*'''Support''' upon update; this meeting seems notable for the mere fact that it occurred, even though disagreement between the two sides isn't a large issue nowadays. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 02:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' upon update; this meeting seems notable for the mere fact that it occurred, even though disagreement between the two sides isn't a large issue nowadays. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 02:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
*Additional notes - for anyone writing alternative blurbs (I'll do one now). Patriarch Kirill is not the 'leader' of the Eastern Orthodox Church (that would be the [[Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople]]), but the Russian Orthodox Church (which Patriarch Kirill leads) is the largest of the Orthodox churches. A blurb could focus more on the joint declaration they made, sidestepping the issue of the somewhat overhyped 'first such meeting since 1054' angle that some news media appear to be using (I am not sure about that any more). See also [[Athenagoras I of Constantinople#Ecumenical relations]], [[Pope Paul VI and Ecumenism]] and [[Catholic–Orthodox Joint Declaration of 1965]]. Maybe there should be [[Catholic–Orthodox Joint Declaration of 2016]]? See [http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/02/12/joint_declaration_of_pope_francis_and_patriarch_kirill/1208117 Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill] and compare with [http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/speeches/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19651207_common-declaration.html the 1965 joint declaration]. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 02:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
*Additional notes - for anyone writing alternative blurbs (I'll do one now). Patriarch Kirill is not the 'leader' of the Eastern Orthodox Church (that would be the [[Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople]]), but the Russian Orthodox Church (which Patriarch Kirill leads) is the largest of the Orthodox churches. A blurb could focus more on the joint declaration they made, sidestepping the issue of the somewhat overhyped 'first such meeting since 1054' angle that some news media appear to be using (I am not sure about that any more). See also [[Athenagoras I of Constantinople#Ecumenical relations]], [[Pope Paul VI and Ecumenism]] and [[Catholic–Orthodox Joint Declaration of 1965]]. Maybe there should be [[Catholic–Orthodox Joint Declaration of 2016]]? See [http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/02/12/joint_declaration_of_pope_francis_and_patriarch_kirill/1208117 Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill] and compare with [http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/speeches/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19651207_common-declaration.html the 1965 joint declaration]. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 02:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' First the blurb is misleading. This is not exactly "the first such meeting between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches since the East–West Schism in 1054.". "Eastern Orthodox churches" should be changed to "Russian Orthodox Church". Other Patriarchs have met the Pope again and again since the schism. This is the first time the Patriarch of Moscow met the Pope one on one (and not since the schism, it is since ever, but perhaps this does not matter). So it is nothing exactly new outside of the Russian Church. I oppose the posting because it does not really change anything. They have been in constant contact, this meeting is essentially only symbolic. If anything very substantial is made in the joint statment then perhaps I will change my view. But I do not believe it will be anything special or great.[[Special:Contributions/75.73.150.255|75.73.150.255]] ([[User talk:75.73.150.255|talk]]) 02:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
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 death toll from the earthquake rises to 113 with four people still in the rubble of the Weiguan Golden Dragon high-rise tower in Tainan. (AP via Philly News)
At the 52nd Munich Security Conference in Germany, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg says that NATO and Russia are "not in a cold-war situation but also not in the partnership that we established at the end of the Cold War" while the Russian Prime MinisterDmitry Medvedev says tensions between Russia and NATO have sent the world spiralling into a "new Cold War", blaming U.S. and European leaders for the souring of relations with Russia. He also rejected accusations that Russian warplanes have bombed civilians in Syria, saying it is "just not true". (Sky News)(BBC)
The death toll from the earthquake rises to 94 with 550 people injured, and at least 30 more missing and believed buried in the apartment complex rubble in Tainan. (CNN)
The discontinuance of electricity and water into the Kaesong area impacts area residents who lose their steady supply of water. The public received about 60 percent of the 17,000 tons of water South Korea pumped north each day. (AP via Fox News)
China has announced it will back a United Nations resolution to make North Korea "pay the necessary price" for the recent rocket launch. (Reuters)
