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.
Hurricane Beryl, the earliest-recorded Category 5 Atlantic hurricane in a calendar year, leaves at least 15 people dead in the Caribbean, Venezuela, and the United States.
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).
Valery Bolotov, a leader of the separatist movement in the eastern city of Luhansk, is wounded in an assassination attempt by an unknown assailant. (CNN)
The body of 26-year-old French photojournalist Camille Lepage was found in the Bouar region. The French presidency released a statement saying she was "murdered" and announced that a team of investigators will be dispatched to the scene. (Time)(The Guardian)
Thousands of Vietnamese workers stage anti-China protests in front of factories with Chinese names over Beijing's decision to locate an oil rig in waters of the South China Sea also claimed by Hanoi. (Voice of America
Galindo Mellado Cruz, one of the founding members of the Mexican drug cartelLos Zetas, and four other armed men are killed in a shootout with Mexican security forces after they raided Cruz's hideout in the city of Reynosa. (BBC News)
A Facebook page called "My Stealthy Freedom", in which women across Iran are posting photos of themselves without the hijab, has garnered more than 130,000 likes, a week after it was created. (The Guardian)(BBC News)
Business and economy
The European Central Bank has watered down standards for an ongoing review of Europe's banks, waiving deadlines and some data requests, according to a Reuters report based on "sources familiar with the process." (Reuters)
The ninth and final phase of the election concludes in India, with an all time high voter turnout of 66.64%. Final results will be declared on May 16. (Times Of India)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Hot topic of the day that deals with the vote and it s repercussions/legitimacy. Its certinaly in the news. a MILLSTONE ROUND THE ESTABLISHMENT'S NECK. --Lihaas (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb is misleading. What I'm seeing in the news is a claim by pro-Russian separatists that their side won the referendum. Kiev is claiming the vote is a sham and there were no safeguards in place to prevent ballot-stuffing. I'm in favor of a wait-and-see approach before we post any further news stories. --WaltCip (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this stage. Symbolic muppet-puppet show with no real effect unless Putin decides to annex them as well, which I think is rather unlikely. Brandmeistertalk15:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Another nomination with a very biased nomination comment. I don't think these votes are worth our attention unless either Moscow or Kiev treat them as such, and as of now there's no sign of either. 'A millstone round the establishment's neck'? Please. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Guardian reports "Donetsk region asks to join Russia." [1] This seems to substantiate a drift toward annexation, à la Crimea. (Is anyone surprised?) Sca (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait to see what actually happens following this widely-derided vote. If Russia annexes them, or they become independent, sure. But until that happens we have a non-binding vote in a sub-national entity, which isn't enough for ITN in my opinion. Modest Geniustalk16:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In the flurry of stuff coming out of Ukraine, we need to be sure of the details, and confident about the state of any linked article, before jumping into frenzied nominations. doktorbwordsdeeds17:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. We already have an "ongoing" link to this, this does not necessarily represent a significant development yet to warrant a return to a full blurb. If and when more comes of this, we can revisit the issue. --Jayron3217:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article 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: Great Australian footballer, but probably more importantly, a great coach, who coached four clubs at the highest level of competition, and won four premierships. Inaugural inductee into the Australian Football Hall of Fame. Many other top level achievements. Maintained public attention into his older years through his intense exercise regime, which he maintained right up to his final illness at the age of 82. "Every morning he woke up at 5:20 and went for an 8 km run, followed by 250 push-ups and a swim in Port Phillip Bay, and when he got home he did 700 crunches and sit-ups." --HiLo48 (talk) 11:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support this in principle(seems to meet DC2 in terms of Australian Rules football), but very little of the article has citations. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm agnostic on this nomination, but the article needs a lot of work before it's in a post-able state. The vast majority of the text is totally unreferenced. The few references that are there refer entirely to his life after 2011. Modest Geniustalk22:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article needs significant work but moreover, a player turned coach of a game that a tiny proportion of the world's population actually even know of (or arguably more importantly, care about) is not suited to a global list of recent events / RDs. 203.13.128.104 (talk) 23:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One could say the same about many of the subjects of RD but the criterion is widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field. In this case the field happens to be Australian football. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An observation: The IP editor trying to tell us that Australian football is a minor sport has an address that geolocates to Sydney, Australia. While Australian football is by far the strongest football code in Australia, by any measure, it's not the strongest code in Sydney. Rugby league is stronger. Soccer may be too. But Australian football is growing in that market. It's likely that our IP editor is a fan of one of the latter two sports, and perhpas feels obliged to discredit Australian football at any opportunity. HiLo48 (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked past contributions from that IP address. They include many from an obvious soccer fan, who opposed an eventually successful position I took on the issue of the naming of Soccer in Australia in Wikipedia articles. Looks like we have a history. It's not just Aussie Rules he opposes. It's me too. It's sad that he has let his sports obsession get in the way of objectivity here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello HiLo48, I'm actually far more an AFL fan than I am a Rugby Leage fan or Association Football (soccer) fan, but I'm definitely not as obsessed with AFL as some Australians (Melbournians) are - it's almost a religion for some, isn't it? I'm not based in Sydney at all, in fact as I write this I'm sitting in Adelaide. I work in numerous states of Australia, as well as in USA and New Zealand regularly. My primary place of residence is Melbourne, but I spend a significant portion of time every year in Los Angeles and various other cities as my job requires. I digress, my opposition to the naming convention of Association Football Australia is nothing to do with my opposition to the RD nomination here, bygones are most definitely bygones and the dead horse has been beaten far beyond what is required. 203.13.128.104 (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll accept that. But I still don't understand your opposition here. If someone grows up in a city like Melbourne, which IS dominated by one winter sport, reaches the highest levels of playing and coaching in that sport, and remains a very public and highly respected member of the community until he is in his eighties, he has done pretty much all he had the opportunity to do. We cannot ask for more. Your comments did read more like a criticism of the game, or of the city, than of Tom Hafey. HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said about the last American football player nominated, the international popularity (or lack there of) of the sport is not relevant. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sounds notable enough (I don't know much about Aussie Rules Football myself), but the article is not up to scratch reference wise at the moment. On a side note, I'm jealous of how fit this guy must have been with that training regeme! Phylactory (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose' Agree with above comments about lack of article quality. Would support if the article about Tom was improved. Would do this myself but don't have the time at the moment unfortunately 49.183.227.11 (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fifteen football supporters are killed in Kinshasa in a stampede caused by tear gas being thrown into the stand by police officers attempting to defuse a hostile incident. (Radio Okapi)
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.
