*'''Oppose''' - Fortunately no one died. Also not in the top news anymore. [[User:Sherenk1|Sherenk1]] ([[User talk:Sherenk1|talk]]) 03:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Fortunately no one died. Also not in the top news anymore. [[User:Sherenk1|Sherenk1]] ([[User talk:Sherenk1|talk]]) 03:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Am already waiting for CosmicAdventures pointy comment about "meaningful vehicle control laws in europe" to... whatever the point is really. On another note, the police chase with police firing at the perpetrators vehicle on a highway, to me, almost seems more noteworthy as something like that is highly unusual for europe i would assume. But overall this does not seem to be that big a story. [[Special:Contributions/91.49.94.182|91.49.94.182]] ([[User talk:91.49.94.182|talk]]) 03:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Am already waiting for CosmicAdventures pointy comment about "meaningful vehicle control laws in europe" to... whatever the point is really. On another note, the police chase with police firing at the perpetrator vehicle on a highway, to me, almost seems more noteworthy as something like that is highly unusual for europe i would assume. But overall this does not seem to be that big a story. [[Special:Contributions/91.49.94.182|91.49.94.182]] ([[User talk:91.49.94.182|talk]]) 03:34, 10 August 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).
The Canadian government says at least one of their diplomats in Havana has been treated for hearing loss, following up on yesterday's report that American diplomats had similar injuries. U.S. officials say the problems started in the fall of 2016. The Cuban Foreign Ministry says it was informed of the incidents in February and has been investigating since that time. (Time)
In a suspected terror attack, six French soldiers are injured, three seriously, when a man drives a car into them at a barracks in the Paris suburb of Levallois-Perret. (Independent)
Comment Am already waiting for CosmicAdventures pointy comment about "meaningful vehicle control laws in europe" to... whatever the point is really. On another note, the police chase with police firing at the perpetrator vehicle on a highway, to me, almost seems more noteworthy as something like that is highly unusual for europe i would assume. But overall this does not seem to be that big a story. 91.49.94.182 (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] Mirza Olang Village Massacre
An existing article is an absolute requirement for ITN, so there is no point to a nomination without one. If an article is written or another article expanded to include this event, then it can be renominated or reopened, but adding a proposed blurb at the same time is strongly recommended. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 9 August 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: One of the deadliest attacks against Shi'ite civilians in Afghanistan lately by the Taliban. 60 people are dead, including women and children. --203.220.72.109 (talk) 09:22, 9 August 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.
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: 80% of results in, Kenyatta has 55% of the vote against 44% for his rival, Raila Odinga ,so results should be out soon. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support When results are in and announced, we should certainly post. If there is controversy surrounding the vote (something likely), we should add that info into the blurb. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 05:22, 9 August 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.
Oppose There is something likely to be posted involving NK soon, but a claim by a US intelligence agency is not sufficient for ITN. --MASEM (t) 05:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose posting a US intelligence report; a test, announcement, or use of such a weapon would merit posting. The US does not believe NK has actually mounted a warhead onto a missile yet. I've wondered if an Ongoing listing would be warranted for NK but I am unsure about an appropriate article(if it even exists right now). 331dot (talk) 08:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article I originally nominated would serve. It's a detailed account of the sturm und drang vis-a-vis North Korea's nuclear aspirations. pbp22:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose likely another exaggeration by the North Korean regime. Source is reliable and justified, but keep in mind that North Korea has made this claim numerous times in the past, but has not successfully proved this claim, even the photo from the unknown source a year ago has driven skepticism as it did not match the structure or shape of a miniaturized nuclear weapon. SamaranEmerald (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Truly these are really scary times when the only way North Korea's nuclear program will become notable or newsworthy for ITN purposes is if it nukes a city off the face of the earth. 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:98 (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I actually think Trump's "fire and fury" comment is the bigger story. But inflammatory rhetoric is not going to be posted either.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Pawnkingthree about the relative prominence of the stories, and about the ITN-worthiness of both. My personal threshold for posting a story about nuclear weapons is lower than TRM's though - I'd likely support the successful firing of a missing with an armed warhead regardless of outcome (I'm undecided about an unsuccessful firing). Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
