*'''Support.''' Supreme Court confirmations are relatively infrequent (none at all from 1994 to 2005 for example) and this was an unusual one with the 14 month gap since Scalia's death and the failed [[Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination|Merrick Garland nomination]] hanging over it the whole time. Yes it's one country's politics but Gorsuch will be there for decades and will have a huge impact on the Court's future direction. I would also favour mentioning the "nuclear option" in the blurb.--[[User:Pawnkingthree|Pawnkingthree]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 17:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support.''' Supreme Court confirmations are relatively infrequent (none at all from 1994 to 2005 for example) and this was an unusual one with the 14 month gap since Scalia's death and the failed [[Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination|Merrick Garland nomination]] hanging over it the whole time. Yes it's one country's politics but Gorsuch will be there for decades and will have a huge impact on the Court's future direction. I would also favour mentioning the "nuclear option" in the blurb.--[[User:Pawnkingthree|Pawnkingthree]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 17:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''Leaning support''' due to the fact that the nuclear option was actually used. This explicitly should ''not'' set a precident for either contentious congressional votes or future Supreme Court nominations. But I'm leaning the way I am given how political and far-reaching the US Supreme court is. I'm leaning that way given that this officially ends the principle of bipartisanship on an issue where said approach was obviously appropriate. This is probably the second most significant appointment to any office in the United States in the past eight years, behind only the changing of the Presidency. [[User:StillWaitingForConnection|StillWaitingForConnection]] ([[User talk:StillWaitingForConnection|talk]]) 17:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''Leaning support''' due to the fact that the nuclear option was actually used. This explicitly should ''not'' set a precident for either contentious congressional votes or future Supreme Court nominations. But I'm leaning the way I am given how political and far-reaching the US Supreme court is. I'm leaning that way given that this officially ends the principle of bipartisanship on an issue where said approach was obviously appropriate. This is probably the second most significant appointment to any office in the United States in the past eight years, behind only the changing of the Presidency. [[User:StillWaitingForConnection|StillWaitingForConnection]] ([[User talk:StillWaitingForConnection|talk]]) 17:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - given the rather unusual circumstances and the long-term ramifications. [[User:Abovesky|Abovesky]] ([[User talk:Abovesky|talk]]) 17:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Saulos Chilima
A fire in a residential building in Kuwait City's suburb of Mangaf kills at least fifty people.
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 governor of the State of Alabama, Robert Bentley, wins a court victory halting impeachment proceedings that were set to begin Monday to determine whether he should remain in office after it was discovered that he had a romantic relationship with a staffer. (AP)
Artifacts from Triquet Island, south-west of Hunter Island in British Columbia, are found to date back 14,000 years, marking the discovery of the oldest village in North America. (CTV News)
Nominator's comments: Breaking news, end of major confirmation battle in Senate. AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Gorsuch's article is fine, but perhaps we should link Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court nomination (which has to be updated but is otherwise close). I do ask to others if the blurb should mention the "nuclear option" that the Senate GOPs had to use to end the Dem's filibuster as that was a point of contention in the news before. --MASEM (t) 16:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose posting the resolution of this domestic political issue and suggest SNOW close. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I might be a little more receptive to a blurb about the end of the filibuster for nominations, though the Senate has always been able to conduct its business as it sees fit. 331dot (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It was never a battle and was always going to end in the nuclear option.--WaltCip (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we can't be getting down to this level of detail in one country's politics. ---LukeSurltc 16:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The conservatives now gain a Supreme Court majority after the longest vacancy in it's 226 year history (14 months). If the Democrats won the Court's majority would've switched from 5-to-4 right wing to 5-to-4 left wing and would stay left wing for a generation if enough of the older justices die or retire before the Democrats next lose power in the government. Is that enough? You decide. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Supreme Court confirmations are relatively infrequent (none at all from 1994 to 2005 for example) and this was an unusual one with the 14 month gap since Scalia's death and the failed Merrick Garland nomination hanging over it the whole time. Yes it's one country's politics but Gorsuch will be there for decades and will have a huge impact on the Court's future direction. I would also favour mentioning the "nuclear option" in the blurb.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support due to the fact that the nuclear option was actually used. This explicitly should not set a precident for either contentious congressional votes or future Supreme Court nominations. But I'm leaning the way I am given how political and far-reaching the US Supreme court is. I'm leaning that way given that this officially ends the principle of bipartisanship on an issue where said approach was obviously appropriate. This is probably the second most significant appointment to any office in the United States in the past eight years, behind only the changing of the Presidency. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - given the rather unusual circumstances and the long-term ramifications. Abovesky (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Breaking news, happened in a country which is not internationally involved. Article still developing. Sherenk1 (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Terrorism in Sweden with deaths are so rare. Islamic state does it again... --BabbaQ (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - Will still likely be appropriate to post (the truck was stolen so this definitely appeared to be an act of malice), they have arrested the suspect, so wait for details. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait but should be posted when we have enough info. This is too soon yet. --cart-Talk 14:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I'm beginning to wonder if we're rewarding terrorism by publicizing attacks like this one. Sca (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hah! See? Trump was right after all.128.227.125.83 (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe the terrorist(s) got the idea from Trump... cart-Talk 16:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, you can believe the FAKE NEWS if you want.128.227.125.83 (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's especially notable since it's Sweden. Sir Joseph(talk) 15:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Not enough known at this point to even write a blurb it seems. Thryduulf (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems comparable to the attacks in London and Berlin that occurred over the past year. We include those in ITN, so this should be counted too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Too little is known to post yet.