (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Post this already there is clear consensus that this is a highly notable, unusual case that deserves to be on ITN. Can an admin get this on? Nergaal (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a lot better if you based your opinion on the merits and not the views of others, which doesn't help form consensus on the merits. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: For a major story that began 25 years ago, with hundreds of articles written about it before the raid, (for example in last few years alone,) the article is too brief. The colorful flag-filled charts add little to the overall context of this event, which is covered much better in many of the sources. There's no mention of Loretta Lynch, planning, and no mention of the "institutionalized" corruption going back decades. The article as is focuses on the trees, not the forest, and needs a major expansion IMO. --Light show (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There certainly might be a larger story and lengthier period to cover, but this current article is specifically about the US charges. You'll note the current article even mentions the concurrent Swiss investigation that has its own article. At some point, there is probably going to be a small group of articles all tied to this corruption issue that covers the 3 decades of problems, but the here and now, it is the US and Swiss charges that are the story. --MASEM (t) 00:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except having a "group of articles" about the general issue is not necessary or helpful. This single raid event might be neatly packaged as a brief canned news story. But there's no reason not to open the can now, place the event in context, to make WP more than another daily news site. --Light show (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this has been an issue for years, where are all the sources that document the cases against FIFA before? And yes, maybe in the future it will only need one article, but again, for ITN, this is the extent of reliable information we have in the here and now. --MASEM (t) 01:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The key source for the raid explains the context. We don't really need prior cases, just a history of facts to give this single news event more context. Actually, just a few simple sentences from that source adds much more "context" than the entire article has now. For instance, The indictment alleges that, between 1991 and the present, the defendants and their co-conspirators corrupted the enterprise by engaging in various criminal activities, including fraud, bribery and money laundering. Two generations of soccer officials abused their positions of trust for personal gain, frequently through an alliance with unscrupulous sports marketing executives who shut out competitors and kept highly lucrative contracts for themselves through the systematic payment of bribes and kickbacks. The entire source is even PD. --Light show (talk) 02:07, 28 May 2015 (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.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Record breaking floods across Texas and Oklahoma the past several days with many places seeing historic river floods. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2015 (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.
Flash flood warnings are now in place in eight states with flood waters causing closures of roads, rail services and buses in Houston. (NBC News)
Thirty people are reported missing in the Houston area as the flood water levels continue to rise as the death toll in Texas rises to 13. (AP via News24), (AP)
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.
Potentially so, but Comcast's deal fell through after Charter's did the first time. Announcement due in a few hours (discussion can continue), but regulatory hurdles are not so easy either.120.62.18.131 (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - big news now. If it doesn't go through for some reason, that will be big news again. Despite Walt's comment, we do normally post on announcement (which receives a lot of press), not on regulator approval (which receives little or no press). --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't "give [anything] artificial notability". Wikipedia reflects the notability assigned to things by the real world's reliable sources. And the real world says the announcement is the most notable part of business deals. It is also the point of the process ITN has posted in all recent cases that were posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except when you all decide it doesn't matter what "the real world" thinks is newsworthy, which happens time after time here. If your premise were true, there would have been no debate about the sentencing of Tsarnaev to death, for example. By your argument, if it's big news now, should be reported now. No more "wait until it happens" stuff. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 15:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that for something like Tsarnaev there are four points where the news is big: arrest, conviction, sentencing, and enacting of the sentence (and that's excluding appeals, etc.). ITN recognizes that there's many possible points and to avoid having the story come up over and over again, have opted that the conviction is generally the point where the story gains the most usable encyclopedia coverage. In the case of a business deal, such as this one, there's only one assured point: the announcement, and a potential second one if the FCC rejects the deal. While the actual enacting of the deal (if it goes through) is the finality of the situation, that point gets very little coverage. It is the point of the deal's agreement and announcement. With only one such point, this is the right time to post it. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Acknowledging that the FCC will be reviewing this, this is a very large detail and the affirmation that both companies have agreed to going forward is the point where it is in the news, regardless of the chance the FCC will block it. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Highly notable, headline-news business deal. Whether it is approved or denied, it's a huge story. Lots of money here, and lots of implications for the telecommunications sector. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
