This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually - a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
A Texas nurse tests positive for Ebola. The health care worker is the first person to contract the disease in the United States of America, the first infection in the US to occur by secondary contact, and the second in the world sickened from exposure outside of the African continent. (AP)
Cave paintings in Asia found to predate those in Europe
Article:Cave painting (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Cave paintings on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi are dated to be at least 39,900 years old, predating those found in the European Chauvet Cave. (Post) Alternative blurb: Cave paintings on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi are dated to be at least 39,900 years old, making it the earliest known examples of human art. News source(s):Nature, BBC Credits:
Nominator's comments: Vast different in location and timing is putting some interesting questions on the development of human intelligence/art as known at the time --MASEM (t) 17:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurb given sea-level changes since 40kya, what cave art does still exist and is accessible is a crapshoot by locality. There's no meaningful competition, and these hand signatures are certainly not unique, while the known big game paintings (which happen to be occidental) show much more skill and informative value. Let's have a more neutral, "oldest yet found identified in sulawesi" type blurb. μηδείς (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While it is a hand outline that is ~40k, there is also "a pig that has a minimum age of 35,400 years old", which would outdate the big game ones in Europe too. And yes, while a crapshot, it's not so much who had the oldest but the fact that we've got two very different geological regions with paintings in (human terms at the time) roughly near the same time frame, give or take a few thousand years, which is interesting from a human intelligence development standpoint. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Predate, not outdate, unless pigs are out of fashion? :) My gerenal point is not one of Gallic pride, but let's image in we get ground sloths or Megalania prisca? Would the date or location matter so much as the discovery? Comparing this to Europe disparages but Europe and the find, as if it were a soccer competition. Implicit in my iVote is a support, I just figured the nominator could off an altblurb. μηδείς (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided an alt blurb to take out the comparison, however, I still feel that noting this wasn't the European caves is what is more interesting about the discovery, not so much the age beyond being "about" the same time. --MASEM (t) 19:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and suggest closing: I have one simple request: show me a source that makes these claims. Without that this simply can't go up. The sources given do not make the claims given here: the BBC state this is among the earliest art found. The Nature abstract states this finding is the earliest dated hand stencil - that's a very specific category and not synonymous with "art", before we even consider the distinction between "dated" (claimed by the sources) and "known" (claimed by the blurb). I suggest closing this discussion now since it's always difficult to unravel editor's intent when a blurb gets carried away with hyperbole like this. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 20:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sudoku? But seriously, if the phrasing of the blurb is a problem, suggest a new blurb MI. Otherwise, we're suggesting that we run a story that reports what Nature and the BBC are reporting. Is there a real issue here? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a particular art method - one of countless. The fact that it is the earliest dated artwork to use that method does not make it the earliest artwork. Where is the source for the headline claim made in this proposal, i.e. not that it is the first hand stencil but the first artwork of any form? And no, TRM, this is not modified blurb time at least without a lot more discussion, since correcting this makes for a fundamentally different story with a different level of notability: "first artwork" is an altogether more important story than "first hand stencil". I suspect you would have to explain to the average person what is meant by the second term. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I think is an irrelevance: instead I look to the experts and published sources and see what they say. Yes, I am paying attention to what those sources claim. Here I see that they say it is of a broadly comparable period to the previous earliest dated artworks and is the earliest example of a particular method being used. I do not then go on to embroider, adding on details that those experts do not claim to be the case in order to falsely bolster its supposed notability. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb but oppose alt blurb. This is ITN-worthy news, but we need to reflect what the sources say with some care. They describe the works as "at least compatible in age with the oldest European art"; as "the oldest known hand stencil"; as "among the earliest dated figurative depictions"; as "some of the earliest cave paintings produced by humans"; as "transform[ing] ideas about how humans first developed the ability to produce art". The sources do not say they are "the earliest known examples of human art", and nor should we. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Turkey agrees to allow the training of 2,000 Syrian opposition forces on its soil as Islamic State militants approach to within 1 mile of the centre of the border city of Kobani. (Wall Street Journal)