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article vehicle-ramming attack makes depressing reading. Will the frequency of such attacks, most of which appear to be lone-wolf terrorism not specifically co-ordinated by organisations like Al-Qaeda and Islamic State, but inspired by them (an important distinction), eventually warrant not featuring them on ITN? I agree with Sca's comment above: "I'm beginning to wonder if we're rewarding terrorism by publicizing attacks like this one". It would be good if the Wikipedia (ITN) community took a stand (even if largely symbolic) and drew a line somewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I very much doubt, even if these are only lone-wolf attacks, that they are being done to make sure that WP gets an ITN entry on them. The media on its own is doing enough of the job to publicize this, WP's actions are a drop in the bucket. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just wanted to raise the question. But upon reflection I must admit my instincts (as an ex-journalist) go against any kind of prohibition on topics or stories. However, this attack seems comparatively less noteworthy than some of the other acts of violence we've been compelled to include lately. Leaning toward oppose on that basis. Sca (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree if we start seeing a string of copy-cat attacks that are not directly attributable to terrorism, then we should not keep posting every single one (the same logic why we avoid posting every mass shooting in the US). --MASEM (t) 16:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And BTW, I see Wiki ITN as a not insignificant player in the cybermedia world, since so many people, sadly, get their 'news' from non-news sources nowadays. At least some standards govern what they see on ITN. Sca (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: ETA were probably Europe's most notorious terrorist group after the IRA, and their disarmament draws a line under decades of violence (per the BBC: "it will be an historic moment which marks the end of the last insurgency in Europe."). Official "disarmament day" (when they want people to rally in support of disarmament, and when the weapons inspectors will inform France of the location of ETA's remaining weapons caches) is tomorrow, but the letter released announcing that they have given up all their weapons and explosives came out today. Smurrayinchester 07:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A notable step in the dispute there. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Rare news of steps toward peace. Article looks well-written and well-sourced. Although the official date of disarmament will actually be tomorrow. Maybe should be added to article introduction. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support highly notable event, both symbolically and practically. The ETA article is a little messy, but it's probably OK. Maybe wait till tomorrow when the weapons are physically surrendered? --LukeSurltc 11:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until Saturday. I don't believe in pedantry for pedantry's sake. But the top line of the source used for this story specifically states that ETA "warns that its enemies might still block the process". Not surprising language, but good reason not to treat this as a done deal until the action is taken. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until Saturday, support only if it actually takes placeSherenk1 (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep calm and wait until Saturday.--WaltCip (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on the basis that the ETA article is lacking in references in many, many places (not all of them tagged, but some have been tagged for years) and an article in this condition should not go onto ITN as a bold link. If there was a spin-off article, along the lines of ETA's 2006 ceasefire declaration, then that might be the better target. BencherliteTalk 13:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I must have missed those. I thought 164 different sources was quite respectable. But I agree, that might be a better route. Not that improvements should not be made to the main article, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] 7th April American missile strikes in Syria
Wait This is probably going to get posted. But as of right now it's a stub and we have little in the form of solid information. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait This should replace the current blurb on the chemical attack , if it is posted, but without knowing the damage, it's far too early to consider. --MASEM (t) 01:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also why is this a separate article? It's part of the chemcial weapon attacks, given the reasoning for firing them. --MASEM (t) 01:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Different place, different time, different victims, perpetrators and weapons. There's certainly a thread running between them, but that's just how continuity works. This reaction will have its own, much different reaction section; we can't treat a deadly missile barrage in the same way we treat a press release of sympathy, condemnation and the like. Smooshing it into the same blurb makes sense, though. InedibleHulk(talk) 05:11, April 7, 2017 (UTC)
Meld into existing ITN fact, and bump it to the #1 slot This is a bigger deal than Tim Berners-Lee winning some award. pbp 02:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's still April 6 everywhere in the US. Syrian time? Nohomersryan (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's done by local time. And, yes, it's Apr. 7 in Syria. -- tariqabjotu 03:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support after reaching start class, also support merging it with ITN of chemical attack blurb - Top news. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Should the blurb note how many people the strike killed, the gas killed, both or neither? I'd say neither, but both is good, too. InedibleHulk(talk) 08:50, April 7, 2017 (UTC)
Russian authorities discover and deactivate an explosive device in a Saint Petersburg flat, during ongoing raids occurring in response to the bombing. (BBC)
An Israeli soldier is killed during a car ramming attack near Ofra, in the West Bank. Another Israeli soldier was injured. A Palestinian suspected of committing the attack is taken into custody. (Haaretz)
Voters in the Gambia go to the polls for an election, the country's first legislative election since longtime PresidentYahya Jammeh resigned and left the country. (Al Jazeera)