and by the way. the heading "Charter Communications buying Time Warner Cable" is a false statement. Change it to "Charter Communications proposal to buy Time Warner Cable" for the sake of accuracy and to avoid the Wikipedia rule against crystal ball. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with such a view of business merger announcements is that it would prevent virtually any business story from being posted to ITN, as the argument given when it is actually approved(and would get less news coverage than when announced) would be that it wasn't in the news. It's news now and should be posted now. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing crystal here, it's understanding how the news cycle deals with business mergers. Markets react on the announcement that companies have agreed to merge or be bought out or whatever, but don't react when that actually happens. If the FCC does decide to strike the deal, that'll be news too and the markets will react on that. Crystal balling in these stories would be basing the ITN on the rumor mill on mergers and buyouts. Here, the companies have formally announced the plans, shareholders have agreed, so its not a crystal ball. --MASEM (t) 19:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sources indicated are the BBC, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. If we're considering their reporting to be "tabloid", pull the other one, it certainly has bells on it. Or alternatively selectively delete posts from editors. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For those users who are unable to read, we have a couple of references from American sources such as The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. Funny how those have been overlooked. Perhaps they can just be deleted by some users so they're censored. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have often cited BBC.com here and have been told the news item in question is "tabloid" material. It's funny how BBC's stories' validity are in proportion to the editors who want to push a story such as this one - which isn't actually a story, it's just a "we hope to..." press release. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a "we hope to" story, this is a "we will unless blocked" story- and if blocked, that would also likely be newsworthy and notable. You seem to be arguing for a de facto prohibition of business stories here. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you've forgotten what happened the last time TWC was intending to be merged with another company. Nothing happened. It fizzled. As may this. However, Charlotte will always be George's sister. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So? Every event can possibly change in the future. What you are proposing is a de facto prohibition of business stories. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the title reflects the reliable sources. Having said that, I've recently seen posts removed with no edit summary and entirely against policy so nothing surprises me about some users here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as absurd. Where is the article on the merger itself? Only on the basis of such an article could we evaluate this. The 'TW-Comcast merger' has an article, and it didn't happen! This merger may happen, but it would create one of the larger (not the largest or second largest) conglomerates. It's being reported as a benefit for internal costs and negotiateing power, not as anything innovative or consumer beneficial. μηδείς (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. The current phrasing in the article says "intent to" purchase TWC. That phrasing is far too vague for me to indicate this is a major story. I may intend to do many things, but either don't do it or are prevented from doing it. While I agree that the announcement of the deal is the biggest story, and that waiting for the regulators to tick off boxes is pretty unnewsworthy stuff, I don't see where this is ready yet. Lets follow the story for a little while longer, and when we can say something more definitive than "intent to", we may be able to post this. --Jayron3221:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is that when that point comes, the argument against it will be that it is not in the news, because announcements always get more attention(and have more effects on markets/investors) than the conclusion of the transaction. 331dot (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to put it back but I don't think it was proper for a clear opponent of this to remove the Ready tag. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing improper about that. Supporters frequently add Ready tags, so it's clear that editors are not required to be uninvolved to add or remove them. Anyone can add one if they think the article is ready to be posted, and anyone can remove one if they think it isn't. Neljack (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Ready" to me implies "Ready to be posted if there's consensus". Regardless of consensus, various editors here are saying the article or articles need work. If those problems are resolved, it could again be marked "ready". ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of 'ready' is that it is basically a polite version of 'attention needed'. I have no complaint about any of the admins here, nor with the removal (331 can consider that as a "new" oppose I considered removing the ready myself, but dind't), but if we had even more administratorial attention, our trains might better run on time, for which see the German WP, no joke intended. μηδείς (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support If a $55 billion dollar merger doesn't warrant notice on ITN then it's time to just amend the guidelines to exclude all business related news. And let's be frank here. If it's not posted now it wont be posted at all. FCC approval will get a few paragraphs in the business section of the major papers and if it is even nominated again at ITN it would get buried in a blizzard of oppose votes. These things have always been posted at the announcement which is when it's major news. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As stated, this won't be posted then. The agreement to merge is news now. AdOrientem is quite correct. You haven't denied that your opinion is a de facto prohibiton of business stories. 331dot (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It might be better to say you agree with his opinion, rather than that he is correct. I still oppose since this will neither change the industry nor create the biggest conglomerate. We've long known TWC has wanted to offload their midlevel management, and that is all this will accomplish. Downsizing and efficiencies, and buyouts. That's really not news. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AdO is correct that business stories will not be posted if it is prohibited to do so when they are announced; that is a fact, not opinion, because government approvals rarely get the attention and news coverage the announcement gets. Giving the reasons you feel it is not newsworthy is a valid objection(albeit one I don't share) so I don't criticize it. 331dot (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The question is "what kind of announcement". The article does not make clear if an offer has been tendered yet, or if the general idea has been floated. There's a big difference between saying "You know, it'd be nice if we bought Time Warner Cable" versus "This, in detail, is how we're going to buy Time Warner Cable". My problem is the language in the target article at Charter_Communications#Acquisition_of_Time_Warner_Cable makes it seem less certain than people here are making this out to be. "Is in the process of acquiring" is different than "Expressed an intent to acquire". Have the shareholders of TWC accepted the offer? Have basic details been worked out? Is this just a random idea or is it a real deal? The text of the article doesn't yet make that clear. It probably should.--Jayron3204:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fair point in reviewing the sources - some same that the agreement by both companies is there, some say that Charter has expressed its intent implying the agreement with Time Warner is not done. We should have full clarification before even posting this. --MASEM (t) 04:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a big deal in terms of size of the companies involved and media interest. It might not be approved by the FCC, but that could take months or years to happen. By that time, it won't actually be in the news. CalidumT|C02:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support (edit conflict) business news doesn't get bigger than that, and the FCC will of course investigate it but it still lwarrents posting. If required you could mention the FCC in the blurb but it seems unnecessary. 65.184.233.49 (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The issue about when to post merger news (at announcement or at government approval) has been previously addressed here:
It seems the strong consensus was that merger announcements should be posted when they announced, not when they are approved. This type of issue will come up for every merger announcement, so if editors have a problem with them being posted at announcement, it should be discussed as an ongoing issue, and not as a one-off issue relating to this particular merger. Stockst (talk) 04:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you, Stockst, prior to this most recent account? Your familiarity with Wikipedia indicates that you've been around a long time, and yet your account is pretty new. --Jayron3204:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Their edits show a familiarity with business and over a month of activity completely separate from this. We shouldn't bite. - Floydianτ¢05:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, "Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.". 331dot (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - One of the largest business mergers ever, recognized companies beyond the U.S., and certainly in the news outside the U.S. - Floydianτ¢05:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean BBC, that wouldn't count. Each of BBC editions is accessible to only one region. We are viewing the US edition of the BBC website. We can't access to UK edition. Also, I don't think other languages treat the story as one of top stories. By the way, where else? George Ho (talk) 05:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Canada, Ireland, France. These took me 5 minutes to find. And while we're using US-centric as a reasoning:
A heat wave in India kills at least 1,100 people. - Totally India-centic
In cricket, Mumbai Indians win the Indian Premier League after defeating Chennai Super Kings in the final. - Also totally India-centric
Måns Zelmerlöw (pictured), representing Sweden with the song "Heroes", wins the Eurovision Song Contest in Vienna, Austria. - Totally Euro-centric
At least 40 people are killed in a shootout in Mexico between Federal police and members of Jalisco New Generation Cartel. - Mexican-centric
Ireland becomes the first country to legalise same-sex marriage by constitutional referendum. - Ireland-centric
At least 21 people are killed by a suicide bomb in Qatif, Saudi Arabia. - Middle-east-centric
Posted. Personally, I'm not really a fan of posting this announcement, which means (I guess) that I'm in a good position to say that consensus seems clear, the articles have been adequately updated, waiting too long will make it stale, and an ITN item hasn't been posted in almost 2 days. Posting. I'm not an ITN regular, so I'm not sure if we usually add euro or pound equivalencies, so I went with the proposed blurb wording (no alternate currencies). If a merger article is started, someone can switch it out for the current bolded items when deemed ready. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2015 (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.