In Cairo, thousands of doctors protest against police impunity following the assault, allegedly by Egyptian police officers, of two doctors in a hospital last week. Protests here are rare since enactment of a law limiting demonstrations to those with prior police approval. Another protest is planned across all hospitals for February 20. (Reuters)
Nominator's comments: Historic meeting that makes a change from the usual items nominated at ITN. I have briefly updated all three articles I linked in the blurb. All look to be in reasonable condition. Carcharoth (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but it is getting a fair amount of attention. I'll add a few more news articles to the sources bit of the nomination. Have also now updated the articles, but only with a sentence in each. Though thinking on this some more, the claim that this is the first such meeting in centuries is a bit suspect, see here: "more significant and more substantive meetings between Roman pontiffs and Orthodox patriarchs have occurred for over half a century. The groundbreaking 1964 meeting between Pope Paul IV and Athenagoras I, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, led to the joint lifting of mutual 900-year-old anathemas.". Am a bit ambivalent on this now. Carcharoth (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cautious support, when fully updated. Purely symbolic but is being reported widely. Both bios look ok on a very quick scan, though parts of Kirill seem underreferenced. Also we have one really stale news slot. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support upon update; this meeting seems notable for the mere fact that it occurred, even though disagreement between the two sides isn't a large issue nowadays. 331dot (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First the blurb is misleading. This is not exactly "the first such meeting between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches since the East–West Schism in 1054.". "Eastern Orthodox churches" should be changed to "Russian Orthodox Church". Other Patriarchs have met the Pope again and again since the schism. This is the first time the Patriarch of Moscow met the Pope one on one (and not since the schism, it is since ever, but perhaps this does not matter). So it is nothing exactly new outside of the Russian Church. I oppose the posting because it does not really change anything. They have been in constant contact, this meeting is essentially only symbolic. If anything very substantial is made in the joint statment then perhaps I will change my view. But I do not believe it will be anything special or great.75.73.150.255 (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A Hellenic Navy helicopter crashes while taking part in a military exercise in the Aegean Sea, near the Greek island of Kinaros, three Greek naval airmen are feared dead. (Reuters)
Comment. I believe these papers are merely formal journal publications of news that has previously been circulating. I would nevertheless support reinstating Zika at ongoing on the basis of ongoing news items on a daily basis, as well as continued interest in Zika (I believe Zika virus came 2nd in last week's traffic report); the Zika articles are being updated, though there are so many now some are lagging behind. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on article update - The press conference is happening as I type this but it is the news the above sources give. The article should have more though from the paper to explain how and why they believe this was a proper detection; it only has a sentence. --MASEM (t) 15:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that if we are using the detection event ID'd by Mike Peel below, that article does need better sourcing before this should be posted. It's a tad short so it might be worth while to include the previous hypothesized discovery that led up to this. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] LIGO announces detection of gravitational waves
posted on nomination above
We don't need to start posting advanced news, let's wait for it to happen. And can we try to tone down the use of bold which isn't helpful in any situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We can't post on a rumour. If this is true, then it's just about the most obvious post in years, but not now. Guess close this now and open a new one on any genuine announcement. Fgf10 (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for the official announcement. Rumours based on a leaked e-mail circulating on twitter seem to define unreliable, even when published in Science. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with others about waiting. Then almost certain post, subject to article quality and to blurb quality, as this is an area where cautious wording is probably called for: These waves have been searched for ever since Einstein predicted them, so their discovery would be hugely important, but I understand there have been claimed discoveries before, including recently, which have not stood the test of time, and in the past ITN has seemingly been unduly incautious with some sensational claimed scientific discoveries, such as Dua's Layer. Appropriately cautious wording would probably also be required in the text of the articles.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My above-mentioned 'understanding' regarding recent claims was correct: Primordial gravitational waves are gravitational waves observed in the cosmic microwave background. They were allegedly detected by the BICEP2 instrument, an announcement made on 17 March 2014, which was withdrawn on 30 January 2015 ("the signal can be entirely attributed to dust in the Milky Way"[34]).Tlhslobus (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If preferred, some alternative words or expressions such as apparent or (not yet independently confirmed) might also do the job of expressing suitable caution.