“When it comes to how we should deal with evildoers, the Bible, in the book of Romans, is very clear: God has endowed rulers full power to use whatever means necessary — including war — to stop evil,” Jeffress said. “In the case of North Korea, God has given Trump authority to take out Kim Jong Un.”" Count Iblis (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Noting a tin-pot dictator threatening to nuke the U.S. is minor stuff compared to current ITN blurbs: Neymar getting €222 million to play football, Jordan Spieth winning the Open, and certainly minor compared to England's Cricket club beating India. Had Neymar only gotten €100 million, however, or had India won, TEOTWAWKI might be worth mentioning. --Light show (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is in the news, article is pretty good, opposes are usual "Wait until something happens" - something has happened: The leaders of the DPRK and the USA have ratcheted up their rhetoric, the USA is claiming the DPRK has miniaturized nukes, global media has been covering it for days. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems CosmicAdventure is a bit misunderstood by the article, sure it's been in the news, but only a handful of experts made the claim, not the U.S. itself, and that it has not gone on for days, just A day so far. SamaranEmerald (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well Dumps anti-NK rhetoric has been in the news since Monday, the miniaturization story is a little more recent. I take my queues from the media: the current headlines are about NK WMD, we have a decent article, put it up there. My two cents anyway. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:09, 9 August 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 Pentagon is considering conducting airstrikes in Marawi, which if approved would later put U.S. troops on the ground to battle the ISIS-affiliated Maute group as well as related Islamist terror groups. A spokesperson later denied the claims as well as clarified that the Philippines has yet to make a request. (NBC News)
PresidentJacob Zuma survives his eighth no-confidence motion in parliament via a 198–177 secret ballot vote with nine abstentions. The rand fell by 1 percent on the announcement of the outcome. (Reuters)
Support The article at this point seems to be in agreement with current sources, though I'm not sure if we need the Casualties table that shows how the number increases as reports after the quake came in; we just need the latest update. But now otherwise reasonably sourced. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 9 August 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.
Weak oppose Section "1967–72: Burning Bridges to The Goodtime Hour" Needs a lot of sourcing and section 1973–79: "Rhinestone Cowboy" and "Southern Nights" does not even cite any sources. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support: Posted: Haruo Nakajima, a hardly-known costumed actor getting few viewers to the 300-word article with 16 sources. Debated: Campbell, with over 3,000 words and 81 cites. His lead alone is the same length as the other bio. Nakajima's article got 3% the viewers on news of his death compared to Campbell's death news, and Campbell was also getting 3,000 viewers on an average day, whereas Nakajima was getting about 1.5 % as many.--Light show (talk) 18:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about article length or number of sources, but whether the article is fully cited to those sources as a measure of quality. Campbell's article has several failures of this as noted above, whereas Nakajima's article was readily sourced throughout (perhaps easier with shorter articles). --MASEM (t) 18:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the more famous a person is, especially if they're an American celeb, and the longer and more detailed their article, the more likely it will have facts without sources. That's a natural result of allowing any IP who can type add factoids to articles. But that result shouldn't override common sense and acknowledging major notability.--Light show (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The issue comes from "lazy editing" that editors include information that they may feel is fairly obvious but do not include sources, as required by WP:V. And so with famous people that get a large and lengthy articles, many of them go poorly sourced until this point where we're discussing them as RD, and where the laziness of editors in the past comes to prevent the article from being posted. It's a long-term symptom of WP as an open wiki that is difficult to correct. --MASEM (t) 19:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By "common sense," I was referring to the fact that we probably already know that any drive-by with a smartphone knows how to write simple text facts but doesn't care enough about WP guidelines to learn how to cite the facts. An article such as this one had a dozen of the yet uncited factoids spread around the article. When a musician has been recording for six decades on over 500 records, as lead singer or backup, the article becomes a natural magnet for drive-bys. IMO, the problem is partly correctable if we rate unsourced details by importance. And wikilinks should be taken into consideration to decide if a detail really must be cited before posting. But editing takes time, whereas skimming and adding "cn" tags takes none. And the question really becomes who's being lazy.--Light show (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Notability is neither in question nor relevant, what is relevant is the three citation needed tags and several untagged and uncited paragraphs. Thryduulf (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes? It wont get posted while sections are *entirely* uncited regardless of how notable they are. Numerous past discussions here should tell you that. Editors want it posted promptly, other editors dont want uncited sections on the front page. And since its a BDP, uncited sections can be removed and not replaced without *prompt* citations being added. Granted someone might object to it being on the front page with a 6 year gap, but hey, they could spend their time looking up citations for it while its there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is unacceptable practice. I can see removing a sentence or two that may be difficult to source in the short term to clear out a few residual CN's, but removing a whole section that is likely true, not contentious but just is lacking sourcing, leaving a large chronological gap that we know can be filled, is not an improvement. Remember that WP is voluntary , no one is required to do anything. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak support Now that the section that was (quite ludicrously) removed is back and (mostly) sourced ... I think it's just about good enough. Black Kite (talk)23:58, 9 August 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.