Nominated by [[User:120.62.18.131 (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)|120.62.18.131 (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)]] ([[User talk:120.62.18.131 (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)|talk]] ·[{{fullurl:User talk:120.62.18.131 (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)|action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/preload_credit&preloadtitle=ITN+recognition+for+%5B%5BMay+2015+Garissa+ambush%5D%5D§ion=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=May+2015+Garissa+ambush&preloadparams%5b%5d=nominated}} give credit])[reply]
Nominator's comments: Soldiers, being armed, are more notable for the not-so-easy high casualty count. Some naxal attack with about the same soldiers was here a few years ago. -120.62.18.131 (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you ever bothered to read beyond your prejudged notions you will see 1. I cannot create the article on Wikipedia 2. Beyond your one-track indoctrinated mind, the sources say there was a bomb that wounded and then a rescue mission was ambushed, which is where the casualties came from (read the local source above).120.62.18.131 (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
Personal attacks aside, I know you can't create the article unless you bother registering an account (which is free and will stop people tracking you via your IP address), or you could request its creation at WP:AFC. Either way that's your problem. But I don't actually believe the event itself is even notable enough for an article; perhaps a one-liner in 2015 in Kenya? There still appears to be no reliable source that verifies your blurb. It's not exactly the Garissa University College attack is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; aside from no article to evaluate,(I understand the IP user cannot create one, but that isn't our issue) the Kenyan government is saying none of its officers have been killed(according to the Al-Jaz article) and this is apparently just a claim by a terrorist group. 331dot (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wikipedia is not a news service. ITN blurbs must link to an article. Thems the rules. Create an account so you can create articles or don't. Either is fine with me. But please don't blame other editors for your choices. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Our reliable sources are indicating that no one died (one wounded) and that the claims of 20 deaths are only by the group that initiated the ambush. A non-story for WP. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we now have an article which has one single sentence about the ambush, i.e. that an ambush took place, and heaps of background boilerplate. There is nothing else in the article specific to this event. There is no evidence that the original claim and blurb are correct. This is a dead duck. I would very much expect the article to be deleted in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2015 (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 government of Sudan denies allegations from South Sudan that it is supporting rebels threatening oil fields in its southern neighbour. (Reuters via Daily Star)
Former Prime Minister of IsraelEhud Olmert is sentenced to eight months in jail following a conviction on corruption charges for unlawfully accepting multiple envelopes with cash from an American supporter. There are 3 more criminals prosecutions against him. (BBC), (AP via The Guardian)
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: Described by CNN Money as "legendary". Received the "Lifetime Achievement in Photography Award from the George Eastman House as well as the Outstanding Contribution Photography Award from the World Photography Organization." (See Time link.) She also won a World Press Award from World Press Photo. This seems to indicate she was important enough in her field for RD. Everymorningtalk23:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending article updates Importance is established. The prose of the article is fine but the allocades section needs to have sources for each aware or link to a blue-linked article where confirmation can be found. (And I was able to find a useful free image to add to the article of her). --MASEM (t) 23:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose that she photographed demonstrations lends her no credit. Let's see one iconic pulitzer winning reason why this should be posted. μηδείς (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Lots of awards, published in a lot of noteworthy publications, exhibited worldwide. Notability seems clear. Article looks okay, with maybe a few sources that need to be lined up here and there, but nothing egregious. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - In my view, a fine ITN RD candidate. Notability is clear. Article may need a bit of cleanup, but as Kudzu1 observes, nothing is immediately obvious as a reason not to post this to RD. Jusdafax07:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the history if you were sourcing to her biography from her own page, that's a poor source since people can make up claims about themselves (not that I'm suggesting she had done). The removal appears correctly done. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: The National Weather Service has described this flooding as "historic" (see WaPo), a state of emergency has been declared, [5] and Obama has promised help to the affected areas (see Reuters link). Death toll is variable from source to source, e.g. the Reuters link above says at least 6 people died, and the Los Angeles Times says it's at least ten. [6]Everymorningtalk18:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose This same storm dropped a tornado that struck a Mexican town over the border with similar casualties. If we are going to report this we cannot omit the Mexico side. (See BBC's take [7]). That said, this is also standard summer storm season - floods and torandoes are to be expected, and this is far from the damage that some torando runs in recent years have caused. --MASEM (t) 19:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait to see full impact. Right now, while tragic for those affected, it is hard as yet to judge the full impact. --Jayron3220:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose parochial story which, among other things, "caused minor damage to a mobile home". Wikipedia is not a repository for localised news of inconveniences to some trailer park folks. The fact we had so much opposition to hundreds dying in India (now over a thousand) would indicate that this is a minor and local news issue in the US, commonplace due to the weather systems there. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment of course a support would indicate that a user has not even read the article in question which has an orange-level maintenance tag. But that is hardly surprising as this is stirring up nationalistic feelings. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until full impact is known. Right now this seems relatively minor(while historic for the affected area, it isn't nationally I think). If ever posted, it should indeed include information on storm effects in Mexico(like the aforementioned tornado). 331dot (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Potential support per Masem if tied in as one or as related storm systems. We usually have one or two tornado breakouts this time of year. Notable ones kill far more than five. The nomination as posted is minor, but if this becomes a greater complex or can be tied together it would be blurbworthy. μηδείς (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's kinda my point, 331dot}. I think this could be a shoe-in nom if we had an article that tied in all the related events over several days, rather than just the one limited one. μηδείς (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to weak support on improvements in the article and more extensive information concerning the scope of the flood. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support once further expansion is done. Been doing my best to update and expand this article but I have relatively limited time at the moment. An earlier concern brought up about the Mexico tornado has been addressed by its addition into the article (part of the same overall storm system). Record-breaking floods have occurred/are occurring in many areas of Texas and Oklahoma with more rain on the way. As brought up by the nominator, this is a historic flood event for the region and a deadly one. At least 28 fatalities have been confirmed between Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas, with about 40 other people unaccounted for or missing. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a fair comparison. That article wasn't created until September 2012, roughly two months after the main events of the disaster according to the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those floods lasted for several months, from July up to October. Here's a quote from a news source: "Flooding started in Plateau State in central Nigeria in July, spread through Borno, Cross River, Ebonyi, Nassarawa, Bauchi, Gombe, Katsina and Kebbi states in August, hit Taraba Benue, Niger, Kaduna and Kano in September, before affecting Delta and Bayelsa states in September and October." [9]117.221.122.147 (talk) 06:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear that anyone bothered to nominate it for ITN. Only one person really edited it while the floods were ongoing. Not everything gets noticed and nominated for ITN appropriately. The 2012 Nigeria floods appear to be a case where there was not enough media coverage that it caught on to people who frequent ITN. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dozens dead in Mexico and the US, historic flooding, over a dozen tornados, with an F3 killing 13 in Mexico. The article name seems local but the effects range over an area that would be widely international if it happened in Europe, and the deaths in Mexico are indeed part of the article. Suggest Masem, Jayron32, 331dot, Ad Orientem etc., reconsider their votes. μηδείς (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support the ITN for the article that does not limit the scope of the storm to just the situation north of the border; I know the news is not helping with a very US-centric take with the focus on damage in Texas. We have to remember that weather doesn't following geopoliticial lines. --MASEM (t) 17:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article has improved considerably since my initial wariness. Suggest a possible change of blurb to be more encompassing. Something like "Floods in southern U.S. and northern Mexico cause widespread property damage and leave at least XX dead" or something like that. Good job to all those who improved the article text. --Jayron3217:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have proposed an alt blurb. The name of the article itslef is still odd, given half the dead are in Mexico. But we don't post based on article names. In any case there are at least 31 killed, with over a dozen tornados, and historic flooding. Comment by "waits" such as Masem and Ad Orientem would be helpful. μηδείς (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The naming and approach of the article needs to be fixed before posting. ITN's purpose is, in part, to guide new editors to articles they may be able to contribute on, and that's why we look for the quality of the article to make sure they can contribute in a fair manner. With the article currently named and geared to the US centric issues with this storm, that's not going to work for new editors. --MASEM (t) 02:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Although this is a calamity for the people affected – and although some of the oppose rhetoric above is overdrawn – there's much human-caused blood, gore and destruction in the world that exceeds the magnitude of this natural disaster. Sca (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that it is a major issue that the article pretty much ignores the impact in Mexico in the text, while plugging for global warming (!). I suppose that's really Texal, not Global Warming. I may be able to get to it in a couple of hours. μηδείς (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is going to need at least a day's worth of work not including just adding the Mexican info, the sources for which can't just be cut and pasted. If someone's got the time and interested I have pasted the Mexican tornado info onto the talk page. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2015 (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.
We absolutely need an article first. It does not help to nominate when there is no article. (Remember, ITN is about highlight articles of topics that happen to be in the news, not to be a news ticker). --MASEM (t) 18:06, 25 May 2015 (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.