The two potentially reliable sources seem to somewhat contradict one another on what this does or does not mean, and throwing an unreliable source into the mix doesn't exactly entice me to give the benefit of the doubt. I guess my biggest question is whether it is the presence of an atmosphere that is considered groundbreaking, or the fact that we were able to detect one? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Top news in science but article is not developed as per ITN quality. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Heaven just got a bit raunchier – Muboshgu (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Loved him in Kelly's Heroes. Andrew D. (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support article is in decent condition, a handful of citations needed, but nothing that's going to stop this. Good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This article is in desperate need of love and attention...it's been entirely overlooked since the flooding in Peru became a big deal a few months back and it continues to get worse with millions of lives completely disrupted. The most notable event of this disaster (the 2017 Mocoa landslide) was posted as a blurb of its own this past week; however, the overall event warrants mention as well. I definitely can't write this article alone so maybe getting attention from editors via the main page will be immensely beneficial. The article most certainly is not comprehensive and needs tremendous work, however.... ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
News coverage of this? 331dot (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult one to fit into ITN, as ITN blurbs really need a specific story with a specific date point in time. This would have to be an "ongoing" item if anything at all. --LukeSurltc 20:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh duh, that was mentioned already, my bad. --MASEM (t) 01:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with LukeSurl, this should be ongoing. Banedon (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to ask if this is a synthesized topic. Has any source grouped these altogether? Flooding and landslides over such a large area do not likely seem to be connected, so if they are, I would expect a weather analysis of the event. If this just happens to be a number of floods and landslides from several disparate storms, this is a bad topic. --MASEM (t) 01:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to security sources, dozens of people are killed in an overnight attack in Tikrit by suspected ISIL militants. 31 bodies were taken to a hospital, according to a local doctor, while more continued to be found by morning. (Al Jazeera)
Two openly gay candidates are elected to the Anchorage Assembly, becoming the first openly LGBT elected officials in Alaska. Approximately 20 percent of the city's population voted, a notably low turnout. (LGBT Weekly)(Alaska Commons)
Nominator's comments: Not sure how short we are on ITN, but I wanted to suggest a blurb. Mr. Beltrán Leyva was the leader of the Beltrán Leyva Cartel along with his brother Arturo (deceased since 2009), and "ran one of Mexico’s most powerful drug cartels". He was responsible for trafficking multi-ton shipments of narcotics from South America/Mexico to the U.S. for nearly a decade. This case is "one of the most significant major Mexican cartel convictions ever in [United States'] long-running battle against these criminal organizations". The biggest drug lord in prison right now is obviously Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán, but it might take a few years before that conviction materializes. Mr. Beltrán Leyva's article is in decent condition and the conviction info is up-to-date. [5][6]Update: It is important to note that life imprisonment is rare for drug trafficking offenses, see this source for more details. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 00:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article looks in pretty decent shape and I think this scrapes over the bar on significance. GoldenRing (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - My main concern is that this doesn't appear to have much international coverage; most of it is limited to the US and Mexico. Banedon (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any coverage outside of the Americas and Europe? The article on the cartel says its territory is in Mexico and the US only, and many of the sources you cited have very short coverage - e.g. the Netherlands source has something like 100 words only. Banedon (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Banedon: I found these through a quick search – Russian Today[16]New Zealand Herald[17]. As far as their length, there's not much I can do. All I'm trying to show is that there was international coverage of some sort.
Now, as far as the presence of the Beltrán Leyva Cartel internationally, it is now minor (from what I've gathered) because they lost ground to the Sinaloa Cartel several years back (prosecutors did describe the Beltrán Leyva Cartel as once being "...one of the largest drug cartels in the world." while handing the sentence) However, the nomination is about Alfredo and his conviction, not his criminal organization. Cheers, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 02:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the distribution of the cartel internationally because presumably the places the cartel has never reached would not care about what happens to it. Russia is also in Europe but NZ is not, will need some time to digest. Banedon (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to weak support, but still only weakly, since coverage is still rather limited and there've been few follow-up stories. Banedon (talk) 08:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] Eleven Madison Park named World's best restaurant
As stated in the prior close, a good faith nomination, but this isn't an award so much as a list of restaurant ratings, which anyone can create. No reason given that this particular group's is more authoritative than the others(and seems like navel gazing on their part). No reason to run this through the process. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Premier award in the restaurant world, now in its 16th year. Of international interest. yorkshiresky (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't qualify for DYK as it's not a new article. Andrew D. (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but it is the perfect type of article for DYK.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It seems a reasonable accolade to consider as it makes the subject top in its field and it's in the news. The article just needs a bit of TLC from a food specialist like Northamerica1000. Andrew D. (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone could produce a list such as this. So, a pertinent question: is Restaurant (magazine) a particularly authoritative guide? My layman's thought would be that the Michelin Guide would be the #1 global authority on the best restaurants. Leaning "oppose" on this as the nominated news item hasn't been a particularly big news item in the usual sources I peruse. However I don't think this is a SNOW item. --LukeSurltc 12:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Thought this had been closed already? Not notable enough for ITN.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Bertha, once the world's largest tunnel boring machine, completes its 9,270-foot-long (2,830 m) tunnel under Seattle, Washington, after four years of digging and a lengthy delay near the beginning of the project. (Wired)
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.
Thanks. It's hard to imagine the BBC making a bigger faux pas after the recent controversy over Matthew's tenure. Sorry to soapbox. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is why people accuse reliable sources of being fake news.--WaltCip (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, although this seems to have been a genuine mistake. All media outlets can make mistakes, even "really popular" ones. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The 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.