At least seven people die and approximately 40 are injured at a stampede at a political rally by Pakistan opposition leader Imran Khan in the city of Multan. (BBC)
The American city of St. Louis prepares for a weekend of protests after eight people were arrested protesting another death in the suburb of Ferguson, Missouri this week. (Reuters)
Oppose at this time. I'm still seeing this in the news, even if not a top story, and the article is still getting updates as Spencer points out. 331dot (talk) 02:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Three people in Mali, which has had no cases, are injected with an experimental vaccine against the Ebola virus, the first such trial in Africa. (Haaretz)
The local KGB in Minsk arrests about 100 Ukrainian and 30 Belarusian soccer fans at a qualifying match between Ukraine and Belarus for the 2016 European Championship after they a sang the song, Putin-Huilo! (which roughly translates as "Putin is a dickhead!"). (FP)
Kim Jong-un, the leader of North Korea, fails to show at an event marking the 69th anniversary of the founding of the Workers' Party of Korea, increasing speculation about his prolonged absence from public view. (BBC)
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
I wouldn't be opposed to you removing it on those grounds. Not sure who posted it(I don't think it was when I wrote this, but not sure). 331dot (talk) 09:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question, not an ITN regular. Is the quality of the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize article, started by User:Rsrikanth05 and expended by us both, sufficient for ITN or would you expect something more, better, different (and if so, what?). It will be expanded of course, but just wondering whether it is acceptable as it stands (no opinion on the other two articles, one at a time!). Fram (talk) 10:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the article on Satyarthi needs massive Copyediting ASAP. Malala article seems in decent shape with the article I created a while ago shaping up nicely. I'll do my best to straighten out both articles. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, it's not about your message, it's about the fact that someone posted this entry to the main page without waiting for the consensus here (which was not dependent on the notability of the event, which is clear, but on the quality of the articles, which is or was insufficient for Satyarthi. You did nothing wrong. Fram (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pending one fix in Satyarthi's article (one CN tag, about his claims supported by others, should seem an easy fix), for at least posting to ITN. Expansion of Satyarthi's article to be covered will come in time but the state it is in, ignoring that CN tag, is good for ITN alongside Yousafzai's which is in great shape. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you take up the issue with the admin User:Legoktm who decided to post this before any discussion had taken place. Of course, if you deem his/her actions to be inappropriate, you could request someone (Arbcom?) to de-sysop him/her. Thankfully, between the out-of-process post and now, we have a couple of half-decent articles. You could continue to complain about it, but there's nothing much to be achieved now, other than educating Legotkm in the ways of ITN. Good luck with that! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 11 October 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.
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 When I saw she died, I knew someone would nominate her here. Castmember of SNL and a few roles are not "top of the field" material. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:15, 10 October 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 needs updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: About 6 hours to go for the announcement, perhaps we can post it soon after instead of dilly-dallying. Nobel season is almost over...excluding the rubbish "award" tomorrow. Lihaas (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we need to ensure the quality of the update is sufficient. This isn't dithering or dilly-dallying, it's maintaining the quality standards of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Starting to sound like a broken record Lihaas. A very broken record. Please focus on the articles, not the individuals. Your downward spiral is .... concerning. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Obviously. Puzzling that Modiano remains largely unknown in English. Guess I'll have to read La Place de l'étoile in German. (BTW, Modiano's already on German Wiki's version of ITN.) Sca (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per all other Nobel ITNC's this week, the target article should be the writer. That article needs a bit of referencing help. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm unclear here, the quality of the article and the significance/notability of the award should not be conflated. The award is ITNR so that's a given, unless there's a serious argument against it, in which case WP:ITN/R is your destination. If the quality of the update is insufficient, then please just say that rather than obfuscate any position you may hold. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "for the art of memory with which he has evoked the most ungraspable human destinies and uncovered the life-world of the occupation." Is that really the exact words of the Swedish Academy? If we're going to include this rather exuberant statement in the blurb, is it worth showing who the statement is attributed to?