I took your reference to V to mean RS, but I see now it may just be an issue with the formatting of the refs, which I'll try to clean up. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, they're different policies. I was questioning how a reader could verify something sourced by "First Department website.?" (for instance). And I've already cleaned up the references, but more is needed for this to be close to a main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some additional citations. I could add additional cited information, sourced to his New York Law Journal obituary, but it's behind a paywall so I'm not sure whether to do so. My thanks to The Rambling Man for his help with the formatting. I'd welcome input from any others as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If someone in good standing (such as yourself) asserts that the source does indeed verify the content that's normally good enough. If there is any doubt or if it's something very controversial and nobody else in the discussion has the relevant access and it isn't also verifiable in a non-paywalled source, then chances are that we'll just seek out someone else - for something as high profile as the New York Times there are likely to be plenty of Wikipedians who have a subscription (heck there might even be a category or list somewhere). I've never experienced a situation where that was necessary though. Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 9 August 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.
Oppose far too much of it unreferenced, including all those stage appearances, no verifiable reliable sources there to provide any evidence she was in any of them. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 8 August 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 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.
Wait. Why nominate this before it has even happened? This general election is on ITNR, so there's no need to build consensus. The only thing that determines whether this gets posted is the quality of the article & update, which is impossible to write or assess until the election has actually happened. Modest Geniustalk10:05, 8 August 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.
Results from Saturday's constitutional referendum show Mauritanians have voted to abolish the Senate. Turnout was 53.73%, with 85% of voters supporting the change, according to officials. (BBC)
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.
Neutral – This got on my radar and I would like to see it improved. Right now, we have basically only one real section of prose and not all of it is sourced correctly. Needs work. ~Mable (chat) 15:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. I just finished improving the article considerably, and made sure all information was reliably sourced. In my opinion, it's good to go. –Matthew - (talk)17:00, 8 August 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.
We shouldn't be looking at citation format quality as an issue for ITN; lacking citations is one thing, but editors (particularly newer) often just add bare URLs to at least get an inline cite in place, and that should be fine for breaking ITN item. Over time, we'd expect those replaced. However, there are still definitely other sourcing issues at play on this one. --MASEM (t) 13:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At least for myself, we want to make sure new editors include inline citations (a core policy at WP:V), but compliance with MOS like consistent citation formats is a far less concern - a bare url still works to meet WP:V in the short term. Add that learning the citation templates is not trivial, and I'd rather see a new editor add useful info cited to a bare url (which can be easily fixed) than to include new information without any citation, which may be difficult to fix. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree. Bare URLs can provide the necessary sourcing just as well for ITN success. Just thought I'd point that out. Any views on YouTube videos? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I like a sentiment expressed over at RSN that "editorial control is what makes something a reliable source" so we should consider if the uploader is an RS. GCG (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per GCG, Youtube is not itself a source, it's a host of sources. Some will be good, some will be shit. Caveat videntium. We need to consider who created the video. --Jayron3216:09, 8 August 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.
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.
During one of the meetings of the 50th Association of Southeast Asian Nations Regional Forum at Manila, the foreign ministers of the member nations issued a communiqué "emphasizing the importance of non-militarisation and self-restraint," ending an impasse regarding the disputes on the South China Sea. (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.
Support I fixed a few factual errors and tweaked some language in the article. It's short, but looks sufficient now. --Jayron3211:51, 8 August 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.