Sadly, the list isn't of particularly high quality. It doesn't even have a subsection as it is now. I'd rather not link it in the blurb, unless if it is significantly improved. ~Mable (chat) 18:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As the Tim Berners-Lee article already adequately addresses the work which earned him the award, and Berners-Lee has so many awards dedicating a whole paragraph to this latest one would be undue weight, I would say that the current update to the article to adequate, and therefore this story can be posted now. --LukeSurltc 15:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Berners-Lee's article and the corresponding award list article for him look well sourced, and ready to go. --MASEM (t) 18:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – ITN/R, interesting, and just generally no question. Article looks good. ~Mable (chat) 18:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Better late than never. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Picture added. --Jenda H. (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Would be one of the deadliest chemical attacks in Syria since the civil war began Sherenk1 (talk) 11:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, an adequate article is shaping up around this incident. The nature of this act of war (chemical weapons) heightens the notability of the incident with multiple deaths. Blurb proposed which incorporates the inevitable equivocation that is needed regarding such incidents. --LukeSurltc 16:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a significant escalation in the conflict and the article is in decent shape. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support No brainer as a extreme event in the Syrian war, details seem a little light but the basis is there for posting. --MASEM (t) 18:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Worst chemical attack in Syria since 2013. Very significant event.StrikeDog (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Alleged" is a bit weird, though. Who did it is alleged (and denied), but someone gassed someone. Or no? InedibleHulk(talk) 19:39, April 4, 2017 (UTC)
"Alleged" might work after all. If a factory housing chemicals was bombed, and the bombers didn't know it housed chemicals, it's a bit of a stretch to call it a "chemical attack", even though the results are the same. InedibleHulk(talk) 21:19, April 4, 2017 (UTC)
Support. Please drop the word "alleged". -SusanLesch (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably the correct approach. When I wrote the blurb some hours ago the situation was less clear. --LukeSurltc 19:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article seems to omit the fact that the clinics treating the affected were also subsequently attacked. That seems like a pretty significant oversight to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More than 120 people were killed, mostly children, this incident caused by Bashar al-Assad, the death toll likely to rise--عدنان حليم (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suggest removing the part about the kids. It's not attack on a playground or a school. Highlighting the number of kids seems a bit sensationalizing. --PFHLai (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I only decided to use it since we did for the mudslide as well. If ya'll find it to be a problem though, feel free to reverse. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update – AP puts death toll at 7275, quotes UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights saying 20 children and 17 women among them. Sca (talk)
PS: Coverage I've seen quotes analysts as saying the toxic agent was very probably Sarin. Suggest at least replacing "chemical attack" with poison gas attack. Sca (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A mother and two children drown after their car plunges into the flooded Tweed River, raising the death toll to eight people. A ten-year-old girl escapes and alerts authorities. (News.com.au)
Russian authorities arrest more than 100 gay men in Chechnya, including television personalities and religious figures, for "nontraditional sexual orientation." The Novaya Gazeta newspaper reported that three of the arrested men have been killed, while others reportedly were released for family honor killing. Chechen Republic leaderRamzan Kadyrov's spokesperson said this report contains “absolute lies and disinformation” since there are no homosexuals in Chechnya. (The Guardian)(The New York Times)
Media reports indicate that former National Security AdvisorSusan Rice improperly requested the unmasking of some American names, including those of Donald Trump's campaign staff, that had been incidentally collected during national security investigations. A National Security Adviser may request unmasking if specific criteria are met. A Rice associate denies that the unmasking was improper. (Fox News)(Business Insider)(The Blaze)
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: Veteran Indian classical vocalist - Vivvt (Talk) 04:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] NCAA Men's and Women's Basketball Tournaments
POSTED
If anyone wants this, or anything else, to be removed from ITN/R then a proposal must be made at WT:ITN/R. Anything other than a clearly-worded proposal there will result in no change to the status quo. Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated One or both nominated events are 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: Okay, it's that time again. The NCAA basketball tournaments, a.k.a. "March Madness" (most of the tourney was in March). It was posted in 2014, 2015, and 2016. Arguments for: the NCAA basketball tournament is a significant institution in the United States, major event drawing millions of viewers and billions of dollars. Oppose votes: people denying the importance of college sports in the U.S., noting that it's not the highest level competition (it is lower tiered than the NBA, but the merits of the tourney outweigh the demerits) and the complaints that nobody outside of the U.S. cares, which is against ITN protocol of not opposing because an item relates to only one country, or fails to relate to any country. Past discussions are here: (2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016) This year's women's tournament had a major storyline in Mississippi State ending UConn's 111 game winning streak. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments for: it's on WP:ITN/R. No further notability discussion required. --LukeSurltc 20:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it is? It is. And I'm the one who started the thread suggesting it be added to ITN/R. Thanks for the reminder. I think we may need to discuss the women's tourney though, since that's not part of ITN/R. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that the women's tournament will need to be discussed; they are separate tournaments that have games in different locations. 331dot (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support including women's tournament then. An equivalent tournament to the ITNR item in importance to its sport. Easy to do a combined blurb and it would be conspicuous by its absence if omitted. --LukeSurltc 21:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment fix the typos and the links and perhaps we can talk about this. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Who cares? Nobody has ever heard of this outside the USA, and we are not USApedia. We are also not ESPN. I think it should be removed from ITN/R.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one." I invite you to review the discussion that resulted in this event's posting to the ITNR list to learn more about why it merits a place there. If you wish to reopen that can of worms, you know where the talk page is. Until it is removed, this will be posted once adequately updated. 331dot (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not worth my time. I am just stating the obvious fact that nobody outside the United States of America has ever heard of this or do they care or have time for it. It will make the main page of Wikipedia look like an American--not global--website, which is unfortunate. But if the consensus among American basketball superfans is to post this, so be it. I rest my case on this. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think with that attitude, you're 100% right, it's not worth your time. This entry has been discussed many times and many intelligent arguments for and against its posting have been included in those discussions. I'm not sure how much your contribution will modify those thoughts, but thanks for resting your case. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To Zigzig20s: Indeed. Right now there is nothing on ITN from America, but we would look too American? I'm not a basketball fan, but I recognize the importance of this and the reasons it is on the ITNR list. It's too bad you aren't willing to learn more about this. 331dot (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not important--perhaps the advertising revenue is. This reminds me of Chomsky's realization that he didn't care about his high school football team. Anyway, I have a pro-polo bias (a truly international sport). But have fun posting this.