--WaltCip (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That the prize is notable does not mean the winner is. For example, Obama was voted his "peace prize" after less than a month in office. See above: "Modiano remains largely unknown in English". Sometimes being listed in de.itn is enough. It's rather racist of us to presume this is the real wikipedia, because we don't speak a foreign language here. 05:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Support the blurb. The importance of the Nobel Prize overrides any other matter, and as for the other prizes, the motivation (or a motivation) should be given. If the question is article quality, then the Nobel Prize implies that this should be improved.130.238.58.29 (talk) 07:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment ITN doesnt always get things as fast as CNN or twitter. im not familiar with the article's history but it should be no surprise that an article about an author with a limited publication history in English may have needed work to be ready. It took us one day. 'Ridiculous ' sounds unwarranted . --Johnsemlak (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: As peeps know, its no mean feat to form a government in Belgium. Additionally for the first time in 26 years the socialists are not in government (and we posted a subnational election that democratically kicked out communists from government as notable enough for ITN) and it is also a Flemish-led government with a Waloon PM. Hes also the youngest PM [2] possibly in Europe. Michel Government is also a work in progress \Lihaas (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support given the length of the formation process. I agree that linking to the government formation article is a good idea. Neljack (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support weren't the Belgians without a federal government for a large part of this century? Am not sure how classical liberal they are, but the fact that it's not a leftist government is also of interest, although not in itself importnat. Suggest a blurb something like, after X,XXX days without a government, Michel is named PM. μηδείς (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's important to note, per at least one preceding comment, that the length of this impasse warrants noting. The article, however is terrible and needs serious work before it can be placed onto the main page. I'll see what I can do. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2014 (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.
Comment I'm fairly new to the ITN process, but how can you post something when no one expressed an opinion about the article's quality? With all due respect. Mattaidepikiw(Talk)21:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are some stories that are ITNR, meaning that there is a pre-existing consensus to post them. When the articles are updated (which is decided by an admin), they can get posted straight forward. --Tone09:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that user is asking if the quality of the article was sufficiently judged, not the merits of posting this item. Did you judge the quality to be adequate? (which is OK if you did, just wondering) 331dot (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think the article is OK, I am only surprised that it could be posted with no user input about the quality of the article or no discussion about the blurb. No biggie, though. Mattaidepikiw(Talk)13:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A hospital in the northern Iraqi city of Tal Afar says that 29 suspected ISIL fighters were killed in airstrikes last night. (CNN)
Kurds clash violently with Turkish police over failure to help Kurds under siege in the Syrian border city of Kobani under siege by ISIL forces. At least fourteen people have died in the clashes. (AP)
Supertyphoon Vongfong becomes the most intense storm of the year as it heads for Japan. (Live Science)
A major search operation is underway for the Sunrise-689, a Vietnamese vessel carrying 18 crew members and 5,226 tonnes of oil which lost both radio and radar contact on October 3 40 minutes after its departure from Singapore. (International Business Times)
International relations
Burma pledges to release 3000 prisoners a month before it hosts a Southeast Asian summit. (Reuters)
Protesters who filled Hong Kong's streets for more democracy lessened Tuesday after the government finally agreed to negotiate with the student leaders. (CBC)
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.
Oppose neither a head of state nor sitting at time of death, nothing remarkable mentioned in article, which is stub-quality. μηδείς (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; typically "high ranking office of power" means high government officials(heads of state and possibly government), not the leaders of organizations. Not seeing how the named organization (and by extension its leader) is "powerful". 331dot (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not convinced of his importance from his bio, nor the importance of his office from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association page. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ITN's lord and master and dictartor extraordinare, their is plenty of stuff that is in the news and not that you deem appropriate and goes on or stays out. cherry pick the argument doesn't work no more (one can hope anyways)Lihaas (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose May be "high-ranking" but not in the way I would interpret the RD guideline. Even giving some leeway to that, I'm not seeing a career in that role that makes him outstanding. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 8 October 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.
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.
