*'''Weak oppose'''(and I'm not convinced the winter ones merited posting) This event is owned and was created by ESPN to generate ratings and competitors participate to win money aside from medals. It's basically a TV show like [[American Ninja Warrior]]; they have these every year unlike other multisport events(and these are not mainstream sports but "extreme" sports). [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 10:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
*'''Weak oppose'''(and I'm not convinced the winter ones merited posting) This event is owned and was created by ESPN to generate ratings and competitors participate to win money aside from medals. It's basically a TV show like [[American Ninja Warrior]]; they have these every year unlike other multisport events(and these are not mainstream sports but "extreme" sports). [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 10:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Article is sufficiently comprehensive, well written, and well referenced. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 16:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Article is sufficiently comprehensive, well written, and well referenced. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 16:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
'''Oppose'''. I do not see the significance of this in the larger of things. [[User:Karellen93|Karellen93]] ([[User Talk:Karellen93|talk]]) <small>(Vanamonde93's alternative account)</small> 16:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually - a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
A two stage attack targeting police kills 5 officers and wounds 11 in the city of el-Arish. A later roadside bomb south of the city wounds a further 6 officers. (ABC News)
The White House tells U.S. Congress that Iran is complying with its nuclear deal, and promises to impose new sanctions on Iran's ballistic missile program. (ABC News)
A stalemate between China and India leads to fears that the ongoing stand-off over Doklam in the Himalayas, disputed by Bhutan, may continue into the winter. It comes after rumors that Indian National Security Adviser Ajit Doval may travel to Beijing later this month. (Economic Times)
Thousands of Poles have held rallies in the capital Warsaw and other cities to condemn a controversial reform of the judiciary. Protestors claim the bill, passed by the Senate on Saturday, will erode judges' independence and undermine democracy. (BBC)
In tennis, Roger Federer of Switzerland defeats Marin Čilić of Croatia 6–3, 6–1, 6–4 to win the men's singles tournament. Federer wins his eighth Wimbledon singles title, surpassing William Renshaw and Pete Sampras for the most by a male player; becomes the oldest player in the Open Era to win the Wimbledon men's singles; becomes the first player to win the men's singles at Wimbledon without losing a set since Björn Borg in 1976; and extends his Open Era record for Grand Slam men's singles titles to 19. (BBC Sport)
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: The X Games are one of the biggest extreme sports competition held in the world. Earlier this year, I nominated the Winter X Games for ITN after doing quite a bit of updating to the article, and I have done the same now. While the X Games are obviously not the Olympics, a majority of the summer events are not events at the Olympics so this is the top event for these athletes/this is the premier event for these sports. For anyone confused with the blurb (there was a little confusion when the Winter games were posted), the United States won the most gold medals, hence why they are featured in the blurb. Andise1 (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I looked back over previous such articles (last year's doesn't exist) and discovered that the event was rated of "low importance" to the Dallas Texas wikiproject. If that's the case, I'm not really sure why it would be of sufficient importance to the English-speaking world to feature amongst the top five news stories across the globe. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If such an event is considered of little to no importance to the host US state city, I'm not sure why anyone else would be bothered. That we don't have an article for the last running is somewhat indicative, and as such I oppose based on the low importance of the event. I didn't see it anywhere near the BBC Sport homepge (for example) whereas I did see Wimbledon, British Grand Prix, Tour de France, Mayweather/Connor, Teat cricket, women's Euro 2017, US Women's Golf etc... And fewer than a quarter of the medal recipients appear to be notable enough for an article. Is this really significant? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dallas is a city, not a state. A lot happens in a city, let alone a state, and it's no particular surprise to me that it's of low importance to that particular WikiProject. After all, WP:LONDON has assessed the Boat Races 2017 as "low importance" but that's equally irrelevant. Your other arguments about notability of participants, level of coverage etc are stronger, so focus on those! BencherliteTalk09:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose(and I'm not convinced the winter ones merited posting) This event is owned and was created by ESPN to generate ratings and competitors participate to win money aside from medals. It's basically a TV show like American Ninja Warrior; they have these every year unlike other multisport events(and these are not mainstream sports but "extreme" sports). 331dot (talk) 10:07, 17 July 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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Weak Support Yes, entertainment news is typically not ITN, but DW has international appeal, and this being the first female in the lead role is unique. --MASEM (t) 16:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not every recasting of a notable role would merit posting, but this role has such wide notability and is so long-running that this sort of change meets the bar IMO. 331dot (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fuzheado: Global significance is not required; if it were, very little would be posted. I also disagree with your premise, Doctor Who is known worldwide, and I say that as a non fan. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support – Riding a very fine line with WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and/or WP:ADVOCACY; however, it is indeed true entertainment news is almost completely exclusive to awards and deaths. Doctor Who has a large global fanbase and this appears to be a significant change of pace for casting. This appears to be part of the ongoing trend/push for prominent female roles in TV and movies rather than something novel or unexpected. Long story short, I don't see any harm including this but am a bit hesitant with singling out this one show. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
*Neutral - leaning on the fence here. Yes, this is big news and will have significant worldwide impact. However, one could very reasonably argue that, if this were posted, the fact that Game of Thrones is back again tonight would also be of note and worthy of a blurb given its worldwide impact. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing my point... Have they put the story on their front page? ITN is on Wikipedia's front page, for God's sake. STSC (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, take a look here, where you'll see she's very much featured on the front page of 85% of all major British newspapers at least. The Rambling Man (talk)