With respect, a run-of-the-mill politician and short-term ambassador. I'm not seeing anything that raises him to the notability required for RD. Stephen02:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Clearly someone at the top of his field: Gasnier has been inducted into multiple Hall of Fames, and has appeared on numerous lists of the all-time greatest rugby players. He received the Order of Australia. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's true elsewhere too (e.g. in New Zealand and Britain). Generally speaking rugby union is called "rugby" and rugby league is called "league". Unless I could tell otherwise from the context, I would always interpret "rugby" as meaning "rugby union". Neljack (talk) 11:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here in the UK, 'rugby' can be rugby league or rugby union (although if neither is stated explicitly then it's probably but not definitely rugby union). We don't use the single word 'league' by itself to indicate rugby league.Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support article needs some fixing up, I'll try to help out in that regard over the next 24 hours, but an ideal candidate for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated 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 and pre-empting the standard call for more prose. Right now, the target article has nothing more than a single sentence update, and very little prose in general. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Needs work. This should obviously go up as soon as it's ready, but the article currently has only one sentence of update, and only a few paragraphs of prose in total. It needs fleshing out with some actual content and a description of the season (something like the season summary from last year) before it can go up. Modest Geniustalk18:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
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: The Eurovision Song Contest is the largest international music competition in the world, which every year is widely followed outside Europe (especially in Australia). --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ITNR items do not need support related to the merits of the event(ITNR presumes notability), merely about the quality of the article and the blurb. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's been argued in the past that a specific instance of ITNR may not be an ITN for reasons just beyond lack of article quality, though the arguments should be why that specific instance of ITNR shouldn't be included, and not a point of the repeated ITNR nomination overall. Not to say this applies here , just that ITNR is not as automatic as claimed. --MASEM (t) 21:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, if we normally would post it, then it should be listed at ITNR. But in exceptional cases that are beyond article quality reasons, there might be reasons not to post a specific occurance of an ITNR. The next time it's back to normal; the ITNR tag is to say "we normally post these events, so let's start discussion from that point, and not debate whether the event should be posted in the first place". For example, say there's a case of a national election where every source prior to the election has pegged the current seat winning by a landslide, and that's exactly what happens, an unquestionable landslide in the incumbant's favor. It might not be necessary to post that result even though national election results are an ITNR. --MASEM (t) 21:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Masem is correct. Look at the top of this nomination - the note on the template indicating that it is ITN/R says: "Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it." "Generally", not "always". A recent case in point is the Olympic Ice Hockey Final earlier this year, which despite an adequate update and article quality was not posted because there was consensus against it. Neljack (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but still no need to nominate an item 16 hours before it can be updated, especially one at ITNR. Regardless, time to move on, this is no longer productive. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per 331dot, the early nomination of an ITNR, before the event has even occurred, is simply a waste of time as we need to judge iTNR items on the quality of their update. This clearly cannot happen until the contest is concluded, some 15 hours after the time this was nominated. Still, at least someone gets a nomination credit. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well its Mother's Day around the world, what better way to celebrate it then with a picture of a bearded lady...haha.--Stemoc (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article:HD 162826 (talk·history·tag) Blurb: HD 162826, a star 110 light-years away, is identified as a sibling of the Sun, born from the same stellar nursery some 4.5 billion years ago. (Post) Alternative blurb: The star HD 162826, is identified as the first known sibling of the Sun, born from the same stellar nursery some 4.5 billion years ago. News source(s):[4] &c (see article) Credits:
Nominator's comments: This is a fundamental discovery that creates in our minds a new kind of common origin lying between the levels of the Solar system and the Milky Way. --Wnt (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose According to the article, that star has no known planets and is "one of what may be thousands of" Sun's siblings. However, if this the first known star from the same stellar nursery, I'd rather support. Brandmeistertalk09:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The nominator's claim is filled with excessive peacock terms and hyperbole. The concept of a moving group is already well-established. Claiming that this discovery has a direct effect on our minds is absurd. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The short term effect on your mind is on display right here, and I suspect you will remember this for some time. μηδείς (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Before I read this I was thinking of the Sun as one of a vast galaxy of stars, one no more similar to another except by sheer chance. But now --- I know there are stars that have the same composition as the Sun, made from the same materials in the same place; the worlds of our system are no longer a genus within a phylum, but within a family. This is the discovery of an unknown child of Hyperion, a brother of Helios far away, and it will be exciting to see what it is like. Wnt (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a rather fascinating first, and a unique opportunity. Obviously encyclopedic, and of great interest to our science readers. The fact it has no hot jupiters is totally irrelevant:neither does the sun. μηδείς (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could support this if the article was expanded to include some ramifications from the discovery. Surely having another star from the same stellar nursery illuminates something about our own star? Abductive (reasoning) 16:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Abductive: I've started adding a bunch more info to give a better idea of significance. The location of the nursery isn't apparently known from just two orbits, but as more are identified it should become known. It will take five years or so for a bigger dataset from the Gaia Space Telescope to provide orbits on enough siblings to get that, I think. Wnt (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would look into it now, but I have stuff to do IRL. Is there anything in the literature prior to this discovery about the value of finding siblings? Any hypotheses floating out there that can now be resolved? Abductive (reasoning) 18:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a simple hypothesis is that the Sun formed in a nursery - a priori it's something like a 50-50 chance (I forget the exact number; it's in the body of the preprint). A piece of information to find out is where in the galaxy the Sun formed. A prior failed search from 2010 [5]; a 2012 on "desperately seeking" siblings [6] I haven't tried to start solar sibling, and these are a little afield from the issue of this particular star which hadn't been identified as one when they came out. Wnt (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it has a cute headline, but per Abductive, I'm not really seeing why this is any more important than other universal discoveries. And indeed, to make it appealing to our readers, we have to explain why it is relevant, and in layman terms on the main page. Alex has a point, the whole tabloid "our sun has a sister" nausea is not something an encyclopaedia would consider publishing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The individual ignorance of editors on the significance of subject is not a valid reason for opposition. This article surpasses all policy requirements, and I have proposed an altblurb that should make the significance more clear to non-science majors. μηδείς (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any suggestion that editors are "ignorant" is a direct violation of WP:NPA so editors who are intent on suggesting such should either retract such statements or take the discussion to ANI for other violations. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless I should ask whether you do appreciate the significance of this find. There was a time when all the atoms that make up you and me and the Sun and the Moon were part of one single cosmic cloud somewhere in our galaxy. And this faint star, not even quite visible to the naked eye, was part of that cloud too. But all the other stars you can see in the sky, near and far, were not part of that cloud. And thanks to work like this, we will know where that cloud was. And things like the spread of radioactive elements through it, or perhaps even meteors containing the elusive secrets of the first living things, are now potentially accessible to study. Wnt (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of this portion of the main page. It's not up to me or you to "appreciate the significance" of "this find". I read some tabloids about "it could host planets with alien life" etc, but it's not really "in the news" (real, serious news). ITN isn't about breaking niche scientific speculation I'm afraid. Yes, you can all slate me here and when we meet our cousins from HD 162826 when they pop by, but in the meantime, this isn't actually that interesting to the majority of the known universe, hence its absence in most mainstream news outlets. Giving me a lesson like "There was a time when all the atoms that make up you and me and the Sun and the Moon were part of one single cosmic cloud somewhere in our galaxy." is simply fascinating, but then you could apply that to any discovery. Of anything. Sorry, not that interesting, hence the lack of real news coverage. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a reasonable objection. It's in many of the major news media. Now I'll admit, I tended to just run through search results and add whatever was new from the first one that came up in the search, but it's covered by sources like [7] and [8]. This is not tabloid news. There may be some ennui because people looking for funding have tended to oversell "solar twin"s in the past, which are simply stars a lot like the sun by some arbitrary criteria, but not actually from the same place as the sun. But this is the real deal. Wnt (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Wnt, are you supporting this? If so, I'll mark it ready, since we have majority support and opposition based only on a failure to understand the science, not any objection to unmet criteria. -Oh, nevermind, I see you are the nominator, so I suspect you see why this is important. μηδείς (talk) 04:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a failure to understand the science on my part, it is a desire to have the article be expanded to explain what the discovery means. I just looked at it and its getting there. Abductive (reasoning) 15:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Even as an astronomer, I find myself underwhelmed by this. This star has very similar abundances to the Sun, yes. Those doing the research interpret this as it coming from the same cloud, which is a decent guess but not certain. And even if it did, so what? How does this discovery help us understand the Sun, or star formation? The preprint itself is also much more conservative with its claims than the press reports. Modest Geniustalk18:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see how this changes our view of the world. We always knew siblings of the sun would be out there; that someone has identified one is no doubt a great show of painstaking research, but I'm not seeing it as ITNish. Seems ideal DYK material, though. GoldenRing (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2014 (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: In my view this is a particularly notable example of state censorship - Amnesty International calls it "outrageous", part of a "ruthless campaign to silence peaceful activists". I think it's an important story in relation to the politics of free speech in the Arabian Peninsula (particularly because the Saudi regime is supported by the western nations which claim to value free speech). It's also important re the ongoing trans-national conflict between Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims. --Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 10:35, 9 May 2014 (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, barely qualifies for an article. The general consensus is that earthquakes must exceed M 7.0 for an article. For ITN, the consensus is significant loss of life. The lone exception was the 2011 Virginia earthquake which "was felt by more people than any other quake in U.S. history" and received ridiculous amounts of media attention. Abductive (reasoning) 17:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know you're playing the WikiCup competition Matty, so that's why we're getting so many nominations from you and so many without articles (no point in committing to an article if you won't get any points for it, right?) but it'd be highly preferable if you'd actually create the article before nominating it. Sooner or later your nominations will get short shrift without at least a half-decent stub in place. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not merely playing the Wikicup, I have been at DYK for a while, and this looked like a place to go. As was stated in a previous nomination, there is no problem with nominating to see if it is notable. I even said in the nom here about notability. I may as well see if the topic is notable before writing the article. Also, as far as I am aware, there is nothing in the rules about looking for notability. Matty.00718:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of that, but I find that others' opinions on the notability of a subject is helpful in deciding to write an article. Matty.00718:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would you rather I linked to the umbrella article in the first place then replaced it when I had created the article? Thanks, Matty.00718:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just rather you created an article before nominating it at ITN, rather than waiting for others to decide on your behalf if it's notable. As I said, WP:AFC is the place for that, not ITN/C. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. If it's notable for Wikipedia, write the article. If it's notable for ITN, nominate it. Just because you don't get WikiCup points if it doesn't succeed at ITN, this isn't the place for asking if an article should be written. That's WP:AFC. Stop wasting our time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've never had a problem with people nominating subjects without articles before (althoguh it is less than ideal). As a point of fact, however, I will point out there is no WikiCup risk to creating it first - it can always go trhough DYK if ITN fails. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind someone posting many nominations, as long as they are serious ones. This one isn't (it has no chance) and I hope Matty will learn from it. Don't be discouraged from nominating other stories though. Mohamed CJ(talk)09:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because "causing buildings to sway" (BBC) doesn't seem like enough of an impact to be strongly notable. I don't see any major damage, injuries, etc. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 10:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on process
I'd prefer that editors assume all nominations are made in WP:GOODFAITH rather than imputing motives.