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, ITN/R so will get posted, but I think it's time that all college-level sport (and yes, that includes the Boat Race) got removed from ITN/R, they're simply all too parochial. No-one cares about whatever this is outside the US, no-one cares about the Boat Race outside the UK/Commonwealth - and to be honest most of the UK doesn't care about it - no-one cares about college baseball outside the US, and so on. Let's stick with sporting events that are actually notable outside their own country. I'm not talking here about the Superbowl, or the Premier League, or the Primera Liga, or the IPL - they get a lot of worldwide coverage in mainstream sources. But it's about time we tidied this sort of thing up. Black Kite (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also from above: "Please don't oppose a WP:ITN/R item here because you disagree with current WP:ITN/R criteria (these can be discussed at the relevant Talk Page)." – Muboshgu (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: If postings were limited to events with international reach, very little would be posted here. I've never understood why people seem afraid to learn something about things that they aren't familiar with. "Too parochial" is just another way of saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This does get coverage, and has international players- among the many other reasons this made the ITNR list. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't oppose it. There's no point since it's ITN/R (although it does need some work to be posted). I was making a general point. Black Kite (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
" most of the UK doesn't care about it " well I can't think of another sporting event which draws 250,000 spectators, and television audiences of in excess of 5 million in the UK alone seems to refute that claim. If it wasn't interesting outside the UK, why so many foreign broadcasts? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since no-one has paid attention. Fix the typos and links in the proposed links, then maybe we can talk. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out these issues more specifically? They are big articles and while I fixed a few red links, I'm not sure they're the links you're referring to. I didn't see any typos, but again, large articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb has "touranment" and links to the women's when it should link to the men's. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would support if the articles were up to scratch as significant sporting events. However, large parts of both articles are unreferenced so I will currently oppose. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support including women's tournament in accordance with our usual principle of including both men's and women's versions of the same event when they take place at the same time (see WP:ITNSPORTS). I suggest the ITN/R entry should also be amended to accord with this principle. Neljack (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support including women's tournament. I see no major issues with either article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose flatly. I realize this is on ITN/R. I also realize this is a wasted vote to oppose the article on the basis of notability. However, if WP:IAR has taught us anything, it's that we cannot simply discount !votes on the basis of opposition to procedures, as has been proven with the RD criteria. In terms of notability, this simply does not compare to other sports on the ITN/R listing.--WaltCip (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I appreciate genuine interest, this is a niche level for the main page, as there are higher-tier competitions, like NBA or World Basketball Championship. As such I disagree with it's ITNR inclusion. It could be posted if some record or other extraordinary stuff happens, but not on regular basis. Brandmeistertalk 13:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is ready. TRM's oppose was correct in that I mislinked the game vs. tournament articles. The other !opposes are all WP:IDONTLIKEIT and too bad for them. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: We need an article that will be developed as more information is revealed. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been created, I've updated the template. This is obviously notable. --LukeSurltc 12:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. I think we need more information first.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait It's a stub. This is almost certain to be posted but it needs expansion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - article is coming along nicely, should be ready in a few hours. Mjroots (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Clearly going to be posted at some point, but let's make sure we have the details in place. It looks like they found an unexploded device elsewhere in the system, so that might affect the naming of the article for example. --MASEM (t) 13:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – in principle, pending development of article. (AP added as source above.) Sca (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A few more hours, and this article will be finalized. FiendYT★ 14:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks ready to post. Will be improved as more info comes out. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. I didn't use the suggested photo, as it is rather small and isn't directly related to the event. Dragons flight (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posted blurb says "at least ten", so it is not wrong. Mjroots (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Curiously, when I originally posted this, I did write 11 (after checking the wiki article and making it match). I'm curious why someone felt it was ever necessary to reduce it to 10? Dragons flight (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2017 (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: Results coming in. The Republican Party of Armenia has definitely won with just shy of 50% of votes. Seat numbers so far unclear, and the seat-allocating system seems quite complicated. Reports are equivocal about whether the Republican party will have enough seats for government without a coalition partner. LukeSurltc 11:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Results are apparently tabulated, but there is no prose update. Results in table conflict with results presented in lede. Article suffers from a common and annoying problem of putting WP:UNDUE weight on pre-election polling.128.214.163.169 (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2017 (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: Full official results are yet to come in, however it looks like Lenin Moreno will narrowly win but his opponent is alleging fraud. LukeSurltc 08:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Results for both the President and National Assembly are included, as well as some commentary regarding the voting and counting itself, and a link to a related referendum. Being a periodic election after the mundane completion of a Presidential and Assembly term, I don't think further commentary about the issues of the election is necessary. Speculation about what this means for particular media-exposed non-nationals also doesn't seem appropriate.128.214.163.169 (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Vučić has declared victory and is well ahead in exit polls, in a significant election for head of state of a populous country. Neegzistuoja (talk) 08:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Neegzistuoja: All elections for head of state have been deemed notable enough to post on ITN(being on the ITNR list) regardless of the population of the country. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral – The article's quality is the only thing that could be holding such a blurb back, and right now I'm not sure if this article is up to par. There's awfully little prose in it. ~Mable (chat) 13:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose article is an inflated stub and doesn't cover the pertinent issues in any detail at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article states that several polling stations will re-vote on the 11th as a consequence of possible fraud. Electin is thus not over, even if there's no chance for the winner to change. Suggest close and re-nominate after re-vote.128.214.163.169 (talk) 08:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the winner isn't going to change, I don't think there is a reason to delay posting this(assuming a quality update, which there hasn't been yet). It would only be delayed if it was a full second round(which seems likely in the upcoming French presidential election). 331dot (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Results have led to protests in the country. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sherenk1: As national elections are on the recurring events list, the merits of posting this are not at issue; this will be posted once there is an adequate update. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A bus carrying around 50 school children rolls over on a highway south of Sveg in the northern region of Härjedalen, Sweden, killing three people. (Reuters)