Support but blurb should note she is the first woman in the role. This is an internationally watched and very popular and long-running show, and this role always attracts scads of media interest when it is periodically recast. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: nowhere near global media coverage. A re-casting in a TV show isn't front-page of Wikipedia noteworthy. DrStrausstalk 17:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)Neutral, leaning support: I pretty much echo Cyclonebiskit's views. Notability is fine but the blurb needs to be worded carefully to avoid WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. DrStrausstalk18:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
People can and will find her article whether or not it's linked from the front page. That's not a reason to post this. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - entertainment news is popular for sure, but in the big scheme of things, it's simply too trivial by ITN standards. -Zanhe (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ITN is not meant for BBC casting press releases. This is the equivalent a sci-fi version of James Bond. Over the past two decades, only two have officially played Bond yet this is the fifth person to take this role. Quality-wise, her stage and radio credits are unsourced. Half of her filmography is also unreferenced, since her BFI page does not list minor roles or short films. And a pitiful one-line update sums up this event: Whittaker becomes the 13th person to play popular TV character, also happens to be first female. Woo? Fuebaey (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both on merits and article quality. This is far below the level of importance we generally look for in nominations. This ranks right up there with the latest updates from "Game of Thrones." And as noted above there are some significant shortcoming in the article, including glaring gaps in referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support the BBC's flagship television series; normally not newsworthy but the fact someone female will be playing the role is, for whatever reasons, huge. It would be completely ridiculous not to include it, especially as the article is decent. Aiken D20:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As much as I like Doctor Who (though I'll admit I'm behind on the current season), I don't see how this is significant enough to be on the front page. That said, if it does get posted, the blurb should mention that this first female Doctor Who otherwise the blurb doesn't make sense unless you're familiar with the show. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A minuscule percentage of the human race/English-speaking world/Wikipedia readers watch Doctor Who or care about this topic. Even as a viewer of the show myself, I have no interest in seeing this story here. Abductive (reasoning) 22:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Disposable entertainment news getting undue attention because the show's carrier is also a news behemoth and can thus use its news outlet as an instrument for promoting the show. The chief reasons given for posting this appear to be that Doctor Who is very popular, and that a female was cast - but so what? This is so far from being a milestone for women that nobody is even bothering to seriously argue that, which makes this no more significant or interesting than who gets cast in Game of Thrones, Star Trek, Star Wars, or any other wildly popular entertainment franchise. - Lvthn13 (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If we were to post this, casting changes at the CCTV New Year's Gala would deserve to be made an ITN/R. Considered the most popular TV program in the world, its average audience of 700-800 million dwarfs the 10 million for Doctor Who. -Zanhe (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm equally disappointed you're calling it a "pointy threat". It's like saying anyone who opposed the RD reform should not make any RD nominations of people who would've failed the old criteria, or it's a "pointy threat". Have you ever considered that I'm going to nominate this for ITNR because I value consistency? Banedon (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then I take you at your word but I call them as I see them, as we all do. "We must post X because we posted Y" is a poor argument unless you support your proposal on the merits. 331dot (talk) 03:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence for your suspicions? That seems to be another argument that boils down to IDONTLIKEIT. According to Doctor Who the show "has been broadcast internationally outside of the United Kingdom since 1964"(how many programs can you say that about) and that it "has been or is currently broadcast weekly in more than 50 countries"(contratry to your "most people don't know" argument) 331dot (talk) 01:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Read the article. "At the time of Season 19's broadcast in 1982 the show was being watched by a global audience of 98 million, 88 million in 38 foreign countries, and an average of ten million in the United Kingdom." Then compare world population. I can support this if we set some kind of arbitrary standard on number of people affected, and that number is greater than 10 million. But we didn't post the iPhone 8 release (~300 million active iPhones) or Windows 10 release (1.25 billion Windows machines in the world). These two events also reached every country in the world, much more than Dr Who does. Comparatively, this is insignificant. Banedon (talk) 02:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've been watching this show religiously since 1978. I cried when Sarah Jane Smith Died, and Romana I. But it's a SHOW. We don't do cast changes at ITN. μηδείς (talk) 03:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand both sides. I do understand and see the significance of Doctor Who having its first female Doctor especially seeing how the series itself is a cultural icon, but I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong) this is suitable for Wikipedia: In the News since it is a show after all and it is a casting change in summary. This is, me personally, seeing a show being nominate for a possible blurb in Doctor Who. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - An announcement about cast change on a TV show does not qualify as one of the top half dozen news stories in the world. I also suspect newsworthiness is mainly limited to majority-white, English speaking countries, of which there are only a handful. Adpete (talk) 05:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the only people this is really "news" to are those kinds of people to whom we should not be pandering. This is a perfectly logical sequitur in casting these days, and as we all know that Doctor Who is an alien and regenerates periodically, this is of no real newsworthiness other than a "oh?". Perhaps try for DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If we post first female in a particular fictional role, then would we post the first black, Asian etc. in a typically white role? It's not real news. Jim Michael (talk) 09:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Michael: It depends on the role(as is the case with any posting here). If Idris Elba were cast as James Bond,[2] I think that would be big news and merit posting. Some very few roles have the interest and widespread knowledge to merit this sort of attention. For not being "real news" this is making news. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@LukeSurl: Not to debate that here- I understand doing so but I probably wouldn't support it unless it was a first of some kind(like Elba or even a woman). 331dot (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it's the minimum requirement, not "part" of it. And yes, globally significant, Doctor Who is broadcast globally, the story is being reported globally, RY here we come! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I resolved to nominate this before the announcement happened. I think James Bond and The Doctor are the two regularly-re-cast roles for which the casting is significant enough for ITN regardless of who takes the role. --LukeSurltc10:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Pawnking and LukeSurl, it easily falls into the criteria as far as ITN's purpose goes, and there are very few famous creations which continuously get recast *and* that recasting makes significant headlines. James Bond, Dr Who and Batman/Superman/Spiderman being the only ones off-hand I can think of. Dr Who being the only one where that recasting is actually part of the character background itself. Many of the oppose votes above are just 'its not significant enough' which when faced with the many articles around the world covering it, is laughable. Its TV, and its pop culture, but its clearly in the news and of interest to a significant number of people. My question to the above oppose voters (excluding those who have quality concerns) is where were you when the Turkish March for Justice was approved? An event that is largely insignificant to anyone outside Turkey or who is not of Turkish heritage. That you feel the need to deny so strongly its significance, clearly indicates the opposite. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Unexciting casting decision in a long-running television programme. That's fine for the tabloids and rolling news channels, but has no real long-term encyclopaedic impacts. ITN is not a showbiz news ticker. Modest Geniustalk12:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would be interested to know if you would ever support an entertainment news story for ITN? This is receiving coverage way outside tabloids and rolling news channels, and we would not be fulfilling the role of a showbiz news ticker but be "helping readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news" which is part of ITN's purpose. Many people who have heard that a female Doctor has been cast may not know much about Jodie Whittaker or even recall her name.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Can I propose that the article update has to be more substantive than the blurb itself to warrant highlighting it? "Oh, they cast a woman as DW? Let's read more about that...Oh, there's nothing more to read." GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 12:44, 17 July 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.
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.
Oppose on lack of prose. While not every match needs a blurb, I would expect these two specific matches have some prose for them. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Men's Singles final also notable as being a record 8th win for Federer. Dramatic when Cilic broke down and had to take a medical break. Both finals were decisive straight sets wins. So maybe an enhanced blurb would be justified. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would support if the blurb just concentrates on Federer's record 8th title at Wimbledon (beating Pete Sampras' record). STSC (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I propose an alternative whereby Roger Federer is the linked article and, as STSC says, note that he's won in 2017, thereby surpassing Sampras. DrStrausstalk17:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At least eight people are killed in a stampede at a football stadium in Dakar, Senegal, that started after police used tear gas to break up a fight between the rival teams' fans. (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.
We generally put the nom on the day of the death, even if the news was delayed a day or so; only if the case that the death was purposely kept quiet by family until they had their chance to mourn or pay respects do we then post on the day the news broke. --MASEM (t) 01:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ready. I've removed the unsourced roles. If anyone has a problem wit this, they should add specific CN tags. Otherwise Landau is quite legendary as a character actor and the lead of Space 1999. μηδείς (talk) 03:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree that pushing the filmography to a separate page to ignore the sourcing issues there , particularly with how short the bio is and there's no SIZE issue, makes this ready for posting. I expect the filmography to be reasonably sourced. (eg [3]) --MASEM (t) 04:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: I read about this on 15 July and have added a new section to the article: Nuclear testing at Bikini Atoll#Recovery of marine ecosystem. This has added 13 new references to the article, and the cumulative update amounts to 592 words (according to DYK check). The content could easily be added to the Bikini Atoll article, too, and either could be the target. The difficulty that I see is whether the recent news coverage is the relevant date or the older coverage from the last few weeks. Any / all comments and suggestions welcome, including for alternative blurbs. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support When I first saw the title of the nomination my immediate reaction was that this was about 60 years stale. However I have been pleasantly surprised with a well sourced and very interesting update to an article that was already both detailed and in reasonably good shape. There are a handful of spots that could use a cite but not enough IMO to stand in the way of posting. Good job to the updating editors. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Technically coverage started on July 6 (from USA Today) so this could be considered stale, but also as the USA Today article points out, this is unpublished research, so there's no peer-review confirmation. --MASEM (t) 02:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on "unpublished research": It is true that the findings of the genetic studies are not yet available nor peer reviewed, but the basic facts in the update are observational. In this environment where humans cannot live because all of the biosphere except the air is contaminated with radiation, there is a flourishing marine ecosystem. The evidence is not only the observations of the researchers, it has been broadcast on PBS and substantiated by photographs in some of the noted links - thisRadio New Zealand article includes a 12 minute interview with Stephen Palumbi and a series of photographs. I have yet to add this reference to the article, but I plan to later today (irrespective of how this ITN nomination turns out). Claims about how the ecosystem manages to be healthy in substantial radiation would need publication and peer review, I agree, but that the apparently healthy ecosystem exists despite the radiation is an observation that is substantiated, in my opinion. EdChem (talk) 03:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is a nice story but it's not really something I'd expect to see on the top five or six global events covered at ITN. It's not so much an event, more a confirmation of what we probably already knew, and has been known for a while, so I'm not even sure of its "newsworthiness". The Rambling Man (talk) 06:03, 17 July 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: First (and thus far only) female winner of the Fields Medal. She died after fighting breast cancer. The article is in a pretty good state, though a few details might still need citations (including the date of death). Dragons flight (talk) 11:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb - Article is fine for RD posting. I don't think this needs a blurb, as the Fields medal is not the same as something like the Nobel, and we should avoid focusing too much on recognizing "first X to win"-type importance for blurbs, if that's the only reason to have a blurb. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support either of RD or blurb. We should really promote RDs rightaway, as soon as there is consensus for an RD listing. RDs may still be later turned into a blurb as soon as there is consensus for that as well. Can't believe discussion on blurb-or-not is holding up a plain RD listing. --PanchoS (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb The Field's medal is essentially as prestigious as the Nobel Prize for other subjects (the Abel Prize is comparable, but is awarded more frequently than the Field's medal). Combined with the fact that she is the first and only female mathematician to receive the prize in 80 years, and the fact that she died very young and while still very active, I am inclined to support a blurb. EternalNomad (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a blurb, given the significance of the Fields Medal and the fact that she was the first woman to win one. Howver, no-one has written a blurb so I support a RD. Capitalistroadster (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb, wrote blurb I would not go as far as to say that they must need an article on their death to deserve a blurb. Given the magnitude and uniqueness of her achievement, and her young age, I'd say she deserves a blurb. I furthermore posit that opponents should reflect on the well established documentation on gender bias and editing on Wikipedia before making reflexive statements and keep in mind WP:AVERAGE. --Varavour (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb First female Fields medalist is a highly important milestone in mathematics. This is also notable as she won the Medal so recently, so her name is recognizable, unlike a Medalist from the 1970s or something. Johnny3887 (talk) 02:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A lot of people above are saying that the Fields cannot be compared to the Nobel (for which Liu Xiaobo was just posted). However, since there is no Nobel for mathematics, there is virtually universal agreement that the Fields is the 'Nobel for mathematics'. I would go further to say that it is more prestigious, because it is awarded four times less frequently and also has an age limit of 40. Johnny3887 (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I really caution about using weak consensus to move an RD to a blurb; we already had RD, so it should require a stronger consensus to make that a blurb. --MASEM (t) 03:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - first woman to win the prestigious Fields Medal, which says it all. And she died so suddenly so young. -Zanhe (talk) 04:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - because, in general, I think EternalNomad has made a convincing case (above). That is, I lean more toward posting this as a blurb. Christian Roess (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurb a mathematician few people have heard of won a prize few people have heard of and has pushed off the Battle of Mosul (2016-17) which is still getting updates. Absolutely absurd. The quest to find some way to bicker about notability is bringing back the same problem RD was created to solve. It needs to stop, now. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb these cavalier postings are beginning to undermine the purpose of such blurbs. This death will be easily covered by a couple of sentences and have no ongoing ramifications whatsoever. Pull it back to RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(post-posting) Support blurb - untimely death of an extremely significant person in the field of mathematics. As others have noted, the Fields Medal is comparable to a Nobel Prize in terms of its prestige. Being the first and only female winner is a big deal, and her death at such a young age is a very (sadly) newsworthy event. I have a feeling Fields Medals wins have been in the blurb before, and this is a bigger story than a Fields Medal win. Adpete (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(post-posting) Support blurb - Definitely notable enough for Blurb. Untimely death that has been covered nationally and internationally.
Support blurb post-posting support. The possibility of purging a previously published post is a poor basis for berating a blurb. -- Fuzheado | Talk16:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - (post posting support). Besides the many other good reasons already offered by others, the claim above that the blurb should be pulled because "her death will have no ongoing ramifications whatever" (presumably a Crystal Ball is the Reliable Source for this prediction) appears to be wrong already - The Guardian is reporting (here) that, contrary to normal practice, Tehran state newspapers are carrying large pictures of her without a hijab on their front page, and that the relatively liberal President Rohani has tweeted a similar picture of her, while 60 Iranian MPs have called for a change in the law so her daughter can visit Iran without hassle (the daughter has had problems because her mother was married to a non-Muslim). And that's just Iran. Others have said her impact for women in Maths is likely to be comparable to Marie Curie in other sciences (though, given our well-known gender bias, I suspect there'd also be plenty of opposition here to a blurb for Marie Curie if she had died today).Tlhslobus (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If she is really that important, why is her article barely of size for posting to the main page? This is why the RD was perfectly fine, we have very little beyond "only woman to win the Fields" as a reason for a blurb, and that's a really bad reason for posting. This is what concerns me more is that we're posting something that, while of sufficient sourcing quality, fails the expected level of detail one would expect for a person that supposedly has great reknown. Maybe it could have been improved, I don't know, but it should have been before elevating an RD to a blurb. --MASEM (t) 04:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are going to be articles that can probably be expanded for non-Western winners of international awards like this. RD is a means to not worry about getting these up to GA-quality or the like so that we're not ignoring such deaths. But when we are talking about blurbs, that's a much higher metric that has to be reached, and a woefully short article - which probably can be expanded readily with her winning the Fields, moreso about her death, should have been done before a blurb was considered. --MASEM (t) 05:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Concur; there is far too much focus on the importance of the subject and not the quality of article in general for blurbs. There is only one comment on the quality of the article pre-blurb posting that called it "pretty-good." GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb. Tragic as her death is, this is exactly what we have RD for. This is not a world-changing event with massive implications; instead it is the unfortunate death of a notable person. Ergo this should be on RD, not a blurb. Modest Geniustalk12:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Two female tourists are killed and four others are wounded in a mass stabbing attack at a hotel in Hurghada, Red Sea Governorate. The attacker is detained. (BBC)
At least three people are killed and two hospitalized, one in serious condition, from a fire in a condominium tower in the U.S. city of Honolulu, Hawaii. An unknown number of residents are reportedly still trapped in their apartments. (AP via Fox News)(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.