Asking whether a specific event is considered notable seems reasonable to me.
If editors don't want to comment then they don't have to, so I don't see how anyone is being forced to waste their time.
Alternatively we could consider starting a "How notable is this story?" section at Talk.
You are correct about good faith and might be correct about the rest, but it is very hard to properly evaluate the merits of a subject without an article; when someone regularly makes nominations without articles, I can understand the frustration. There are forums to discuss the creation of articles and whether or not they are notable enough to do so; this isn't the forum to do that. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but if someone isn't prepared to write an article unless it's notable enough to be posted at ITN and hence score Wikicup points, but yet is clearly notable enough for an article in any case, my faith is lost. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Think what you will, but I feel the need to explain. I am active a lot at DYK, nominating others' articles (see this for more info). The question was if I nominated someone else's article, such as the Syrian Civil War, would it receive Cup points. I suspected the answer to be know, as it was for DYKs, but wanted to clarify the rules. If you still don't believe me, the only other thing I can point you to is the fact that I have never been reluctant to write a notable article. I have taken your advice on board, I will think twice befoew nominating red links, but please don't lose GF. Matty.00718:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I became disappointed was that you considered ITN to be your benchmark for creating an article, not AFC. Not all articles will be suitable for ITN, but they may still be worth creating. They will not get WikiCup points, I understand that. That's all. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2014 (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.
I agree with the closure, but I think it should have been obvious the appropriate target article was the April earthquake, of which this was an aftershock. A five sentence update of the earlier article would have met the technical requirements. μηδείς (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quite, and the point of "closing" the discussion is that it's "closed". For any further discussion, please start it elsewhere. This nomination is closed. That's closed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2014 Aleppo bomb
Article:2014 Aleppo bomb (talk·history·tag) Blurb: A bomb in Aleppo kills several with estimates of 14 and 50, and destroying several buildings (Post) Alternative blurb: A bomb in Aleppo kills at least 14 people and destroys several buildings News source(s):BBC Credits:
Suggest we remove MV Sewol sinking from Ongoing as stale, and replace with Syrian Civil war given the two recent nominations. μηδείς (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, as the note says at the top of that page "This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably". We need a recent timeline article, not the far-too-girthy overall article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything's about the Cup. Other reasons including the fact I haven't anywhere near the level of expertise, or the interest on creating an article detailing what happened in the Syrian Civil War. Thanks, Matty.00718:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had been considering removing MV Sewol for a couple days and was planning on removing it tonight if there was nothing new on it... I went ahead and removed it now. There is plenty of interest in a Syrian Civil War item, but as noted above (and below it the discussion about it), there isn't an ideal target for the article. The main article is too large and undated infrequently (but probably more often than it shoudl be, hence the too large state). Timelines existed until mid Dec 2013 when the editor(s) maintaining them stopped. Until such time as a 2014 one is created, I am afraid a "ongoing" Syrian item is not too likely. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Syria currently has a full blurb. If supporters want an ongoing item when it cycles off, I suggest they start work on a Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (January 2014–present) article now. It is not actually as much work as it seems - a lot of content can be split from main Civil War article and its history (but please follow WP:Copying within Wikipedia to avoid copyright problems). The creation of that article is the only plausible way to fulfill the ongoing guidelines of content that is regularly updated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The altblurb I think should read "two main parties" or "two dominant parties", but this blurb is not correct anyway as in 1978 the President came from the Unity Party which was a coalition. Belle (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the altblurb to reflect your concerns. There might be a technicality that I'm missing, but the articles I've read consider PUN, CU, and PUSC as the same entities because they had the same members, just reorganized. Mvblair (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Unity Coalition morphed into the PUSC, but the CU president elected in 1978, Rodrigo Carazo, came into the coalition from the Partido Renovación Democrática, so although he links forward to PUSC I wouldn't think he could be considered a member of PUN. Aside from that, PUSC has been losing support for years and can't be considered one of the two main or dominant parties nowadays. I think the altblurb needs too much information adding to make it accurate, which is a shame as it is more interesting than the "man gets job" blurb. Belle (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it all relates to those calderonista lineages. Feel free to change the altblurb and see if we can't get some more support to post it! Mvblair (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is not ITNR(only the election results are), I'm not sure but I'm guessing the results in this case were not posted due to the lack of an update or quality issues. We generally don't post inaugurations or swearings-in barring some unusual circumstance, as it is known they are going to occur and we typically post the election results(and if the results don't get posted, it's unlikely any further developments will be either). 