Law and crime
An attack occurs at a Sufi shrine near Sargodha, Pakistan, killing more than 20 people. Authorities arrest a main suspect and several others. (BBC)
Voters in Ecuador return to the polls for the second round of a presidential election, which Lenín Moreno of the socialist PAIS Alliance is predicted to narrowly win over the center-right Creating Opportunities's Guillermo Lasso. With 94.18% of the votes counted, Moreno leads with 51.07%. According to the national election commission, it was a transparent and successful election. (SBS News)(TeleSUR)
Nominator's comments: Focus on the social unrest in French Guiana. The article could be expanded (there are articles in The New York Times, etc.). Open to other blurb suggestions. Zigzig20s (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose article is a stub, article is very poorly written, events seem to have started two weeks ago and the latest update here seems to be from about five days ago, so stale as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong! April 2 was yesterday.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, it's a translation, as the edit summary makes quite clear. You can rephrase/expand it if you want.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't mention anything happening since March 28, which is what TRM means. Nothing is mentioned as happening on April 2; the fact that some information was added to the article on April 2 doesn't mean that it's still fresh. BencherliteTalk 09:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK I've added the dates.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still oppose. This doesn't appear to be seriously significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is too minor. Like with Northern Ireland and the UK, French Guiana "isn't even a country". Banedon (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a huge, massive landmass, with a major international space center. Not comparable to Northern Ireland by any stretch of the imagination I'm afraid!Zigzig20s (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's "not comparable" because it has less than 1⁄7 the population of Northern Ireland. Just to put these protests in perspective, if the entire adult population of French Guiana turned up to a protest, the gathering would still only be the size of a respectably-large sports crowd elsewhere in South America. ‑ Iridescent 13:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree because the emphasis is on $$--and I'm afraid Northern Ireland is infinitesimal. Another US satellite launch scheduled for April 25 was just postponed. This is an international story now.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't agree with Iridescent because we don't have population limits on things like elections either. However I am not convinced that this is significant. Whatever else French Guiana may be, it's still only a part of France. We have French Guiana - and only French Guiana - protesters protesting against their government, which makes it an issue internal to France. I opposed the Northern Ireland nomination as well as too minor. Banedon (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The points above are missing the issue; protesters have rejected a billion euros in aid (or roughly 4000€/head). The concerns about staleness are unwarranted. The demand for more money came yesterday. This is significant because of the rarity of a protest movement rebuffing a cash offer, and because this has become an issue in continental French politics. The amount that the protesters are demanding is significant; comparing as a proportion of taxes collected this would be the equivalent of $20 billion in the US or more than £3 billion in the UK, all spent on fewer people than live in Lubbock, TX or Southampton, UK.128.214.163.208 (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question what's "missing the issue" about a stale article? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The event under discussion happened on 2 April. That's not an edit on 2 April about something that happened in March; the protesters rejected the offer and made demands yesterday and the day before.128.214.163.208 (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon? When I made the comment, the last update within the article was on 28 March. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's just that I hadn't spelled out the specific dates, but it was all in the sources. Anyway, problem solved. I even added more info from yesterday earlier. Looks like it's "in the news" to me...Zigzig20s (talk) 11:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of Francophones on strike? Most unusual. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The USDS has advised US citizens not to visit and international rocket launches have been postponed. So yes, this is extremely unusual.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite minor, and it appears that these people have violently protested several times in the past, e.g. for autonomy, so it's not unusual. I don't see this mentioned, even in passing, in the French Guiana or History of French Guiana articles either. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
28 March saw the largest demonstration in the history of French Guiana.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's now mentioned in those two articles as well.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Protests usually need a defining moment for ITN to latch onto. Delayed satellite launches and protester/government back-and-forth is pretty small beer, so far. Maybe best to let this develop and see if a moment like that happens. I would like to thank the nominator for bringing this to ITN, because without it I would have never learned that the likely next French president believes that Guiana is an island and doesn't even know the geography of the country he's going to govern, lol128.214.163.159 (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how you could think that the largest demonstration in the history of French Guiana and the €1 billion offer are "small beer". By the way, Macron was apparently talking about the "ile de Cayenne", a phrase to refer to greater Cayenne, but that's anecdotal. What's not anecdotal are the big numbers.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - disappointed about some of the knee-jerk opposes here, applying some mechanical and frankly, arbitrary criteria. This is the first time in many, many years international media are reporting about an event in French Guiana (other than a space launch). Abovesky (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm not sure what responses could be classified as "knee-jerk". It looks to me as though the opposers have read the article, assessed the updates, checked the significance and decided that it's not suitable for ITN. Just because media are reporting an event there, it doesn't mean it's worth posting at ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"read the article, assessed the updates, checked the significance" - that made me laugh. As if the typical oppose/suppose at WP:ITN/C is based on a good understanding of the subject matter and a careful assessment. Dream on. Abovesky (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well I did, and the other opposes are not based in ignorance. Your attitude is unhelpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] [Posted] 163rd Boat Race and 72nd Women's Boat Race
There is nothing further to be gained from keeping this open. This is on the ITNR list. It's survived attempts to remove it. We don't limit postings to events with international reach. This isn't going anywhere at this time. 331dot (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
One or both nominated events are 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: An important and magnificent occasion. Having taken place since before many countries were even founded, this race between the world's greatest universities is watched by hundreds of thousands, with hundreds of millions more watching on television. Despite annual cries of jealousy from some of those having no relationship to the universities, and confusion and misunderstanding from some of our colonial friends, the Boat Race remains the pinnacle of amateur sport and a much loved event in British society. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. It should be noted that ITNR only includes 'The Boat Race', which is the men's (main) race. I presume we also want to include the women's race, but others might think differently because it has nowhere near the same prestige. The same goes for the Reserve Boat Race and the Women's Reserve Boat Race: do we want these included? 87.210.99.206 (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the merits is not required since this is ITNR. Last year we posted the men's and women's, but not the reserves, which I think is the right thing to do. 331dot (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but ITNR only includes 'The Boat Race'; that is, not the women's race. That is why there is a bit of ambiguity. I'd be supportive either way. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd need to look but I think we are simply trying to avoid instruction creep. If the women's event occurred on a different day or in a different place, it might need to be listed separately, but these races are basically one event. The reserves, though, are a second tier and shouldn't be mentioned. 331dot (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It depends how you see it. Up until a couple of years ago, the women's race was on a different day in a different place. It certainly would not get on ITNR on its own merits (and there are very strong arguments for its also being 'second tier'). However, do we want to be more fair, even if we are pushing ITNR rules? I'm open-minded here and would be interested to hear what others think. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support only the men/women's race, with the usual expectation that the race article will be up to par once the race is completed. Judging by the coverage of the Reserves races in previous years, it's like the Pro Bowl to the Super Bowl - of nearly no importance to the big major event. --MASEM (t) 18:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As the article that should be bolded (The Boat Races 2017) covers both races, and it's very simple to cover both in the blurb, that's the better approach. --LukeSurltc 18:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Following the suggestions above, I have changed the first and third blurbs to include The Boat Races 2017. The second blurb involves just the Boat Race (exactly what is listed on ITNR) and is unchanged. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Despite annual cries of jealousy from some of those having no relationship to the universities, and confusion and misunderstanding from some of our colonial friends". Really? Sigh. Black Kite (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Since the event hasn't occurred, we cannot judge the quality of the update. When we have prose describing the results of the event, we can assess it. --Jayron32 20:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWP:ITN/R#Sports notes "Every entry applies to the conclusion of the men's and women's events (when simultaneous) in the tournament or series, unless otherwise specified." which was added by consensus last year. The men's and women's boat races will both take place on the same course tomorrow (closer together than the Wimbledon finals for example), and so both races are on ITN/R. Thryduulf (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is rather misleading. The same link explicitly uses the term 'The Boat Race' to describe what is included in ITNR. 'The Boat Race' is a single (men's) race: it does not include the women's race. This might be taken to be 'otherwise specified'. It is certainly nowhere near as clear-cut as you claim. If it should be, I would suggest a change to the page. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the event is now referred to as "The Boat Races" and that includes both men's and women's senior races. The term "The Boat Race" is now deprecated and refers to only historical events. "The Boat Races" also happens to include Goldie/Isis and Blondie/Osiris these days, but common sense should prevail, and we should post the winners of both the men's and women's senior race. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth updating WP:ITNR to make this clear, then? What concerns me is that previous discussion has always focused on the Boat Race: do we have consensus for adding the women's race there, too? Either way, thank you for your incredible help with these articles! 87.210.99.206 (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to my own comment, rather than just making the change to ITNR, I have made a post on the discussion page for the change to be made. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 08:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sure it'll be updated soon after the conclusion of the race, but if not, then I'll make sure it's up to scratch by about 10:00 p.m. (my time) tomorrow evening. Having said that, it might not even be rowed tomorrow so we'll have to see. Hopefully people can see that from the work done thusfar, the article (like its predecessors) will be complete, comprehensive (and featured, as it happens) and ready for ITN as soon as practicable. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As discussed above, at the moment, ITNR only includes 'The Boat Race' (that is, the main (men's) race). There seems to be support for including the women's race, too. I have made a suggestion at the ITNR discussion page so we can get this cleared up for next year. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 08:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Already this has reached an obvious support. I have closed in favour and changed the ITNR entry to make it clear that both races should be included. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No offence, but you seem to be the only person confused about this point.
a) Several editors above have pointed out that the preface to WP:ITNSPORTS applies here.
b) That preface was added almost a year ago after the 2016 Boat Race nomination and the resultant WT:ITNR discussion. One would think then that it would apply to the same nom the following year.
c) The pseudo-proposal you started on WT:ITNR with only two other participants, who both re-stated a), which you closed with your own opinion in 40 minutes, was pretty much splitting hairs.
The race still hasn't even started yet, let alone finished. No race = no update = no post. That there are no news sources attached to this nomination emphasises this. Other than ITN morphing into a future events portal, no amount of meta discussion is going to get this posted any quicker. Fuebaey (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the preface to ITNSPORTS applies, ITNR only listed a single event: 'The Boat Race'; that is, the main (men's) race. There is clear consensus to include the women's race, too. ITNR has now been updated to include both events. You should thank me instead of failing to grasp the logic. As for having this posted, it will be updated and posted very soon. As it stands, ITNR has been improved and the nomination is ready for this important event. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Boat Races 2016 is a featured article, so a good reference for editors updating The Boat Races 2017. Thought it's also worth noting we don't need to be at or near featured status before posting to ITN. --LukeSurltc 16:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations Oxford! Another terrific race between the two greatest universities. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive 'I don't like it' comment: this event has been chosen by Wikipedia editors to be part of ITNR
Oppose an intercollegiate rowing event is more important than the Bulgarian general election? And needs to be nominated by an IP? No. I don't think so. This ould never be nominated on any other edition of WP. μηδείς (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Struck comment that has no place here (the event is part of ITNR). 17:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Marked as ready. Mjroots (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it and am formally stating oppose to it until it gets updated and/or there is an actual consensus to post. Also unstriking comment; if μηδείς wants to amend their post, they can. An uninvolved admin can assess a relevant consensus otherwise. A nominator striking comments they dislike doesn't come off very well. Fuebaey (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not yet ready, The_Boat_Races_2017#Races is not updated adequately yet. Neither however should we be bogged down with notability questions on this, the place for that is WT:ITN/Rat any other time of the year other than when the item is "active". --LukeSurltc 19:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done some edits and the infobox and The_Boat_Races_2017#Races has the basic information. The article could be argued to be ready in its current state. The_Boat_Races_2016#Races shows it's possible to a lot more. --LukeSurltc 19:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support the basic information for each of the two races is in place, the article has be edited for tense issues, I will continue to expand it of course but there's nothing technically holding this back from posting to the main page now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive 'I don't like it' comment: this event has been chosen by Wikipedia editors to be part of ITNR
Oppose. Fairly trivial sporting event; not a major occasion. Not ITN worthy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: This is on the recurring items list, which is why it was posted, and it has survived attempts to remove it. I would suggest reviewing the discussions regarding it to learn why this is a significant event in rowing and merits a place on the list. In short, it is a unique cultural event drawing hundreds of thousands to watch it live and millions on TV- aside from being significant to rowing itself(even more so than the world championships). 331dot (talk) 11:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive 'I don't like it' comment: this event has been chosen by Wikipedia editors to be part of ITNR