Oppose In addition to citations, I have issues with the article's tone relative to neutrality. Yes, a known Holocaust denier, it's not going to be a positive article, but there's emphasis on things (particularly in the lede) that do not reflect an encyclopedic tone. --MASEM (t) 12:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - some of the lead does seem to demonstrate a bias. However, in consisting with a overview of his work and the criminal troubles that they caused, the article scarcely differs from those penned about other despicable deplorables. Stormy clouds (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that the content as a whole needs to be changed as he has been convicted of it. Just that the lede is structured very oddly to emphasize certain points, giving a very negative tone before starting the article off proper. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because we don't make moral judgements on why someone was known. We just report their death dispassionately (if their article is of high enough quality). --Jayron3214:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality. Mainly the referencing problems noted above. I'm not as bothered by the tone (If a person is widely reported in mainstream sources as a douchebag, Wikipedia should similarly focus on their douchebaggery to the same depth). --Jayron3214:07, 7 August 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.
Oppose. I've just tagged three missing citations and an instance of weasel words. Two of the needed citations should be easy to find, but I'm not sure about the third. Once the sourcing is in place though it should be ready as it's otherwise acceptable. Thryduulf (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support Significant changes, especially national flag. But the results are listed as provisional in the article, this should be rechecked. Brandmeistertalk16:26, 8 August 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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose - vice-president is of minimal impact unless the current president dies. If the Tánaiste were to resign and be replaced tomorrow, I wouldn't nominate. Unless the old veep went down in a blaze of scandal and glory, this lacks international impact. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In addition to the point made above, this was not a direct election; it was an election in parliament, and as such the result was essentially a foregone conclusion; which, combined with the ceremonial nature of the position, makes this not newsworthy. Vanamonde (talk) 07:14, 7 August 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.
Oppose poor article quality per TRM (though reading through, it does seem to be important to recognize Kagame had only one challenger and won by 98%, his candidacy virtual unopposed, so the "landslide" language could be justified here). I also would think this is a rare occasion where a single instance of an ITNR may not be necessary to post because of 1) the relatively small size/low importance of Rwanda to the rest of the world and 2) the foregone conclusion of the results. I'm not immediately opposing due to this possibility. --MASEM (t) 12:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the blurb either needs to be neutral or place the result in context, and we've been reluctant to get involved in declarations of voting results being influenced by any means. If this does get posted, it strictly reports the results, and nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, isn't the whole point of ITNR that we don't argue a lack of importance here? Are you suggesting the results are not valid? Also, TRM: is landslide the POV word you are referring to? I could see this term being used subjectively (I think Trump claimed a landslide win), but isn't this result objectively a landslide? GCG (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There can be IAR exceptions to ITNR if there's agreement that one iteration for some reason is not significant, not invalidating the entire ITNR aspect, and it should be such an exceptional case. -MASEM (t) 23:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. The article is very short, but at least it's referenced. Currently borderline for the update, but we could do with a new item so I'm willing to be lenient. The proposed blurb is poor though (and alt1 ungrammatical) so I've added alt2. Modest Geniustalk12:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article depth is not up to the standards of the main page. Needs a lot more prose describing the election itself. --Jayron3214:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. economy added over 200,000 jobs last month, dropping the country's unemployment rate to match a previous 16-year low at 4.3%. Wage growth remained below the Federal Reserve Board's target of 3.5%. (CNN Money)
Voters in Rwanda go to the polls to elect their president. Paul Kagame, incumbent since 2000, referred to the election as a formality, despite challenges from the Democratic Greens' Frank Habineza and independent Philippe Mpayimana. Kagame is re-elected with 98.66 of the vote. (BBC)(Sky News)
Socorro Flores Liera, Mexico's deputy foreign minister for Latin America and the Caribbean, speaks during an interview with Reuters in Mexico City, that during the first half of 2017, 1,420 Venezuelans have sought asylum in Mexico, a nearly four-fold jump compared to the 361 total Venezuelan asylum applicants for all of 2016, as the result of Venezuela's deepening political and economic crisis. (Reuters)