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, I've also added an altblurb2 with Einstein-predicted to give the ordinary reader an indication of the possible importance of the discovery. (I've added a comma after waves, since I don't know whether Einstein's prediction was in the context of black holes, let alone merging black holes.) Tlhslobus (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also adding the comma to my first altblurb, as such a comma after waves is probably wanted even without Einstein predicted, as the important item is that it's (allegedly) the discovery of gravitational waves, whereas the merging black holes seems relatively trivial. (After expected publication on Thursday, we will need to phrase the blurb to try to ensure that the reader doesn't get the misleading impression that gravitational waves may have been discovered before in contexts other than merging black holes).Tlhslobus (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, apparent will probably be better than possible, unless the authors themselves say 'possible', so I've amended my 2 altblurbs accordingly.Tlhslobus (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, obviously we must wait until it is announced, but since this is likely to be a massive breaking news event (according to the rumors it's a solid more than 5 sigma's observation involving two independent detectors that both detected the characteristic features of such a signal and with the time lag between the two detected signals ruling out some freak terrestrial artifact), one can already look into both Wiki articles and make an assessment if the news can be edited in on Thursday, and there may be other possible problems that may need to be fixed. Count Iblis (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough regarding assessing the articles. But regarding the alleged news itself, the last incorrect claim was similarly not the result of any freak terrestrial artefact; the fact that it has taken so many decades to detect waves which are supposed to be occurring all the time, is itself grounds for caution, even without the past mistaken claim(s).Tlhslobus (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, at first perusal the articles both look great to me, but I don't think I'm qualified to judge (and some may object that there's two much maths in the Gravitational Wave article - again I don't feel qualified to judge that).Tlhslobus (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gravitational Waves article not looking quite so great on closer inspection, tho again I'm probably far too poorly qualified to judge.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
At the moment there is just rumours.
The LIGO project announces would be a primary source statement, which is not a RS. Everyone still remembers another recent case of a huge announcement that turned out to be nothing after the result was reviewed.
This should be closed, and only when there is an actual announcement with either a peer-reviewed paper or RS reporting by scientists (not just journalists repeating an announcement) there is a basis for any kind of discussion.
Oppose Close: We're all agreed that nothing is going ahead until if and when it's official. But some of us think that in the meantime preliminary discussion of various issues here and now may usefully speed up the process of getting the item ready for posting if and when it's needed later.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's WP:CRYSTAL. What exactly will be getting on Thursday? A press conference alone would not be sufficient for obvious reasons - it is not even an RS for updating the article. A peer-reviewed paper is pretty much the minimum requirement for taking any scientific results seriously. announces the apparent like in the altblurbs would be a clear indication that it must not be posted to ITN - it is either confirmed or a publicity stunt. LoveToLondon (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Adding direct detection to altblurbs - they have arguably already been indirectly detected long ago, with a Nobel prize handed out in 1993 for showing the energy loss of binary neutron stars to be consistent with the emission of gravity waves.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The owners of Liverpool F.C. scrap a controversial £77 ticket pricing plan for the 2016–17 season following a backlash by the club's supporters and a mass walkout during last week's game with Sunderland A.F.C. at Anfield. (Sky News)
[Closed] Successful recovery of a cryogenically frozen mammal brain