Strongly oppose I like how you jerks in January justified not having the NCAA Men's Football Championship being here by saying The Boat Race shouldn't be here either, then turn around and list it. If it's regional to you, and it is, then it shouldn't be on the Main Page. Regards, — MoeEpsilon 16:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A landslide in Colombia's southwestern border department of Putumayo sends mud and debris crashing onto houses killing over 250 people and injuring at least 400 others. In addition, 200 people are missing. (Hindustan Times)(Reuters)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: A veteran of civil rights and race relations in the UK. Article looks good. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support good to go, article is in very good shape. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, any ADMINS OUT THERE? 17 hours later!!!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. (Edit conflict). Normally one would await more than two supports before posting, but there is no opposition, and TRM is correct about the time factor. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, and I think some of us non-admins are still capable of judging the quality of an article for suitability for posting too. Two supports for an RD isn't needed, zero supports is fine as long as the posting admin can judge quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would have supported posting this but missed looking at the page during the nomination. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Article needs a bit of sourcing work but is close. MASEM (t) 19:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Highlights section is unreferenced but article doesn't need it in my view. Support if cleaned up. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose most of the article is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Referencing a has improved, but Legacy section still needs work.128.214.163.169 (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on expansion Definitely a significant disaster for ITN but we have only a few sentences in this article, needs expansion. --MASEM (t) 20:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on expansion - Significant. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on expansion - Please do add this section should we get a little more information. 250 people dead so far [18] so very important. Ravivyas16 13:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on expansion, notable tragedy. Someone needs to add to the article. --AmaryllisGardenertalk 17:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – No-brainer for posting; I'm presently working on expanding the article. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Made significant expansions to the article and it should be ready for posting now. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely ITN material and the article looks acceptable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Russian poet, also a novelist, essayist, dramatist, screenwriter, publisher, actor, editor and director of several films. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Films section unreferenced. --Jayron32 20:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose more than that, awards unreferenced, several paragraphs in the bio unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing is lacking in honors and bibliography. Would support if this is cleaned up. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do they have ISBNs in Russia? We may be asking for too much if we expect the same standards for foreign RDs.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they do. It's called an International Standard Book Number for a reason :)--Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The initial ISBN configuration of recognition was generated in 1967 ..." I think it may have been typically used only later in Russia. So the first editions of all his earlier works won't have one. I think a single source, that lists all of an author's works, is generally acceptable, provided it's a WP:RS. Items not in the list should be separately sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the honours are supported at Евтушенко, Евгений Александрович [ru], with Russian language sources. But that article is currently under full protection and I do not have a ru.wiki account. Ideally a Russian speaker would need to check the sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, it's possible to copy them all across. Is it adequate to rely on translate.google.co.uk to validate their content? If not, we'll be no further forward. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of any response, I have gone ahead and copied across. Most of the awards and honours are now sourced, not that it seems to have made any difference here. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks notable and I see lots of references.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(a) it's notable for RD because it has an article. (b) it's not about "lots of references", it's about everything that could be challenged being referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention to challenge anything! I don't speak Russian, so I can't add more sources anyway. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. There are still too many unsourced statements for me to support yet - I have added cite tags. (The lede is also too short, although I don't know if that's a dealbreaker for ITN or not).--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC) Switched to support now I've added the references.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only a couple more days and I guess he'll fall off the list. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well I didn't expect you to throw in the towel that quickly :) I've added the references myself.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very good. It's just that, five days on, the towel's looking a bit thin. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps some reappraisal is now needed? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per Pawnkingthree above. This article is much improved since it was first nominated. ITN ready, IMO. Just have to hope a responsible editor will reassess this, and in time to get it posted before it is marked "stale", which it will be soon. Christian Roess (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: The demonstrations occurred due to a constitutional amendment that would permit President Horacio Cartes to run for re-election, a move described by the opposition as "a coup." 45.116.233.50 (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Was just coming here to nominate this. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Officials state that repairs will take months following a fire that collapsed a bridge on Interstate 85 in Atlanta, Georgia. Police arrest three individuals in connection with the disaster, charging two with criminal trespass and one with first degree criminal damage. (WSB TV)
International relations
At a NATO meeting, German foreign ministerSigmar Gabriel rejects as "quite unrealistic" the belief that Germany would spend 2% of GDP on the military. He says other spending such as development aid should be taken into account. (BBC)
Some individuals set the Congress of Paraguay on fire. The attack occurs during a protest against a bill that would let the president seek re-election. (BBC)
Women's basketball Mississippi State defeats four-time defending national champion Connecticut 66–64, ending the Huskies' NCAA-record winning streak at 111 games. (AP via ESPN)
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. For what's a top twenty list of Pop art icons without his name on it? That would be a total fail. --Bagoto (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is fine. Pictures have been a snagging point for RD noms lately.128.214.163.208 (talk) 06:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support too many external links but article content is satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
I've asked someone who may have one to upload it, but haven't heard back yet. By the way, we are citing his own website in three instances, which should be avoided. Is there a way to replace this with an RS please?Zigzig20s (talk) 06:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only one instance now. Perhaps we could just remove the sentence?Zigzig20s (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Cyclist extraordinaire, died near completion of extreme marathon event while in 2nd place. Kevin McE (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mostly unreferenced or abuse of external links interwoven inline into the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at the moment due to referencing issues. If referencing issues are fixed, I will support. Capitalistroadster (talk)
Support, seems well referenced. Don't see any abuse. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It applied to a version of the article five days ago, which was edited here to remove the embedded external links. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
.jpg)