Oppose on quality: Article has significant BLP and sourcing problems and will need serious improvement before it is ready to post. Notability, however, is clear. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on notability and oppose on quality. Not seeing this individual anywhere on any news outlets I follow, I know it counts for nothing but having watched countless "FIFA WCs" I can testify to that I have never heard this individual commentating, and finally the article, as noted by Kudzu1, is bereft of suitable referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RTE broadcaster - not that it diminishes his work, but I would not call that "all over". I suppose if top of the field is Irish sportscasting, he is up there somewhere. Mainly as a presenter for these programs, rather than ingame commentary (like the BBC's Des Lynam). Fuebaey (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose on article quality alone. He clearly looks to be one of the most well-known broadcasters of his nation - but the sourcing and general article quality (sidebar, image and so on) is sadly lacking. Challenger l (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality alone. Article is far from sufficient. Surely more can be said about a person whose life was this important. If the article were expanded to a reasonable coverage of his life and work, it would be fine for RD. --Jayron3220:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: We posted the jailing of Mohamed Nasheed in March, and there was consensus there, AFAICT, that formed heads of state being jailed is ITN worthy. [10] What is less clear is whether heads of state being sentenced is ITN worthy--the sentence may not be carried out for 45 days, according to CNN. Everymorningtalk13:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - I'm iffy on the fact this is pretty much a slap on the wrist in terms of the type of sentence (compared to 20 yrs or the death penalty), but it is also a case against a nation's former head of state. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you're getting at but per that article " The position is largely a ceremonial figurehead role,[1] with executive power effectively being exercised by the prime minister. " We're talking a person that formally held that position of power, so this is significant. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree that there is significance here. I studied political science so I can't help pointing out a technicality like that. :) 331dot (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Plus the article contains a number of orange maintenance tags which I'm sure the supporters will address, but until then, this should not even be considered for posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Masem. Nothing when compared with death sentence of Morsi or 20 of Nasheed or some eight (don't recall exactly) of Mubarak. That too in corruption, a less serious issue in comparison of slaughter and espionage and betrayal. -The Herald (Benison) • the joy of the LORDmy strength17:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per The Herald. If recently, former heads of government have been sentenced to death or to likely life terms for charges such as treason, this is very light indeed. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per the reasons given. The conduct, if I read it right, did not have to do with his duties as PM, but it is still notable enough for me to support a little. 331dot (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would prefer something like "Olmert-Talansky affair" to be a separate article. ITN has had stories on former leaders of Egypt and other countries sentenced for crimes. -- Aronzak (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Based on how I'm reading this, in the case of the Egyptian trials, they were all connected cases; this appears to be a result of Olmert acting alone - or to the point where he was the one responsible for any crimes. As such, there really is not need for a separate page on this situation. --MASEM (t) 02:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the article's talk page this matter has not yet been posted. I simply cannot imaging we would not post the jailing of a former EU, Commonwealth, or US head of state. I have hidden a section requiring citations (perhaps it should be removed entirely), the rest of the article looks fine. μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This and the earlier conviction are both up for appeal. When he serves time as former head of government it'll be notable. (This is not his first conviction either).120.62.18.131 (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment okay, so maintenance tags notwithstanding, apparently a sentence like "Sentencing was set for May, and his lawyers advised he would appeal" means this article is updated? None of you have read this article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality of update only. The only update was a single sentence to the lead. Someone should be able to create a paragraph or two in the actual article text. Right now, the Wikipedia article does not contain enough new content to put up on the main page. Also, if we do post this, we should pipelink the section where the new information is added. --Jayron3220:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand this as a policy position, Jayron32, but what would the actual update be? He was escorted from his house to prison, and interrogated as to whether he was, or had ever bean, a heemosexual? Would it improve things to post the opinion of various people like Netanyahu regarding the sentence? The effect is another wait vote, although every prior wait vote has said we'll post this when he's convicted, sentenced,... μηδείς (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It should be treated the same way as the Charter-TWC thing. It's "news now". If the article needs fixing, the complainants should fix it. But it's factual, which is more than can be said about the latest TWC merger attempt. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently not, all the supporters are content to just do absolutely nothing, which is probably wise given the lack of experience most of them have in improving mainspace articles. A shame though. This could have been a winner. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Before posting, I'd be happy to see some "Reaction" section in the election article. At the moment, it's just the result table. We can do better. --Tone17:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose article in current state - there is minimal prose in the article and zero prose on the results/reaction. Article does not meet ITN quality standards as is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on article quality alone. Amount of prose is very insufficient for a main-page linked article. Substantial prose expansion would be needed to bring this article up to snuff. --Jayron3220:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but the standard isn't how much it has been expanded, but rather how much coverage there is on the news item and that is still basically zero. The entirety of the prose on the election results is two sentences in the lead saying Duda won and it was close. That is fine for the lead but the body of the article should have a full paragraph on the results and at least one on reactions. That is what is normally expected of elections. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article has been updated with prose for the polling, results, and reactions sections. Feel free to add more. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Marking ready: I see no reason why this shouldn't be posted at this stage. Consensus is for posting, the article has been improved to address concerns about lack of prose, and this is starting to run the risk of getting stale. Let's do it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment – Suggest blurb be modified to say, Opposition candidate Andrzej Duda of the Law and Justice Party is elected as Ppresident of Poland.Sca (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2015 (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