Oppose - so what? Even with an enormous blurb (more than 2/3rds the length of the update) I'm still looking for what the significance of this is? Thryduulf (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The NUS is the best university in Singapore, which has one of the highest GDPs in the world. And this academic earned his PhD from Harvard and won a prize for his first book. So in my world, this seems unprecedented--even public intellectuals who have ticked all the boxes are not immune to bureaucratic harassment. You seem to be suggesting that is par for the course for intellectuals, and there may be some truth to it but--now you see why I nominated it. It's also in the news of course...Zigzig20s (talk) 07:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None of that is at all apparent from either the blurb or the article, which means that anyone seeing this on ITN will not learn anything - a key aspect of ITN is that we are highlighting articles with an encyclopaedic treatment of items that are in the news, but we don't actually have anything of the sort here. Even if the article did contain a sufficiently in-depth update, there would still need to be some clear indication of wider repercussions or wider significance, e.g. for USA-Singapore relations, before it would be significant enough for ITN in my view. Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Singapore is allowed to have whatever foreign citizens in their country that they see fit and can deport them or strip them of legal status for any reason they wish. Unless this turns into a major diplomatic incident this is not significant. Doesn't seem to be headline news and we aren't here to right great wrongs or publicize them. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this isn't actually newsworthy, regardless of coverage in The Grauniad, tomorrow we might have another Gangnam Style and this record gets shelved. Try DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also point out to the concurrent discussion on the talk page why we absolutely need this ITNC process to filter out what the media deems important compared to what we as an encyclopdia deem important. --MASEM (t) 21:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good article, bursting at the seams with refs, trending in Google news entertainment section, #1 vid on YT and breaking the 3bn views milestone for a vid that cleared other major milestones with notability (second fastest to 1bn views). If another video breaks the record next month, we can look at it then (lots of broken records are posted here without fear that the same record will soon be beaten again). Honestly, I'm struggling for a reason not to post this. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sheer number of refs is irrelevant to all nominations. The newsworthiness is entirely questionable since it can be defeated tomorrow, and is often gamed. Try DYK! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you, I knew that. It's nice to see an ITN nom where every entry in every table has a ref, was just pointing that out. Many things could be defeated tomorrow: Sky could be sold for a record amount of money, Messi could be traded for 225M Euros, the current oldest person could die, the next tallest building completed, the most goals kicked in a world cup qualifier between two nations who've previously won the world cup in even numbered decades, I mean, come on, we don't discriminate against any other record because it could again be broken. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, we already rejected the last time this happened (25 days ago), this is no different. Incremental changes in internet viewing figures is trivia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article looks good, which actually gives it a chance of being posted within a few days. 3bn views would be an awful lot of fan gaming. We don't usually prevent posting because of what might happen tomorrow, do we? But by all means let's see if anything passes 3,023,618,681 views tomorrow. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well I assume you've already read Black Kite's observation that the previous record was broken only a month ago, and in all likelihood, these records will increase in cadence rather than decrease, I think you have your answer. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see. So no record that get's broken within a month of the last one get posted? If that's the agreed criterion, then fine. But I think it should be written down so that folks don't post suggestions unnecessarily. List of most viewed YouTube videos tells us it was, in fact, 25 days. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't need to "write down" that kind of thing because it's just common sense. People will post suggestions unnecessarily regardless of whatever is "written down" in any case. DYK would appreciate this kind of story, I'm sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It's not common sense at all. It's a community norm that seems to have become a hard criterion. If you don't watch this page regularly, you wouldn't know that it was a valid reason for not posting. I think quite a few people would like to know what "incremental" means. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, whatever you think. But this isn't going to be posted, because the community rejected the last "incremental gain" and this is no different. I suppose if it had 30 billion views, it might be of interest, but ultimately, the number of views of something online is s modern take on the number of visitors to a museum or art gallery, to view, say [[Mona Lisa], interesting, but ultimately not newsworthy, simply trivia and DYK worthy. Certainly of absolutely zero encyclopedic value and, as demonstrated, no longevity. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck. You're intelligent enough to see that so many records exist in so many fields that a generic definition is impossible. What makes this specific example so clearly trivial is the time it takes to break it and the likelihood it will be beaten, combined with the unenecylopedic value of the whole venture. But you already knew all that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose When "See You Again" became the most-viewed video ever on YouTube a month ago it was posted as a candidate here and rejected. I don't see why this is any different, to be honest. Black Kite (talk)20:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Black Kite. That the record this surpasses is only about a month old shows that this really isn't that significant. It also means the blurb is misleading as surpassing Gangnam Style isn't what gets the record. Thryduulf (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "It could be beaten tomorrow" Psy held the record for 5 years, before that Bieber for 2. In this case it happened in short succession, lets please stop pretending the record is broken monthly. [3] --CosmicAdventure (talk)