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: Kinda weird but potentially really important development. I remember this was a big topic in the 90s until people realized that freezing brains damages them too much. Now a team has managed to recover an essentially undamaged rabbit brain, the first time done for a mammal. Seems the research was published a few months ago but it is getting picked up by news sites now. Nergaal (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From the Newsweek article's addendum: "Correction | The article originally stated that the brain had been recovered. It has been updated to clarify that the rabbit brain has so far only been preserved, not recovered." Therefore, oppose blurb on principle of an inaccurate claim.--WaltCip (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. The claim isn't "a team has managed to recover an essentially undamaged rabbit brain", it's that the team has managed to freeze a rabbit brain without causing visible structural damage; unsurprisingly for those familiar with that organ, the Daily Mail has got the wrong end of the stick; the original source even makes it clear that this isn't scalable to larger animals and they're now going to try to freeze a pig brain. Total non-story. ‑ Iridescent19:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. With an accurate blurb this might actually be interesting. The news is that a prize instituted in 2010 by the Brain Preservation Federation has been won by a new technique, aldehyde-stabilised cryopreservation. It's hard to tell how notable either the prize or the development is, given that the article on cryonics hasn't been updated and we don't have an article on the foundation. It might be suited to DYK, if the prize were deemed notable enough to support a new article being created on the technique. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Complete and utter nonsense. Sorry for the strong words, but that is one of the most misleading blurbs and press statements I've ever seen. It would be good if people actually bothered going to the actual paper, which doesn't make any of these claims. For starters, the brain is fixed in gluteraldedyhe.... For anyone who know even the slightest bit about biochemistry, that already makes it completely obvious there is never going to be any recovery. Structural preservation? Sure. Functional recovery? After hell freezes over. Fgf10 (talk) 08:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Closed] Dikwa bombing
Okay, enough now. I think the posting editor should realise we need an article to assess. Other, more experienced Wikpiedians have fallen into the same trap, waiting to assess notability before being bothered to create an article. It just doesn't work here. Article first, assessment follows. In this case, no article, no likey. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article:No article specified Blurb: Two female suicide bombers kill more than 60 people at a camp for displaced people in Dikwa, Nigeria. (Post) News source(s):(Al Jazeera)(Reuters)(ABC News) Credits:
Weak oppose - Ignoring the fact there is no article, this seems part of the continued Boko Haram situation in Nigeria, and thus not an isolated even (50,000 + ppl have died in the Boko Haram uprising since according to one of the linked articles). --MASEM (t) 19:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Prima facie oppose I can't assess the quality of an article that doesn't exist. How can I know if it is good enough to post on the main page? --Jayron3221:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The death toll from Saturday's earthquake in Taiwan rises to 41 with 109 people missing. (Focus Taiwan)
Taiwan authorities arrest three construction company executives of the Wei-guan Golden Dragon Building, which collapsed Saturday, on suspicion of negligent homicide. Almost all of those killed have been recovered from the rubble from this building; the 100-plus missing are likely buried in the debris. (Reuters)(AP via The Washington Post)
Two passenger trains collide in the German town of Bad Aibling in the state of Bavaria. At least ten people are dead, one person is missing and presumed dead, about 80 are injured, and 17 are seriously or critically injured. The rescue is difficult – resembling a mountain-type rescue – because of a nearby river and a steep incline and a curve in the tracks; rescue helicopters had to be used. It is one of Bavaria's and Germany's deadliest-ever railroad accidents. Human error is being examined as a possibility. (BBC)(CNN)
Clashes break out and turn into a riot in the Mong Kok district of Hong Kong on the pretext that the police try to close down illegal food vendors. Nearly 90 police officers are injured. (The Straits Times)
Nominator's comments: Breaking news, appears a significant accident. Article needs bashing into shape but expect it will be as info becomes available is being bashed into shape. Currently eight deaths, possibly more to be confirmed. Mjroots (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support when article improved. Train collisions causing this level of fatalities/injuries are relatively uncommon in W Europe. Not to mention the fact that our current news set has one or two stale items. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite - Support changing Bad Aibling to Bavaria or Bavarian. No one internationally would really glean much from such specificity. -- Fuzheado | Talk14:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting Comment: One of the above arguments for posting was that the unposted French rail accident was irrelevant because "The closer of that nomination wrote a good nomination which in other days would have been posted." - the closer did indeed write this, but it looks at least to me like a very misleading account of the actual discussion, including the closer's own opposition 3 days earlier. If I had closed, it would have been on grounds that there was no hope of consensus; indeed, contrary to the impression given that it was only pulled because of the Paris Bombs, some argued that it was only being considered because people thought it might be connected to those bombs, though there were also plenty of other grounds given for opposing.