331dot (talk) 10:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall, there were two different nominations, somebody suggested merging them and that didn't happen, so it just went ignored. Mvblair (talk) 11:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That rings true for a lot of nominations, definitely! In this case, the article history shows it was definitely updated the days of the election, but there wasn't enough interest (from me or whoever else) to merge the two nominations. Mvblair (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Prof. Colin Pillinger was a larger than life character replete with mutton chop whiskers, picturesque regional accent and loud shirts, who was the public face of the Beagle 2 mission, but whose career as a planetary scientist and science communicator went right back to the Apollo missions, where he performed sample analysis. He was also Gresham Professor of Astronomy, an important science communication post inaugurated in 1596, a Fellow of the Royal Society, the Royal Astronomical Society and Royal Geographical Society, and awarded CBE for services to science. Addendum from HuffPo obit: "It was the first time that an individual researcher had sent a craft into space to search for life, and was widely admired and closely followed by the public". --Guy (Help!) 10:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see that he meets the death criteria. The Beagle mission was a failure, being quoted frequently by the media is not a reliable indication of scientific importance, and I don't see any evidence that his work on the Apollo samples and other matters was of great significance. Neljack (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really? How many Mars missions are there in an average year, failed or otherwise? How many of these are run on a budget of tuppence ha'penny from the Open University? How many rate a Doctor Who episode? And in what way does the success or failure of the mission change the amount of coverage it got worldwide? How many British academics get an obit in HuffPo? Guy (Help!) 11:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The awards section is mostly referenced to Pillinger's personal website at current, which creates a neutrality issue. If that can be fixed (i.e. if third parties have made note of these awards), I think he will meet the RD criteria. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Although he was a controversial figure, he was one of very few scientists to be known to the (UK) public. His fame mostly comes from the failed Beagle 2 lander, but he also did other significant work (which isn't entirely reflected in the article). The article is short but decent enough. Declaring a possible conflict of interest: I've met him a few times, and had a chat with him just a month ago. Modest Geniustalk23:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Badawi was first arrested in August 2012. His initial sentence was overturned by an appeal court last December and now at retrial he got a harsher sentence(!). Amnesty International has designated him a prisoner of conscience. CNN said he is a "Prominent Saudi activist" and that "His trial, guilty verdict, sentence and imprisonment has caused immense outrage among international rights groups". His lawyer, Waleed Abulkhair was arrested last month. This cases highlights the worsening conditions of human rights and freedom of expression in Saudi Arabia. Mohamed CJ(talk)09:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Much like the Pu Zhiqiang nomination below, this seems like par for the course for Saudi Arabia (which still doesn't allow women to drive a car) but I can't cite a specific reason to oppose it or support it. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is similar that both are advocating for human rights in their countries. The difference is that Zhiqiang was arrested and not yet charged or convicted while Badawi was given a harsher sentence after a retrial (10 years for running a website is too much even for Saudi Arabia). Mohamed CJ(talk)13:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my view this is a particularly notable example of state censorship - Amnesty International calls it "outrageous", part of a "ruthless campaign to silence peaceful activists". I think it's an important story in relation to the politics of free speech in the Arabian Peninsula (particularly because the Saudi regime is supported by the western nations which claim to value free speech).
It's also important re the ongoing trans-national conflict between Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims.
This kind of thing has happened before and will probably happen again. I don't think that should count against it; we post plenty of recurring news.
Weak oppose as I'm often told, Wikipedia isn't here to right great wrongs. A single person with a typically harsh sentence from the Saudi authorities for breaking their perception of their laws, business as usual I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support In my head I agree with The Rambling Man, but since Wikipedia isn't really here to be a news outlet either, I'm not going with my head. If we are going to have news we can do worse than draw attention to this poor man's treatment. I prefer Mohamed CJ's blurb although I don't see why we should report the fine in USD - the fine is a million riyal. Belle (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 331dot. I'm not naive enough to think we could right great wrongs with a line on the main page and a neutrally worded blurb isn't advocacy: if anybody thinks 1000 lashes and 10 years in prison is a fitting punishment for blogging nothing in the blurb tells them we think otherwise. I thought I'd be honest, that's all. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper either, yet here we are discussing what headlines should make the front page. Belle (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you aren't quite being honest with yourself if you are trying to say that with conviction. I don't mind the news. Belle (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My comment has nothing to do with me or what I might like(I like news too), but with what the purpose of ITN is, as listed at WP:ITN. 331dot (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone tell me the difference between "American shoots at a public place" and |Saudi dissident jailed"? –HTD16:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since, according to you, there aren't apparently any differences between the two, and the former gets to be shot down here pretty frequently, then does it follow that this should be too? –HTD17:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose Saudi legal system handing out a Saudi verdict. Being an unjust law or an excessive sentence for a minor crime doesn't make it any more ITN worthy than handing out of a 10 year sentence in any other country (with or without corporal punishment attached). The difference between this and the American example above is this is expected (court handing out punishment), someone mass shooting in a public place is not expected (despite it happening regularly). --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. At the top of the list right now we have someone nominating the 59th Eurovision Song Contest, which is a formal shoo-in under ITN/R. This is just the Saudi Arabian equivalent - how they honor some of their best content creators. I think it's really remarkable that for a sponsored contest with a slick professionally written page covering everything a consumer needs to know (and nothing else) it's a lock for inclusion that it is a recurring event, but for an event of national, even global political significance the fact that the event may recur is given as a reason to exclude it. Maybe we should just rent out this ITN space by the column inch. Wnt (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pro-Russian militants recapture the city hall of the southern Ukrainian city of Mariupol hours after the Ukrainian government forces took control of the building from the militants. (BBC News)