Great, so when Molto Rivolto is traded to Zagreb United (or whatever) next year for a huzillion Euro you'll be sure to send that nominator to DYK as well right? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point though, with only a few million between Despacito and See You Again, it's certainly possible that the lead could fluctuate between the two in the future. Black Kite (talk)22:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point. Perhaps "incremental" is also a function of actual physical amount then, not just time gap? But you're also still making guesses about what will happen in the future. I thought that was frowned upon here. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is, though I was really just pointing the possibility out. This is always the issue with biggest/longest/tallest etc. nominations, and I would usually oppose them. I supported the Neymar transfer fee one purely because (a) it was a ludicrous incremental leap, and (b) a huge story worldwide, not only sporting but political. Black Kite (talk)23:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Limited impact; we similarly reject nominations for gold/oil prices and stock exchanges making it above an arbitrary X point. Unless there's some side major impact, this type of thing is more suited for DYK. SpencerT♦C02:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that "Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro used it to call for voting in the controversial Constitutional Assembly election" is bigger news than the youtube benchmark in my view.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this has not gotten anywhere near as much attention in the media as Gangnam Style's record, and has faded off the news. So posting it now would be an embarrassment. Abductive (reasoning) 16:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This story, while US-centric, is all over the news worldwide per the sources. Shkreli has been dubbed "the most hated man in America" per the Guardian (quite an honour), so this will attract significant further attention in addition to the 150,000+ views in the last month. If this poses WP:BLP issues, please state so to facilitate their amendments. Open to referring to him as a "pharma bro" in the blurb. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We typically post convictions and not wait until all possible appeals have been exhausted which takes years. If this is tossed that will be newsworthy as well. 331dot (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The conviction is about securities fraud and has nothing to do with the markup in price for that HIV drug, right? In other words, i do not understand how this is really notable. The guy is... let's say, of questionable character but is the actual crime he was convicted of notable? What was the scale of the securities fraud? If that is "small scale" what else he is known for should not really matter in my oppinion. 91.49.74.43 (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this actually a big deal with a significant jail term (yes I know it says "maximum 20 years sentence"), or in reality is he going to get 6 months picking up litter? If the latter, Oppose, we don't post every instance of a notable person being convicted of something, regardless of how unpleasant they are. Black Kite (talk)23:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, executive of small privately-held company convicted on some counts of securities fraud. Not that unheard of. The only reason this is getting headlines is because of his public unpopularity. I'd support posting something on the scale of Madoff. I think something should be posted about Venezuela, but I'm too lazy to write up a nomination. --47.138.161.183 (talk) 00:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
New comment The blurb should explain what those three counts of securities fraud are about specifically. Otherwise the readers will get confused and think this is about the medication situation. The current blurb is unintentionally misleading.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Reading through, I don't think this case was as significant as it seems, and as noted, not actually tied to the drug price markup which is a much bigger news story. --MASEM (t) 12:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not major in terms of convictions; this wouldn't even be as covered in the news if not for Twitter antics and other drama. SpencerT♦C02:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the primary stated purpose of ITN is "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news." A cursory glance at Shkreli's page information and the graph of daily views indicates that not having this on the page indicates a failure on our behalf to fulfil this criterion. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to recall someone very recently saying "it is something our readers will be looking for, as noted by the MASSIVE SPIKE to 200k+ hits yesterday (who knows what today will bring). Time to start recalling the purpose of ITN, not just railing against stuff we don't like. Our readers deserve better." GCG (talk) 00:32, 8 August 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: Seems obvious to me, but neither article updated at the moment. Ecuador's VP is publicly elected and cannot be sacked, so this is all the president can do. Banedon (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Maybe I don't fully understand this situation but this seems to be just the President removing the VP from tasks that had been assigned to him by the President, not removing his constitutional powers(though even the source phrases it that way). There is also no formal legal complaint against the VP yet(though there may be later). 331dot (talk) 09:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on article quality. There is zero context in the article for this firing, and there is basically no text about his role as the vice president. I learned nothing from this article about what he did for the years he served in the office, which would be essential given the nature of the blurb. --Jayron3212:37, 4 August 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.