Posting today with the help of this seemingly misleading argument reinforces my initial gut feeling that this item should be pulled due insufficient notability, but I'd prefer to hear more views on this before voting to pull.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, that comment after the oppose vote shows a mature editor who knows the consensus is against him/her and accepts the fact without continually harping on about it. Mjroots (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm miscounting, but I think there were 9 opposes (10 originally but 1 switched) of whom I think 2 said they would support in another week and 1 said they might support in a different week, so it looks to me like no hope of consensus to post even in a different week. So to me it looks like a kindly editor commendably going out of her way to avoid hurting the nominator's feelings, and who has seemingly also changed her own mind as to the precise reason why she's still opposing the nomination. But it's now academic as there's no support for pulling today.Tlhslobus (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True, it's not a vote, you need a consensus to post, and with that many opposed there was clearly going to be no consensus. But this is now a pointless academic discussion, so provided anything you care to say is not unduly provocative (and perhaps even if it is) please feel free to have the last word here before some admin sensibly closes the item to avoid further unproductive discussion.Tlhslobus (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support Precedent is not binding here. Postability is completely subjective, beyond guidelines set at WP:ITN and WP:ITNR. Borderline items can miss out because of a busy week, for example. Personally, my opinion is that this particular event is notable enough to post. Mamyles (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Weak support article is sparse, and probably could use a ref or two more for a few mostly uncontentious statements, but nothing that would lead me to block this from appearing on the main page. --Jayron3201:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Generally hesitant about opposing any former world leader (for reference PM in Nepal is the seat of power, the President is a ceremonial position), however, we're also talking a rather short term (under 2 years) and a position that has high rotation (see List of Prime Ministers of Nepal). I feel there's more importance that can be established based on what is little in the article now, though I do note the article is otherwise is seemingly good shape to post. --MASEM (t) 01:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb president of Nepali Congress and nominator comment incumbent president of Congress are misleading - Nepali Congress is not a parliament (like US Congress), it is a political party.
Seems to be very important in his country. - he was head of government and leader of the biggest party, which should be enough notability for RD.
Article is poor, even basic information like why he lost his position as Prime Minister to someone of a different party is completely missing.
Support RD; would meet the RD criteria as very important to the government/poltics of their nation, but this isn't a world-transforming leader or otherwise someone at the tip-top of the field that would warrant a blurb. 331dot (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The South Korean Navy fires warning shots at a North Korean patrol boat after it crossed the Northern Limit Line in the Yellow Sea and entered South Korean-controlled waters. As of 2016, North Korea refuses to recognize the so-called Northern Limit Line, that was drawn up at the end of the Korean War. (Reuters)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Described in sources as a "leading ballerina of the 20th century", received many awards for her dancing and directing, lead for NY Ballet fo 20 years. MurielMary (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article in good shape and well-sourced (if not as charming as her New York Times obituary). One of the last great Balanchine dancers, independently notable for her prominent artistic directorships. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support once updated Importance clear, article is in good shape, outside of the lack of mention of her death in the prose which should be easy to fix. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some journalist at AP writing in an obituary A leading ballerina of the 20th century is very blurry and obituaries tend to describe the achievements of the deceased too positive (ABC just has a verbatim copy from AP). The awards section lists the lowest ranks of two French medals as her highest achievements (France's highest decoration has 5 ranks), and there is nothing in the article that makes it clear whether she was generally considered the leading ballerina in the world. LoveToLondon (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is sufficient length and sufficiently well written and referenced. I added a few cn tags to a few statements that may need them, so that should probably be fixed, but the article is of sufficient quality to appear on the main page. --Jayron3215:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support once fully updated. She succeeded internationally, inspired leading choreographers, and was a leading teacher and ballet director. The article looks mostly ok, though there are a couple of citations requested and some obituary trivia needs pruning. It needs the past tense applying. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Comment. I'm having a hard time assessing Fazli's notability. If I recall aright, we have not previously considered the Padma Shri alone as sufficient evidence of importance? How does he compare with the recent nomination, Intizar Hussain (who wasn't posted, mainly for having stub article)? In any case, the article is not yet of postable quality. It needs updating to the past tense. Some parts need work on the tone, which is rather peacocky. More references would be ideal; several long paragraphs only have a single reference. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Article is short, but the prose is fully referenced, and I can't find anything contentious that is lacking a reference. It'd be nice if it were longer, but it's enough for me. --Jayron3215:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support. I was contemplating nominating this. Georgy Girl (book & film) is an influential 1960s film, her biography of Daphne du Maurier is very well known, and Forster gained several awards for various biographies and memoirs. I've found references for most of the statements in the article. I note an IP has changed the date of death to 7th, though 8th is stated by the BBC and other sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The vague term Award-winning shows the notability problem - if there is any proof that she was generally considered to be among the top 3 or top 5 authors in the UK that is missing in the article. LoveToLondon (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The term Award-winning is a summary of her achievements, not an indication of an notability problem. Also the subject doesn't need to be among the top 3 or top 5 authors in the UK - the field is "biographers" rather than "authors in general". MurielMary (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Every person is leading in some field when you define the field narrow enough. And I don't see proof in the article for your claim that she was the leading biographer in the UK - even the sources emphasize her novels in the headlines and summaries. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Biographer" is a sufficiently broad category; there's a reason we distinguish between "programmer" and "video game designer", after all. It's not like we're saying "Foremost biographer of Daphne du Maurier", which is a considerably more narrow field. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are emphasizing her novels, which makes the nominator claim that she was the leading biographer questionable. Are there any sources for the claim that she was in the (already relatively small) field "biographers in the UK" the leading person, or is that nominator claim not true? LoveToLondon (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Several sources go into her non-fiction in depth, though most are headlining Georgy Girl because it's so iconic. Reputable obituaries don't usually rate people in that way, and even were they to do so it would only be the personal opinion of the author. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LoveToLondon, you are putting words into my mouth, so to speak. I have made no such claim that Forster is the leading biographer in the UK. I have used information from the article to summarise her status into the one adjective "award-winning". The adjective "award-winning" is used with the noun "biographer" because, as stated in the article, she won awards for her biographies. MurielMary (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MurielMary as nominator wrote: the field is "biographers" rather than "authors in general". MurielMary has so far failed to provide proof that she was one of the leading biographers in the world, or at least the leading biographer in the UK. LoveToLondon (talk) 10:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The focus of discussions here is "does the article meet the criteria" not "did the nominator do xyz". Kindly bear this in mind; discussing editors in this way is not recommended by WP as it can lead to accusations of personal attacks. MurielMary (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'll buy notability, I had not heard of her but the article and comments above are persuasive enough - and the article is in pretty decent shape. - OldManNeptune⚓03:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article needs updating 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: Highly profilic actress, covers multiple areas of under-represented areas of coverage on WP: women, Argentina, etc, article is in great shape and there's only one name on the RD ticker at the moment. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead19:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Compared to most RD bios, this is in great shape and importance seems clear from the quality/numerous sourcing. I did not see a statement about her death (though the lede was updated), so this just needs even a sentence to note her passing but that's trivially fixed. (If I'm just missing that update, I apologize) --MASEM (t) 19:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very notable actress, a Latina icon of the Golden Age, though not well known outside Latin America. Wikipedia is a global site, and quite rightly this should be reported, she was sort of like the Elizabeth Taylor of the Latin world.♦ Dr. Blofeld21:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
Support when updated with some prose about the game and the few citation needed tags are addressed. And Australian Open fans take note, this article already has 25kb prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do want to stress that the game summary is rather important to get into the article ; it was a messy game with lots of turnovers, and wasn't a simple rout. --MASEM (t) 03:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note - Let me save all of you a lot of time that are thinking about posting here: The altblurb will be posted, no matter what, once the article's game summary section is updated. So unless you (1) have something to post here that's completely game changing (no pun intended), or (2) are going to tell us that you've kindly updated the section... Don't waste your time making a comment here. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny how the supporters need to emphasize that this is ITN/R as if there is some doubt or anxiety that this may not be posted.--WaltCip (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The death toll from yesterday's earthquake in Taiwan rises to at least 29, with at least 120 trapped under collapsed buildings in Tainan, while 198 people have been rescued. (AP)(Taipei Times)