ITNR still requires the article(s) to be updated and of sufficient quality, and thus can be opposed based on that. --MASEM (t) 19:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I said 'no need to support', not 'there's not possible reason to oppose'. Even in that situation, it's really a 'wait for better update' rather than opposing. Modest Geniustalk10:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Akasaki and Amano's articles need some work before posting. Alternatively, we can bold the LED link. --Tone12:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posted - Since we are going to be doing these daily, let's be consistent: not use quotes, not bold the Nobel prize link, and bold the winners or the topic, whichever is more appropriate or in better condition. JehochmanTalk00:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no consensus that the winners' articles are in suitable shape for bold links. Due to quality concerns, everyone expressing an opinion on the matter (including the one editor who initially suggested such a format) agreed that a different article should be bold-linked instead. Also note that the Isamu Akasaki article has contained an orange-level tag since 2007 (expanded to include a second issue this month), which usually is considered an automatic disqualifier. Per the above discussion, I've shifted the bold link to Light-emitting diode#Ultraviolet and blue LEDs. —David Levy04:45, 9 October 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.
Nominator's comments: Akin to South Sudan this is similar (albeit not as violent) and another result of mediation by regional (smaller) organisations, this time the SADC. --Lihaas (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support An important agreement resolving a significant political crisis. I amended the blurb to indicate that the government has also agreed to this deal and have fixed a wikilink in it. Neljack (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article needs work. For instance, I spotted an obvious typo in the second sentence of the lead text, as well as an unattributed statement in the "Background" section. Tighten it up and I'd support posting this.--WaltCip (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lesotho might be a small country, but coup attempts are noteworthy. The article is well-sourced and well-written. --Tocino12:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose considered nominating but theres nothing recently landmark about it. Splitting off to make it competitively viable has recently been tried (ebay) and wqas planned before whatsherhame Came to HPLihaas (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I can make a case for this. First, business news is a topic rarely posted on ITN. Personally I think that this is because we set fairly unrealistic restrictions on what news is posted in the business sector. Although we have rejected stories for mergers before due to limited size and scope, we have never posted news about a large business splitting, which given the past few years of economic downturn is a rare occurrence. Hewlett-Packard also has sizable market penetration, being the top PC manufacturer in the world and a significant distributor of business solutions. This news is even getting front-page coverage on several major news sites.--WaltCip (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Until the action actually happens - that's been the method of dealing with business deals in the past is posting at the point of actual happening and not on the announcement. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually not certain if I support this or not, but I haven't really understood that. Typically it is the announcement that gets more news coverage than the actual occurrence of the business related event- which can then be rejected on the basis of not getting enough coverage. Seems circular to me (can't post until it happens, but it gets no/little coverage when it happens) but I guess this isn't really the place to debate it. :) 331dot (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with 331dot; the procedural acquisition or splitting of a company after the announcement is always a news side-story, which results in a vicious cycle of the item never being posted on ITN due to perceived lack of notability, even though the announcement clearly is garnering heavy coverage (and for example, we have a precedence of posting election results prior to inaugurations). I think we need some more clarification on what can be posted for business stories, just so that we can be realistic.--WaltCip (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reason to wait is because the actual event (split, merger, buyout, whatever) may not happen due to a number of possible issues, whether shareholder votes, gov't intervention, or the like. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's crystal ball-ing. No one knows what will happen in the future with any event(a PM/Presidential winner could die before taking office(we post election results without waiting for the government to take office), a sports team or individual athlete could have its title stripped, etc.). As I said, that is circular reasoning resulting in few if any business stories posted. There seems to be little doubt that this event will occur- I also don't think there are any antitrust regulatory issues here which might prevent it from happening. 331dot (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obama's was the first pumpkinification of a communistforeign national as US president, somewhat unique but it should no be considered as a precedent here. 21:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what relevance your personal political views have to this(if that's even what your statement is), but I was merely stating a fact. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd've oppposed the overlisting of his underaccomplishments even had be been a Bush, or a Nazi. I was agreeing with WaltCip. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add that I've tried to add "announcements" of business changes (plans to acquire, etc.) in the past, but the argument has always been "wait for the event", so I've stuck to that, but I would be willing to work towards consensus that such announcements, if they are significant in the business world, should be the point they should be announced at ITN, even if that means later we have to announce the cancellation of that event. --MASEM (t) 22:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an unreasonable idea to post a follow-up story if a proposed merger/split is denied due to antitrust regulations or other commensurate factors. To some degree, the denial of the business transaction can be just as notable as the business transaction itself. We're not meant to be soothsayers or speculators; we should just report what's in the news (within reason).--WaltCip (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm persuaded by 331dot's arguments above that this is the right time to post this - mainly because now is when it is In The News. GoldenRing (talk) 02:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support given the extensive coverage and the splitting of a notable company. As I stated above, it is circular reasoning to wait until this actually occurs before posting, and I have not read that there are any antitrust issues here to prevent this split. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It won't if you have an ASUS. Those em-effers weigh 15lbs a piece. When my dad throws his HP with Windows 8 out the window (any day now) I will get back to you. μηδείς (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mitch Romny announces in 2011 that he plans to assume the presidency of the Confederated States of America in 2013. Do we have a promise that if it actually happens we won't post it a second time? μηδείς (talk) 02:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we post it now and it's nominated again later, you're very welcome to oppose it then on the grounds we've already posted it, and I think we'd be convinced by that oppose. Otherwise, what's your point? GoldenRing (talk) 07:36, 11 October 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.
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.
Comment. I know little of F1 racing, but is he 'very important' to it (the seemingly relevant RD criteria) because he never won a race? Reading the article that seems to be what is notable about him. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not see him as particularly notable in his field - in fact holding the record for number of Grand Prix starts without a victory seems extremely dubious. The article itself isn't in very good shape, either. Challenger l (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because when I try to draw a similarity with another sport, I can't see us posting that either. Doesn't seem notable. 331dot (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course ADC was at the top of his field. Formula 1 is the very pinnacle of motorsport. A driver with a long career in at the top of his sport can be said to be "successful". Mjroots (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By that argument, every footballer with a long career at international level, even if he's nothing special, would be eligible for RD. Not so. BencherliteTalk05:12, 7 October 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.
[Posted] The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine
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– Run-of-the-mill typhoon for Japan in all honesty. There's nothing that makes this stand out from any other storm that has hit Japan this year. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 09:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, unless there ends up being a highly significant amount of damage and/or casualties. 2000 evacuees is a relatively small number. Flight cancellations due to weather are not unusual enough. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If anything major happens with the new typhoon, Vongfong, we might want to combine these two typhoons but only if something more happens with Vongfong. Rhodesisland (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bulgarians vote in a snap election, following the resignation of a Socialist-led government in July; the number of parties in the National Assembly grows from four to eight, and the centre-right GERB becomes the biggest party but falls short of an overall majority. Voter turnout is just about 50%, lower than at any time since the establishment of democratic rule in 1989. (The Economist)
The election race ends with its final counting indicating a second-round between candidates Dilma Rousseff and Aécio Neves to be decided in poll by voters at the end of the month. (The Washington post)
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: He was one of the leading names in the Russian theatre world. He founded the internationally renowned Taganka Theatre in Moscow. --Bruzaholm (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Clearly a very important figure in Russian Theatre who gained awards from several other countries as well. Clearly RD material. Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Article could use a tiny bit of TLC (as to format it closer to other entertains, separating personal life with theater work), but is referenced fine otherwise, so RD is good. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support only because of his June 2011 retirement and the circumstance precipitating it and his actions. Also, being associated with a world-renowned theater does not in itself make one world renowned. And sentences like: Lyubimov's performances - including the well-known Antiworlds, Pugachev, Listen!, and Comrade, believe, as well as newer Before and After, Oberiuty, and Honey — are fed and filled with poetic energy need to be addressed--this is either a copyright vio or pure essafication in need of a cite. μηδείς (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose article needs improvement, references are needed for about half the biography, many of the awards are unreferenced, including those with Wikipedia articles (Lyubimov is not mentioned in some of those target articles). Notable enough for RD, but unsatisfactory quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 7 October 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.