USAID announces the Trump administration dedicated $169 million to feed people facing starvation in Ethiopia and Kenya, adding to earlier assistance for those suffering from drought and conflict in the region. (Reuters)
South American trade bloc Mercosur will trigger its democratic clause this weekend to suspend Venezuela indefinitely, furthering its past temporary suspension, and not allow the country back until internal political issues have been resolved. (Reuters)
Special counsel Robert Mueller has impaneled a grand jury in Washington, D.C., to investigate allegations of Russia’s interference in the 2016 elections. (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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Weak Support Article is short, but sufficient to establish context and provide an overview of life's work, and does not lack for references for the text that is there. --Jayron3212:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose the article claims "he was one of the most accomplished motorcycle racers in the history of the sport" yet it's simply not reflected in the article itself. It's considered a "start class" article yet if the claim is true, we're clearly missing a massive amount of coverage. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 7 August 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.
Nominator's comments: I'm being bold but sensible with this nomination. A world record transfer is not a regular event, having happened just four times in the last ten years. This time, it's over double the last record. There are 13 million results for Neymar on Google news right now, and this has "in the news" nature beyond sport by the fact that PSG are owned by the controversial Qatari royal family. This is not trivia by any stretch. Harambe Walks (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment certainly global news, certainly a massive step-change in transfer fees (and salaries by the looks of things), and definitely something our readers will be looking for, so it ticks all those boxes for me, I haven't had a chance to check the quality of target articles, so will do that shortly. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we're not a sports ticker, but this more than doubles the previous record, it's not incremental, it is all over global news, it is something our readers will be looking for, as noted by the MASSIVE SPIKE to 200k+ hits yesterday (who knows what today will bring). Time to start recalling the purpose of ITN, not just railing against stuff we don't like. Our readers deserve better. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I totally agree that sport is overrepresented at ITN, but this is a major enough story to warrant invoking IAR. Not only is €222 million the GDP of a small country, but it represents a major shift of football's power base from its traditional heartlands (England, Italy, Spain and Germany) to a country with relatively little footballing tradition. (In US terms, it would be equivalent to the Nagoya Diamond Dolphins suddenly announcing that they'd bought out LeBron James's contract.) If Neymar isn't the most read page on Wikipedia for today and tomorrow I will be astonished. ‑ Iridescent21:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per Iridescent above, primarily. Major transfer more than twice the previous record; this is pretty much the only transfer we'd ever feature in ITN. (Unless Barça elect to immediately spend that money tomorrow, I guess.) — fox22:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Completely agree with Iridescent (read the FOX item linked above for the political side to the deal) and the fact that this is not only top sports news, but often top front page news all over the world, and this is definitely ITN territory. I note that Neymar had 200K pageviews yesterday alone - I suspect that will go through the roof for 3rd August. Black Kite (talk)22:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neymar article is fine (quite good actually), but suggest unbolding the link to the list of transfers which has a maintenance tag, and is a bit rubbish. Keep the link by all means, but don't target it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, done now - see the Guardian link in the header. La Liga are still complaining about it (and will probably continue to do so) but the transfer has been done. Black Kite (talk)00:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is an extraordinary deal - PSG have met what was supposed to be a completely ridiculous, out of reach buy-out clause. Truly a worldwide story. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is football gossip. People who don't care about association football won't care about this either. EUR 200 million isn't that big - we had multiple business deal nominations for sums larger than this that were rejected. It's a world record for a transfer fee, but it's a world record only relevant to football enthusiasts. It's like how the chess world was going gaga a while ago by Wesley So's streak of 67 consecutive unbeaten games, which non-chess players barely paid attention to. Banedon (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting Oppose (Not asking to be pulled, just voicing my opposition) This sets a dangerous precedent for further sports trades. While it's definitely larger than some of the biggest pro sports I've seen (some US trades in double-digit millions). It is an interesting story, but given that we tend to balk at other business deals (which this is at the end of the day) that are far most expensive, I don't think this is an appropriate ITN. --MASEM (t) 00:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have to trade that off against the ITN guidelines, particularly on depth of coverage by reliable sources. I think given that, and the fact that this is a