Five pro-Russian militants are killed and fifteen more are captured during clashes with the Ukrainian military in the outskirts of the southern city of Mariupol. (CNN)
Russian President Vladimir Putin says that Ukraine's presidential election on May 25 is a step "in the right direction", calling on anti-Kyiv protesters to postpone a May 11 federalization referendum. Putin also added qualifying conditions.(BBC News)
An alleged American FBI agent is arrested in Pakistan for carrying ammunition while trying to board a flight, which is in violation of their anti-terror laws. (BBC News)
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: Highly acclaimed Canadian Author. The article has an orange tag on it in the literary career section, hopefully that can be remedied. --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like he meets the notability criteria, but article will need considerable work (almost all of it has poor referencing) before it can be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this if and when the article is cleaned up so it meets minimum standards. Clearly worthwhile on the merits, we just need an article worthy of highlighting. --Jayron3218:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment agree with ThaddeusB above, there appears to be sufficient notability for this individual to qualify for RD, but the article is really sub-standard and needs serious work before it's suitable for the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, along with Mordecai Richler, the most famous Canadian author. That is, there might be authors from Canada who are more famous, but their readers wouldn't even know that they were from Canada, if you get what I mean. Mowat and Richler help differentiate Canada from Britain and the US. Abductive (reasoning) 01:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment complete agreement, the article is in terrible shape, poor to non-existent referencing is the least of the articles issues. I have done some cleanup, but not nearly enough. I won't have time to get to it today (or probably tomorrow), but I have reached out to WP:CANADA for some assistance. If nothing else the article will get some copyediting. Best, --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can we have another review of the article to see if it is fit to print, there has been some significant referencing done (by myself and others), and I think it is in better shape. The tag has been removed (not by me). --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article has definitely improved a lot. I would be neutral on quality now as there are still many [citation needed] tags. If things continue to be improved, I should be able to move to support soon. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support once the citation tags depart (I think ISBNs may suffice, as in the rest of publications), looks notable enough. Even a ship was named after him. Brandmeistertalk
Are we to take it this guy's a Canadian jingoist, and because of that he's a much better nomination than your average non-Canadiac Canadian who's simply a good writer? The rationales above certainly can't actually mean what they imply, can they? μηδείς (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Its in teh news and the latest of teh Syrian civil war. Sicne we dont have a target article for the ongoing, this should fit. First phase already occurring. Aftyer a spate of recent advances its clear the tide is turning and i dont beleive we posted many of those battlefield success which were as notable due to startegy but this is notable as the "birthplace of the uposiring". nip it in the bud. Lihaas (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm...this is not the MAIN space. no one is seeing it. we are deciding on its worth for ITN. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is here, and especially as its on talk pages. Considering we have a MAIN spave article entitled Fall of Constantinople...just because something is not to western proclivities doesn't make it wrong.Lihaas (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well if people were objective enough to judge content instead of personalisty politics then maybe we would not bee so dumbed-down...nevertheless, we don't refactor other comments] on personal whime TALK pages.Lihaas (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is not "begin withdrawal" in the sense that they seem to be losing a battle and so are pulling back from a front line. According to the BBC ([10]) the UN and Iran have negotiated a truce to allow rebels to leave Homs, which they are doing in an organised way. It is not a surrender; the deal allows each person leaving one backpack of kit and a rifle to go with them ([11]). This is the significant thing we're waiting for, as far as the civil war in Homs goes. GoldenRing (talk) 08:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do not support linking the current outdated article. Siege of Homs should be the one linked. In addition, the blurb could mention that the city is now under government control. Mohamed CJ(talk)19:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Homs is one of the largest cities in Syria, so this is definitely significant. I agree that the blurb should state that the city is now under govt control, and that the Siege of Homs should be the one linked.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ALT2: Syrian government armed forces capture the strategic city of Homs after Rebels withdraw under a UN- and Iran-brokered truce. Modify it if needed. I obviously support posting the story now. Mohamed CJ(talk)09:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the blurb should clarify that that this was not an immediate takeover of the entire city. It was a gradual process that took years. Perhaps it should say something along the lines of "Syrian government forces capture all of the strategic city of Homs after three years of siege and a rebel withdrawal under a UN- and Iran-brokered truce"--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: The latest reports are that 200 people have been killed by Boko Haram. I think this conflict and violence is worthy enough for the Ongoing line. Andise1 (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Linked article has multiple issues (orange tags) and is not updated. I would support if a blurb is suggested instead and a suitable article is linked (or this one fixed). Mohamed CJ(talk)15:04, 7 May 2014 (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.