On ITNR, so no need to support. But the blurb is awkwardly phrased and we should avoid discussion of the winning streak. I've added an alternative blurb which follows our standard WP:ENGVAR-neutral phrasing. Article looks good to go so I'm marking this [Ready]. Modest Geniustalk12:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about that, but the only alternatives I could think of were 'winning the competition' or 'being crowned champions' which both sound rather informal. Anyone got any better ideas? Modest Geniustalk14:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is that if we do that then WP:ERRORS will light up with complaints that it should be "New Zealand win", not "New Zealand wins" (it's a long-standing ENGVAR issue which is why ITN traditionally uses the cumbersome "In (x sport), the (name of competition) concludes with (winning team) winning / as champions / victorious, happy and glorious / (etc)". So unfortunately, Nergaal, your straightforward idea is just too good... But "as the champions" will probably do, so I'm posting. Tweak away as desired. BencherliteTalk19:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have suggested "winning the tournament", but it appears that their victory was determined long before its conclusion (so any such construct could be considered misleading).
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 sadly this kind of thing happens in sport, and as yet we have no real idea how Bianchi is. Double-sadly is that he'd almost certainly guarantee a position at RD should he die, but his serious injuries are not really blurb-worthy I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Aerospeed: Welcome; could you post some news sources which might indicate this event's newsworthiness(I've put the full template for you or anyone to), and explain why this merits posting to the main page per the criteria? We don't typically have this type of story(a single injury). 331dot (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify further, I'm in agreement with TRM's comment above, absent other information about how this is significant, or evidence this is getting top level news coverage. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to the nominator, this is pretty high profile news, but a little like the Schumacher story, unless we have something definitive to go by, this isn't really "news", it's just "speculation". If Bianchi survives, god willing, then it's not really an ITN story. If he doesn't make it, then it'll definitely make RD and be a debate over a blurb, since an F1 death during a race is rare these days. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the time being partly in line with the others. Other factors I'd consider is that for all the attention this has received there are really very few details that have been released - it's almost a media blackout. That makes forming a satisfactory update worth highlighting and full of actual facts as opposed to speculation and recrimination difficult. My final point would be to consider the Schumacher ski accident story - admittedly the context was a little different but we didn't run that despite the fact there were far more details available and it was one the sport's biggest star for the last twenty years. 3142 (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - would support if this was an actual death (obviously, I'm not wishing for this), or if it was a case of one of the top 3-5 drivers in the sport (eg akin to Michael Jordan's importance at the height of his NBA career) that this ended his career completely. The former might happen (again, I'm hoping not) but I don't see the second for this. --MASEM (t) 01:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. At the moment this story is simply 'sportsman suffers serious injury'. Whilst that is obviously tragic for the person and their associates, it doesn't reach the significance level required for ITN. Large numbers of sportsmen (and women) suffer serious life- or career-threatening injuries every year. The fact that a large television audience was watching this one doesn't change the fundamental event. Modest Geniustalk12:35, 6 October 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 nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Support -- Although would be good to have an expansion of the match report section which is pretty sparce (but does look adequately referenced). -- Shuddetalk10:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it has only been the 'National Rugby League' since 1998. Before that it had a variety of different names. 'Australian rugby league premiership' seemed the best way around the problem of referring to a 43-year period. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ITN generally doesn't post scores, winning times, winning streaks etc, so this ought to be simply as per the alt blurb above. Arguments might be made for and against including the word "Australian" in there - thought? BencherliteTalk19:13, 6 October 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.
Support when updated. I think the abbreviation in the blurb should be spelled out though, and make mention of who the Prime Minister will be if determined. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 14:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GERB is their official name, there is no spelled-out version. It is one of these pseudo-acronyms or "orphan initialisms", like BP, AT&T, KFC... --RJFF (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