significant development in the world's leading sport (effectively not a transfer, but the buying out by Neymar - funded by PSGs Qatari backers - of his "impossible" release clause) , that it handily passes ITN levels. There will be a deluge of coverage of this over the next few days, and the repercussions are likely to be very long-lasting. Black Kite (talk)00:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to point out that "world's leading sport" is subjective, and could be argued to be baseball, cricket, Go, etc. Banedon (talk) 01:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Next time a news story from those (or any other) sport is front page headlines worldwide (this is ITN after all), do feel free to nominate it. Black Kite (talk)01:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To me this is an example of the caution about media involving anything revolving about celebrity (which athletes fall into). Of course the media's going to cover it, and being a huge sport and a huge deal, the effect is magnified. We have to recognize that is a standard bias the media has, and why we should be much more cautious about posting such. As I said, I'm only voicing opposition, not attempting to take this down. --MASEM (t) 01:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting Oppose That time when bloody terrorist attacks in the capital cities of Europe aren't noteworthy enough, but a transaction in football is. I'm not against reporting tournament results, or milestones from the world of sports (or eSports), but this is hardly a milestone.--Adûnâi (talk) 05:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the fee was more than double the previous record, and the first time a fee has exceeded €200m it's pretty difficult to agree this is not a milestone. How significant it is, whether you agree or disagree that it should have been posted, or how it compares with other events that didn't get posted, are different matters that you can make solid arguments around (as long as you recognise they are subjective), but it doesn't help your case to claim this is not a milestone. Thryduulf (talk) 07:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There was consensus, but it's a bit silly. Good luck getting an American football or basket ball player up whatever the record. Hell, next time one happens I might try just to see if the nom is snow closed in less time than this one was posted. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:POINT Doing something knowing it's going to stir up shit, with the intent of stirring up shit, is not the best idea. Which has nothing to do with whether it should or shouldn't be posted. One can be correct, and still be an asshole. --Jayron3216:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Charming to have an admin call someone an asshole. Wasn't there something about civility or does that only count for certain kinds of editors? 91.49.66.228 (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He called me an asshole, and I don't care. Jayron is one of the good guys. Soccer is the most important sport in the world, the most important thing in the world. Retiring coaches, moving players, bizarre regional competitions, it's all of "global importance" so there is no sense in pretending this celeb blurb won't be up for two weeks and that it won't happen again. Suggest closing this nom and moving on. (Until Messi scores the most goals between lunar eclipses because OMFG THAT will be news!) --CosmicAdventure (talk) 10:54, 5 August 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.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: This is in today's Council on Foreign Relations e-mail newsletter. It appears to be a big story. Please expand it if you can (the Vietnamese Wikipedia has a long article on him). Still, if it's good enough for the CFR, it should be good enough for us. Zigzig20s (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's reasonable, though I still question this as part of a larger story and this not the ITN-posting point. I would require that at least many of those points in vi.wiki be brought to en.wiki to understand the political nature of this situation as it is not clear from our version. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If a user following a link to our article is not going to understand why this is in the news and why that news is significant then the article is not in a fit state to be linked to from the ITN section. Also, that blurb needs to be about a third of its current length. Thryduulf (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wait – One person being repatriated, if you will, under disputed circumstances is not ITN material. However, the BBC story raises serious questions about those circumstances. Story seems to be developing. Sca (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/wait - hard for me to see long-term consequences coming out of this, especially with all the unknowns ("possibly under duress"). If this leads to some kind of rift between Germany and Vietnam, then maybe; otherwise it looks quite minor. Banedon (talk) 06:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on article quality. It is barely above stub-level, and reads like a WP:COATRACK for a few sentences about the kidnapping. The blurb itself contains the totality of the information being blurbed about, so I'm not sure why we're directing readers to the article in question, there's not enough extra information for them to learn about. Article needs much expansion to be mainpage ready. --Jayron3212:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. This is not good enough for the main page. Making an irrelevant statement about the nature of Wikipedia doesn't make it ready for the main page. --Jayron3212:38, 4 August 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
_(cropped).jpg)