Nominator's comments: Major event: "Muhammad Ahmad Hussein, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was arested after called on Muslims to march on al-Aqsa and hold Friday prayers wherever they are stopped." This is wery sensitive spot. Jenda H. (talk) 11:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not seeing which part of this is noteworthy. 2 fatalities (please do not include perps to goose the body count) in this area does not seem especially unusual. Is the Mufti's directive or Israeli response unusual? GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Violence in a known area of high violence (Ala mass gun shootings in the US). Per BBC "Forty-four Israelis and five foreign nationals have been killed in nearly two years of such attacks. At least 255 Palestinians - most of them attackers, Israel says - have also been killed in that period, news agencies report. Others have been killed in clashes with Israeli troops." I don't see what makes this any different. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Article quality is good. Shooting has recieved coverage in national and international media. And has already lead to restrictions and political comments. To say that it is insignificant is just wrong.BabbaQ (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is an internationally covered incident that is on the front page of most newspapers' websites. Our article is in good condition. Mamyles (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose It's possible this could escalate, but at the moment we are talking about two people murdered in a part of the world where religiously motivated homicide is sadly routine. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - moreover, only the second alt blurb would be considered factually accurate given agreed upon convention per death tolls. Perp deaths do not count. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest support possible - Holiest site in Judaism, third holiest site in Islam further more holiest site of Five Eyes countries. As well, Jumu'ah prayer at Al-Masjid al-Aqsa was cancelled because of entry restrictions by the Government of Israel. Worldwide coverage. 65.95.136.96 (talk) 20:35, 14 July 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 Congressional Budget Office estimates that in ten years the federal budget of U.S. President Donald Trump will produce a $720 billion deficit rather than a $16 billion surplus as claimed by the Trump administration. (Bloomberg)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The 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: This is notable news involving head of state, scandal, courtroom, IT, and forensic science. STSC (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as a trivial allegation in the grand scheme of things. Both articles also draw attention to Wikipedia's article about Calibri, which suggests a danger of self-obsession if we post this. BencherliteTalk21:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Calibri finding is not a trivial allegation but a vital piece of evidence; the investigators actually concluded that the document of "2006" was forged based on that finding.[15]STSC (talk) 06:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By making the blurb focus on the font issue, you are trivialising the story. And as Banedon says, this isn't the end of the line anyway. BencherliteTalk07:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The wording of the blurb is fully based on the sources; the sources just highlight the surprising Calibri finding in the scandal investigation against a head of state. That is not "trivialising", and it's newsworthy. STSC (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If anything about this story was to be posted - and at present you are the lone voice here - it should be along the lines of "In the Panama Papers case against Nawaz Sharif, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, a court-ordered report concludes that his daughter falsified evidence to the Supreme Court", or "A report commissioned by the Supreme Court of Pakistan during its consideration of allegations of corruption against the Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, concludes that he and his family cannot justify their income and assets", or something like that. Absolutely no mention of fonts, because that obscures the conclusions. But these blurbs simply ram home Banedon's point that this is not the end of the story - it is not the Supreme Court finding corruption or forgery, but a step towards possible outcomes. BencherliteTalk08:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the points above, but this is a case where I really wish DYK could accept these type of once-in-a-while oddities of interesting but trivial stories regardless of the article's age. (a type of blurb you read and have to double take to see the humor or irony of it) --MASEM (t) 00:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose feels like this is an incremental piece of news. If this leads to a verdict in which this is the crucial piece of deciding evidence, then sure. As it is it's not the end of the story; certainly it's possible the court finds Nawaz Sharif not guilty in spite of this. I don't think this is appropriate to ITN (yet). If there's a verdict that specifically mentions this, then I'll support. Banedon (talk) 06:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article needs updating and sourcing (four "cn" tags at present). RD, certainly, when article is in better shape, but not presently convinced of blurbability. (edit conflict as I was in the process of nominating this for RD but EternalNomad pressed "save changes" before I did...) BencherliteTalk13:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD (but oppose on present article quality), Neutral on blurb The RD is obvious but too many CNs floating around in the current, article. I'm not sure on the blurb. The fact that he had just been released from prison about 2 weeks prior due to having terminal cancer might make this a blurbable story, but at the same time, this isn't a former world leader or the like who's death is going to be recognized in major fashion across the global. --MASEM (t) 13:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To expand, on reading the NYtimes obit, it is rather important to recognize that he was still a prisoner, only released on medical parole and effectively under close guard while they tried to treat him. I would support a blurb that addressed that facet, and not just that he passed away. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. Highly prominent figure, "China's most prominent human rights and democracy advocate" as the BBC describes him[16], extensive worldwide coverage of his death (current main front page story of the BBC for example). --Bjerrebæk (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That may depend where you are: I'm UK-based and the BBC News website's main story here is a Theresa May interview; the Charlie Gard story is also on the top row, with Liu Xiaobo on the left on the second row of stories. BencherliteTalk15:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Article quality is not horrible, but it needs some work before we can post this to the front page. There are some gaps in referencing and there is an orange tag that will need to go away. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb, once the article issues are addressed. A notable figure, but nowhere near the world-changing standard we should apply for blurbs. Modest Geniustalk15:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. At the very top level among his field, and even if not, his death seems to be notable itself. Top news from what I see. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb, once the article is properly cleaned-up. An international pro-democracy icon, whose death is being covered as such. Nsk92 (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any Nobel winner? Every dead physicist, chemist, writer etc who won a Nobel prize deserves a blurb? That's far from being the current view. BencherliteTalk21:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb - Nobel laureate status does not guarantee a blurb. Given that the entire European Union was awarded the prize, awardees die daily. I don't think the news worthiness of his death given his imprisonment separates him from the crowd either. Fails to qualify per the self-imposed Mandela-Thatcher-Kohl paradigm. Firm support for RD, however. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We're in the minority, but I'm with you. In an RD world, my blurb bar is exceedingly high. German Chancellors and Chinese dissidents don't top it. Neither did Carrie Fisher or that dead boxer. We have to stop with the "Posted X, therefore we should post Y" --CosmicAdventure (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What you are saying is clearly that you don't want to post any death-related blurbs at all, not even for the most notable politicians on the world stage. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And nobody claimed he was. But the editor above claimed that not even Merkel, the world's (or at least the western world's) most prominent leader as of 2017, would qualify. If not even Merkel would qualify, I don't know of any politician who would. So the issue appears to be a general opposition to posting death-related blurbs at all. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 06:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mandela and Thatcher: Iconic leaders known worldwide well after retirement, state funerlas that generated days of news, subjects of major motion pictures. That's my bar for politicians for example. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thatcher does not rise to the level of Merkel and never did. Nobody called her the leader of the free world or the western world's most important political leader. Mandela's main claim to fame was his Nobel Peace Prize for his anti-apartheid activities, not his later service as president for five years in a country that is a small player on the world stage. Liu, like Mandela, also received the Nobel Peace Prize. So he could be said to be the Chinese equivalent of Mandela. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 05:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, Mandela had the whole first black president of post apartheid South Africa and "Father of the Nation" thing going for him. Merkel is still alive, I have no idea what your problem is there. Thatcherism vs Merkelism? Doesn't seem to be a way to compare. Anyway, I don't mind that Xiaobo pushed off the staggeringly irrelevant rugby game, but the whole point of RD was so that obit blurbs wouldn't push off stories for things that are actually happening. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"In an RD world, my blurb bar is exceedingly high." I'm of the exact opposite opinion. In a paradigm where everyone gets an RD, a blurb is how we can indicate a notable passing. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. (Just to make it clear, I support as well, but for the circumstances surrounding the death, not the importance of the person.) I would hardly call Carrie Fisher, David Bowie, Prince, Nelson Mandela, and Margaret Thatcher "nobodies". See Google results- about 7 million for Liu, about 40 million for Fisher, about 50 million for David Bowie, about 15 million for Margaret Thatcher, about 36 million for Nelson Mandela, about 28 million for Prince. See also David Bowie discography, this, and 92 kB of readable prose size for Nelson Mandela, 63 kB readable prose size for Margaret Thatcher, and 57 kB readable prose size for Prince, versus 25 kB for Liu. These people were definitely not nobodies.-A ladinsane(Channel 2)16:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb, he is only the second person in Nobel history who has died with his prize uncollected. The most recent Nobel laureate to die (before Liu) appears to be Alexei Alexeyevich Abrikosov (a Physics laureate in 2003) on March 29 of this year; he was aged 88. So this is by no means a 'common' occurrence, especially considering Liu's much younger age. Johnny3887 (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb it's not an usual death of a Nobel laureate. He died in state custody, and it's the first time a Nobel Peace laureate died in custody since Carl von Ossietzky died in 1938 in Nazi Germany.--Stevenliuyi (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Death show's great significance with his death being in custody while being a Nobel Prize winner and article has been in good condition upon his death. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wildfires devastate the Italian provinces of Messina, Naples, Enna and Rome. The Vesuvius National Park is reportedly completely destroyed by flames and ash. Italian police claim the fires are the work of arsonists. (The Local Italy)
Nobel Peace Laureate Liu Xiaobo, who has been incarcerated in China for organizing the pro-democracy manifesto "Charter 08," is suffering from late-stage liver cancer which is worsening. The Chinese hospital treating him and foreign doctors, who examined Liu the weekend, disagree on future treatment. Germany, the United States, UK, and other countries have appealed that Liu be allowed to go to the hospital of his choice. (The New York Times)[permanent dead link](South China Morning Post)(Reuters)
Nominator's comments: Even though this appears in the news portal, this "largest online protest in history" should appear on the front page as well. On January 17, 2012, the Wikipedia community had its act together by deliberating on this one day in advance. This time, I am a day late. Connor Behan (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - was going to nominate this. Large protest on a topic which Wikipedia famously stood for a few years ago. In the news rather prominently. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Not a question of being in the news, and while US-centric, adoption of a non-Net Neutrality stance here will slowly affect the rest of the world. But we're talking a single day of protest which amounted mostly to companies reminding their readers to submit comments to the FCC to state their urge against their new rules. Contrast that to SOPA where many many websites blacked out making them unusable, a much more pro-active stance to demonstrate the resistance against SOPA. The issue on Net Neutrality is less about free speech compared to SOPA, and more about dollars and bottom lines. --MASEM (t) 01:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support I concur with the Rambling Man that this article has sufficient citation and is in good enough condition to be adequate for RD Harambe Walks (talk) 11:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on principle, oppose on quality The conviction/sentence of a previous head of state in a large scale corruption deal is clearly material for ITN, but I'm a bit worried about a number of paras in da Silva's article lacking sources, and I would also hope that we could feature Operation Car Wash but that has a few cn's floating around too. --MASEM (t) 18:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Note that I had previously removed some tagged unreferenced parts, and a user restored the unreferenced info in the meantime. Cambalachero (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the past for any major story about a court case, it is always been the point of conviction and sentencing that is used as the ITN point, regardless of conditions of the sentence, the potential for appeals, etc. We know he's probably not going to see a prison cell, but he has been labelled guilty by the court, and that's the element of importance for ITN. --MASEM (t) 13:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I get all that, the point remains that he is not in prison, will not be going to prison in the near future and may actually never go to prison. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it also doesn't say that he's been allowed to remain prison-free indefinitely until such a time any appeal is heard and found against him. It doesn't even stop him running for President again!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Should he be in jail with no chance of appeal? I'm sure a lot of us would agree with this stance, but unfortunately, between how justice systems work, as well as how politics at this level works, that's not happening. We can be bitter about that, and feel he deserves more retribution, but putting aside that POV, he was labelled guilty of corruption charges and was to be imprisoned. Doesn't matter what happened after that point, the former leader of a major nation-state being convicted of a serious crime is what fits ITN. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow, I'm not arguing anything about the rights and wrongs of the case, just that the blurb is incomplete, he has appealed, is not in prison and may never go to prison. That's all. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Objections understood, but the mere fact that a widely known former head of state (of the largest country in South America) has been convicted/sentenced is prima facie significant. Sca (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Notable, global news. It is also very significant, affects many and is getting much press coverage. Instead of "sq km" maybe write km². I also added some sources including one which has a photo of the actual breakoff. --Fixuture (talk) 13:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I had seen concerns of this in the weeks prior, but since authorities agree it's broken loose, this is the point to post. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear that this particular breakoff is linked to climate change − or at least: that it's caused by it. Dr. Daniela Jansen, the glaciologist from the Alfred Wegener Institute who discovered the break, suggests it might have to do with climate change though. But as said that's not clear and the news articles linked above also make that clear. --Fixuture (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. An important and rare event. However, I also find myself unimpressed with the somewhat disorganized wall-of-text in the relevant part of the article. While I don't think it should prevent an appearance on ITN, I would encourage someone to work on improving the prose, especially with an eye to the big-picture organization and flow. As a first thought, it might be helpful to a create separate section for the iceberg formation event and separate that from the general physical characteristics of the larger ice shelf. Dragons flight (talk) 14:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's in the news, update is what you can expect for a piece of floating ice, article is ok. Yawn at the editorializing here though I'm sure more than a few readers cared about Gagnam Style so lets not decide whats news for them. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately at a 100px, those labels would be lost. ESA has a really good image but ESA's work is generally not free license. NASA has the next best image, released today that shows the full crack, but the image would need to be refined better to make it clear at 100px. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, one moment please. --Fixuture (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC) So now I've uploaded File:Larsen C breaks.jpg. I'll try to modify it for a proper picture if nobody else does that. Another thing people could do would be to clarify the copyright of this timelapse gif "Monitoring the rift". You'd probably need to contact the Swansea University for that. --Fixuture (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC) So now I've also uploaded a few modified versions under "File history" of c:File:Larsen_C_breaks.jpg. (Not sure if it's possible to set a default image for it; if it is please set the 1st or 2nd image as default.) Maybe you can use one of those version as the image shown in the ITN-tile. But due to the small size of the tile the current image is probably a better choice. --Fixuture (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also {{convert|5800|sqkm|abbr=on|sigfig=2}} will yield 5,800 km2 (2,200 sq mi) which is preferable to how the units are currently written. --LukeSurltc14:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• QUESTION: Do "strong support" or "very strong support" count as more weighty, i.e. having more votes, than just "support" – ?? Sca (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I weight them as roughly 1.5, and 'weak' !votes as 0.5, but I don't think there's ever been a proper discussion or real consensus. The quality of the argument counts for more than putting 'strong' in front of a !vote. Modest Geniustalk15:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it just means that the participant is more firm in their support due to what they asses as good reasons. If you use "strong support" too often and(/or) without a firm backing/rationale you could potentially decrease the weight of your vote by a bit and certainly "strong support" would be assessed as just your 'ordinary' support. I'm not sure where WaltCip got that from: pretty sure that this is false. --Fixuture (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems to me the adjectives are merely emotional embellishments. One user, one vote – or half a vote in the case of a "weak" support or oppose. Otherwise, it would be like the old Tammany Hall slogan, "Vote early and often," no? Sca (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Trump Administration announces this year's presidential state visit to the United Kingdom is delayed until at least 2018. Both the White House and 10 Downing Street state the two countries had been unable to agree on a 2017 date. This planned visit has drawn protests in the United Kingdom since February, and more than 1.8 million signatures on a petition to Parliament to cancel the meeting. (Reuters)(Business Insider)(The Australian)
Turkish authorities have ordered the arrest of 105 people working in information technology who were believed to have been involved in the attempted overthrow of the government last year, state-run Anadolu Agency reported on Tuesday. (Reuters)