A man is killed and three other employees are injured following a suspected meteorite strike in a garden outside the Bharathidasan Engineering College in Tamil Nadu, India. Witnesses say they saw a mysterious object fall from the sky. If confirmed, this would be the first recorded fatality from a meteorite strike. (Metro)(The Indian Express)
Japan's NHK news reports the rocket passed over the southern Japanese island of Okinawa. Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzō Abe, condemns the launch and says, "We absolutely cannot allow this. We will take action to totally protect the safety and well-being of our people". The Japanese government says no rocket debris fell on Japanese territory and there are no reports of damage. The rocket reportedly falls into waters southwest of Jeju Island. (ABC News)(Yonhap)
South Korea's intelligence agency claims that North Korea is preparing for another nuclear test. (Yonhap)
One person is killed and seven others are injured in a shooting outside a Rochester, New York sports bar. (ABC News)
Hamas reports it has executed one of its commanders, Mahmoud Eshtewi, for “moral and behavioral violations.” Human Rights Watch, contacted by Eshtewi’s family, had been monitoring the case. (AP via The Washington Post)
Politics and elections
Politicians in Haiti agree to a process to select an interim President to replace Michel Martelly. Presidential elections will be held on April 14 with the winner to be sworn in on 14 May. (BBC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: First phase of the largest solar power plant in the world, commissioning of Noor 1 is a major landmark in it's development. yorkshiresky (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose primarily on timing - this first phase is not the largest in the world; it's when the 3rd phase is completed in 2018 that it will be the largest. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending update - A gigantic project, and of interest internationally. Article needs updating, and though is a bit short, is well sourced. Good ITN item. Jusdafax05:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I know we've posted stories about new tallest buildings and the like—do we tend to post on ground-breaking or on completion? I'd support this if it's the former and suggest waiting if it's the latter. GRAPPLEX12:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Tunisia completes the construction of a 200km (125 mile) barrier along its border with Libya, intended to keep out terrorists trained in Libya. (Reuters)
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.
Nominator's comments: Writer of Monsters, Inc., Monsters University and Big Hero 6: three of the most successful animated films of the last fifteen years. Big Hero 6 won the Oscar for best animated film, for which Monsters, Inc. was also nominated; he also won a BAFTA. His films grossed (according to figures on Wikipedia) around $2 billion at the box office. Also an unexpectedly and sadly young death, aged 49. I think the article is now in pretty good shape and ready to post: Gerson just doesn't seem to have done many interviews himself, but there are two good ones I've added transcriptions from. There are a lot of comments on his input by his collaborators (he always collaborated on screenplays, as is normal on animated films) and I've added a fair use image; a screengrab of a video interview. Blythwood (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral but leaning support Credit to Blythwood for improving the article for RD, that should not be an issue. It's hard to immediately dismiss this given his bg with a few big movies, but this is also a relatively minor part of the whole process and didn't win any awards directly. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support a little like Masem. The article isn't really forthcoming as to why this individual is significant in his field, it's barely above stub quality, but at closer inspection his work seems to be nearly unparalleled. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, now expanded significantly and more logical section dividers added. It's annoying: he really doesn't seem to have been the self-promoting type, so he just doesn't seem to have got the attention other Pixar people did! No Twitter page, for example. But now it looks much cleaner. Blythwood (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose his work on the big movies was all as part of a team; his role appears to be one of many, not of a leader or a major talent; also he didn't receive any awards or formal recognition for his work. Could he really be described as "top of his field"?? MurielMary (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say yes, certainly: all his films were hugely successful and popular. And what people have always praised about Pixar is their willingness to work together and endlessly try to improve scripts, so I don't see that the fact that he emphasised that he didn't write alone counts against his eminence. At the end of the day, it was his name on the screenplay, so one can assume the scripts were written with him signing off on everything. Blythwood (talk) 12:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you are still working on this, Blythwood, you mght like to post on the talk page to try to gain consensus for including it either as a 4th RD or in place of one of the others, otherwise it is unlikely ever to be posted given the three RDs that post-date it. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The 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: Not the most deadly earthquake to report on, but it has received widespread coverage and it is somewhat in depth (certainly not stubby reports). Article has recently been expanded from a stub. JollyΩJanner03:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The death toll is up to 5, not as high, but a 6+ magnitude quake in a populated area is rather notable. --MASEM (t) 05:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The death toll keeps rising (BBC now giving 7) and there are reports of hundreds injured; the event is getting high-profile coverage on the BBC website; the article has just been destubbed and appears reasonably well referenced. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox.jpg)