Mild support certainly been headlining news outlets in my jurisdiction for the past 24 hours, and while Thailand isn't exactly known for stability in this regard, this is a significant occurrence. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per TRM; heads of government removed against their will due to malfeasance in office is usually notable. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I added an altblurb which makes it clear which of the parties is abusing power and highlights that the Prime Minister is a woman. Belle (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per TRM. I think something like the altblurb is preferable because, particarlarly in such a politically controversial matter, we don't want to give the impression of taking sides by appearing to assert that there has in fact been abuse of power. That is the Court's opinion, and we should report it as such rather than giving the impression of adopting it ourselves. Neljack (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - article has a couple yellow tags for excessive detail. While not serious enough to prevent posting, it would be nice if someone attemtped to address them before posting. Update looks adequate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - with her image, i'm seriously tired of seeing snooker players on the main page... there was one before the current picture..--Stemoc (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
easy support ALT blurb came here to nominate it myself. Not only is it an ouster in a major country with a recent conflict, but it pertains to that ongoing conflict from the election. (one could acall it another coup int he world...)Lihaas (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Impeachment of a sitting head of government by a court should always be ITN-worthy, especially in this case where it may have massive implications on the country's political landscape, and future development is completely open. Maybe the yellow tag issues cannot be solved before posting. The need for improvement is not that massive and readers know that our articles (especially on current events) are always in a developing process. Perhaps posting it on the main page will even invite other users to volunteer and improve the article. --RJFF (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posted, albeit with tags, as they are more of the positive kind; too much information rather than too little or unreferenced. Stephen01:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment: I wonder if the editors here were aware that her term as prime minister had already ended when she dissolved the House of Representatives back in December? It was from her post as caretaker prime minister (which has been extended due to the failure of the February elections) that she was removed. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article:Synthetic DNA (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Scientists in San Diego, California develop synthetic DNA, using base pairs not found in nature, and raising the possibility of life forms based on a different genetic code from that found on Earth. (Post) Alternative blurb: Scientists create the first living organism containing synthetic DNA. (a little dramatic, but that's the headline from the WSJ article [12] and the Huff Post [13]) Altblurb2: Scientists in San Diego, California develop synthetic DNA, using base pairs not found in nature, and raising the possibility of genetically creating novel amino acids with medical and commercial applications. (a less dramatic blurb if the above are considered over the top) News source(s):Scientists Add Letters to DNA’s Alphabet, Raising Hope and FearFirst life forms to pass on artificial DNA engineered by US scientists Credits:
Nominator's comments: A dramatic development in science, which other researchers thought was not possible, getting headline treatment from reliable sources --MelanieN (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There has been scads of horrible science reporting about this. Wikipedia does not do "drama". here is a very reasonable, nonsensational report on what was published. Something like "In May 2014, researchers announced that they had successfully introduced two new artificial nucleotides into bacterial DNA, and by including individual artificial nucleotides in the culture media, were able to passage the bacteria 24 times; the bacteria could not make the artificial nucleotides themselves, nor could the bacteria create mRNA from the artificial nucleotides, nor could the bacteria make proteins based on the artificial nucleotides." please do not make a sensational blurb out of this. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The bacteria cannot make the artificial nucleotides themselves; mRNA cannot be made from it, and tRNA will have to be worked in that could recognize the artificial amino acids, and you would have to create a way for bacteria to synthesize the artificial amino acids themselves (which means whole enzyme pathways have to be engineered in) and ribosomes would maybe have to re-engineered too ... there is LOADS of work that has to be done until we will get anywhere close to cells that can make and use artificial amino acids. "genetically creating novel amino acids with medical and commercial applications" is a) kind of nonsensical and b) today, still way, way way out of reach. Please don't blow this up as though there will be commercial application anytime soon. That kind of bad science reporting just jerks the public around and misrepresents how much work there is left to do. THe articles about this say that the guy worked for like 15 years just to get these base pairs that work! Biology is nothing like tech, where we went from no smart phones to smart phones everywhere in just a couple of years. Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov rules out any fresh talks in Geneva to defuse the crisis unless pro-Russian groups are also involved. (BBC News)
Thirty young men join the ranks of the Swiss Guards today, taking an oath of allegiance to Pope Francis and promising to serve the Church by protecting him and his successors. Present at the guards' swearing-in are a number of Vatican dignitaries, the new Swiss ambassador to the Holy See, Pierre-Yves Fux, and Archbishop Giovanni Angelo Becciu, who is the Substitute for General Affairs of the Secretariat of State. (Catholic News Agency)
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: According to the source cited above, "Dana earned numerous awards and honors over the years, including the NASA Exceptional Service Medal, the Lancaster Aerospace Walk of Honor and the NASA Distinguished Service Medal." Not sure if this is distinguished enough for an RD, though. --Jinkinsontalk to me22:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Dont know much about wrestling boxing (whoops, silly me! That's the last time I assume that "heavyweight" must be a wrestling title.) so i'll let someone who does decide whether a WBA heavyweight title is important enough for RD. Also, I was wondering why everyone is suddenly using level 3 headers rather than level 4 ones as indicated by this page's editnotice. --Jinkinsontalk to me01:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the headers - I wondered why things looked a bit different... most likely someone used one by accident or due to inexperience and then others kept copying it without thinking about what was normal. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support To clarify, this is about boxing, not pro wrestling. I certainly wouldn't support the latter. Jimmy Ellis fought in the time when it was clearer who the top heavyweights were. He won a tournament against serious opposition to win his world title. He once beat Muhammad Ali. He was good. HiLo48 (talk) 05:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose won a world title and defended it once, controversially being awarded the win. Otherwise unremarkable. And article is a mess. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: One of the complaints we get about ITN occasionally is systematic bias in recent death postings. To fix that, I am going to make an effort to nominate people from non-English speaking countries... Although her death has not (yet) been picked up by English language media, I believe Maria Lassnig qualifies as "top of her field". She was awarded the Grand Austrian State Prize in 1988 and the Austrian Decoration for Science and Art in 2005. The later award is the highest honor in Austria and can only be held by 18 living Austrians (across all the fields of science and art) at one time. She won the Golden Lion lifetime achievement award in 2013. She has over 50 works in the Museum of Modern Art. Die Welt refers to her as the "Grand Dame of Austrian painting". --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Venice Biennale is the most prestigious contemporary art event in the world, so winning the Golden Lion for Lifetime Achievement there certainly indicates that she's a very important figure in her field. The art website Gallerist describes her as a "giant of postwar painting" and says that her "paintings affected generations of artists over the course of her 70-plus-year career".[14] I imagine this will get picked up by the English-language media - it seems the news only broke hours ago - but of course English-language coverage is not a requirement. Neljack (talk) 02:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose absolutely no evidence of her importance outside the very incestuous and awrd-heavy art world. If there were one popular work showing her influence like the influence of Magritte, Dali, Michaelangelo, or even Munch outside her field of galleries, academia and bureaucrats this would be supportworthy. μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The death criteria instruct us to consider whether the person "was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field", not outside of it. The idea that we should ignore what other artists and people involved with art say about her is very odd. If a sportsperson died, would we ignore what others involved in that sport had to say about their significance? Or what actors, directors and film critics had to say if an actor died? Or what other physicists had to say if a physicist died? Frankly, μηδείς, your personal opinion about the merits of the art world is not relevant. Neljack (talk) 03:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Widely? Like New Jersey, which is bigger than Austria, and had the good sense to do away with it's poet laureate position? I'll grant Vienna's a heck of a lot nicer than Trenton. 04:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Medeis: 1) Sign your comments (the above was a Pointless Medies CommentTM), 2) Stop being obnoxious. Yes, a sovereign nation holds more weight in this case than a single sub-national entity. As for the nom, don't know anything about art, so can't comment. Fgf10 (talk) 07:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
μηδείς, it's the Venice Biennale, not the Vienna Biennale. It ain't limited to Austrians. Her reputation was worldwide - she was regarded as a very important figure in art generally, not just Austrian art. See also the link in my initial "Support" comment to a New York-based art magazine calling her a "giant of postwar painting". Neljack (talk) 07:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down, User:Fgf10, and User:Neljack. I said nothing about the 'Vienna Biennale', did I? I merely admitted that although Austria is far less important on the world stage than New Jersey, nowadays, it does have a far nicer capital. Your use of a straw man and a personal attack in response to this is obvious rage, if hard to understand. The fact remains that this artist is the recipient of esoteric awards given by institutions that ... exist to give awards. Had this woman actually had any real cultural importance her works would be known by the public and alluded to in popular works, like artists such as Keith Haring, Roy Lichtenstein, Georgia O'Keefe, or any of the Wyeths. But that doesn't seem to be the case. μηδείς (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
μηδείς, I did not mean to imply that you had referred to the "Vienna Biennale" or to personally attack you. I apologise if it came across in that way. It was just intended to be a jocular illustration of my point about her reputation being international not just Austrian. The perils of attempts at humour on the internet, I guess. Neljack (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think you need to be a Michaelangelo to appear in RD. She's not famous outside Austria and the German speaking areas, sure, but Die Welt calls her "one of Austria's greatest contemporary artists", and the Austrian national broadcaster has news of her death on the front page. Seems to be the top of her field in her area. Smurrayinchester07:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could you further elaborate why you think this story is significant? (e.g. Does this mark a shift in China's attitude toward pro-democracy protests?) Thanks. Mohamed CJ(talk)17:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not ready to formally weigh in yet but I second what Mohamed has asked; on its face China jailing those who supported or currently discuss the Tiananmen protests seems par for the course for them. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mohamed CJ:, thanks for the question. I guess I find it particularly notable because its so similar to what's happened at previous anniversaries. To me it seems to belie the notion that China's society is becoming less repressive as it interacts more with the West, in economic terms. Which I find a bit surprising. I'm guessing this is why it's getting attention in the business press, as well as those sources which see it purely as a human rights issue.
Also of course there is the human rights issue in itself, affecting 1.35bn people. But I'm not sure if lack of change can be news...
Neutral. Much like the others here, I can't cite a specific reason to oppose posting it, but I don't see a reason to support it either. 331dot (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the 'recurring event' ('business as usual'/'groundhog day') issue: Many of the news stories we use happen frequently (e.g. tornadoes in tornado-prone-areas, earthquakes in earthquake-prone-areas). Some of them happen so frequently that we have them listed in WP:ITN/R - and that counts in their favour when it comes to listing them. So I don't think that the fact that this is a recurring event should count against it. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 09:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: These are both ongoing conflicts, in the news and of high notablity due to its precarious situation. Nom for ongoing, not blurb. --Lihaas (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a difficult nom at best without something concrete to tie these together. As for the specific suggestion of ongoing status I don't believe that to be appropriate - where you have a series of related events nominated that all tie into the same ongoing situation ongoing status is appropriate. It seems of late the status has been handed out like candy in the absence of events that would even be nominated - "Oh, this is a notable situation even though it does not have notable events". That starts to make the section look increasingly tickerish. 3142 (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support to "ongoing" (per nom?). I was actually thinking of nominating these myself. Central African Republic almost constantly in the real news (if not on ITN) and ditto, although to a lesser extent, South Sudan. Plus I believe that only having the Ukraine crisis as a major conflict listed implies that others are not...Brigade Piron (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't the ongoing line for blurbs that are removed while still being in the news? (I didn't participated in the discussion) I feel that we are treating it like a sticky. I prefer nominating significant developments in both countries when/if they occur. Mohamed CJ(talk)17:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what it was originally intended for. When the trial ends, one of the points that will need decided is if it should also link to other ongoing events... At the very least, any target article needs to be receiving regular updates, or there is no point to linking it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox.jpg)