Scientists at the Chinese Academy of Sciences successfully teleport a photon from a ground station in Tibet to a satellite orbiting Earth at distance of 500km away. It is the first time an object has been teleported from the planet into space. (MIT Technology Review)
Support - significant development. Article is short but well referenced. I've bolded the main article in the blurb, which needs to be trimmed to focus on the main development. -Zanhe (talk) 04:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the quotations in the references for the article are longer than the article. If the article is expanded, this can be posted but at present it is too thin for the topic. BencherliteTalk07:14, 16 July 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: Is this trivial? Absolutely. However, YouTube is the world's second largest site according to Alexa, five years and the accumulated fame around Gangnam Style are significant in internet terms, and this is getting worldwide attention from reputable media. It is at least worth consideration in my view, especially given the current state of the ITN items. Speedy-close if this nom is frowned-upon. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It was bound to happen, and something is bound to surpass See You Again. Add that as numbers that can be gamed by users (F5), it's not necessary that impressive a feat. It's a possible thing that would make for good DYK for either article but I don't think either could qualify due to age/non-newness. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support not convinced by oppose rationales. 2.9 billion views is tremendous (for comparison world population is ~7 billion) so it's hard to see this as trivial. While it's probable that eventually something will surpass See You Again, so what? The record lasted for five years, which is not a short time. If anything I would support making this ITNR. Having said that I think See You Again should be the bolded article. Banedon (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment. So the story here is that a charitable foundation is going to raise money for a charitable cause? Isn't that what charitable foundations typically do? 331dot (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If some dollar figure was put forth that was record-breaking in terms of size, that might be something, but this is what charities do otherwise. --MASEM (t) 13:22, 12 July 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 large fire breaks out at the Camden Markets in North West London, with over 70 firefighters and 10 firetrucks attending the scene. No casualties have been reported. (The Sydney Morning Herald)
A 3 year-old boy is stabbed to death in an incident in the Poddle Park area of Kimmage in Dublin, Ireland. The child's mother, believed to be an Iranian national, is being treated for knife wounds in hospital. (RTÉ)
Between 1900 and 2015, around 177 species of mammals have lost 80% of their distribution leading to a presumption that the Holocene extinction is accelerating. (Wired)
Support on significance: I was considering nominating this myself, but won't have the time to see it through. The article has problems, though. Too many accusations from policemen and involved individuals, too much coatracking of past incidents. Also, as with any article about a terrorist attack, I'd like to see coverage from media sources outside that country; those within get caught up with the general hysteria all too quickly, and start throwing around statements which mean little. This is particularly true of conflicts in south Asia, and within those, of Kashmir. Vanamonde (talk) 05:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, terrorist byproducts of an international conflict are notable when they occur in Europe, and not when they occur in South Asia...why exactly? Vanamonde (talk) 08:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about where the incident occurred. My point is that a relatively small-scale incident of a regional conflict would not be significant on ITN. STSC (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Knowing that's an area of high violence, I am a bit concerned that there are no major world sources (BBC, NYTimes, AP, or Reuters) reporting on this, telling me how much of a change this is from the status quo in the area. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Article could use a bit of touching up, and I'm not 100% for sure that this rises to main page significance, but I did see some major world sources do an article or two on it (I'm not exactly sure who since I saw them on Apple News (maybe the Washington Post and Reuters?), but I could probably hunt down links if anyone wants), so I don't see why not assuming Vanamonde's concerns with the article are rectified. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)14:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think there is a danger in conflating the various incidences of violence in this part of the world. Military-on-military violence is one thing, security forces killing protesters is one thing. Direct killing of civilians, especially in these numbers, does not appear to be ordinary. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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: First new president of Mongolia since 2009. Significant election for the country (first ever presidential runoff), but has received minimal attention on Wikipedia so far (I just added links in Portal:Current events today). Also, inclusion in "ITN" will increase views for the Battulga Khaltmaa bio page, which may lead to fixes for some of the page issues. --> Scanlan (talk) 02:31, 13 July 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.
Only as a comment, but nothing necessarily opposing immediately, we generally do not post accidents involving military person while in the course of duty, which this fully appears to be. (There was a military plane accident a month or so ago but that included families of military people, so that was appropriate). Right now there's not enough to know if this is a special unique story here. --MASEM (t) 04:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Tied with a 2016 air ballon crash, which we posted, as the deadliest domestic aviation disaster in the United States in the 2010s decade. 140.207.23.32 (talk) 07:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per above. Not questioning the tragedy, but this story is not a civil aviation crisis. It is the death of active combatants, which is not particularly noteworthy. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ITN has never posted stories along the lines of "X is seriously ill". If Liu Xiaobo dies from this illness, then an appearance at RD will depend on the article being in good condition (I spot four "citation needed" tags already). If he recovers, then all well and good. So it's an oppose from me too. BencherliteTalk11:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not because a RD place has been reserved for Liu, as if a place in ITN now would be wasted. The story about Liu has been sensationalised by the media; there's no need to repeat it on ITN. STSC (talk) 12:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I don't follow the first part of this. Nothing is reserved for anyone: RD exists for recent deaths, and ITN never posts "critically ill" people. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:56, 12 July 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.
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
